Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedOrigin of Tatar

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
kamran View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Origin of Tatar
    Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 02:39
The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?


Edited by kamran - 14-Aug-2007 at 02:59
Back to Top
The_Turks View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:10
Just one question.
Can a Mongol or Tungus understand Cyrimean Tatar or Kazan Tatar languages?
 
I'm a Turkmen and I can understand my Tatar brother's language and this(language) shows that Tatars are Turkic not Mongolic or Tungusic...
PROUD TO BE TURKMEN...

Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 13:27
Originally posted by kamran

The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?
 
About 10.000 Tartars live in Poland nowadays.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 14:06
Yes, Tatar originally was just a name for a Mongolian tribe.
 
Than by confusion it was ascribed to different Turkic tribes which inhabitted the Mongolian empire.
 
Europeans didn't understand all the different features distinguishing different ethnc Turkic groups so they all were called Tatars just to make the things simpler.
 
In fact, a lot of Turkic ethnicities do not like to be called Tatars. For example many Volga Tatars emphasize that their correct name is Bulgar and Tatar is just an alien name brought with the Mongol invasion.
 
Who are the people who are called Tatars:
 
Crimean Tatars are in fact Kypchaks settled in in the northern bank of the Balck Sea.
 
Volga Tatars are Bulgars with some Kypchak admixture.
 
Both groups are different and speak different but close Turkic languages.
 
Different groups of Siberian tatars originate form the local Turkic tribes aslo speak another language, more over they are racially different from Volga and Crimean tatars, since they are mongoloids, while the former are Europeoids.
 
All these groups also have different history and culture.
 
Russian people even call Azeris and Chirkassian people "Tatars" in the 19th century.
 
This name applied to so many different ethnicities is just a result of the historical confusion.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 18-Aug-2007 at 22:05
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
kamran View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2007
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 05:16
Thanks Sarmad, for the detailed reply.
 
One thing is now clear that the west Tatars, whether Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, or Hungarian are lingually related to the Anatolian Turks, since their language is quite close to Turkish. Ethnically they might be Caucasion -- related to Chechens, Dagistanis etc.
 
 
I still cannot figure out east Tatars. There is a gulf of Tartary in the east of Siberia on the Pacific coast. Who are/were they in terms of  language and ethnicity.  Where have they gone now???


Edited by kamran - 16-Aug-2007 at 04:28
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 10:30
No, no. Tatars all are Turkic and ethnically related to Turks and other Turkic ethnicities.
 
I just gave the example of Chircassians to show how unsystematic this name was used.  That showed that that name in fact didn't have much connection to the reality.
 
There are no Tatars living near "Tatar strait" region. For the same reason, first Russian explorers who didn't understand that much about ethnicities of inhabitants of Siberia called all of them "Tatars". Let's say it's an analogy of kind of a very generic name like "Europeans" or "Asians"
 
Later, it of course became clear that that people who live near the strait aren't related to Tatars, but for some reason the weird name for the strait survivied and is still used now.
 
I know that Tatars living in China are also of Bulgar origin (they are descendants of Bulgars traders who trade with China).
 
But I also heard that there are Tatars in Mongolia. I suspect they are actually the same people with Chinese Tatars, which means that they are also Turkic, but I'm not 100% sure.
 
Could it be that the ancient Mongolian Tatar tribe survived there?


Edited by Sarmat12 - 15-Aug-2007 at 10:32
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 20:26
Where do you get these weird facts from?
 
"Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or Mongolian tribe."???????????
 
The very ethnonym TATAR is a Turkic word and the TATAR language is Turkic.
 
 
Originally posted by kamran

The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:02
These "weird" facts are commonly accepted by modern historians.
 
Nobody called Turkic tribes Tatars, before the so called "Mongolo-Tatar" invasion.
 
Since all those tribes were conquered by Mongolo-Tatars and became the part of the Golden Horde they all were referred as "Tatars" by a historical confusion.
 
But again the name "Tatars" was never used before the Mongol invasion.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:31
Yes, I guess you must be the authority or the spokesman for the so-called "modern historian".
 
Unfortunately, for you, I do not happen to be one of those "modern historians'. I am more of the old school, stubborn and archaic type that considers TAT+ER=TATAR to be a misnomer (thanks to the misconceptions of European "modern" historians).  The so-called "modern historians" of yours have done a great job with terms, such as Cossack, Kazak, Hun etc. Hence, here we are... having bogus arguments with bogus resources trying to convince each other as to whether the original Tatars were a Mongolian or a Turkic tribe. As far as I am concerned, Tatar language is Turkic - not Mongolian. A Mongolian cannot understand a Tatar but an Ozbek, Turkmen or Kazak can.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

These "weird" facts are commonly accepted by modern historians.
 
Nobody called Turkic tribes Tatars, before the so called "Mongolo-Tatar" invasion.
 
Since all those tribes were conquered by Mongolo-Tatars and became the part of the Golden Horde they all were referred as "Tatars" by a historical confusion.
 
But again the name "Tatars" was never used before the Mongol invasion.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:57
So what.
 
You know that the name "Russians" is actually a name for the Scandinavian tribe which was was a ruling class in the ancient Russia.
 
Russians speak Slavic language now which has nothing to do with Scandinavian languages, except they are both in Indo-European language family.
 
You know the country called Bulgaria? Bulgarians speak Slavic language. But the name itself is Turkic and comes from ancient Turkic tribe Bulgars.
 
Again the language which modern Bulgarians speak has nothing to do with the language of ancient Turkic Bulgars.
 
You know that in the 19th century there was a state in Europe called Prussia?
 
Prussians were Germans and founders of the modern German state. But the name itself comes from the Baltic tribe "Pruss" who again spoke another language, not related to German.
 
And history knows even more examples like these. Even the name of the Turkic speaking Uzbeks, comes again from the name of the Mongolian ruler Uzbek.
 
Nobody doubts that all modern Tatars are Turkic speakers. The origin of the name "Tatar" however is a totally different story.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 18-Aug-2007 at 23:00
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:19
Do you speak Turkish Sarmat?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:28
Because if you did, then you would know that TAT+AR(ER) has an explanation in Turkish, and has derivatives. TATAR is a misnomer, and there isn't anything you can show to prove that the original TATARs were Mongolian or Tungusic.
 
In the steppe world anybody could be called a tatar meaning tat (foreign/outsider)+ER(soldier). When your village was plundered by bands of young warriors who were either outlaws or did not belong to a major alliance, they were usually referred to as TATARs, meaning men who were unfamiliar and hence possibly dangerous. It was very common for young soldiers to loot in the steppe world. The same root TAT has a derivative in Turkish, which comes directly from what I explaine above.
 
DAD+AN+MAK (negative connotation)
 
Is there a cognate in Mongolian?
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:51
Why would you bring this similarities with Turkish language?
 
Why tatER, may be its not tatER, but tatOR, or tatIR, or tatIOR or tatYUR or may be totUR etc. toTur BTW means "that buffalo" in ancient Russian, should I make a theory based on that?
 
Some "educated" Europeans also used this "linguistic" approach and came to conclusion that actually their name is "Tartar", which means hell in Greek and thus they came from Hell.
 
It's absolutely unrelated to this discussion.
 
I can give you thousands of connotation of similar spelling of different words in different languages.
 
It's perhaps a new theory of yours, may be you can start your own historical school based on that.
 
Even now a lot of Volga Tatar would get angry with you if you call them like this. They say their proper name is Bulgars and "Tatar" is just an alien name brought with Mongols.
 
Historical sources say the following:
 
 
 
Tatars
 
 
(ttrz) (KEY)  or Tartars (trtrz) (KEY) , Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia. They number about 5.5 million and are largely Sunni Muslims. The name is derived from Tata or Dada, a Mongolian tribe that inhabited present NE Mongolia in the 5th cent. First used to describe the peoples that overran parts of Asia and Europe under Mongol leadership in the 13th cent., it was later extended to include almost any Asian nomadic invader. Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate the Azerbaijani Turks and several tribes of the Caucasus.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 00:10
I really like your way of avoiding the questions I asked. First, do you speak Turkish. Clearly you don't. So, you have no idea about how words are formed in Turkic languages, and how ER/AR is one of the most ancient TURKIC ethnonyms along side many others. Aside from TATAR, the same ER/AR pops up in many other Turkic ethnonyms in the form of compound words.
 
TOGHAR, TURKER, TAER, DAGER, AZER, KHAZAR
 
Yes, why not? right? Why not follow your logic of illogicality here for a second. How is it the case that AZER is also Khazar or Tarhan is also Turhan. Clearly, the explanation I offered is perfectly logical when you take into account something called vowel harmony and the way suffixes, in general, take multiple vowel forms in Turkic dialects. Additionally, the explanation I offered also explains why it is very difficult to figure out who really the TATARS were.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Why would you bring this similarities with Turkish language?
 
Why tatER, may be its not tatER, but tatOR, or tatIR, or tatIOR or tatYUR or may be totUR etc. toTur BTW means "that buffalo" in ancient Russian, should I make a theory based on that?
 
Some "educated" Europeans also used this "linguistic" approach and came to conclusion that actually their name is "Tartar", which means hell in Greek and thus they came from Hell.
 
It's absolutely unrelated to this discussion.
 
I can give you thousands of connotation of similar spelling of different words in different languages.
 
It's perhaps a new theory of yours, may be you can start your own historical school based on that.
 
Even now a lot of Volga Tatar would get angry with you if you call them like this. They say their proper name is Bulgars and "Tatar" is just an alien name brought with Mongols.
 
Historical sources say the following:
 
 
 
Tatars
 
 
(ttrz) (KEY)  or Tartars (trtrz) (KEY) , Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia. They number about 5.5 million and are largely Sunni Muslims. The name is derived from Tata or Dada, a Mongolian tribe that inhabited present NE Mongolia in the 5th cent. First used to describe the peoples that overran parts of Asia and Europe under Mongol leadership in the 13th cent., it was later extended to include almost any Asian nomadic invader. Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate the Azerbaijani Turks and several tribes of the Caucasus.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 00:28
Who are you to give these "explanations"? The biggest authority on the history of Tatars?
 
I trust historical books and encyclopedias much more than YOU. And every person having common sense would do the same.
 
Give the names of the professors, books, sources, researches, which prove YOUR point. Otherwise it's just a blatant speculation.
 
And do not point that I don't speak Turkish. Do you speak, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese?
 
If not, how you even consider yourself of being capable to do final conclusions on the origins of the word "Tatar"
 
I base my point on the academic articles.
 
What is the base of your point? Your ovewhelming knowledge of Turkish language? That's it?
 
Sorry, but it's not very convincing.
 
 
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 02:11
I feel exactly the same about your bogus arguments. I guess the feeling is mutual. People like you who cannot see beyond the tip of their noses is the primary reason why we live in an age of utter ignorance, as well as miserable arrogance. So, you stick to your idea, and, I guess, I will stick to mine. But, I have to say that I enjoyed hearing you confess that you do not have the slightest understanding of word formation through suffixes in Turkic languages. Regarding your question about whether I speak Chinese, Russian or Mongolian, I have to say that is rather beside the point since Tatars do not speak Mongolian, Chinese or Russian, but speak TURKIC!!! Hence, unlike you, I was able to offer a logical etymology to which you responded with childish accusations.
 
Highly amusing, at best :)
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Who are you to give these "explanations"? The biggest authority on the history of Tatars?
 
I trust historical books and encyclopedias much more than YOU. And every person having common sense would do the same.
 
Give the names of the professors, books, sources, researches, which prove YOUR point. Otherwise it's just a blatant speculation.
 
And do not point that I don't speak Turkish. Do you speak, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese?
 
If not, how you even consider yourself of being capable to do final conclusions on the origins of the word "Tatar"
 
I base my point on the academic articles.
 
What is the base of your point? Your ovewhelming knowledge of Turkish language? That's it?
 
Sorry, but it's not very convincing.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 11:17
I have presented an article from encyclopedia. You presented nothing except YOUR speculation.
 
As about the 3 languages I mentioned, there are 3 reasons about them.
 
First, you don't know what Tatar means in Mongolian, so you can't reject there is a "linguistic sense" behind this word in Mongolian similar to your very "advanced" methodology.
 
Most of the first written account about Tatars come from Chinese sources. Without knowing Chinese you again can't reject the assumption that Chinese name was based on some other name which has a certain meaning etc.
 
And thirdly, most of the modern Tatars live Russia and most of the scientific literature about them is written in Russian. And again the name Tatar was firstly mentioned in Europe in Russian chronicles. Nobody, who really claims that he is "an expert" in Tatar question can't develop this expertise without the knowledge of Russian language.
 
This is the fact, that the people who are called "Tatars" today didn't have this name before the Mongol invasion in 13th century.
 
Crimean Tatars were Kypchaks/Cumans, Kazan or Volga Tatars were Bulgars. A lot of them even now complain that this name has nothing to do with them,  and to call them "Tatar" is incorrect.    
 
This is enough to prove that your point is baseless without the knowledge of Turkish language.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 17:29
yes, you are right...
I shake your hand and wish you well.
you have successfully proven your outstanding point...
if you don't mind though, I have to rush to the loo to take a leek...
cheers :)
 
and thanks for all that you have generously offered...
 
my Sarmatian hero...
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 03:55
Based on what proof do historians and anthropologists conclude that Volga Tatars are descendants of Volga Bulgars?
 
The Chuvash, for example, have a more convincing ground for their unique branch of Turkic language; the Volga and Crimean Tatars, as well as the Kazaks and Kirguiz, all speak Kipchak dialects; which would logically point to the fact that their ancestors had at some point intermixed with Kipchaks.
However, where did the "Bulgar" conclusion come from? The Islamic faith?
 
As a fact, are the Gaugauz descendants of Pechenegs, who were not the Oguz branch?
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 04:19
Most of the sources about the history of Volga Tatars write about their Bulgar origins. In fact, the name Bulgar was widely used until the 19th century.
 
Although different Tatars group all speak the languages which belong to the Kypchak group of  Turkic languages, these languages are not identical.
 
Volga Tatars language is believed to be a result of mixture between Kypchak and Bulgar language with the more dominated role of Kypchak.
 
Although there is a hypo of the origins of Gagauzs from Pechenegs, most likely they are the descendants of a clan of Seljuks which allied with Byzantinnes in 13-14th century migrated from Anatolia to Balkans and sebsequently converted to Christianity.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.