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  <1234>
Author
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Origin of Tatar
    Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 08:03
Thanks for your kind message, Sarmat.
 
You know Tavsan, 'er' and 'ar' is completely different in Altaic. While 'er' is a word, 'ar' is a suffix. You can't classify them as the same particles. So, 'khaz+ar' is a word pluse a suffix. Now, the Azeri you mention is an Iranian name (from the old Farsi name 'Azer + Abadegan'. 'Azar' is 'fire' in old Persian, isn't it Kamran? But anyhow, suppose thats' 'Az+er+i'; this case is two words and a suffix.
 
By the way, the whole confusion is not all about European documents. It's about Altaic words for tribes and nations. See, most of steppes tribal names are a general name, meaning 'man; creature':
 
'Trk' = (the most accepted theory is) tr+k (creature; man)
'Oghuz' = oq (tribe) + z = tribes; people
'Qyrqiz' = qyr (step) + qiz (moving) = man who dwells in steppes
'Tatar' = tata (nature) + (a)r = related to step; wild = man from steppes
 
Also in Uralic names:
 
Shelkup = shl (earth) + qup (man)
Nenet (or Hasawa) = nene (man) + t
Udmurt = ud + murt (man)
 
And lots of other names which all mean simply 'man; creature'. This is the cause for all those discussions about who Qyrqizes, Tatars, or others were.


Edited by gok_toruk - 22-Aug-2007 at 08:56
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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: 22-Aug-2007 at 02:43

Sarmat, Gok Turuk, and all, Thanks a lot for participating and sharing so much information.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 11:55
I am not really sure what you mean by ER not being able to be used with TAT. ER/AR is one of the most ancient Turkic ethnonym, and has been and still is used by all Turkic speaking people in one form or the other.
 
KHAZ+AR -------- AZ+ER+I
 
The above example clearly shows how AR in one Turkic word can eventually alter its form into ER interchangably.
 
The tribal denominations you are referring to are late denominations, in my opinion, and the fact that TAT also referred to Iranians clearly shows that some of the pillagers and marauders were of Iranic stock as well as Turkic.
 
The whole confusion behind Turkic tribal denominations is thanks to European historians who arbitrarily assigned inaccurate terms that they simply misunderstood. hence, we endlessly argue about who the Huns were, or whether Oghuz is Toghuz Oghuz or simply OKUZ in the same way that KIRGHIZ is KIRK OGHUZ etc.
 
The establishment of the USSR also contributed to this problematic situations with many ethnonyms. Think about who used to occupy what is now Ukraine? Think about the Kipchak Khaganate, the Golden Hordes etc. Cuman, Kipchak, Pecenek (from which you derive Boshnak), Avar, Alan Saka etc are all misnomers. And I regret that.
 
Originally posted by gok_toruk

For sure, they were considered a tribe. When referring to the case you mentioned ('anybody could be called a Tatar; simply foreigners'), Turkic texts (and their writers!) used the word 'Qyrqiz'. 'Qyrqiz', as you know, means 'someone who lives in step'; now whoever he is. That's why there is disagreement about old Qyrqiz tribes and even language. The blonde Qyrqizes mentioned in Chinese records are also because of this.

Unlike 'Qyrqiz', 'Tatar' was the name of a tribe, as described in inscriptions. what's more, Iranians were called 'Tat' and not 'any foreginer'. Anyhow, 'tat' can NOT be used with 'er'. If you want to relate the name to 'tat', so for sure, it mut be 'Tat+aq, Tat+ay', 'Tat+qan', or similar cases; but not 'Tat+er'. 'Tat+er' is not valid in Turkic, you know.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 11:45
You are mistaken.
 
The root is DAD, and the suffix is AN
 
Hence DADAN is not the real root. According to your line of logic, the root in YAPISHMAK would be YAPISH rather that YAP being the real root and ISH being the suffix.
 
The root of DADANMAK is not DADAN. If you study word formation in the Turkic dialects, you will notice many similar suffix formations.
 
YUKLENMEK - YUK+OL+AN+MAK
(YUKLEN is not the root as you would suggest)
BAGLANMAK - BAG+OL+AN+MAK
(BAGLAN is not the real root)
 
I hope these examples may help why I believe that the real root is TAT/DAD and not DADAN.
 
Originally posted by Kerimoglu

DADANMAK - The root is not DAD, it is DADAN (mak)
 
 
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: 21-Aug-2007 at 07:25
Thank you gok_toruk, your posts here and in other threads contain a lot of interesting information.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 07:05
For sure, they were considered a tribe. When referring to the case you mentioned ('anybody could be called a Tatar; simply foreigners'), Turkic texts (and their writers!) used the word 'Qyrqiz'. 'Qyrqiz', as you know, means 'someone who lives in step'; now whoever he is. That's why there is disagreement about old Qyrqiz tribes and even language. The blonde Qyrqizes mentioned in Chinese records are also because of this.

Unlike 'Qyrqiz', 'Tatar' was the name of a tribe, as described in inscriptions. what's more, Iranians were called 'Tat' and not 'any foreginer'. Anyhow, 'tat' can NOT be used with 'er'. If you want to relate the name to 'tat', so for sure, it mut be 'Tat+aq, Tat+ay', 'Tat+qan', or similar cases; but not 'Tat+er'. 'Tat+er' is not valid in Turkic, you know.

Edited by gok_toruk - 21-Aug-2007 at 07:09
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 02:19
DADANMAK - The root is not DAD, it is DADAN (mak)
 
 
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 23:52
I find you views amusing at best. But, I do thank you for sharing them. It is apparent that we do not share the same assumptions about many things.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 23:51
Originally posted by Sarmat12

You confuse a lot of things, my friend.
 
Mongolian and Chinese sources clearly use Tatar as a "tribal denomination". Chinghiz khan fought and subjugated Tatars as a tribe. His farther and grandfarther were killed by the leaders of  Tatar tribe. And later he took 2 wifes from Tatar tribe.
 
Again Orhont script mentioned by Gok_Turk again talks about Tatars as a tribe.
 
Mahmud Kashgaris writes that Turks use word "Tat" when they talk about Iranians or mountain dwellers.
 
There is still a nation called Tats in northern caucasus (and they speak Iranian language BTW). It would be strange if Turkic nomades would call their own people "Tat" which is Iranian speaker or Mountain dweller.
 
The "Tata" explanation presented by gok_turk seems much more plausible than your tatER thing. Besides "Tata" is totally consistent with Chinese sources which also use Tata or Dada.
 
Concerning Russian Cossaks, they indeed originated from the band of nomadic warrior which deserted from their tribes and lived in the north black sea region and called themselves "Kazak" free man in Turkic. This is more or less accepted.
 
 
Concerning the Kazakh nation, there are many versions about their name, including the Kazak as a free man. But in this regard Kazak was used a a "tribal denomination" since Kazakhs split from the main Uzbek horde and started call themselves Kazak meaning free from the main Uzbek horde.
 
However, this is only one expanation there are several others saying for example that Kaz ak is a "white goose" which was a kind of totem for the local turkic tribes. The point is that the reasons for Cossaks and Kazakhs to be called similar names is not totally the same and these people are totally different from each other and definetely they are not one nation. 
 
And if you didn't know I can tell you again, that a lot of Volga Tatars consider this name to be alien and brought by the Mongols.
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 23:06
You confuse a lot of things, my friend.
 
Mongolian and Chinese sources clearly use Tatar as a "tribal denomination". Chinghiz khan fought and subjugated Tatars as a tribe. His farther and grandfarther were killed by the leaders of  Tatar tribe. And later he took 2 wifes from Tatar tribe.
 
Again Orhont script mentioned by Gok_Turk again talks about Tatars as a tribe.
 
Mahmud Kashgaris writes that Turks use word "Tat" when they talk about Iranians or mountain dwellers.
 
There is still a nation called Tats in northern caucasus (and they speak Iranian language BTW). It would be strange if Turkic nomades would call their own people "Tat" which is Iranian speaker or Mountain dweller.
 
The "Tata" explanation presented by gok_turk seems much more plausible than your tatER thing. Besides "Tata" is totally consistent with Chinese sources which also use Tata or Dada.
 
Concerning Russian Cossaks, they indeed originated from the band of nomadic warrior which deserted from their tribes and lived in the north black sea region and called themselves "Kazak" free man in Turkic. This is more or less accepted.
 
 
Concerning the Kazakh nation, there are many versions about their name, including the Kazak as a free man. But in this regard Kazak was used a a "tribal denomination" since Kazakhs split from the main Uzbek horde and started call themselves Kazak meaning free from the main Uzbek horde.
 
However, this is only one expanation there are several others saying for example that Kaz ak is a "white goose" which was a kind of totem for the local turkic tribes. The point is that the reasons for Cossaks and Kazakhs to be called similar names is not totally the same and these people are totally different from each other and definetely they are not one nation. 
 
And if you didn't know I can tell you again, that a lot of Volga Tatars consider this name to be alien and brought by the Mongols.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 20-Aug-2007 at 23:13
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 22:30
Hello gok_toruk
 
I certainly agree with you that the Tatars in history have been mixed people similar to the Oghuz federation. This very fact should stop others from arbitrarily assigning a Mongolian identity to Tatars immediately, but somehow it doesn't. The essence of the argument here threads along the lines of the original Tatars being a Mongolian tribe that, in time, became Turkicized into adopting a Turkic dialect, and that the origin of the word Tatar is essentially from the Mongolic tribal name Tata/Dada, which are mentioned in Chinese sources.
 
I simply disagree with this view on the basis that there is no evidence whatsoever for a change of language among the Tatars from Mongolian to Turkic. In addition to what you suggested as the meaning of the word Tata meaning wild/step, I would like to say that another meaning of the root TAT was foreign, meaning unrecognized by the local. When TAT+ERs, pillaged your village the verb in Turkish, which described the action became DADANMAK. DAD+AN+MAK!
 
e.g. Basima bela dadandi...
 
This very word has its origin in the TATERs that did not belong to any alliance or confederation, and randomly pillaged settlements whenever they could. These Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic steppe men were refered to by other setlled or confederated steppe people as TAT+ERs. All of these terminologies, such as Cossack, Kazak, Tatar, Hun, Scyhtian, , Tochar, Togarmah, Kirghiz, Ozbek, Monghol are actually misnomers simply because they have been manhandled and mishandled many times by 19th century historians. We have the European historians of the early 19th century and onwards to thank for as it was through their efforts that this confusion came about.
 
As I said before, anybody could be called a Tatar, just as anybody could be a Kazak. Neither of these terms referred to anything such as a tribal denomination. The Tatars speak a Turkic language, and none of the Turkic tribes ever seemed to consider Tatars to be of Mongolian origin. Hence, in my opinion, I consider the word Tatar to be Turkic rather than a Mongolian tribal denomination.
 
 
 
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Hi there Sarmat; hi Sikiskentavsan.

Well, Tatars were never a single certain population. Rather, like Oghuzes, they were a confederation. According to Turkic inscriptions (Orkhon - Bilge Qaqan), they were considered as Turkic. Unlike 'Khitays', they were classified among Turkic tribes. '3 Kurikan', '9 Qyrqiz' were also counted in Tatar confederation, in Turkic inscriptions. Tatars inhabited Tugla and Onon long before Mongolian tribes started to settle there.

About the name 'Tatar', I should say, we can't say it's 'Tat+er'; because (as was stated in another thread here) if we take into accoun 'Tat', so the last part couldn't be 'er'; it should be 'aq', 'ay', or similar suffixes. The whole word 'Tatar' is related to the Altaic word 'Tata' which means 'nature; step'. So, if you call somebody 'Tatar', you just mean 'he who is from nature; step'. Turkmen word 'Tata-q' means, 'somebody who is from nature; wild'.
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 14:44
Originally posted by Sarmat12

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.
 
 
at the time of the Mongol conquest, were the Volga Bulgars already a sedentary people, or were they still nomads?
If the city of Kazan had already been founded, then obviously a significant percentage of the population were already agricultural.
 
The Kipchaks were still nomads by the 13th century as a number of them migrated to Hungary where they served as mercenaries, in exchange for pasture onto which they could gather their herds.
 
The Crimean Tatars and Kazaks should be the true descendants of Kipchaks, or are they not?
 
 
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 06:45
Hi there Sarmat; hi Sikiskentavsan.

Well, Tatars were never a single certain population. Rather, like Oghuzes, they were a confederation. According to Turkic inscriptions (Orkhon - Bilge Qaqan), they were considered as Turkic. Unlike 'Khitays', they were classified among Turkic tribes. '3 Kurikan', '9 Qyrqiz' were also counted in Tatar confederation, in Turkic inscriptions. Tatars inhabited Tugla and Onon long before Mongolian tribes started to settle there.

About the name 'Tatar', I should say, we can't say it's 'Tat+er'; because (as was stated in another thread here) if we take into accoun 'Tat', so the last part couldn't be 'er'; it should be 'aq', 'ay', or similar suffixes. The whole word 'Tatar' is related to the Altaic word 'Tata' which means 'nature; steppe'. So, if you call somebody 'Tatar', you just mean 'he who is from nature; step'. Turkmen word 'Tata-q' means, 'somebody who is from nature; wild'.

Edited by gok_toruk - 07-Sep-2007 at 14:24
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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
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
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
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 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 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 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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

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 0.066 seconds.