Home
Back
In Russian
Contents Tele
Contents Huns
Datelines
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Yu.Zuev Ethnic History of Usuns
Yu.Zuev Early Türks: Essays of history
Yu.Zuev The Strongest Tribe - Ezgil
Yu.Zuev Tamgas of vassal Princedoms
Yu.Zuev Ancient Türkic social terms
Ogur and Oguz
N.Bichurin Hunnu, Oihors, etc
V.Taskin Eastern Huns 3 c. BC - 2 c. AD
V.Taskin Eastern Huns 3 c. AD - 5 c. AD
V.Taskin Kiyan Huns 3 c. AD - 5 c. AD
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Huns and Türks

 

One of the adages heard from some, net necessarily limited to less educated, proponents of the Hun's non-Türkic origin, is that the Türks did not exist before the 6th c. AD, when they assembled their own state that was largely congruous with, and overlapped the state of the Huns. That argument is refuted by the known fact that names evolve and change, and the same people in different periods are known under different names: a good example are the Byzantines, aka Romans, aka Greeks, aka Ionians, aka Macedonians, who could not have been possibly called Byzantines before the Byzantine came about almost two millennia after the Ionian Greeks reached Balkans and established there Greek colonies, and could not have been possibly called Romans before the Greece was annexed by the Roman Empire. But under every name, their language is indisputably Greek, and their ethnological distinctions are indisputably Greek, even so at the time when they were called Macedonians. If in the today's nomenclature the linguistic family and the ethnos are called Türkic, in other periods they were called Hunnic, Scythian, Tatar, etc. More than that, the main body of the Türkic people consisted of Tele tribes, and  the main body of the Hun people consisted of Uigur tribes, and it is a quirk of the fate that the modern descendents of the Tele people are called Türks, and not something like Telenguts, Teleguzes, Teleuts, and that the modern name of the Huns is not Uigurs.

Another observation about the Huns, Türks, and Scythians is the amazing symmetry of their geographical and political development. At the dawn of the historical period, when literacy was limited to the Middle Eastern area of the inhabited world, we learn that the same people, called Kang, left their footprint in the space spanning from the Middle Asia to the Middle East. A millennium later, in the historical period, we have Scythians, who from their states in South Siberia and Tuva ventured to establish their states in the Middle East and N.Pontic, soon after the wave of the literacy reached the Far East. In the later historical period, we have Huns who established their state covering South Siberia and Tuva, reaching  from the Middle Asia to the Far East, and eventually establishing a state in the Eastern and Central Europe. A few centuries later, in the same place we see the Türks, who stretched their state from the Central Asia to the  Eastern Europe. All these expansions, in addition to the temporal symmetry, have a common denominator: these people were horse-mounted warriors, they produced vast herds of horses, they valued trade opportunities, they expanded from a steppe pasture area to a steppe pasture area, and they settled in suitable areas.

History left us traces of these events. If the ethnonym Türk came after a leader under that name, it happened many centuries before the name Türk became an ethnonym, and still more centuries before the name Türk became a politonym. The first known records of the Türks are millenniums older then the modern notions of the linguistic family and the ethnos termed Türkic. In the mid-first century AD (i.e., before 50 AD), Turkae Turks are mentioned there (living in the forests north of the Sea of Azov) by Pomponius Mela. [C.Beckwith (2009), Empires of the Silk Road, p.115, K.Czegledy (1983, From east to West), P.Golden (1992, Introduction to the history of the Turkic people)]. In the mid-first century AD the N.Pontic steppes were occupied by Sarmatians, the conglomerate of the European tribes were headed by Sarmatians, who ruled many tribes, and among these many tribes already were the tribes of  Turkae Turks. The Turkae Turks are also mentioned in the Natural History of Pliny the Elder (i.e, before 77 AD), spelled Tyrkae Türks. [C.Beckwith (2009, Ibid), p.115, D.Sinor (1990, Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia), p. 285]. These Latin classical references to the Türks are direct and overt, and should be familiar to any proponent of any Eurasian ethnolinguistic theory, they should be complemented by the toponymic terms that are still mistreated as unknown provenance. In the Middle Asia, at the same Classical Antique time are minted coins that use the word Türk as an adjectival synonym of the word state [A. Mukhamadiev (1995, Linguoethnohistory of the Tatar people)]. For the same time, Ptolemy does not mention the N.Pontic Türks per se, but instead places Huns and Ases in or around the present Moldova, places the Hunno-Bulgarian patently Türkic tribe Savars right in the N.Pontic seven rivers area in the headwaters of Don and Sever (Savar) Donets, and places Agathyrs around the Carpathian mountains contiguous with Savars. These facts refute the argument that the Türks did not exist before the 6th c. AD, even if the non-existence argument was not otherwise patently faulty. These facts not only do not contradict the other facts of the Huns, Sabirs, Ases living north of the literate Indians or north of the literate Chinese, they demonstrate once again that pastoral tribes can split and overcome great distances to grow their herds with a reasonable proximity to the trading markets. They also lead us to better understanding why, in dire times, the bulk of population moved across vast distances to re-join their kinfolk, an effect observed over and over again for any historically documented cataclysm in the life of the pastoral Türks. Unlike the sedentary Türks, the pastoral Türks melt away in unknown direction, only to reappear again in a new location away from from the danger. Examples are plethora: Tochars-Ases moving away from the Huns, Huns moving away from the Mongols and Chinese, Türks moving away from the Uigurs and Chinese, Uigurs moving away from the Kirgizes and Chinese, and so on, all that in addition to the all instances that escaped a record of history.

Huns 1000 BC Huns 210 BC Pomponius Mela
(ca. 40 AD)
Ptolemy's Huns
E Europian tribes scheme.jpg
Pliny the Elder ca 70 AD Huns
At the beginning of New Era
Syanbi Kaganate
155-325AD
E.Türks' anabasis
265 & 465 AD
Missing
  W Huns
5th c. AD
Jujans-Kushans-Hephtalites
ca AD 500
Kushan
6th c. AD
Avaria
6th c. AD
Goktürk Kaganate
Gumilev ethnical lines

  6th c. AD
W. Goktürk Kaganate
7th c. AD
Khazaria
Kagan Domain
10th c. AD
 

Sima Qian stated, on the evidence of the preceding Chinese records (Bamboo Annals), that the Xiongnu's ruling clan were descendants of Chunwei (淳維 Chun tribes, another form of coding the word Hun), possibly a son of Jie, the final ruler of the legendary Xia Dynasty (ca. 2070-1600 BC). [5] But the arrival of the pastoral nomads engaged in horse husbandry in the East Asian steppes is dated to no earlier that the 12th c. BC. The oldest phonetization of the name Hun had different Chinese forms: in the earlier pre-historic period the Huns were called Hu and Jun (Jung), in the late pre-historic period the Huns were called Hun-yui, in the literate period starting with Yin Dynasty (殷代, 1600-1046 BC) they were called Guifan, in Zhou period (周朝,1045256 BC) they were called Hyan-yun, starting from the Qin period (秦朝, 221-206 BC) the Chinese annalists called them with a derisive Hunnu (Ch. Xiongnu, malicious slave), as was stated by Sima Qian. [6][7] That the -yui/-yun/-jun portion was a tribal name component is a frequent reference in the Chinese annals, a most known and direct example was illustrated by Wang Mang's change in the 15 CE of the Hun's state seal legend from non-semantically meaningful hieroglyph shan with identically sounding hieroglyph shan meaning kind, good. After the change of the hieroglyph, the title ( Shanyu 單于) assumed a meaning Kind Yui or Good Yui 善于. [8] (from 匈奴單于璽 Xiongnu Chanyu Xi/Hunnu Chanyu Seal to 新于章 Xin Hungnu Chanyu Zhang/New Hunnu Good Yu Badge; another change was from "ferocious" 匈 to "respectful" ; any rendition that does not display these changes is non-authentic translation from Classicxal Chinese to modern Chinese) Wang Guowei... came to a conclusion that the tribal names found in the sources, Guifan, Hun-i, Sün-yui (Hün-yui), Syan-yun (Hyan-yun), Jun (Jung), Di, and Hu designated one and the same people, which later entered history under a name Sünnu (Hunnu) [9]

Before the advent of the Imperial period in the Chinese history, the relations between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturists were quite amicable. Sima Qian recorded that in 636 BCE, Mu-gyun, a Prince of the Jin principality, enticed Yuiui tribe, and eight possessions of the Western Juns to submit voluntary to the House of Jin: for this reason from the Lun westward were located generations Gun-chju (Hun tribes), Guan-Jung (Guan Huns), Di-wan (Di tribes, apparently a reduced Sinified form of Tele), from the Qi and Lyan mountains, from the rivers Gin-shui and Qi-shui to the north were located Jungs of the generations Ikui (Two Uis), Dali (Great Li), Uch-jy (Three tribes, apparently Karluks), and Sui-yan (Sui tribe); from the Jin principality to the north were located Jungs of the generations Linhu and Leufan; from the Yan principality to the north were located generations Dun-Hu (Mongols) and Shan-Jun (Mountain Huns). All these generations lived dispersed in the mountain valleys, had their own sovereigns and elders, frequently gathered in a large number of clans, but could not unite. [10][11] The alliances were reinforced by mutual matrimonial unions that produced half-breed offsprings, and were beneficial to the principalities, as they gained instantaneous reinforcement by the cavalry troops.

The record of 636 BC signified a milestone in the Türkic-Chinese relations; the previous symbiotic relations are alluded to in the annals, but are not specific. From the  636 BC on, the process of mutual linguistic enrichment lasted until well into the Modern Age. A number of philological works addressed the subject, a most prominent of which was the cardinal work of M.J.Hashimoto Altaicization of Northern Chinese, which brought a solid foundation under many prior observations.

Under the name Di (氐), the Tele tribes appeared on the pages of history in the 8th c. BC in the territory of the Ba (巴) state, and from that time on they are active participants in the Chinese history, numerous times culminating in their own right as creators of their own states in the territory of the modern China: Cheng Han (303-347 成, 漢, 成漢), Former Qin (351-394 前秦), Later Liang (386-403 后凉), Kibir (605-610 契苾), Seyanto (631-646 薛延陀) Kaganates; and Kimak (743-1050) Kaganate in the Middle Asia outside of Chinese dynastic purview; as decisive force in the fates of many Chinese and Hunnish/Türkic/Uigur Türkic states, and a main participant in the Middle Age Eastern European Kipchak state (1060-1230) and Mongol Empire. In the Chinese annalistic records, the Tele tribes appear as a powerful force used as mercenaries or allies for centuries, invariably re-appearing after any calamity under a slew of different names before and after codification of the Chinese annalistic script, and invariably with their distinct nomadic culture. The Ba and Shu (蜀) developed their own writing systems, one pictographic and two possibly phonetic scripts, still undeciphered. The ancient history of the Tele ended with their inclusion in Hun state, when direct references to them appeared only in the descriptions of the conflicts between the Tele and Huns.

Chinese chronicles carry numerous statements on the linguistic and ethnological closeness or identity of the many Hunnic tribes. Among them are direct statements:

- Weishu 魏書 (102: 2268) and Beishi 北史 (97: 3219-3220) say that the customs and language of Yueban Xiongnu 悅般 匈奴 were the same with the Gaoche 高車 (~ Chile, Tiele 鐵勒 = Tele Turkic confederation; Yueban = weak Huns, i.e. a lesser splinter of Hun massive).

- Beishi 北史 (98: 3270-3271) gives the ancestry legend of the the Gaoche 高車 which link them with the Xiongnu 匈奴.

-- Zhoushu 周書 (50: 907) and Beishi 北史 (99: 3285) state that the Tujue 突厥 (Türks, Gök Türks) were a separate branch of the Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

- Suishu 隋書 (84: 1879) states that the ancestors of Tiele 鐵勒 (~ Chile, Tiele, Tele) were descendents of Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

- Xin Tangshu 新唐書 (217: 6111) says that the ancestors of Huihe 回紇 (Uiġurs) are the Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

All Turkic scholars know the basics, are acquainted with Abu-l Gazi and the like genealogical sources, and know the Huns as their ancestors. The list of the past non-Turkic eminent scholars who acknowledge that the Huns were Turkic covers the whole alphabet: Altheim, Bazin, Bernshtam, Chavannes, Clauson, de Guignes, Eberhard, Franke, Grousset, Gumilev, Haussig, Hirth, Howorth, Klaproth, Krouse, Lin Gan, Loufer, Marquart,  Ma Zhanshan, McGovern, Nemeth, Parker, Pelliot, Pricak (Pritsak), Radloff, Remusat, Roux, Samolin, Szasz, and Wang Guowei.

The only complete surviving Hunnic phrase leaves no doubts that the Huns, Uigurs, Tele, and their many kins spoke Türkic; that phrase was uttered in 311 AD, centuries before the tribe called Türk gained ubiquitous fame, before the Huns gained omnipresent fame in Europe, and millennia before the very concept of the Türkic languages had formed. One must try hard to be an overly qualified philologist with magical slight of hands to subterfuge the obvious:

Chinese English Transcription Cyrillic Transcription Modern Türkic Türkic in Cyrillic Translation
秀支 替戾剛,
僕谷 禿劬當
Süčy tiligan,
Pugu'qüi tudan/tudar
,
' /
Süčy dilegan,
Pugu'yu tutar
,
'
Army head'd take off,
Would capture Pugu
,

Not only all the words have Türkic roots, but the agglutinative grammar is the same too, -čy, -gyu/yu, -gan, -dan are all listed in the M.Kashgari dictionary with the same function. The last consonant in the phrase could be both -n, and -r transcribed in Chinese as -n; the modern Oguz conditional affix -yu was supposed to sound -gyu in Ogur. The Chinese chroniclers should be given ample credit for accuracy of the phonetical rendition, the Türkic language must be given credit for stability of the agglutinative language, so infinitely contrasting with the flexive English or Persian. The probability that a random 24-phoneme phrase in one language would match exactly, phonetically and semantically, a 24-phoneme phrase in unrelated language can be calculated by any high school graduate, and it would require printed 9's to fill every scrap of paper on this Earth.

The Eastern and Western Huns belonged to the Ogur linguistic family, today it is modestly called Karluk group. In the Antique Period, the Ogur family was much more visible then the Oguz family, due to their proximity to the literate southern populations. From the ethnonyms and recorded relicts of the language, the Ogur group included, in addition to the Huns, the Tochars, Kangars, Uigurs, Karluks, Bulgars, Khazars, Sabirs, Agathyrs, Avars, and tentatively every other ethnically distinct population that ends its name on -ar/-er/-ir/-ur. Conversely, the Oguz family should include the tribes with the ethnonym ending on -az/-ez/-iz/-uz, but that does not happen. The historically attested Oguz tribes, with historically attested Oguz languages, carry all kinds of ethnonyms except those ending on -az/-ez/-iz/-uz (and -ash in Chivash, and -iz in Ediz). That indicates that the tribal ethnonyms are older then the -r/-s split, and the tribes on   -ar/-er/-ir/-ur do not necessarily belong to the Ogur group. The subject of the Az/As tribe is a separate topic, historically they were affiliated with almost everybody in the Middle Asia area, extending as far as as the Middle East, as Az-kishi of the Assyrians, and Central Europe and the Far East. The fact that the Ases were Türkic does not raise any doubts, their predominant affiliation with the Türkic or Türkic-infected Mongolic languages is a prevailing evidence of their linguistic preferences. From the glimpses of the historical records, it appears that the -r/-s split happened within the Kangar tribes, producing the two pra-ethnoses, the Kangars and the Ases. The Ases were located north of Kangars, or at least occupying higher altitude, mountainous areas, with a proximity to the mountain taiga, while the Ogur Kangars preferred the open steppes of the Kazakhstan and Takla Makan - Tarim Basin. Correspondingly, the Ogurs predominately remained purely steppe dwellers, tied to the rivers and the oases of the deserts, while the Oguzes adjusted to the forest-steppe economy, and had to co-exist with the foot hunters of the taiga forests.

In the next chapter of history, we encounter the Ogur Huns already in a matrimonial union with the Ogur Uigurs (perhaps centuries of coexistence between Huns and Uigurs as permanent marriage partners of the dynastic tribes led to a leveling of the Uigur language, bringing it closer to the Ogur dialect of the Huns), carrying titles and ethnonyms expressed in the Ogur vernacular, Huchji and Chjuki, and Ichjitsy, and Jichjo, and Chjilur, and Fuchjulei, and Yuechjies, and Yun-Chjun, and in the name of the wife Yanchjy, abti, that reflects the Türkic/Uigur term for a wife, atti. Uigurs, who belonged to the Tele tribes, were of the Ogur group, for us that at first signify that the Tele tribes were not necessarily all Oguzes, and secondly that of all the Tele tribes the Ogur Huns singled out the Tele Ogur tribe of Uigurs for a matrimonial union. The Türks, and other Oguz tribes, in the 2nd c. BC remain outside of the Ogur power structure, to the detriment of the Ogur tribes. When the Chinese policy of corrupting and dividing their most powerful adversary bore fruit, the Oguz Tele tribes rose in revolt, and completed the demise of the Huns' dominance. With the power structure of the Hun's state severely injured, the Hun tribes and the tribes closely associated with Huns became fluidized, and flowed to safety. A small part of the Huns joined their brethren who kept occupying the parts of the Huns historical domains annexed by China, these Hun tribes continued their autonomous existence under dominion of China, and they remained a powerful magnet for various Hunnic tribes during discord times in the following millennia. A very significant part, numbering half a million population, joined their Syanbi Mongolic adversaries, changing their allegiance, but generally remaining intact in their previous areas. Another significant part leapfrogged their northern Tele foes, and established a new domain in the western Middle Asia, extending from the N.Caucasus to Balkhash. The initial Late Antique Huns' domains included the tribes of Bulgars, Suvars (Savars), Ezgils, and Kangars. With time the now Western Hun confederation included Alans, Agathyrs, Scythians, Sarmatians,  N.Pontic Türks, European Huns, Ases, a part of the Germanic tribes, and Ugrian Magyars. part of the Baltic tribes was destined to become Slavic tribes, from the Turkic "süläü" - "speak". When applied to the name of the Slavic peoples, the term shows that in the beginning it was exoethnonym for those Balts (and probably not only Balts) who were Balto-Turkic bilingual, and subsequently it became their own non-differentiated ethnonym, which coexisted with the prior ethnonyms, and which subsequently divided again into separate historical and new ethnonyms (süläü > slovo = word, speak > Slav, Slovak, Slovene, etc.).

The Asian Türks, who were a separate branch of the Eastern Huns, became prominent members of the Syanbi confederation, 155-235 AD. The Türks' kinfolks, Tabgaches (Ch. Toba), became a ruling tribe in the Syanbi confederation. In 265 the Türks evacuated from Otuken and Ordos to Hesi, and in 465 they evacuated from the Hesi to the Altai mountains. During the dominance of the Jujan Eastern Hun Kaganate, 460-545, the Asian Türks and other Oguz tribes were involuntary members of the Jujan Kaganate. In 552, the Asian Türks replaced Jujan Huns from the dominating position, and took over the leadership of the Kaganate, now known as the Türkic Kaganate, and quickly expanded its control over the whole of the Central and Middle Asia, absorbing the Caucasian Huns and N.Pontic Bulgars. Thus the Türk's separate branch of the Huns restored the Hun's state of Mode, and even extended its boundaries. Linguistically, the tribes of the Türks belonged to the Oguz family of the Türkic linguistic tree, which was directly documented in the epitaphs written in the Sogdian and Türkic runiform scripts.

 
 

 

Home
Back
In Russian
Contents Tele
Contents Huns
Datelines
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins
Wikipedia
Yu.Zuev Ethnic History of Usuns
Yu.Zuev Early Türks: Essays of history
Yu.Zuev The Strongest Tribe - Ezgil
Yu.Zuev Tamgas of vassal Princedoms
Yu.Zuev Ancient Türkic social terms
Ogur and Oguz
N.Bichurin Hunnu, Oihors, etc
V.Taskin Eastern Huns 3 c. BC - 2 c. AD
V.Taskin Eastern Huns 3 c. AD - 5 c. AD
V.Taskin Kiyan Huns 3 c. AD - 5 c. AD
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
1/7/2010 2010
@Mail.ru ~ –