19

4. Origin of the traditional historical science and its influence on non-Indo-European research.

We call a traditional science the Eurocentric historical science. The Eurocentrism is considered to be a kind of ethnocentrism. "Arisen in close borders of the feudal Europe, it spread when the European peoples, who outstripped the rest of the mankind in the scientific and technical level, came onto a stage of the global progress" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 19]. In humanitarian sphere it arose during study the problems of the history and of the modern condition of the European, and, wider, Indo-European peoples. The European scientists study the problems of the European peoples, naturally, had on the foreground their problems, and the problems of other peoples were secondary for them. So, naturally, Eurocentrism grew  and  gradually reinforced its positions in the historical science.

Eurocentrism is not a science, but an ideology of the Europeans, and wider of the Indo-Europeans, who in the consideration of the historical questions act first of all out of the Europeans" and Indo-Europeans" interests, aiming to prove that Europe from the very beginning belonged only to the Europeans, that in many regions of Asia originally lived only Indo-Europeans, and the other, non-Indo-European peoples come to their modern territories much later. To the Eurocentrism "all the world is only a barbaric periphery of Europe" -  ominously said L.N.Gumilev [Gumilev L.N., 1993, 319].

The below classification briefly shows what languages (and hence, peoples) belong to the Indo-European family.

Indian or Indoarian group covers languages and peoples Hindi, Bihari, Bengali, Marathi, Singal, Sindhi, etc.

Iranian group includes Persians, Tadjiks, Pushtu, Beluchi, Tats, Talyshes, Ossetianss and many Pamirian languages.

Romance group includes French, Provencal, Spanish, Catalonian, Galician, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, Moldavian peoples and their languages.

Germanic group includes languages and peoples: English, German, Netherland, Luxembourg, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, etc.

Baltic group includes Lithuanian, Latvian languages and peoples.

Slavic group includes languages: Bulgarian (Danube), Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, etc.

In addition to these groups, the Indo-European family includes separate languages: Armenian, Albanian and Greek.

Study ancient, unknown yet languages, the Indo-European scientists without justification also attributed them to the Indo-European family. So, for example, to the Tochars living in the Central and Middle Asia in 1st century BC and in the beginning of our era, German scientists artificially assigned an Iranian language. A careful study need the ethnic composition and language of the Hetto-Luvians who lived in the 18th-13th centuries BC in the central and northern parts of the ancient Anatolia, Phrygians who lived in the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC in the northwestern part of the Asia Minor, Thracians who lived in the 6th-3rd centuries BC in the northeastern part of the Balkan peninsula and also in the northwestern part of the Asia Minor, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Kushans, Sogdians, Kwarezmians, Parthians, etc. who without sufficient foundation were attributed to the Indo-Europeans.

Between the non-Indo-European peoples of Eurasia then were still few  historians and linguists. The history and languages of these peoples remained insufficiently studied, and the scientific criticism of the groundless of these conclusions was almost absent. The young historians and linguists of the Finno-Ugrian and Türkic peoples, naturally, tried to understand and learn the teachings of the Indo-European scientists, moreover, they aspired to enrich these teachings with fresh materials from the history of their peoples. They did not suspect at all that their teachers, Indo-European scientists, can be mistaken.

But later in the 2nd half of the 19th century, as a result of the multifarious study of the sources, non-Indo-European scientists and some Indo-European scientists themselves understood that many of the former conclusions of the Indo-Europeans about ethnogenesis of other peoples do not match the reality. S.N.Artanovsky wrote about the crisis of Eurocentrism of that period: "In 2nd half of the 19th century A.I.Gercen could already note the emerging crisis of the bourgeois Eurocentrism... The crush of the Eurocentric thought, appearing in our century to the full extent, meant a transition to a picture of the world with the basis in the principle of unity of the world history and of the cultural development of mankind" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 7.

A negative view of the Eurocentric ideology  also gradually penetrated and into a more broad circle of scientists. From the views of the Eurocentrism first started to free the Finno-Ugrian scientists, especially the Hungarian and Finnish. Opposing the definitions of their ancestral home in the regions of Altai, Sayan mountains or in the Central Asia, they proved that the ancestral home of the Finno-Ugrians was in Europe, and namely, in the wooded zone of the Ural-Itil region. Consequently, with their ancestral home they "intruded the Europe" which, in the opinion of the supporters of the Eurocentrism, should have belonged only to the ancient Indo-European peoples.

 Türkologists for a long time carried on, and many still continue following some myths of the traditional Eurocentrism. According to one of them, the ancestral home of the Türks was Altai, ostensibly only later they started spreading from there to the other regions of Eurasia, specifically in the 3rd century, during the period of the "Great Movement of Peoples".

Soon the historians of the Türkic peoples had shown the fallacy of another myth, which  was advocated by the most politicized partisans of the Eurocentrism, that the Türks were only nomads, and hence, could not properly support themselves, and therefore perpetually attacked the sedentary neighbors, plundered them, did not allow a quiet life. On these grounds came about the next myth about a "progressive" role of some Indo-European peoples in transferring Türkic peoples from nomadic to a settled way of life.

Meanwhile, the first objective research is giving facts proving the presence of the Türks in many regions of Eurasia long before our era, and rich ancient culture created by them.

5. Eurocentrism and a colonial policy. As was said above, the traditional Eurocentric science did not set out specially with a purpose to belittle the role of other peoples in the history. At the same time, among the scientists of this bias were national-patriots serving colonial policy. A part of them really labored to show the greatness of their nations, belittling the historical role of the natives in the colonies. The mentioned above S.N.Artanovsky  noted that European capitalism, after developing productive forces and sharply aggravating ethnic confrontations, created a base for a colonial policy and the theories of the "European superiority" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 19]. The national-patriotism of some Eurocentrist scientists in some places even developed into chauvinism in relation to others. These politicized Eurocentrists tried to prove that their colonial territories sometimes lived Indo-Europeans, and the peoples who are there now came there as nomads or as former conquerors.

It is known that there are two ways of absorbing the colonial territories. The first way is by keeping the local population and using their material resources, and the second way is by decimation of the local population and resettlement of the colonial territories by representatives of the colonial nation. The politics of the second way was especially inductive for the scientists to explain the ethnogenesis of the local peoples in the colonies by the expedient of the migratory theory.

So, the Türkology that arose  and  developed under a direct influence of the Eurocentrism, and agrees now also with the tendentious conclusions that the Türks ostensibly came to N.Pontic and Caucasus, Ural-Itil basin, Central Asia, Western Siberia only during or after the so-called "Great Movement of Peoples". In their opinion, prior to that there lived Indo-European, and more exactly Indo-Iranian peoples.

This spirit prevailed, for example, during the work of the October, 1977, Dushanbe international symposium on ethnic problems of the history of the Central Asia in antiquity (2nd millennium BC), under initiative of the Soviet-Indian commission on cooperation in the field of social studies, the International association for study of the cultures of the Central Asia, supported by the Academy of Sciences the USSR and UNESCO. The symposium  come to a conclusion: "In 2nd millennium BC Indo-Iranian peoples appeared in the territory from Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran and India down to border of China, where laid a basis for further social and economic development of this region and for the formation of peoples known from the historical testimony, belonging to the 1st millennium BC" [Ethnical problems..., 1981, 20]. In many reports of the symposium the talk was that the Central Asia in the 2nd millennium BC belonged entirely to the Indo-Iranians, before the 6th-7th centuries AD there were no trace of the Türkic-speaking peoples. From other works of the Eurocentric branch we learn that in the regions of the Ural-Itil region, Western Siberia, and N.Pontic the Türks appeared as nomads only in 6th-7th centuries and Türkicized the "local" strong, cultured Indo-Iranians. In the Caucasus and Asia Minor the Türks ostensibly appeared only in the 11th century and Türkicized the local Indo-European peoples.

The spread of the migratory theories, according to which many Türkic peoples were declared not aboriginal  in their territory, but newcomers, is explainable by different reasons. The Türkologist scientists accepted this theory partially because they followed the line about the existence of the center of civilization in the Indo-European world and its periphery. The politicians of these countries saw in it a justification for the colonial policy.

To create an objective ethnic history of the Türks, the study should not proceed from the theory of Eurocentrism or Indo-Eurocentrizm, but concentrate the attention on the problems of the original ethnic history of the Türkic peoples, comparing the received results with the conclusions of the Indo-European studies.

6. Were Türks "unhistorical"?

At the dawn of philosophical and historical sciences some scientists distinguished peoples ancient, more masterful, and peoples young, inexperienced. Then appeared progressive scientists, who opposed such a division. As a result formulated the doctrines which then received titles of polygenism and monogenism.

Polygenizm (Gr. poly "many", genesis "origin") doctrine considers human races as different type, having independent ancestors. Different races ostensibly correspond to different types of animals and descended from different primates in different places of the globe independently one from another. The polygenizm was used as a basis for various racist views about the biological and intellectual inequality of human races and peoples.

The supporters of the polygenetic thinking in the study of the ethnogenetical problems divided peoples into historical and unhistorical. The historical peoples, in their opinion, were more ancient, formed before the others, and brought their share to the history, they are more experienced also in creation and  maintenance of their state, they are talented, competent, capable, great. The unhistorical peoples ostensibly arose  and formed later than others, still don't have an experience to produce sufficient material goods, they had not yet brought their contribution to the history. Being flawed, they could not create their states, and lived only in the states created by the historical peoples. In the L.N.Gumilev's opinion, Eurocentrism rated non-European peoples as "unhistorical" or "retarded"  [Gumilev L.N., 1993, 23].

The reactionary doctrine of poligenism was opposed by the doctrine of monogenism by the progressive scientists.

Monogenism (Gr. monos "one, uniform", genesis "origin") doctrine about the unity of the origin of the mankind and consanguinity of the human races. "In monogenism, modern mankind represents a uniform species (Homo sapiens), and the human races are the intraspecies divisions formed as a result of settlement by the people of the modern type of different geographical zones of the globe. Monogenism proves to be true... first of all that all human races breed to produce completely fertile descendents" [Great Soviet Encyclopedia (BSE), 3rd rev., v. 16, 526].

The supporters of the monogenism in the study of the ethnogenetical problems oppose the division of races and peoples into historical and unhistorical.

As unhistorical, deficient peoples usually were considered the steppe peoples including the Türks. Against such statement L.N.Gumilev exclaimed: "There are no defective ethnoses!", he wrote: "... The time  has come to dot the "i" also in the question of "inferiority" of the steppe peoples and reject the bias of the Eurocentrism, according to which all the world is only a barbarous periphery of Europe" [Gumilev L.N., 1993, 319]. G.Lessing  said: "No people in the world is gifted with any ability better than the others", A.I.Gercen  noted: "there is no people in the history which could be considered chattel as there is no people deserving to be called elected elite" [Bowl of Wisdom, 30].

Thus monogenism, based on similarity of races and peoples of modern mankind by a complex of the major attributes, advocates that all peoples and their languages historically go back to a uniform parental language, a pra-source. From that point of view, there are no "only historical", and likewise there are no "only unhistorical" races and peoples. Therefore each people  has its own ethnic history going from the time immemorial, the history of emergence and formation which is worthy of a deep and complex study. Are mistaken those who begin the Türkic history from the period of appearance of the ethnonym Türk, i.e. from the 6th century AD, and limit the Bulgaro-Tatar history to the period of the Bulgarian state proper. I.G.Aliev, for example, suggests to begin the history of the Azerbaijan people from Middle Ages, and he subjects to severe criticism those scientists who try to recreate the history of this people from the more ancient period.  [Aliev I.G., 1988, 56-76].

Thus, all the peoples in the world, including Türks, belong to the "historical peoples", there are no "unhistorical" peoples. We have a full right to also study the ancient ethnic history of the Türks.

7. Traditional historical science about the ethnic roots of the Türks.

It was said  above that the word Türk is applied nowadays mainly with two meanings: in a narrow and a wide, common usage. Narrowly it is used as only the name for those tribes and peoples who had endoethnonym Türk. Having achieved a high social standing, they spread their ethnonym to their unilingual neighbors.

In a broad sense the word Türk designates, first, all modern Türkic-speaking peoples who initially had this name, and secondly, all Türkic-speaking peoples, even those whose ancestors lived long before the appearance and spread in the 6th century of the word Türk and had other ethnonyms.

In the traditional historical science while study the ethnic roots of the Türks this ethnonym is applied usually only in a narrow sense: the ethnic history of the Türks is studied from the time of appearance in the sources of the word Türk and formation in the 6th century of the first Türkic Kaganate.

From the so-called pre-Türkic period of the Türkic-speaking peoples the most studied are considered to be the Huns, the ethnic roots of which date from the 3rd century BC. The Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples of earlier period, and their ethnic roots in the traditional historical science, including also the Türkology, are not studied at all yet.

Even the so-called specifically Türkic period, in the L.N.Gumilev's words, was not studied systematically, and only "in passing and abbreviated, which allowed to bypass the difficulties of the source study, onomastical, ethnonymical and toponymical character" [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 6]. And in other works devoted to Türks was attempted documenting of only their military, political and social history. As to the ethnical history of the Türks, it has not been awarded attention at all. Meanwhile, only such studies could enable finding out the more ancient ethnic roots of the Türks.

By their ethnic ethnoses, the Türks were considered in some degree as descendants of the Huns, their ethnic links with other ancient peoples and tribes was not recognized. For example, in those regions where lived the Türks who created an extensive empire, earlier lived tribes and peoples carrying common ethnonyms Cymmer, Scythian, Sarmatian, Alans or As. In spite of the fact that in the presentation of the ancient historians these words were political and geographical terms for multi-lingual peoples, including the Türkic-speaking peoples, the modern traditional historical science considers them as the names of exclusively Iranian peoples, or even only the Ossetians. In the ancient peoples named by their neighbors by common ethnonyms Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan-As, the presence of the Türkic-speaking tribes is completely denied. The Türks were ostensibly formed in the Central Asia or in Altai, only in the 5th-6th centuries AD out of the remains of the Hunnish tribes, they created two empires, the First Türkic Kaganate, the Second Türkic Kaganate, and in the 8th-9th centuries they disappeared, just managing to transfer their language and ethnonym "into inheritance to many peoples who are not their descendants at all" [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 4].

Thus, in the traditional historical science the Türks are presented without ethnic predecessors, i.e. without roots, and without ethnic descendants. Hence, the ethnic roots of the Türks cannot be a subject of special study. Ostensibly it is good enough to investigate their military, political and social history.

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

In our opinion, the Türkic ethnic history should be studied starting from the most ancient times. In connection with this statement of purpose, the question of the so-called "ancietizing" of the ethnic history of peoples should be understood (The author refers here to the infamous Stalinist country-wide prohibition to address the history of the subjugated nations of the USSR beyond a proscribed limit - Translator's Note).

8. Is it worth to study the ancient ethnic history of the Türks?

The study of the ancient ethnic history was first started by the European scientists, and they succeeded in opening the versatile ethnic roots of their peoples, simultaneously showing an example to others how to investigate the ethnic roots of the people. Because originally there were no experts on ethnic history of other peoples, the European scientists sometimes went outside of the limits of their object of research, and in the process analyzed linguistically unfamiliar tribes and attributed them to the Indo-Europeans. Later Indo-Iranists took advantage of it. As was already said above, all the so-called Scythian, Sarmatian, Alanian tribes, the multi-linguality of which the ancient historians did not doubt, were attributed by them only to the Indo-Iranian family.

With the appearance of competent scientists also started appearing the works about the ancient ethnic history of the non-Indo-European peoples. They questioned the objectivity of the Indo-European and Indo-Iranian studies of the ethnic history. The Soviet ideology of "merging of the nations" declared the study of the ancient ethnic history irrelevant in general. Seemingly for this reason, in the traditional Soviet historical science began, as then was said, "a struggle" against "ancientizing" of the ethnic history of non-Indo-European peoples, including, along others, the Türkic-speakers.

Later, the Soviet policy against ancientizing of the history  took a more global character, also including those who were studying the ancient history of the Indo-Europeans. In collective work of the Institute of Oriental Studies "History of the Orient" in this respect was present a most generalized view of that time. Let's read a long citation: "The question "Which people, when, from whom, and how descended”, interests many people. Unfortunately, this interest is not always is a pure inquisitiveness or a natural respect for ancestors. Sometimes is a falsely understood patriotism, or calling things by their true names, just a chauvinism, induces some historians (especially dilettantes) to artificially "ancientize" the history of the people, naively believing that by this they "ennoble" it. The idea that the nobility of a person or a people depends on an antiquity of the descent, certainly this feudal prejudice in the 20th century is ridiculous, but not harmless. In fact behind it (frequently unintentional) is a racist and absolutely unscientific postulate according to which the people which organized their state before others and generally created  high culture, "are more talented" than those that achieved it later" [History of the Orient, 1999, 613].

Yes, really, if the historian base is the polygenism theory, he could use the conclusions of his ethnogenetic research in unscientific, racist purposes, proving the exclusiveness of his people in respect to the others. But we count that the supporters of monogenism, according to which all peoples and their languages historically go back to a single source and have equally deep ethnic roots, would pursue the ancient history of the peoples. Therefore nobody seriously took the global condemnation of works on ancient ethnic roots of peoples. Actually it  was directed not against the ancient history of Indo-European peoples, whose most ancient history is investigated rather completely, but against those researchers who just undertook the study of the ancient history of non-Indo-European peoples, and in particular the Türks.

Postulating the extremely weak level of studies for the ancient ethnic history of the Türkic peoples, we come to a conclusion that this task today is very actual and it has to be studied it from the monogenism point of view.

9. Were Türks nomads only?

The traditional historical science represents Türks only as nomads and opposes them to the sedentary agricultural peoples. To understand the question "could Türks be nomads only", the theory of a nomadism needs to be reviewed.

From the point of view of the traditional historical science, in the history the peoples are separated into cattlemen-nomads and settled farmers.

The nomad peoples live in a drought zone, and therefore have to do cattle breeding, and that occupation is impossible without a nomadic way of life. The nomads-cattlemen needed the craftsmen products, settled farmers' products, tools, decorations, etc. These things were not produced by the nomads, they were receiving them from townspeople, from sedentary peoples, or by exchange, trade, or, traditionally, by organization of destructive campaigns against agricultural civilizations.

Summarizing the results of a big discussion on nomadism, Nikolay Kradin underscores four types of nomadic frontier strategy: "To obtain needed agricultural and craft production, nomads used a few of frontier strategies which during the history of one society could change from one to another:

1) Strategy of attacks and robberies...;

2) Subjugation of agricultural society and taxing a tribute from it .., and also a control over the transcontinental silk trade;

3) Conquest of sedentiary-urban state, placement of garrisons in its territories, transition to a settled way of life and taxation of peasants in favor of new elite...;

4) Policy of alternation attacks and tribute extortion in relation to a larger society" [Kradin N., 1997, 18]. In a word, the nomads were considered as organizers of conquest of other's territories and other's wealth, "bums of the mankind".

Sorting out the essence,  in the theory of a nomadism is loaded with confusion. Firstly, cattle breeding is not an ethnic attribute of this or that people, it is a geographical concept. A tribe, people or their part, living in the dry regions not favorable for agriculture, but suitable for cattle breeding, will certainly engage in it. But it is absolutely not necessary that all of them become shepherds. Another part of the people would find an opportunity to engage in agriculture, and in crafts. For Huns, for example, were typical both agriculture and craft, and even mining and processing of metals. S.I.Rudenko, by the archeological materials, asserted, that "the doubtless proof of agriculture in the Hun country, and moreover of plough agriculture are the bull tongues, found in Ivolgin fortress and in other points of Transbaikalia" [Rudenko S.I., 1962, 29]. The same picture was observed also in other regions of Huns' dwelling. And generally, the cattle breeding that was a main occupation for nomads and semi-nomads, was combined, as a rule, with other kinds of occupations: agriculture, trade, hunting.

It should be noted that cattle breeding people, for safety, had to occupy limited territories. The Türkic cattlemen, for example, had a permanent summer camp (??yl?č) and winter quarters (kyshlau). Therefore all Türks can't be classes as nomads only.

If the Türkic nomads did not have an intelligent stratum, they would not have developed "runic" alphabet, gorgeous "animal style" arts, they could not had have created a system of aryks ("aryk" = Türkic borroving to Russian, irrigation channel, typical for Türkic fields, auls/kyshlaks - villages and cities - Translator's Note) for irrigation of bahcha ("bahcha" = Türkic borroving to Russian, melon and water-melon fields - Translator's Note) and agriculture.

In various regions of Eurasia the Türks created large states, their civilization. They lived not only in a dry steppe, but also in the regions with fine soil and suitable environment for agriculture. In these regions was impossible not to engage in settled agriculture. And the linguistic data proves that Türks had a whole system of Türkic terminology for agriculture, and cattle breeding, and craft, and metallurgy, and trade, etc.

The following words of L.R.Kyzlasov about Siberia can be applied to the Türks of other regions: "Lingering for a long time in our historical science notion that states with city type civilization in Siberia never existed, that east of Ural were only forest hunters and steppe nomadic cattlemen, should now be changed, as completely bankrupt" [Kyzlasov L.R., 1984, 162].

It is scarcely right the following from the "theory of nomadism" one-sided conclusion about robbing of other's territories as an exclusive occupation of the Türks, ostensibly only the nomads.

From the history we know that the Türkic civilization itself not once became a subject of destruction by the Chinese, Mongols, Greeks, Iranians, Romans, Byzantines, etc. Though, all attacks on the Türks and capture of their territories the traditional Türkology tries to explain only as reciprocal actions to the attacks of the Türks, as freeing the Türks of nomadism. It is clear that the mutual relations between tribes and peoples are established by diligence of both sides. The accusation in such mutual conquests and robberies only one side is futile.

10. Were Türks inclined to constant migrations?

The traditional historical science frequently repeats that Türks, being solely nomads, ostensibly were always inclined to constant migrations. And they are considered to be initiators of such mass migration called "Great Movement of Peoples". Even were statements that the Türks, called then Huns (their endoethnonym Sün or Hün), in the Urals have ostensibly mixed with Ugrians and then began to be called Gunns (The author here refers to a unique and peculiar practice of Russian colonial politics and science, still widely practiced today, of naming/renaming nations into divisions/subdivisions and out of existence - Translator's Note). Actually no replacement of the ethnonym Huns to Gunns happened. The words Khun, Sun, Gun, Hun are only dialectal pronunciations of the same word.

Further, in the traditionalists' opinion, Gunns, "inclined to migrations", at about 370 AD crossed Itil, subdued very strong sedentary Alans, and together with them in 375 fell on Goths, who lived in N.Pontic. Also it is difficult to believe in it. First, if Alans were, as the some people think, Iranian-lingual sedentary farmers, Gunns-nomads could not subdue them from the run and in 5 years make them their supporters to fall together upon the Goths. Most likely, in the N.Pontic then together with Türkic Alans, also lived Sünish tribes, and they together decided to free their lands from the Goths.

Further, in opinion of the partisans of the traditional historical science, hearing of the movement of Huns, all the peoples in the periphery of the the Roman empire, instead of organizing a defense from the Huns, for some reasons started to move from the periphery to the central regions of the the Roman empire, and that, as many are convinced, in last quarter of 4th century  took for the Rome a catastrophic character. Here too is a discrepancy. If the peoples in the peripheries of the Roman empire were not oppressed and exploited by the empire, they would organize a defense and protection of the empire against the approaching Huns, Alans and Goths. Huns and Alans not just moved in the Roman empire, they also presented their claims to it. The movement of peoples to the territory of the Roman empire was not a simple resettlement, it was an emancipating movement which ended with the fall of the empire, i.e. with what the liberation struggle of peoples should have come to in the end. In our opinion, in the story of the great movement of peoples was a substitution of categories, i.e.  an attempt to present the liberation struggle as a simple resettlement of the peoples.

The representatives of the traditional historical science did not limit to the statement of propensity of the Türkic peoples to migration, but also tried to reconstruct its order. It comes out that the Türks, who 30-20 thousand years ago influenced very strongly the language of the Eurasian ancestors, the American Indians, 5 thousand years ago influenced the language of Sumers, only in the 4th century AD conceived for some reason to move to the Eastern Europe, where ostensibly they did not step before. They came under a name of Huns and, approximately 100 years later, disappeared. And in the 5th century ostensibly came to Europe the Avar Türks, who also gradually disappeared. In the 6th century from Asia to Europe started to move the Türks proper. In the 7th century appeared Khazars, Bulgars; in the 8th century Besenyos started to disturb the Europe, in the 9th-11th centuries came Kypchaks, in the 13th century came Tatars.

It turns out that almost every 100-150 years big groups of the Türks, with their own ethnonyms, streamed to the Eastern Europe. Each of them disappears there in 100-150 years, while the conditions of life there where much better than in Altai or Siberia. And where the conditions of life were worse, they  procreated very quickly, like they were bred in an incubator, and they again streamed to the Eastern Europe to disappear there.

This scheme is absolutely unpersuasive. In reality, under various names the Türks lived long before our era in the Eastern, even in the Western Europe, in Asia Minor, Near East, Central Asia, Western Siberia. Their ethnic composition basically did not change, but as a result of occupation of the dominant position during different times by different Türkic peoples and tribes, their general name changed. It  was noted in the middle of 19th century by the Danish historiographer Peter Frederik Suhm. Investigating the origin of the Türkic peoples of the Eastern Europe and Asia Minor, P.F.Suhm  noted that the common name of the Türks "frequently changed when one people took over above another. The Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, Khazars, Utses or Komans, Tatars are common names which followed one after another" [Suhm P.F., 1886, "About Khazars", 15].

Let's turn the attention of the reader to one more circumstance.

The representatives of the traditional historical science frequently describe such cases when the Türks very easily abandon their habitual familiar places and leave, i.e. move to completely different regions with different geographical and climatic conditions. Realistically looking, it is easy to comprehend that migration and change of the landscape were typical for the period of initial spread of the peoples into regions, i.e. the period when people were not yet engaged in the productive work, but were hunters and collectors. When came the period of the productive work, the people and ethnoses wanted to live in the region where they were used to the landscape, adapted their production activity to the environment of the region, and were not interested in constant migration to the other regions with different environment. That also includes the cattlemen who were inclined to not leave their habitual places, but to coach in the already known region. As was said above, they were coming back in the winter to the winter quarters (kyshlau), and in the summer to the summer posts (jèylèü). But the military campaigns, capture of other's territories, creation of empires is completely another question.

11. Were the Türks only Mongoloids and givers of Türkic language to non-Mongoloids?

The supporters of the traditional historical science present Türks only as Mongoloids and from that deduct incorrect conclusions. For example, Altai or Central Asia usually is considered the ancestral home of the Türks. But some of them, finding in the most ancient layer of this region non-Mongoloid skulls, assert that ostensibly in these regions before the arrival there of the Türks also lived Indo-Europeans. It results in a paradoxical situation: the traditional historical science on one hand accords the Türkic ancestral home, and on another hand takes it away. As a result, because of labeling of the Türks as Mongoloids only, the Türks are left without a place of formation, as though they fell from outer space. In reality, the non-Mongoloid  skulls found by archeologists in the most ancient layers of Altai and Central Asia only prove that the Türks from the very beginning were both Mongoloids, and non-Mongoloids.

Among the modern Türkic-speaking peoples non-Mongoloids are in incomparable majority. From this fact the traditionalists deduct that Mongoloid nomad Türks, moving into the territory of the settled peoples, quite quickly Türkicized them linguistically, but did not have time to transfer to them their Mongoloidness. For confirmation of this postulate the authors of this idea had even concocted a justification: it appears that Türkic language is very easy to master.

So, in the opinion of the traditionalists, i.e. the supporters of the Eurocentrism, in the Kazakhstan, Western Siberia, Central Asia, Ural-Itil region, in Caucasus and N.Pontic lived only Iranian-lingual Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans-Ases, Kwarezmians, Sogdians, Parthians (Pardes), Tochars, Kushans, Usuns, but in the 4th c. here came the Türkic-speaking Huns, in the 6th century came Türks, and by the 7th century the local Iranian-lingual peoples were linguistically  assimilated. It comes out that the modern Türkic-speaking non-Mongoloid peoples of these regions are not successors of the ancient Hunno-Türks, but are descendants of the Indo-Europeans who changed their native language, under the influence of the Türks, to the Türkic. "Before the intrusion of the Huns' hordes into the steppe of N.Pontic and Caspian, in the Middle and Lower Volga region and in the steppes of Northern Caucasus undividedly dominated Indo-Europeans, the Sarmatian tribe, sounded the Iranian speech, - wrote Ya.A.Fedorov and G.S.Fedorov, and continue, - The movement of the Türkic-speaking tribes in the Huns' advance on the West, their partial settlement in the steppes, creation in the 6th century of the Türkic, and in the 7th century of the Khazar Kaganates put an end to the Sarmatian domination. The Türkic speech superseded Iranian and spread not only in the Azov-Caspian steppes, but also in Caucasus down to the foothills"  [Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov G.S., 1978, 6-7]. So, it turns out, appeared Bulgaro-Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Dobrudjian Tatars, Bashkirs, Nohays, Kumyks, Karachays and Balkars, all Türkic by language, but not Türkic by their anthropological type. Even the Turks, it turns out, appeared by forming as a result of Turkization by the Sekjuks of the local Indo-European tribes.

 In a serious consideration becomes clear rather fast the wrongness of such concept of the formation of many so-called non-Mongoloid Türks. The history has plenty of examples when newcomers, i.e. not just the immigrants, but even strong conquerors who created states on the conquered territory, assimilate among local peoples. For example, the German-speaking Francs conquered the territory of Gallo-Romans, in the 11th century created the state of Francs, but soon assimilated among the local Gallo-Romans, and as a result created local French people with the German newcomer's ethnonym Francs.

In the 7th century AD the Türkic-speaking Bulgars came to one of Danube regions where by that time the majority of the population were Slavic-speaking tribes, and created the Bulgarian Türkic state, but in a few generations they assimilated among Slavs. As a result was formed the Slavic-speaking Bulgarian people. Similar examples show, that not the natives, but the newcomers undergo assimilation. Therefore we can confidetly tell that newcoming nomad Türks could not so simply and entirely assimilate the local, especially cultured, tribes and peoples.

Türkization of the local population could be only in the event when the "newcomers" Türks were a significant majority of the population. Then they could transfer to the local minority not only the language, but also their anthropological type.

The idea that Türkic "nomads" had such an extraordinary force which allowed them to migrate freely to various regions, occupying prevailing positions there and transferring their language very quickly to the natives is also erroneous. Apparently, the actually numerous Türkic tribes under various ethnonym names, even before the period of productive work or in its very beginning, settled almost in all regions of Eurasia. Wherever they lived, they had close ethnical and economical contacts between themselves. Simultaneously, they always struggled among themselves for prevailing position. Out of numerous Türkic ethnoses one or the other occupied the prevailing position. The ethnonym of the winner, prevailing ethnos was extended to other Türks, and even to the non-Türkic peoples who were in the zone of their control, and that name was recorded in the written documents of that time. Later, the prevailing was another ethnos under another name, and that also was recorded in the documents. The modern scientists, upon founding a new ethnonym in sources, instead of discerning the succession linkages of local Türks, hastened to declare that new tribes, not connected with locals, had come.

12. Inhabitants of the Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Asia Minor before the "arrival" of the Türks.

As was already said above, the traditional Eurocentric historical science asserts that Türks originally lived only in the Altai and Central Asia, they were cattlemen nomads, had propensity to migration, have anthropologically consisted only of Mongoloids, from the 3rd-4th cc. AD started migrating to Central Asia and Asia Minor, Western Siberia, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Balkan peninsula, etc. A question is rising, who lived in these regions before the "arrival" of the Türks, why did allow the Türks to simply occupy their nice territories? Also should not be left without an answer another question: why Türks left their native land where they used to live, create material wealth and to engage in procreation? Could not they really adapt to the environment of the region, their ancestral home? Naturally, they were perfectly adapted to the environment of their region, otherwise they would not consolidate there as a nation.

Really, believing that Türks ostensibly came late as nomads to Central and Asia Minor, Western Siberia, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Balkans, etc. then  what peoples lived there before the "arrival" of the Türks, were they really so amorphous that they very quickly dissolved among the newcomer nomads. In the opinion of the traditionalists, these were Indo-Iranians and Finno-Ugrians. This view was illuminated in the school and university textbooks by which the historians - Türkologists were also trained. In their works they tried to enrich existing schemes with the new materials. So, F.Kh.Valeev based on the study of the art, A.Kh.Halikov based on the archeological materials, repeated and confirmed the adequacy of that point of view according to which in the Ural-Itil region before the arrival of the Türks lived Iranian-lingual Scythians-Sarmatians and Finno-Ugrians [Valeev F.Kh., Valeeva-Suleymanova G.F., 1987, 8; Halikov A.Kh., 1969]. The burials of the Ural-Itil region from the 6th-5th millenniums BC., A.Kh.Halikov completely ascribes to Finno-Ugrians. Even the so-called Ananian archeological culture of the 8th-3rd centuries BC he studies only as Finno-Ugrian, on the basis of that he concludes that in the Ural-Itil region only Finno-Ugrians were a native ethnos [Halikov A.Kh., 1969, 3], that solely they lived there prior to the beginning of our era [Ibid. 387]. Other historians the Finno-Ugrian territory limit to the wooded zone of the Ural-Itil region, the steppe zone is ascribed to the Iranian-lingual Scytho-Sarmatians. As was mentioned above, Ya.A.Fedorov and G.S.Fedorov, summarizing the ethnographical research of the Indo-Europeans, write that the Türks called Huns (Süns) in the 6th-7th cc. securely settled the Southeast of the European part of Russia, namely N.Pontic, Middle and Lower Itil region, the steppe regions of Caspian, Caucasus, "partly displaced, partly assimilated the Iranian-Sarmatians, Siraks, Aorses, and later Alans; but securing the language domination, the newcomers together with the Iranian ethnos absorbed the elements of its culture, and in the foothills also the elements of the culture of the indigenous tribes of Caucasus" [Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov G.S., 1978, 7].

Such statements can be appraised as single-sided, partly as erroneous. By the way, in the citation obviously does not meet the reality the authors' statement that newcomer nomads secured the language domination over the Iranian-lingual cultured settled Sarmatians and Alans. It is clear to everybody that without securing the economic, social and cultural domination of one people above another, it is impossible even to speak about the language domination. So the newcomer nomad Türks could not establish only language domination above the Iranian-lingual peoples. Most likely among the local Sarmatians and Alans the Türks were a majority, maybe the arrival of the Türks never happened, and these Sarmatians and the others, being the ancestors of the modern Türkic peoples, lived in the Eastern Europe long before our era.

The science  has convincing facts proving the presence of the Türkic-speaking tribes in Europe still in the 2nd-1st millenniums BC. So, in the 1st millennium BC in the northwestern part of the Apennine peninsula lived and had a prominent civilization Ethrusks, who later went through a period of loss of the Türkic speech among the Romance languages.

The Türkic toponymy, found plentifully in Europe, also tells that Türks lived there still before our era. So, the ancient Greeks borrowed Pontus (ponty), the name of Black sea, from the local Türks. In Türkic the word ponty comes from the root bun "broth, soup, meal" and an affix of possession -ty/-ly, as a whole bunty > ponty meaning "victual", i.e. "feeding, feeder".

Greeks in the 7th-6th centuries BC during their colonization of the coast of Pontus built cities of Phanagoria and Panticapaeum [Sevostianova O.I., 1972, 233]. Clearly, the colonizers expanded the former settlements or cities of the Türks, for Phanagoria was built  even before the Greek colonization by the Türks - Onogors (Hunogors), therefore it received the ethnonym of its owners - Onogor > Honogor > Phonogoria > Phanagoria. The city Panticapaeum stood on the Kerch strait and covered the way to the Pontus, therefore it was called a gate of Pontus, in Türkic: Pontikapa > Panticapaeum; later this city  received another Türkic name: Keresh, i.e. a way to Pontus, which phonetically  changed to Kerch (from Keresh > Kerch).

In the Western Europe the Türks - Kypchaks always were called Kun and Kum (from words gun and Kuman). The sources tell that in the northwest of Italy in the 6th century BC was an Etruscan city Kum.

Thus, the assertion of the traditional historical science that Türks came to the Eastern Europe only in 6th-7th centuries AD and before their "arrival" there lived only Iranian-lingual peoples, and in the Ural-Itil region were only Finno-Ugrian speaking tribes, does not correspond with the reality.

13. Where was the ancestral home of the Türks and when?

Indo-Europeists were the first who started to study the problems of ancestral homes. Studying the pra-lingual condition of the Indo-European languages, scientists concentrated their attention on the question of formation region of the parent language, and named this territory as an ancestral home. In spite of the fact that this question became a subject of careful research of several generations of Indo-Europeists, the location of the ancestral home of the Indo-European peoples remains an unsolved problem. Now the supporters of the monogenism, i.e. a single origin of all mankind, offer a new solution in the positioning of the ancestral home of Indo-Europeans. They recommend to consider the location of the possible ancestral home for the Nostratic languages, which include not only Indo-European, but also Uralo-Altaic, Semito-Hamitic, Kartvelian and Dravidian languages. In this connection the scientists adhering to the monogenetic views face a problem of locating the ancestral home of all mankind. There were attempts to define the area of the initial habitation of the separate groups of Indo-Europeans, but on these questions scientists also conduct discussions till now.

Following the example of the Indo-European scientists, the Türkologists and Uralo-Ataists also undertook attempts to locate the ancestral home of these groups and families of languages. The terms Ural languages and Altai languages come from the names of the potential regions of initial location of these peoples. The ancestral home for the Türks many scientists point to the Altai mountains (G.Klaprot, V.Tomashek, V.Shott, M.Kastren, G.Vamberi, N.Aristov, etc.). Some Türkologists consider the ancestral home of the Türks in the Central Asia or even Asia Minor, Southern Siberia or Baikal [Kafesoglu I., 1992, 107-108].

The Hungarian Türkologist Ü.Nemet in 1912-1914  developed his concept that the territory of formation of the Türks was not the Central Asia, but the territory located between Altai and Ural mountains, then he  transferred the ancestral home of the Türks to the Eastern Europe [Nemet Ü., 1963, 127-128].

Also studied the problem of localization of the ancestral home of the Türks Zaki Validi Togan . First he lists the Türkologists who took part in establishment of the initial place of formation of the Türks, and among them singles out the opinion of the Hungarian scientist Ü.Almasi and others, who considered that the ancestral home of the Türks should be in area of Tian-Shan mountains. Further he declares that he joins this opinion, but details it as follows: the ancestral home of the Türks is located in Central Asia, namely in the northwestern Tian-Shan to the Aral lake [Validi A.-Z., 1981, 9-10]. Zaki Validi Togan in his research showed the connection of the Türkic language with the languages of peoples of Asia Minor, Egypt, Sumer, Elam, etc., and argued that the Türkic language still in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC could have close connections with these languages only being formed in the Central Asia [Validi A.-Z., 1981, 10-17].

The Azerbaijan scientists also find the most ancient Türks (Subar, Gashgaj, Turuk, Kangar, Kuman, Saga, etc.) in the Near East [Firidun Agasyoglu, 2000, 139].

In the last years appeared another serious research determining the ancestral home of the Türks in the Ural-Itil region. K.T.Laipanov  and I.M.Miziev in the book "Origin of the Türkic peoples" (Cherkessk, 1993), as a result of retrospective study not only of the language, but also of the archeological and ethnological materials, the state the following common for the Türks historico-ethnographic and ethno-cultural features:

1) Kurgan ritual,

2) Burials in timber, troughs, carriages

3) Underlayment of the bottom of the tomb with reed , felt,

 4) Accompanying of the deceased with sacrificial horses, sheep,

 5) Mobile cattle-breeding life,

6) Use for food of horsemeat and koumiss,

7) felt temporary dwellings - encampments.

In their opinion, these ethnological elements go back to the Pit-grave, Andronov, Timber-grave and Scythian tribes. Pit-grave, or Kurgan culture K.T.Laipanov  and I.M.Miziev's consider as initial base for the formation of the ethno-cultural features of the pra-Türkic tribes. Their most ancient history starts with with the emergence of the Kurgan culture. "From then on, - they write, - we can talk about a sanguineous character of their economy, culture and language. All this allows to reconsider the question of the most ancient ancestral home of the Türkic tribes in favor of the Itil-Yaik region. Precisely there at the end of the 4th millennium BC appeared the first kurgans, whereas in Altai archeologists do not find the ancient traces of the ethno-cultural features of the Türkic peoples neither during the Bronze Epoch nor during Neolith Epoch" [Laipanov  K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 28 and 22-27]. A similar view at the ancestral home of the Türks stated the Polish Türkologist A.Zaionchkovsky, Russian researcher Z.M.Yampolsky, anthropologist V.P.Alekseev, Azerbaijan linguist M.S.Shiraliev, archeologist E.B.Vadetskaya, Kazakh writer - researcher O.Suleymenov [Laipanov  K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 14-15]. To the said above is possible to add that in 1912-1914 the Hungarian Türkologist Ü.Nemet  developed a concept according to which the formative territory of the Türks was designated not as Central Asia, but the Eastern Europe.

In our opinion, it is hardly possible to really determine now the initial ancestral home of the Türks. But is under the ancestral home to understand the most ancient territory of the Türks to which scientists can reach retrospectively at this stage of development of the Türkology, among the most probable regions of the ancestral home of the Türks it is conditionally possible to point to Central Asia and Ural-Itil basin. These regions answer the linguistical,  archeological and ethnological requirements.

Apparently, various opinions were stated about the ancestral home of the Türks. But during localization of the ancestral home of the Nostratic parent language, and consequently also in definition of the initial ancestral home of the Türks, all of them can be reconsidered. Moreover, in relation to the time of existence of the ancestral home, they already do not always agree with the new facts uncovered by the Türkologists. Thus, the supporters of the Altai ancestral home of the Türks attribute the time of its existence to the 1st millennium BC, ostensibly the Türks till the 6th century AD lived only there, only from then on they suddenly started to spread to many regions of Eurasia. The supporters of the Central Asian and Ural-Itil region ancestral home of the Türks date the beginning of migration of the Türks to other regions to the 4th-3rd millenniums BC. But considering that traces of the formed Türkic language are observed in the Sumerian language already in the 3rd millennium BC, and in some languages of the Asian ancestors of the American Indians 30-20 thousand years ago, the incompatibility of all existing theories about the place and time of the initial ancestral home of the Türks should be recognized.

We do not aim here to define the ancestral home of the Türks, we want to emphasize only that in the study of the ethnic roots we can not rely on the conclusions of the traditional Türkology about the ancestral home of the Türks.

 42