In early medieval sources, "Huns" refer to a variety of peoples who lived in fairly remote regions - in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Central Europe. The reasons for such naming remain debatable, and equally debatable are questions about the ethnicity of these peoples and the genetic connections between them. 1 The purpose of this article is to analyze sources on the history of political relations between the European Huns and the East Caucasian Huns. Turning to this topic, in turn, allows us to shed some light on the question of the possibility of ethnogenetic links between these two peoples.

Key words: rosmosoks, Huns, East Caucasian Huns (honk'), Attila, Theophilus, Heran, Ernach.

The Eastern Caucasian Huns are invariably referred to by early medieval Armenian authors as the ethnonym honk', equivalent to the term "Hun" in Greek and Latin-language sources of the Nipp). The most reliable early examples of such naming date back to the fourth century. What is especially valuable is that Armenian sources, referring to these people as "Huns", as a rule, do not confuse them with Savirs, Khazars, or other ethnic groups, whose names in the Byzantine historiographic tradition are often given in the form of double ethnonyms-Huns-Savirs, Huns-Akatsirs, etc.

Western sources also record the ethnonym " Hun " since the fourth century, but their reports are usually associated not with the Caucasian, but with the European Huns. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, around 371, the Huns, advancing from the east, defeated the Don Alans, and then defeated the Goths-Greitungs [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1873, 31.3. 1-3] (Ostrogoths; ca. 373). Soon the Huns migrated even further to the west, defeated the Visigoths, and then settled in Pannonia. The power they created in this region lasted until the end of the 60s of the fifth century. It reached the peak of its power during the reign of Attila (434-454), who subjugated many tribes of the North Caucasus and harassed not only the Western Roman Empire and Byzantium, but also the Sasanian state with his raids.

As for the Eastern Caucasian Huns, the sources do not allow us to trace either their ethnicity, the original area of their migration to the Caucasus, or the time of the migration itself. In view of this, very different and sometimes diametrically opposed points of view were expressed on these issues. 2
1 These problems are most solidly presented in the following works: [Macnchcn-Hclfcn, 1945; Macnchcn-Hclfcn, 1973; Docrfcr, 1973; Dorfsr, 1986, pp. 71-134].

2 For an overview of the main points of view, see [Jafarov, 1985; Gmyrya, 1980; Gmyrya, 1993; Gmyrya, 1995; Gmyrya, 2009].

page 38
The most reliable information about this people is given by Elisha (Eg'ishe)and Lazar (G'azar). P'arpets'i (V century). This reliability is due to the fact that both authors described contemporary events. Their reports suggest that the East Caucasian Huns took part in a number of events in the Caucasus throughout the fifth century [Yeghishe, 1971, chapters 1, 3, 6; Ghazar P'arpets'i, 1991, 2. 35].

The fifth-century historical and epic work "Buzandaran patmut'unk", known in historiography as "The History of Armenia by P'avstos Buzand", contains reports on the participation of the East Caucasian Huns in the events of the 30s and 60s of the fourth century (below, in accordance with the tradition established in Russian historiography, the author of this essay will be called Faustos Buzand) [History of Armenia..., 1953, 4. 7, 25]. The authenticity of these data is problematic, but the fact that the Huns appear in Favor of Favstos Buzand along with other Eastern Caucasian tribes minimizes the possibility that he replaced the name of an ethnic group with the modern ethnonym "Huns". In this case, it seems most likely that the migration of these Huns to the Eastern Caucasus could have taken place no later than the 30s of the IV century.

Another argument in favor of this point of view can be seen in the fact that numerous sources refer to a chronologically close period, namely, to 395, the raid of certain "Huns" on the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire.3 Thus, according to the Syrian life of Peter Iver, the Iverian (Kartli) king Farzman (Farasman IV of Georgian sources) made an alliance with the "white Huns" living in the neighborhood of Georgia and sent them against the Byzantines (Raabe, 1895, p.5). An analysis of the general political situation in the Caucasus shows that the "white Huns" moved to Asia Minor through the Daryal Pass [Semenov, 2010, p.138-148; Semenov, 2011, p. 165-178].

Evidence of the Eastern Caucasian Huns is also contained in a hagiographic work entitled "Agathangelos" ("Agathangelos", "Agathangeg'os"). In it, the Huns appear in connection with the events of the third century [Agatangelos, 2004, § 19], however, since these data are not supported by the testimony of other sources, the reliability of these reports cannot but raise doubts [Artamonov, 1962, p.52; Gadlo, 1979, p. 31].

It should also be noted that earlier the point of view about the migration of a group of Huns to the Caucasus in the second century AD was based on the report of Dionysius Periegetes (Dionysius of Alexandria; II century AD, wrote about 160 AD) about the "Unns" in the North-Western Caspian region (see, for example: [Moravcsik, 1958, Bd. II, S. 236; Bernstam, 1951, p. 135; Fedorov and Fedorov, 1978, p. 28, 47 ^ 8; Jafarov, 1985, p. 12-13; Gmyrya, 1993, p. 278, 282 sl.; Gmyrya, 1995, p. 9, 46]), although Now it is firmly established that in the early lists of Dionysius ' "Land Description", Finns or mud people appear as inhabitants of this region (Dionysius of Alexandria, 2006, No. 2, p. 240). Only in the later manuscripts of Dionysius ' writings are "unnas" listed instead of thins. In addition, the late commentator Eustathius pointed out that Dionysius Periegetes should be read (unnas) instead [Dionysius of Alexandria, 2006, p. 240, comm. 236; see also Maenchen-Helfen, 1973, p. 446]. This circumstance requires an extremely careful approach to the assessment of those reports of "Agathangelos", which mention the Eastern Caucasian Huns.

In the second third of the fifth century, as Attila's possessions expanded, including in the Caucasus, the Country of the East Caucasian Huns fell into the sphere of interests of the Hunnic state. Elishe's reports allow us to establish that Attila firmly captured the pre-Caucasian steppes and the Country of the East Caucasian Huns [Semenov, 2007, p. 39 sl.]. It should be noted that Elishe calls the Huns, first, Kushan, stipulating each time that we are talking about the Central Asian people, and, secondly, Attila's Huns which he also calls kailndur (hajlndurk'/ hajg'ndurk'). At the same time, Elishe does not single out the Eastern Caucasian Huns in particular - as can be assumed, in some cases in his work

3 For the most detailed review of the sources, see [Pigulevskaya, 2000, pp. 227-230].

page 39
they hide as one of the components of an ethnic conglomerate of Caucasian steppe dwellers subordinate to Attila. A completely different picture is shown by the testimony of the life of Prince Theophilus, to the analysis of which I turn.

The life of Prince Theophilus is preserved in the History of the Country of Aluank' (History of Albania, or History of Albans). Movses Kalankatuatsi, and the text of the life is divided in this work into several chapters (1. 28-30). The story in this source begins with the report that after the death of Mesrop Mashtots, his disciples, who were left behind in Albania, went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Some time later, they set off on their return journey with several priests and arrived in Albania on the very eve of Easter. There they were caught in an attack by a certain northern people, who are called in the lives of the Rosmosoks. According to the source, King Rosmosokov divided his army into three groups: the first of them was assigned to plunder Albania, the second-Iberia (Kartli), and the third - Armenia. The first of them was headed by the "general of the Huns", who is further referred to in the life of the "commander of the Tobel regiment", "commander of the Huns" and "great king of the Huns" [Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, 1. 29] 4.

The troops of the "general of the Huns" captured a large booty. Mesrop Mashtots ' students, who had returned to Albania by this time, were killed during the invasion. The chief of the Christian priests who came with them to Albania was also killed, and two others were taken prisoner. Meanwhile, the "general of the Huns" intended to marry the noble captive Tagupi from the Albanian province of Utik', but she refused to get close to him and was killed. At night, the Huns noticed the rays that illuminated the place of execution of Taguha. This prompted them to call the captured Christian priests and be baptized. "General of the Huns" took the baptismal name Theophilus, and his sons - Movses and Anerologis [Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, 1. 29].

Following this, Prince Theophilus went to the camp of the "king of the Rosmosoks". He at this time brought thanksgiving sacrifices to the pagan gods. The "King of the Rosmosoks" demanded that the "general of the Huns" and his generals do the same, but they refused. As punishment for this, the" king of the Rosmosoks " ordered Theophilus and thirty Hun generals to be subjected to mortal tortures. Theophilus ' sons and other baptized Huns tried to escape, but were overtaken and killed (Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, 1.30).

An analysis of this life led K. V. Trever to conclude that the facts presented in it are reliable, and the attack of the "rosmosoks" on Transcaucasia was attributed by her to 532 [Trever, 1949, pp. 226-230; Mammadov, 1977, p. 83]. However, this caused objections from M. I. Artamonov, who pointed out that the "History of the Aluank Country" states that the raid took place shortly after the death of Mesrop Mashtots, i.e. in the 40s of the fifth century [Artamonov, 1962, p. 72, note 15]. relevant chapters of the "History of the Aluank Country "' to the last decades of the VII century. and he considers the whole story fictional [Hakobyan, 1987, p. 200, note 74]. Yu. R. Jafarov, on the contrary, following K. V. Trever, considers the data of this life as reliable. He compares the data on the raid of the "king of the Rosmosoks" with the report of Priscus of Pania about the Onogur attack on Transcaucasia in 466 [Jafarov, 1979, p. 49-60; Jafarov, 1985, p.53-60]. However, I have shown that this comparison is anachronistic [Semenov, 2007, pp. 44-46].

I have already noted that to calculate the date of the attack of the "Rosmosoks" in Transcaucasia, it is necessary, as M. I. Artamonov pointed out, to proceed from the message of the hagiography that the disciples of Mesrop went to Jerusalem shortly after his death. Since Mesrop died

4 K. P. Patkanov retaliated that the presence of the names "rosmosok" and "tobsl" in the "History of the country of Aluank' " is a reminiscence from the Book of the Prophet Iszskiel (38. 2. 3; 39. 1). See K. P. Patkanov's note to his translation of the History of Albans [Istoriya Alban, 1881, S. 311-312]. K. V. Trever believed that the "Rosmosoks" and "tobsltsy" were new peoples that appeared in the Caucasus after the Huns moved there [Trever, 1949, p. 226]. M. I. Artamonov, and Yu. R. Jafarov, following him, supported K. P.'s point of view, objecting to this. Patkanova Street [Artamonov, 1962, p. 72, ed. 15; Jafarov, 1985, pp. 53-60].

page 40
February 7, 440 [Koryun, 1962, p. 152, comm. 200], then this date is the lowest possible time for the departure of Mesrop's disciples on the pilgrimage. In this regard, it can be noted that at that time the journey from Albania to Jerusalem took at least two months. To them, you need to add two more months for the return trip. It is important to take into account that regarding the sojourn of Mesrop's disciples in Jerusalem, the hagiography says the following:: "They stayed there for many days." In this case, by Easter 440, Mesrop's disciples could not possibly have returned to Albania in time. Consequently, they returned there in the spring of 441 and on Easter Eve were caught by an invasion of "rosmosoks"(Semenov, 2007: 43-49) .5
Let me remind you that I identified this raid with the first attack of Atgila's Huns on Iran (Semenov, 2007: 41-43). Information about this major raid was preserved by Priscus of Pania, who learned it from an oral report of Romulus, a Western Roman diplomat (448), and who learned it from the participants of the campaign — Basich and Kursikh. According to the latter, the Huns, advancing from Pannonia, reached Maeotia (the Sea of Azov), after which they reached the Caucasus Mountains; they crossed them through the Daryal Gorge and plundered the Transcaucasian countries, but then, being attacked by Persian troops, retreated along the western coast of the Caspian Sea, past the Absheron Peninsula (Marquart, 1899, p. 97] and then through the Derbent Pass (Priscus Panites, 1868, fr. 8).

A number of facts allow us to identify the "king of the Rosmosoks" with Heran [Semenov, 2007, p. 41-49], whom Elisha (V century) reports as the leader of the Huns who plundered Albania, Kartli, Armenia and neighboring provinces of the Byzantine Empire [Yeghishe, 1971, chapter 6, p.121]. As for Theophilus and his army, I have already proved the hypothesis of their East Caucasian-Hunnic identity [Semenov, 2007, pp. 46-47], although the argument given in this connection cannot be considered reliable and, most importantly, exhaustive. A new substantiation of this point of view allows us to study questions about the origin of the life of Theophilus and the practical purpose of this hagiographic monument.

There can hardly be any doubt that the compilation of this hagiography was connected with the baptism of the Eastern Caucasian Huns in the second half of the seventh century and the formation of a pantheon of local Christian saints who died or suffered for their faith. The "History of the Country of Aluank" attributes the establishment of Christianity in the Country of the Huns to the Albanian Bishop Yisrael. According to this source, Yisrael was sent to the Eastern Caucasian Huns to negotiate peace, in order to prevent their raids on Albania [Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, chapter 2, p. 39]. This mission was successful: Israel was received with honor by the ruler of the Country of the Huns, who bore the title alp ' - shit 'yep (<Turk. * alp-Elteber), and even received from him a sanction to convert the Huns to Christianity [Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, chapter 2, pp. 40-41]. Bishop Yisrael eradicated pagan beliefs in the Country of the Huns and established its population in Christianity. In the course of these events, there may have been a need to glorify the early champions of Christianity in the Country of the Huns.

Of particular interest to the topic under consideration is the fact that in the life of Prince Theophilus, "Huns" refer exclusively to the East Caucasian Huns, while European Huns are referred to only as "rosmosoks". Thus, the author obscures the fact that the European Huns called themselves by the same ethnonym. It is possible, however, that the author did not focus on the ethnonymy of the European Huns for the reason that this could distract the reader from the main motive to which the life was devoted, and, moreover, the first readers of the life were clear about whom, in fact, they were talking.

5 L. B. Gmyrya believes that the raid of the "king of the Rosmosoks" in Transcaucasia took place on the eve of Easter 440 [Gmyrya, 2009, p. 112], but this does not take into account the opinion that I argued that Mesrop's students could not have returned to Albania in time for Easter 440 [Semenov, 2007, p. 112]. 43].

page 41
The Albanian author's use of different ethnicities in relation to the European and East Caucasian Huns was intended to separate these two peoples not only spiritually, but also ethnically. However, life in this respect is not always consistent. Thus, the author inserts into the mouth of the "king of the Rosmosoks" a speech addressed to Theophilus with the following content: "You were loved in our kingdom and, winning by your valor, you were greatly honored by me, for which you were preferred to all others and glorified, having command over a third of my army. Why did you abandon the noble gods of your people, who gave us victory in these raids?" [Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, chapter 1, p. 30]. The third part of the army is also discussed at the beginning of the previous chapter: "At the same time, the king of the Rosmosoks, having collected his troops, together with the Tobelsky regiment, also joining the Huns, crossed the Kura River, deployed in the gawar of Uti and set up his camp near the city of Khalkhal. Here he chose three generals and put them in charge of a large army. He handed over the command of all eleven detachments of his troops to them and ordered them to invade the borders of Aluank, Armenia and Iberia and devastate them. The third group of troops invaded Gavar Artsakh at the beginning of Easter and began to plunder Metz Kuenk" (Movses Kalankatuatsi, 1984, chapter 1. 29).

Here the author creates the illusion that under the command of Theophilus, who led the plundering of Artsakh, which at that time was part of the Albanian Kingdom, there were also units of the "rosmosoks" themselves, but the author does not directly say this. In my opinion, it seems impossible that the leader of the campaign, the "king of the Rosmosoks", would have placed the troops of the European Huns under the command of a prince who was a vassal of Attila. Consequently, under the command of the "general of the Huns" was only his own army and, perhaps, the troops of his own Caucasian allies.

In this connection, it should be noted that the last episode cited clearly indicates that Theophilus ' army occupied an unequal position in the camp of the "king of the Rosmosoks". This is a reference to the eleven detachments of the" king of the Rosmosoks": since Theophilus was the head of one of these detachments, the decimal principle of organization of the people headed by the"king of the Rosmosoks" appears. Let me remind you that the division of the people-army into ten divisions, each of which fielded approximately the same military contingent, was a characteristic tradition of steppe associations. Information about the decimal principle of organization of the military-political core of the European Huns is unique, as it is not contained in any other source.

Thus, two important facts for the present topic are clarified: 1) the people who formed the military-political core of Attila's power were divided into ten military-administrative units; 2) since the army of Theophilus is represented in the life as the "eleventh detachment", its Huns were not part of the European-Hunnic military-political association, i.e. they occupied a subordinate, vassal position in Attila's power. The latter conclusion, in turn, leads to the conclusion that, on the one hand, the European Huns, or rather their ruling elite, most likely did not consider the East Caucasian Huns as a related tribe. On the other hand, the non-identity of the Eastern Caucasian Huns to the European Huns is also emphasized by the fact that in the life of Prince Theophilus, as noted above, an ethnic separation of the two peoples is drawn. This indicates, but apparently, that they had no genetic connections with each other.

Along the way, we can consider two more questions that arise from the above analysis. The first of them is related to the chronology and circumstances of Attila's subjugation of the Country to the East Caucasian Huns. The sources do not contain any hints that could shed any light on this issue. It is impossible even to judge whether the inclusion of the Country of the East Caucasian Huns in the state of Attila was the result of a military action or voluntary submission.

The second question is the identification of the "king of the Rosmosoks" with one of the European Huns ' leaders attested in the sources. As noted above, the" king of the Rosmosoks " is identified by me with Peran, which Elishe describes as

page 42
about the leader of the Hun raid; as for the name hEpcm, I compared it with the name of Attila's youngest son, Ernach: (h) er(a) n-ah [Semenov, 2002, p. 16] 6. However, later I doubted the possibility of such identification [Semenov, 2007, p. 46], since " Ts. Stepanov pointed out on a somewhat different occasion that Ernakh was still a child during this period" [Stepanov, 2000, p. 58, bel. 27]. Now I do not consider this an obstacle to this identification, since Heran could only nominally lead a campaign in Transcaucasia.

The fact that in the life of Prince Theophilus the person who led the campaign of the "rosmosoks" is designated "king" could be regarded as the identity of his Attila, although it does not follow from the data of Priscus of Pania that Attila personally led this attack on Iran, and, moreover, the name of the leader of the campaign given by a contemporary of the events of Elisha - Heran, does not allow us to identify him with Attila. As for the testimony of the life of Prince Theophilus, it is impossible not to take into account that it was compiled more than two centuries after the raid, and for this reason it could have various kinds of distortions, in particular, "tsarevich" turned into "tsar".

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

VDI-Bulletin of Ancient History.

list of literature

Agathangslos. Istoriya Armenii [History of Armenia]. article and comm. by K. S. Tsr-Davtyan and S. S. Arsvshatyan. Yersvan, 2004.

Akopyan A. A. Albania-Aluank in Greek-Latin and Ancient Armenian sources. Yerevan, 1987.

Artamonov M. I. Istoriya khazar [History of the Khazars], Moscow, 1962.

Bsrnshtam A. N. Ocherk istorii hunnov [An Essay on the history of the Huns].
Gadlo A.V. Etnicheskaya istoriya Severnogo Kavkaza IV-X vv.L., 1979.

Gmyrya L. B. Nekotorye informatsii o hunnykh v Dagestane [Some information about the Huns in Dagestan]. Makhachkala, 1980.

Gmyrya L. B. Prikaspiyskiy Dagestan v epokhu Velikogo perestroeniya narodov: Mogilniki [Caspian Dagestan in the Era of the Great Migration of Peoples: Burial grounds]. Makhachkala, 1993.

Gmyrya L. B. The Country of the Huns at the Caspian Gate. Makhachkala, 1995.

Gmyrya L. B. Religious representations of the population of the Caspian Dagestan in the IV-VII centuries. (according to written sources). Makhachkala, 2009.

Dsrfer G. About the language of the Huns / / Foreign Turkology. Issue 1. Ancient Turkic languages and Literatures, Moscow, 1986.
Jafarov Yu. R. K datirovke eventii XXVIII-XXX glav 1 chasti "Istorii alban" Moisei Kalankatuisky [On the dating of the events of the XXVIII-XXX chapters of the 1st part of the "History of Albans" by Moses Kalankatuisky].

Jafarov Yu. R. The Huns and Azerbaijan. Baku, 1985.

Dionysius of Alexandria (Psriegst). Description of the ecumene. / Introductory article, psr. with others-grsch. and comments by E. V. Ilyushschkina / / VDI. 2005; № 4. 2006, № 1. 2006, № 2.

Unified State Register of Legal Entities. About Vardan and the Armenian War / Translated from other sources-arm. I. A. Orbsli; note by K. N. Yuzbashyan. Yerevan, 1971.

Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the Getae. Getica / Introduction, transl., comment. E. Ch. Skrzhinskaya, Moscow, 1960.

Istoriya albany [History of the Albanians] / Translated by K. P. Patkanov, St. Petersburg, 1881.

History of Armenia by Favstos Buzand / Translated from other Armenian sources. and a comment. M. A. Gsvorgyan; ed. by S. T. Yersmyan; introduction by L. S. Khachikyan. Yerevan, 1953.

Koryun. The Life of Mashtots / Translated by Sh. V. Smbatyan and K. A. Melik-Ohanjanyan; foreword by K. A. Mslik-Ohanjanyan; commentary by Sh. V. Smbatyan. Yerevan, 1962.

Mamsdov T. M. Albania and Atropatena according to ancient Armenian sources (IV-VII centuries). Baku, 1977.

Movses Kalankatuatsi. Istoriya strany Aluank [History of the Aluank Country]. and comments by Sh. V. Smbatyan. Yerevan, 1984.

Pigulevskaya N. V. Syrianskie istochniki po istorii narodov SSSR [Syrian sources on the history of the peoples of the USSR]. Research and translations. St. Petersburg, 2000.

6 For the sons of Attila, see [Priscus Panitcs, 1868, fr. 8; Jordan, 1960, E. 260, 266].

page 43
Semyonov I. G. Ethnopolitical history of the Eastern Caucasus in the III-VI centuries. Authorsf. diss. ... Candidate of Historical Sciences. Makhachkala, 2002.

Ssmenov I. G. Genealogy of Kartli kings: from Mirian III to Vakhtang Gorgasal. Makhachkala, 2007.

Semenov I. G. On the reconstruction of the political history of Kartli (Iberia) in the last third of the IV century // VDI. 2010, No. 2 (273).

Ssmenov I. G. To clarify the circumstances of the Hun raid in Asia Minor and Syria in 395-396 / / Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. 17, 2010. Wiesbaden, 2011.

Stepanov Color. Средновековните българи: Novi facti, interpretations, hipotesi. Sofia, 2000.

Trev, K. V. Essays on the history and culture of Caucasian Albania (IV century BC-VII century AD). Moscow-L., 1959.

Fedorov Ya. A., Fedorov G. S. Rannie tyurki na Severnom Kavkaze [Early Turks in the North Caucasus], Moscow, 1978.

Ammiani Marcellini Rerum gestarum / Ed. V. Garthauscn. Lipsiac, 1873.

Docrfcr G. Zur Sprachc dcr Hunncn // Central Asiatic Journal. Wiesbaden, 1973. XVII.

Ghazar P'arpcts'i. The History of Lazar P'arpec'i / Transl. by R.W. Thomson. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.

Macnchcn-Hclfcn O.J. Huns and Hsiung-nu// Byzanlion. International Journal of Byzantine Studies. American Series. 3. Vol. 17. 1944-1945. N.Y., 1945.

Macnchen-Hclfen O.J. The World of the Huns (Studies of Their History and Culture) / Ed. by M. Knight. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1973.

Marquart J. Eranšahr nach der Geographie der Ps. Moses Xorenaci. Mit historisch-kritischem Kommentar und historischen und topographischen Excursen. В.: Weidmansche Buchhandlung, 1899.

Priscus Panites. Fragmenta / Ed. C. Müller // Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. P., 1868. Vol. IV.

Moravcsik Gy. Byzanlinoturcica. Berlin, 1958. 2. Auflagc.

Raabe R. Petrus der Iberer. Leipzig, 1895.

page 44

Permanent link to this publication: