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: 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 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
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:15
Originally posted by gok_toruk

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. 
 
I couldn't find the Turkic affiliation of Tatars from Turkic inscription. Could you please provide the exact qoute? It would really put an end to the endless discussions.
 
What I can find is only the following, Kol tegin monument, from which we can't determine their Turkicness, except for otuz (which means thirty). 
 
"Mourners and lamenters came. Starting from the East, where the sun rises, came people from the Bokli plain, from Tabgach, Tibet, the Apar, Purum, the Kirkiz, Uch Kurikan, Otuz Tatar, Kitan and Tatbi: from so many peoples did they come and lament and mourn. So famous were these Khagans."
 
Gene Gouset worte that linguistics had no doubt Tatars at the time of Chengiz spoke Mongolic language, I don't know how they based this claim though.  
 
A mongolian member once said "tatar" in Mongolian means "Nomad". So they could be originally Nomadic Mongols, or Mongolified Turks. 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 23-Aug-2007 at 13:10
'Orkhon Inscriptions', page 22:

Bilge Qaqan, when talking to Tatars and Oghuzes:

'Otuz Tatar, Toquz Oghuz Begleri; BUDUNUM; bu sabimin eshyt, qaytgdy Tingla'.

Here, Tatars and Oghuzes are related nationally/tribally (by the word 'budun', meaning 'nation; tribe') to Bilge Qaqan. Note that, although Mongolian tribes also appeared in inscriptions, nowhere they are described as 'budunum' or stuff. In fact, 'budun' in inscriptions were used to put tribes into categories.

There's another one; but I just need time to go over books to find the exact quote.

The text you provided is for the Kl Tigin's funeral, right? "Quriyakun batsyq daghy, Soghd B.R.CH.K.R Buqaraq ulus budundanyng Sengn Oghul Tarqan kelty'". Is the text you wrote for Kl Tigin's funeral?

We need more research and proof to talk about their language.


Edited by gok_toruk - 23-Aug-2007 at 13:15
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: 23-Aug-2007 at 16:25
In this connection, Do we know whether Mahmud Kashgari mentions Tatars in his dictionary of Turkic dialects?
 
If he does, it would support a version of their Turkic origins, but he didn't, as I know, write anything about Tatars there.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Emil_Baku View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 18-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 16:58
One of the explanations of the name "Azerbaycan" I have seen was
azer-bay-gan. First of all, "Er" means man in Turkish.  Azer is considered some modification of Khazar.
Bay - "means priveleged person" in Turkish.
gan - one source says this meant high place in old Turkish.  
 
Sorry, I dont have this article in English. If you can read Azeri :
 
Gok Turk, tried to explain the word "Azer"i, for some reason. Before Soviet Union, we never called ourselves Azeri (only Turk) . And in fact we never called ourselves Azeri, during Soviet time as well (only Azerbaijani). So, there is no need to explain this. the nation called Azari lives in Iran, and doesnt have anything to do with us.
 


Edited by Emil_Baku - 23-Aug-2007 at 17:06
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 04:18
Originally posted by gok_toruk

'Orkhon Inscriptions', page 22:

Bilge Qaqan, when talking to Tatars and Oghuzes:

'Otuz Tatar, Toquz Oghuz Begleri; BUDUNUM; bu sabimin eshyt, qaytgdy Tingla'.

 
You added "Tatar". Exact words went like this:
 
"Otuz...., Tokuz Oguz begleri, budun bu sabmn edgti eid katg tngla."
 
Check your book again please.
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-Aug-2007 at 04:27

baku,

Irani Azerbaijanis are not related at all to you???????

Back to Top
Emil_Baku View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 18-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 09:02
Kamran, did I say that?
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 0.110 seconds.