The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Language and names of Huns (concerning one settled stereotype about a tyurkoyazychnost of Huns)



ISTORIYA

S.G. Botalov

LANGUAGE AND NAMES of HUNS (CONCERNING ONE SETTLED STEREOTYPE About TYuRKOYaZYChNOSTIGUNNOV)

Article is devoted to questions of ethnocultural interpretation of Huns. The available materials on linguistics of these ancient people and also on onomastics of names of the population belonging, according to the author, are given to tribes of the rannegunnsky union.

In domestic and foreign literature for a long time and strongly the opinion that gunnsky language belonged to group of ancient Turkic adverbs was established. Though, as we know, this in historical sense the dead language, certainly, is very unclear if not to tell an unknown object of a research. Nevertheless, definition its tyurkoyazychiya risks to become a certain sociocultural axiom recently.

We open electronic Wikipedia where with the first and to the last line the Huns are represented as the "Turkic-speaking people" which included in the structure besides "tyurkoyazy-chy", tribes of the Great Eurasian steppe. Despite a long and rough discussion at a forum of this article in the section "editings" this abbreviation remains invariable already several years. It seems that editorial council of the encyclopedia is free or involuntarily adheres certain initially defined a pantyurkistsky position on the matter. In this regard I consider it necessary to express the opinion on pages of the traditional scientific publication.

A basis of the established opinion on a tyurkoyazychnost of Huns were the numerous points of view stated by the most authoritative historians and linguists, given in S.G. Gurkin's work [16. 3.2] and special research of G. Derfer [18. Page

82-83]. For the first time the idea about Turkic or prototurkic origin of Huns was stated by the founder of the European oriental studies Joseph de Guin in the second half of the 18th centuries [2]. Further development of this idea went as follows: the language to a hunn (syun - well) belonging to a Turkic branch of the Altai language family received at Huns and the related tribes dominant position. So according to Fr. Alheima, to R. Shtima, K. Tsoyssa, A.A. Cunico, F. Müller, V. Tomashek, M. Sokolovk, F.E. Karsh,

B. F. Müller, V.G. Vasilevsky, A. Vambury, V.V. Radlov, N.A. Aristov, Yu. NeMyat, N.A. Baskakov, I.P. Zasetskaya, O. Menkhen-Helfen, P. Hezera, K. Jemal and T. Almaz the main ethnolinguistic component of Huns was Turkic or certain pratyurksky language [16. 3.2.; 15; 18. Page 82-83]. Some very significant specification in this circle of opinions was brought by M.I. Artamonov, A.V. Gadlo, L.N. Gumilev believing that along with Turkic in addition of Huns the important role was played by an Ugrian component;

O. Pritsak, V.V. Bartold and N.I. Ashmarin seeing in Huns of tyurok-Bulgarian; K. Inostrantsev and G.E. Viterskheym assuming existence of Turkic, Finnish and Tungus polylevel of culture. In a certain measure, adjoining this group of researchers it is possible to consider Zh. Degin and P.S. Pallas believing that Huns were Mongols [6.

C. 43; 12. Page 11; 7. Page 36; 18. Page 82-83; 16. 3.2. Appendix 7].

Other group of authors offered other point of view. The famous linguists G. Der-fer and E.J. Puliblenk categorically deny any communication of "gunnsky languages" with

Turkic [25. Page 6]. After A. Alfeldi they believe that gunnsky language belongs to the special "the died-out linguistic group" [1]. At this G. Derfer, I. Bentsing and K. Yetmar consider that the European Huns in language sense were not lineal descendants Asian to a syunn [18. Page 113; 8. Page 12; 16. 3.2]. On a certain measure this position is shared by S.A. Pletneva, having added the iranoyazychny (Alania) component joining a gunnsky horde in the second half of the 4th century.

The special point of view on this subject was stated by the academician A.P. Dulzon. Analyzing 29 words to a syunn which reached us from pages of the Chinese sources he comes to a conclusion that they treat to group of the "Yenisei" languages, related Ket [20. Page 137-142].

So in general the historiographic disposition on the matter looks. At the same time it should be noted that the existing polarity of opinions does not interfere with unanimous understanding by vast majority of researchers of that fact, as hunnsky and gunnsky nomadic empires were polietnichny and multilingual communities. According to Yu. Moravchik and G. Derfer, at establishment of a gunnsky ethnolinguistic identity, the speech has to go not reconstructing the most usable language of the multiethnic state, and in revealing the prevailing primordially gunnsky component, and it could be language of absolutely small dominating layer [18. Page 82-83]. In this regard very interesting observation is given by A.M. Oblomsky. On the basis of one of plots of Prisk Poniysky about a feast of Attila on which the clown humpback Zerkon "mixing languages Latin with unnsky (gunnsky) and gothic - amused attendees", he draws a conclusion that the gunnsky nobility who gathered on a feast had to understand, at least, these three languages to estimate humour of the clown [33. Page 165]. It is thought, in the conditions of a poliyazychnost of gunnsky society there were not less common and understood also tyurko-Bulgarian adverbs on which told numerous prabolgarsky tribes (akatsira, altsiagira, savira, hunugura, it is scarlet-pidzury, altsidzura, itimara, tunkarsa, utigura, kutigura and ultidzura), which mentioned Jordan, Procopius of Scythopolis and Agafy Marineysky. I.P. Zasetskaya absolutely fairly correlated these tribes to later Turkic people: saviram, Uyghurs, okhuza, Avars, Khazars and Bulgarians [21. Page 155]. Possibly, it also was the decisive basis for Turkic ethnolinguistic identification of Huns by most of above-mentioned researchers. However it should be noted that this situation is characteristic of Attila's era. The majority of above-mentioned prabolgarsky and prakhazarsky tribes appeared within Eastern Europe about the second half of the 4th century [19. Page 31-32; 6. Page 83-84; 13. Page 191; 34. Page 165; 37. Page 51-53], and at most of modern researchers does not arise doubts that it is expedient to connect their origin with a tyurko-telessky area of Altai and East Kazakhstan [26 today. Page 63; 24. Page 14]. However once again we will repeat that it is about tribes vassals, many of which were subordinated at the latest stage - during Rugi and Attila's era. Poniysky in particular mentions Prisk it, telling about the beginning in 433 wars of Huns from amilzura, itimara, toposura, biska and other people living on Istra (Danube) [23. Page 401]. Most likely initial Turkic language accessory of the dominating layer or elite of gunnsky society, in connection with the aforesaid, at least, a gipotetichna.

What there was that language which the earliest Huns - Huns Dionysia and Ptolemeya (spoke 2nd century AD)? Most likely, it had to be connected with hunno-syunnsky adverbs. Unfortunately, at rather big Chinese written tradition about Sunnah, there is not enough information on language of these barbarians or, at least, their dominating clans. The statements provided by Ban Gu, and then repeated Fang Xuanlingem for the latest story to a syunn (32-445) mention that Sunnah "is told on

unclear language". To it it is necessary to cite up to three dozen hunnsky words and names which A.P. Dulzon interpreted as Yenisei (Ket) [29. Page 13-14; 20. Page 137-142]. One more plot contains in the narration Beng Shi and relates to language of Asian "white Huns" - eftalit (or the people of a yed) which probably in the 2nd century AD as a part of northern hunn come from the Tourist's fan to Central Asia [14. Page 131]. "Language of inhabitants (Yed's houses. - Page of B.) it is absolutely other than languages zhuzhansky, both gaogyuysky, and Turkic" [34. Page 138; 14. Page 138]. However at interpretation of this fragment, as well as other information eftalitakh-hionita since the 19th century (Viven, de Saint Martin, Druyen) a certain tradition stereotype was established - to pay attention, first of all that denial of a tyurkoyazychnost of Asian Huns indicates their fundamental difference from Huns European which, a priori, are Turkic peoples [34. Page 38]. However, in our opinion, recognition of the fact in itself of a netyurkoyazychnost of hionitov-eftalit which are known in Asia under the name of "white hunna" (Vizant) or Hoon (India), that is one of parts of Huns (and possibly considerable) is important very. Also that circumstance that the most part of orientalists has the special importance (R. Hirschman, V. Genning, St. Games, A. Vezendok) holds the opinion on an iranoyazychnost of eftali-t and their ethnic proximity to tokhara [28. Page 61]. From the Chinese sources, despite special pronunciation and a transcription, it is possible to understand that, certainly, there are serious differences of names a syunna and Turkic peoples-ashinov. A certain similarity is observed only in literature which could be borrowed by Turkic peoples at a syunna and eftalit what L.N. Gumilev pointed to [14. Page 132]. Now we will try to give the available linguistic materials for the European Huns.

For rannegunnsky time, that is Dionysius and Ptolemaeus's time (2nd century AD), we have only special group of epigraphic material of the Tanaissky ancient settlement. It is about specific group of tanaissky onomastics which appears among names of city citizens between 50th and 80th of the 2nd century. It is a series of new Iranian names "not finding to themselves matches in any epigraphic certificates from other North Black Sea cities". Their analysis allowed D.B. Shelov to correlate the fact of their emergence to introduction in a tanaissky funeral complex of new - late Sarmatian innovations (northern orientation buried, deformation of skulls) [39]. Systematizing M.V. Müller, M. Faster, L. Zgusta and V.I. Abayev's ethnolinguistic observations on onomastics of Bospor, Tanaisa and Black Sea Coast, D.B. Shelov comes to the conclusion that again appeared Iranian names belong "to some rather small and closed, most likely to Alania, ethnic group". A decisive argument in this construction was the obvious compliance of tanaissky onomastics to drevneosetinsky names established earlier by V.F. Miller and V.I. Abayev [39. Page 89, 92; 3]. If not to go into subtleties of ethnolinguistic observations and in general to summarize opinions of the authoritative researchers dealing with issues of Bosporsky onomastics it is possible to establish that this material contains different layers: paleoiranskiya - avestiyskiya - Scythian and sarmato-Alania - drevneosetinskiya. And the most important in what experts meet, is that the tanaissky paleoiransky names which appeared with approach of a late Sarmatian era do not occur during this period among an epigrafika of the cities of Bospora. These observations gave to archeologists-sarmatovedam additional arguments in denial gunnsky and somewhat in favor of Alania accessory of late Sarmatian culture. Giving results of the analysis of thane-issky onomastics, in general without accepting Alania interpretation of late Sarmatian monuments, A.S. Skripkin quite categorically notices: "By origin Huns there is a number of the points of view, but still nobody considered them Iranians". Though slightly below it assumes that already from the middle of the 3rd century AD the late Sarmatian population is included the gunnsky breeding union [35. Page 113; 36. Page 39]. Iranoyazychnost tanaissky

late Sarmatians remains the main argument excluding, according to sarmatolog, rannegunnsky presence to this day.

From our point of view, the main reason for preservation of the current situation, is that most of researchers even theoretical cannot assume the fact that the main list of the earliest European Huns could be iranoyazychny and iranokulturny. Though, in our opinion, the bases for this purpose more than are enough. On our representation syunno-hunnsky culture genesis proceeded in the territory of Northern China, in the region occupied by the paleoiransky population (northern barbarians) - the carrier of community of cultures "ordossky bronz". Semantics and an iconography of images of animal style in decoration of objects of these cultures does not allow to doubt their paleoiransky edinokulturnost with graphic traditions of the saksky and skifo-Sarmatian environment of Eurasia. Besides, it is thought that the unity of sources of culture genesis and long coexistence of the syunno-hunnsky and yuechzhiysky unions of tribes which tokharo-Iranian ethnic underlying cause it is not necessary to doubt today, certainly, could not but affect their ethnolinguistic proximity. However, the neighbourhood with east drevnemongolsky population of Manchuria and the Chinese population of the Great Plain probably also introduced the amendments in cultural shape of the population of these nomadic unions, as for a possible mongoloidnost and a tyurkokul-turnost of hunn.

And, at last, regions of culture genesis of ancient hunn and Turkic peoples about what it was in more detail already specified by the author [11. Page 42-64; 328-355], are divorced among themselves not only on thousands of kilometers geographically, but also almost for the half-millennia historically. The thought is theoretically quite admissible that syunny-hunna in the language plan could be descendants of the most east paleoiransky population speaking on some very ancient Indo-Iranian adverbs. In our opinion, the situation with new paleoiransky tanaissky names not similar with earlier existing on Bospor, in a certain measure confirms told. In this regard quite appropriate to track the historical fate of Tanaisa in aspect of late Sarmatian culture genesis.

First of all, the late Sarmatian innovations which appeared in the second half of the 2nd century AD in funeral traditions of the tanaissky population existed up to a post-gunnskogo of the period (6th century AD). In this context very indicative monuments of a gunnsky era are Nedvinovskoye ancient settlement of (Tanais) and its soil a necropolis.

In general researchers note that Tanais after gothic invasion (middle of the 3rd century) did not revive fully. Many buildings remained in ruins, and new constructions are executed carelessly and indicate relative poverty and small number of the population. Weak power of the top layers of the ancient settlement and also rather small number of the studied burials of gunnsky and postgunnsky time forced to assume that life on the ancient settlement at the beginning of the 5th century only "glimmered" [38. Page 307, 327-328;

4. Page 150-151]. Though the same D.B. Shelov notes that during centuries AD former handicraft trades continue to remain and though the city was less powerful economically, but remained in former borders and had rather dense housing estate. He notes that possibly very bad condition of the top layers does not allow to understand and estimate fully the late period of existence of the city [38. Page 328]. The results of a long-term research of the Tanaissky necropolis published rather recently (2001) allow to speak about a considerable share of burials of gunnsky and postgunnsky time of the 4-5th, 6th centuries (VI-VII chronological period). They make nearly a half (44.3%) from the general number of the studied Tanaissky burials of the III—I centuries BC - 6th century AD [5. Page 175-179]. It, certainly, indicates quite intensive nature of dwelling during the gunnsky period (during Attila's era). At the same time it is very interesting to note that development of funeral ceremonialism takes place on the same

to stages, as late Sarmatian culture in general. So in the 4th century AD catacombs with width orientation of buried appear. And though their number does not exceed a third (31.4%) of total number of burials of gunnsky and postgunnsky time [5. Page 192-201], the fact of synchronism in itself in emergence of catacombs at the final stage of late Sarmatian culture among kochevnichesky burials of the Lower Don, the Lower Volga and Tanaisa, suggests an idea that probably the nizhnedonsky capital and kochevnichesky associations of this period existed within uniform cultural space. Perhaps, this conclusion allows to answer a question why, unlike Cimmerian Bospor's cities, there are no traces of gunnsky destructions in Tanaisa's group? D.B. Shelov notices in this respect that the city simply was not restored by 70th years of the 4th century, and its revival begins only after arrival of Huns [38. Page 327]. However the latest data of the Tanaissky necropolis disprove this opinion. A conclusion in itself arises: or the city was restored by Huns, or the population which was under their protectorate. At the same time it is necessary to recognize that the nature of funeral ceremonialism of urban population essentially remained the same (late Sarmatian): the absolute majority of complexes of a necropolis (57%) represent simple podboyny burials with northern orientation of the dead. Cranial deformation during this period receives the greatest distribution (21%). As it was already noted, about a third of burials of a necropolis make catacomb burials. In a small amount (4 complexes) burials in simple soil holes and a lining with the western orientation of the dead are presented [5. Page 179, 192-201]. Most likely, after gothic disorder and considerable outflow of the Greek and Sarmatian population to the Bosporsky cities what points emergence of tanaissky onomastics to [17. Page 54-56], Tanais turns into the barbaric city. It is not casual that during Attila's era he experiences short-term blossoming.

It is possible that during this period Tanais could be a peculiar intertribal center in which rates of gunnsky leaders were located, craft workshops, trade trading stations and the settled population agricultural the district lived. Historically it, most likely, was similar to the numerous kochevnichesky cities of the Great Steppe (Ivolginskoye ancient settlement, Itil, Sarkel-Belaya Vezha, Preslav, the cities of the Golden Horde, etc.). The general historical and cultural situation which developed by the gunnsky period in Don's pool can be the basis for the similar conclusion. A research of monuments of the 4-5th centuries of a chertovitskogo-zamyatinsky circle Sharp Luka Don allowed A.M. Oblomsky and his colleagues to come to a conclusion that these settlements were rates of Huns in which the mixed craft and trade and agricultural population (pro-Slavs-anty, finno-Ugra and Balts Top Poochya, etc.) which is under the power and protectorate of gunnsky leaders lived [33. Page 163, 166]. At the same time the fact that the kochevnichesky component in these areas forest-steppe Podonya since the end of the 2nd century AD is defined by monuments of special late Sarmatian shape is very important: Zhivotinny, burials 4, 5; New and Nikolsky, Vyazovsky [30; 31. Page 93].

Thus, the above-stated observations allow to recognize that late Sarmatian (or rannegunnsky) Volga-bottoms covered innovations in limits not only a steppe nomadic area, but also took root into the cities and settlements of the pool of Don and also essentially influenced culture genesis of the settled forest-steppe population. Blossoming of late Sarmatian traditions in gunnsky time and preservation in funeral practice of Tanaisa up to the 6th century suggests them an idea that long time was the carrier of these traditions that population which in the second half of the 2nd century AD together with new east paleoaziatsky tribes introduced custom to stack the dead in a grave the head on the North, with the hands put on a basin and also practice of deformation of a skull.

Further we will try to find the answer to one rhetorical question. If names of early Huns had to be not iranoyazychny, not paleoiranoyazychny (or some

others) and, suppose, Turkic, what accessory of gunnsky names of time of Rugi and Attila? For some reason still by researchers to it it was not drawn of due consideration. Here the list of names of the Huns meeting in narrations of Prisk by Pany-sky and Jordan. As a rule, they belong to the people entering into the highest class clans of Huns or are brought closer to them.

Rua - the tsar of Huns; Esla - the messenger Rua to Romans; Attila, Bleda - tsars-brothers; Eskam is a notable Hun whose daughter Attila wanted to marry; Shout - At-tila's wife; Basikh, Kursikh - the gunnsky voyenonachalnik of Attila who were at war in the Mussel; Bery

>- the notable Hun, Attila's confidant; Zerkon is Attila's clown; Helkhal - "a sort of UNN, the deputy Aspara (Byzantine commander)..."; Ellak is an eldest son of Attila; Ayr-nak - the younger son of Attila; Emnetzur and Ultzindur - "his half brothers." [33.

S. 165; 22; 27]. The last two latest names relating to the period after Attila's death obviously have a Turkic basis that will quite be coordinated with our representations. Most likely, these names were given on the Bulgarian or Hazaria mother or her sort. It is thought that Jordan not accidentally mentions an edinokrovnost (i.e. likeness on the father) brothers, and puts the last in a mention of names of sons of Attila. As for the majority of the given names, as far as allow to judge linguistic knowledge of the author, unambiguously to carry them to the category Turkic, Mongolian or Ugrian it is very problematic. Possibly linguistic identification their business of special researches. After G. Derfer, denying a Turkic underlying cause of separate names of gunnsky tsars, we, nevertheless, also cannot accept directly pro-Slavic comparisons like Balamber-Vladimir, Attila-Tilan, Bleda-Vlad (according to Yu. Venelin) [18. Page 87]. However at this G. Derfer it is inclined to believe that the area of search of language parallels to these names in a broad sense is in area of a certain parent language.

Most likely and the name of Attila contains very ancient (I nostratiche-will perhaps hold down) an underlying cause. In spite of the fact that traditionally its etymologies bring from gothic as the father (an aya - the father & #43; ya - diminutive-hypocoristic) or from Turkic ^а1 - Volga (great river), an aya - the father), in a scientific bogoslovnom the Theologian portal. hectare [Yf://to a sg. icelord.net/read.php?f=3i=79520t=79470] is placed the extensive list possible etymological from among many classic languages of Eurasia (tokharsky, German, Scottish, Slavic, Korean and so forth) where this word is also meant by "father", "father". We incline nevertheless to the Indo-European-Indo-Iranian prayazykovy parallels as their number is incomparable more, than all others for definition of Attila as, however, and three other words which Jordan cites as gunnsky. It is about: Strava - funeral food, Attila's funeral feast; Medos (honey) - drink of residents of the country of Huns; Var - the gunnsky name of Dnieper [22. Page 110-113].

Giving an extensive historiography of discussions concerning linguistic accessory of these words, G. Derfer, as well as in a case with names, from our point of view, quite fairly rejects options of their Turkic and gothic-German accessory, and that is very important, recognizing in general their praindoyevropeysky underlying cause, nevertheless, rejects opinion that these words could be Slavic loans [18. Page

83-84; 16. Appendices 7, 8]. However at the same time the author, accepting E. Moor's remarks concerning the name "Var", assumes that this word could be borrowed by Huns other more ancient population of the Dnieper Bank [18. Page 68; 16. Appendix 9].

The provided data and observations assume, in our opinion, some ways of solving the problem of a linguistic atributation of hunno-gunnsky language.

1. Possibly, the first Huns, and subsequently and the dominating gunnsky clan, introduced and kept some time paleoyazyk (words, names, names) which was made by the most ancient Indo-European or tokharo-Iranian adverbs, dlitel-

Nov time remained in the closed linguistic space of extremely east area of the Indo-Iranian world. In this regard the conclusion that this language not only is considered the dead today is absolutely fair, but also it was absolutely unknown to the European contemporaries of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Considering told, we are inclined to consider that the parallels revealed by researchers in Slavic languages, can quite be certain loans from paleoindoiransky language of Huns who occurred at the time of domination of the last over the forest-steppe prasla-vyansky (antsky) population Podonya and the Dnieper Bank.

2. In development of provision on somebody to a paleoyazyka A.P. Dulzon's idea about communication of gunnsky language with the Yenisei (Ket) linguistic group very relevant sounds. At least, in language of a part of tribes of the "northern barbarians" (Dee-dinliny) who were a part of hunnsky confederation.
3. To all aforesaid in the final provision it is necessary to notice that there is probably no sense in linear and unambiguous constructions in this subject. Language of syunnov-hunn and Huns since the beginning of culture genesis, to the final period of existence, as well as ethnocultural structure of their association, were polycompound and permanently changing. In this regard quite appropriate there would be a definition application "nuclear", offered by the author for ethnocultural and linguistic characteristic of the nomadic communities which were a part of the Western Turkic Khaganate [11. Page 504-507]. In an initial state, most likely, it was really formed on some Asian paleoyazykovy basis (indoyevrpoyeysky, iranotokharsky, Ket, sinno-Tibetan (?)). At the same time from the very beginning up to an outcome of hunn from Central Asia it was under serious influence from the Chinese and Mongol-manzhursky language areas. At the finishing actually gunnsky stage the language of the European Huns was subject to an active ugrization, a tyurkization and a slavyanization, and language of Asian Huns (hionit, kidarit, eftalit) got to an orbit of active influence of the Central Asian tokharo-Iranian language adverbs.

Though it is worth making a reservation that these constructions in terms of historical realities are very conditional as it is about gunnsky culture genesis which at the heart of the comes to an end in the 5th century AD. On our belief, this fact was a direct prerequisite of the subsequent culture genesis within steppe and adjacent zones of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

In this regard very difficult (if at all perhaps) to define the nature of linguistic transformations of gunnsky languages. So speaking about an Ugrian component, we after L.N. Gumilev and other researchers mean a certain kulturnolingvistichesky influence from tribes of South Ural and Western Siberia. At the same time we understand that actually "Ugrian" definition of this population at this stage is fairly challenged by ethno-linguists [32. Page 14-26]. Possibly, here we deal with direct influence in general of languages of the Ural group (Perm, protomagyar, Criminal Investigation Department - Samoyed). Even more difficult the situation with influence from early Turkic (protobulgarian) and protoslavic language groups is. As their carriers were at the most initial stage of formation of the ethnoculture genesis at present. As it was already mentioned, the bolgaro-Hazaria Turkic language of group & lt arising perhaps in subsoil post-gunnskogo spaces of steppes of Median Eurasia; ^й", was also in fact the linguistic phenomenon, "nuclear" to this day very unclear for researchers.

In this regard, on our absolute belief today, most likely, we have no bases for categorical conclusions (somehow Turkic or other) in linguistic definitions of both syunnsky, and gunnsky languages.

* On belief of the author, this period falls for the II—IV centuries AD. In traditional interpretation this time corresponds to the late Sarmatian period. An essence of the existing discussion concerning identification of the late Sarmatian or gunno-Sarmatian nomadic population of Median Eurasia it is in detail lit on pages of works of the author [9; 10; 11].

List of references

1. Alfoldi, A. Funde aus der. Hunnenzeit und ihre ethnische Sonderung [Text]/A. Alfoldi//A.N. - Budapest, 1932. - T. 9.
2. Deguignes, J. Histoire generale des Huns des Turcs, des Mogols at des autres Tartares Oc-cidentausavant et depuis J. C. Jusqn’a present [Text]/J. Deguignes. - Paris, 1756. - T. I-II.
3. Abayev, V.I. Skifo-europeysky isoglosses. On a joint of the East and West / V.I. Abayev. - M.: Science, 1965. - 169 pages
4. Arsenyev, T.M. Nekropol of Tanais / TM of Arsenyev. - M.: Science, 1977. - 152 pages
5. Arsenyev, T.M. Nekropol Tanaisa. Excavation of 1981-1995 of / TM Arsenyeva, S.I. Bezuglov, I.V. Tolochko. - M.: Palaeographer, 2001. - 274 pages
6. Artamonov, M.I. Istoriya of Khazars [Text] / M.I. Artamonov. - L.: State publishing house. Hermitage, 1962. - 523 pages
7. Baskakov, N.A. Turkic languages [Text] / N.A. Baskakov. - M.: East literature, 1960.
8. Bentsing, And. Languages of Huns, Danube and Volga Bulgarians [Text] / I. Bentsing//Foreign turkology. Issue 1. Classic Turkic languages and literatures. - M.: Science, 1986. - Page 11-28.
9. Botalov, S.G. Late antiquity and Middle Ages [Text] / S.G. Botalov//Ancient history of the Southern Trans-Ural region: Collective monograph. In 2 t. T. 2. - Chelyabinsk, 2000.
10. Botalov, S.G. Hunna and Huns [Text] / S.G. Botalov//Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - No. 1. - Page 106-127.
11. Botalov, S.G. Huns and Turkic peoples (historical and archaeological reconstruction) [Text] / S.G. Botalov. - Chelyabinsk: LLC CIKR Rifey, 2009. - 672 pages
12. Gadlo, A.V. Ethnic history of the North Caucasus the 4-10th centuries [Text] / A.V. Gadlo.

>- L.: LIE publishing house, 1979. - 216 pages

13. Gening, V.F. Early Bulgarians on Volga [Text] / V.F. Gening, A.H. Halikov. - M.: Science, 1964. - 201 pages
14. Gumilev, L.N. Eftalita and their neighbors in the 4th century [Text] / l. N. Gumilev//Messenger of ancient history. - 1959. - No. 1 (67). - Page 129-140.
15. Huns: discussion [Electronic resource]//Wikipedia: Free encyclopedia.
16. Gurkin, S.V. [Electronic resource] / S.V. Gurkin. www.rcio.rsu.ru - / webp/RSU_ IT/Historcal_faculty_12_2005.
17. Danshin, D.I. Tanaita and tanaisets in P-highway of centuries AD [Text] / D.I. Danshin//KSIA. - 1990. - Issue 197.
18. Derfer, G.O language of Huns [Text] / G. Derfer//Foreign turkology. Issue 1. Classic Turkic languages and literatures. - M.: East literature, 1986. - Page 71-135.
19. Dimitrov, D. Prabjlgarite across Severnoto and Zapadnoto Chernomoriye / D. Dimitrov.

>- Varna: Georgi Bakalow publishing house, 1987. - Page 47-48.

20. Dulzon, A.P. Huns and Kets (To a question of ethnogenesis according to language data) [Text] / A.P. Dulzon//News of the Siberian office of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Series of social sciences. - 1968. - Issue 3. - Page 137-142.
21. Zasetskaya, I.P. Kultura of nomads of the South Russian steppes during a gunnsky era of the 4-6th centuries of [Text] / Nominative Zasetskaya. - SPb.: Ellipse of LTD., 1994. - 224 pages
22. Jordan. About origin and acts of get [Text] / Jordan. - SPb., 1997.
23. History of Tatars since the most ancient times [Text]//History of Tatars. - Kazan: Rukhiit, 2002. - T. 1. - 552 pages
24. Iskhakov, D.M. Ethnopolitical history of Tatars in VI - the first quarter the 15th century [Text] / D.M. Iskhakov, I.L. Izmaylov. - Kazan: Iman publishing house, 2000. - 136 pages
25. Klyashtorny, S.G. Preface [Text] / S.G. Klyashtorny, D.M. Nasilov//Foreign turkology. Issue 1. Classic Turkic languages and literatures. - M, 1986.
26. Klyashtorny, Of this year, Savinov, D.G. Steppe empires of Eurasia [Text] / S.G. Klyashtorny, D.G. Savinov. - SPb.: Farn, 1994. - 166 pages
27. Latyshev, V.V. News of ancient authors of Scythia and Caucasus [Text] / V.V. Latyshev//VDI. - 1948. - No. 1.
28. Mandelstam, A.M.O some questions of addition of the Tajik nationality in Central Asian Entre Rios [Text] / A.M. Mandelstam//SA. - XX. - M, 1954. - Page 58-99.
29. Materials on stories of the nomadic people in China the 3-5th centuries [Text]//Materials on stories. - M.: East literature, 1989. - Issue 1.
30. Medvedev, A.P. Sarmatians and forest-steppe [Text] / A.P. Medvedev. - Voronezh: Voronezh publishing house. un-that, 1990. - 217 pages
31. Medvedev, And. Item III the Chertovitsky ancient settlement (materials of the 1st half of the I millennium AD) [Text] / A.P. Medvedev//Archeological sites Top Podonya in the first half of the I millennium AD. Archeology of the East European forest-steppe. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 1998. - Page 42-84. - Issue 12.
32. Napolsky, V.V. Perm-Ugrian relationship according to language and a problem of borders of Ugrian participation in the ethnic history of the Cis-Urals [Text] / V.V. Na-Polish//WOW. - No. 25. - Yekaterinburg; Surgut, 2008. - Page 14-25.
33. Sharp Luka Dona in the ancient time. Zamyatinsky archaeological complex of gunnsky time [Text] / Sharp Luka Dona. - Early Slavic world. The issue 6 - M.: RAS news Agency, 2004. - 330 pages
34. Pigulevskaya, N.V. The Syrian sources on stories of the people of the USSR [Text] / N.V. Pigulevskaya//Works of Institute of oriental studies. - T. XLI. - M.; L., 1941. - 172 pages
35. Skripkin, Ampere-second. Lower Volga area in the first centuries AD [Text] / ampere-second. Skrip-kin. - Saratov: SGU publishing house, 1984. - 150 pages
36. Skripkin, Ampere-second. Etudes on history and the culture of Sarmatians: studies. grant [Text] / ampere-second. Skripkin. - Volgograd: Publishing house VOLGA, 1997. - 103 pages
37. Fedorov, Ya.A. Early Turkic peoples in the North Caucasus [Text] / Ya.A. Fedorov, G.S. Fedorov. - M.: Mosk publishing house. un-that, 1978. - 296 pages
38. Shells, D.B. Tanais and the Lower Don in the first centuries AD [Text] / D.B. Shelov. - M, 1972.
39. Shells, D.B. Some questions of ethnic history of Priazovye P-highway of centuries AD according to tanaissky onomastics [Text] / D.B. Shelov//the Messenger of ancient history. 1 (127). - M, 1974. - Page 80-93.
Reginald Parks
Other scientific works: