Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 2.djvu/355

1096 BUNNL thtoT powor 18 snffident. The emperor Leo IV^ eon of Constantiiie CopronymoSi was the son of the Irene, daughter of the Khan of the Ehazars. He reigned frnn A. t>, 775 to a. d. 780. Their Ume ranges from the seventh centniy to the tenth; the power being at its maximuM about a. d. 850. In space they spread from the Caspian to the Dnieper: from the Caspian, inasmuch as the Arab name of that lake was the Sea of the KAazars; to Dnieper, because they are mentioned under the name Chualuy by the earliest Russian historian — Nestor. Much in the same way as the name Hun is suc- ceeded by that of Bulgarian, the name Khazar is succeeded by that of PatzmakSf PeUhineguet {Piz^' nacef Peeenatid^ PinoenateSj Pedneij Petmet, Pasti- nagif nar^iMucrrot, Peezengeai (Russian name), Beueni, Beari (Hungarian names). The Kanghar are a section of the PetMnegu^B, Time from a. d. 900 (there or thereabouts) to a. d. 1050. Place— the parts between the Lower Danube and the Lower Don Bs Bessarabia, Cherson, and part of Taurida. Like the Khazars, they attack Russia; pressing northwards and westwai^ The Uti {Guts, Arabic name) replace — or ap- pear to replace — the Petshenegi; time, the llth century. Lastly, come the Cnmani, scarcely distinguishable from the Uzl Of all the tribes akin to the Huns, the Cnmani seem to have pressed furthest westwards. Probably, they occupied Volhynia — certainly a part of Hungary. The last individual who spoke a lan- guage allied to that of the Huns — a language of Asiatic origin — the last of the Cumaniaiis — Varro, an old man of Karizag — died a.d. 1770. With him closes the history of the populations allied to Hun, who at one and the same time dwelt north of the Balkan, and retained then* language. The blood of the population is still abundant — in some cases predominant ; in Bulgaria, Hungary, the Danubian Principalities, Volhynia, Podolia, Cherson, Taurida, and the Crimea. It may be said that the evidence of the Hun tue- eetiion is deficient ; that the Catena AUiliariorwm (so to say) is broken. Upon this, the writer remarks that the absolute identity of the preceding popu- lations with the Hun is not predicated. They are only said to belong to the same fiunily with the Huns to Attila, and to illustrate the same general historical phenomenon ; viz. the intnuion into Eastern Europe of certain frontier popuUttiana from Western Ahia^ a phenomenon which is seen in its truer light when seen as a whole, than when seen in fragments. But what are the proofs that these nations are all in realiigf though not all in ftome, Hun ? And in what sense are they so ? They are Mot so poli- tically at any rate. Iliey are so ethndogically, and they are so geographically. They are so geogror phically; inasmuch as th^ can all be deduced fnxn some portion of the area which lay between the most western occupancies of the Paimonian Huns, and the most northern occupancies of the Avar Huns. The Huns ethmoi/)oically members of the Tc7RK FAMILY. — They are so ethnologically, as can be shown by the following train of reasoning: — a. That the Cuinani and Petshinegi spoke the same language is expressly stated by Anna Comnena, a contemporary testimony. h. There is the evidence of the early Arab geo- graphers, that the Khazars and Bulgarians spoke ^e same Unguage. . HUimL c, Th^re are the reasooa already givte tat tmh necting a. The Bulgarians and Hims; jB. The Avars and Huna. d. There is a specimen of the Cnmaniaii, and there are glasses firam the Khazar, Avar, Bnlgariaa, all referable to <»ie and the same langnai^ a, That language is the Tnric of Indepcndeat Tartary. It is anbmitted that thia evidence k snffinnt ; sufficient when we consider that no material htu traverse it, and that the a priori probabilities are in its favour. What country so likely to liave As- charged a population upon Soulh-castera Boana, the Danubian Prindpalitaes, Bulgaria, and Hwigaiy, as Independent Tartaiy and Caucasus (L e. ibe govern- ment aocsHed)? At the same time^ the &ci of the evi- dence of the Huns of Attila being cf a mora indiiect kind than we might it priori expect, is by no meaBS kept back. We only find what they are by what the Avan were. Eablt Europeah Histort of thb Porr- LATions AKnr to the Hoss. — 1. />etecls of tks name. — Hitherto, the htstoij of the popolatiaBS akin to the Hun has been the history of ccrtiia populations connected with the decline of the Bobob empire : indeed, it has been tzeated aa if it begsa during the rdgn of Valens, with the attack opan tfat Goths and the subsequent passage <^ the Uanabe. This has been the first £ut recognised — the fiiat &ct supported by competent testinMoy. At the same time, a great deal of the Aeiatie history hss been objected to; a small part only admitted. 'Sem, this leaves the early lustoiy of the Hon name no* tonched. If they did not come from the wall cf China, whence came they? The name Sun m K«f but we have seen that there is a long and late hb- tory of the Hun population under other naaxa May there not also be a long early one as veil? May not the line run backwards as well as Ibr- wards? This question is best treated after a pre- liminary notice of what may be called the details of the Hun name. If the name Him (and indeed the names jBt^j^oriiaii, Khazart) axe general and eU* UcUve, what are the spedfis designatiooa ? That such details exist has already been suggested by the remark of Gibbon, that the names Kntigttri, ix^ were too specific and limited. We have, tbca, tias following names: — 1. Amilznri of Priscus ; A^nkuri of Jomande& S. liimarij Priscus and Jumandes. 3. Aicidsmr% Joraandes. 4. Tonosures of Priscos ; Tmnearsi of Jomandes. 5. Boisei^ Priscus and Jomandea. 6. Sorosgiy Priscus. 7. Ktsturgmi {Kotrigmri in Aga< thias), Procopius. Cutziagiri, Jomandes. & Ut" urguri oi Agathias. 9. Ultiznri of Agathiaa. UltzinKiares of Jomandes. 10. Angisdri, Jor- nandes. II. Bitugures, Jomandes. 12. Saiagn, Jomandes ; probably same as SatagariL 13. Saibirij Procopius. 14. Umgi. 15. Onogmn^ bekopng te the country called Onoguria, Geogr. Bavemi. 16. ZaHf Menander. 17. SaragurL The list can pio- bably be increased. It is considered, however, &»£> cient to show that the statement that the term Bnn was a generic and collective name, was based upon a suflScient hst of species. The evidence as to the Hun affinities of the preceding tribes is not nnifona. It is stronger in some cases than in othera. In all, however, it seems sufficient For further infennatioa see Zenss, w. Hunni, Akmi, Bulgaria Avaree, Thb Acatzibl — One name of gnater impoctanea