Ancient Türkic-speaking areas

Origin of Türks and Tatars

Part one
ORIGIN OF TÜRKS

Third chapter
Ancient Türkic-speaking areas

The modern Türkic areal linguistics and linguistical geography established the contemporary regions where Türkic-speaking peoples live, and produced a map of these regions. It is visible from the the map, that a part of the Balkan peninsula, Asia Minor, a small part of Western Asia, Central Asia (Western and Eastern Turkestan), Crimea, Caucasus, Ural-Itil region, Kazakhstan, Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and Baikal are considered the modern Türkic-speaking areas.

The traditional Türkic historical linguistical geography and areal linguistics concluded that the ancient ethnical roots of the Türks are traced ostensibly only from the 3rd century AD and only in Altai, Baikal and in apart of the Central Asia. In the opinion the supporters of this viewpoint, the first Türks were the Huns (Süns/the Huns ), and they ostensibly lived only in these regions, from which the Türks moved later to those regions where in antiquity were no Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples: in the 3rd-4th centuries AD to Central Asia, at the same time to the Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, there the "nomad" Türks by the 5th-7th centuries have ostensibly Türkicized the local settled agricultural (and hence, more civilized) population, which is improbable. According to all information the assimilation theories, the nomadic Türks, if they came to above regions only in 3rd-4th centuries AD, should be assimilated among the local settled farmers.

In addition, comes a question, how the Türks of Altai, Baikal and some regions of the Central Asia managed procreate so quickly and then migrate to the such extensive regions as Western Siberia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and in such mass proportions that in new regions they were able to assimilate the more civilized settled local farmers.

In the  opinion the supporters of the official traditional historical science, the Türks-Saha (Saks / Yakuts) came to the Eastern Siberia from the Baikal only in 10th-15th centuries AD, before that there ostensibly was no Türkic-speaking area. This concept of the traditionalists was brought to negation by the participants of the Soviet-American expedition headed (from the Soviet side) by the academician A.Okladnikov. He in 1975 published an article "The First Americans were Siberians" [Science and Life, 1975, № 12] describing finding the evidence of the Türkic loanwords in the language of the American Indians accepted by them, still before their crossover 20-30 thousand years ago to the American continent through the Bering isthmus (according to paleogeology, the Bering passage did not exist then ).

Some Türkologists, researching the historical variations of the ethnonym Türk, assert that the name of the country Troady historically ascends to Türkic composite word Tr+аwе+dy, where tr is the reduced variation from tu+ar "Mountain People":  tu - ar > tar > tr, plus the Türkic word оwа > oa "house, country" and plus ancient Türkic affix -ly/-dy "inhabitant of this country". Troady is "People from Tuer's country, i.e. Mountaineers". Proceeding from that is the assertion that in the 3rd-2nd millenniums BC in the northwest of the Asia Minor lived Türkic-speaking peoples under the name Trojans [Kafesoglu I., 1992, 106]. This hypothesis, naturally, requires a careful verification, but as in the Asia Minor still in the 4th-3rd millennium lived some Türkic tribes, so far the Trojans also could be Türks .

Per I.Kafesoglu's and other Türkologists' supposition, Thracians (Rus. Frakiytsy) also could be Türkic-speaking, because it is too noticeable that the Indo-European language  was also artificially imposed on Thracians. If this suggestion would prove to be true by additional research, in the 3rd-2nd millenniums BC in the east of the Balkan peninsula would be one more ancient Türkic-speaking area. Then the concept of the traditional historical science about the arrival of the Türks to the Asia Minor only in the 11th century AD would fall.

New research have shown that ancient Türkic-speaking areas are found in the Central, and in the Middle Asia, and in the Asia Minor, in the Caucasus, in the Ural-Itil region, in the Western Siberia, in the N. Pontic, even in the Western Europe. All this demands a special study. The results of the studies of already investigated regions will be stated in the subsequent paragraphs and chapters.

Before that we should say a few words about the role of the Türkic language in the detection the ancient ethnic roots of the Türks.

26. The role of Türkic language in the detection of ancient Türkic areas.

In the official (Russian - Translator's Note) Eurocentric historical science, Türks were classed as the so-called young, unhistorical peoples. The time of separation the Türks from the Altai community was considered the 6th millennium BC. Against those scientists who tried to detect more ancient ethnic roots of Türks (in Russia - Translator's Note) was conducted an official "struggle" which was called the "Struggle Against Antiquating the History of the Small Nations".

Some Türkologists, who could not agree with the official viewpoint about the age of Türks, made confident attempts to find more ancient traces of the Türks in the languages of the American Indians, who left of Eurasia 20-30 thousand years ago, and also in the Sumerian language, which was using cuneiform writing still in 4th millennium BC. In these languages was found a whole system of the Türkic designations for some concepts belonging to the different spheres of the human activities.

The supporters of the traditional Türkology, the fighters against antiquating the ethnic roots of Türks, very bravely opposed the scientists who found Türkic words in some languages of the American Indians, and in the language of the Sumer cuneiform writings. They, coming from the features of the Indo-European languages, said that the Türkic words for the five - fifteen thousand years would have changed so much that they should not coincide with the modern Türkic words in any way, therefore ostensibly antiquators of the Türkic history would try vainly to find the Türkic words in the above languages, it would be lost efforts.

Here it is necessary to explain specifically that not the antiquators the Türkic history run  into deep error, but the fighters against them, i.e. the traditionalists, who used to see the history of the Türks from the viewpoint of the Indo-European theory.

Comparing the development of the inflectional (expressing grammatical relations by changes in vowels or consonants - Translator's Note) and agglutinating (expressing grammatical relations by stringing together component morphemes that retain their form and meaning in the process of combining - Translator's Note) languages, at once is evident a huge difference between them. In the inflectional languages, and in particular in the Indo-European, a root of a word is unstable (i.e. undergoes grammatical change), it undergoes phonetical changes. For example, (Russian - Translator's Note) words khodit and khojdenie they have the same root, but are phonetically different. The words chado in Russian and kind in German (Eng. child and kid - Translator's Note) also go back to the same root. This is also a result of the changes of the roots of words in the inflectional languages. Precisely this feature of the inflectional languages results that eventually words in inflectional languages can accept a different phonetic form. Therefore in many cases the modern voicing of a word does not coincide with its ancient voicing. Hence, the modern condition of an inflectional language is of little use for the study of the ethnical roots for the carriers of the language. To learn the ancient sounding of the many words in the inflectional languages, it is necessary to carry out deep comparative-historical research of these languages.

In the agglutinating languages the roots of words almost do not change with time, for during their application (i.e. at grammatical changes) do not lose their initial phonetical form. The modern phonetical form of the words in the agglutinating languages (hence, also in the Türkic language) can be also found in the ancient written sources. Therefore also in the languages of some American Indians, in spite of the fact that they left from Türks of the Eurasia 20-30 thousand years ago, we find the Türkic words little different from the modern words of the Türks. The Sumerian cuneiform texts are also rich with the Türkic words similar to the modern Türkic. These facts are not perceived by the traditionalists Türkologists who only understand the specifics of the inflectional languages.

Thus, understanding the stability of the Türkic lexical units it would be easy to understand the huge value of this feature in the detection the traces of the most ancient ethnic roots of the Türks, hence, in the location the ancient Türkic-speaking areas.

27. The oldest traces of the Türks in the languages of the American Indians and probable oldest Türkic-speaking areas.

The oldest ethnic roots of the peoples are found, as a rule, by the linguists by the linguistical attributes. The historians studying ethnogenesis of peoples usually use their conclusions, adding archeological and other data.

In the traditional historical and linguistical sciences is considered to be established that the split of the Uralo-Altai unity onto the Altai and Ural languages has taken place in the 10th millennium BC, i.e. 120 centuries ago, and the split of the Altai unity onto the Türko-Mongolian, Manchurian, Japanese-Korean languages happened in the 6th millennium BC, i.e. 80 centuries ago, the split of the Türko-Mongolian unity onto Türkic and Mongolian languages happened in the 4th millennium BC, i.e. 60 centuries ago.

The first serious battering of this viewpoint already occurred in the 17th century, in the 19th century the pounding increased, and in the 20th century was proved its scientists repugnance.

John Djosselin in 1638 noted that in the language of the American Indians are Türkic loans. In the 19th century Otto Rerig in the language of the North American Siu people lists a mass of the words close to the Türkic, for example, tang "dawn",  tani or tangi "learn", ate "father", ina "mother", ta-te - affixes of the local case, ekta "on the side", etc. [Karimullin А., 1976, 136-141]. The works of similar character appear in Italy and France. In out days a Swedish scientist Stig Vikander published a number of works devoted to the crossties between the languages of the Maya and Altaians. From his works A.Karimullin gives the following examples: aak "wet" (aka > aga "flows"), baldiz "younger sister of the wife", bayal "rich" "plenty"," boya "paint", bur "to braid", -ik "to appear", tur "to stand", yom "connect" [Ibid., p. 140].

In the language of the Maya American Indians, the sounds y and yo (dj) frequently alternate, and this reminds the Türkic phonetics,  the affix -l is actively applied for the verbs, the affix of negating looks as -ми/-ма, it reminds the Türkic morphology [Diego de Landa, 1955, 19, 77, 79]. As in the Türkic languages, in the Maya language the word yash is used in the sense "new", "young", and also in the composition the word jashyl, "green" [Diego de Landa, 1955, 19, 77, 79].

The Russian scientist Ü.V.Knorozov for a long time and persistently studied the culture and writing of Maya. As a result of his research he lists the Maya language words, not at all suspecting that many of them coincide with the Türkic words. Some of them are:

chak - "color", in the word chagyldyru "to reflect";

chak - "furnace, stove", in the word chakma "flint", "flint strike" it is connected with the fire (the Russian loan from the Türkic, ochag "furnace, stove" is a time link between Maya and Russian, is not it something?  - Translator's Note);

yash k'in (yash kyn) "young sun", in Türkic kyn "sun"; the Türkic word koyash was formed also of these elements kön yash > koyash. In the ancient Türkic we find the word yashyk (yash kyn > yashyk) as "sun". In the Mayan language the word yash was also applied in the sense "fire", in a Türkic (Tatar) word yashen "lightning" also has the meaning "fire". The word kun "sun" in both languages also is connected with the semantics "fire", it shows also in the words yalkyn "flame" and yushkyn "boiling scale, deposit". All this tells that the semantic concurrence of words in the Mayan language and in the Türkic is not accidental, and but makes a complete system;

aak - "light";

ichin - "to bathe", ech+in_g "to immerse, comprehend";

chen - "well", not artificial, but natural, chongol "hollow", "cliff";

ishil - a part of the Maya country, ish-il (ech il) "internal country"; with the ending -il/-el exist toponyms: Ishil, Tsental, Tsotsil, Chol, Chontal, Püholabal, Bak"halal, Kosumel, Kakichel, Chektemal, Konk"al, Itsmal, Vuk-yabnal [Diego de Landa, 1955, 12, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30].

Many words designating location of people in the Maya language end with itse "inside". It confirms the message of the source that in the Maya country attacked each other people who were inside of the stone fortifications and outside of the stone wall [Diego de Landa, 1955, 21].

It is possible to continue demonstrating the linguistical examples, but already given examples clearly show that in the Mayan language are rich Türkic loans, probably, substrates.

The Maya peoples, like the Türks, clearly distinguish between senior and younger relatives, and call them with different words [Diego de Landa, 1955, 48; Ilminskiy N.I., 1862, 22-23].

The Maya music, like that of the many Türkic peoples, is based on pentatonic.

The Ü.V.Knorozov's research makes it obvious that the Maya social system reminds the conditions in Sumer and Egypt: there and here the clan society is combined with the slaveholding society [Diego de Landa, 1955, 37].

Because the North American Maya people in many parameters remind the Türks, some scientists consider the Maya to be pra-Türks. In our opinion, to confidently assert this positively or negatively, it is necessary to carry out careful comparative-historical linguistical, archeological, anthropological, mythological, ethnographic, artistic study of these peoples. Only by the results of such studies would be possible to tell, who were in antiquity some American Indians: the proto-Türks or the non-Türks who experienced in Eurasia a strong influence of the Türks. Whoever they are, their complex affinity to the Türks tells that 20-30 thousand years ago the Türks spread in the Euro-Asian continent.

Challenging this conclusion, supporters of the traditional Eurocentric sciences deny the presence of the historical connections of the American Indians with the Euro-Asian tribes. But a close look at the subject brings to light that 20-30 thousand years ago the Bering passage did not exist, the American and Asian continents were connected by a land bridge over which animals and people moved freely [Kuzmishchev В., 1986, 342]. The anthropological types, characteristical for the American Indians, were found both in Asia, and in Europe. So, found in the Bashkortostan [Matyushin Г., 1969, 29-30] and Mongolia [Novgorodova E.A., 1977, 130] five-thousand-year old skulls and burial ceremonies tell that in these territories then lived the ancestors of the American Indians. The participants of the Soviet-American archeological expedition also tell about the migration the first people from Asia to the American continent in Beringia, Alaska and Aleutian islands. The head of this expedition from the Soviet side acad. A.Okladnikov noted, that Siberians were the first Americans [Okladnikov А., 1975, 33]. They also gradually trekked to South America [Kuzmishchev В., 1968, 343].

Apprizing that the most ancient Türks lived in the Western Europe, even in the Iberian peninsula, it is possible to hypothesize about migration the first Americans also from the Europe. But this hypothesis needs a careful investigation.

The Maya peoples represent a big group of the American Indians who settled in the Yucatan peninsula. Before our era, the Maya had a developed material and spiritual culture, their civilization should become an object of special studies. So far we only know for sure that it was destroyed by the Spanish conquerors of their land.

If the Türkic and American Indian parallels would be proved, it will be possible to tell that Türks formed before the migrations of the American Indians' ancestors to the American continent.

In case the migration the Euro-Asian ancestors of the American Indians to the American continent through the Bering passage (which did not exist)is confirmed, we should search for the most ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Eastern Siberia; if the scientists would prove their migration through the Western Europe, would arise a possibility of the existence of such a region in the Western Europe.

28. Bright traces of the Türks in the Sumerian language.

In the southern regions of the Bi-fluvial between the rivers Tiger and Euphrates in the 5th-3rd millenniums BC was located the country of Shumers/Sumers (see map). By the I.M.Diyakonov's data [BSE, 3 rev., vol. 29, 517], the country before the end of the 3rd millennium up BC was settled mostly by the Sumerians and to a lesser degree, by eastern Semites-Akkadians who managed to take control in their hands, and from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC country began to be called "Sumer and Akkad". In the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC there emerged the state Babylonia, which preserved its independence unill the 6th century BC. The Babylonians had to repulse repeatedly the attacks of the Kassites, Assyrians and Elamites, who nevertheless mixed up with the local Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians. In that boiling pot the Sumerian language, apparently, had assimilated. But the samples of the original language remained in their cuneiform texts. The cuneiform writing of the Sumerians was then accepted and developed by the Akkadians, Elamites, Hurrites, Hetto-Luvians and Urartians.

The Sumerian system of the cuneiform writing was deciphered by a number of the scientists at the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries. And precisely this deciphered from the cuneiform writings Sumer language turned out to be rich with the Türkic lexicon.

With the a hope to reveal their ancient ancestors the Sumerian language initially was studied by the Indo-Europeans, who searched for parallels and similarities to their languages. Among them was F.Hommel who in the Sumerian texts found 200 words coinciding with Türkic words [Hommel F. , 1915], for which he was laughed at and satirized.

 A Russian scientist I.M.Diyakonov  has devoted a lot of time to the study and decoding of the Sumerian texts. He could not even imagine an idea about any affinity of the Sumerian language with Türkic. Comparing the Sumerian words with the Indo-European, he does not find a single case of coincidence and comes to a conclusion, that the poor Sumerian language was isolated from the others [Diyakonov I.M., 1954, 84]. Generally, this conclusion is strange from the scientists viewpoint, for on the globe there are no and can not be isolated languages.

In the book of I.M.Diyakonov, who happened to have no clue about the affinity of the Sumerian and Türkic languages, Olyas Suleymenov observed 60 Sumerian words similar to the Türkic words: ada "father", ama "mother", tu "to give birth", ere "man", "soldier", ugu "arrow", tag "fasten", zag "side", bilga "wise, ancestor", me "I", ze "you", ane "here, now", gud "bull", gash "bird", kir "dirt, soil", ush "three", u "ten", ken "wide", uzuk "long", tush "descend", ud "fire", udun "tree, firewood", dingir "god, sky", tengir "god, sky", etc. O.Suleymenov [Suleymenov О., 1975, 230-242] subjects each word to research, proves the Sumero-Türkic concurrences and comes to a conclusion that:

a) convergences are systematic, so they are real;

b) Sumerian and Türkic languages influenced each other for many years ;

c) These languages are not related genetically, but as a result of the cultural influences.

Turkish scientist Osman Nedim Tuna consistently studied Sumero-Türkic parallels since 1947. n the international congresses, The results of his research he  presented in international congresses, he repeatedly consulted with many experts, and only after that has decided in 1990 to publish a special book, where he   attempts to define the age of the Türkic language, based on the Sumero-Türkic parallels. In this book O.N.Tuna relays the comparative-historical study of the 168 Sumerian words, locating their roots in the Ancient Türkic language, he studies the phonetic and grammatical features of both languages. The scientist comes to a conclusion that so far the sufficient proofs are absent to state a genetic relationship between Sumerian and Türkic languages, the found material up untill now only proves that these languages for a long time mutually influenced  each other very strongly [Tuna O.N., 1990, 49].

O.N.Tuna suggests that the Türkic language 5,500 years b.p. already had a logically developed by its carriers phonetical set and grammatic system. Allowing another 5500 years before that for the development of this system, the age of the Türkic language appears to be 11 thousand years. As to time of the recording of the Türkic language in writing (Sumerian cuneiform writing), it was 8,000-8,500 years ago [Tuna O.N., 1990, 49].

In the scientists literature remain so far without the answers the questions about where the Sumerians received the strong influence of the Türks: before their arrival in the Mesopotamia, or there next to them lived Türkic tribes, maybe Sumerians were once Türks, but in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC they experienced a period of assimilation among the Semite-speaking Akkadians.

29. Ancient Türkic-speaking areal in the Near East. The Türkologists studying the Türkic loans in the Sumerian language untill now assumed that the Sumerians before the 4th millennium BC lived somewhere near the Türks, adopted Türkic words from them, and then migrated to the Mesopotamia of the Euphrates and Tiger. The question the presence of the Türkic-speaking area in the Near East was not studied by anybody, for the everywhere was held the notion about the arrival of the first Türks to the Near East and Asia Minor only in the 11th century AD.

The study of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Urartian sources allowed to newly illuminate the ancient history of the Near East. So, the Azerbaijanian linguist Firidun Agasyoglu Djalilov, ascertains on the basis of the study of the above named sources that in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC in the headwaters of the river Tiger between the Assyria and Urartu lived Türkic-speaking Subars (sub-ar "River People"). A little below were noted the Türkic-speaking Kumans, and further the Türkic-speaking Gutii, Lulu, and in the south of the lake Urmia also were noted the Türkic-speaking Turuks. Besides, according to the Assyrian, Akkadian and Urartian sources, among these groups was also noted the presence of other Türkic-speaking tribes under the names Kumug, Kashgay, Gügèr, Salur, etc. [Firidun Agasyoglu, 2000, 41-66, 156-162] (see two maps per Firidun Agasyoglu).

Sumer in the 3rd-2nd millenia BC
by Firidun Agasyoglu

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

N. Mesopotamian Türkic areal in the 20th-23rd cc. BC
by Firidun Agasyoglu

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

N. Mesopotamian Subar area in the 9th-8th cc. BC
by Firidun Agasyoglu

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

The presence of the ancient Türkic areal in the Near East is proved in addition that there, and also in the Asia Minor and Central Asia, some geographical objects still long before our era carried Türkic nominal names, some of which later became proper names.

So, The ancient Greek travelers and historiographers of the Alexander the Great, describing their way, recorded the local names for the geographical objects of the Asia Minor, Middle East and Central Asia.

For example, in the territory of the Asia Minor are mountains called Taurus (Pontic Taurus, Asia Minor Taurus) mountains. According to the ancient Greeks, the local peoples long before our era called by the word Taur these Taurus mountains and all the range of the mountains stretching from there to the east through the Middle East and Central Asia, down to the Himalayas [Piyankov I.V., 1997, 283]. Taur is by its origin the Türkic ethnonym with the meaning "Mountain People, Mountaineer". It is formed from the words tau/taw/tav  "mountain" and ar/er "people, men".

The local Türks, acquainting the ancient Greek visitors with their area, called Taur (Taur Taulary "Mountains where live Taurs") any mountains where  lived Taurs "Mountaineers". From that, the ancient Greeks recorded the Taur mountains, starting from Asia Minor and down to the Himalayas. This nominal name Taur, designating all mountains where lived Taurs "Mountaineers", later became a proper name for the mountains in the Asia Minor (and in the Crimea).

About the same may be said about the Türkic words Kaukas and Kroukas [Piyankov I.V., 1997, 283]. The local Türks of the Middle East and Central Asia named for the ancient Greeks all snow-white rocky mountains Kaukas "White Rocky Mountains" or Kroukas "Snowed Rocky Mountains". In the word Kaukas (Caucasus) kyu/kau "white", kas "rock" from the word of kas/kis "to cut", later in Türkic language it was replaced with a word kyya/kaya also from a word kyi/kay "to cut". In the second word kroukas the first part is krou "frost, snow", the second part is kas "rock".

The aboriginals of the Asia Minor and Central Asia represented some mountains to the Greeks under a name Oksiy. That, apparently, were the mountains from which were flowing clear rivers. Oksiy is from the Türkic oksay/oksuy/oksiy: ak/ok "white, pure", su/say/siy "river".

The same aboriginals called different rivers with the words Araks, Oks, Tanais which were nominal words: Araks comes from the Türkic aryk/arak "River, Canal"; Oks C from the Türkic aksu/oksu "White, Pure River"; Tanais comes from the Türkic tynys/tynych "quiet, calm", etc. [Piyankov I.V., 1997, 283-284].

Consequently, the axiom in the official historical science about an absence in the Near East and Asia Minor of the ancient Türkic area, about the arrival there of the first Türks only in the 11th century AD does not match the reality.

The evidence of the presence of the ancient Türkic-speaking area in the the Near East and Asia Minor remove the question what Türkic language affected the Sumerian. The fact is that in the records of the Akkadian sources the region to the south of Bagdad was called Kienkir (Kangar), there lived Sumerians, and the region to the north of Bagdad carried the name Subartu, there lived Subars. Sumerians did not call themselves Sumerians, their endoethnonym was Kangarli or Kangar. In Herodotus this ethnonym is found as angareon (see sect. 46 of this book). Akkadians and other peoples called Kangars "Sumerians" or "Shumerians", and this ethnonym they borrowed from the Subars, i.e. both Kangars (Sumerians), and Subars they called by the ethnonym Subar [Firidun Agasyoglu, 2000, 157], which in various language and dialect environments was pronounced differently: Sumar/Sumer/Shumer/Samar/Suar/Sabir/Savir/Sibir, etc.

Thus, language of Sumerians was influenced by the Subarian language and its dialects, or their nearest Türkic neighbors called then by the ethnonyms of Kuman, Kumyk, Turuk, Kuti, Lulu, Kashgay, etc., but the Sumerian language itself, in the believes of the many, was not Türkic.

It is possible to reason also in another way. A suggestion that Kangar, the endoethnonym of Sumerians, comes from the name of their territory, generates one more question: why this region was called Kangar? In fact, the Kangar is also an ethnonym, and specifically a Türkic one. Hence, here lived the Kangars, but when? Before the arrival here of Sumerians, were the Sumerians initially Türkic-speaking Kangars? If that is so, then already in the 4th millennium BC they experienced a period of assimilation among the Semitic-speaking Akkadians. In that case the Türkizms in the Sumerian language are not Türkic loans, but a Türkic substratum, i.e. the traces of the surmounted Türkic language, whose carriers later accepted the Akkadian language. A certain part of the Sumerians - Kangars, apparently, migrated to the Central Asia, where they merged with the Khwarezmians, in addition passing on to them the ethnonym Kangar, which became the reason for naming the Horasm(s) (Engl. "Khwarezmians"  - Translator's Note) by the ethnonym Kangha/Kangüy/Kangar.

The ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Near East had a very strong Türkic influence on the Central Asia, Caucasus, Ural-Itil region, Western Siberia, and Kazakhstan.

30. Ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Central Asia.

Central Asia and Near East is a region that entered into the sources of the ancient written languages, and it was scrupulously studied by the Indo-European scientists, especially by the Iranists, Greek and Roman historians, but it was done exclusively for the detection there of the Indo-European ethnic roots. Especially are trying the Indo-Iranists, who in the Middle East and Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Ural-Itil region, N. Pontic, and in the Caucasus are inclined to see the ancestral home of only Indo-Iranians. The supporters of this viewpoint on the basis of the analysis of the archeological data assert that the carriers of the archeological cultures of these regions, especially Central Asia and Kazakhstan, in the 2nd millennium BC were settled farmers speaking Indo-Iranian languages [Asimov M.S., 1981, 40-41]. But these Indo-Iranian peoples, who from the 3rd millennium BC till the 6th century AD had powerful states, and accordingly both a high material culture and high spiritual culture, in the opinion these scientists in the 6th-7th centuries AD metamorphose into Türkic peoples under an influence of the newcoming nomad Türks. To entrust to this assertion of the Indo-Iranists is problematic, for in the history everywhere we see a reverse picture, i.e. the newcoming nomads, and even more developed conquerors of the foreign lands gradually undergo assimilation under the influence of the numerous aborigines. Therefore here can be unfolded another situation, i.e. in the Central Asia in the 3rd millennium BC also lived the Türkic tribes, which repeatedly fell into the conglomeration the ancient Iranian states, and it is them who were the ancestors of the modern Türkic peoples of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan.

And what tribes there in the 3rd millennium BC could be Türkic-speaking? From the history we know that parallel with Sumer, in the Middle East and Central Asia was the state Elam. From the Sumerians, the Elamites adopted cuneiform writing, which from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC superseded the local hieroglyphs. Unfortunately, the Elam cuneiform writing has not been deciphered yet, therefore their language is unknown to us. The scientists established that it is not Indo-Iranian, not inflectional, but agglutinating. Apparently, of all the agglutinating languages, in that region could be only the Türkic. Probably, the Elamite state in the Central Asia was created by Türkic-speaking tribes, and they named the country Elem, which in Türkic is "My Country" (Il-em > El-em > Elam). In addition, the scientists in the 19th and 20th centuries connected the Elamite language with the Türkic, but these attempts were outright rejected by the Indo-Iranians. I.M.Diyakonov  without any reasons pronounced the Elamo-Türkic studies as being "pre-scientists" [Diyakonov  I.M., 1967, 107].

The culture of the Elamite state is traced in the history prior to the beginning of the1st millennium BC, then there, in the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, appear the Sakian [Validi A.-Z., 1981, 33-36] and Huarasmian [Dovatur A.I., Kallistov D.P., Shishova I.A., 1982, 119] states. In the following chapter we will specially shall note the Türkic-speaking of the Saks, simultaneously rejecting the concept about their Iranian-linguality.

Now we shall shortly stop on ethnogenetical conundrums of Khwarezmians (see the map of Central Asia in 3rd millennium BC). In an official historical science it is recognized that Khwarezmians from the very beginning were Iranian-lingual, only in the 6th-7th centuries, under the influence of the nomad Türks they switched from the Iranian language to Türkic. As it was already said above, this viewpoint does not bear criticism. Actually, the Khwarezmians from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking, and in that condition joined the body of the modern Türkic-speaking peoples of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan. These are the opening remarks.

Middle Asia in the 3rd millennia BC

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

The second observation pertains to the etymology of the ethnonym Horezm, which in antiquity had forms Hvarizm, Horasm, Horamni. Dissecting this ethnonym into semantical components following the Türkic model of ethnonyms, in the variations Hvarizm, Horasm, Horezm we shall see two roots, Huar and As, and a personal case singular affix of belonging -м (-ым). Huar is in another way Suar, which consist of two roots su (hu > khu) "water" and ar, the most ancient Türkic ethnonym meaning "people, men":  Huar as a whole is "River People". The presence of the ethnonym Suar in the ethnonym Huarasm indicates that Huarases to some extent are the descendants of the Subars (Suars) of the Near East. Besides, the ethnonym Suar (Huar) was actively used in the Caucasus, in the Ural-Itil region, and apparently, also in the Central Asia. The second part of the ethnonym Huarasm is As, it is also the most ancient Türkic ethnonym. The Huaras means Ases, but from a tribe of Suars. The Huarases created their state, and it, and the country were called not simply the Huaras, but with a love were called Huarasm "My Huaras". Eventually, the name Huarasm of the country began also be applied with a meaning of the ethnonym Huarasm > Horezm.

That the first part of the ethnonym Huaras consist of the Türkic ethnonym Suar (Huar) tells the variation Horamni, with no ethnonym As, but is an affix of belonging -м (ni-, apparently, a later formation under the influence of the Iranian).

In the single root (suar/huar) in the two ethnonyms, Sumer (Sumer/Sumar/Subar) and Horezm (ѕuar-as-m) we see visible traces of the ethnic kinship of the Sumerians and Khwarezmians. Besides, we also observe that Sumerians had their endoethnonym as Kangar, and the Khwarezmians were called by the other peoples Kangha or Kangüy [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 341]. One primary ethnonymic root kang/kan_g "primogenitor" is the base of all these three ethnonyms.

Next to Suars and Ases (Huarases) in the valley of Pamir and Hindukush (which is Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu Rockies in Türkic  - Translator's Note) lived Bulgars, whose ethnonym (like the ethnonym Suar) means "River People". Bulgars and Suars lived close by also in the Itil region. The Bulgarian scientists state the opinion that the Bulgars are the migrants from the Central Asian Türkic areal. The Bulgars then participated in the creation the Türkic-speaking areal in the N. Pontic around Danube.

The science established that the tribes carrying initial (simple) ethnonyms lived much before those that carried the secondary (composite) ethnonyms. Therefore it should be recognized that in the Central Asia also, much before the Huarases, lived Ars,Ases, Suars.

Once again I turn the attention the readers that still in antiquity the Türks called their country yours with respect and love, adding a pronoun mine, which in Türkic is transmitted with the affix of belonging in personal singular case: Huarasm, Elem > Elam, Kyrym, Biarm, etc.

With the Horasmians (Khwarezmians) were closely connected to Pards (Parthians) (Because of the absence in the contemporary Russian the interdental "th", the author here substitutes "d" for it  - Translator's Note). Being in a subordinated position to Persians, in the army of the Persian king Kserks, the Parthes, Horasmis, Sogds, Gandaris and Dadiks together composed one group, the Parthes and Horasmis were under command of a single leader [ Herodotus 7, 66].

Here first of all should be noted that the Parthes (Parthians) originally were Türks and a part of the Türks of the Central Asia. If they were Iranian-lingual, under the influence of the nomadic Türks they could not acquire the Türkic language, but on the contrary, they necessarily would assimilate the "newcoming" of the "nomadic" Türks, transferring the Indo-Iranian language to them.

The ethnonym Parthy also is etymologized by the Türkic model. Parthy consist of a word par (bar) "have, plentyness, riches" and an affix -dy ( -ly), Parthy means "rich, having wealth, well off". In the Russian the sound th was transmitted by theta [Θ] and later by f, therefore from Parthy came the Russian variation Parfy > Parfiane. That the Parthy is an ethnonym of a Türkic origin also tells that we meet it in the r. Kama basin as Bardy and as a name of a location with an affix of belonging -м: Bardym. In the Azerbaijan up to the Mongolian conquest was a blossoming trading and craft center Barda, which name comes from the ethnonym of its inhabitants.

The state of the Parthy people was created in the 3rd century BC in the south and southeast of the Caspian Sea during the struggle against the Greeks and Iranians. During its height it subordinated extensive areas from Mesopotamia to the borders of India. Apparently, even in the Sumerian time the Parthys reached the Near East and interacted with the Sumerians (see the map of the Parthys' empire). Later, the Parthes were instrumental in the formation the Turkmen people. The former Parthys began to be called Turkmens. Apparently, the Hamsin Turkmens in the east of the Persian gulf, the Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens remained living there since those times when the Parthys state controlled a huge territory in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Parthian Kingdom 250 BC to 220 AD

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

The Sogds, who are portrayed as the inhabitants of the Greco-Bactrian state, are described in close contact with the Khwarezmians and Parthys (Parthians).

Sakas are considered to be Iranian-lingual, but below we shall see that they also were Türkic-speaking. Sogdy is the ethnonym formed from the ethnonym Sak or Saka with the affix -dy ( -ly). Sakdy > Sagdy > Sogdy means "tribes with Sakas". About the Sakas, about their Türko-linguality will be discussed separately in a chapter dedicated to the Scythians.

In the ancient sources next to the Horasmians, Parthys and Sogdys  are shown Ars/Aris and Gandaris. Herodotus writes that in the Ahaemenid Persia the Parthys, Horasmis, Sogdys and Aris were in the the sixteenth district [ Herodotus 3, 93]. He continues further that the Medians were called Aris [ Herodotus 7, 62]. (There is an the opinion of the experts that a part of Medians was Türkic-speaking.) Herodotus relays that Aris, Parthys, Horasmis, Sogdians, Gandaris and Dadiks were setting out to a campaign with the same arms, as the Bactrians [ Herodotus 7, 66]. And in the Bactria the prevailing tribe was a tribe of the Türkic-speaking Tochars/Togars (Togarma in Hebrow is Türks).

The term ar/er is the most widespread prime Türkic ethnonym, in the Central Asia in antiquity it was very actively applied in the same primary form. The Ars still then were also a part of the Horasmis (Huar/Suar = su+ar+as), Kangars (Kang+ar); from the base of the further development of the Ars were formed many tribes under secondary ethnonyms: Bolgar / Bulgar, Suar, Khazar, Sarir, Tatar, Avar, Mishar, Salar, Uigur, etc.

As to the ethnonym Gandaris, in the Türkic etymology they also are called Ars/Arians, but the Ars who have a Ghan/Khan: Gandy-ar, where the gandy/hanly  is "having Khan".

Our explanation the semantics of the Ars/Arians, naturally, does not concur with the interpretation the Indo-European-centric scientists. They, trying to establish an ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans, worked hard to include many Central Asian peoples into this family of languages, and to locate an ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans in the Central and Middle Asia. A special zeal in this respect displayed some German scientists who imposed artificially an ancient Persian language on some peoples of the Central Asia (for example, Tochars). Based on these artificial creations, by attributing the Ars to the Indo-Europeans, they, in the middle of the 19th century, proclaimed an "Aryan" racial theory, according to which the Indo-Persian languages started to be called "Aryan", and their carriers, i.e. the Arians, were attributed general "superior" physical racial properties. This doctrine about the " Aryan race" was then used by the German fascists to attribute Germans to the "Supreme Aryan Race".

A few words should be said now about several problems of the Kushans, who are subjects of the Central Asian Türkic-speaking area. In the 1947 A.N.Bernshtam has published an article "Usun, Kushan and Tochar question" where he was proving that these tribes are the parts of one and the same people, and are related to Ephtalites (White Huns ). Following a "tradition", the author considers all of them Iranian-lingual [Bernshtam A.N., 1947, 41-47]. But the concrete facts stated in the same work witness their Türkic-speaking.

The people called Kusan (the term Kushan is more widespread in the historical literature) left a very big trace in the history, in the 1st century BC it created a state, and in the 1st-3rd centuries AD this state occupied a huge territory where were included significant parts of the Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India and Eastern Turkestan (called Sintszyan, "New Territory", since its occupation by the Chinese Communists in 1949  - Translator's Note) (see map).

Middle Asia in the 2nd century AD

1 - Direction of Hunnish migration; 2 - Borders of Kushan Kungdom ca. 106 AD; 3 - Sphere of influence of Kushan Kungdom
4 - Territory taken by Kanishka from China; 5 - Great Silk Road

Click to enlarge

CLICK TO REDUCE

The official historical science considers them Iranian-lingual, ostensibly they were Türkicized only in the 4th-7th centuries AD under the influence of newcomer nomads, Türks. In real life it is not the newcomer nomads who assimilate the local higher culture settled peoples, but on the contrary the newcomers assimilate among the settled aborigines. Therefore it would be more correct to recognize that the Kushans from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking. Besides, in historical sources it is established that the Kushans were one of the leading tribes among the Tochars, and in the head of the Tochar state stood the Usuns [Bernshtam A.N., 1947, 43]. And the Tochars and and the Usuns were certainly Türkic-speaking. On the other hand, in the sources the Kushans are identified with the White Huns , who have another common ethnonym Ephtalite [Procopius Ceasarian, 1876, G.Distunis' comments, 60].

This record of the ancient sources is also supported by the etymology of the ethnonym Kusan (Kushan): ku "light, white", san from the Türkic Sün, i.e. Kusan  the "White Huns". It is well-known that the ethnonym Kusan has many phonetic variations: Küsan, Güsan, Gushan, Gushana, Kushan, Kushana, Kashan, Kasan, etc. Analyzing some variations, A.N.Bernshtam expresses his opinion that the ethnonym Kusan  is just a Tocharian pronunciation the ethnonym Usun [Bernshtam A.N., 1947, 44]. Usuns are Türks, Tochars are Türks, hence, the Kusans are also Türks, called in another form as the White Huns. Naturally, the presence of the ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Central Asia is proved not only by these the Huns (Usuns, Tochars, White Huns), but also by the history of the Huns (Süns) themselves. But the discourse about it is below.

A weighty argument for the Khwarezmians (Horasmis), Sakas, Sogds (Sakady), Parthys (Rus. Parfyane), Kushans to be from the very beginning Türkic-speaking is that these peoples also preserved their ancient ethnonym. If they were Iranian-lingual from the very beginning, and under the influence of the "newcoming" Türks they switched to the Türkic language only in the 4th-7th cc., they would have accepted a new ethnonym during their assimilation among the Türks, namely the ethnonym of the "newcoming" Türks. Usually the assimilated people, if it did not create a state and does not rule it, always accepts the ethnonym of assimilator people.

That the Türks lived in the Central Asia long before our era witness the Türkic names of the geographical objects recorded by the ancient Greek travelers: a) mountain ranges - Caucasus (Kaukas), Kroukas, Taur mountains (see previous) and Oksiy;
b) different rivers - Araks, Oks, Tanais, etc. [Piyankov I.V., 1997, 283-284].

The statements here about the Elamians, Horasmians, Parthes, Kushans, Sogds, Tochars, Usuns and the ancient Türkic toponyms of the Central Asia show convincingly enough that there from before the 3rd millennium BC lived Türkic tribes who settled the ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Central Asia and Kazakhstan.

31. Ancient Türkic-speaking areals in the Caucasus, N. Pontic, Ural-Itil region and Western Siberia.

The most ancient Türkic-speaking tribes had single-syllable primary ethnonyms: Ar, As, Bi, Sün, Men, Sak. In the process of development and mutual contacts they went through the changes. To distinguish them from each other, their ethnonyms accepted definitions or affixes, so later arose the secondary Türkic ethnonyms. Proceeding from this postulation the ethnonymy, it is possible to assert that the residence regions of the tribes who were carrying the primary ethnonyms can be classified as ancient Türkic-speaking areas.

In the Caucasus (in the Northern Caucasus and Southern Caucasus) since the most ancient times lived a certain part of the Azerbaijani ancestors, namely the tribes carrying ethnonyms Ar/Ir, As/Az, Bi/Pi/Bey, Sün/San/Shan/Jan, etc. Later, in the melting pot process of the Türkic tribes appeared new, secondary ethnic formations called Asar/Azar/Azer. On the banks of the Caspian Sea lived Kaspies, i.e. "Rocky Mountains' Beys" whose ethnonym also became the name of the sea. During a mixture of the closely related tribes of Azer, Beys, Süns (Jans) was formed a ethnic unit which later received the name Az-er-bi-shan > Azerbaijan. In the Caucasus settled a part of the ancient Near Eastern Kumans, Kumyks, and Central Asian Balkars ("River people") who also had in their composition the "black river people" who received an ethnonym Karachay "Black River" or "from the Black River".

The Türkic ethnos named Azer frequently was also called with the ethnonym Khazar which, in the opinion of some, is only a phonetic variation the word Azer, and which is suggested by the others, was formed from the ethnonym Ar and its definition haz/has/kas "cliff, rocky mountain", from here the Khazar means "People of Rocky Mountains".

According to some Azerbaijan scientists, the Near Eastern Subars/Suars even long before our era were also spread in the Caucasus. In addition, there are noted extensive settlements, even a state formation the Albans/Alvans/Alans (see the chapter about Alans).

Thus, the statement of the traditional historical science that the first Türks came to Northern Caucasus ostensibly only in the 4th century AD under the  name of the Huns , and to the Southern Caucasus only in the 11th century AD under the name of Oguzes does not match the reality. The Türkic-speaking areals of the Caucasus are observed since those times, when in the Middle East and Central Asia still in the 4th-3rd millenniums  BC lived separate Türkic tribes.

In the N. Pontic still long before our era  lived Türkic-speaking tribes under the names Taur, Trak, Qnogur, Akathyr, Cymmer, Skdy (Rus. Skif), etc. (see sect. 44-46). The ancient name of the Black Sea "Pont" comes from the Türkic bün/bun "soup, meal, potage" and -dy/-t, an affix of possession. Bunty > Ponty > Pont in Türkic means "feeder", "rich with food". That in the region the N.Pontic the Türks lived in beginning of the 1st millennium BC tell the fact of the presence there of the Türkic settlements Phanogoria and Panticapaeum, which were rebuilt into well-known cities with the same names in the days of the Greek colonization by Crimea [Sevostyanova O.I., 1972, 233]. As acknowledged, the toponym Phanogoria historically ascends to the ethnonym Hunogur/(F)onogur. It means that the settlement Honogur/Fonogor was established by the Onogurs/Hunogurs. The Onogurs are considered to be direct ancestors of the Bulgars.

The toponym Pontikapey historically ascends to the Türkic pontykapy "Pont Gate". This city was later renamed to Kerch, which is an antonym of word Pontikapy - Keresh "entrance". In addition, the Armenian sources note the territories of the Bulgars in the Kuban still in the 2nd century AD. Hence, the opinion about a Turkization the N. Pontic only in the 4th-7th centuries AD also does not sustain criticism.

In connection with the study of the ethnic composition in the Near Eastern and Central Asian Türkic areals was noted the presence of the Türkic-speaking area in the Ural-Itil region and Western Siberia.

About the ancient Türkic-speaking area in the Ural-Itil region we already discussed in the paragraph about the native land of the pra-Türks. The Caucasian scientists I.M.Miziev and K.T.Laipanov have comprehensively proved that in the Ural-Itil region the Türkic tribes lived in the 4th millennium BC, therefore these scientists declared the Ural-Itil region as the native land of the pra-Türks [Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 16-28].

Besides, the presence of the ancient Türkic area in the Ural-Itil region is indirectly proved by the fact of the establishment of the close ethnic, economic and political connections of that region with the Middle East and Central Asia.

Let's start with that the Near East, Central Asia and the Ural-Itil region are linked by their ancient common tribes of Subars and Kangars. As was already stated, the endoethnonym of the Sumers/Shumerians was Kangar/Kungur, because they spoke one language with the Subars, the Akkadians also these Kangars called with the ethnonym Subar/Sumar/Sumer/Shumer. The ethnonym Subar/Huar is also a part of the name Huarases/Horasmis/Horezmians. They were also called with the ethnonym Kangar/Kang/Kangha. The names of these tribes are also recorded in the Ural-Itil region. Here their traces are preserved in the toponyms Kungur, Suar. It is possible to also add here the presence of the ancient toponyms Osa, Asly/Ashly, which are linked with the tribes carrying ethnonym As. We should recall that in addition to Suar, in the composite ethnonym Huarasm/Huaras, also is the ethnonym As (Huar-As).

The Suars and Kangars have left their trace in the Near East in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, in the Central Asia in the 2nd-1st millenniums BC. And since what time the Suars and Kangars could live in the Ural-Itil region? Taking into account that this region is considered to be an ancestral home of the Türks, apparently, they have appeared there earlier than in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The ethnonym Subar had also phonetic variations as Sumer/Samar, which were recorded in the toponyms in the Central Asia (Samar-kend), and in the Itil region (Samara, Sumer).

The toponym Torchesk in the basin the r. Itil tells, apparently, about the ancient connections of the Ural-Itil region with the Near East, where even long before our era were recorded the tribes Turuk.

Such ancient connections between the Ural-Itil region and Central Asia are also found following the line of the ancient Central Asian ethnos Parthy (Rus. Parfyane), whose ethnonym historically ascends to the Türkic word par/bar "prosperity, riches" and to the Türkic affix of possession -dy/-ly: Barthy/Parthy "opulent, rich". In the Kama area are former Bulgars whose endoethnonym was and is Bardy/Pardy. Now they are called Barda' Tatarlary', the "Bardym Tatars" (Accent mark indicates accent syllable  - Translator's Note).

The presence of the close-knit, centuries-old mutual relations between the Central Asia and Kama area is also noted by the researchers of the Central Asia. So, S.P.Tolstov, having thoroughly studied the ancient Horezm, came to a conclusion that "along the ancient roads, blazed still in the neolith, the Khoresm extends its hegemony to the distant Kama area, collecting tribute of furs... And in the faraway Kama area intersect the influences of the Khoresm and the Hellenic-Scythian N. Pontic" [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 342].

About close connections of the Central Asia with the Kama area are eloquently speaking the facts of discovery in the Kama area of the so-called Horezmian, Parthian (Parthymian) and Kushan coins and silver vessels with inscriptions. They are found in a large quantity near the Kama area village Bardym/Pardym in the Perm area. Earlier, when they were found, these finds were mainly melted, only since the 18th century they started to be collected [Bader O.N., Smirnov A.P., 1954, 5]. In the 18th century, using the finds of the "southern" silver in the Kama area,  F.Stralenberg tried to prove an existence of a great water trading way from India to Biarmia and to the White Sea. The same notion was also stated in the 19th century, asserting that the silver jewelry was buried into the ground of Kama area by the visiting merchants, and hence, it had no relation to the local population [Ibid. 20]. The Perm archeologist of the end of the 19th century. F.A.Teplouhov proposed against the existence of the trading way, and suggested the use of the Uralian silver in the pagan sanctuaries of the (Finnish - Translator's Note) Khanty and Mansi [Teplouhov F.A., 1895, 85]. With this opinion later agreed almost all researchers, they presumed that the cult use of the silver vessels in the Ural and Kama area caused a huge supply of them from the south [Bader O.N., Smirnov A.P., 1954, 23]. In their opinion, in the area of the village Bartym, seemingly, was a big economic center where concentrated a mass of imported artifacts [Ibid. 25].

Horezmian Vessels

As was stated above, these connections between the Kama area and the Central Asia were done mainly by the Türks: both in the Kama area, and in the Central Asia still before our era lived Türkic-speaking tribes. The fact that the Horezmian, Parthyan and Kushanian inscriptions on the coins and silver vessels found in Kama area turned out to be Türkic, also articulates it. It is proved by the research of the numismatist A.G.Muhammadiev [Muhammadiev A.G., 1995, 36-83].  For many years, the strivings to read them on the basis of the Persian languages were bringing nil results.

It remains to find out what in the Kama area draw the attention the ancient Khwarezmians, Parthys, Kushans? Our answer is: apparently, not only the furs, but mainly the Kama area silver deposits. Until now the scientists could not figure out that the finds in the Kama area of the silver coins and vessels is a direct result of the presence there of the silver deposits. The local population the Kama area, the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars, long before our era were engaged in the silver mining, it drew the attention the Khwarezmians, and the Parthys, and the Kushans of the Central Asia, and also the Scandinavians, and Western Europeans in general. That in the Kama area were silver deposits, and the population was engaged in silver mining, was also written in the old Rus sources of the 14th century. There were noted the presence of the "Trans-Kama silver" and the collection the silver tribute from the population the Urals and Kama area [Bader O.N., Smirnov A.P., 1954, 5].

As a result of silver mining, the population in the Kama area engaged in trade in silver and, maybe, in silver products. Fore it was hardly reasonable for the Khwarezmians to bring silver vessels with inscriptions to the Kama area, they were manufactured, most likely, near the silver deposits. Therefore in the Kama area were found these vessels in such a large quantity. It demonstrates that from the Kama area were laid silver roads in different directions. The main was  the way between the Kama area and the Central Asia, probably, connecting the Türkic tribes of both regions.

Considering the matters of the ancient Central Asian Türkic-speaking area we contended that the Kushans, Indo-Iranians per the traditional historical science, in actuality were Türks, and specifically White the Huns . In various dialect conditions Kushans had phonetic versions of their ethnonym Kushan/Kusan /Kashan/Kasan/Kazan, etc., left their ethnic trace not only in the Central Asia, but also in the Ural-Itil region as toponyms Koshan, Kazan, and hydronims Kashan, Kazansu. This ethnonym, apparently, settled in the Ural-Itil region's toponyms and hydronyms during the culmination the Kushan empire in 1st-3rd centuries AD.

In the Ural-Itil region also we note the ethnic traces of the Süns (the Huns ), Avars (Aorses) and Alans, who also actively participation in the historical life of the Central Asian peoples.

The viewpoint of the traditional historical science about a Turkization the Ural-Itil region only in the 7th century AD, ostensibly with the arrival there of the Bulgars, does not sustain criticism. The Ural-Itil region was a Türkic-speaking area in the antiquity .

Western Siberia in the traditional historical science is not considered to be an ancient Türkic-speaking area, meanwhile the tribes of this region since the most ancient times were closely connected to the tribes of the Near East, and Central Asia, and the Ural-Itil region.

Chinese images of the Huns :
a - 14th century; b - 17th century

First of all it should be noted that the name Sibir itself (Engl. Siberia - Translator's Note) historically ascends to the Türkic ethnonym Subar/Suar/Sabir/Sibir. And the most ancient carriers of this ethnonym in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC lived in the Middle East, and formed of them and the Ases Huarasy lived in the Central Asia in the 2nd millennium BC. For the Subars/Sabirs and Horasmis  the access to the coast of the Caspian Sea was a usual event, and then by the rivers Yaik - Miass-Tobol-Irtysh-Ob they were reaching the Arctic Ocean, where the Kara Sea received the name Kar din_ggeze "Snow Sea".

Let's recollect the ethnonym Kangar, which was the endoethnonym of the Sumerians and a part of the Horasmis. Together with the Horasmians there were also Ases (Huar+As). The carriers of these ethnonyms, i.e. Kangars and Ases, have also reached the Western Siberia, and in the 7th century BC on the banks of the r. Yenisei they created a powerful state association called Kangaras, and it prospered up to the 5th century AD. Its possessions reached the Central Asia. The Kangaras state was ruled during various times from the different centers: Kesh, Kusan, Tashkent, Bukhara, even Samarkand. The Kangaras state included all Western Siberia. In the opinion the scientists, it left a rich Tagar archeological culture. It is also considered as a significant part of the Scythian confederation of peoples (but about Scythians is coming below).

Thus, to the ancient Türkic areas should be attributed Caucasus, N. Pontic, Ural-Itil region and Western Siberia.

32. Hunnish ethnic roots of the Türks and their areals.

That the Huns are ancestors of the Türks, in the Türkology causes no doubts. Therefore it would be possible to not discuss here the Hunnish ethnic roots of the Türks. But with the Huns are connected many ethnoses which in the ( Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science are recognized as Indo-Iranian. To reconsider these concepts, i.e. to prove the Türkic-speaking of some the Huns ' neighbors, we have to refer to the Hunnish ethnogenesis. Therefore we decided to remind the readers about the main features of the Huns and their areals.

Before the spread as a common ethnonym of the word Türk, the word Hunnu (Sün) was widely applied as a common ethnonym for the ancestors of many Türks.

In the Russian historical science the ethnonyms the Huns and Guns are semantically different, but this distinction does not exist in the Türkic sources: there is used Hun (Sün, or in alternate pronunciation Sön). In the secondary composite ethnonyms the word Sün takes various dialectal forms: San, Sun, Zan, Shan, Djan, etc.

In the Indian and Chinese sources the ethnonym Sün in a form Unu is recorded in 2nd millennium BC, later it is found in Eurasia, even in the West down to the borders of the Northern Italy [Elnitsky L.A., 1977, 4].

 The Turkish scientist Bahaeddin Ögel, who in 1981 published two-volume work about the Great Hunnish Empire, based on the analysis of the Chinese sources, writes that the Huns in 1500 BC were in a close contact with Chinese, and among them were hunters, cattlemen, farmers (raised wheat and millet), but they were especially famous for the horse breeding [Ogel, 1981, 11].

Apparently, the Huns (Unu) still in the 2nd millennium BC had a state, otherwise their Indian and Chinese sources simply would not mention them. But this, most ancient period, has not been studied yet (see Chinese images of the Huns and the animal style of their art).

Hun's "Animal style"

The historical science knows that the Huns created their first empire in the 8th-7th centuries BC. The empire spread in the space from Korea to the Aral Lake, from the Siberian steppes and Tyan-Shan mountains to the Tibetan pastures and Northern China. In the beginning of our era in the area of the river Orkhon, in Talas-Altai, in the Western Turkestan emerges the Northern Hunnish state, and in the Northwestern China emerges the Southern Hunnish state, which existed until the 2nd-3rd century AD [Seferoglu, Mudarrisoglu, 1986, 25-26].

In the 1st century AD the internal processes split the state of the Huns . A part of them subordinated to the China, another combating part retreated to the West, where it mixed with Ugrs and Sarmatians and  turned into Guns [ Gumilev L.N., 1974, 5 ]. This notion, naturally, leads to objections, for the Huns as an ethnos did not disappear, as thinks L.N.Gumilev, but they continued to live under different ethnonyms. The the Huns did not turn into Guns, i.e. into another people, and in the West; under different Russian terms the Huns and Guns lived the same peoples called by the Türkic-speaking peoples with their ethnonym Hun (Sün).

Now we shall turn the attention the readers to the Huns (Süns) of Europe, who in the Russian historical science are called Guns. By the L.N.Gumilev's summary, in the 70ies of the 4th century the Huns began a mass movement, creating a push to the so-called Great Movement of Peoples. Subduing Alans of the Northern Caucasus, the Huns led by Balamber (a.k.a. Bulümar - Translator’s note) crossed Don, crushed (375 AD) the Goths in the N.Pontic, and forced Vestgoths to retreat to Thrace.

In the 394-395 the Huns, crossing Caucasus, devastated Syria and Cappadocia, then they came to Pannonia and from there attacked the Eastern Roman empire.

The Hunnish tribal union has reached its greatest territorial expansion and power during Attila time (ruled in 434-453). In the 451 the Huns invaded Northern Italy and Gallia, but in the Catalaun fields were defeated by Romans, Vestgoths and Franks. After the death of Attila (in 453) the Hunnish union split up.

That is a brief legendary history of the Huns, it contains a mass of contradictions.

If the Huns were only the nomads and had appeared in the Europe only in the 70ies of the 4th century, they would hardly succeed in such prompt, lightning attacks on the Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Syria, Anatolia (Cappadocia), in bringing the Roman empire to the edge of decimation. The real history  cannot develop so luckily just for the Huns.

Actually, the Türkic tribes under different ethnonyms spread across Europe still long before our era. At different times some of them succeeded in taking a prevailing position, creating their state, and enter the history under their ethnonym. Still among the Scythians, the majority of which was Türkic-speaking (see details in the following chapter of this book), also were tribes named Süns (Huns), who in the beginning of our era become prominent, and  the Greek historian writers started to tell about them, but not one of them wrote that Huns came to the Europe from Asia, on the contrary, they are mentioned as aborigines.

The Greek historian Dionisius, who lived and wrote at end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd century AD, writes that in the northwest of the Caspian Sea live: "first the Scythians, who occupy the coast near the Chronian sea along the mouth of the Caspian Sea, then the Unns, and behind them the Caspians, behind these are aggressive Albanians and Kadusians, who are living in the mountainous country" [Latyshev V.V., 1893, I, 186]. As is seen from this citation, the Türkic tribes recorded by Dionisius in the beginning  of our era were widely distributed in Europe still before the our era. Of the tribes listed by him everyone is Türkic-speaking: the Scythians are mainly Türkic-speaking, Caspi are Türks also, theit ethnonym consist of elements kas "rock", pi (bey, bay) is the primary Türkic ethnonym, Alan < Aluan < Alban is the ethnonym of the Türkic tribes, Kadus is a Türkic ethnonym consisting of a primary ethnonym Us (variation the ethnonym As), with a definition kath < kas "rock", Kadus is "Ases of Rocky Mountains".

Let's take another Greek historian of 2nd century AD, Ptolemy (Geography Book 3 Chapter 5 - Translator’s note). He writes that in European Sarmatia belower Akathyirs (Agathyrs) between Vasterns and Rhoxolans live the Huns [ Latyshev V.V., 1893, I, 232].

In the 4th century AD, precisely when the Türks ostensibly migrated from the Asia to Europe, the Greek historian Philostorgius (The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius Book 9, Ch. 17 - Translator’s note) writes about the Huns, but not with a single word does he mention that the Huns came to Europe from Asia: "These Unny, apparently, are ancient Nevrs; they lived on the Ripeian mountains where flows the river Tanaid" [Latyshev V.V., 1893, I, 741].

In second half of the 5th century AD Zosimus classified the Huns as the imperial Scythians [Latyshev V.V., 1893, I, 800], and the Türkic-speaking of the Scythians does not cause any doubts [Karalkin P.I., 1978, 39-40].

Thus, the Huns located before our era also in Europe, only in the beginning of our era appear on the scene, and in the 4th century they come to power, under rthe rule of Attila they consolidate the peoples of the Eastern Europe against the Roman empire, and achieve its fall.

In a common historical science there is no unified opinion about the language affiliation the Huns . There are some proofs of the Türkic-speaking, and of the Finno-speaking, and of the Mongolo-speaking, and of the Manchjuro-speaking of the Huns [Kafesoglu I., 1992, 115].

In last years scientists came to a conclusion that the (Asian - Translator’s note) Hunnish, and the (European - Translator’s note) Hunnish empires were created by the Türkic-speaking Huns, but because in the empires lived Mongols, and Manchurians, and some Finno-Ugrian tribes, and, naturally, other Türks carrying other ethnonyms, then they all collectively subsequently received a common ethnonym Hun (Sün) [Ser-Odjav H., 1971, 15; Suhbaatar G., 1976, 123].

The Türkic-speaking of the Huns is also proved by the fact that the ethnonym Hun in the ancient Türkic language had the semantics of "man" [Kafesoglu I., 1992, 112], and that the Chinese considered the people Tü-Kü (Türk) to be the descendants of the Huns [Bichurin N.J., 1950; Aristov N.A., 1896, 290].

Some Türkologists are inclined to recognize, that the Huns spoke a uncommon Türkic language such as Chuvash. But this opinion does not sustain any criticism. If the Huns, spread in the huge territory from the Lake Baikal to the Balkan peninsula, spoke a Chuvash-like Türkic language, then the descendants  of the Huns, i.e. all the Türks, also would have spoken a Chuvash-like language. The Huns spoke the usual Türkic language of the Kypchak-Oguz type.

That is proved, first, by a Hunnish phrase preserved by the sources. In the 4th century AD the Southern Huns conquered the Northern China, and the Hunnish leaders regard themselves as emperors of China. One of them Shi Le, setting off in the 328 AD to a campaign, asks a Buddhist monk to predict the result of the campaign. The monk says: "Süchzhu tilyaygyan, pugu toutadan". Scientists did not doubt that it was a Türkic phrase, but couldnot decipher it, even though in the same place is given its Chinese translation "The army will set off, the Pugu (a name or a rank of the opponent) will be taken"  [Aristov N.A., 1896, 292-293]. The Türkologists suggested a lot of variations of the Türkic phrases, but we shall not stop on them, we shall read it without any changes, i.e. how it is cited in the source. The first word - süchju is the Türkic süche "leader of an army, commander"; the second word tilyaygyan is "if would want"; the third word pugu is the ethnonym of a hostile tribe (even in the 19th century Kara Kyrgyzes had a clan Bugu > Pugu); the fourth word - toutadan, i.e. tatygan "subjected", it is rhymed with the word tilyaygyan "would want". Here the affix -gan is pronounced as -dan, this is a usual phenomenon for the Türkic languages. Pronouncing the complete phrase once again with some minor alterations we shall receive: "Süche tilyaygyan, Pugu tatygan", i.e. "If the commander of the army would wish, the opponent Pugu would be subjected (to a defeat)". This semantics completely coincides with the Chinese translation in the source.

Secondly, the Türkic-speaking of the Huns is usually proved by individual words recorded in the sources. The name Balamber of the leader of the Huns is of a Türkic origin from a word balam "my child", the second part bir is "give, deliver" or ber "only". In the name all the consonants are sonorous; if the Hunnish language was like a Chuvash-type, there would be palatalized consonants instead. The name Attila (possibly Atty+Ille) consist of parts atty (atly) "deserving", or "with a horse", and ille "possessing a country". In Türkic tradition the great personalities were renamed, and the secondary name semantically should have reflected his social status.

In the Türkic history are the names Atsyz and Atty (Atly) [Abul-Gazi, 1906, 10]. Apparently, in the ancient times the name Atly (Atty) meant "having a horse", " with a horse", then this semantics has extended, and atly began to be applied with a meaning "deserved".

In the name of the Attilla's son Ellak the affix -ly (-ty) is applied in its ancient full form as -lyk (-lak), its root is -il (ell) "country".

The second son of Attyille (Attila) is Dintsik or Dengitsih. This name is etymologized with variations: tin_g tsyk  "be worthy", tansyk "long-awaited", Dengitsih "cross the seas", etc (see Khan Diggiz Dish for factual details - Translator’s note).

The name of the Attilla's favourite wife is Kerkè. N.I.Ashmarin deduces it from the Chuvash Herkke, a pagan name [Ashmarin N.I., 1902, 56]. But a simple fact is, the Türks their loved favorite girls called Kerkè "goby".

Thus the Huns (Süns), i.e. the Huns and Guns of the Russian history, were the common Türkic-speaking peoples, and were one of the strong ethnic roots of the Türks, flourished in a huge Türkic area from the borders of the China to the Carpathian mountains.

112

33. The ethnic roots of Türks in the Hunnish tribes Syanbi, Usun, Tabgach, Jujan and Ephtalite.

These tribes or peoples are directly connected to the Huns (Süns), they were a part of the Huns, and the ethnonyms of some of them historically go back to the word Hun (Sün).

Syanbi, as the inhabitants of the Central Asia in the 4th-3rd centuries BC, were recorded in various historical sources as the direct neighbors and companions of the Huns. Together with Huns they conquered China a few times, and had their own state [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 9]. In the 3rd century BC during a relative decline of the Hunnish society, Syanbi receive a chance for a fast development. But in the 3rd century AD their state falls into decay. On its ruins among the Syanbi emerge Tabgaches and Kidans, whom the Chinese called Toba. In the L.N.Gumilev's opinion, later the Syanbi live among the Türks and Uigurs under the name Kidan. In the 10th century most of the Syanbi assimilates among the Chinese [Gumilev L.N., 1993, 197].

No common the opinion of now exist about the ethnic affiliation the Syanbi, they are classed as Mongols, and as Manchurians, and as Türks. But there are more proofs of their Türkic-speaking. First, the Tabgaches, budded from the Syanbi, are categorized as Türks; secondly, the ethnonym Syanbi is etymologized on the basis of the Türkic language. Syanbi consist of two primary Türkic ethnonyms Syan < Sün and Bi < Bey; it is the people Bi, but admixed with Süns (Huns), or the Bies closely related with Süns (Huns).

Usun is the name of a tribe or people consisting of two initial Türkic ethnonyms: As - Sün > As - Sun > Us - Sun > Usun.

In the 2nd century BC a Chinese diplomat comes to the Central Asia Usuns with a task to raise Usuns against the Huns. The Usuns easily fall to the instigation, and for almost 100 years fight with the Huns. In the result in the 1st century BC they split into two groups: supporters of the Chinese and supporters of the Huns. Soon the Huns succeed in subduing the Usuns, whose territory passes to the Syanbi branched from the Huns [ Bartold V.V., 1963, vol. 2, part 1, 25-30].

About the ethnic affiliation the Usuns are differing points of view. The Eurocentric historical science attributes them to the "Arians", and in particular to the Indo-Iranians, and V.V.Radlov and N.A.Aristov find the Usuns to be Türkic-speaking [Bartold V.V., 1963, vol. 2, part 1, 26]. Per the etymology of their ethnonym, they are Türks.

The Tabgach tribes in the historical literature are recognized as half-Türks and half-Chinese. Mahmut Kashgarly (aka Mahmud Kaşgari "Divan lugat at-turk" - Translator’s note) considered the Tawgach/Taugach to be one of Türks' branches [Kashgarly М., vol. 4, 853]. And the etymology of the ethnonym Tabgach also shows their Türkic-speaking. In the ancient Türkic language tapag (tapyg or tapug) is "service, duty, servant", the ach comes from the ancient Türkic ethnonym As; Tabgach is "Contracted Ases". The Türkic-speaking of the Tabgaches is confirmed by the works of the ancients, they formed from the Syanbi and Süns.

The Tabgaches are recorded in sources well before our era, but in the creation their independent state in the Middle and Central Asia, where existed a Türko - Chinese bi-linguism, they succeeded only in the 4th century AD. Therefore it was easy for the Chinese to work them, and in the 6th century they brought this state to a destruction.

The Jujan's ethnonym, in the L.N.Gumilev's opinion, pertained to an association the offended parts of different ethnoses [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 11-12]. But this opinion, apparently, had arose when the (Russian - Translator’s note) studies of the ethnic processes drew to the foreground just the class system of the tribes.

Jujans were considered to be one of the branches of the Huns, they spoke the Syanbinian language, but always aspired to seize the power, also involving in this struggle other tribes [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 12]. As a part of the Huns and Syanbi, the Jujans created in the beginning of the 5th century AD a strong state or a union of tribes in the Western Manchuria, Mongolia and Turkestan. In the 6th century the major part of the Jujan adopts the ethnonym Türk, but the ethnonym Jujan is met as late as in the 9th century on the banks of the Danube. L.N.Gumilev rates the Jujans and Syanbis as Mongolo-speaking [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 12].

In our opinion, the Jujans were Türkic-speaking from the very beginning. Another matter that in their state were both Mongols and Manchurians. The Türkic-speaking of the Jujan to some extent is also proved by the Türkic etymology of their ethnonym: Jujan <  Su-san < Su Sün, i.e. they were "Water Huns".

The Ephtalites in another way are called by the world historical science "White Huns". In the 4th-6th centuries AD they had their state in the Central Asia, Afghanistan, Northwestern India, and East Turkestan.

In India a part of the Ephtalites assimilates among the local people [Nehru Dj., 1975, 172, 173], and another part retains their Türkic-speaking.

In the Russian and West-European historical science the Ephtalites, in defiance of the fact that they are White Huns, are considered to be Iranian-lingual.

The Türkologists attribute the Ephtalites to the Türkic-speaking peoples, but some of them at the same time add that once the Iranian-lingual Ephtalites switched to the Türkic language. In our opinion, the Ephtalites, like the Horasmis, Kushans, Parthys (Parthians), Usuns, Sogds from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking. The fact of the Ephtalites' (Türk.: Abdal, Abdally, Hantal) Türkic-speaking is recognized in the Turkish and Hungarian Türkology [Seferoglu, Mudarrisoglu, 1986, 29; Rasonie L., 1993, 73].

Thus, we find the ethnic roots of the Türks in the Huns and in other closely connected to them tribes and peoples.

Now we shall pass to the more ancient and peripheral Türks.

34. Levels of antiquity of the Türks by the rock and cave petroglyphs and inscriptions, and the destinies of the peripheral Türkic areas.

 Interestingly, wherever rock and cave inscriptions are found, everywhere they initially are studied from the viewpoint of finding there the Indo-European languages; then their decoding is usually started by the Finno-Ugrologists. Only after that the Türkologists start studying them, on the basis of the Türkic languages. Strangely enough, in most cases they are successful. With the deciphering of the known Türkic "runes" happened just so (Engl. runes: "Any character from an ancient Germanic alphabet used in Scandinavia from the 3rd century to the Middle Ages", so "Türkic runes" is a misnomer, though widely used even today. Türkic "runes" is a lit. translation for what semantically is "Türkic alphabet" - Translator’s note). 

The rock and cave petroglyphs and inscriptions are studied by many experts. But here we shall tell about the work of one of them, a Turkish scientist Kazim Mirşan (here: Kazim Mirshan - Translator’s note), who researched the runic and runic-like inscriptions, rock and cave petroglyphs, and reexamined the results of the works of other researchers. Here we address his book "Alfabetik yazy başlangyçy" (Beginning of the Alphabetic Writing).-Bodrum, 1994.

The major result of the Kazym Mirshan's book became a refutation of the following assertions of the traditional historical science:

1. All alphabets were formed under an influence of the Phoenician alphabet.

2. The most ancient culture of Europe is the Greek culture.

3. The Scythian culture cannot be older than the Greek culture.

4. The ancestral home of the Etruscans is near the Aegean sea, from there they came to the Etruria.

5. Türks borrowed their "runic" script from the Syrians.

6. The Uigur script is not a development of the "runic" script.

7. Proto-Türks could not be Europeans.

On the basis of the analysis of the specific material, K.Mirshan rebutts all these traditional assertions. He analyses the pictographs made with paints 20 thousand years ago, and the petroglyphs chiseled on the rocks and stones 15 thousand years ago. The were found in the Siberia, Kazakhstan, Abakan - Yenisei, on the banks of r. Lena, in the mountains of Altai (in the Former USSR, Mongolia and China), in the East Turkestan (in Sintszyan ("New Territory", since its occupation by the Chinese Communists in 1949  - Translator's Note), and Northern Afghanistan), in Anatolia, Romania, Greece, Switzerland, Italy, France, Northern Spain, and he suggests that from these pictographs and petroglyphs came the alphabetic script. In a likewise way, the Türkic script arose among the Türks. In support of this hypothesis he provides his Türkic deciphering of the so-called Glozel inscriptions written 4,500 years ago where is France located now.

The history of the finding and deciphering of the Glozel inscriptions is described by K.Mirshan as follows.

In the 1924 in the suburb of the city Vichy in the department Alie of the Central France, an owner of a garden found on the lot more than three thousand fragments of the inscriptions. They become known as "Glozel inscriptions". For 60 years scientists were decoding them on the basis of the Indo-European languages, with no results. Once a Turkish Parisian pianist Haluk Tardjan learned about these inscriptions, in his spare time he studied the works about history  and ethnography. He sent zerox copies of the Glozel inscriptions to the Turkish expert on ancient inscriptions, scientist Kazym Mirshan.

 On March 27, 1993, Kazim Mirshan addressed a conference in the Sorbonna university about the results of his study of the Glozel inscriptions and proved the Türkic language of these inscriptions. The Glozel inscriptions of the pra-Türks are older than Etruscan script. The last comes from the Glozelian script, and at the same time the Etruscan script was a basis for the Latin, and to some extent also for the Cyrillics. These conclusions, naturally, require a careful confirmation, and so far we are accepting them as a hypothesis. But at the same time we suggest that once in the territory of the modern France also was a modest Türkic area, but as a peripheral, and it was absorbed by the French language.

In the K.Mirshan's opinion, the pra-Türkic letters, which the author conditionally calls UW-ON type, existed even before the emergence of the Phoenician script. From them developed the proto-Samian (? - Translator's Note) (Phoenician) letters, proto-Byzantian, even proto-Greek and Ionian. We shall cite here K.Mirshan's summary table, with comparison of the pra-Türkic, proto-Phoenician, proto-Greek, proto-Byzantian, and Ionian letters [Mirshan К., 1994, 77]. It tells that the Türkic civilization has a deep history, but, unfortunately, the Türkologists have not reached it yet.

35. Traces of Türks in the Etruscan culture, or one more faded Türkic area.

The Etruscans in the 1st millennium BC lived in the northwest of the Apennine peninsula. Their power extended south and north from the rivers Arnos and Tiber, and east to the Adriatic Sea [Nemirovsky A.I., 1983, 3]. The Etruscans, known to the Greeks as Tirrens, had a high civilization, they made a big contribution to the cultural development of the Rome and Italy, but because of their small number they dissolved in the Latino-Roman ethnos. The Roman winners recognized that they were obligated to the Etruscans for their government, a number of buildings in Rome, theatre, spread of the writing, development of mining, ceramics and metal craft, architectural culture and the town-building, methods of bog drainage, sculpture art, and painting. In addition to the medicinal therapy, Etruscans developed methods of treatment by thermal waters. They not only treated teeth, but also performed their prosthetics [Nemirovsky A.I., 1983, 229-233].

The problem of the origin of Etruscans and their language was studied still in the 18th century. It was then that emerged an the opinion of of their migration from the Asia Minor, for the scientists found similarities in dress and customs of the Etruscans with the inhabitants of the Asia Minor. Later appeared other versions of the Etruscans' origin. It was strenuously propagandized their autochthony.

We are interested, first of all, in the opinions of the scientists about the Etruscan language. At that time in the Western Europe was no people who had a written literary language, and the Etruscans had an advanced system of a written literary language. By now are found more than 11 thousand written monuments. But in spite of the fact that many experts studied them, they still are not completely deciphered.

Naturally, the scientists anticipated that the Etruscan language is an ancient variation of the Italian language, for the Italian culture evolved on a basis of the Etruscan civilization. But the research in that direction did not afford the expected results. Any attempts to find in the Etruscan written sources any other Indo-European languages also remained futile.

V.Brandenshtein studied the problem of the origin of the Etruscans for many years. Taking into account the failures of his predecessors, he became a supporter of the eastern origin of the Etruscans. He explained the Indo-European elements in the Etruscan language by an influence of the West-European languages. "He found Türkizms in it. On that basis he came to a conclusion that in the 2nd millennium BC the ancestors of the Etruscans lived in the Central Asia. From there they migrated to the northeast of the Asia Minor, where from the cattlemen they have turned to pirates. V.Brandenshtejn dates the migration of the Etruscans to Italy by 900-800 BC" [Nemirovsky A.I., 1983, 13]. For the sake of justice it should be noted that, by the account of A.I.Nemirovsky, V.Brandenshtein later forsook "the Türkic concept", for it found a serious disapproval on the part of the Italian scientists, who were trying to prove that they are the descendants of the civilized Etruscans in the linguistic relation also.

A.I.Nemirovsky himself comes to a conclusion that the affiliation of the Etruscan language to any family remains undetermined. In his opinion, the Etruscan language does not belong to any one known family of languages, it is an independent branch of some non-Indo-European language family.

On the evidence of an etymological analysis of the Etruscan words, O.Suleymenov in his original book "Language of the script" comes to a conclusion that in the Etruscan federations the Etruscan script recorded all those languages whose carriers were included into that federation. These were languages: Romance, Celtic, Greek, Slavic, German, Baltic, Finno-Ugric and Türkic [Suleymenov О., 1998, 426].

F.Latypov [Latypov F., 1994] made successful attempts of decrypting the Etruscan inscriptions in the ancient Türkic language. The author believes that the Etruscan language is a pra-Türkic language. In our opinion, this hasty conclusion does not match the reality. Most likely, this language represents the Türkic language in the period of its assimilation by the Romance language. The Turkish scientist Kazym Mirshan also attributes the Etruscan language to the Türkic, but he also takes into account that this language at the same time strongly deviated from the common Türkic under an influence of the Romance languages.

From the viewpoint of the relation of the Etruscan language to the Türkic, the emergence and development of the views of the Turkish-Tatar scientist Adilya Ayda present a big interest. She is a daughter of the famous Tatar scientist and politician Sadri Maksudi. Like her father, she graduated Sorbonna in Paris, she became a known diplomat in Turkey: she worked in Rome as the ambassador of Turkey in Italy.

Adilya Ayda began to study the Etruscan problem under the influence of the ideas of her father, Sadri Maksudi, who, intuitively feeling the Türkic features in the Etruscan language, was seriously engaged in the study of the linguistical and other problems of the Etruscans, but did not have time to finish his research. Knowing it and using her position as the ambassador to Italy, Adilya Ayda started to seriously study the problems of the Etruscans. She said that in three years she had studied all the sources on the Etruscology. In the 1971 she published a book in French "Les Etrusques etaient - ils des Turcs?" ("Were the Etruscans Türks?"). From the date of turning the manuscript of this book to the publisher, Adilya Ayda for 16 years studied the problems of the Etruscans, and in the 1985 she published  another book "Les etrusques etaient des Turcs (preuves)" ("Etruscans were Türks").

The author considers the Etruscans to be pra-Türks. This viewpoint, she states, is also supported by the scientists, one English, one French, one Austrian: Isaac Taylor, Baron Karra de Vauks, Wilhelm Brandenshtein [Adilya Ayda, 1992, 11]. After publication of this work, Adilya Ayda continues to refine the book, and in the 1992 she published  it in the Turkish language "Etrüskler (Tursakalar) Türk idiler. Ilmi deliller" ("Etruscans Tursaka were Türks. Scientific grounds").

Unfortunately, on day of publication the book Adilya Ayda died, but she left a list of scientists whom she wanted to present her book. In the list also was my name, therefore her daughters Genül and Gülnur sent me the book also. Strangely enough, I received it in those days when I was engaged in the study of the works on the Etruscan language.

With a big interest I have studied the book, I gathered a mass of material about the relation of the Etruscan language to the Türkic, and came to the following conclusion.

The Etruscan language in that condition in which it reached us is not a common Türkic language of the Oguz-Kipchak type. Under an influence of a number of the West-European languages it strongly deviated from the typical Türkic norms. It also cannot be counted as a pra-Türkic, for from it did not geminate any of the Türkic languages . But it itself, begat by the usual pra-Türkic language, in the 2nd millennium BC has strongly deviated from the common Türkic norms.

The fate of small peripheral Türkic areas is well-known: sooner or later they are absorbed by other neighboring peoples speaking a different language. The history of the Basques in this respect is of interest. The Türkic scientists, analyzing their language ethnological features, also relate the ancestors of the Basques to the Türks. Living far from the Türks, they lost their former Türkic language, and from a conglomerate of the Türkic and a number of the European languages they derived their modern language [Koshay Kh.Z., 1954, 210-215; Koshay Kh.Z., 1957, 521-559; Koruklü Р., 31-32].

36. Some arguments of Adilya Ayda that prove the Türkic-speaking of the Etruscans' ancestors.

The scientists, having thoroughly studied various sources, came to a conclusion that in 3rd millennium BC from the Balkan peninsula to Italy and Greece moved tribes called by the ethnonym Pelask, who created a state, but later suffered a defeat from the impact of the Greeks . These Pelasks are considered to be the ancestors of the Etruscans. Adilya Ayda suggested that this ethnonym consist of two parts, Pela and Sak. The first represents a reduced form of the ethnonym Bulgak (Pulgak). The word Pelask was formed as follows: Pulak+Sak > P'la+Sak > Pelask. Hence, the secondary ethnonym Pelask comes from the two initial Türkic ethnonyms, the people Pelask was formed by consolidation of mainly former Bulgaks (Bulgars) and Sakas. It is a first hypothesis.

There is still another version, that in the 2nd millennium BC the Indo-Iranians called the Central Asian Türkic tribes by the (exo)ethnonym Tur (Tu-er > Tur "Mountain People"), and called their place they Turan. Later the Turs pop up in the Asia Minor, in Anatolia, there the Greeks pronounce the word Turan  as Tirren. The Tirrens are also recognized as the ancestors of the Etruscans.

In the opinion of Adilya Ayda, the Turs consolidated with the Sakas, and still before their arrival to Italy they started to be called with a new secondary ethnonym Tursaka, which in the Latin language is pronounced as Turska, from which comes the ethnonym Etruscans.

It deserves a special attention that the Serbs also now call with this ethnonym Turski the Türks of the Anatolia, hence, for the Serbs the Etruscans and the Türks are historically the same people.

The capital Tarkinia of Etruria was the finest city of that time. A part of the name Tark (apparently, from the root Türk) we find in many toponyms of the Etruria. In the 753 BC the grandson of the Etruscan king, Romulus, built a new city near the capital, which received a name Roma (Rome). Between the 753 and 509 BC the kings of Roma were Etruscans. Only in the 4th century BC the Roma was conquered by the  Gallo-Celtic carriers of the Latin  language.

After relaying this history, Adilya Ayda gives 74 common for the Etruscans and the Türks of religious arguments, plus one legal, one artistic and one culinary.

The second chapter of the Adilya Ayda's book "Etruscans (tursaka) were Türks" is devoted to the analysis of the common for the Etruscans and the Türks another 74 linguistical arguments. In her opinion, the Etruscan alphabet was brought by the Tursakas (i.e. Pelasges) from the Central Asia to the Italy. There it was gradually altered into the known Latin alphabet.

In the field of phonetics, Adilya Ayda finds the following similarities between the Etruscan and the Türkic languages: the sounds, b, g, d freely alternate with their palatalized pairs p, k, t; the sound k has a firm variation k'; the sound k alternates with the sound kh'; the sounds o and u are not discriminated.

Both Türks and Etruscans write right to left, both indicate only consonant letters (rtk = artyk "extra, superfluous", blk = balyk "city"). For the scientists unfamiliar with the Türkic language, this aspect of the script has always been an obstacle in the decoding of the Etruscan inscriptions.

At this point Adilya Ayda lists 40 common Etruscan and Türkic words. The 15 of them express religious concepts, they also became a part of the Latin  language, for the Romans then lead their spiritual service in the Etruscan language. The other 25 words were used only in the Etruscan and Türkic languages.

They are (the following semantical translations underwent a torturous path from French to Turkish to quasi-Russian with a Tatar bend, and finally to English, and may suffer all the defects of the multiple translation, especially for the purposes of academic research. We can only hope that the semantics of the words was relayed correctly in the French to Turkish to Russian circa Tatar translation, and their English rendition reflects the text of Prof. M.Zakiev, not of A. Ayda herself. For simple objects, like "karyn - stomach" the semantics is clear, but for intangible objects, like "ugur - happiness" the semantics is only within a semantical field - Translator's Note):

1) augur > ogur > ugur "happiness",

2) hаruspeks (hаru-speks) - observation of the internal organs of the sacrificial animals; the first part ascends to the word karyn "stomach";

3) kamillus (kam-illus) the second part illus in the old Latin is a diminutive affix, the first is from the Türkic kam "cult clergy" in shamanism (i.e. in Tengrianism - Translator's Note);

4) templum - to revere the Sky, Tangri god, -um is a Latin suffix, temp is from the Türkic tap, tabynu "to worship";

5) atrium (atr-ium), here -ium is a Latin suffix, atr < ata+yer "fatherland", atrium is the country of Etruscans;

6) makte "revere, honor Tangri god, sacrifice (v)", from a root makta "praise";

7) avil (auil) "year", from avil comes the word yil "year" (yýl in Turkish spelling - Translator's Note);

8) seakulum "century, hundred years", -um is a Latin suffix, seak > sük> süs "hundred", ul < auil < yil  "year"; seak-ul-um > seakulum;

9) saepe "many, often", in Yakut (i.e. Sakha - Translator's Note) syby "more, stringy";

10) aeger > aegr (-um) of "sick" from the Türkic avyr-agyr;

11) toga "cover, store (v)", from the Türkic tong "clothes"; in Latin the n is dropped;

12) kuria (kur-ia) - religious or political society, from the Türkic koru "create, build (v)" (This Kipchak word was used in the composition "The Song of Igor’s Campaign", ca. 1187 AD, and the Russian "academicians" had to do a lot of perplexed jiggling to explain it away with a semblance of credulity - Translator's Note);

13) kurulis (kurul-is) assembly of statesmen, from the Türkic koru "create, build (v)";

14) kuirites builders, founders, founders,  from the Türkic koru "create, build (v)", -uth is the Italian (i.e. Latin - Translator's Note) suffix of a practitioner, -es is a (Latin - Translator's Note) plural ending affix;

15) balte sabre belt, from the Türkic bildè "at waist";

16) atta grandfather.

 All the Etruscan words above were borrowed into the Italian language.

The listed below Türko-Etruscan words were not absorbed into the Italian lexicon, but some of them were borrowed into the Greek language:

17) Ais one of Umay's gods ( Goddess Umay is a female Deity associated with benevolent deities and spirits. She was considered to be a favorite wife of Sky God Tengri, living in the heaven - Translator's Note). In Yakut (i.e. Sakha - Translator's Note) She is called Aysit; in the word Aysit the suffix -it is a Mongolian plural, Ais is "God angri";

18) apa "father", from the Türkic aba;

19) (о)klan (oklan) from the Türkic oglan "son" (see sidekick here) ;

20) (u)lukhum < ulug+ym "my son, my great (child)";

21) sek < kyz-kys  "sex";

22) mlak (mulak) gift to God, devote to God Tangri, from the Türkic bülek (mülek, m > b) "gift";

23) suk - religious act, kurban-bairam, from the Türkic sük (comp. Chuv.);

24) hintha, here s alternates with the sound h, in the Uigur synty vault-like place;

25) begoe  female prophet, from the Türkic bikè "matron", in the Chuvash pige, in ancient Türkic peke hanym "madonna";

26) than  (pronounced t-han - Translator's Note) respond to God(dess) Tabiti, from the (Türkic) word tap, tabynu "worship (v)" (see Herodotus 4, 59 for Scythian Tabiti - Translator's Note);

27) sath here y alternates with the sound s, from the (Türkic) yat "set, place (v)";

28) thez  "make, build (v)", from the (Türkic) tözü "build (v)";

29) zikh "write", in the Uigur chizmek ("-mek" is a Türkic suffix of infinitive case - Translator's Note);

30) tush deceased's resting place, from the Türkic tüshmek "take down, lower (v)";

31) kap  (Türkic) "container, vessel, box" (see sidekick here);

32) hek  "add, extra,  excess", from the Türkic ek;

33) sak  (Türkic) "honor, store";

34) fala - "sky, celestial object", in Old Türkic hala, halla ;

35) nak - "why", from the (Türkic) nik;

36) anank - (Türkic) "his";

37) mi from (Türkic) mini "me" (like me in "they fooled me" - Translator's Note);

38) vel < ol (Türkic) "that, he";

39) tarkuin(ius) from the Türkic tarhan; here tar is "arable land", han (i.e. Khan) is "lord", tarkuin is "tarkhan", "landowner";

40) rasena  endoethnonym of Etruscans, from arsana: ars is "strong", ana is "mother", i.e. pra-mother of Türks or asana (ashina).

Then Adilya Ayda lists the grammatical phenomena common for the Türks and the Etruscans:

1) Agglutination: Èhmet-nekenene_g;

2) An affix of an adjective -l: truyal < troya-ly "Trojanian";

3) Absence of a gender indicator;

4) Plural affix : in Etruscan -èr, in the Türk.-ler;

5) Absence of a nominal affix (for example like in Greek "os");

6) Simultaneous use of the genitive case and the affix of possession: gölnen_g töse "color, color shade";

7) Separate form for a combination of the definition and the determined: gülün kokusu "flower's fragrance", romaly imparator "Roman emperor";

8) Affix of directional case -a;

9) Locative affix (place and location) -ta/te;

10) Accusative case affix  -n;

11) (Accusative case) pronouns mi-mini "me";

12) Present tense of a verb affixes -a,-e,-i,-u: kala "remains", töshè "descends", èshli "works";

13) Affix of the past tense -che, compare Chuv. -che;

14) Affix for continuous tense -ary > -asy: alasy kilde "taking" (in the original: название процесса передается при помощи ары > асы: аласы килде "хотел взять" - Translator's Note);

15) Affix for trade in Etruscan -th, in Türkic -chy: kitapchy "reader";

16) The predicate verb is placed at the end of the sentence;

17) Presence of identical impersonal sentences: an_glamyisyz, ca. "you understandless".

From the above common for Etruscan and Türkic languages examples, Adilya Ayda considers the Etruscan language to be proto-Türkic. There she is mistaken. The Etruscan language under the influence of the Romance languages deviated very strongly from the common Türkic genre, even further than the Chuvash and Sakha languages deviated from the Türkic norms.

In a word, the ancient Türkic-speaking areals were located in many regions of the Eurasia, and during a period of five to six thousand years happened some reduction because of the "loss" of diminished peripheral areals.

Until now we dealt with the recognized Türkic ethnoses and ethnonyms. Now we shall move to the problems of the ethnic roots for those Türkic peoples who in the traditional historical science are deemed as Iranian-lingual.