In 1861, in a large eclectic collection of old Bulgarian and Rus historical texts entitled “Hellenic Chronicler”, a Russian scholar A. Popov run into a misidentified document, a historical relic that possibly survived because it was thought to be a list of Assyrian kings, and now known under the names Imennik (Slavic for “Namelist”), Kingslist, Khanslist, Fürstenliste and Nominalia. In Türkic it is called Shedjere (traditional genealogical tree for the Türks). It exists in 3 manuscript copies. There are numerous variations and outright discrepancies between the copies and within the same manuscript. Because the last on the list is a short reign of Khan Boyan's predecessor Khan Umar, it is presumed that the document was composed during the reign of Khan Boyan (ca. 763-765), elected to the Khan position in ca. 763 (or 767?) AD. The list presents genealogy for at least 12 generations of the Bulgarian Khans, beginning with the most legendary Hunnish Khan Attila (b. 406, ca. 437-453) and ending with the 8th c. Khan Umar (ca. 763). It is further supposed that the text was initially chiseled on stone stela in the then capital Pliska. Pliska was a capital of the Danube Bulgaria from ca. 681 to 893 AD, when Khan Shamgun (Simeon the Great) moved the capital to Bersula (Preslav). Later in the 9th or 10th century after the Cyrillic alphabet, introduced ca. 860 AD to replace the Glagolic alphabet, took hold, the inscription was partially translated into Slavic and transcribed into Cyrillic.

The list of the Danube Bulgaria rulers starts with two fabled ancestors, Atilla Khan and his third son Irnik. It contains names of the rulers of the Danube Bulgar dynasties, Dulo and Ukil. A year and month in a 12-year animal cycle calendar, and a duration in years are noted for each ruler. Anchoring in an ancient past the root of the dynasty with 300 years old names of Atilla and Ernak (Irnik, Bel-Kermek, Gr. Hernach), the list skips a dozen of the descendent rulers, and jumps to the immediate relatives preceding Asparukh, likely known better by their descendents. These are his grand uncle-in-law Bu-Ürgan (Gr. Organa, Slavic “Gostun”, from Bulgarian/Chuvash “kushtan” - “custodian”, for his role as Kurbat's Ilchibek (regent), see name Organa here), who safeguarded the Khan's throne for his nephew Kurbat, then the Asparukh's father Kurbat (Gr Kubrat), and finally his senior brother Bat-Boyan (Bayan, Bezmer of the Khanslist). The dynastic line of twelve generations, abbreviated to just five Khans, is reported to hold a seat east of the Danube for 515 years, i.e. from ca 150 AD to ca 663-665 AD. The catch phrase ”reigned on the other side of Danube for 515 years with shorn  heads” eloquently describes the Bulgar history: if they ruled the lands north of Danube for 515 years, where were the illustrious Huns and Attila? Does it take a special mental capacity to get that Bulgars were the Huns, and Atilla was the Attila? Even the historically rooted spelling attests to it, in the Slavic the traditional spelling is Atilla, in the western languages Attila.

Depending on which side of the family the story comes from, the sequence is slightly different. The name Bezmer was puzzling, S.Runciman took it for Kurbat's younger brother. Kurbat's younger brother Shambat, known as Samo in the western sources, was a legal successor to Kurbat according to the Lateral succession laws, and is quite reasonably listed in the Nominalia as a successor, Shambat previously ruled the Western Wing of the state from his court in Askel (Belgorod, White Fort), aka Shambat, future Kyiv; the name Bezmer corresponds to Shambat. Shambat was about the same age as Kurbat, and could not last for long. After Shambat, next in the line of Lateral succession was his nephew Bat-Bayan, who is positively known to be raised to the throne. His younger brother Asparukh probably was a Western Wing commander during the Shambat reign, while Bat-Bayan as a Crown Prince called Shad during the Shambat reign remained the Eastern Wing commander likely stationed in Bandja ~ Phanagoria. Alternatively, under Bezmer is mentioned Bat-Bayan, in ca 663-665 AD Asparukh joined a revolt of his first uncle Shambat against his elder brother Bat-Boyan, and in ca 672 (Year of a Monkey) they wrestled Bulgarian throne away from Bat-Boyan. Shambat crowned himself a Kan (Kagan), and the Asparukh years are started with the feud between Bat-Bayan and Asparukh. After Bat-Bayan's accession Asparukh was eligible for raising to the East Wing, as a Shad Crown Prince, but he may physically remained in Askel because of all the connections there. However, it was Asparukh who first faced the onslaught of the Khazars in the east, was defeated, retreated back to Askel, and allowed Bat-Bayan to take over the war with Khazars. Bat-Bayan made a deal with Khazars, which was not accepted by his four brothers, and they fled with their subordinates. Thus, the Nominalia counts the reign of Asparukh from the time he ascended to the East Wing as a Shad Crown Price, or from the crowning of Shambat. Only Asparukh was able to take along his Bulgarian horde and the Savic Anchies, the other three brothers had to flee without their tributaries

After the death of Khan Shambat, Asparukh refused to lend his support to Bat-Boyan, who was defending the country from a Khazarian onslaught, and headed a secessionist coalition of his West Wing Kutigur Bulgars Horde and Slavic Antes west of the Dniester. These Antes (Anchies) were brought to the middle course of Dnieper during the reign of Atilla's grandfather Alyp-biy Arbat Khan (ca 378-402 AD). The migration of secessionists, widely known but not too well documented,  made Asparukh a sovereign ruler, and may be counted as one of his momentous dates. It is unlikely that Asparukh could claim sovereignty  prior to the 672 AD, during the reign of his uncle Shambat, and it is even less likely that before the death of Shambat he did not have any tax and military obligations toward the supreme seat in Bashtu (Kyiv).

Starting with Asparukh, the list continues for 7, 8, or 9 ruling periods, specifically noting a transfer of the royal lineage in the Danube Bulgaria from the clan Dulo to the clan Ukil, via the female line of Asparukh progeny. After the reign of the Asparukh's grandson Sevar of the Dulo clan, the royal lineage was passed to his grand-grandson Kormiosh (Korymdjes, Gr. Kormiosis) from the Asparukh's granddaughter Bozok, who married into the clan Ukil (Ugil, spelled Vokil, Oukil, Ougain and Uokil in the Khanlist). The Dulo lineage is listed for three (or five?) reigns, and the Ugil lineage is listed for four reigns, including the Umar's transitory reign of forty days.

 I did not look closely at the original of the Khanslist in the past, and was taking on faith the readings of the experts. But having looked at the mediocre quality facsimile of the original, I saw discrepancies in the experts' readings. First, nobody could ever understand why Attila was called Avitokhol (“Авито Хол” in Cyrillic). Semantically, that reading does not make any sense. In the Moscow facsimile, Atilla Khan (“Атилла Ханъ” in Cyrillic) is clearly seen as the first word, and you will see it too if you look at it. Even in the otherwise unclear rendering of the “Atilla Khan” name, in all manuscripts the word Khan (Ханъ) is capitalized and clearly discernable. The title follows the name, as in all Türkic titles. Typical for Türkic names, for the writer the title could have been a part of the name, like Chingizkhan, Kurbat, Shambat, Tamiatarkhan, Malikshakh, Elchibey, and a multitude of other historical personalities. The historical Atila is “Atila Khan” and not Avitokhol (т became ви = t became vi; the “n” and “l”, in Cyrillic “н” and “л”, and “o” and “a” are graphically almost the same, and are easily confused even in non-cursive text). And even in the Petrograd and Uvarov Manuscripts not to discern Atila in the initial five letters, which could be read as Avito, Avita, Avilo, Avila, Anila, Amila, Atila etc., would take an extraordinary claim to nescience. In a reduced and cleansed revision of the history some scientists, against all odds, claim that between “AvitoKhol” of the manuscript and the historical Attila Khan is no perceptible connection. And we can see how the alternate reality was effected, how the clear original was reworked to replace real Attila with a phantom Avitokhol. Brooklyn bridge, anybody?

Moscow Manuscript	=>	Moscow Manuscript parsed	=>	Petrograd Manuscript	=>	Uvarov Manuscript
Атилла Ханъ = Atilla Xanъ		Атилла Ханъ = Atilla Khan		Авитохолъ = Avitokhol		Авитохолъ = Avitokhol

The descent from Attila is very important for the Asparukh dynasty. Each ruler of the splinter states that could claim their lineage from the Attila's Kaganate could claim a supremacy over the Roman Empire and bequeath it to his heirs. The claim carried eligibility for the enormous tribute revenue. Since 128 AD, the Roman Empire was in a servitude. After the recognition of the Alanian dynasty (Rhoxolani) superiority by the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), who bought peace with an annual tribute, the question was not if the Roman Empire was a dependency, but who was the superior and how to carve up the booty. The impositions grew rapidly, and for the descendent dynasties the claim to the superiority and to the tributes due was a major concern. A refusal or a delay in rendering the tribute was provoking a quick retribution from the confederation. We know only of few instances when the vassalage was openly rebutted, but the number of the enforcement raids tells about the resistance and ingenuity used to avoid the payments. The claim to the tribute was a major political factor of the day, and the stakes were unprecedented. From about 200 pounds of gold (or about 20,000 solidi per year) during the Alanian dynasty, the annual tribute grew to 350 pounds in 312 AD during Kishet-Baradj and Altysh Khans, and to 700 pounds during Bulümar's (Gr. Balamber) reign in 370 AD. By 434 the annual obligation grew to 700 pounds of gold from the Eastern Roman Empire, and by 443 to 2,100 pounds of annual gold tribute from the Western Roman Empire. In 582 Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602 AD) agreed with Khagan Bayan to pay Avars their share of the annual tribute in the amount of 100,000 solidi coins, or roughly 1,000 lb of gold. In return, the Roman Empires could count on assistance and protection of their benefactors. On a number of occasions, Kaganate saved the day for the Romans. The assistance continued even after the loss by the Kaganate of its German possessions. In 475 the Byzantium Emperor Zeno (474-475, 476-491) called for the Bulgars' Djurash Masgut (489-505) against Ostrogoths. The descent from the Attila line was a primary argument in the claims to the inheritance. The confederation principle allocated to any member of the confederation its share, and each member had to fend for itself to enforce and collect it. 300 years after the Khanslist, in the Danube Bulgaria, this claim was kept alive up to the reign of Barys and Simeon, who both laid claim to the Byzantian throne and Eastern Roman Empire inheritance.

Secondly, the experts read the numbers for the 12 year cycle calendar (12 year animal cycle calendar is uniformly accepted) with the number of years between the cyclic years not of multiples of 12, i.e. a semantical impossibility. From Shegor to Shegor is either 12 or 24 etc, but not 15 or 17. This indicates that the current readings of at least some numbers might also be misleading.

 Thirdly, in the formulae for Tervel the data is given twice. The unclear portion of the record is skipped and ignored. To decipher the record, I. Mladjov advanced a convincing theory that this entry is a garbled concatenation of the records of two more rulers. The missing name is that of Tervel 's son Kermes. A reading incorporating the I. Mladjov's concept is shown below.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Bulgar cardinales of Khanslist	-	-	vech	tut	beh	alt(i)	chit(i)	shekht	tovir	-
Balkar cardinales	bir	eki	yuch	tyort	besh	alti	cheti	segiz	toghuz	on
Chuvash cardinales	per	ik	vish	tavat	pilek	ult	shich	sakar	takhar	vun
Itil Tatar cardinales	ber	ike	öch	dürt	bish	alti	jide	sigez	tugiz	un
Karachay  cardinales
Bulgar ordinales of Khanslist	-	-	vechem	tutom	behti	altom	jitem	shekhtem	tovirem	-

1. Source

There are two theories about the source of the Khanslist. One, advanced by M. Moskov among others, is that the Khanslist originated as an inscription in Greek and was later translated into Slavic and rendered into Cyrillic, the Slavic text is a clumsy translation from the Greek (M. Moskov, Imennik na bylgarskite hanove, Sofia, 1988). The other is that the Khanslist originated as an inscription in the Bulgarian Türkic, and was later translated into Slavonic and rendered into Cyrillic. In favor of the Türkic origin point a number of telltale signs preserved in the manuscript.

The most prominent feature preserved in the manuscript is the phenomenon of dot separators between the words. This is a unique and well documented aspect of the Türkic writing. In the Greco-Slavic theory, the dot separators are ignored and skipped without analysis.

The second prominent feature is the location of the first word, Atilla, in respect to the rest of the manuscript. It indicates that the original was written right-to-left, distinctive for the Türkic writing and opposite to that of the contemporary Greek and later Cyrillic.

The third is the placement of the title “Khan” following the name “Atila”. Unlike the Greek and Slavic, where the title would precede the name, in Türkic the title follows the name. Customarily, the title is agglutinated to the name, creating a myriad of well-known composites like Chingizkhan, Batu-khan, Kur-Batyr, Kur-Amir, Kurbat, Shambat, Aley-bat, Jani-Bek, Berdi-Bek, Gali-bey, Elchibey, Malikshakh, etc.  In contrast, the concoctions like Charles-king, Michael-basileus, or Nicolay-tsar do not exist.

The fourth feature is the absence of the space separator convention traditional in the Greek and passed on to Slavic Cyrillic. While the Slavic portion of the translation shows space separators, the Bulgarian un-translated sections retain no separation, like in “dilomtrvirem”, or use a dot separator.

What looks like a clumsy translation from the Greek would make a natural translation from an agglutinative language, where the fifth feature mirrors the brevity and expressiveness of the agglutinated words, with indicators “emu = his”, “imya = has” suffixed to the root and not forming separate words, unlike the texts rendered into Greek or Slavic. The use of the word “imya = has” in Slavic is well illustrated by the phrase “Произошла от сих двух братов фамилия очень многочисленная, которая наложила себе имя (name) от поколения Ченассов, для того что их предки имя (had) прозвище Чена” (“Descended from these two brothers family very numerous, which imposed on itself a name (imya) from the generation of Chenasses, because their ancestors had (imya) a name Chena”) [Russian translation of Abulgazi “Genealogy of Tatars”, original publication, 1778, Vol. 1, p. 195].

The sixth feature is the trace of the syllabic writing, where the vowels are included in the consonants by convention, and only those vowels that are needed for clarity are indicated, like the initial “A” in Atila or “E” in Esperikh. Once a first vowel is indicated, the trailing vowels follow the law of the vowel harmony, and customarily are not indicated. However, to render the word in Greek or Slavic, the translator would have to “re-invent” the missing vowels. A quick look at the Baichorov's table would suggest how that dynastic name could be spelled in Türkic. Two consonants, “ql”, would adequately represent “Ukil” in Bulgarian, but would be rendered as Ukil, Ugil, Vokil, Oukil, Ougain and Uokil in Greek and Slavic. Another trait of the syllabic writing, the indiscriminate carryovers to the next line resemble little the tidiness of the Greek inscriptions, but are conspicuous in the syllabic Bulgarian Türkic inscriptions. The diacritic marks are typical for the syllabic writing and do not have explanation as Greek or Cyrillic ”ö” and “ü”.

The diacritic location of some consonants may be explained as typical for Greek or Cyrillic, but it also may be a close rendering of the Türkic syllabic words.

The Bulgarian Türkic writing employed non-alphabetical symbols and conventional abbreviations which could have been used in the slab inscription. The equivalent of the “rule, ruled, ruler” could be one of these signs. In that case, the translation “khan, knyaz, khyaz'ed” would not be a literal translation, but a semantical rendering. The same type of convention could be used to write “Kurbat” as “Kur(ba)t”, with the “ba” syllable omitted in written, but not in the spoken language.

An interesting feature that would suggest a Greek original is the use of the “ou” diphthong. I. Mladjov provides the following explanation: “OU” (“OY”) is the standard Greek way of rendering the sound “u” (as in sugar). The Cyrillic took over the entire Greek alphabet, the sound “u” was written as in Greek with combination “OU” (“OY”) or with a ligature which looks like figure “8” but is open on the top. Eventually this was simplified into the Cyrillic letter that looks like Latin Y. But that letter, used in the Middle Ages without “O” in front of it, would not give the sound “U”, but the sound “Y” (“I”, “EE”) as in Greek.” This explanation of the “ou” diphthong serving as a substitute for “u” excludes the necessity for a Greek intermediary, whether a Greek scribe for an oral narrative or a Greek inscription, and supports the concept that the translation was made directly from the Türkic original.

 The opinion of the experts that the manuscript is a translated copy of a stone slab inscription, and the first four uniquely symptomatic features discussed above lead to a conclusion that the source of the manuscript was a stone slab with Türkic inscription. One day, maybe, we will see the original slab in a museum. However, it can't be ruled out that the original of the manuscript was a parchment from the Danube Bulgaria state archives, which would be moved, together with the seat of the ruler, from Pliska to Bersula (Preslav), and on to Ohrid or Byzantium.

2. Readings and misreading.

The most controversial readings are those of  “Avitikhol” vs. “Atilla Khan”, then Ukil, Ugil, Vokil, Oukil, Ougain and Uokil representing one or a few clans, and “imenshegor” vs. “(emu) imya shegor” (i.e. “he has (his year) shegor”).

3. Lineage

It is clear that the Khanslist inscription did not include all the rulers for the 515 years prior to the Asparukhid partition of the Kaganate, and detailed only the post-partition period. For the dynastic line as a whole, the Khanslist provides a partial insight, allowing to re-confirm the Gregorian calendar dates via dating in the12 year animal cycle calendar.

Whether Vokil and Ukil are one and the same, since the two appear side by side in the same text, some experts argued that this is enough to deny the equation, yet just above them we have Isperih followed by Esperih (in one manuscript Espererih). The equation Vokil=Ukil is probably sound, for reasons stated above and also as detailed by other experts. The dynastic tribe of Uokil has a long historical trail extending from 2nd c. BC to 8th c. AD and from Balkans to Mongolia.

4. Calendar

The controversy is whether the Bulgarian calendar was a 12 year animal cycle Türkic calendar or a 12 year animal cycle non-Türkic calendar. To substantiate a non-Türkic origin, a researcher needs to locate the elements of non-Türkism, and then propose realistic viable alternatives for these elements. The validity of the arguments for non-Türkic origin, hopefully, will be properly peer-reviewed, without being driven by enthusiastic nationalism.

Atilla Khan lived 300 years (ago). His clan is Dulo, and his year is Snake 9th (6th year 9th month Sept)

Irnik lived 150 years (ago). His clan is Dulo, and his year is Snake 9th (6th year 9th month Sept)

Gostun, regent, 2 years. His clan is Ermi, and his year is Boar 9th (12th year 9th month Sept)

Kur(ba)t reigned (for) 60 years. His clan is Dulo, and his year is Bull 3rd (2nd year 3rd or 5th mo? March or May?)

Bezmer 3 years. And his clan is Dulo, and his year is Bull 3rd (2nd year 3rd or 5th mo? March or May?)

These five princes reigned on the other side of the Danube (for) 515 years with shaven heads

And after that Prince Isperih came to (this) side of the Danube. And so it is till now

Prince Esperih, 60 and 1 years. His clan is Dulo, and his year is Dragon (or Bars?) 1st (3rd or 5th year 1st month Jan)

Tervel, 21 years. His clan is Dulo, and his year is Horse (or Ram?) 7th (7th or 8th year 7th month July)

(? ... and his year is ...) 9th (9th month Sept)

(? ...), 28 years. His clan is Dulo, and his year is Hare 8th? (4th year 8th month Aug)

Sevar, 15 years. His clan is Dulo, and his year is Sheep 6th (8th year 6th month June)

Kormisos, 17 years. His clan is Vokil, and his year is Bull 9th (2nd year 9th month Sept)

This prince changed clan Dulo, to (clan called) Vihtun

Vineh, 7 years. His clan is Ukil, and he has (his year) Bull 1st (2nd year 1st month Jan)

Telets, 3 years. His clan is Ugain, and his year is Mouse (or Dragon?) 6th (3rd year 6th month June)

He too was instead of another (rightful ruler)

Umor, 40 days. His clan is Ukil, and his year is Snake 4th (6th year 4th month Apr)