Дискуссия по статье Е.С. Галкиной
Discussion on Yelena S. Galkina’s paper

Summary/Abstract: Zalesskaya dwells on two statements of Galkina, namely, of the importance of the Bulgars’ migrations to various regions of Europe and of multi-ethnic character of the Bulgars. The author notes that the latter thesis is important for the question of how this conglomerate of ethnic groups influenced material culture and art in Southeast Europe. L’vova considers it important that Galkina places Kubrat’s Great Bulgaria in the Dnieper region and adjacent territories. The author considers Galkina’s vision of political history of the Dnieper region to be absolutely correct. While noting that Galkina managed to draw attention to the opportunity of the earlier dating of the formation of the Bulgar tribal confederation in the Black Sea Coast, Sorochan agrees with Galkina that Türks and Avars did not dominate in this region in the first half of the 7th century. The author pays special attention to the early medieval Notitia of Gothic diocese in which the bishopric of Onoguron is mentioned. Flyorov notes that the problem of the Pastyrske hillfort pottery is incorrectly presented in the article under discussion. The author concludes that the development of modern Proto-Bulgarian studies does not allow one author come to know equally the particulars of problems and methods of such different disciplines as source studies, history, archeology and archeological chronology, linguistics, etc. Komar pays special attention to the criticism of the thesis that influence of the Türks in Northern Black Sea Coast was short-term. The author refers to the information of the Chinese source «Suishu » (629-636) which contains a list of tribes subjected to Tung-yabghu-qagan presented by the Türks to the Chinese court in 619 or 622. While discussing the archeological part of Galkina’s work, Komar concludes that «Dnieper» fibulae belong to the final stage of the existence of bow fibulae, namely to the middle 7th to the beginning of the 8th centuries, and cannot have the relation to any «post-Hunnic migrations» discussed by Galkina. Komar notes that Galkina is correct when noticing that the physical type and culture of the Danube and Volga Bulgars differ greatly from each other and it doesn’t allow us to treat them as parts of the same population. However, while giving a survey of anthropological studies of the last several decades, the author criticizes the idea of linking this physical difference with the suggested presence of the Sarmatians among the Bulgars. Gavritukhin admits that in Galkina’s article the term «Sarmatians» is used incorrectly, and the theses on fibulae, as well as the notion of the chronology and attribution of some groups of archaeological monuments presented in the article as the basis for the author’s conclusions, do not correspond to the current level of source criticism. Therefore, the author does not consider the text offered to discussion to be essential for the decision of the problem of Great Bulgaria.

• Details
• Contents