Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Name and Ethnic Index · Literature|
Page numbers, where shown, indicate pages in the book publication. The offered translation of the printed edition contains typos and misspellings, for which I apologize and intend to correct them with time. The contents of this chapter are build on the previous work of Prof. M.Z. Zakiev, recapitulating much of his now illustrious 1995 article, Who are Alans?, with the addition of the Origin of the Türks concept that cements the analysis into a clear and clinical picture.
Alans in all works are identified with Ases. Apparently, Alans are one of the As tribes. The most ancient Türkic primary ethnonym As is used as the general name, and the ethnonym Alan originally served as endoethnonym of one of the As tribes, but as its carriers, i.e. Alans, developed in the social, economic, and spiritual relation, and achieved eminence above the others, the ethnonym Alan started to be also accepted by the other tribes subordinated to the Alans.
Some scientists a priori list Alans, as the Scythians and Sarmatians, to be Persian-lingual peoples. Since Vs. Miller so do almost all the supporters of the Alano-Ossetian concept. Not troubling himself with an analysis of the linguistical, archeological, and ethnological data, V.A.Kuznetsov automatically accepts the views of other scientists and rates the Alans as certainly Persian-lingual. And from this viewpoint in his book "Sketches for the history of the Alans" (Vladikavkaz, 2nd print., appended, 1992) he recreates, on the basis of the medieval written sources and the overview of the accumulated archeological materials, the basic features of the historical development of the North Caucasian Alania down to its crush in the 13th century as a result of the Tataro-Mongolian invasion. The book from the historical viewpoint is rather useful and necessary, but based on it it is impossible to conduct a research of the ethnic roots of the Alans.
In another work written for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, V.A.Kuznetsov also a priori proceeds from the concept of the obligatory Persian-linguality, and even narrower, the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans. He writes: "Alans (Lat. Alan), their endoethnonym is Irons, in the Byzantian sources they are Alans, in Georgian it is Osy, in Russian it is Yases, they are numerous Persian-lingual tribes who separated in the last century BC from semi-nomadic environment of the Sarmatian population of the Northern Caspian, Don and N. Caucasia and settled in the 1st century AD (according to the Roman and Byzantian writers) in the Azov and N. Caucasia, from where they made devastating campaigns to Crimea, Azov and N. Caucasia, Asia Minor, Media. The basis for the economy of the Alans of that time was cattle breeding...".
Further the author describes that in the Central N. Caucasia was formed their association which was called Alania.
In the 8th-9th centuries Alania was part of the Khazar Kaganate. At the transition between the 9th-10th centuries the Alans form an early feudal state. In the 10th century Alans play a significant role in the external connections of the Khazaria with the Byzantium, from where the Christianity penetrate into Alania.
Here the V.A. Kuznetsov’s information about Alans is stated basically adequately, except that in the first part of the first sentence it does not at all correspond to the reality: it is clear that the Alans (Ases) never called themselves Irons, Irons is a self-name of the Ossetians only (and only of one of their sub-tribe, the other sub-tribe has an endoethnonym Digors, and their language differs from that of the Irons - Translator's Note). Hence, V.A. Kuznetsov, like all other supporters of the Alano-Ossetian concept, begins the statement with a falsification, with a priory equating of the Alans with the Ossetians. Without that, the recognition of the Alans-Ases as Ossetian-linguality is simply impossible.
52. What was the original base for the opinion of the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans/Ases?
Here we meet with several "incontestable" facts "proving" the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans.
As is known, the ancient historians repeatedly noted a full similarity in the language and clothing of the Alans and Scythians. Besides, according to the ancients, the Alans are one of the Sarmatian tribes. Because the Iranists ascribe Scythians and Sarmatians as Ossetian-lingual, in their opinion Alans also should be recognized as certainly Ossetian-lingual.
As we noted above, the theory about the Persian-linguality of the Scythians and Sarmatians has arose and is propped by the tendentious etymologization of the Scythian and Sarmatian words, found in the sources, by the means of the exclusively Indo-Persian languages. That was the value of such research we already have seen. On the basis of the linguistic, religious - mythological, archeological, and written source studies it was proved that the Scythians and Sarmatians were multilingual, but among them the main place was occupied by the Türkic-speaking, and to some extent the Slavic-lingual and Finno-Ugrian lingual tribes and nations. As to the Persian-lingual Ossetians, among the Scythians and Sarmatian they could be found with super difficulties, most likely it is plainly impossible.
Thus, the message of the ancients about the identity of the Scythian, Sarmatian and Alanian languages is not the basis for a recognition of the Alans as Persian-lingual. From the results of the research by many scientists, the Alans, like their ancestors, Sarmatians and Scythians, were basically Türkic-speaking, i.e. the ancestors of the Türks.
53. Do the text of the Zelenchuk epitaph and "John Tsets' " phrase confirm the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans?
The 1949 monograph of V.I.Abaev "Ossetian language and folklore" confirms the hypothesis about the Persian-linguality of the Alans, in addition to the Scythî-Ossetian etymology, by the:
1) text of the Zelenchuk epitaph, carved in the 11 c., and
2) phrases in the Alanian language given by the Byzantine writer Ioan Tsets (1110 - 1180).
The Zelenchuk epigraphic, written in Greek letters, for the first time was deciphered on the basis of Ossetian language by Vs.F.Miller in the end of the 19th c. His translation reads: ‘Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar Bakatai son Anban Anbalan son of adolescent monument (?) (Adolescent Ira) (?)’. This translation by Vs.F.Miller is considered quite satisfactory, he makes only one slightly critical note: ‘Though the name Anbalan we cannot find at Ossetians, it sounds quite Ossetian ‘ [Miller Vs.F., 1893, 115]. V.I.Abaev makes an insignificant change in the text of the translation: ’Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar, Bakatar son Anbalan, Anbalan son Lag - their monument ‘ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 262].
Right in the very beginning of his reading Vs.F.Miller added 8 additional letters to the text of the Zelenchuk inscription, without which he would not find any Ossetian words whatsoever [Kafoev A.J., 1963, 13]. Following him, all supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, reading the Zelenchuk inscription, always resorted to various manipulations with the letters and words of the inscription [Miziev I.M., 1986, 111-116]. It should be noted that even after the deliberate modifications, the text of the Zelenchuk inscription in the Ossetian language remains nothing more than only a senseless set of personal names, but in Karachaevo-Balkarian language it is read precisely and clearly. The words there, certainly, are Türkic. For example, yurt is ‘native land’, Yabgu is ‘governor’, yiyiyp is ‘gathered’, ti is ‘speak’, zyl is ‘year ‘, itiner is ‘aspire’, bülünep is ‘separated’, etc. [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993].
In 1990 F.S.Fattahov, completing a critical analysis of the available interpretations of the Zelenchuk epitaph, comes to a conclusion, that text of this epitaph is freely read on the basis of the Türkic language. The translation from the Türkic language says: "Jesus Christ. Name Nikola. If had grown, it would not be (better) to protect leading yurt. From the yurt of Tarbakatay the Alan (his) child should have made a sovereign Khan. Year of the Horse." [Fattahov F.S., 1990, 43-55]. Thus, the Alanian epigraphic found on the lands of the Karachayans and written in the 11th century, is more surely deciphered with the help of the language of the Karachayan ancestors. Hence, the Zelenchuk epigraphic cannot serve as the proof of the Persian-linguality of the Alans.
As to the Alanian phrase of the Byzantinian writer Ioan Tsets (1110-1180), kept in the Vatican library in Rome, its deciphering was attempted with the help of the Ossetian language, with various manipulations of the text: ‘corrected’, and rearranged, and even added letters. In the translation of V.I.Abaev the translation of Ioan Tsets sounds thus: ‘Good day, my Master, Queen, where from came you? Aren’t you ashamed, my Lady?’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 245].
A question rises immediately, is such reference to a Lady, a Queen, possible? Apparently, not. The Tsets' phrase has such common Türkic words as khos~khosh ‘good, bye’, khotn ‘madam’, kordin ‘saw’, kaitarif ‘returned ‘, oüngnge - the idiom meaning in the Balkarian ‘how could it be?’ [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 102-103].
The Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets was also deciphered by F.Sh.Fattakhov, it was shown that it is a Türkic text: ‘Tabagach - mes ele kany kerdets [...] yurnetsen kinya~e mes ele. Kaiter ony [- -] eige’ or ‘Pot hook - copper handle where did you see (?) [...] Should send a smaller (a small) handle. Bring it [- -] home’. [Fattakhov Ô., 1992].
Thus, Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets unequivocally speaks about the Türkic linguality of Alans.
54. Were the Yases - Hungarian Alans Ossetian-lingual as asserted by Ü.Nemeth?
In the opinion of the supporters of the Alano-Osetian concept, ostensibly exist another incontestable proof of the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans-Ases, the book of the Hungarian scientist Ü.Nemeth "Listing of words in the language of Yases, the Hungarian Alans", published in 1959 in Berlin in German, translated by V.I.Abaev to Russian and published as a separate book in the 1960 in Ordjonikidze (Russian 19th c. N. Caucasian colonial outpost Vladikavkaz, renamed Ordjonikidze in Stalinist times - Translator's Note).
All the logics of this book is built on aprioristic and unconditional recognition of the Ossetian-linguality of the Ases-Alans. Because the author, Ü.Nemeth, presents the Ases-Alans as necessarily Ossetian-lingual, so he attributes the accidentally found in 1957 in the state archive a list of words with Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Ases (Yases). All the dictionary transcription work and etymologization of its words is done with a passionate aspiration to certainly find in the list the Ossetian words, to attribute them to Ases (Yases), and to force the proof that they are Ossetian speaking. Therefore the dictionary awaits for impartial researchers. This is a task of the future, and we here are not concerned about it. Our question is: is it possible to recognize the Hungarian Yases as Ossetian speaking even with this book of Ü.Nemeth, and from that deduct if Ü.Nemeth acted correctly attributing the list of words with supposed Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Yases?
Let us listen to the author. He writes: “1. Until the 19 c. Yases in Hungary formed one administrative unit with the Cumans (Kipchaks, Russ. Polovets), both peoples usually carry a common name Yazs-Kunok, i.e. ‘Yases-Cumans’(or Yaso-Kumans, using the conventional grammatical form - Translator's Note). It can only be explained as a result of the old close links between the two peoples” [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 4]. This author's commendation leads to a point that Yases and Cumans among the Hungarians basically made a monolingual community, because they settled together, in the same territory, and carried a common ethnonym Yases-Cumans. Let us imagine, if Cumans and Yases spoke unlike languages, if they came to the Hungary at different times, would they have settled together and would they have carried a common ethnonym? Probably, not.
Further, Y.Nemeth continues: ‘Cumans came to Hungary in 1239, escaping from the invasion of the Mongols. It is therefore possible to think that Alans appeared in Hungary mainly in conjunction with the Cuman union. In its favor also speaks the coexistence of Cumans and Alans in the Northern Pontic, in the Caucasus and in Moldova’ [Ibis, 4]. We already know that in these regions Alans were Türkic speaking and consequently lived together with Cumans, moreover, Balkars and Karachais still call themselves Alans, and the Ossetians call Balkars Osens. We know well that the Itil Bulgars in another way are called Yases. The Hungarian scientist Erney informs that after a Svyatoslav victory over Bulgars in the 969, the Bulgarian Muslims resettled to Hungary, and they were called Yases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 105].
Let us continue the message of Ü.Nemeth. ‘There are seven districts in Hungary with a name Eszlar ~ Oszlar (from Aslar - ‘Ases’). It is believed that in these names is veiled the name of the Yases: As is the Türkic name for Alans, and lar is the Türkic plural suffix, so the Cumans called Yases Aslar. However it should be noticed that in comitate Somogy (south of lake Platten) the name Eszlar is witnessed in the 1229, i.e. before the arrival of the Cumans, and, in addition, it was in the form Azalar’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 4]. Nothing is left here to any suppositions, it is clear that the discourse is about the Ases, that they call themselves Aslar in Türkic. Hence, instead of the Ossetian, they surely spoke Türkic. Y.Nemeth himself writes that the plural affix lar is not the result of the Türkic-Cumanian language influence. We do not know any cases when any people apply their own ethnonym with a plural affix from another language.
Further, what the following message of Y.Nemeth relays:
‘Anywhere, where is the Cumanian population, we meet the Yas settlements’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 5]. If the Cumans and Yases were speaking unlike languages, would they have everywhere abutting settlements? Naturally, no.
Surprisingly, after these assertions, which should bring Y.Nemeth to the opinion of the ethnical and linguistical similarity or affinity of the Cumans and Yases, the author comes to an opposite conclusion that ‘the Cumans and Yases are of different origin. Cumans are a large Türkic people... and Yases are the people of the Iranian origin, a branch of the Alans, related to the Ossetians’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 6].
The list came to the storage from the archive of a Batiani family. ‘Date of January 12, 1422. Contents: judicial case of the widow of George Batiani against Ioan and Stephan Safar from Chev’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 7]. Except for a notation that settlement Chev is located in the vicinity of Yas settlement, there is no reasons for the supposition that this list of the words belongs to Yases, except for a deep belief by Y.Nemeth himself that the list, of supposedly Iranian with Ossetian-tilted words, should be attributed to the Alan-Yas language. The surname Batiani tells that he, apparently, was of a Caucasus-Ossetian origin, therefore the list of words has many Ossetian words. At the same time the list has plenty of the Türkic words. I.M.Miziev analyzed the list, found in Hungary, from that point of view [Miziev I.M., 1986, 117-118].
Thus, the postulation of Y.Nemeth that the list, containing Ossetian words, belongs to the Yases -Alans is more than disputable. The word list should now be impartially deciphered anew, instead of a prejudiced aspiration to certainly find there the Ossetian words.
55. With what peoples their contemporaries identified Alans?
It is a very important question. One thing is the opinion of the historians contemporary with Alans, and absolutely different are the attempts of modern scientists to explain the history in a certain way according to their agenda.
Looking at the vast so-called Scythî-Sarmatian territory, we see that the preceding peoples are frequently identified with the subsequent peoples. Thus, in the Assirian sources of the 7-th c. BC the Cimmerians are identified with Scythians, but the modern historians interpret it as if the ancient historians confused them by mistake. For example, M.N.Pogrebova, speaking about it, writes: ‘It is possible, Assyrians also confused them.’ [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 48]. Further, in later sources the Scythians are identified with the Sarmatians, the Sarmatians - with the Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, the Alans - with the Huns, Alans, and the Huns - with Türks (i.e. with Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Cumans, Kipchaks, Oguzes) etc.
Let’s present some testimonials about the Alans. The Roman historian of the 4-th c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well acquainted with the Alans, and who left the most complete description of them, wrote, that Alans ‘in everything are similar to Huns, but are a little bit softer in customs and way of life’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242]. The translator of the ‘History of the Judean war by Josephus Flavius’ (written in the 70ies AD) into the Old Russian language, translates the ethnonym Alans by the word Yas and, without a shadow of doubt, asserts that the ‘language of Yases is known as born from the Cuman kin’ [Meschersky N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Miller also gives this citation, where Alans-Yases are identified with Cumans-Türks, and he points out that the interpreter has replaced Scythians with Cumans, and Alans with Yases [Miller Vs., 1887, 40]. It is clear that this remark does not help Vs. Miller to identify Alans with Ossetians at all, on the contrary, it says that in the 11-th c. the interpreter realized very well that Cumans are descendents of Scythians, and that Alans are Yases.
Besides, it is necessary to remember that the ancient historians always described Alans next to the Huns, Khazars, Sabirs, Bulgars, i.e. with the Türkic speaking peoples.
The supporters of the Alano-Ossetian theory cite, to confirm of their correctness, the fact of the affinity of the Alans with the Aorses, moreover they advance the thesis that "The Alans ripened in the depths of the Aor confederation of the Sarmatian tribes" [Kuznetsov V.A., 1992, 19]. These scientists do not suspect, that the Aorses are Türks, and their statements cited here confirm pecisely not the Ossetian-linguality, but the Türkic-speaking of the Alans. Really, the ethnonym Aors is a Greek pronunciation of the Türkic ethnonym Aor, the last s is the Greek proper name indicator. The ethnonym Aor comes from the word Awar, which is usually written as Avar.
Manifestly, the supporters of the Alano-Ossetian theory recognize as correct only that part of the statements of the ancients, which recorded the linkage of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans, but the other part of the message, about the linkage of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Huns-Türks-Khazars-Bulgars etc. they ignore thoroughly. Hence, they approach the study of the ancient sources tendentiously and non-systematically. This is firstly. Secondly, as we saw above, their equating of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans is not the proof for the Ossetian-speaking of the Alans, for the Scythians and Sarmatians were not Ossetian-speaking.
In the official historical science the cases of equating the Scythians-Alans-Huns-Khazars-Türks usually are explained away by that the ancient historians ostensibly confused frequently these peoples. Actually, they could not have confused, for they were telling about the events they witnessed. To confuse intentionally, they did not have political directives then. On the contrary, these directives push some modern writers to interpret the ancient sources in their way, and "to correct" them. A close and objective study of the ancient writings make it incontestably clear that in so-called Scytho-Sarmatian regions both in the antiquity, and in the Middle Ages lived basically the same tribes. And now these territories are also occupied basically by the same peoples.
Alans have left an appreciable trace also in the Middle Itil region, there again they are identified with the Türks, and in particular with the Khazars. In this region are also the toponyms which go back to the ethnonym Alan. The Udmurts preserved their legends about ancient nations. They call their mythological hero Alan-Gasar (Alan-Khazar) and everything attributed to him they attributed to the Nugay people, i.e. to the Tatars who were also called Kuruk (Kuiirk, where ku is "white-faced", Iirk is a synonym of the ethnonym Biger "owner, rich" - M.Z.) (Kuruk/Kuiirk can also be "White Nomad", from ku and Yirk - Translator's Note)[Potanin G.N., 1884, 192]. Here, the identification of the Alans with Nugays-Tatars is prominent.
56. The Türkic-speaking of the Alans by application of some ethnonyms.
According to the settled in the majority of the official publications and textbooks standard a totally improbable events happened in the world: ostensibly from Asia to the Eastern Europe were constantly arriving new and new peoples; some of them in due course were dissolving among the other peoples of the Europe, the others were disappearing, even though the conditions of life there were better. And in Asia, where the conditions of life were worse than in Europe, new peoples were quickly procreated and closely monitored the Europe: as soon as some peoples started to disappear there, they would stream there. In some time this process was repeated. So, the Scythians, who appeared in the Eastern Europe, replaced Cimmerians there; have appeared the Sarmatians, and disappeared the Scythians, but among the Sarmatians multiplied the Alans; have appeared the Huns (ostensibly the first Türks), and the Alans have gradually vanished; have appeared Avars (Aors-Aorses), and the Huns evaporated, have appeared the Türks and disappeared Avars, have appeared Bulgars, and vanished Khazars, then gradually from Asia to Europe were coming Besenyos (Badjinaks - Translator's Note), Kypchaks, and Mongolo-Tatars, after which the arrival of the Türks from the Asia to Europe has ceased. Such scheme of a constant replenishing of the European population by the "nomads" streaming from Asia, to a reality conscientious scientist, cannot be seemed plausible, matching the reality.
As it was already stated above, the history knows migrations of the peoples. May be such migrations from the Asia to Europe exceeded those from the Europe to Asia. But migrated not the whole people, but its part, lead by an elite pretentious for the power. The remaining continued the historical traditions of their people, frequently already under a new ethnonym. And the newcomer did not appear in an empty place, and could not completely exterminate there the local population. What was happening? Both here and there was occurring assimilation and change of the ethnonyms. Therefore the ancient authors were right, when they recorded the affinity, and sometimes the similitude of the stepping to the proscenium peoples showing up one by one, under different ethnonyms. In the different periods of the history were dominant different tribes. A name of the tribe which occupied the dominant position was becoming a general ethnonym for the whole people, or even the whole large territory subordinated to that tribe. Therefore the same people gained with time different ethnonyms. In other words, in the vast territories called Scythians' and Sarmatians', in the antiquity lived the ancestors of basically the same peoples who also occupy these territories today. From this viewpoint, in the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans we first of all should search for the Türks, Slavs and Finno-Ugrs. The identification of the Scythians-Sarmatians with the Türkic tribes has also preserved today. For example, and in the antiquity, and also now the Türks, "Balkarians and Karachayans, call themselves by the ethnonym Alan, as, for example, the Adyges... call themselves Adyga. Georgians call themselves Sakartvelo, Ossetians call themselves Iron, Yakuts call themselves Saha, etc. Mengrels call Karachayans Alans, Ossetians call Balkarians Asias" [Habichev M.A., 1977, 75].
In this respect the statement expressed still in the 19th century by Vs. Miller about the identity of the historical Ases and the present Ossetians is hardly provable. Assuming that the Balkarians and Karachais should certainly be newcomers, and the Ossetians to be aboriginal, he wrote: "They (i.e. the Ossetians) call Balkarians (a newcomer tribe), who pushed the Ossetians out of these places, Ases (Asiag is the Balkarian, Asi is the country they occupied), with the ancient name preserved in the annals in the form of Yases. However, there is no doubt that it is not the Balkarians, who came to the present place rather late, but the Ossetians were the Yases of our annals; but the name was attached to the district and remained with it, despite of a change of the population. The A Chechen is called in the Ossetian Tsetsenag, an Ingush is called Mdkdl, a Nogay is called Nogaysag" [Miller Vs., 1886, 7]. There is a question why Ossetians call correctly the Chechens, and Ingushes, and Nogays, making a mistake only in relation to the Balkarians? Deciphering the mysterious mess of Vs. Miller, it turns out like this: the Ossetians initially themselves, and their territory called Asiag, and when the Ossetians napped, came the Balkarians and moved then sleeping to another territory, having occupied their former lands. The other day the Ossetians woke up and, because of the name of the land, started to call by their own ethnonym, Yases, not themselves as before, but the Balkarians, and started to call themselves Ironians, for they did not remember how they were called before. Every child would clearly see that in real life that does not and cannot happen.
Do not also save Vs. Miller his examples from the toponymy of the Caucasus resembling the Ossetian words. Nobody doubts that among the Caucasian toponyms are also the Ossetian, for they are living there, but at the same time there is a multitude of the Türkic names, estimated by the specialists as many more than Ossetian. Further Vs. Miller concludes: "There is a reason to think that the ancestors of the Ossetians constituted a part of the Caucasian Alans" [Ibid. 15]. At the same time he keeps silent that the Balkarians and Karachais call themselves by the ethnonym Alan, and the Mengrels call them Alans.
Generally, he is far from the solid opinion of the Alans' contemporaries that they were Türkic-speaking.
57. Ethnolinguistic nature of the Alans from the ethnonym Alan.
The name Alan is mentioned for the first time in the sources in the 1c. BC, but the versions of the name As are found much earlier.
It remains a puzzle why some Ases began then to be called Alans, why the sources known to us equate Ases and Alans.
Various points of view exist about the etymology of the word Alan, but none of them tries to deduce it from the word Alban. Meanwhile, such an attempt could be very fruitful, for the Alans lived in the Caucasian Albania, and until now is still not known who were the Albans. From the 1st c. BC to the 8th c. AD this people are frequently mentioned in many sources, its main population lived in the Caucasian Albania, with their territory abutting the Caspian Sea north of the river Kura. Albania approximately corresponds to the modern Shirvan (Republic Azerbaijan).In the Scythian and Sarmatian time in this region could have lived one of the ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, called Aluan (Aluank). As F.Mamedova notes, the Albanian self-consciousness of the inhabitants of these places is reflected in their self-name Aluuank from the 1-st c. BC to the 8 c. AD, within the limits of all of the Albania, and after the ‘fall of the Albanian Kingdom, as a fragmental phenomenon, both the ethnonym, and the Albanian self-consciousness is traceable in the 9-19 cc. in one part of the country - in Artsakh ‘ [Mamedova Farida, 1989, 109].
By the phonetic laws of the Türkic language the word aluank could have variations Alan, Alban, Alvan. The sound k, apparently, is a part of an affix of belonging -nyky (Aluinnyky - ‘the people belonging to Aluan’). The strongly reduced y is almost silent, therefore it dropped out very quickly, double nn in due course gives one n, thus comes a word aluank , where the sound k is further reduced. As to the sound u, it sounds as w, and w usually sounds as a zero sound, or b, or v. So, from Aluau~Alyuan were formed Alan, Alban,and Alvan. All of them were actively used. The form Alban in the Sakha (Yakut) means ‘resourceful, good looking, beautiful’. If this meaning was used in the word Alan, it proves the message of Ammianus Marcellinus that ‘almost all Alans are tall and have fair hair, beautiful face, eyesight is if not furious, still is fearsome’ [Ammianus Marcellinus, 1908, 241].
Thus, Alans in the Caucasus, evidently, were originally known under the ethnonym Aluan, which then received the forms Alan, Alban, Alvan. Probably, the Alans from the very beginning were carriers of their inherent language, and did not change it. Hence, if they, being an organic part of the Sarmatians, spoke the Türkic, they continued speaking that language also when they became known under the ethnonym Alans, and when they lost it.
58. Ethnolinguistic nature of the Alans from the ethnonym As/Yas.
The word As/Yas is the most ancient ethnonym of the Türks. Per the Assyrian and other ancient Eastern sources, the Ases (Azes) were known in the Near East in the 4th millennium BC, their ethnonym in the form of Ud is also found in other regions. "The name of Uds is traced from an extreme antiquity, namely from 3rd thousand BC, and they can be connected with the Caspian Udes" [Elnitsky L.A., 1977, 4]. From the usual sound transposition of the d-z in the Türkic languages is possible to conclude that the name Ud is a variation of the ethnonym Uz, which, unconditionally meant Türks, and now means a part of them, i.e. the Oguzes (ak-uz is the "white, noble Uzes"). The phonetic variations of the ethnonym Uz are well-known: Ud, Us, Os, Yos, Yas, Ash, Ish, etc.
According to the Chinese sources, in the 1st millennium BC the ancestors of the Türks had the ethnonym Asana~Asina~Ashina, which meaning in the Chinese is expressed by the word guychjun "noble clan" [Süetszun Chjen, 1992, 47]. The first part of this word is As, the second is ana~inè mother, clan", as a wholeit is: Asana - As "As clan, As mother".
In the ancient Türkic inscription monuments of the 8th century the Ases are recorded as the Türkic tribes. Many times They are mentioned next to the Türks, Kirghizes and presented as a branch of the Türks-Türgeshes [Bartold V.V., 1968, 204] and of the Kirghiz, in the valley of the river Chu [Bartold V.V., 1963, 492]. The eastern historians of the 10th-11th centuries, including M.Kashgarly, note the tribe Az Keshe "Az People" who, alongside with the Alans and Kasa (Kasogs), undoubtedly, belong to the Türkic tribes [Bartold V.V., 1973, 109]. Al Biruni, as a scientist, declares that the language of the Ases and Alans remind the languages of the Kwarezmians and Besenyos (Badjinaks) [Klyashtorny S.G., 1964, 174-175]. Here it is necessary to note, that the Kwarezmians, only from some words contained in the Arabian sources, was assigned the Persian language, just like Iranists levied this language on the Tochars, and Sogdians, and Thracians. Actually the Kwarezmians were mostly Türkic-speaking, and were in the Massagetan union of the tribes, which the ancients identified with the Huns. And, according to Al Biruni, the Khorezm language was close to the Besenyo's, which in turn, according to the translator of Joseph Flavius, reminded the Alano-Yas language.
Let's turn to the Rus' annals, where it is said that in the year 965 Svyatoslav went against the Kozars (Khazars - M.Z.), and also defeated Yases, and Kosogs. Here is an implication identifying the Khazars with the Yases. Besides, the orientalists, comparing this message with that of the eastern historian Ibn Haukal, assert, that the topic is the campaign of Svyatoslav in the Volga against the Khazars, Bulgars, Burtases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1887, 103]. If it is true, then the Bulgars and Burtases of the Volga region were also called Yases. As writes S.M.Shpilevsky, the Russian prince Andrey Bogoljubsky, who lived in the 12th century, the wife was a Bulgarian [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115]. And the historian V.N.Tatishchev calls this wife of the Prince "Yas Princess" and asserts, that the brother of the "Yas Princess" (i.e. brother-in-law of the Prince) Küchuk killed the Prince A.Bogoljubsky in 1175 [Tatishchev V.N., 1962, 375]. Küchuk is obviously a Türkic name (küchuk is "small" - Translator's Note). That the ethnonym As designated Türkic tribes also tells the presence of this word in the structure of many Türkic ethnonyms. So, in preparing for publication the works of V.V.Bartold, V.Romadin connects the ethnonym Kirgiz, based on the work "Badai at-tavarih" of the 7th century where the Kirgiz are called Ases, to the ethnic or geographical term Az, As or Uz, and notes that it consists of two words: kyryk and As (i.e. "forty Ases") [Bartold V.V., 1963, 485]. The base As (Yas, Az, Us, Uz) is, evidently, in the ethnonyms Burtas, (Burta-as) i.e. "Forest Ases" or "Ases engaged in wild-hive beekeeping", or borty-as~bardy-as, where the bardy also is a Türkic ethnonym, Yazgyr (Oguz tribes listed by M.Kashgarly), Yasyrs are Turkmen tribes [Kononov A.N., 1958, 92], Yazygs are Sarmatian tribe, Oguzes are "white, noble Uzes", Taulas (Tauly-As), i.e. "Mountain Ases", Suas are "Water Ases". The Maris, by an ancient tradition, called the Kazan Tatars, and a part of them continues to call them now, Suases. The ethnonym Suas was an endoethnonym of the ancestors Tatars [Chernyshev E.I., 1963, 135; Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 50-54].
Let’s pay a special attention to last two ethnonyms: Taulas and Suas. Like in the word Taulas (tu las), which is the name of one of the mountain areas in the Khazaria [Bartold V.V., 1973, 541, 544], and also, apparently, of its population, so in the word Suas the root As is applied together with Türkic determining words, which once again proves the Türkic speaking of the Ases.
The Perm Tatars, whose ancestors were directly connected with Biar (Bilyar) and Bulgars, before acceptance of the ethnonym Tatars, which at that time was a status rank, called themselves Ostyaks, which means ‘Ossian (Yasian) people’, for Ostyak comes from the word Ostyk ~ Oslyk. Ostyaks also participated in the formation of the Bashkirs, therefore the Perm and Western Siberian Tatars, and a part of the Bashkirs, call now too their Eastern neighbors Ostyaks -Ishtyaks- Ushtyaks. The Tatar historian of the end of the 18th -the beginning of the 19 cc. Yalchigul considered himself to be Bolgarlyk Ishtek. Even in the 18 c. the Perm Tatars, in their appeals, stated that their ancestors were called Ostyaks [Ramazanova D.B., 1983, 145]. Also interesting is the fact that the ancient settlement centers of the Perm Tatars, that later became district centers, were called Os and Kungur, these names coincide with ethnonym As and Kungur (i.e. Kanggyr - Kengeres, i.e Besenyos (Badjinaks)).
Thus, the word As, with all its phonetical variations, was applied very widely in the designation of the Türkic-speaking peoples, and parallel with the word er (ir-ar). Apparently, in the antiquity the Western peoples also used quite actively the ethnonym As as the name for the Eastern peoples. So, in the Scandinavian mythology the Ases was the name for the main group of the gods, and at the same time it was stated that Ases came from Asia, hinting to the identity of the words Ases and Asia [Myths of the peoples of the world, 1980, 120].
There is one curious stroke in the Iranists’ description of the Alanian history. After the deportation of the Karachais and Balkars from the Caucasus, the basically Türkic Nartovian epos that become common for all of them during the long centuries of the Karachais-Balkars coexistence with the Ossetians, was declared to be solely Ossetian, and on this ground the Ossetians were identified with the Alans. Actually, here again the door opens very simply: Balkars and Karachais call themselves Alans from the most ancient times until present, and this epos first of all tells about the Alans-Türks (i.e. Karachais-Balkars), and in the long years of the joint life the Ossetians acquired the Nartovian epos. (Since the Indians were deported and are gone now, the Pocahontas epos belongs to all of us now, Koreans and Irish and Jews, doesn't it? - Translator's Note)
§ 6. Close interaction of Alans with Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks.
Tracing the Alanian history, it is not too tough to notice that they most closely cooperated with Türks, at first with the Sarmatians and Sarmatian people, the Roxolans (in Türkish - Uraksy Alans, ‘Alans-farmers’), Siraks (i.e. Sary-ak people ‘white - yellow’, the ancestors of the Cumans), Aorses (Aor-Awar-Avars, -os is a Greek ending), Yazygs (Türks - Uzes). All historians recognize the close link between the Alanians and these peoples, only in the definition of the ethnolinguistic classification for these peoples do the opinions differ. The Iranists classify them as Iranian speaking, and the Türkologists - as the Türkic speaking.
Somewhat more difficult is the question of the Alano-Hunnish relations. We discussed above the unhistorical version about the Huns in general, disseminated in the historical science. Here it should be looked at the final part of that version, that stipulates that after the death of Atilla (453) the union of the Huns collapsed, they retreated to the N. Pontic. Gradually the Huns, who came from Asia, disappear as a people, though their name still lingers for a long time as the general name of the N. Pontic nomads [Big Soviet Encyclopedia. Gumilev L.N. Huns].
The question is: how had L.N.Gumilev established that Huns disappeared, while their ethnonym is found for a long time as the general name for the N. Pontic nomads? How does he know that the ethnonym Huns for a long time designated not the Huns, but the others?
Summarizing objectively all known historical data, it is easy to see that the Huns (Sön or Hun) initially were a non-distinguished Türkic-speaking tribe among the Türkic-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians. In the 1st century AD they started looming out. The Greek historians, marking their presence in Europe, did not mention their advent from the Asia by a single word.
Thus, Dionysius (the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd c. AD) notes that in the Northwestern side of the Caspian sea live Scythians, Uns, Caspians, Albanians, and Kaduses... [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 186]. As we were proving more than once, the Scythians were basically Türkic speaking, the Uns are Huns, with the sound h dropped, Caspians also are Türkic ‘People of Rocks’ (kas ‘rock’, pi~bi~bai ‘rich owner’), Albanians are Alans, Kaduses are Türkic Uzes~Uses among kath ‘rocks’.
Ptolemy (2 c. AD, B.3 Ch.5 - Translator’s note) writes that in the European Sarmatia ‘below Agathyrsi (i.e. Akatsirs~agach ers ‘forest people’- M.Z.) live Savari (Türkic Suvars - M.Z.), between Basternae and Rhoxolani (Uraksy Alans, i.e. ‘Alans-farmers’ - M.Z.) live Huns [Latyshev V.V., 1883, 231-232].
Philostogory, living in the end of the 4 c. (i.e., when, in the opinion of certain scientists, the Huns moved to the Eastern Europe), describing the Huns, does not mention a single word of their arrival from the Asia, and writes: ‘These Uns are probably the people who the ancients named Nevrs, they lived at Rhipean mountains (Don Ridge S. of Donets river, Mid-Europian Uplands N. of it - Translator’s note), from which come the waters of Tanaid’ [Latyshev V.V.,1893, 741].
Zosimus (2nd half of the 5 c.) suggests that Huns are Royal Scythians [Ibis, 800]. The Imperial Scythians were the ancestors of the Türkic-speaking peoples, - asserts P.I.Karalkin [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].
Thus, among the tribes called Scythians and Sarmatians, at the very beginning of our era, the Huns, mentioned in the Assyrian and other Eastern sources among the tribes living in the 3rd millennium BC, make themselves known. In the 4-th c. in a fight for a domination in the Northern Caucasus they defeated the Alanian power, and together with them revolted against the colonial policy of the Roman empire, at first in Cappadocia, then in the western part of the empire, where also appeared the new Gothic colonizers. Naturally, neither the Huns, nor the Alans, migrated to the West as a people, as is imagined by the supporters of the ‘Great Migration Of Peoples’ concept, it was the Hunnish-Alanian army that penetrated deep into the West. The main body of the Hunnish and Alanian peoples remained in the same old places of their habitation.
In the end of the 4 c. the Huns, together with the Alans, fell on the Goths, who were wanting to settle in the Northern Pontic. The main historian of the Huns and Alans of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus, frequently equated them, for ethnically they were very close. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus not only emphasized that precisely the assistance of Alans helped Huns, but also quite often called the attackers "Alans" ’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 113].
After the death of Attila (453), the Hunnish union gradually disintegrated, and the Huns as a ruling power do not appear any more, they fused with the Türkic Alans and Khazars, while keeping their ethnonym Hun (Sen).
In the Gaul the Alans entered into a close contact with the Vandals (Eastern Germans), together they devastated the Gaul, and in the 409 they settled in Spain, where the Alans received the middle part of the Lusitania (later - Portugal) and Cartagena. However, in the 416 the Vestgoths entered the Spain and defeated the Alans. In the May of the 429 the Vandal King Geizerix together with the subordinated Alans went to Africa, and, defeating the Roman armies, created a new Vandal and Alan state. As the result the Alanian troops dissolved among the Vandals and the local population. But in the Northern Pontic and in the Caucasus the Huns and Alans continued to cooperate closely and play an independent role.
60. Ethnic composition of the Alans/Ases from their close mutual relations with Khazars and Kypchaks.
Following the disintegration of the Hunnish empire, in the decentralized period, In N. Pontic various tribes and peoples tried to become the ruling group, therefore in the Byzantian sources frequently appear ethnonyms: Akathirs, Barsils, Saragurs, Savirs, Avars, Utigurs, Kutigurs, Bolgars, Khazars. All these ethnonyms belong to the Türkic populations. The Barsils are the inhabitants of the Berselia (Berzilia), which in many sources is considered as the country of the Alans. Here is an obvious identification of Alans with Barsils ~ Bersuls, deemed related to Khazars [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 117]. More than that, the Khazars also came from Berzilia. So, Theophanus writes in 679-680: ‘From the depths of Berzilia, the first Sarmatia, came the great people Khazars and began to dominate all the land on that side down to the Pontic Sea’ [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 61].
From the 5 c. among the Caucasian Alans, i.e. the numerous Türkic peoples, also began to make themselves known the other tribes: Khazars, Bulgars, Kipchaks etc. After the brilliant performance of the Türkic peoples, led by the Huns, against the colonial policy of the Goths and the Romans, the Huns ceased to be ruling, and the Alans and Khazars took their place, competing on the political arena up to the 10-th c. ‘From the 5-th c. the push of the Khazar Khaganate grows, establishing control over the Alans’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118]. In the 8 c., at the time of the Alanian expansion, the Alans once again proved that they supported Khazars. ‘The 10-th c. marks a turn. Now the Khazars had to recognize their former vassals with the following words: ‘The Alanian Kingdom is stronger and tougher than all other peoples around us’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118-119].
In the 11-th c. other nations begin to raise in the Northern Caucasus, Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets), who at once joined with the Alans, and established peaceful and loving relations [Djanashvili M., 1897, 36]. In this area the Alans, together with the Kipchaks, adopted Christianity.
In the 1222 Alans and Kipchaks come out together against the Mongolo-Tatars. Seeing that they together represent an undefeatable force, the Mongolo-Tatars used a trick. ‘Seeing a danger, the leader of the Chengizkanids (Subetai - Translator’s note)... sent gifts to the Kipchaks and ordered to tell them, that they, being the same kin as the Mongols (i.e. the Tatar component of the Mongol army - Translator’s note), should not rise against their brothers and be friends with Alans, who are entirely of another lineage’ [Karamzin N.M., 1988, 142]. Here the Mongolo-Tatars figured, apparently, that their army at that time consisted primarily of the Kipchak Türks of the Central Asia, therefore they addressed Kipchaks as kins, and the Alans of the Caucasus were partially Kipchaks (ancestors of Karachai-Balkars), and partially Oguzes (ancestors of Azerbaijanis -the inhabitants of the Caucasian Albania, Alania).
It is known that soon all Kipchak steppes passed into the hands of Mongolo-Tatars. The Volga Bulgaria, the main component of whose population was called Yases, subordinated to the Mongolo-Tatars in 1236, and the Alans - Yases of the Northern Caucasus in 1238.
Thus, Alans made their celebrated military and political destiny hand-to-hand with their Türkic kins: Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. From the 13 c. the Alans-Yases ceased to be ruling among the other Türkic people. But it does not mean at all that they disappeared physically, they lived among other Türkic people and gradually entered into their ethnicity, accepting their ethnonyms. Such a strong, scattered along all Eurasia people as Alans-Yases, could also participate in forming the Ossetian people, but they cannot be equated to the Iranian speaking Ossetians by a single trait.
If the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were Ossetian speaking, all Eurasia should have Ossetian toponyms. They do not exist, unless artificially (quasi-scientifically) produced. Thus, in all their attributes the Alans were Türkic, and participated in the formation of the many Türkic (and not only the Türkic - Translator’s note) peoples.
End of Part 1 "Origin of the Türks"
61. Main results
The first part of the book is disclosing the ethnic roots of the Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples who before the creation of the Türkic Kaganate were not called Türks, but under various ethnonyms lived in various regions of Eurasia for many thousand years before our era, and those Türks who during the First and the Second Türkic Kaganates received a common ethnonym Türk.
The first chapter, called "Traditional historical science about the ancient ethnic history of the Türks", criticized the statements of traditsionalist researchers according to which the Türks were ostensibly un-historical, youngish peoples, and did not have experience in creation of true states. Some of them, without musing, oppose a study of the ancient history of the Türks. Meanwhile, without a knowledge of an adequate ancient history, is impossible to value correctly the modern condition of the societies in the countries of the Türkic world, and discuss the prospects of the development of the Türkic peoples.
Impossible to agree with the congealed nowadays point of view according to which the Türks were ostensibly only nomads. From all sources should be understood that nomadism and settled way of life are not ethnical attributes, but the geographical specifics of the people. Among the Türks were both the settled farmers, and the nomad cattlemen, and the metallurgist smiths, and writers-poets, and real masters of the jeweller art. The Türks created their original civilization long before our era.
Contrary to the statements of the historians-traditionalists, the Türks were not inclined to constant resettlements. The arrival from time to time of the new ethnonyms among the Türkic-speaking peoples cannot be explained only by the arrival of their carriers from somewhere. In the extensive Türkic space lived various Türkic tribes with various ethnonyms. Among them a prevailing position was occupied by one today, another tomorrow. The ethnonym of the dominating tribe was gradually accepted by all subordinated tribes as their common name. In due course, the titular position passed to another, previously unknown tribe. Its ethnonym, unknown previously to the other tribes and neighbors, was spreading among all the tribes subordinated to it. So in the historical arena emerged a new Türkic ethnonym, which designated not necessarily a newcomer, but almost always a local, native tribe.
Does not also reflect the reality a traditional assertion according to which the Türks were ostensibly only Mongoloids, and migrating to different regions, they were spreading the Türkic language to the non-Mongoloids; ostensibly thus later appeared the non-Mongoloid Türks.
Objections raise also the concept that the "nomad" Türks ostensibly very easily and without obstructions migrated both to the Eastern Europe, and to the Asia Minor, Near East and Middle Asia, as though in those regions there was nobody to fend off the Türkic invasions.
offers new hypotheses about the ancestral home of the Türks, but the question
about the place of the primary formation of the Türks remains open, like also
stands dim this question in the Indo-Europeistics.
The second chapter is devoted to definition of the main ways to detect the ethnic roots of the Türks. Here, first of all, it raised attention for a need for each scientist, who is dealing with the ethnogenesis problems of the peoples, to have thoroughly analysed every possible primary sources: linguistic, mythological, folklore, written, archeological, ethnological, artistic, paleogeography, paleoclimatology, paleogeology, paleozoology. The conclusions of these analyses should then be synthesized and mutually coordinated. Only confirmed by all sources an ethnogenetic concept can be considered to be adequate, matching the reality. The selection of the primary sources should be very careful. The historical works written later, even though on the basis of the primary sources, cannot be considered as primary sources. Unfortunately, the scientific principles of the historical research are not always observed. As a result of lopsided, and sometimes also of the politicized research emerge unhistorical concepts, and even worse, they firm up into axioms. We find these facts today in the field of the definition of ethnogenesis of the Türkic peoples.
To define the traces of the ancient ethnic roots of the peoples a special value has a study of the ethnonyms, which can be successfully applied in the independent branch of science, the ethnonymics. Therefore we tried to give here an introduction to the Türkic ethnonymics.
The third chapter criticizes the point of view of the traditional Türcology that limits the ancient Türkic areas to only the Altai, Baikal and partially Central Asia, to the other regions the Türks ostensibly moved only in the 3rd-4th centuries AD. The results of the study convinced us that the most ancient Türkic-speaking area is Near East reaching the Asia Minor and S. Caucasia. In the 4th-3rd millennia BC there lived and even created state formations the Türkic-speaking peoples Subar/Suar/Sumer/Samar, Kumans, Turuks, Kangars, Gutis, Lulu, Kashgays, Ases, Ars/Arians (in Türkic "people, men, warrior).
The following ancient Türkic-speaking area should be deemed the Middle Asia, where still from the 3rd-2nd millennia BC and later lived, created states, and even created empires Huar-Ases (Suar-Ases)> Horesmians, Sakas, Daks, Sogdy (Sak-dy>Sog-dy), Süns (Huns), Bolgars, Ars> <Arians), Pardy (Parthians), Kusans (Ku-Süns "White Süns"), who in the traditional historical science are considered to be Iranian-lingual. In this book are given the arguments proving them to be Türkic-speaking. Another matter is that all these Türkic-speaking peoples for a long time lived in the environment of the Iranian Ahemenid State, and from the 4th century BC they lived in the environment of the Macedonian Greco-Persian Seleukid State. In the 3rd century BC the rule in that territory passed to the Türkic-speaking Pards (Parthians) where, apparently, functioned a Türco-Persian bilinguality. In the 3rd century AD to change the Pardy's (Parthians) state "came the Sasanid state that continued an eternal struggle against the Rome, and later against its successor in the East, the Byzantium" [Diyakonov M.M., 1961, 5].
Of a special interest for us are the regions of the Black Sea, Caucasus, Ural-Itil and Western Siberia, which created in antiquity an extensive Türkic-speaking area.
Further we turn the attention of the readers to the fact that both in the Central and Middle Asia the Süns/Huns and their divisions Syanbi, Usuns, Tabgaches, Jujans and Ephtalites formed an extensive ancient Türkic-speaking area.
Some peripheral small Türkic-speaking areas were also in the Western Europe (Etruscs, Basques), but as a result of assimilation among the European peoples these Türks gradually disappeared.
The fourth chapter of the book is devoted to the problems of the Scythian-Sarmatian ethnical roots of the Türks. It is a widespread knowledge that the ancient Greeks applied the ethnonym Scyth in politico-geographical generalized sense, and therefore the Greeks took note of their multi-linguality. Despite of that, the Indo-Iranists, purposefully picking from the Scythian written monuments the Iranian-lingual words, try to present the language of the Scythians as an uniform language of the Iranian group, and some of them are vainly proving that the ancient Iranian language of Scythians is ostensibly the language of the Osset's ancestors.
We believe that among the Scythians a main (major) place occupied the Türks. The ethnonym Skydy (Skd <Sakady) is of a Türkic origin.
The fifth chapter of the book analyses the historical facts known from the ancient sources, which prove the Türkic-speaking of the Alans-Ases in general, and of the Caucasian Alans-Ases in particular. Here are given the reasons which reject the assertion of the Iranists about the Osetino-linguality of the Alans/Ases.
In general, is transpiring a
historical continuity in the development of the Türks, which starts from the
times of connections between the Türks and the ancestors of the American
Indians, who migrated 20-30 thousand years ago from the Eurasia to the American
continent, and up our times.
In this book we tried to carry out a study of the ethnic roots of the Türks from the most ancient times to the 5th century AD, when to the historical arena stepped out the Huns and Türks proper. From that time the ethnic roots of the Türks are studied in detail, and therefore this period we have not included in the sphere of our special research. But it should be remembered that without a knowledge of the Pre-Türkic and Türkic history itself it would be impossible to describe the ethnic history of any modern Türkic-speaking people.
The Türks lived, naturally, still long before our era, but in the 6th century they succeeded in the Eastern Turkestan to achieve an economic, political and spiritual superiority over other neighboring peoples. In the middle of the 6th century, the Türks created a First Türkic Kaganate. But by the beginning of the 7th century an interstine war "led to a final split of the empire into two states, Eastern Türkic Kaganate in the Mongolia, and Western Türkic Kaganate in the Middle Asia and Djungaria" [History of the East II, 1999, 63]. (See map from the book "History of the East. II"). The influence of the Türkic Kaganate spread in the last quarter of the 6th century from the Manchuria to the Crimea, from the upper course of Yenisei to the upper course of Cheyhun (Amu Darya). "Thus, the Türkic Kagans became the founders of the first Euroasian empire" [History of the East. II, 1999, 61].
But by the fortieth of the 7th century both the Eastern Türkic, and the Western Türkic Kaganates came into decline. Only in the last quarter of the 7th century from the Eastern TürkicKaganate Iltersh Kagan succeeded to revive the empire of the Türks, which functioned up to the middle of the 8th century.
From then on begins the history of separate Türkic-speaking peoples. That was already not a common Türkic ethnogenesis.
The common Türkic ethnogenesis, the basic problems of which we tried to interpret anew, born by the results of the analysis of various primary sources, will be a departing point in the ethno-genetic studies of all modern Türkic-speaking peoples. And without a study of the deep ethnic roots is difficult to define the contemporary position of a among other peoples, and to contrive prospects for its development. It was still Winston Churchill who correctly noted: "The farther you can look back, the more you can see ahead".
|Origin of the Türks-Contents · Introduction · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Fifth chapter · ORIGIN OF TATARS|
|Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Name and Ethnic Index · Literature|
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
|© Zakiev M.Z., 2002|