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
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: 24-Aug-2007 at 10:56
 
You said
 
>>>the nation called Azari lives in Iran, and doesnt have anything to do with us. <<<
 
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: 24-Aug-2007 at 13:19
I didn't add it. You can check the book I mentioned. You can find this sentence (the exact quote, containing the word 'Tatar')in Ergin version of Orkhon Inscriptions, too.

Also, forumers can find an English translation of 'Bilge Qaqan' and 'Kl Tegin' at www.culture.mn

You can see this article either under 'Turkic Monuments' section or simply by searching the site:

'Listen to the end that which I state to you, you who come after me, my younger brothers(?), my princes, and all together, members of my race, as well as you my people; to the right, you noble shadapits; to the left, you nobles and tarkat(?) officers, you [nobles . . . of the?] Thirty-[Tatars? . . .] you nobles and people of the Nine-Ogouz...'.

Culture Mongolia "www.culture.mn" - Kul Tegin Monument - Southern Face

What's the 'Otuz' there, for, you think? You believe I added it; I guess it's missing in your copy.

Edited by gok_toruk - 24-Aug-2007 at 14:22
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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 14:18
Kamran, I meant there is or  are/were people in Iran who spoke the language called Azari (probably simialr to persian) - which doesnt have anything to do with Azerbaijani Turkish. And most of the Iranian Azerbaijanis call themselves Turk or Turki.

Edited by Emil_Baku - 24-Aug-2007 at 14:24
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: 25-Aug-2007 at 15:15

I agree, but it already known that Azerbaijanis are known as Azeri, even though this is not the historically right word to describe in fact.

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: 01-Sep-2007 at 01:43

Hello, everybody

By the chance I have found your forum and I'd like to bring my fourpenny to this conversation if you don't mind. Sorry for my poor English I'll try to do my best.

I am a native Tatar so the problems of my people origins are important to me also. The "historians" may say what they want but many of our fellows have their own opinions. So am I. I like very much folk music from North part of China, it is "for my soul", I consider Khakas, Uhigur people as my relatives (they are like my old fellows no matter the fact I was born in Ufa and live in Tatarstan). Besides I have a family name rather rare among my nation and that name has corresponding locations in Crimea and South Urals.

I think the word Tatar means Tat-man. We have or had many other "men" around BulgAR, KhasAR, MajAR (Hungarians), MishAR, maybe UhigAR and so on. Besides we called all our northeren forest nations as ARs without the personal names. The suffix -ER is right also I'm sure.

Not long ago one of our sites launched a trend in English. We can give answers to your questions there if we could.

The topic is "Tatars in America". Who was the first (Known) Tatar to America?

http://www.tatforum.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=5659&view=getnewpost

Respectfully, Kan

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: 01-Sep-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Kann

Hello, everybody

By the chance I have found your forum and I'd like to bring my fourpenny to this conversation if you don't mind. Sorry for my poor English I'll try to do my best.

I am a native Tatar so the problems of my people origins are important to me also. The "historians" may say what they want but many of our fellows have their own opinions. So am I. I like very much folk music from North part of China, it is "for my soul", I consider Khakas, Uhigur people as my relatives (they are like my old fellows no matter the fact I was born in Ufa and live in Tatarstan). Besides I have a family name rather rare among my nation and that name has corresponding locations in Crimea and South Urals.

I think the word Tatar means Tat-man. We have or had many other "men" around BulgAR, KhasAR, MajAR (Hungarians), MishAR, maybe UhigAR and so on. Besides we called all our northeren forest nations as ARs without the personal names. The suffix -ER is right also I'm sure.

Not long ago one of our sites launched a trend in English. We can give answers to your questions there if we could.

The topic is "Tatars in America". Who was the first (Known) Tatar to America?

http://www.tatforum.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=5659&view=getnewpost

Respectfully, Kan

 
 
It's nice to have an opinion from a Tatar first-hand.
Welcome to the forum.
Are you Kazan or Crimean Tatar?
 
What is the relation between Kazan, Crimean, and Siberian Tatars apart from the ancestral Golden-Horde connection?
 
Is there much intermixing between distinct Tatar groups?
 
 
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: 01-Sep-2007 at 12:08
Originally posted by Kann

Hello, everybody

By the chance I have found your forum and I'd like to bring my fourpenny to this conversation if you don't mind. Sorry for my poor English I'll try to do my best.

I am a native Tatar so the problems of my people origins are important to me also. The "historians" may say what they want but many of our fellows have their own opinions. So am I. I like very much folk music from North part of China, it is "for my soul", I consider Khakas, Uhigur people as my relatives (they are like my old fellows no matter the fact I was born in Ufa and live in Tatarstan). Besides I have a family name rather rare among my nation and that name has corresponding locations in Crimea and South Urals.

I think the word Tatar means Tat-man. We have or had many other "men" around BulgAR, KhasAR, MajAR (Hungarians), MishAR, maybe UhigAR and so on. Besides we called all our northeren forest nations as ARs without the personal names. The suffix -ER is right also I'm sure.

Not long ago one of our sites launched a trend in English. We can give answers to your questions there if we could.

The topic is "Tatars in America". Who was the first (Known) Tatar to America?

http://www.tatforum.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=5659&view=getnewpost

Respectfully, Kan

 
Isenmesez Kan,
 
I think it's rather your personal opinion, though. My Tatar friends, on the contrary, consider themselves to be more Bulgars and don't like the name "Tatar." On the other hand, I read an opinion on one Tatar website that Chingizkhan was a Tatar himself. Smile
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 02:09

Thanks for wellcomes.

"Are you Kazan or Crimean Tatar?"

I am a Tatar. As I've said the settlements corresponding with my family name (it is clear Tatar name not Arabic) were both in Crimea and Urals. I think we are Tatars and the language and anthropology differences are due to our historical locations and isolation only. Sadly the relations between Kazan and Crimea peoples on a personal level are very little. As for Siberians the things are better with migration of "Kazanly" to the East and with our "shift workers" on the oil-fields. But along with our intermixation a part of the Siberian Tatars demands to stay as Siberians, different from Kazanly. We don't mind. Our mishars beleve they are the best Tatars. We also don't mind.

Isenmesez, Sarmat12

Yes, I agree with you. Many Tatars beleve that they origin from Volga Bulgars. We don't mind. They are also ...ARs.

As for Chingizkhan he was born and lived in a place where Chinees located the Black Tatars. Nearer to China they lockated White Tatars and far from the Blacks - the Wild (savage) Tatars. China knew nothing about the latters.

But there is a fact that many of the Chingizkhan's warriors and warlords named different East European tribes as their "brothers" and communicated with them without interpreters.

 

 



Edited by Kann - 02-Sep-2007 at 03:47
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: 02-Sep-2007 at 03:22
btw, I met a tatar girl, in Moscow, after 2 days we were easely able to speak without translation
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
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: 05-Sep-2007 at 13:01
Originally posted by Kann

I think the word Tatar means Tat-man. We have or had many other "men" around BulgAR, KhasAR, MajAR (Hungarians), MishAR, maybe UhigAR and so on. Besides we called all our northeren forest nations as ARs without the personal names. The suffix -ER is right also I'm sure.

 
Welcome, I also tend to agree that "Er" as a tribal name suffix was used  among Turkic tribes, however we should be careful in analysing the names, as the first part should give a definate meaning. I mean: What "tat", "Maj", "Khas" etc mean?
 
In fact, among European huns, there were tribes with the suffix variant of "Er", which was "Ir", such as Aghachiri 
 
BTW, Uyghur isn't Uhigar, instead UY-Oghur.
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 23:55

barbar,

however we should be careful in analysing the names, as the first part should give a definate meaning. I mean: What "tat", "Maj", "Khas" etc mean?

 

Is that so important nowadays? The Turkic tribes named themselves as they would like I am sure. The names were from geographical points as a hill (Turk) or a river (Mish), from a personal name (Uzbek), from  their own characteristics (Kyrgyz steppe crossers), even from their clothes (Kara kalpak black hat) and so on.  I have met the explanation of Tatar as River men when some of them lived near the Amur River.

 

Sorry for Uyghur

 

Kerimoglu,

btw, I met a tatar girl, in Moscow, after 2 days we were easely able to speak without translation

Why, it is not very difficult for a young man and a girl at all, regardless of their nations, ah? (if they are interested in each other) (trying to joke).

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: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:47
As for Volga Tatars, I heard that whether one identifies with "Bulgar" or "Tatar" depends on political inclinations.
 
Most practising Muslims, or those proud of their MUSLIM heritage more than their Turkic origin tend to call themselves "Bulgars".
On the other hand, those who are more proud of their past as the "Kazan Khanate" tend to call themselves "Tatars".
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: 08-Sep-2007 at 12:48
In fact, many of them view Khazan Khanate as the successor of Bulgar state.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
alish View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 13:15
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
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.
 
 
 
Sarmat,
 
As you mentioned in your previous forum discussions, there are many misunderstandings about the turkic nations because of historical confusions. You have also provided reasonable arguments about tatars and origins of ethnic titles for different nations. Specificly, what I wanted to clarify is that did "uzbek" word really come from the name of mongolian ruler(if that ruler was mongolian?)... Don't you think it is a " historical confusion"... Why do majority of Central Asian turkic nations speak uzbek, why did great poems, historical biographies and etc. were written in uzbek.....before Shayboniyhon.... What is the traditional differences within the uzbek nation and why these nations live in and around ancient CA cities?... Does it make sense ?  Does it say that Central Asian history is full of miphiologies from the eyes of Europeans and partially turkish (I mean usmoniylar)... This Forum if full of fantasy world...!
 
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: 09-Sep-2007 at 16:13
Dear alish,
 
Could you clarify a little bit on your previous post. What is the more valid version of the origins of the name "Uzbek" in your opinion?
 
BTW, do you know that the name of the old Uzbek language was "Chagatay"?
 
Chagatay was the second son of Chinghizkhan, the most part of the modern Central Asia including modern Uzbekistan, was given to Chagatay as Ulus, by his father.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 19:33
Alish
As you mentioned in your previous forum discussions, there are many misunderstandings about the turkic nations because of historical confusions.
 
Birardar, not just historical confusions, also the spread of "dis-information", propoganda during the Great Game and Soviet periods.
 
Prior to this period even during it, the region was "Turkiston", the beks, emirs, kagans ruled the region, the peoples were mostly Turks and also Iranics, both were muslims, there were some Jewish populations aswell.
 
The early Soviets infact didn't have much of a problem with the concept of Turkistan and Turks, however, duriing the Stalinist era this is when there was alot of suffering and anti-Turkistani policies.
 
 You have also provided reasonable arguments about tatars and origins of ethnic titles for different nations. Specificly, what I wanted to clarify is that did "uzbek" word really come from the name of mongolian ruler(if that ruler was mongolian?)...
 
Oz'bek, Oz - Self, Bek - Lord/Leader/Noble.
 
The term Oz'bek etymologically is Turkic through and through.
 
Historically there has been "Oz'bek Khan" and Shaybani Khan also known as "Oz'bek Khan".
 
Both leaders held hegemony across Turkistan.
 
Its incorrect to call them "Mongol", they didn't speak Mongolian or refer to themselves as Mongols. Most of the Mongols were assimilated into the Turkic majority and became muslim, after a few generations most were Turks anyway. 
 
Don't you think it is a " historical confusion"... Why do majority of Central Asian turkic nations speak uzbek, why did great poems, historical biographies and etc. were written in uzbek.....before Shayboniyhon....
 
Ofcourse its a "historical confusion", some people were called "Ozbek", other "Uygurs" even though they speak the same language. Timurids are part of the heritage of Ozbekistan, Amir Timur is a hero but the Oz'bek Khans fought against them and banished "Babur" a Timurid to India where they became Mughals.
 
Then there is the language, todays Oz'bek Turki is probobly closest to classical "Turki". The beautiful literature of "Alisher Navoi", "Mavlono Lutfiy", "Bobur Khan" etc etc
This was the lingua-franca of Turkiston and spoken by the educated and upper classes.
However, during especially the Stalin era, regional accents and dialects were made into "languages", the literary and religous classes were killed or exiled.
 
Still much of Turkiston's Turkic is mutually intellegible, Oz'bek-Uygur and Afgan Turks is practically identicle, Xorazm of Ozbekistan and Turkmenistan is very similar.
Now the "Turki" which was the lingua-franca of Turkiston has been called "Oz'bek", due to this some people who live outside Ozbekistan are resistant to returning to this Turki because they think its Oz'bek Turkchasi.
 
This is all "historical confusion", however, as time progresses and the independant Central Asian states start investigating their own history, identity, language and so on more with their own scientists soon they will move closer together and put an end to all this confusion.
 
Sorry for going off-top Embarrassed
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

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: 09-Sep-2007 at 21:12
Dear Bulldog, but the language which you refered as Central Asian Turki was also known under the name "Chagatay." Isn't that true?
 
And Chagatay was the son of Chinghiz khan.
 
The thing was that Chagatay was the only one written lTurkic language of the Central Aisa. What they Soviets did was that they created written languages for Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs based on their spoken languages. It's hard for me to judge whether it was really a bad idea.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 21:37
Sarmat
Dear Bulldog, but the language which you refered as Central Asian Turki was also known under the name "Chagatay." Isn't that true?
 
No, not really, the language was "Turki", if you read the famous literary writers like Navoi the language is clearly "Turki". Chaghtay is a classification name, it has nothing to do with "Chinghiz Khans" language, Chaghtay were rulers of Turkiston.
 
Sarmat
The thing was that Chagatay was the only one written lTurkic language of the Central Aisa. What they Soviets did was that they created written languages for Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs based on their spoken languages. It's hard for me to judge whether it was really a bad idea.
 
Turki was the lingua-franca of Turkiston.
Just like Osmanli Turki was the lingua-franca of the Ottoman lands.
 
What the Soviets did would be like going to the "Trabzon" area, "Central Anatolia", "Balkans", "Azerbaycan" and different regions and telling these people they were all foreign to each other and had totally foreign languages and then try to write a history about these differences.
 
The Kazak and Kyrgyz, there leaders and nobles would also use the classical "Turki", Oz'bek Khan for example had alot of ties with Kipchaks but as a leader in the court and intellects Turki was used. 
 
I don't look at it as a "good" or "bad" idea, more that it was in the Soviets interests.
The Turkistani's had caused a problem to them and could be a potential threat in the future, the feelings on a bond and unity had to be somewhat diluted and this was a method of doing so.
 
Also there wasn't just one Soviet policy. There were periods where the Soviets even encouraged the movements in Turkiston and there were intellects for example "Sultan Galiyev" who was openly calling for a unified Turco-muslim movement in the Soviet Union which embraced Socialism and so on.



Edited by Bulldog - 09-Sep-2007 at 21:45
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

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: 09-Sep-2007 at 22:57
Yes, Chagatay spoke Mongolian, but the name of the old Uzbek language i.e. Chagatay originates from his name. This is not to say that the language itself was Mongolian, of course, it was Turkic, but the name Chagatay simply originates from the first name of the second son of Chinghiz khan i.e. Chagatay. What would be another explanation of the origins of this name?
 
Besides, it's true that a lot of people in Maverannarh couldn't really distinguished themselves with the particular ethnicity and they called themselves very often just Muslims or Turks.
 
But Kazakhs and Kurgyzs clearly prefered to call themselves with these names (Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs), especially Kazakhs since they have at least an official state which was divided on 3 hordes, starting from the 15th century.
 
Babur BTW calls his language Turki, but he refers to Kazakhs as "nomadic Uzbeks" and doesn't write they are totally identical to Turki.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 07:30
Sarmat
Yes, Chagatay spoke Mongolian, but the name of the old Uzbek language i.e. Chagatay originates from his name. This is not to say that the language itself was Mongolian, of course, it was Turkic, but the name Chagatay simply originates from the first name of the second son of Chinghiz khan i.e. Chagatay. What would be another explanation of the origins of this name
 
Again, this is due to a combination of dis-information and historical confusions.
 
There is no "Old Oz'bek language", the lingua-franca of Turkistan was classical Turki, it wasn't called "Chagatay language" during this period.
 
The Oz'bek Kagan and most of his troops were from the Kipchak Turks, what is called "Old Oz'bek" is another "misnomer". Firstly "Oz'bek" was a leader not a language, Oz'bek khan and his court adopted the classical Turki lingua franca of the region.
 
The name "Chagatay" for this Turki stems from the Chagatay Ulus, when it ruled the region, "Karluk Turki", the most developed and literary Turkish which was the lingua-franca of the region was adopted as the Chagatay became assimilated and Turkified. Due to this, the Turki became known as Chagatay Turki by some when classifying.
 
Sarmat
Besides, it's true that a lot of people in Maverannarh couldn't really distinguished themselves with the particular ethnicity and they called themselves very often just Muslims or Turks.
 
But Kazakhs and Kurgyzs clearly prefered to call themselves with these names (Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs), especially Kazakhs since they have at least an official state which was divided on 3 hordes, starting from the 15th century.
 
The distinction has to be made between pollitical and ethnic names.
 
The Ottomans for example, Ottoman is the pollitical name however, they are Turks, Oghuz is a pollitical/confederation name but ethnically its made up of Turks.
 
The Kazak and Kyrgyz lifestyles were different to the settled Turks of the region, as Turkic states progressed you notice that the leadership tried to settle the nomads at various times, this often caused a backlash and if the rulers wern't powerfull enough they sometimes lost entire control of these regions.
  
This lifestyle issue was also a factor between the Turkistani nomads (mostly Kazakh/Kyrgyz) and the settled folk, farmers and city dwellers.
 
 
Babur BTW calls his language Turki, but he refers to Kazakhs as "nomadic Uzbeks" and doesn't write they are totally identical to Turki.
 
This aswell is is due to historical minconceptions of today.
 
Babur was a Timurid, yet Timurids in today's Ozbekistan are part of the heritage of the peoples, yet Oz'bek Khan fought against the Timurids and the Timurids didn't  particularly like them at the time.
 
There are countless examples of this. Like "Ahmad Yasavi" of Hazret-i Turkestan, today the area is in Kazakistan, all muslim Turks have deep respect for Yasavi and pay visits to that region. The Timurids re-built a huge complex there aswell. Now, whose heritage is this, Kazakhs? ofcourse not, its Turks heritage which also makes it Kazakhs aswell.
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 10-Sep-2007 at 07:31
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

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 0.156 seconds.