Print Page | Close Window

Origin of Tatar

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21212
Printed Date: 22-Nov-2017 at 18:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Origin of Tatar
Posted By: kamran
Subject: Origin of Tatar
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 02:39
The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?



Replies:
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:10
Just one question.
Can a Mongol or Tungus understand Cyrimean Tatar or Kazan Tatar languages?
 
I'm a Turkmen and I can understand my Tatar brother's language and this(language) shows that Tatars are Turkic not Mongolic or Tungusic...


-------------
PROUD TO BE TURKMEN...



Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 13:27
Originally posted by kamran

The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?
 
About 10.000 Tartars live in Poland nowadays.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 14:06
Yes, Tatar originally was just a name for a Mongolian tribe.
 
Than by confusion it was ascribed to different Turkic tribes which inhabitted the Mongolian empire.
 
Europeans didn't understand all the different features distinguishing different ethnc Turkic groups so they all were called Tatars just to make the things simpler.
 
In fact, a lot of Turkic ethnicities do not like to be called Tatars. For example many Volga Tatars emphasize that their correct name is Bulgar and Tatar is just an alien name brought with the Mongol invasion.
 
Who are the people who are called Tatars:
 
Crimean Tatars are in fact Kypchaks settled in in the northern bank of the Balck Sea.
 
Volga Tatars are Bulgars with some Kypchak admixture.
 
Both groups are different and speak different but close Turkic languages.
 
Different groups of Siberian tatars originate form the local Turkic tribes aslo speak another language, more over they are racially different from Volga and Crimean tatars, since they are mongoloids, while the former are Europeoids.
 
All these groups also have different history and culture.
 
Russian people even call Azeris and Chirkassian people "Tatars" in the 19th century.
 
This name applied to so many different ethnicities is just a result of the historical confusion.
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 05:16
Thanks Sarmad, for the detailed reply.
 
One thing is now clear that the west Tatars, whether Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, or Hungarian are lingually related to the Anatolian Turks, since their language is quite close to Turkish. Ethnically they might be Caucasion -- related to Chechens, Dagistanis etc.
 
 
I still cannot figure out east Tatars. There is a gulf of Tartary in the east of Siberia on the Pacific coast. Who are/were they in terms of  language and ethnicity.  Where have they gone now???


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 10:30
No, no. Tatars all are Turkic and ethnically related to Turks and other Turkic ethnicities.
 
I just gave the example of Chircassians to show how unsystematic this name was used.  That showed that that name in fact didn't have much connection to the reality.
 
There are no Tatars living near "Tatar strait" region. For the same reason, first Russian explorers who didn't understand that much about ethnicities of inhabitants of Siberia called all of them "Tatars". Let's say it's an analogy of kind of a very generic name like "Europeans" or "Asians"
 
Later, it of course became clear that that people who live near the strait aren't related to Tatars, but for some reason the weird name for the strait survivied and is still used now.
 
I know that Tatars living in China are also of Bulgar origin (they are descendants of Bulgars traders who trade with China).
 
But I also heard that there are Tatars in Mongolia. I suspect they are actually the same people with Chinese Tatars, which means that they are also Turkic, but I'm not 100% sure.
 
Could it be that the ancient Mongolian Tatar tribe survived there?


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 20:26
Where do you get these weird facts from?
 
"Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or Mongolian tribe."???????????
 
The very ethnonym TATAR is a Turkic word and the TATAR language is Turkic.
 
 
Originally posted by kamran

The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:02
These "weird" facts are commonly accepted by modern historians.
 
Nobody called Turkic tribes Tatars, before the so called "Mongolo-Tatar" invasion.
 
Since all those tribes were conquered by Mongolo-Tatars and became the part of the Golden Horde they all were referred as "Tatars" by a historical confusion.
 
But again the name "Tatars" was never used before the Mongol invasion.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:31
Yes, I guess you must be the authority or the spokesman for the so-called "modern historian".
 
Unfortunately, for you, I do not happen to be one of those "modern historians'. I am more of the old school, stubborn and archaic type that considers TAT+ER=TATAR to be a misnomer (thanks to the misconceptions of European "modern" historians).  The so-called "modern historians" of yours have done a great job with terms, such as Cossack, Kazak, Hun etc. Hence, here we are... having bogus arguments with bogus resources trying to convince each other as to whether the original Tatars were a Mongolian or a Turkic tribe. As far as I am concerned, Tatar language is Turkic - not Mongolian. A Mongolian cannot understand a Tatar but an Ozbek, Turkmen or Kazak can.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

These "weird" facts are commonly accepted by modern historians.
 
Nobody called Turkic tribes Tatars, before the so called "Mongolo-Tatar" invasion.
 
Since all those tribes were conquered by Mongolo-Tatars and became the part of the Golden Horde they all were referred as "Tatars" by a historical confusion.
 
But again the name "Tatars" was never used before the Mongol invasion.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 22:57
So what.
 
You know that the name "Russians" is actually a name for the Scandinavian tribe which was was a ruling class in the ancient Russia.
 
Russians speak Slavic language now which has nothing to do with Scandinavian languages, except they are both in Indo-European language family.
 
You know the country called Bulgaria? Bulgarians speak Slavic language. But the name itself is Turkic and comes from ancient Turkic tribe Bulgars.
 
Again the language which modern Bulgarians speak has nothing to do with the language of ancient Turkic Bulgars.
 
You know that in the 19th century there was a state in Europe called Prussia?
 
Prussians were Germans and founders of the modern German state. But the name itself comes from the Baltic tribe "Pruss" who again spoke another language, not related to German.
 
And history knows even more examples like these. Even the name of the Turkic speaking Uzbeks, comes again from the name of the Mongolian ruler Uzbek.
 
Nobody doubts that all modern Tatars are Turkic speakers. The origin of the name "Tatar" however is a totally different story.
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:19
Do you speak Turkish Sarmat?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:28
Because if you did, then you would know that TAT+AR(ER) has an explanation in Turkish, and has derivatives. TATAR is a misnomer, and there isn't anything you can show to prove that the original TATARs were Mongolian or Tungusic.
 
In the steppe world anybody could be called a tatar meaning tat (foreign/outsider)+ER(soldier). When your village was plundered by bands of young warriors who were either outlaws or did not belong to a major alliance, they were usually referred to as TATARs, meaning men who were unfamiliar and hence possibly dangerous. It was very common for young soldiers to loot in the steppe world. The same root TAT has a derivative in Turkish, which comes directly from what I explaine above.
 
DAD+AN+MAK (negative connotation)
 
Is there a cognate in Mongolian?
 
 


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:51
Why would you bring this similarities with Turkish language?
 
Why tatER, may be its not tatER, but tatOR, or tatIR, or tatIOR or tatYUR or may be totUR etc. toTur BTW means "that buffalo" in ancient Russian, should I make a theory based on that?
 
Some "educated" Europeans also used this "linguistic" approach and came to conclusion that actually their name is "Tartar", which means hell in Greek and thus they came from Hell.
 
It's absolutely unrelated to this discussion.
 
I can give you thousands of connotation of similar spelling of different words in different languages.
 
It's perhaps a new theory of yours, may be you can start your own historical school based on that.
 
Even now a lot of Volga Tatar would get angry with you if you call them like this. They say their proper name is Bulgars and "Tatar" is just an alien name brought with Mongols.
 
Historical sources say the following:
 
 
http://bartleby.com/65/ta/Tatars.html - http://bartleby.com/65/ta/Tatars.html
 
Tatars
 
 
(ttrz) ( http://bartleby.com/65/12.html - KEY )  or Tartars (trtrz) ( http://bartleby.com/65/12.html - KEY ) , Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia. They number about 5.5 million and are largely Sunni Muslims. The name is derived from Tata or Dada, a Mongolian tribe that inhabited present NE Mongolia in the 5th cent. First used to describe the peoples that overran parts of Asia and Europe under Mongol leadership in the 13th cent., it was later extended to include almost any Asian nomadic invader. Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate the Azerbaijani Turks and several tribes of the Caucasus.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 00:10
I really like your way of avoiding the questions I asked. First, do you speak Turkish. Clearly you don't. So, you have no idea about how words are formed in Turkic languages, and how ER/AR is one of the most ancient TURKIC ethnonyms along side many others. Aside from TATAR, the same ER/AR pops up in many other Turkic ethnonyms in the form of compound words.
 
TOGHAR, TURKER, TAER, DAGER, AZER, KHAZAR
 
Yes, why not? right? Why not follow your logic of illogicality here for a second. How is it the case that AZER is also Khazar or Tarhan is also Turhan. Clearly, the explanation I offered is perfectly logical when you take into account something called vowel harmony and the way suffixes, in general, take multiple vowel forms in Turkic dialects. Additionally, the explanation I offered also explains why it is very difficult to figure out who really the TATARS were.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Why would you bring this similarities with Turkish language?
 
Why tatER, may be its not tatER, but tatOR, or tatIR, or tatIOR or tatYUR or may be totUR etc. toTur BTW means "that buffalo" in ancient Russian, should I make a theory based on that?
 
Some "educated" Europeans also used this "linguistic" approach and came to conclusion that actually their name is "Tartar", which means hell in Greek and thus they came from Hell.
 
It's absolutely unrelated to this discussion.
 
I can give you thousands of connotation of similar spelling of different words in different languages.
 
It's perhaps a new theory of yours, may be you can start your own historical school based on that.
 
Even now a lot of Volga Tatar would get angry with you if you call them like this. They say their proper name is Bulgars and "Tatar" is just an alien name brought with Mongols.
 
Historical sources say the following:
 
 
http://bartleby.com/65/ta/Tatars.html - http://bartleby.com/65/ta/Tatars.html
 
Tatars
 
 
(ttrz) ( http://bartleby.com/65/12.html - KEY )  or Tartars (trtrz) ( http://bartleby.com/65/12.html - KEY ) , Turkic-speaking peoples living primarily in Russia. They number about 5.5 million and are largely Sunni Muslims. The name is derived from Tata or Dada, a Mongolian tribe that inhabited present NE Mongolia in the 5th cent. First used to describe the peoples that overran parts of Asia and Europe under Mongol leadership in the 13th cent., it was later extended to include almost any Asian nomadic invader. Before the 1920s Russians used the name Tatar to designate the Azerbaijani Turks and several tribes of the Caucasus.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 00:28
Who are you to give these "explanations"? The biggest authority on the history of Tatars?
 
I trust historical books and encyclopedias much more than YOU. And every person having common sense would do the same.
 
Give the names of the professors, books, sources, researches, which prove YOUR point. Otherwise it's just a blatant speculation.
 
And do not point that I don't speak Turkish. Do you speak, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese?
 
If not, how you even consider yourself of being capable to do final conclusions on the origins of the word "Tatar"
 
I base my point on the academic articles.
 
What is the base of your point? Your ovewhelming knowledge of Turkish language? That's it?
 
Sorry, but it's not very convincing.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 02:11
I feel exactly the same about your bogus arguments. I guess the feeling is mutual. People like you who cannot see beyond the tip of their noses is the primary reason why we live in an age of utter ignorance, as well as miserable arrogance. So, you stick to your idea, and, I guess, I will stick to mine. But, I have to say that I enjoyed hearing you confess that you do not have the slightest understanding of word formation through suffixes in Turkic languages. Regarding your question about whether I speak Chinese, Russian or Mongolian, I have to say that is rather beside the point since Tatars do not speak Mongolian, Chinese or Russian, but speak TURKIC!!! Hence, unlike you, I was able to offer a logical etymology to which you responded with childish accusations.
 
Highly amusing, at best :)
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Who are you to give these "explanations"? The biggest authority on the history of Tatars?
 
I trust historical books and encyclopedias much more than YOU. And every person having common sense would do the same.
 
Give the names of the professors, books, sources, researches, which prove YOUR point. Otherwise it's just a blatant speculation.
 
And do not point that I don't speak Turkish. Do you speak, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese?
 
If not, how you even consider yourself of being capable to do final conclusions on the origins of the word "Tatar"
 
I base my point on the academic articles.
 
What is the base of your point? Your ovewhelming knowledge of Turkish language? That's it?
 
Sorry, but it's not very convincing.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 11:17
I have presented an article from encyclopedia. You presented nothing except YOUR speculation.
 
As about the 3 languages I mentioned, there are 3 reasons about them.
 
First, you don't know what Tatar means in Mongolian, so you can't reject there is a "linguistic sense" behind this word in Mongolian similar to your very "advanced" methodology.
 
Most of the first written account about Tatars come from Chinese sources. Without knowing Chinese you again can't reject the assumption that Chinese name was based on some other name which has a certain meaning etc.
 
And thirdly, most of the modern Tatars live Russia and most of the scientific literature about them is written in Russian. And again the name Tatar was firstly mentioned in Europe in Russian chronicles. Nobody, who really claims that he is "an expert" in Tatar question can't develop this expertise without the knowledge of Russian language.
 
This is the fact, that the people who are called "Tatars" today didn't have this name before the Mongol invasion in 13th century.
 
Crimean Tatars were Kypchaks/Cumans, Kazan or Volga Tatars were Bulgars. A lot of them even now complain that this name has nothing to do with them,  and to call them "Tatar" is incorrect.    
 
This is enough to prove that your point is baseless without the knowledge of Turkish language.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 17:29
yes, you are right...
I shake your hand and wish you well.
you have successfully proven your outstanding point...
if you don't mind though, I have to rush to the loo to take a leek...
cheers :)
 
and thanks for all that you have generously offered...
 
my Sarmatian hero...


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 03:55
Based on what proof do historians and anthropologists conclude that Volga Tatars are descendants of Volga Bulgars?
 
The Chuvash, for example, have a more convincing ground for their unique branch of Turkic language; the Volga and Crimean Tatars, as well as the Kazaks and Kirguiz, all speak Kipchak dialects; which would logically point to the fact that their ancestors had at some point intermixed with Kipchaks.
However, where did the "Bulgar" conclusion come from? The Islamic faith?
 
As a fact, are the Gaugauz descendants of Pechenegs, who were not the Oguz branch?


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 04:19
Most of the sources about the history of Volga Tatars write about their Bulgar origins. In fact, the name Bulgar was widely used until the 19th century.
 
Although different Tatars group all speak the languages which belong to the Kypchak group of  Turkic languages, these languages are not identical.
 
Volga Tatars language is believed to be a result of mixture between Kypchak and Bulgar language with the more dominated role of Kypchak.
 
Although there is a hypo of the origins of Gagauzs from Pechenegs, most likely they are the descendants of a clan of Seljuks which allied with Byzantinnes in 13-14th century migrated from Anatolia to Balkans and sebsequently converted to Christianity.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 06:45
Hi there Sarmat; hi Sikiskentavsan.

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

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

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 14:44
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Most of the sources about the history of Volga Tatars write about their Bulgar origins. In fact, the name Bulgar was widely used until the 19th century.
 
Although different Tatars group all speak the languages which belong to the Kypchak group of  Turkic languages, these languages are not identical.
 
Volga Tatars language is believed to be a result of mixture between Kypchak and Bulgar language with the more dominated role of Kypchak.
 
 
at the time of the Mongol conquest, were the Volga Bulgars already a sedentary people, or were they still nomads?
If the city of Kazan had already been founded, then obviously a significant percentage of the population were already agricultural.
 
The Kipchaks were still nomads by the 13th century as a number of them migrated to Hungary where they served as mercenaries, in exchange for pasture onto which they could gather their herds.
 
The Crimean Tatars and Kazaks should be the true descendants of Kipchaks, or are they not?
 
 


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

Hi there Sarmat; hi Sikiskentavsan.

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

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


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 23:06
You confuse a lot of things, my friend.
 
Mongolian and Chinese sources clearly use Tatar as a "tribal denomination". Chinghiz khan fought and subjugated Tatars as a tribe. His farther and grandfarther were killed by the leaders of  Tatar tribe. And later he took 2 wifes from Tatar tribe.
 
Again Orhont script mentioned by Gok_Turk again talks about Tatars as a tribe.
 
Mahmud Kashgaris writes that Turks use word "Tat" when they talk about Iranians or mountain dwellers.
 
There is still a nation called Tats in northern caucasus (and they speak Iranian language BTW). It would be strange if Turkic nomades would call their own people "Tat" which is Iranian speaker or Mountain dweller.
 
The "Tata" explanation presented by gok_turk seems much more plausible than your tatER thing. Besides "Tata" is totally consistent with Chinese sources which also use Tata or Dada.
 
Concerning Russian Cossaks, they indeed originated from the band of nomadic warrior which deserted from their tribes and lived in the north black sea region and called themselves "Kazak" free man in Turkic. This is more or less accepted.
 
 
Concerning the Kazakh nation, there are many versions about their name, including the Kazak as a free man. But in this regard Kazak was used a a "tribal denomination" since Kazakhs split from the main Uzbek horde and started call themselves Kazak meaning free from the main Uzbek horde.
 
However, this is only one expanation there are several others saying for example that Kaz ak is a "white goose" which was a kind of totem for the local turkic tribes. The point is that the reasons for Cossaks and Kazakhs to be called similar names is not totally the same and these people are totally different from each other and definetely they are not one nation. 
 
And if you didn't know I can tell you again, that a lot of Volga Tatars consider this name to be alien and brought by the Mongols.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 23:51
Originally posted by Sarmat12

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 23:52
I find you views amusing at best. But, I do thank you for sharing them. It is apparent that we do not share the same assumptions about many things.


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 02:19
DADANMAK - The root is not DAD, it is DADAN (mak)
 
 


-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


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

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

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 07:25
Thank you gok_toruk, your posts here and in other threads contain a lot of interesting information.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 11:45
You are mistaken.
 
The root is DAD, and the suffix is AN
 
Hence DADAN is not the real root. According to your line of logic, the root in YAPISHMAK would be YAPISH rather that YAP being the real root and ISH being the suffix.
 
The root of DADANMAK is not DADAN. If you study word formation in the Turkic dialects, you will notice many similar suffix formations.
 
YUKLENMEK - YUK+OL+AN+MAK
(YUKLEN is not the root as you would suggest)
BAGLANMAK - BAG+OL+AN+MAK
(BAGLAN is not the real root)
 
I hope these examples may help why I believe that the real root is TAT/DAD and not DADAN.
 
Originally posted by Kerimoglu

DADANMAK - The root is not DAD, it is DADAN (mak)
 
 


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

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

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


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 02:43

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



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


-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:15
Originally posted by gok_toruk

According to Turkic inscriptions (Orkhon - Bilge Qaqan), they were considered as Turkic. Unlike 'Khitays', they were classified among Turkic tribes. '3 Kurikan', '9 Qyrqiz' were also counted in Tatar confederation, in Turkic inscriptions. Tatars inhabited Tugla and Onon long before Mongolian tribes started to settle there. 
 
I couldn't find the Turkic affiliation of Tatars from Turkic inscription. Could you please provide the exact qoute? It would really put an end to the endless discussions.
 
What I can find is only the following, Kol tegin monument, from which we can't determine their Turkicness, except for otuz (which means thirty). 
 
"Mourners and lamenters came. Starting from the East, where the sun rises, came people from the Bokli plain, from Tabgach, Tibet, the Apar, Purum, the Kirkiz, Uch Kurikan, Otuz Tatar, Kitan and Tatbi: from so many peoples did they come and lament and mourn. So famous were these Khagans."
 
Gene Gouset worte that linguistics had no doubt Tatars at the time of Chengiz spoke Mongolic language, I don't know how they based this claim though.  
 
A mongolian member once said "tatar" in Mongolian means "Nomad". So they could be originally Nomadic Mongols, or Mongolified Turks. 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 13:10
'Orkhon Inscriptions', page 22:

Bilge Qaqan, when talking to Tatars and Oghuzes:

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

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

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

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

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


-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 16:25
In this connection, Do we know whether Mahmud Kashgari mentions Tatars in his dictionary of Turkic dialects?
 
If he does, it would support a version of their Turkic origins, but he didn't, as I know, write anything about Tatars there.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Emil_Baku
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 16:58
One of the explanations of the name "Azerbaycan" I have seen was
azer-bay-gan. First of all, "Er" means man in Turkish.  Azer is considered some modification of Khazar.
Bay - "means priveleged person" in Turkish.
gan - one source says this meant high place in old Turkish.  
 
Sorry, I dont have this article in English. If you can read Azeri :
  http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap015az.htm - http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap015az.htm
 
Gok Turk, tried to explain the word "Azer"i, for some reason. Before Soviet Union, we never called ourselves Azeri (only Turk) . And in fact we never called ourselves Azeri, during Soviet time as well (only Azerbaijani). So, there is no need to explain this. the nation called Azari lives in Iran, and doesnt have anything to do with us.
 


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 04:18
Originally posted by gok_toruk

'Orkhon Inscriptions', page 22:

Bilge Qaqan, when talking to Tatars and Oghuzes:

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

 
You added "Tatar". Exact words went like this:
 
"Otuz...., Tokuz Oguz begleri, budun bu sabmn edgti eid katg tngla."
 
Check your book again please.


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 04:27

baku,

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



Posted By: Emil_Baku
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 09:02
Kamran, did I say that?


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 10:56
 
You said
 
>>>the nation called Azari lives in Iran, and doesnt have anything to do with us. <<<
 


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 13:19
I didn't add it. You can check the book I mentioned. You can find this sentence (the exact quote, containing the word 'Tatar')in Ergin version of Orkhon Inscriptions, too.

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

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

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

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

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

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: Emil_Baku
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 14:18
Kamran, I meant there is or  are/were people in Iran who spoke the language called Azari (probably simialr to persian) - which doesnt have anything to do with Azerbaijani Turkish. And most of the Iranian Azerbaijanis call themselves Turk or Turki.


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 15:15

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



-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 01:43

Hello, everybody

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Kan



Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Kann

Hello, everybody

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Kan

 
 
It's nice to have an opinion from a Tatar first-hand.
Welcome to the forum.
Are you Kazan or Crimean Tatar?
 
What is the relation between Kazan, Crimean, and Siberian Tatars apart from the ancestral Golden-Horde connection?
 
Is there much intermixing between distinct Tatar groups?
 
 


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 12:08
Originally posted by Kann

Hello, everybody

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, Kan

 
Isenmesez Kan,
 
I think it's rather your personal opinion, though. My Tatar friends, on the contrary, consider themselves to be more Bulgars and don't like the name "Tatar." On the other hand, I read an opinion on one Tatar website that Chingizkhan was a Tatar himself. Smile


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 02:09

Thanks for wellcomes.

"Are you Kazan or Crimean Tatar?"

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

Isenmesez, http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=6220&FID=51 - Sarmat12

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

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

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

 

 



Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 03:22
btw, I met a tatar girl, in Moscow, after 2 days we were easely able to speak without translation

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 13:01
Originally posted by Kann

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

 
Welcome, I also tend to agree that "Er" as a tribal name suffix was used  among Turkic tribes, however we should be careful in analysing the names, as the first part should give a definate meaning. I mean: What "tat", "Maj", "Khas" etc mean?
 
In fact, among European huns, there were tribes with the suffix variant of "Er", which was "Ir", such as Aghachiri 
 
BTW, Uyghur isn't Uhigar, instead UY-Oghur.
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 23:55

http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=1687&FID=51 - ,

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

 

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

 

Sorry for Uyghur

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=4796&FID=51 - ,

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

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



Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:47
As for Volga Tatars, I heard that whether one identifies with "Bulgar" or "Tatar" depends on political inclinations.
 
Most practising Muslims, or those proud of their MUSLIM heritage more than their Turkic origin tend to call themselves "Bulgars".
On the other hand, those who are more proud of their past as the "Kazan Khanate" tend to call themselves "Tatars".


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 12:48
In fact, many of them view Khazan Khanate as the successor of Bulgar state.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 13:15
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
And history knows even more examples like these. Even the name of the Turkic speaking Uzbeks, comes again from the name of the Mongolian ruler Uzbek.
 
 
 
Sarmat,
 
As you mentioned in your previous forum discussions, there are many misunderstandings about the turkic nations because of historical confusions. You have also provided reasonable arguments about tatars and origins of ethnic titles for different nations. Specificly, what I wanted to clarify is that did "uzbek" word really come from the name of mongolian ruler(if that ruler was mongolian?)... Don't you think it is a " historical confusion"... Why do majority of Central Asian turkic nations speak uzbek, why did great poems, historical biographies and etc. were written in uzbek.....before Shayboniyhon.... What is the traditional differences within the uzbek nation and why these nations live in and around ancient CA cities?... Does it make sense ?  Does it say that Central Asian history is full of miphiologies from the eyes of Europeans and partially turkish (I mean usmoniylar)... This Forum if full of fantasy world...!
 


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 16:13
Dear alish,
 
Could you clarify a little bit on your previous post. What is the more valid version of the origins of the name "Uzbek" in your opinion?
 
BTW, do you know that the name of the old Uzbek language was "Chagatay"?
 
Chagatay was the second son of Chinghizkhan, the most part of the modern Central Asia including modern Uzbekistan, was given to Chagatay as Ulus, by his father.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


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


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



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


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


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



-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



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


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


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


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 14:18
Well again, you wrote it by yourself, the name of Chagatay Ulus comes from Chagatay, the son fo Chinghizkhan and hence the name of the language also has origin in the name of the son of Chinghiz khan.
 
Please explain me, is that so humiliating or what? Why can't the name of the language be traced back to the name of Mongolian ruler?  I just can't get it? Mongols and Turks are very close after all.
 
BTW Ottoman Turks were usually called Romeis or Rumiis in Maverannarh.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 15:29
Sarmat
Well again, you wrote it by yourself, the name of Chagatay Ulus comes from Chagatay, the son fo Chinghizkhan
 
I agree, Chagatay was the second son of Chinghiz Khan, the Chagatay Ulus was established by Chagatay's grandson.
 
 and hence the name of the language also has origin in the name of the son of Chinghiz khan.
 Please explain me, is that so humiliating or what? Why can't the name of the language be traced back to the name of Mongolian ruler?  I just can't get it? Mongols and Turks are very close after all.
 
Because its incorrect, its a historical confusion.
 
The Turki of the region existed far before the Mongol Empire, the language had been going through a development into a literary language since the Gok-Turk era, the Uygur Khagnate, then the Karakhanids.
 
After the Chagatay Ulus was established this same Turki carried on developing and this continued. It was the primary basis for the later lingua-franca of the Chagatay Khanate and Central Asia and the Timurids.
 
It is therefore designated by linguists and historians as the Chagatay Turkic language. But its contemporaries such as Timur-Lenk or Babur, simply called it Turki.
(wiki)
 
 
 
BTW Ottoman Turks were usually called Romeis or Rumiis in Maverannarh.
 
All Turks in the old Roman lands were called "Rumi", the Seljuks, Beyliks etc
 
It was the Europeans who first called todays Turkey, "Turchia", where the name derives. Turks called the area "Rumi" or "Rum" (Rome).
 
 


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 15:33
Yeah, I see what you mean. In my opinion. though, the Mongolian origin of the name Chagatay, doesn't deny the Turkic essence of the language.
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 15:34
Mongols and Turks were ofcourse very close, they both also speak "Altaic" languages and had similar lifestyles, lived in the same region and had confederacies with each other. This isn't about any feelings against Turks or Mongols just about history.

-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2007 at 12:02
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Dear alish,
 
Could you clarify a little bit on your previous post. What is the more valid version of the origins of the name "Uzbek" in your opinion?
 
BTW, do you know that the name of the old Uzbek language was "Chagatay"?
 
Chagatay was the second son of Chinghizkhan, the most part of the modern Central Asia including modern Uzbekistan, was given to Chagatay as Ulus, by his father.
 
Sarmat,
 
It is obvious that you have obtained knowledge about the CA history from the sources which were provided by people who lived thousands of miles from CAsia first, and second have been falsified for different political reasons... In order to give you clear opinion about the origins of "uzbek" title or nation in general, I would like to briefly give general understanding about some features of these nations, central asian nations...
Nomad nations lived in large area, steppes where these groups of nomad nation did not see each other at all... because they lived separately from each other, they had many differences in dresses, traditions and also languages... but these nations had a lot of things in common... In 16th centuries UZBEKS contained 92 urug' - clan... (urug' means "family group")... Minority of these clans also contained qozoq groups who then started to seperate from uzbeks... One of the leaders of uzbek groups also popular with title - QIPCHOQLAR, was Shayboniyhon who united the groups and gained the power in Mavarounnahr... Now, then who were the nations leaving in Mavarounnahr before Shayboniyhon... They were the nations of turkic origin who spoke turkiy which is the same as uzbek language... Yes, the region was called Chigatay, but it was only military or political division of the teritory by mongolians, the descendants of Chingiskhan who ruled until 1395... (after that there were no mongolian rulers)... If more realisticly, how can you imagine that for ex. : when Mirzo Ulugbek ruled Mavaraunnahr, the capital was Samarkand, and he named his state Chigatay... How can you imagine that, unfortunately, you do not have clue to that... It was Chigatay for short period of time before Temur... During and after Temur's rule, there were no more Chigatay or anything related to mongolians... After Temur there was 'bekliklar' period where the title 'bek' was the ruler of designated region. where every 'bek' was independent... Then, qipchoqlar came from the North... Then it was 'honliklar' period...just histiorians name that way...  The nations of Turkiston was devided into two big origins, dependig where they belonged to... Qipchoqlar and Qorachoponlilar - settled turkic nations of Mavarounnahr... But this nation named themselves as uzbeks(uz - self, bek - ruler) in general, distinguishing themselves by their origin - qipchoqlar or qorachoponlilar... Then russians took over the CA... During this period people just forgot about qipchoq, qorachoponli or any such things like urug'.... which did not mean anything any more... It was Turkiston Guberniyasi and manythings have changed after that... Shortly, Uzbeks are the union of turkic clans who were involved in political life of Central Asia, who built the states, developed art, made trade relations and also destroyed each other...
 
 


Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 00:57
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Well again, you wrote it by yourself, the name of Chagatay Ulus comes from Chagatay, the son fo Chinghizkhan and hence the name of the language also has origin in the name of the son of Chinghiz khan.
 
Please explain me, is that so humiliating or what? Why can't the name of the language be traced back to the name of Mongolian ruler?  I just can't get it? Mongols and Turks are very close after all.
 
BTW Ottoman Turks were usually called Romeis or Rumiis in Maverannarh.
 
The reason that uzbek language can not be traced to the mongolian ruler because  uzbek language was never named as chigatay language...First time I heard that, even my mother language is uzbek and lived in Samarkand for so many years... What kind of chigatay language are you talking about? There is no literal art that mentioned as chigatay language ... Chigatay was the given name for the certain part of the CA for short period of time and nothing more... It is russians who always trace every aspect of turkic history back to mongolians. This is not humiliating, this is like calling your name by different names and how you feel about it... Uzbeks and mongolians are not that close as you mentioned... Mongolians have completely different language and completely different traditions... Even Temur is popular as a mongolian, Babur as a mughal... Then it is such a logical understanding that mongolian came to Central Asia, and suddenly became uzbek... What's going on man... Take it real...
Babur wrote:
  Kecha kelgimdur debon ul sarvi gulru kelmadi,
  Kuzlarimga kecha tong otquncha uyqu kelmadi.
Does it look like some kind of mughal language... No bro... This is just uzbek language... Ask anybody who can speak uzbek... no words here even does not come close to mongolian or astronomical mughalian language... Mughal is miphology of europians and nothing more...
 
Another example , I think the best of the best:
 
 Orazin yopqoch kuzimdun sochilur har lahza yosh,
 Buylakim paydo bulur yulduz, nihon bulg'och quyosh.
                                         Mir Alisher Navoiy.
These are the words that I use every day... this is my mother language...
 
Alisher Navoiy lived during Shohruh's rule in Hirot. Do you think that Shohruh, the youngest son of Temur, was mongolian and helped Navoiy to encourage turkiy language... Shohruh also wrote poems... not in mongolian that's for sure...
 
If you have any other question about uzbek language or nation, please do not hesitate to ask me...
 
 
 


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 05:51
A very pertinent post with relation to Uzbek Turki:
 
 
Which Irani poet composed this verse???
 
"Zabon-e-yor-e-man Thorki
 Va man Thorki nomi donam"
 
(My beloved speaks Turki language and (the problem is) I don't understand Turki)


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 12:50
I think it's Omar Hayam.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 12:55
Originally posted by kamran

Avery pertinent post with relation to Uzbek Turki:
 
 
Which Irani poet composed this verse???
 
"Zabon-e-yor-e-man Thorki
 Va man Thorki nomi donam"
 
(My beloved speaks Turki language and (the problem is) I don't understand Turki)
 
 
  Kamran,
 
What caused to change your previous post...?
 
 


Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 10:34
So, good bye.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 21:46
why good bye?

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Amir Gerei
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 04:12

It’s very interesting information. Thanks so much.

But it must be said: unfortunately, in the official history there are many pro-Chinese and Persian falsifications about the "wild nomads", "incredible cruelty of nomadic mongol-tatar conquerors", and about "a war between the Tatars and Genghis Khan” etc. Of course, that was for some political and ideological reasons.

Well, perhaps you know, that a famous Tatar historian-scientist D. Iskhakov wrote in 2000: “the real history of Tatars, of the people in every respect historical, is not written yet”.

However, recently were  published  books, written by independent Tatar historian Galy Yenikeyev (Galy Rashid uly Yenikey) about the unwritten (hidden) real history of Tatars. One of his  books -     is published in English language: "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars". This e-book you can easily find on Smashwords company website:  http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/MIG17

There are a lot of previously little-known historical facts, as well as 16 maps and illustrations in this book. Also this book gives a  well grounded rebuttal of the Chinese-persian myths about "incredible cruelty of nomadic mongol-tatar conquerors", and about "a war between the Tatars and Genghis Khan” etc.

On the cover of this book you can see genuine appearance of Genghis Khan. It is his lifetime portrait. Notes to the portrait from the book say: \"...In the ancient Tatar historical source «About the clan of Genghis-Khan» the author gives the words of the mother of Genghis-Khan: «My son Genghis looks like this: he has a golden bushy beard, he wears a white fur coat and goes on a white horse...» [34, p. 14].

As we can see, the portrait of an unknown medieval artist in many ways corresponds to the words of the mother of the Hero, which have come down to us in this ancient Tatar story. Therefore, this portrait, which corresponds to the information of the Tatar source and to data from other sources, we believe, the most reliably transmits the appearance of Genghis-Khan...\".

Some more information from the above-mentioned book by  Galy Yenikeyev;  primarily we should know the truth about the meaning of the names "Mongol" and "Tatar" (“Tartar") in the medieval Eurasia:

the name "Mongol" until the 17th-18th centuries meant belonging to a political community, and was not the ethnic name. While “the name "Tatar" was “the name of the native ethnos (nation) of Genghis Khan …” , “…Genghis Khan and his people did not speak the language, which we now call the "Mongolian”…" (Russian academic-orientalist V.P.Vasiliev, 19th Century). This is also confirmed by many other little known facts.

So in fact Genghis Khan was a Tatar and a great leader of the all Turkic peoples. But with time many of his descendants and tribesmen became spiritually disabled and forgot him and his invaluable doctrine and covenants... Tatars of Genghis Khan -medieval Tatars - were one of the Turkic nations, whose descendants now live in many of the fraternal Turkic peoples of Eurasia - among the Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Uighurs, and many others.

About it and about many other things from the true history of Tatars and other fraternal Turkic peoples, which was hidden from us, had been written, in detail and proved, in the  above-mentioned book "Forgotten Heritage of Tatars" (by Galy Yenikeyev).



Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 20:51
Originally posted by kamran

The term "Tatar" is the most diversely used epithet. It means different things for different nations.
 
Originally, Tatars were either a Tungusic or a Mongolian people that fought tribal wars against Temuchin.
Then, Tartary is an east Siberian region spread to the east of Mongolia. I doubt whether there are any (Tungu or Mongol) Tatars in that area now.
 
Old Europeans called almost all the steppe tribes Tatars whether they were Mongols or steppe Turks or Tungus,
 
The there are these people called Tatars living in southwest Russia, Tatarstan and Ukraine etc. They have nothing in common with the east Tatars who were Chinoid in facial features and perhaps Tungusic in language.
 
Can someone clarify this matter?
The word Tartars or Tatars first came into use in about the 5th Century CE.
 
They were a Turkic group, and did in fact war against the Mongols at various times.
 
In about the 13th Century, the Tartars allied themselves with the Mongols to form the Golden Horde. The Cumans (Caucasians from China) and the Kipchaks also joined.
 
Within the Soviet Federation there about 5.5million Tartars today.


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com