Mirfatyh Zakiev
Origin of the Türks and Tatars
Part one
ORIGIN of the Türks
Chapter Five
Alano-As ethnical roots of the Türks51. General.
Alans in all works are identified with Ases. Apparently, Alans are one of the
As tribes. The most ancient Türkic primary ethnonym As is used as the
general name, and the ethnonym Alan
originally served as endoethnonym of one of the As tribes, but as its carriers,
i.e. Alans, developed in the social, economic, and spiritual relation, and
achieved eminence above the others, the ethnonym Alan started to be also
accepted by the other tribes subordinated to the Alans.
Some scientists a priori list Alans, as the Scythians and Sarmatians, to be
Persian-lingual peoples. Since Vs. Miller so do almost all the supporters of the
Alano-Ossetian concept. Not troubling himself with an analysis of the
linguistical, archeological, and ethnological data, V.A.Kuznetsov automatically
accepts the views of other scientists and rates the Alans as certainly
Persian-lingual. And from this viewpoint in his book "Sketches for the history
of the Alans" (Vladikavkaz, 2nd print., appended, 1992) he recreates, on the
basis of the medieval written sources and the overview of the accumulated
archeological materials, the basic features of the historical development of the
North Caucasian Alania down to its crush in the 13th century as a result of the
Tataro-Mongolian invasion. The book from the historical viewpoint is rather
useful and necessary, but based on it it is impossible to conduct a research of
the ethnic roots of the Alans.
In another work written for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, V.A.Kuznetsov also
a priori proceeds from the concept of the obligatory Persian-linguality, and
even narrower, the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans. He writes: "Alans
(Lat. Alan), their endoethnonym is Irons, in the Byzantian sources they
are Alans, in Georgian it is Osy, in Russian it is Yases, they are
numerous Persian-lingual tribes who separated in the last century BC from
semi-nomadic environment of the Sarmatian population of the Northern Caspian, Don
and N. Caucasia and settled in the 1st century AD (according to the Roman and
Byzantian writers) in the Azov and N. Caucasia, from where they made devastating
campaigns to Crimea, Azov and N. Caucasia, Asia Minor, Media. The basis for the
economy of the Alans of that time was cattle breeding...".
Further the author describes that in the Central N. Caucasia was formed their
association which was called Alania.
In the 8th-9th centuries Alania was part of the Khazar Kaganate. At the
transition between the 9th-10th centuries the Alans form an early feudal state.
In the 10th century Alans play a significant role in the external connections of
the Khazaria with the Byzantium, from where the Christianity penetrate into
Alania.
Here the V.A. Kuznetsov’s information about Alans is stated basically
adequately, except that in the first part of the first sentence it does not at
all correspond to the reality: it is clear that the Alans (Ases) never called
themselves Irons, Irons is a self-name of the Ossetians only
(and only of one of their sub-tribe, the other
sub-tribe has an endoethnonym Digors, and their language differs from that of the Irons
- Translator's Note). Hence, V.A. Kuznetsov, like all other
supporters of the Alano-Ossetian concept, begins the statement with a
falsification, with a priory equating of the Alans with the Ossetians. Without
that, the recognition of the Alans-Ases as Ossetian-linguality is simply
impossible.
52. What was the original base for the opinion of the
Ossetian-linguality of the Alans/Ases?
Here we meet with several "incontestable" facts "proving" the
Ossetian-linguality of the Alans.
As is known, the ancient historians repeatedly noted a full similarity in the
language and clothing of the Alans and Scythians. Besides, according to the
ancients, the Alans are one of the Sarmatian tribes. Because the Iranists
ascribe Scythians and Sarmatians as Ossetian-lingual, in their opinion
Alans also should be recognized as certainly Ossetian-lingual.
As we noted above, the theory about the Persian-linguality of the Scythians
and Sarmatians has arose and is propped by the tendentious etymologization of
the Scythian and Sarmatian words, found in the sources, by the means of the
exclusively Indo-Persian languages. That was the value of such research we
already have seen. On the basis of the linguistic, religious - mythological,
archeological, and written source studies it was proved that the Scythians and
Sarmatians were multilingual, but among them the main place was occupied by the
Türkic-speaking, and to some extent the Slavic-lingual and Finno-Ugrian lingual
tribes and nations. As to the Persian-lingual Ossetians, among the Scythians and
Sarmatian they could be found with super difficulties, most likely it is plainly
impossible.
Thus, the message of the ancients about the identity of the Scythian,
Sarmatian and Alanian languages is not the basis for a recognition of the Alans
as Persian-lingual. From the results of the research by many scientists, the
Alans, like their ancestors, Sarmatians and Scythians, were basically
Türkic-speaking, i.e. the ancestors of the Türks.
53. Do the text of the Zelenchuk epitaph and "John Tsets' " phrase confirm
the Ossetian-linguality of the Alans?
The 1949 monograph of V.I.Abaev "Ossetian
language and folklore" confirms the hypothesis about the Persian-linguality
of the Alans, in addition to the Scythо-Ossetian etymology, by the:
1) text of the Zelenchuk epitaph, carved in the 11 c., and
2) phrases in the Alanian language given by the Byzantine writer Ioan Tsets
(1110 - 1180).
The
Zelenchuk epigraphic, written in Greek letters, for the first time was
deciphered on the basis of Ossetian language by Vs.F.Miller in the end of the
19th c. His translation reads: ‘Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r
son Bakatar Bakatai son Anban Anbalan son of adolescent monument (?) (Adolescent
Ira) (?)’. This translation by Vs.F.Miller is considered quite satisfactory, he
makes only one slightly critical note: ‘Though the name Anbalan we cannot find
at Ossetians, it sounds quite Ossetian ‘ [Miller Vs.F., 1893, 115]. V.I.Abaev
makes an insignificant change in the text of the translation: ’Jesus Christ
Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar, Bakatar son Anbalan, Anbalan
son Lag - their monument ‘ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 262].
Right in the very beginning of his reading Vs.F.Miller added 8 additional letters
to the text of the Zelenchuk inscription, without which he would not find any
Ossetian words whatsoever [Kafoev A.J., 1963, 13]. Following him, all supporters
of the Alanian-Ossetian theory, reading the Zelenchuk inscription, always
resorted to various manipulations with the letters and words of the inscription
[Miziev I.M., 1986, 111-116]. It should be noted that even after the deliberate
modifications, the text of the Zelenchuk inscription in the Ossetian language
remains nothing more than only a senseless set of personal names, but in
Karachaevo-Balkarian language it is read precisely and clearly. The words there,
certainly, are Türkic. For example, yurt is ‘native land’, Yabgu
is ‘governor’, yiyiyp is ‘gathered’, ti is ‘speak’, zyl is
‘year ‘, itiner is ‘aspire’, bülünep is ‘separated’, etc. [Laipanov
K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993].
In 1990 F.S.Fattahov, completing a critical analysis of the available
interpretations of the Zelenchuk epitaph, comes to a conclusion, that text of
this epitaph is freely read on the basis of the Türkic language. The translation
from the Türkic language says: "Jesus Christ. Name Nikola. If had grown, it
would not be (better) to protect leading yurt. From the yurt of Tarbakatay the
Alan (his) child should have made a sovereign Khan. Year of the Horse." [Fattahov
F.S., 1990, 43-55]. Thus, the Alanian epigraphic found on the lands of the
Karachayans and written in the 11th century, is more surely deciphered with the
help of the language of the Karachayan ancestors. Hence, the Zelenchuk
epigraphic cannot serve as the proof of the Persian-linguality of the Alans.
As to the Alanian phrase of the Byzantinian writer Ioan Tsets (1110-1180),
kept in the Vatican library in Rome, its deciphering was attempted with the help
of the Ossetian language, with various manipulations of the text: ‘corrected’,
and rearranged, and even added letters. In the translation of V.I.Abaev the
translation of Ioan Tsets sounds thus: ‘Good day, my Master, Queen, where from
came you? Aren’t you ashamed, my Lady?’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 245].
A question rises immediately, is such reference to a Lady, a Queen, possible?
Apparently, not. The Tsets' phrase has such common Türkic words as khos~khosh
‘good, bye’, khotn ‘madam’, kordin ‘saw’, kaitarif
‘returned ‘, oüngnge - the idiom meaning in the Balkarian ‘how could it
be?’ [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 102-103].
The Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets was also deciphered by F.Sh.Fattakhov, it
was shown that it is a Türkic text: ‘Tabagach - mes ele kany kerdets [...]
yurnetsen kinya~e mes ele. Kaiter ony [- -] eige’ or ‘Pot hook - copper handle
where did you see (?) [...] Should send a smaller (a small) handle. Bring it [-
-] home’. [Fattakhov Ф., 1992].
Thus, Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets unequivocally speaks about the Türkic
linguality of Alans.
54. Were the Yases - Hungarian Alans Ossetian-lingual as asserted
by Ü.Nemeth?
In the opinion of the supporters of the Alano-Osetian concept,
ostensibly exist another incontestable proof of the Ossetian-linguality of the
Alans-Ases, the book of the Hungarian scientist Ü.Nemeth "Listing of words
in the language of Yases, the Hungarian Alans", published in 1959 in Berlin in
German, translated by V.I.Abaev to Russian and published as a separate book in
the 1960 in Ordjonikidze (Russian 19th c. N. Caucasian colonial
outpost Vladikavkaz, renamed Ordjonikidze in Stalinist times - Translator's
Note).
All the logics of this book is built on aprioristic and unconditional
recognition of the Ossetian-linguality of the Ases-Alans. Because the
author, Ü.Nemeth, presents the Ases-Alans as necessarily Ossetian-lingual,
so he attributes the accidentally found in 1957 in the state archive a list of
words with Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Ases (Yases). All the
dictionary transcription work and etymologization of its words is done with a
passionate aspiration to certainly find in the list the Ossetian words, to
attribute them to Ases (Yases), and to force the proof that they are Ossetian
speaking. Therefore the dictionary awaits for impartial researchers. This is a
task of the future, and we here are not concerned about it. Our question is: is
it possible to recognize the Hungarian Yases as Ossetian speaking even with this
book of Ü.Nemeth, and from that deduct if Ü.Nemeth acted correctly attributing
the list of words with supposed Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Yases?
Let us listen to the author. He writes: “1. Until the 19 c. Yases in Hungary
formed one administrative unit with the
Cumans (Kipchaks, Russ.
Polovets), both peoples usually carry a common name Yazs-Kunok, i.e. ‘Yases-Cumans’(or
Yaso-Kumans, using the conventional grammatical form - Translator's Note).
It can only be explained as a result of the old close links between the two
peoples” [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 4]. This author's commendation leads to a point
that Yases and Cumans among the Hungarians basically made a monolingual
community, because they settled together, in the same territory, and carried a
common ethnonym Yases-Cumans. Let us imagine, if Cumans and Yases spoke unlike
languages, if they came to the Hungary at different times, would they have
settled together and would they have carried a common ethnonym? Probably, not.
Further, Y.Nemeth continues: ‘Cumans came to Hungary in 1239, escaping from
the invasion of the Mongols. It is therefore possible to think that Alans
appeared in Hungary mainly in conjunction with the Cuman union. In its favor
also speaks the coexistence of Cumans and Alans in the Northern Pontic, in the
Caucasus and in Moldova’ [Ibis, 4]. We already know that in these regions Alans
were Türkic speaking and consequently lived together with Cumans, moreover,
Balkars and Karachais still call themselves Alans, and the Ossetians call
Balkars Osens. We know well that the Itil Bulgars in another way are
called Yases. The Hungarian scientist Erney informs that after a Svyatoslav
victory over Bulgars in the 969, the Bulgarian Muslims resettled to Hungary, and
they were called Yases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 105].
Let us continue the message of Ü.Nemeth. ‘There are seven districts in
Hungary with a name Eszlar ~ Oszlar (from Aslar - ‘Ases’).
It is believed that in these names is veiled the name of the Yases: As is
the Türkic name for Alans, and lar is the Türkic plural suffix, so the
Cumans called Yases Aslar. However it should be noticed that in comitate
Somogy (south of lake Platten) the name Eszlar is witnessed in the
1229, i.e. before the arrival of the Cumans, and, in addition, it was in the
form Azalar’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 4]. Nothing is left here to any
suppositions, it is clear that the discourse is about the Ases, that they call
themselves Aslar in Türkic. Hence, instead of the Ossetian, they surely
spoke Türkic. Y.Nemeth himself writes that the plural affix lar is not
the result of the Türkic-Cumanian language influence. We do not know any cases
when any people apply their own ethnonym with a plural affix from another
language.
Further, what the following message of Y.Nemeth relays:
‘Anywhere, where is the Cumanian population, we meet the Yas settlements’
[Nemeth Ü., 1960, 5]. If the Cumans and Yases were speaking unlike languages,
would they have everywhere abutting settlements? Naturally, no.
Surprisingly, after these assertions, which should bring Y.Nemeth to the
opinion of the ethnical and linguistical similarity or affinity of the Cumans
and Yases, the author comes to an opposite conclusion that ‘the Cumans and Yases
are of different origin. Cumans are a large Türkic people... and Yases are the
people of the Iranian origin, a branch of the Alans, related to the Ossetians’
[Nemeth Ü., 1960, 6].
The list came to the storage from the archive of a Batiani family. ‘Date of
January 12, 1422. Contents: judicial case of the widow of George Batiani against
Ioan and Stephan Safar from Chev’ [Nemeth Ü., 1960, 7]. Except for a notation
that settlement Chev is located in the vicinity of Yas settlement, there is no
reasons for the supposition that this list of the words belongs to Yases, except
for a deep belief by Y.Nemeth himself that the list, of supposedly Iranian with
Ossetian-tilted words, should be attributed to the Alan-Yas language. The
surname Batiani tells that he, apparently, was of a Caucasus-Ossetian origin,
therefore the list of words has many Ossetian words. At the same time the list
has plenty of the Türkic words. I.M.Miziev analyzed the list, found in Hungary, from
that point of view [Miziev I.M., 1986, 117-118].
Thus, the postulation of Y.Nemeth that the list, containing Ossetian words,
belongs to the Yases -Alans is more than disputable. The word list should now be
impartially deciphered anew, instead of a prejudiced aspiration to certainly
find there the Ossetian words.
55. With what peoples their contemporaries identified Alans?
It is a very important question. One thing is the opinion of the historians
contemporary with Alans, and absolutely different are the attempts of modern
scientists to explain the history in a certain way according to their agenda.
Looking at the vast so-called Scythо-Sarmatian territory, we see that the
preceding peoples are frequently identified with the subsequent peoples. Thus,
in the Assirian sources of the 7-th c. BC the Cimmerians are identified with
Scythians, but the modern historians interpret it as if the ancient historians
confused them by mistake. For example, M.N.Pogrebova, speaking about it, writes:
‘It is possible, Assyrians also confused them.’ [Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 48].
Further, in later sources the Scythians are identified with the Sarmatians, the
Sarmatians - with the Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, the Alans - with the Huns,
Alans, and the Huns - with Türks (i.e. with Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Cumans,
Kipchaks, Oguzes) etc.
Let’s present some testimonials about the Alans. The Roman historian of the
4-th c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well acquainted with the Alans, and who
left the most complete description of them, wrote, that Alans ‘in everything are
similar to Huns, but are a little bit softer in customs and way of life’ [Ammianus
Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242]. The translator of the ‘History of the
Judean war by Josephus Flavius’ (written in the 70ies AD) into the Old Russian
language, translates the ethnonym Alans by the word Yas and, without a shadow of
doubt, asserts that the ‘language of Yases is known as born from the Cuman kin’
[Meschersky N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Miller also gives this citation, where Alans-Yases
are identified with Cumans-Türks, and he points out that the interpreter has
replaced Scythians with Cumans, and Alans with Yases [Miller Vs., 1887, 40]. It
is clear that this remark does not help Vs. Miller to identify Alans with
Ossetians at all, on the contrary, it says that in the 11-th c. the interpreter
realized very well that Cumans are descendents of Scythians, and that Alans are
Yases.
Besides, it is necessary to remember that the ancient historians always
described Alans next to the Huns, Khazars, Sabirs, Bulgars, i.e. with the Türkic
speaking peoples.
The supporters of the Alano-Ossetian theory cite, to confirm of their
correctness, the fact of the affinity of the Alans with the Aorses, moreover
they advance the thesis that "The Alans ripened in the depths of the Aor
confederation of the Sarmatian tribes" [Kuznetsov V.A., 1992, 19]. These
scientists do not suspect, that the Aorses are Türks, and their statements cited
here confirm pecisely not the Ossetian-linguality, but the Türkic-speaking of
the Alans. Really, the ethnonym Aors is a Greek pronunciation of the
Türkic ethnonym Aor, the last s is the Greek proper name
indicator. The ethnonym Aor comes from the word Awar, which is
usually written as Avar.
Manifestly, the supporters of the Alano-Ossetian theory recognize as correct
only that part of the statements of the ancients, which recorded the linkage of
the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans, but the other part of the message, about the
linkage of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Huns-Türks-Khazars-Bulgars etc. they
ignore thoroughly. Hence, they approach the study of the ancient sources
tendentiously and non-systematically. This is firstly. Secondly, as we saw
above, their equating of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans is not the proof for the
Ossetian-speaking of the Alans, for the Scythians and Sarmatians were not
Ossetian-speaking.
In the official historical science the cases of equating the
Scythians-Alans-Huns-Khazars-Türks usually are explained away by that the
ancient historians ostensibly confused frequently these peoples. Actually, they
could not have confused, for they were telling about the events they witnessed.
To confuse intentionally, they did not have political directives then. On the
contrary, these directives push some modern writers to interpret the
ancient sources in their way, and "to correct" them. A close and objective study
of the ancient writings make it incontestably clear that in so-called Scytho-Sarmatian
regions both in the antiquity, and in the Middle Ages lived basically the same
tribes. And now these territories are also occupied basically by the same
peoples.
Alans have left an appreciable trace also in the Middle Itil region, there
again they are identified with the Türks, and in particular with the Khazars. In
this region are also the toponyms which go back to the ethnonym Alan. The
Udmurts preserved their legends about ancient nations. They call their
mythological hero Alan-Gasar (Alan-Khazar) and everything attributed to
him they attributed to the Nugay people, i.e. to the Tatars who were also called
Kuruk (Kuiirk, where ku is "white-faced", Iirk is a synonym of the
ethnonym Biger "owner, rich" - M.Z.) (Kuruk/Kuiirk
can also be "White Nomad", from ku and Yirk - Translator's Note)[Potanin
G.N., 1884, 192]. Here, the identification of the Alans with Nugays-Tatars is
prominent.
56. The Türkic-speaking of the Alans by application of some ethnonyms.
According to the settled in the majority of the official publications
and textbooks standard a totally improbable events happened in the world:
ostensibly from Asia to the Eastern Europe were constantly arriving new and new
peoples; some of them in due course were dissolving among the other peoples of
the Europe, the others were disappearing, even though the conditions of life
there were better. And in Asia, where the conditions of life were worse than in
Europe, new peoples were quickly procreated and closely monitored the Europe: as
soon as some peoples started to disappear there, they would stream there. In
some time this process was repeated. So, the Scythians, who appeared in the
Eastern Europe, replaced Cimmerians there; have appeared the Sarmatians, and
disappeared the Scythians, but among the Sarmatians multiplied the Alans; have
appeared the Huns (ostensibly the first Türks), and the Alans have gradually
vanished; have appeared Avars (Aors-Aorses), and the Huns evaporated, have
appeared the Türks and disappeared Avars, have appeared Bulgars, and vanished
Khazars, then gradually from Asia to Europe were coming Besenyos
(Badjinaks - Translator's Note), Kypchaks,
and Mongolo-Tatars, after which the arrival of the Türks from the Asia to Europe
has ceased. Such scheme of a constant replenishing of the European population by
the "nomads" streaming from Asia, to a reality conscientious scientist, cannot
be seemed plausible, matching the reality.
As it was already stated above, the history knows migrations of the peoples.
May be such migrations from the Asia to Europe exceeded those from the Europe to
Asia. But migrated not the whole people, but its part, lead by an elite
pretentious for the power. The remaining continued the historical traditions of
their people, frequently already under a new ethnonym. And the newcomer did not
appear in an empty place, and could not completely exterminate there the local
population. What was happening? Both here and there was occurring assimilation
and change of the ethnonyms. Therefore the ancient authors were right, when they
recorded the affinity, and sometimes the similitude of the stepping to the
proscenium peoples showing up one by one, under different ethnonyms. In the
different periods of the history were dominant different tribes. A name of the
tribe which occupied the dominant position was becoming a general ethnonym for
the whole people, or even the whole large territory subordinated to that tribe.
Therefore the same people gained with time different ethnonyms. In other words,
in the vast territories called Scythians' and Sarmatians', in the antiquity
lived the ancestors of basically the same peoples who also occupy these
territories today. From this viewpoint, in the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians
and Alans we first of all should search for the Türks, Slavs and Finno-Ugrs. The
identification of the Scythians-Sarmatians with the Türkic tribes has also
preserved today. For example, and in the antiquity, and also now the Türks,
"Balkarians and Karachayans, call themselves by the ethnonym Alan, as,
for example, the Adyges... call themselves Adyga. Georgians call
themselves Sakartvelo, Ossetians call themselves Iron,
Yakuts call themselves Saha, etc. Mengrels call Karachayans Alans,
Ossetians call Balkarians Asias" [Habichev M.A., 1977, 75].
In this respect the statement expressed still in the 19th century by Vs.
Miller about the identity of the historical Ases and the present Ossetians is
hardly provable. Assuming that the Balkarians and Karachais should certainly be
newcomers, and the Ossetians to be aboriginal, he wrote: "They (i.e. the
Ossetians) call Balkarians (a newcomer tribe), who pushed the Ossetians out of
these places, Ases (Asiag is the Balkarian, Asi is the country they
occupied), with the ancient name preserved in the annals in the form of Yases.
However, there is no doubt that it is not the Balkarians, who came to the
present place rather late, but the Ossetians were the Yases of our annals; but
the name was attached to the district and remained with it, despite of a change
of the population. The A Chechen is called in the Ossetian Tsetsenag, an
Ingush is called Mdkdl, a Nogay is called Nogaysag" [Miller Vs., 1886, 7]. There
is a question why Ossetians call correctly the Chechens, and Ingushes, and
Nogays, making a mistake only in relation to the Balkarians? Deciphering the
mysterious mess of Vs. Miller, it turns out like this: the Ossetians initially
themselves, and their territory called Asiag, and when the Ossetians napped,
came the Balkarians and moved then sleeping to another territory, having
occupied their former lands. The other day the Ossetians woke up and, because of
the name of the land, started to call by their own ethnonym, Yases, not
themselves as before, but the Balkarians, and started to call themselves
Ironians, for they did not remember how they were called before. Every child
would clearly see that in real life that does not and cannot happen.
Do not also save Vs. Miller his examples from the toponymy of the Caucasus
resembling the Ossetian words. Nobody doubts that among the Caucasian toponyms
are also the Ossetian, for they are living there, but at the same time there is
a multitude of the Türkic names, estimated by the specialists as many more than
Ossetian. Further Vs. Miller concludes: "There is a reason to think that the
ancestors of the Ossetians constituted a part of the Caucasian Alans" [Ibid.
15]. At the same time he keeps silent that the Balkarians and Karachais call
themselves by the ethnonym Alan, and the Mengrels call them Alans.
Generally, he is far from the solid opinion of the Alans' contemporaries that
they were Türkic-speaking.
57. Ethnolinguistic nature of the Alans from the ethnonym Alan.
The name Alan is mentioned for the first time in the sources in the
1c. BC, but the versions of the name As are found much earlier.
It remains a puzzle why some Ases began then to be called Alans, why the sources
known to us equate Ases and Alans.
Various points of view exist about the etymology of the word Alan,
but none of them tries to deduce it from the word Alban. Meanwhile, such an attempt
could be very fruitful, for the Alans lived in the Caucasian Albania, and until now
is still not known who were the Albans. From the 1st c. BC to the 8th c. AD this
people are frequently mentioned in many sources, its main population lived in the
Caucasian Albania, with their territory abutting the Caspian Sea north of the
river Kura. Albania approximately corresponds to the modern Shirvan (Republic
Azerbaijan).
In the Scythian and Sarmatian
time in this region could have lived one of the
ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, called
Aluan (Aluank). As F.Mamedova notes, the
Albanian self-consciousness of the inhabitants of these places is reflected in
their self-name
Aluuank from the 1-st c. BC to the 8 c. AD,
within the limits of all of the Albania, and
after the ‘fall of the Albanian Kingdom, as a
fragmental phenomenon, both the ethnonym, and
the Albanian self-consciousness is traceable in
the 9-19 cc. in one part of the country - in Artsakh ‘ [Mamedova
Farida, 1989, 109].
By the phonetic laws of the Türkic
language the word aluank could have
variations Alan, Alban, Alvan. The
sound k, apparently, is a part of an
affix of belonging -nyky (Aluinnyky
- ‘the people belonging to Aluan’). The strongly
reduced y is almost silent, therefore
it dropped out very quickly, double nn in
due course gives one n, thus comes a word
aluank , where the sound k is
further reduced. As to the sound u, it
sounds as w, and w usually sounds
as a zero sound, or b, or v. So,
from Aluau~Alyuan were formed Alan,
Alban,and Alvan. All of them were
actively used. The form Alban in the
Sakha (Yakut)
means ‘resourceful, good looking, beautiful’. If
this meaning was used in the word Alan, it
proves the message of Ammianus Marcellinus that
‘almost all Alans are tall and have fair hair,
beautiful face, eyesight is if not furious,
still is fearsome’ [Ammianus
Marcellinus, 1908, 241].
Thus, Alans in the Caucasus, evidently, were originally known under the
ethnonym Aluan, which then received the forms Alan, Alban, Alvan.
Probably, the Alans from the very beginning were carriers of their inherent language, and did not change it. Hence, if they,
being an organic part of
the Sarmatians, spoke the Türkic, they continued speaking that language
also when
they became known under the ethnonym Alans, and when they lost it.
58. Ethnolinguistic nature of the Alans from the ethnonym As/Yas.
The word As/Yas is the most ancient ethnonym of the Türks. Per the Assyrian and
other ancient Eastern sources, the Ases (Azes) were known in the Near East in
the 4th
millennium BC, their ethnonym in the form of Ud is also found in other regions. "The
name of Uds is traced from an extreme antiquity, namely from 3rd thousand BC,
and they can be connected with the Caspian Udes" [Elnitsky L.A., 1977, 4].
From the
usual sound transposition of the d-z in the Türkic languages is possible to conclude that
the name Ud is a variation of the ethnonym Uz, which, unconditionally meant Türks, and
now means a part of them, i.e. the Oguzes (ak-uz is the "white, noble
Uzes"). The phonetic
variations of the ethnonym Uz are well-known: Ud, Us, Os, Yos, Yas,
Ash, Ish, etc.
According to the Chinese sources, in the 1st millennium BC the ancestors of
the Türks
had the ethnonym Asana~Asina~Ashina, which meaning in the Chinese is
expressed by the
word guychjun "noble clan" [Süetszun Chjen,
1992, 47]. The first part of this word is As, the second is ana~inè mother, clan", as a wholeit
is: Asana -
As "As clan, As mother".
In the ancient Türkic inscription monuments of the 8th century the Ases are recorded as
the Türkic tribes. Many times They are mentioned next to the Türks, Kirghizes and
presented as a branch of the Türks-Türgeshes [Bartold V.V., 1968, 204] and of
the Kirghiz,
in the valley of the river Chu [Bartold V.V., 1963, 492]. The eastern historians
of the 10th-11th centuries, including M.Kashgarly, note the tribe Az Keshe
"Az People" who, alongside with the Alans and Kasa (Kasogs), undoubtedly,
belong to the Türkic tribes [Bartold V.V., 1973, 109]. Al Biruni, as
a scientist, declares that the language of the Ases and Alans remind the languages of
the Kwarezmians and Besenyos (Badjinaks)
[Klyashtorny S.G., 1964, 174-175]. Here it is necessary to note, that the Kwarezmians, only
from some words contained in the Arabian sources, was assigned the Persian language,
just like Iranists levied this language on the Tochars, and
Sogdians, and Thracians. Actually the Kwarezmians were mostly
Türkic-speaking, and were in the Massagetan union of the tribes, which the ancients
identified with the Huns. And, according to Al Biruni, the Khorezm language was
close to the Besenyo's, which in turn, according to the translator of Joseph Flavius,
reminded the Alano-Yas language.
Let's turn to the Rus' annals, where it is said that in the year 965
Svyatoslav went against the Kozars (Khazars - M.Z.), and also defeated Yases, and
Kosogs. Here is
an implication identifying the Khazars with the Yases. Besides, the orientalists,
comparing this message with that of the eastern historian Ibn Haukal,
assert, that the topic is the campaign of Svyatoslav in the Volga against the Khazars, Bulgars, Burtases [Shpilevsky S.M.,
1887, 103]. If it is true,
then the Bulgars and Burtases of the Volga region were also called Yases. As writes
S.M.Shpilevsky, the Russian prince Andrey Bogoljubsky, who lived in the 12th
century, the wife was a Bulgarian [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115]. And the historian V.N.Tatishchev
calls this wife of the Prince "Yas Princess" and asserts, that the
brother of the "Yas Princess" (i.e. brother-in-law of the Prince) Küchuk
killed the Prince A.Bogoljubsky in 1175 [Tatishchev V.N., 1962, 375]. Küchuk
is obviously
a Türkic name (küchuk is "small" - Translator's Note). That the ethnonym
As designated Türkic tribes also tells the presence of this word in
the structure of many Türkic ethnonyms. So, in
preparing for publication the works of V.V.Bartold, V.Romadin connects the
ethnonym Kirgiz, based on the work "Badai at-tavarih" of the 7th century
where the Kirgiz are called Ases, to the ethnic or geographical term Az, As or
Uz, and notes that it consists of two words: kyryk and As (i.e. "forty Ases") [Bartold V.V., 1963, 485]. The base
As (Yas, Az, Us, Uz) is, evidently, in the ethnonyms Burtas, (Burta-as)
i.e. "Forest Ases" or "Ases engaged in wild-hive beekeeping", or
borty-as~bardy-as, where the bardy also is a Türkic ethnonym, Yazgyr (Oguz
tribes listed by M.Kashgarly), Yasyrs are Turkmen tribes [Kononov A.N., 1958, 92],
Yazygs are Sarmatian tribe, Oguzes are "white, noble Uzes", Taulas (Tauly-As), i.e. "Mountain Ases",
Suas are "Water Ases". The Maris, by an ancient tradition,
called the Kazan
Tatars, and a part of them continues to call them now, Suases. The
ethnonym Suas
was an endoethnonym of the ancestors Tatars [Chernyshev E.I., 1963, 135; Zakiev M.Z.,
1986, 50-54].
Let’s pay a special attention to last two ethnonyms: Taulas and
Suas. Like in the word Taulas (tu las), which is the name of
one of the mountain areas in the Khazaria [Bartold V.V., 1973, 541, 544], and
also, apparently, of its population, so in the word Suas the root As
is applied together with Türkic determining words, which once again proves the
Türkic speaking of the Ases.
The Perm Tatars, whose ancestors were directly connected with Biar (Bilyar)
and Bulgars, before acceptance of the ethnonym Tatars, which at that time
was a status rank, called themselves Ostyaks, which means ‘Ossian (Yasian)
people’, for Ostyak comes from the word Ostyk ~ Oslyk. Ostyaks
also participated in the formation of the Bashkirs, therefore the Perm and
Western Siberian Tatars, and a part of the Bashkirs, call now too their Eastern
neighbors Ostyaks -Ishtyaks- Ushtyaks. The Tatar historian of the end of
the 18th -the beginning of the 19 cc. Yalchigul considered himself to be
Bolgarlyk Ishtek. Even in the 18 c. the Perm Tatars, in their appeals,
stated that their ancestors were called Ostyaks [Ramazanova D.B., 1983, 145].
Also interesting is the fact that the ancient settlement centers of the Perm
Tatars, that later became district centers, were called Os and Kungur, these
names coincide with ethnonym As and Kungur (i.e. Kanggyr
- Kengeres, i.e Besenyos (Badjinaks)).
Thus, the word As, with all its phonetical variations, was applied
very widely in the designation of the Türkic-speaking peoples, and parallel with
the word er (ir-ar). Apparently, in the antiquity the Western
peoples also used quite actively the ethnonym As as the name for the
Eastern peoples. So, in the Scandinavian mythology the Ases was the name
for the main group of the gods, and at the same time it was stated that Ases
came from Asia, hinting to the identity of the words Ases and Asia
[Myths of the peoples of the world, 1980, 120].
There is one curious stroke in the Iranists’ description of the Alanian
history. After the deportation of the Karachais and Balkars from the Caucasus,
the basically Türkic Nartovian epos that become common for all of them during
the long centuries of the Karachais-Balkars coexistence with the Ossetians, was
declared to be solely Ossetian, and on this ground the Ossetians were identified
with the Alans. Actually, here again the door opens very simply: Balkars and
Karachais call themselves Alans from the most ancient times until present, and
this epos first of all tells about the Alans-Türks (i.e. Karachais-Balkars), and
in the long years of the joint life the Ossetians acquired the Nartovian epos.
(Since the Indians were deported and are gone now, the
Pocahontas epos belongs to all of us now, Koreans and Irish and Jews,
doesn't it? - Translator's Note)
§ 6. Close interaction of Alans with Huns, Khazars and
Kipchaks.
Tracing the Alanian history, it is not too tough to notice that they most
closely cooperated with Türks, at first with the Sarmatians and Sarmatian
people, the Roxolans (in Türkish - Uraksy Alans, ‘Alans-farmers’), Siraks
(i.e. Sary-ak people ‘white - yellow’, the ancestors of the Cumans),
Aorses (Aor-Awar-Avars, -os is a Greek ending), Yazygs (Türks -
Uzes). All historians recognize the close link between the Alanians and these
peoples, only in the definition of the ethnolinguistic classification for these
peoples do the opinions differ. The Iranists classify them as Iranian speaking,
and the Türkologists - as the Türkic speaking.
Somewhat more difficult is the question of the Alano-Hunnish relations. We
discussed above the unhistorical version about the Huns in general,
disseminated in the
historical science. Here it should be looked at the final part of that version,
that stipulates that after the death of Atilla (453) the
union of the Huns collapsed, they retreated to the N. Pontic. Gradually the Huns,
who came from Asia, disappear as a people, though their name still lingers for a
long time as the general name of the N. Pontic nomads [Big Soviet Encyclopedia. Gumilev
L.N. Huns].
The question is: how had L.N.Gumilev established that Huns disappeared, while their ethnonym
is found for a long time as the general name for the N. Pontic nomads? How does he know
that the ethnonym Huns for a long time
designated not the Huns, but the others?
Summarizing objectively all known historical data, it is easy to see
that the Huns (Sön or Hun) initially were
a non-distinguished Türkic-speaking tribe
among the Türkic-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians. In the 1st century AD they started
looming out. The Greek historians, marking their presence in
Europe, did not mention their advent from the Asia by a single word.
Thus, Dionysius (the end of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd c. AD) notes that
in the Northwestern side of the Caspian sea live Scythians, Uns, Caspians,
Albanians, and Kaduses... [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 186]. As we were proving more
than once, the Scythians were basically Türkic speaking, the Uns are Huns, with
the sound h dropped, Caspians also are Türkic ‘People of Rocks’ (kas
‘rock’, pi~bi~bai ‘rich owner’), Albanians are Alans, Kaduses are Türkic
Uzes~Uses among kath ‘rocks’.
Ptolemy (2 c. AD, B.3 Ch.5 - Translator’s note)
writes that in the European Sarmatia ‘below Agathyrsi (i.e. Akatsirs~agach
ers ‘forest people’- M.Z.) live Savari (Türkic Suvars - M.Z.),
between Basternae and Rhoxolani (Uraksy Alans, i.e. ‘Alans-farmers’
- M.Z.) live Huns [Latyshev V.V., 1883, 231-232].
Philostogory, living in the end of the 4 c. (i.e., when, in the opinion of
certain scientists, the Huns moved to the Eastern Europe), describing the Huns,
does not mention a single word of their arrival from the Asia, and writes:
‘These Uns are probably the people who the ancients named Nevrs, they lived at
Rhipean mountains (Don Ridge S. of Donets river, Mid-Europian
Uplands N. of it - Translator’s note), from which come the waters of
Tanaid’ [Latyshev V.V.,1893, 741].
Zosimus (2nd half of the 5 c.) suggests that Huns are Royal
Scythians [Ibis, 800]. The Imperial Scythians were the ancestors of the
Türkic-speaking peoples, - asserts P.I.Karalkin [Karalkin P.I., 1978,
39-40].
Thus, among the tribes called Scythians and Sarmatians, at the very beginning
of our era, the Huns, mentioned in the Assyrian and other Eastern sources among
the tribes living in the 3rd millennium BC, make themselves known. In the
4-th c. in a fight for a domination in the Northern Caucasus they defeated the
Alanian power, and together with them revolted against the colonial policy of
the Roman empire, at first in Cappadocia, then in the western part of the
empire, where also appeared the new Gothic colonizers. Naturally, neither the
Huns, nor the Alans, migrated to the West as a people, as is imagined by the
supporters of the ‘Great Migration Of Peoples’ concept, it was the
Hunnish-Alanian army that penetrated deep into the West. The main body of the
Hunnish and Alanian peoples remained in the same old places of their habitation.
In the end of the 4 c. the Huns, together with the Alans, fell on the Goths,
who were wanting to settle in the Northern Pontic. The main historian of the
Huns and Alans of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus, frequently equated them,
for ethnically they were very close. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus not only emphasized
that precisely the assistance of Alans helped Huns, but also quite often called
the attackers "Alans" ’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 113].
After the death of Attila (453), the Hunnish union gradually disintegrated,
and the Huns as a ruling power do not appear any more, they fused with the
Türkic Alans and Khazars, while keeping their ethnonym Hun (Sen).
In the Gaul the Alans entered into a close contact with the Vandals (Eastern
Germans), together they devastated the Gaul, and in the 409 they settled in
Spain, where the Alans received the middle part of the Lusitania (later -
Portugal) and Cartagena. However, in the 416 the Vestgoths entered the Spain and
defeated the Alans. In the May of the 429 the Vandal King Geizerix together with
the subordinated Alans went to Africa, and, defeating the Roman armies, created
a new Vandal and Alan state. As the result the Alanian troops dissolved among
the Vandals and the local population. But in the Northern Pontic and in the
Caucasus the Huns and Alans continued to cooperate closely and play an
independent role.
60. Ethnic composition of the Alans/Ases from their close mutual relations
with Khazars and Kypchaks.
Following the disintegration of the Hunnish empire, in the decentralized
period, In N. Pontic various tribes and peoples tried to become the ruling
group, therefore in the Byzantian sources frequently appear ethnonyms:
Akathirs, Barsils, Saragurs, Savirs, Avars, Utigurs, Kutigurs, Bolgars, Khazars.
All these ethnonyms belong to the Türkic populations. The Barsils are the
inhabitants of the Berselia (Berzilia), which in many sources is considered as
the country of the Alans. Here is an obvious identification of Alans with
Barsils ~ Bersuls, deemed related to Khazars [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 117].
More than that, the Khazars also came from Berzilia. So, Theophanus writes in
679-680: ‘From the depths of Berzilia, the first Sarmatia, came the great people
Khazars and began to dominate all the land on that side down to the Pontic Sea’
[Chichurov I.S., 1980, 61].
From the 5 c. among the Caucasian Alans, i.e. the numerous Türkic peoples,
also began to make themselves known the other tribes: Khazars, Bulgars, Kipchaks
etc. After the brilliant performance of the Türkic peoples, led by the Huns,
against the colonial policy of the Goths and the Romans, the Huns ceased to be
ruling, and the Alans and Khazars took their place, competing on the political
arena up to the 10-th c. ‘From the 5-th c. the push of the Khazar Khaganate
grows, establishing control over the Alans’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974, 118]. In the
8 c., at the time of the Alanian expansion, the Alans once again proved that
they supported Khazars. ‘The 10-th c. marks a turn. Now the Khazars had to
recognize their former vassals with the following words: ‘The Alanian Kingdom is
stronger and tougher than all other peoples around us’ [Vinogradov V.B., 1974,
118-119].
In the 11-th c. other nations begin to raise in the Northern Caucasus,
Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets), who at once joined with the Alans, and established
peaceful and loving relations [Djanashvili M., 1897, 36]. In this area the
Alans, together with the Kipchaks, adopted Christianity.
In the 1222 Alans and Kipchaks come out together against the Mongolo-Tatars.
Seeing that they together represent an undefeatable force, the Mongolo-Tatars
used a trick. ‘Seeing a danger, the leader of the Chengizkanids
(Subetai - Translator’s note)... sent gifts
to the Kipchaks and ordered to tell them, that they, being the same kin as the
Mongols (i.e. the Tatar component of the Mongol army -
Translator’s note), should not rise against their brothers and be
friends with Alans, who are entirely of another lineage’ [Karamzin N.M., 1988,
142]. Here the Mongolo-Tatars figured, apparently, that their army at that time
consisted primarily of the Kipchak Türks of the Central Asia, therefore they
addressed Kipchaks as kins, and the Alans of the Caucasus were partially
Kipchaks (ancestors of Karachai-Balkars), and partially Oguzes (ancestors of
Azerbaijanis -the inhabitants of the Caucasian Albania, Alania).
It is known that soon all Kipchak steppes passed into the hands of
Mongolo-Tatars. The Volga Bulgaria, the main component of whose population was
called Yases, subordinated to the Mongolo-Tatars in 1236, and the Alans - Yases
of the Northern Caucasus in 1238.
Thus, Alans made their celebrated military and political destiny hand-to-hand
with their Türkic kins: Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. From the 13 c. the
Alans-Yases ceased to be ruling among the other Türkic people. But it does not
mean at all that they disappeared physically, they lived among other Türkic
people and gradually entered into their ethnicity, accepting their ethnonyms.
Such a strong, scattered along all Eurasia people as Alans-Yases, could also
participate in forming the Ossetian people, but they cannot be equated to the
Iranian speaking Ossetians by a single trait.
If the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were Ossetian speaking, all Eurasia
should have Ossetian toponyms. They do not exist, unless artificially
(quasi-scientifically) produced. Thus, in all their attributes the Alans were
Türkic, and participated in the formation of the many Türkic
(and not only the Türkic - Translator’s note)
peoples.