The First Bulgarian Kingdom was established by the Turkic nomads Bulgars. Gradually the Bulgars were assimilated to the Slav majority, but the Bulgarian aristocracy kept supremacy for a long time. In the political structure of the state were existed a traditional institution and titles of the Bulgars.
In this paper, the author consider the role of the ruler, especially take notice of the title, the authority and the succession of the throne. There were so many titles of the Bulgarian ruler, but six of them were used in the country. They were αρχων, καισαρ, πατρικιος, KANAσγBIΓI, _??__??__??__??__??__??_<_??__??__??__??_, _??__??__??__??__??__??_<_??__??__??__??_. Kαισαρ and πατρικιος are the Byzantine title of nobility. Two titles αρχων and KANAσγBIΓI were used at the same time. The Byzantine title αρχων was used mainly externally. KANAσγBIΓI, which was a Turkic compound title, consisted of two words KANA and σγBIΓI. Professor V. Besevliev explained that KANA was a rulal title of the nomadic state qan<qaγan and σγBIΓI was a compound word sü-bäg-i, i. e. “commander in chief.” But this theory is still in a hypothesis.
Bulgarian ruler came to hold both the secular power and spiritual authority. Bulgars were believers of Shamanism. They had a concept of the divine right of kings. The throne of the ruler of the Bulgarian state was exclusively in the hands of the royal clan, the Dulo, the Vokil and the clan of Krum. The position of the ruler was hereditary normally passing from father to eldest son, who was called καναρτικεινος. The order of the succession of the throne proved to be useful in stability and reinforcement of a government.

抄録全体を表示

Hirth asserted that the identy of the Huns and the Hiung-nu could be assumed not only from the resemblance of their names and customs, nor only from the temporal proximity of their migrations, but also from the fact that in the Wei-shu an event which should have been attributed to the Huns was ascribed to the Hiung-nu. In contrast to his opinion, some scholars maintain : (1) that this record of the Weishu must be referred not to the Huns, but to the Ephthalites, and (2) that the Hiung-nu spoke Altaic, while the Huns spoke Uralic. But afterwards it was made clear (1) that Hirth was correct in his explanation of the record, and (2) that the language of the Huns was not Uralic, but Altaic. Therefore the principal objections to Hirth's opinions were removed. Furthermoer, students of the classics discovered old documents which showed that the ancient Romans had called the East Asian Hiung-nu the Huns, and archeologists have determined the ccmplete resemblance between the style of Hiung-nu relics and those of the Huns. Thus the identity of the Hiung-nu and the Huns has been ascertained from ancient records as well as from language and archeology. However, certain doubts remain as to their physical type. That the Huns belonged to some completely Mongoloid group is clear from old documents and also from anthropological measurements of recently-discovered skeletal remains. On the contrary, the Hiung-nu, on the basis of ancient Chinese records, skeletal remains and a stone image, appear to have resembled the Caucasoid type.

抄録全体を表示