The Hunnic Version in the Chuvash History (Ethnographic Notes)

The aim of the article is the analysis of the version of the Hun origin of the Chuvash nation. The author has set an objective to investigate the main primary sources (Ammianus Marcellinus, Yeghishe, Marcellinus Comes, Priscus of Panium, Jordanes, Cedrenus Georgius, Theophylact Simocatta, Procopius Caesariensis, Moses of Khoren, Ghewond) and publications on the subject. The problem range was the discussions of the Hun component in traditional ethnographic blocks of the Savirs and the Chuvash. There are too many unclear points in the history of the origin and development of the Chuvash nation. The truth which the reader wants to know is still locked behind seven seals. The excessive desire of the readers to know, on the one hand, and the great intent of the authors to deliver their considerations to the reader as quickly as possible, on the other hand, have generated compilation, mess and fiction. Most of papers on the ethnogenesis of the Chuvash as of today have been prepared at a level not higher than amateur regional ethnography. One of the reasons for such failures is the absence of direct sources of knowledge about the historical ancestors of the Chuvash. History was merciless to the Chuvash and their language. They were completely forgotten and unknown for centuries, kind of in a position of a nation without kith or kin. In similar cases, the historical science always resorts to retrospection and comparative historical methodology. All tribes with the most enigmatic history always had neighbors, communicated with other tribes, and were incorporated in alliances. The author raises a debating question of the Hun leaders brothers Bleda and Attila. He comes to the conclusion that Bleda who had been removed from power was commanding the eastern wing of the Hun confederation which also included "Huns called Savirs". One can also read in the sources that Hun troops carried fortresses by storm, using rams. However, an attentive reader may find that rams were used not by Huns but by Savirs stationed in their troops. The analysis of sources and basic literature proves that the Hun-Savir topic has been written so far on the basis of known patterns and deviates substantially from reality. The researchers have been captured by the existing hypotheses and confused the Huns with the Savirs - the historical ancestors of the Chuvash. This situation may only be resolved by way of a thorough analysis of primary sources. The sum of the provisions set out in the article and published by previous authors makes it possible to establish that the Savirs and the Huns were absolutely different tribes, though the sources confused them, and they occasionally became members of the same military and political confederations.

Keywords

Authors

References