Home
Back
In Russian
Tamgas Contents
Codex of Inscriptions Index
Sources
Roots
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Overview of Sarmatian chronology
Saltovo-Mayak Culture
Codex of Inscriptions-Euro Asiatic-Don
Alanian Etymology Notes
Alans in Pyrenees
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
S.A.YATSENKO
TAMGAS OF IRANOLINGUAL ANTIQUE AND EARLY MIDDLE AGES PEOPLES
Russian Academy of Science
Moscow Press ”Eastern Literature”  2001 ISBN 5-02-018212-5

Chapters  9 and 10
Chapter  9  
TAMGAS OF SOUTHERN SIBERIA AND (present) MONGOLIA

<= Previous Section 8 - Persians Table Of Contents Next Section 11 - Tamgas Of Middle Age Alans =>

Selected Quotation

 

Foreword to the citation of S.A.Yatsenko work

Chronologically, Chapter 9 should be Chapter 2, following the introductory Chapter 1. This chapter focuses on the origin center for the tamga, and had it been in the beginning of the work, it would allow the author to observe and analyze the spread of the waves westward to the Sarmatian and Persian world, and eastward to the Sino-Tibetan-Manchurian world. The brevity of this chapter also does not commensurate with its importance, but on one hand what would  you expect from a person who ventured to seek exclusively the Indo-European (codeword ”Iranian”) roots, but could not totally escape the Türkic-infected ancestry, and on another hand this brevity is rather a blessing that would later allow less lopsided analysis, without a drive to sweep off inconvenient facts, and still on another hand it would allow a detailed research of the clans from their origin point. The citation of all the petroglyphs and inscriptions and developments associated with these tamgas would take a lifetime dedication not expected from a venturer for Indo-European roots, and on yet another hand, the brevity of the chapter is its beauty, for if you have meat and bones, what else the knowledge needs? Any false contrivance would be duly discarded sooner or later.

If you see that the text and illustrations at times conflict, please do not despair, it could be a typo in the S.A.Yacenko publication, or a misunderstanding on the Translator's part. The tamgas are there, but the illustrations or callouts may be incorrect. A closer look at the maps from which the numbers for the images are cited would help to verify the connections and unconfuse the story.

If you see that the text calls Sarmatians ”Iranians”, or their word an ”Iranian word”, do not despair. If this study had ”Türkic-lingual” in its title, it would probably never see the light of the day, and we would have never learnt that the Kangars, Sogdys, Horasmians/Horezmians, Sarmats and Alans had common clans and common clan tamgas, that the royal families of the Horesmians and Sarmatians belonged to the same clans, that the dynasties of the Bospor, Olbia, Bactria were intimately connected all the way up to the Tashkent/Chach by their royal bloodlines, and none of the enigmatic details of these fascinating popular and royal carousels. While the term ”Iranian” pervades the pages of the work as a smell of a dead cat in a high-rise, all the justifications for it are typically contained in these type publications  in a footnote 10 on page 13, or even may be hidden deeper in a comment to a footnote 13 on page 10. Like the radioactive potassium in the modern blood testing allows observing bloodstreams and locate diversions, splits and clogs, so the tamgas allow us to see the origins, developments, relocations, activities and final resting places of the people who left for us these remarkable timestamps of their lives. The tracing inherently has an exceeding resolution for insights with increasing magnification, from a tribe level down to the clans, sub-clans, and in places literally down to individual extended families and historical personalities. The day we would find a mummified horse hide marked by a specific tamga with a little tail on it, we would be able to visualize the extent of the possessions of that clan, extent of its travels, its necropolises, and its herds. Just read on!

As with the signage traditions of our days, the deviations from traditional orientation of the tamga are irrelevant, like is irrelevant the orientation of a 5-point star on the US emblems, or a 6-point star of the Mogen Dovid, their significance is relayed exclusively by their form and not by the conditions of the object where they are placed. On the other hand, the relative orientation of modifier marks is significant, allowing, for example, to segregate the animals of a ”right hand” family from the ”left hand” family and other kins of the clan, and therefore the mirror images carry discerning connotations. At the same time, an ”assignment” of the tamga would be quite an aberration, like renaming ”McDougall” clan into ”Stuarts”, because every member of the society has his parents, and is destined to carry their tamga to his progeny. This aspect is especially pronounced in the societies where upbringing of the youngsters is traditionally a treasured right of their grandparents.

The English rendition of the extensive citation of the work is much simplified, with many details omitted and much reduced references, but with an eye to preserving the logic, facts, and evidence. The citation brings forward the author's comparisons, to allow for easy visual collation of the evidence. A reader should be aware that absolutely none of the dating was performed even with rudimentary scientific instrumentation, and with the exception of the dated coinage, all other dates are within the accuracy of educated opinions, which at times significantly differ, and time to time abruptly change. Any posting's comments notwithstanding, this work is a first major overview of the accumulated research, and we all should be limitlessly grateful for the titanic work performed by the author in researching, assembling and mapping the data, and for many of his insights that lay the ground for the future researchers. The author also notably deviates from the cleansed lexicon that came to use in the Russian academical works of the Soviet period by using Türkic terminology, integral to the Russian language, for the authentic Türkic phenomena, including the very term ”tamga”.

Mini-Glossary of the Türkic ethnic names of the period

Chapter 9
TAMGAS OF SOUTHERN SIBERIA AND (present) MONGOLIA
 

The language attribution of the Southern Siberia tribes and the most part of Mongolia during the Scythian time remains unclear. The Irano-linguality of the Sayano-Altai population can testify direct facts (toponymy, fund of names, specific affinity of folklore), and indirect (presence of common-Iranian dress clothes, headdresses, etc. with specific decor: Yatsenko, 1999; a long list of common with authentic Iranians elements of culture at that time). The majority of tamgas in the region found on petroglyphs, and in many cases there is a question of better dating (this tirade is a beautiful illustration on how the ”science” continues be made in Russia. All stops are pulled on the way to achieve the objective, facts are fast manufactured, and the absolute truth proclaimed any opposing facts notwithstanding. Once the scientific orthodoxy has been demonstrated, the study can turn toward the facts. Compare with V.I. Abaev's discourses. In this particular instance in the author's tirade the trick is that in his comparisons the ”authentic Iranians elements” are least of all "Iranian" - Translator's Note).

Interest to these tamgas began from the B.I.Vainberg and E.A.Novgorod's publication of a series of tamgas from r. Tsagan-gol in present Southwest Mongolia, that had direct parallels in the royal tamgas of the Sarmatians, Bospor and Horesm (Vainberg/Novgorodova, 1976, fig. 5) (fig. 34, and see section 6.7). Later, A.P.Okladnikov (Okladnikov, 1980; 1981) published extensive assemblies in other locations of Mongolia, where tamgas were sometimes pictured surrounded identically rendered ”Saka” petroglyphs of the Scythian and later time, on the Tebsh mountain, in the Bikchit, Tayhar-Chulun, Arshaan-shad and others. Similar with the Altai and found in Mongolia tamgas are occasionally found up to the area of Ordos (the ethnic composition of which population during the Scythian time is not determined precisely) (just the opposite is true, see for example, A.N.Bershtam, L.N.Gumilev etc., and the DNA results. This scientific anopia makes science а ”science”. Fortunately, the facts would not be presented if not for a peculiar nationalistic delusion  - Translator's Note) (compare a tamga among petroglyphs in the Yinshan mountains abutting Ordos from the north: compare a similar tamga: fig. 35/26).

Fig. 34. Collections of tamgas from Mongolia (a, c), Altai (b), W.Turkestan (d-f)

Fig. 35. Tamgas of the Altai (a-b), W. Mongolia (c) and Mongolia (d-f)

Undoubtedly, many such tamgas were inscribed prior to the establishment in the region of the hegemony of the Hunnu tribe (end of the 3rd century BC) (i.e. they precede the Karasük Culture, i.e they originate in the Andronov/Tashtyk period, 1000 -300 BC, before the influx of the eastern tribes in the Karasük period - Translator's Note). The tamgas of the Hunnu proper are almost unknown (probably, the tamgas of their ancestors and themselves are partially represented in the tamgas in the present Eastern Mongolia) (i.e. there are thousands of them, and they are all point blank ”unknown”.  Amazingly, S.A.Yatsenko published in this same work the Hun's tamgas, thank you so much, but was unable to recognize them. Tochars and Ases, for example, were integrated into the Eastern Hun society, and followed them to the Eastern Europe, a trek that took 30 generations and centennial stops at least at three intermediate territories, one of which was the Aral area studied by S.A.Yatsenko. A good excuse, however, is an absence of a monograph on the Hun's tamgas - Translator's Note). The Hunnu tamga are represented, evidently, on the tile of the Chinese-type building in Khakassia (Kiselyov, 1951, tab. XLV) (which is not addressed by the author, evidently as completely irrelevant phenomenon outside of the author's aims, leaving consideration of the subject to future investigators - Translator's Note).
105

Pazyryk
(see report about Pazyryk genetics: ”The data currently available suggest genetic connections of Pazyrykians with the contemporary population of Gorny Altai. Essential finding is the discovery of the Northern-Asian Mongoloid mitotype 2 in the individual with Europoid anthropological characteristics.” - Translator's Note)

In the Southern Siberia the biggest interest represent the tamgas on the ritual (funeral) wooden imitation of the horse bridles in the Pazyryk culture burials in the Altai Mountain of the 6th-3rd centuries BC (Bashadar no. 2, Pazyryk no.3-5, Shibe) (Poltoratskaya, 1962) (fig. 35, а). There are represented the tamgas of different clans (in Bashadar 11 types, in Tuekta kurgan 1 are 8 types), who were evidently participating in the burial of the noble and furnished sacrificial horses for it. Especially important on that background is Pazyryk, the ”etalon” burial of a noble. There, in every tomb was found a sacrificial bridle with tamgas of only two types (probably, gifts from the clans of father and mother of the diseased). The kurgans 3 and 5 give unique types, and in the kurgan 4 both types are also known in other synchronous burials of the area (kurgan 2 in Tuekta; kurgan 2 in Bashadar). Probably, to the tamgas should be also attributed the various tamgas on the bronze sickles of the Tatar culture (Poltoratskaya, 1962).

Among the tamga ”encyclopedias”should be noted the unpublished tamgas on one of two sandstone mengirs (mengir - prehistoric vertically erected stone column, called balbal - Translator's Note) up to 3 m in height, forming a ”gate” in the eastern part of the Sablyk depression in Khakassia, a potential ”pantheon” of the Tagar ”kings” (Kyzlasov, 1986, 139; unpublished material). Not less interesting are two mengirs from the fence of the Big Anhak kurgan, described in the October, 2000 by A.G.Akulov. On one of the sides of each slab are represented not less than 5-6 different tamgas, which usually have analogies in the Sarmatia (see section 6.7). During the Hunno-Sarmatian time in the Altai is known the collection at the Kalgutin mine (Molodin/Cheremisin, 1996, fig. on p. 48) with tamgas, which almost in all cases have analogies with the tamgas of the Central Asia and Sarmatia (fig. 34; see section 6.7).

Individual tamgas were marked on the memorial stele near the edge of a kurgan: Pazyryk burials Ulandryk IV (Kubarev, 1987, fig. 3; tab. LXVII) and Bar-Burgazy II in the south of Altai (Kyzlasov, 1997, 179, fig. 6/1) (fig. 35, а/24; b/26). On not too numerous finds of the Altai bone arrows with the tamgas, were documented up to 12 types, sometimes depicted at different angles (Kocheev, 1994, fig. on p. 58) (compare 28/26, 64, 170; 35/11-12, 14-15, 35, 43, 77).

Middle Asia
1st c. BC - 3rd c. AD
Pazyryk
6th-3rd c. BC
Altai
(not dated)
W. Mongolia
(not dated)
Fig. 28/26 Fig. 28/64 Fig. 28/170 Fig. 35/11-12 Fig. 35/14-15 Fig. 35/35 Fig. 35/43 Fig. 35/77
170?
Chapter 10
RELATIONSHIP OF TAMGAS OF IRANIAN AND TÜRKIC PEOPLES
 

A special foreword to the citation of Chapter 10 of the S.A.YATSENKO work

I have not edited the Chapter 10 machine translation below because, using the favorite expression of Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, it is a complete galimatia, written by a party functionary impersonating a scientist. Both the contents and the form belong to the Russian art of historiography of the 1930's, when a blatant treading of the party line was a condition for physical survival, and should have no utility in 2001. The flimsy arguments are not anywhere close to supporting the weighty conclusions. The author did not master the specific art of Russian Scientific writing between the lines, so artfully represented by the talents of V.I.Abaev, who wrote about a Karvelian language but to conform to the milieu craftily veneered it as quasi-Iranian. Those who read Russian, please turn to the Russian citation of the complete and unabridged original of the chapter in all its splendor. For those who would not endure trying to make sense of the  machine translation, here is a summary: ”This is all Iranian, and those who disagree are Pantürkists”. In reality, the ”Türks are a small tribe of a mixed origin, who lived before the middle of the 5th century AD in the mountains of the Turfan oasis in Sintszyan (Eastern Turkestan), documented by Chinese ”Suyshu””. What can you say? A party line is a party line, or else. Fortunately, the facts do not need any guiding hand.

For convenience, the machine translation and Russian text are given side by side.

Chapter 10
RELATIONSHIP OF TAMGAS OF IRANIAN AND TÜRKIC PEOPLES
SECTION 10

RELATIONSHIP OF TAMGAS OF IRANIAN AND TÜRKIC PEOPLES

At comparison tamgas usage these two large cultural worlds which have actually replaced one of anothers, the attention a number of serious, basic differences pays to itself.

1. Sarmato-Alanian (and their successor central N.Caucasus) and Tadjik tamga at their carriers, as against Türks, did not associate with images of concrete subjects, the natural phenomena, etc. Accordingly they had no names - such as Türkic ”moon”, ”bits”, ”serga”- etc., and were designated as ”a tamga of a clan...”. (naturally, the original tradition and names had a history and associations that superficially borrowed symbology could not have. And Yatsenko, like everybody else,  has no clue as to how Alans called their tamgas - Translator's Note)

2. As a whole the tamga design among even a Türkic nobility is generally simpler than  Iranian (see, for example, tamga than modern inhabitants of Mountain Altai - one of ancestral homes of Türkic peoples: Poznansky, 1991, fig. 2-3; well investigated tamgas on patrimonial divisions on three Kazakh zhuzov: Vostrov/Mukanov, 1968, with. 84-105). (naturally, as the genealogical tree grows, so grow and multiply their symbology. Is that an argument, or a message between the lines? - Translator's Note)

3. Among Türkic peoples, unlike documented materials on the Iranian ethnoses, in addition to the clan tamgas were widely used tribal tamgas (see, for example, tamgas of 24 Oguz tribes: Nickel, 1973, fig. 11) or state tamgas (as a state seal). In Türkic Kaganates were position of tamgakhans - keepers of tamgas (from one to three officials) (Drachuk, 1975, note p. 42). (Leading clan makes their tamga a state tamga, that can be traced from Kanishka to John the Terrible and beyond - Translator's Note)

4. Only at Türks (and later - at the Mongols cultural closely connected to them) specific practice when the Kagan (khan) appointed tamgas to tribes and various noble clans is documented. So acted already legendary ancestor of some Türkic tribes the Oguz - Kagan (the Oguz - name: Scherbak, 1959а, 32; Mitirov, 1979, 129; Rashid hells - dynes, 1991, 64) and, on data Rashid a hell - dyne, other epic governor - Kun-khan, the son of Uzun-khan, and later the Mongolian great khans Chingiz-khan, etc. (Mitirov, 1979, 129). 5. Only at lines of Türkic peoples often use (not handicraftsmen is authentically documented!) not so much clan, how many family and even personal tamgas (see, for example: Katanov, 1893, 110), and the senior sons, being separated from the father, slightly altered its tamga (Dzhikiev/Muradov, 1987, 53). (Same as post-Attila Franks, English, Russian - you name it - just turn to today's British knighting - Translator's Note)
(To summarize, these above four arguments is a whole body of reason why S.A.Yatsenko book carries in title ”IRANOLINGUAL PEOPLES”, and thus it is a perfect illustration of how the Russian science was produced - Translator's Note)
107

The decision of this big and serious question has become complicated last decades besides insufficient development of methodology techniques of research tamgas and absence of necessary reports on regions both the chronological periods and only political and ideological circumstances - pan-Türkist moods or rigid enough nationalism of separate Türksh, Kazakh, Tatar and Altai scientists. The last sometimes aspired contrary to data of the Chinese sources about Türkic etnogenesis to attribute direct allocation of ancestors of Türks to 11 thousand BC (!) and to prove the big cultural influence assumed protoTürks (which ancestral home and today is not found finally) on many neighboring peoples. It is indicative, that practically all authors resolutely asserting today ”Türkic-speaking” of Scythians, Sakas and others ancient nomads, have no professional linguistic preparation necessary for such conclusions.

Today the majority of scientists of all world tribes ”eastern sak circle” Sajano-Altai for some reasons carry, parts of Mongolia and Northwest China to the Iranian group of languages (to ”Sakas”) 1.

To the most ancient ancestors actually Türks - small the mixed origin of a tribe, living up to middle of the 5th century AD, by Chinese ”Sujshu”, in mountains at oasis Turfan in Sintszjane (Eastern Turkestan) (Ershiu shi, 1956, t. 3, 2336-2340; the Klyashtorny, 1964, 103-104), initially was necessary to collide with Irano-lingual an environment in shape of hotano-Sakas and small juechzhej. From the 6th century, after creation royal it come Ashina from world kingdom - the First Türkic Kaganate - by Türks have been seized and many territories earlier occupied with Iranian peoples (first of all the Western Turkestan and steppes S.rus) are soon populated. Naturally, in the early Middle Ages any time there should be mixed Irano-Türkic ethnoses. O.Pritsaku managed to be shown rather convincingly, that such people were, in particular, Besenyos (Pritsak, 1976, 6-10, 23-26). It is significant sako-massageta layer in etnogeneze Oguzes and the Turkmen that was reflected and in their shape tamgas (Gundogdyev, 1998, 555). On the other hand, separate nomadic Iranian tribes later kept some centuries in conditions of domination gunnov, and then - Türks the ancient traditions and assimilated rather slowly. Alans - bersaly (barsily, basily) right banks Bottom Волги2 were those. Already the First Türkic Kaganate in 2-nd half the 6th century actively contacted to those Irano-linguali the countries where it is documented by then active
tamgaspolzovanie (Iran, Horesm, preCaucasian Alanija), or has simply included them in the possession (Sogd, Tokharistan). In similar conditions use by a nobility of a part old Iranian tamgasvogo heritages was almost inevitable. Therefore to see in Irano-Türkic tamgasvyh analogies only ”casual concurrences of simple geometrical forms, which cannot be taken into consideration” (Solomonik, 1959, 19), it is especial without some system comparison, resembling, it seems methodologicalally erroneous and inadmissible.

Not smaller danger to unbiased interpretation of Irano-Türkic contacts in this area ”patriotic” moods of a part Iranogovorjashchih represent scientists of Ossetia and Iran (and rather small volume of such publications does not mean in this case smaller harm for a science). In particular, it be no point to make from Sarmato-Alanian roots tamga peoples of Eastern Ciscaucasia (peoples of Dagestan and, certainly, Türkic language nogajtsy or mongolo-lingual Kalmyks). There are no bases also to deduce all or the most part tamgas Türkic peoples from Irano-lingual predecessors in the territories occupied with ancient Türks as the significant part of their types in the Iranian world nevertheless is not represented.

РАЗДЕЛ 10

СООТНОШЕНИЕ ТАМГ ИРАНСКИХ И ТЮРКСКИХ НАРОДОВ

При сравнении тамгопользования этих двух крупных культурных миров, фактически сменивших один другого, обращает на себя внимание ряд серьезных, принципиальных отличий.

1. Сармато-аланские (и преемственные им центральнопредкавказские) и таджикские тамги у их носителей, в отличие от тюрков, не ассоциировались с образами конкретных предметов, природных явлений и т.п. Соответственно они не имели названий - типа тюркских ”луна”, ”удила”, ”серьга”-и т.п., а обозначались как ”знак рода...”.

2. В целом по конструкции тамги даже тюркской знати в среднем проще иранских (см., например, тамги современных жителей Горного Алтая - одной из прародин тюркских народов: Познанский, 1991, рис. 2-3; хорошо изученные знаки родовых подразделений трех казахских жузов: Востров/Муканов, 1968, с. 84-105).

 

3. У тюркских народов, в отличие от документируемых материалов по иранским этносам, кроме клановых знаков широко использовалась тамга всего племени (см., например, тамги 24 огузских племен: Nickel, 1973, fig. 11) или всего государства (как бы заменявшая государственную печать). В тюркских каганатах существовали должности тамгаханов - хранителей таких тамг (от одного до трех чиновников) (Драчук, 1975, примеч. на с. 42).

 

4. Только у тюрков (и позже - у культурно тесно связанных с ними монголов) документируется специфическая практика, когда каган (хан) назначал тамгу племенам и различным знатным кланам. Так поступали уже легендарный предок ряда тюркских племен Огуз-каган (Огуз-наме: Щербак, 1959а, 32; Митиров, 1979, 129; Рашид ад-Дин, 1991, 64) и, по данным Рашид ад-Дина, другой эпический правитель - Кун-хан, сын Узун-хана, а позже монгольские великие ханы- Чингиз-хан и др. (Митиров, 1979, 129). 5. Только у ряда тюркских народов достоверно документируется частое использование (не ремесленниками!) не столько клановых, сколько семейных и даже личных знаков (см., например: Катанов, 1893, 110), причем старшие сыновья, отделяясь от отца, слегка видоизменяли его знак (Джикиев/Мурадов, 1987, 53).

 


107

Решение этого большого и серьезного вопроса осложнилось в последние десятилетия помимо недостаточной разработки методологии и методики исследования тамг и отсутствия необходимых сводок по регионам и хронологическим периодам и чисто политическими и идеологическими обстоятельствами - пантюркистскими настроениями или достаточно жестким национализмом отдельных турецких, казахских, татарских и алтайских ученых. Последние подчас стремились вопреки сведениям китайских источников о тюркском этногенезе отнести непосредственное выделение предков тюрков еще ко 11 тыс. до н.э. (!) и доказать большое культурное влияние предполагаемых прототюрков (прародина которых и сегодня не выяснена окончательно) на многие соседние народы. Показательно, что практически все авторы, решительно утверждающие сегодня ”тюркоязычность” скифов, саков и других древних номадов, не имеют необходимой для таких выводов профессиональной лингвистической подготовки.

Сегодня большинство ученых всего мира по ряду причин относят племена ”восточносакского круга” Саяно-Алтая, части Монголии и Северо-Западного Китая к иранской группе языков (к ”сакам”)1.

Древнейшим предкам собственно тюрков - небольшому смешанного происхождения племени, проживавшему до середины 5 в. н.э., судя по китайской ”Суйшу”, в горах у оазиса Турфан в Синьцзяне (Восточном Туркестане) (Эршиу ши, 1956, т. 3, 2336-2340; Кляшторный, 1964, 103-104), изначально пришлось столкнуться с ираноязычным окружением в облике хотано-саков и малых юэчжей. С VI в., после создания царским родом Ашина мировой империи - Первого тюркского каганата - тюрками были захвачены и вскоре заселены многие территории, ранее занятые иранскими народами (прежде всего Западный Туркестан и Южнорусские степи). Естественно, в раннем средневековье какое-то время должны были существовать смешанные ирано-тюркские этносы. О.Прицаку удалось весьма убедительно показать, что таким народом были, в частности, печенеги (Pritsak, 1976, 6-10, 23-26). Значителен сако-массагетский пласт в этногенезе огузов и туркмен, что отразилось и в облике их тамг (Гундогдыев, 1998, 555). С другой стороны, отдельные кочевые иранские племена спустя несколько веков сохраняли в условиях господства гуннов, а затем - тюрков свои древние традиции и ассимилировались весьма медленно. Таковы были аланы-берсалы (барсилы, басилы) правобережья Нижней Волги2. Уже Первый тюркский каганат во 2-й пол. VI в. активно контактировал с теми ираноязычными странами, где документируется к тому времени активное тамгопользование (Иран, Хорезм, предкавказская Алания), или просто включил их в свои владения (Согд, Тохаристан). В подобных условиях использование знатью части старого иранского тамгового наследия было почти неизбежным. Поэтому видеть в ирано-тюркских тамговых аналогиях лишь ”случайные совпадения простых геометрических форм, которые нельзя принимать в расчет” (Соломоник, 1959, 19), особенно без сколько-нибудь системного сопоставления, походя, кажется методологически ошибочным и недопустимым.

Не меньшую опасность для объективного освещения ирано-тюркских контактов в этой области представляют ”патриотические” настроения части ираноговорящих ученых Осетии и Ирана (и сравнительно небольшой объем таких публикаций не означает в данном случае меньший вред для науки). В частности, нет никакого смысла производить от сармато-аланских корней тамги народов Восточного Предкавказья (народы Дагестана и, разумеется, тюркоязычные ногайцы или монголоязычные калмыки). Нет оснований также выводить все или большую часть тамг тюркских народов от ираноязычных предшественников на занятых древними тюрками территориях, так как значительная часть их типов в иранском мире все же не представлена.

 
 
<= Previous Section 8 - Persians Table Of Contents Next Section 11 - Tamgas Of Middle Age Alans =>
Home
Back
In Russian
Tamgas Contents
Codex of Inscriptions Index
Sources
Roots
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Overview of Sarmatian chronology
Saltovo-Mayak Culture
Codex of Inscriptions-Euro Asiatic-Don
Alanian Etymology Notes
Alans in Pyrenees
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
10/21/2005
Рейтинг@Mail.ru