Home
Back
In Russian
Writing Contents
Alphabet Contents
Sources
Roots
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Kipchaks
Berendeys
  Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Origin of Türks-Contents · Introduction · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Fifth chapter · ORIGIN OF TATARS
Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Literature · Name and Ethnic Index

Mirfatyh Zakiev
Origin of Türks and Tatars

First Part
ORIGIN OF TÜRKS

 

<=Previous

Contents

Next=>

From the Author

As it was noticed in the annotation, the results of scientific research are laid out as is usually done in historical works, i.e. from the ancient time, gradually coming to the present. But the research process of the historical material and events was in the opposite direction, i.e. retrospectively, from the study of the modern material and going deeper in the past.

In the beginning of 50es of the 20eth century at the Kazan university I started to teach various courses in the Tatar language, including its history. Soon it jumped into the eyes that the real history of the Türkic and, in particular Tatar, languages does not agree with the widely accepted in the traditional historical science view of the ethnic history of Türkic peoples, which is officially represented in the Western European and Russian Türkology, in monographs and university textbooks for the ancient, medieval history, in various encyclopedias and historical reference books. For a long time I was thinking, how did it happened? Maybe, these official publications appeared by virtue of insufficient of research and generalizations of the of linguistic, mythological, folkloric, archeological, ethnological data of the primary sources? The more I read the articles and books of many Western European and Russian authors, the more I was convinced that my doubts are very real.

Really, during the formation of the traditional historical science, the Türkic ethnic (and political) history was not studied specially. It was only a periphery of the history of the Indo-European peoples. Moreover, then there were no historians originating from the Türkic peoples. Some episodes of the Türkic ethnic and political history were necessary only for confirmation and enrichment of the history of the Indo-European peoples. Therefore the ancient written sources, the linguistical, mythological, archeological, ethnological records were analyzed, synthesized and generalized by the Indo-European scientists only from their view of their history.

Considering these circumstances, I decided not to confine to the information of the official historical science, and started to study all available to me primary sources of ancient Greek, Iranian, Assyrian, Chinese, Indian historians, which contained linguistical, anthropological, folklore, mythological, archeological, ethnological, history of art data about ancient tribes and peoples who had some relation to the territories populated by the Türks. From the analysis and synthesis of these works I tried to make my own conclusions, while also basing on the research of the Indo-European scientists, including the supporters of the Eurocentrism.

Thus, I gradually wrote articles on separate topics of the ethnogenesis first of the Bulgaro-Tatars, i.e. the Bulgars who only in the 19th-20th c. took on the ethnonym Tatars, and then also about the pre-Bulgarian ancient Türks that became the substrate of the Bulgaro-Tatars, aquiring  the name Türco-Tatars. A little later came out my monographs on these topics. So, in 1977 was published the book ”Tatar halky teleneº barlykka kije” (Formation of the language of the Tatar people, Kazan, 208 pp.); in 1986 was published the collection of articles ”Problems of the language and origin of Volga Tatars” (Kazan, 304 pp.); in 1993 was published the ”Volga Bulgars and their descendants” (co-authored with Ya.F.Kuzmin-Ümanadi, Kazan, 160 pp.); in 1995 was published ”Tatars: problems of history and language” (Kazan, 464 pp.); in 1998 was published ”Türki-Tatar ethnogenesis” (Ethnogenesis of Türko-Tatars, Moscow - Kazan, 624 pp.).

In this book, at the request of the readers, I decided put into the Russian the basic conclusions of my multi-annual research on exposing the ethnic roots of the ancient Türks, and also on detection on that basis of the ways of formation of the Bulgaro-Tatars, leaving aside the similar problems for the Crimean and Dobrudjian Tatars, though retrospectively they also trace to the ancient Türks.

I express my profound gratitude to Ahmadishin Shafkat Muhammat, Galeyev Rais Salim, Gibadulin Yahya Nabiull, Zakirov Zanfir Zakiryan, Nasipov Ilshat Sahiatull, Saitov Marat Mazit for their help in publishing this book.

First Part
ORIGIN OF TÜRKS
Introduction

1. Phonetic variations and semantics of the ethnonym Türk

Eastern, southern and southwestern Türks apply this ethnonym in the form Türk and as an adjective in the form Türki. The Türks of the Ural-Itil region , i.e. Tatars and Bashkirs, pronounce it as Törk, and the adjective Törki.

In Russian, apparently, under the influence of the Tatar language, initially was known the phonetic variation Tork, and the adjective from it was in the form Torchesky. But after the Mongolo-Tatar conquests, in Russian sources for the Türkic peoples (and sometimes for all eastern peoples) was used the word Tatars and the adjective Tatarsky. In the 19th century Türkic peoples started to be designated (by Russians - Translator's Note) by words Türco-Tatars, Turco-Tatars. In the beginning of the 20th century, as the ethnonym Tatars for the former Itil (Volga) Bulgars and the Crimean Türks (Taurs, i.e. Tau-ers) as the designation (by Russians - Translator's Note) of the Türkic peoples, in the Russian language activate more the words Turk and Turkish. Only in 1923 A.N.Samoylovich offers to apply the noun Turk and the adjective Turkish in relation to the Turks (of Turkey - Translator's Note), and words Türk and Türkic in relation to all Türkic peoples [Kononov A.N., 1982, 17] .1
6

In this book we use the ethnonym Türk in a widest sense. The general ethnonym Türk refers to a veriety of the Türkic-speaking peoples.

The first type is so-called proper Türks, who had this ethnonym as the endoethnonym, who created in the 6th-7tht centuries AD the First and Second Türkic Kaganates, and thus spread their endoethnonym Türk as the common ethnonym among all inhabitants of the Kaganates. (Below, the Russian plural ending ”-y” is replaced with Eng.  ”-s”, except where in the text the Türkic adjective affix ”-y”  constitutes a part of the name - Translator's Note)

The second type of Türks are all those modern Türkic-speaking peoples, many of whom never used the ethnonym Türk as a endoethnonym. These are Bashkirs, Tatars (Bulgaro-Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Dobrudjian Tatars), Nagaybaks, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Nogays, Karaims, Karachay-Balkars, Kumyks, Krymchaks, Altaians, Azerbaijanis, Kadjars, Shahsavans, Karadags, Karapapakhs, Kashkays, Afshars, Khaladjes, Gagauzes, Urumchis, Tuvinians, Tofalars, Shors, Khakases, Chulym Tatars, Uzbeks, Uigurs, Salars, Sary Uigurs, Chuvashes, Yakuts (Saha), Dolgans, etc.

The third type of Türks are those Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples, whom Mahmut Kashgarly in his work ”Divanu lugat-it-türk” (11th century) regards  as Türks. Their list: Afshar, Aramut, Argu, Ava (Awà), Basmyl, Bashgirt, Ajat, Baündar, Bechenek, Bulak, Bulgar, Büdgüz, Charuklug, Chigil, Chomal, Chivaldar, Eymür, Halach, Khazar, Hytay, Ygrak, Karluk, Kar Yagma, Kay, Kaiyg, Kenchek, Kyfchak, Kynyk, Kyrgyz, Küchet, Ograk, Oguz (Uguz), Salgur, Sogdak, Suvar, Tat, Tatar, Tavgach, Tengüt, Tokhsi, Tutyrka, Tüger, Türk, Türkmen, Ugrak, Uigur, Uregir, Yabaku, Yagma, Yasmyl, Yava, Yàwà, Yazgyr, Yemek, Yywà, Yuregir. Of the listed Türkic tribes some people preserved their own ethnonym, and some people lost it and became part of other Türkic tribes and peoples.

The fourth type of the Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples are those known from the history and not included in the Mahmud Kashgarly's list of Türks,  enter into  version of Türks, who lived after dismemberment of the Türkic Kaganates, in one way or another they became known in the history, but did not survive to our time as independent populaces with the same name. These are: Altai Kiji, Az Kishi, Akkoünly, Barabals, Baylar, Bilir, Biger, Barsil, Basmyl, Berendey, Berendzher, Bersuls, Burtas, Budjak Tatars, Gadjals, Gyainya, Chitak, Ishtyak, Kavar, Kaysak, Karagas, Karadagly, Karakoünly, Kara Kyrgyz, Karaman, Kara Tatars, Kara Nogay, Kara Khazar, Kimik, Kovuy, Koybaly, Kotrigur, Kémesh Bolgar, Kuirk, Kubandy, Kuruk, Kutrigur, Kitay, Lugar, Madjar (Mashar, Majgar), Mayma Kiji, Mangot, Oghondor, Onogur, Ostyak, Otuz Tatars, Sabakul, Saragur, Saralymin, Saratsin (Eng. Saracen- Translator's Note), Sarly, Sarman, Sart, Sarysen, Séljuk, Suas, Suaslamari, Taryly, Taulas, Toguz Tatars, Tuba Kiji, Türgesh, Unnugundur, Haladj, Chitak, Chuy Kiji, Shor Kiji, Ürmaty, Yazgyr, Yazok, Yasyr, etc.

The fifth type of Türks compose those Türkic-speaking tribes and peoples who lived long before the spread of the ethnonym Türk and had various names, including some phonetic variations of the word Türk. This testifies to the ethnonym Türk being formed and applied long before the 4th century AD, when it started spreading as the common ethnonym for many Türkic-speaking peoples. The pre-Türkic period tribes and peoples are: Abdaly (Ephthalites - White Huns), Avars (Aores, Eng. Aorses), Agadirs (Agathyrs)/Akatirs (Akathyrs, Agach eri), Argippei, Ases (Az/Yas/Ash/Ish/Uz), Alans, Alvans, Angareyons (Kangars), Apasiaks, Apahtarks, Arimaspi, Asana, Bardy (Pardy > Parthy), Bi/Pi/Pey/Bey/Bek, Bunturk, Gelon (Yylan), Huns (Süns), Dagarma (Dagar, Tagar), Days, Jujan (Susün), Iirk (Iyi erkek > Iyi erk), Ishguza, Kangaras, Kangüy, Kaspi, Katiar, Kusan/Kushan/Kasan/Kazan, Küshe, Kimmer, Koman, Kuirk, Kunaksalan, Kuu Kiji, Kuerik, Massaget, M éí (Min), Onogur, Paralat, Roksolan, Sa, Sarmat, Saga, Sagadar, Sagay, Sak (Saka), Saha, Sakaliba (Saklab), Syanbi (Syanbi), Sindy, Skithe (Rus. Skif, Türk. Iskit, Europ. Scyth), Skolot, Sogdy (Sugdak, Sogdak), Suar, Sumer, Sé, Tabgach, Taur (Tohar, Tagar, Dagar, Dagarma), Tissaget, Tohri, Thrac (Rus. Frakiets), Traspi, Troya, Tursaka, Ud (As), Unu, Usun, Thissaget, Hangar, Hartesh, Hvaras (Suaras/Horasm), Horasan (Suar-As-Sün), Hunugur (Sonogur/Onogur), Eorpata, Etrusk, etc.

The first part of this research is devoted to the fifth type of the Türks, specifically to those of them who till now were not recognized as Türkic-speaking, and erroneously and tendentiously are attributed to the carriers of the Indo-European, and especially Indo-Iranian languages. In the second part of the book, based on the study of the so-called ”pre-Türkish” Türks, we attempted to newly describe the ancient ethnic roots of the Bulgaro- Tatars.

2. Regions of habitation, ethnic composition and quantity of Türks.

In extreme antiquity, long before our era, Türks lived in many regions of Eurasia. Their ancient territory was much more extensive than their modern territory. The map of the modern territory was composed by the Turkey's Türkic culture institute as follows (see map on pages 8 and 9 of this book).

8-9

Legend
1 Turkic Türks 7 Karakalpak Türks 13 Dagestan Türks 19 Altai Türks 25 Cypress Türks
2 Balkanian Türks 8 Uigur Türks 14 Kumyk Türks 20 Khakass Türks 26 Kashgay Türks
3 Kazakh Türks 9 Tatar Türks 15 Karachay Türks 21 Tuva Türks 27 Khamsin Turkmens
4 Uzbek Türks 10 Chuvash Türks 16 Balkar Türks 22 Sibir Türks    
5 Kyrgyz Türks 11 Bashkort Türks 17 Nogay Türks 23 Iraq Turkmens    
6 Turkmen Türks 12 Azeri Türks 18 Sakha Türks 24 Syria Turkmens    

The ethnic composition of the Türks was studied by linguists, and correspondingly was established a genealogical classification of the Türks. It is shown below in the following table (pp. 10-13), with the numbers from a dedicated research.

10-13

With added Subtotals and Totals - Translator's Note

No Main groups, peoples (self-names) Country Number
1. KYPCHAK GROUP (Total 25,780,000)
1.1. Kipchak-Bulgarian subgroup (Total  8,120,000)
1 Bashkirs CIS (USSR) 1,449,157
2 Tatars (Bulgaro-Tatars) CIS 6,648,760
China (4,873)
Turkey (10,000)
USA 1,000
Finland 900
Other countries 800

1.2. Kipchak-Nogay subgroup (Total  9,830,000)

3 Kazakhs CIS 8,135,813
China 1,111,718
Afghanistan 5,000
Mongolia 73,000
4 Karakalpaks CIS 423,520
Afghanistan 4,000
5 Nogays CIS 75,181

1.3 Kypchak-Polovets subgroup (i.e. Kypchak-Kypchak subgroup) (Total  4,800,000)

6 Karaims (Karays) CIS 2,608
7 Karachays CIS 155,936
8 Balkars CIS 85,126
Karachay-Balkars together: (speak same language) CIS 241,062
9 Crimean Tatars CIS 271,715
Turkey (4,000,000)
10 Kumyks CIS 281,933
11 Krymchaks CIS 1,400
1.4 Kypchak-Kirgiz subgroup (Total  2,790,000)
12 Kyrgyzes CIS 2,528,945
China 141,549
Afghanistan 46,000
13 Altaians (Altai-Kiji) CIS 70,777
2. OGUZ GROUP (Total  79,370,000)
2.1 Oguz subgroup (Total  79,030,000)
14 Turks (Türks) Turkey 55,000,000
Germany 1,500,000
Bulgaria 1,200,000
CIS 207,512
Cyprus 150,000
Yugoslavia 120,000
Romania 50,000
15 Crimean Tatars in Romania Romania 50,000
16 Azerbaijanians (Azeri) CIS 6,770,403
Iran 7,000,000
17 Kadjars Iran 37,000
18 Kashgays (ethnic Azerbaijanians) Iran 600,000
19 Shahsavans Iran 300,000
20 Turkmens (Türkmens-Türkpens) CIS 2,728,965
Iran 590,000
Afghanistan 330,330
Arab countries 243,000
21 Karadags Iran 25,000
22 Karapapahs Turkey, Iran 100,000
23 Kashkays Iran 720,000
24 Bahars, Eynants, Nafars, Horasans, Pichagchis, Teymurtashes, Goudars, Karays, Karagozliys, Kangurliys, and others Southern and Eastern Iran 380,000
25 Afshars (former Turkmens) Iran, Afghanistan 700,000
26 Haladjes Iran 25,000
27 Gagauzes CIS 197,768
28 Urums (North of Azov Sea) CIS ?
2.2 Oguz-Uigur subgroup (Total  340,000)
29 Tuvinians (Tuba - Tuva) CIS 206,629
30 Tofs (Tofas) CIS 731
31 Khakases (Khaases) CIS 80,321
32 Uryanhays Mongolia 30,000
33 Shors CIS 16,652
34 Hotons Mongolia 4,000
35 Chulym Tatars (Chulym, later they were called ”Chulym Türks) CIS ?
3. KARLUK GROUP (Total  25,680,000)
36 Uzbeks CIS 16,697,815
China 14,502
Afghanistan 1,390,000
37 Uigurs China 7,214,331
CIS 262,643
38 Salars China 87,697
39 Sary Uigurs China 12,298

4. CHUVASH GROUP (Total  1,850,000)

40 Chuvashes (strong Mongolian and Finno-Ugric influence separated this language from the common Türkic CIS 1,842,346

5. SAHA GROUP (Total  390,000)

41 Dolgans CIS 8,000
42 Saha (Saka-Yakuts). Strong influence of the Evenk language somewhat separated Saha from the common Türkic CIS 381,922
Total   132,800,000

In the table, the number of the Türkic peoples of the former USSR is by the 1989 census, and the number of the Türks of other regions is from the research of Nadir Davlet [Davlet N., 1989; 1992] and Hasan Eren [Eren Kh., 1995] who in turn used the George Hazay's data published in the British encyclopedia. The population for some peoples in the data of Nadir Davlet and Hasan Eren differs, in such cases the data of the last is shown in brackets.

Sometimes scientists use not the endoethnonym of the people, but their exoethnonym. When the endoethnonym of people and their exoethnonym do not coincide, the endoethnonym is shown in parenthesis. The endoethnonyms of Türkic peoples are given by N.A.Baskakov [Baskakov N.A., 1969].

It is impossible to tell the present exact number of Türks, for the data comes from different periods. Besides, in those countries and regions where the Türks make a minority of the population, their census number is usually distorted, aiming to increase the number of the titular people and decreasing the number of the Türks. Also are very frequent cases when some Türkic people, hoping to improve their conditions of life, enter at the census the name representing the titular nation.

As can be seen from the table, the number of all Türks in 1989-1990 was about 132 million 805 thousand persons. According to the statistics, the number of the Türks increases one percent a year. If so, in 10 years, i.e. by 2000, the total number of Türks should be about 146 million 700 thousand.

There are also other figures.

Nadir Davlet counts the number of Türks by the countries for 1990 as follows:

By the Nadir Davlet's calculations, in 1990 there were 147,987,270 Türks in the world. If Türks increase one percent a year for 10 years, then by 2000, their number should reach 163,470 thousands.

Based on the 1992 data published by George Hazay in the British Encyclopedia, Hasan Eren suggested that the number of Türks in 1995 would reach 125,000 thousand, and in 2000, at an annual one-percentage growth, 131,376 thousand.

Thus, number of the Türkic people in the world in 2000 should be, by the George Hazay and Hasan Eren estimate, 131,376,000, and by the calculations of Nadir Davlet 163,470,000.

3. The place of Türks among other nations of the world and their pre-Türkic ethnic roots.

In the world are approximately 3,000-5,000 peoples and, hence, the languages. Genealogical and ethnic classification is based on relationships of their languages at the lexical, phonetical, and grammatical levels.

By now the scientists determined a presence in the world of about 30 related families of languages, and hence, there are as many ethnic groups of peoples. We list those the most known families with any relation to the Türks:

1) Indo-European family. It includes Indian, Iranian, Slavic, Baltic, German, Celtic, Romance, Greek, and other groups, Armenian and Albanian languages

2) Uralo-Altai family includes from the Uralic family: Finno-Ugrian and Samoed groups, from the Altai family: Türkic, Mongolian, Tunguso-Manchurian groups, Korean and Japanese languages;

3) Semito-Hamitic (in newer terminology, Afroasian) family with a multitude of languages, Arabian and Hebrew had direct relation to the Türkic languages

4) Sino-Tibetan family with Tbeto-Burmese and Tai-Chinese groups. The last group interacted very closely with the Ancient Türkic (Hunnish) language

5) Paleoasiatic family with Chukche-Kamchatian, Eskimo-Aleutian, Yenisei, Ükagir-Chuvanian groups and Nivhian language

6) Caucasian (Ibero-Caucasian) family with Abhazo-Adygian, Kartvelian, Naho-Dagestanian groups

7) Dravidian family with languages and peoples of the South Asian subcontinent

8) American Indian family, i.e. family of languages of the American Indians. Languages of this family historically go back to the languages of the population who migrated 20-30 thousand years ago from Asia through the Bering Pass. Some language groups of this family have clear traces of the Türkic languages.

From the point of view where all languages of the world historically go back to a single parent language, scientists for a long time tried to find out what families of languages are the losest. On this path arose and developed a theory about the relation of the Indo-European, Uralo-Altai, Afroasian, Dravidian and some Caucasian languages. This macrofamily of languages received the name Nostratic (Lat. nostra 'ours').

Further, the Türkic ethnic roots go deeper in the following retrospective direction: Türkic languages and peoples < Altai languages and peoples < Uralo-Altai languages and peoples  Nostratic languages and peoples.

Kinship of the Altai languages.

The first who incontestably proved the kinship of Türkic, Mongolian and Tunguso-Manchurian languages, who positively included the Korean and Japanese languages in the Altai group, was E.D.Polivanov [Polivanov E.D., 1927]. Unfortunately, no scientist could continue the development of this theory. Moreover, in the1930's-40's (in former USSR) the theory about kinship of the Altai languages was proclaimed to be a reactionary, masked tradition of the bourgeois linguistics. Only after a known (in Russian ”linguistics” - Translator's Note)  linguistic discussion of 1950 became at all possible to legally touch the problems of the kinship of the Altai languages. As a result of scientific research of these problems was created an independent linguistic and ethnogenetical direction, Altaistiks [Sunik O.P., 1971; Kiekbaev Dj. Ã., 1972]. Is instructive the fact that scientists studying concrete linguistical problems unconditionally recognize the relationship of the Altai languages, and the scientists - theorists find the relationship of the Altai languages disputable.

In the opinion of some scientists, the Altai parent language started breaking up 10-6 thousand years ago [Kiekbaev Dj., 1972, 20-24]. V.M.Illich-Svitych believes that the Altai parent language started breaking up into different branches much earlier, than the Indo-European parent language [Illich-Svitych V.M., 1971, 69].

Relationship of the Uralo-Altai languages.

The paradigm about relationship of the Uralo-Altai languages and peoples (Uraloaltaistiks) is more disputable, than the Altaistiks. It usually is rejected by scientists who never studied linguistical problems of the languages in the Uralo-Altai family, and is recognized mainly by those who represent these peoples and studies the Uraloaltaistiks' linguistic problems [Kiekbaev Dj. Ã., 1972; Illich-Svitych V.M., 1971, 38-43; Fokosh-Fuks, 1962; Ryasyanen Ì., 1969; Zakiev M.Z., 1974, etc.].

Kinship of the Nostratic languages.

This theory simultaneously proves the kinship of the Uralo-Altai and Altai languages

Still in the 19th century scientists noted the presence of the linguistical matches, which evidence the relatedness between the Indo-European and Ural, Altai and Dravidian, Dravidian and Indo-European, Semitic and Indo-European languages.

As a result of comparative study of the various families of languages and consolidation of conclusions, in the 60es of the 20es century V.M.Illich-Svitych confidently proposed an idea of the kinship of the Indo-European, Afroasian, Uralo-Altai, Dravidian and Caucasian languages. In his opinion, many similarities between these languages are not a result of mutual influence, but a consequence of their genetic kinship. For example, for a long time we observed a dispute between scientists about to what language belongs the root of the Tatar boru, boraulau and the Russian burit, who borrowed from whom. V.M.Illich-Svitych found the root of this word in all Nostratic languages: in Russian burit, burenie, in Semito-Hamitic languages: b(w)r ‘drill, dig, split’, in Caucasian: br(u) 'twirl', in Indo-European: bher 'drill, dig, prick', in Uralian: pura ‘drilling  instrument, drill, hollow, dig’, in Dravidian: por 'hole', in Altai: bura 'twirl, drill'; he established phonetic rules of changes of such common roots in the Nostratic languages [Illich-Svitych V.M., 1971, 186].

From the results of the genealogical classification is impossible to tell about antiquity, historicity of some, or about non-historicity,  youthfulness of other families of languages. Agreeing with the theory about the historical ascension of all languages to a single parental language makes it senseless to inquire about antiquity or youthfulness of the languages and peoples. More reasonable is to search for an answer to another question, what languages are capable of keeping the more ancient, pra-language forms. Here a typological classification will be helpful to some extent. Thus, from its conclusions we know about inflectional and agglutinating languages. In inflectional languages a root of a word has no standard form, it is mutable. Thus, in Russian in the words khodit (to go) and khojdenie (going) the same root has two forms khod and khoj. Therefore the words in inflectional languages eventually undergo significant phonetical changes. Besides, in these languages some grammatical phenomena are not finally standardized, have exceptions to the common rule as irregular declinations and incomplete conjugations. Therefore in these languages the ancient forms  are less preserved without changes.

In agglutinating languages the roots of the words, and also the forms of declinations and conjugations are so much standardized that they have no exceptions. Therefore agglutinating languages keep more the ancient, pra-language features.

The Türkic languages belong to agglutinating languages, it is possible to locate the pra-language forms in them, therefore they cannot be relegated to unhistorical, young languages. Generally, these do not exist.

Thus, the pre-Türkic ethnic roots of Türks we find in a genetic commonality of the Altai, Uralo-Altai and Nostratic languages.

In the first part of this book the subject will be the ethnic roots of only those Türks who untill now in the historical science have not been attributed to Türks, and were incorrectly considered Iranian-lingual. About the Türkic-linguality of the Huns, and also the nations normally included by the historians in the Türkic category, now scientists do not dispute, therefore we shall not especially address them.

<=Previous

Contents

Next=>

Origin of Türks-Contents · Introduction · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Fifth chapter · ORIGIN OF TATARS
Part 2 - ORIGIN OF TATARS · First chapter · Second chapter · Third chapter · Fourth chapter · Conclusion · Literature · Name and Ethnic Index
Home
Back
In Russian
Writing Contents
Alphabet Contents
Sources
Roots
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Kipchaks
Berendeys
  Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
© Çàêèåâ Ì.Ç., 2002
©TürkicWorld
Ðåéòèíã@Mail.ru