DOCSLIB.ORG

TURKIC CONTACT Chingduang Yurayong HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TURKIC CONTACT Chingduang Yurayong HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TURKIC CONTACT Chingduang Yurayong HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • Intense Uralic-Turkic contacts led to assimilation to Turkic languages. • A historical sketch of Turkic peoples is based on Golden (1998). TURKIC PEOPLE: Prehistory and migrations • Altaic community(?) 4000–3000 BC → Ancient Turkic 3000–500 BC. • Turkic homeland is unclear, but there is evidence for early contacts with Uralic and Indo-Europeans, suggesting the location to be somewhere in southern Siberian zone stretching from Yenisei to the Pacific, especially the Altay region and Trans-Baikal. • Later migration in the first millennium BC headed towards the steppe in central and inner Mongolia, which was predominantly occupied by Iranian people, from which the Turkic people adopted Indo-European cultural innovations, e.g., equestrian and pastoral nomadic lifestyle. • Nomadism reinforced the spread of Turkic-speaking community across Eurasia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/East-Hem_500bc.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Early historical period • Turkic-speaking people are often mentioned in connection to Hsiung-Nu or Asian Hunnic union, as was recorded to have been disturbing the borders of China during the 3th century BC. • However, the ethno-linguistic identity of possibly polyethnic and polyglottal Hsiung- Nu polity is unclear (Iranian?, Paleo-Siberian?, Turkic?, and/or Mongolic?, etc.) • Following many defeats by Chinese, Hsiung-Nu fell apart into several groups, especially the Hyôn or Xiyon in Iranian borderlands and Huns who crossed the Volga in ca 370 AD and continued their way to interfere the Roman Empire. • Essential elements of Hsiung-Nu and later Turko-Mongolic states: • Imperial confederacy • Shan-Yü = Khagan = Khan • Teŋri cult etc. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Asia_001ad.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Historical period • The Türks were first mentioned in Chinese sources in the 6th century AD, concerning the relation between Tabγač China and the Jou-Jan or Avar Khaganate in Mongolia. • In the western Eurasian steppes, Turkic tribes replaced the formerly dominant Iranians (Scythian, Sarmatian, Ossetic). • A distinct Oghur Turkic group was formed in today’s Kazakhstan and later Ponto-Caspian steppes ca 463 AD, later included in the multi-Turkic Ding-Ling confederacy, according to Chinese sources. • The Bulgar tribal union (Oghur Turkic and Hunnic) was listed as an ally to Byzantium in 480 AD. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Asia_500ad.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Türk Khaganate • Bumïn of A-Shi-Na, the leader of Türk confederation proclaimed himself as Ilig Qaγan, i.e. Emperor, in 552 AD. • Chinese sources associated the Türks to the Hsiung-Nu and hint at migrations from Kansu ca 265 AD to Southern Siberia or Northern Mongolia in the mid 5th century. • Turkic became a dominant linguistic group in Mongolia and the steppe lands of Turkistan as well as extended to the Pontic zone formerly predominated by Indo- Europeans ca 1000 BC – 500 AD. • Founding a holy ground and capital in Orkhon and establishing their hegemony over the Silk Route, Türks brought Sogdians. On the basis of this adjoining force, subsequent Turkic states were structurally based on Turkic warrior and Iranian bureaucrat. • The First Bulgarian Empire (679 AD) was Turkic-speaking, the Second Bulgarian Empire (864 AD) was Slavic-speaking due to language shift and conversion to Christianity. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Asia_700ad.jpg https://www.quora.com/ What-led-to-the-breakup- of-the-Turkic-Khaganate WRITTEN TURKIC • Orkhon inscriptions • Vilhelm Thomsen (1842– 1927) proved in 1893 that the inscriptions were Turkic and dated from the 7th and 8th centuries AD • Yakuts still produce runic texts until the 16th century! http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_900ad.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Asia_1025ad.jpg https://photos.travellerspoint.com/396820/large_mONGOL_eMPIRE_1294.jpg CONTACTS OF TURKIC • Mongolic • Early Mongolic contacts with r-Turkic languages between the 6th–9th centuries: both lexical and structural borrowings • Qara Khitai in the 10th century: language shift from Mongolic to Turkic • Chingisid Empire in the 13th century: bidirectional borrowings • Mongolic Buddhist missionaries from the 15th century: Turkic languages of Siberia • Indo-European • Early Indo-European contacts: absa(k) ‘asp’, alma ‘apple’, burč ‘pepper’ • Iranian contacts, especially Sogdian • Tocharian contact • Slavic contacts in today’s Russia and the Balkans • Uralic • Early contacts: 6–8 possible etymologies • Sinitic, Semitic, etc. (Róna-Tas 1998: 76-79) TURKIC LANGUAGES: Genealogical classification • There is no intra-Turkic unifying factor, apart from the shared linguistic background and Islamic civilisation (Boeschoten 1998: 1). • The classification of Turkic languages is still much under discussion. • Chronology of early Turkic languages: • Ancient Turkic –7th century (unattested before the Türk Khaganate) • Old Turkic (z-Turkic) 7th–13th centuries • Middle Turkic (Karluk) 10th–15th centuries (aka Old Uyghur) • Common Turkic (z-Turkic) is a descendent of Turkic dialect spoken in the present-day Mongolia during 6th and 9th century (Türk Khaganate). Oghur Turkic (r-Turkic) must have been a Turkic group which migrated earlier to the west. TURKIC LANGUAGES: Present-day situation TURKIC LANGUAGES: Genealogical classification • Traditional classificatory criteria (Johansson 1988: 83): • Oghur Turkic Final -r vs. Common Turkic Final -z Chuvash tăχăr vs. Nogai toγïz ‘nine’ (cf. the term Oghur Turkic vs. Oghuz Turkic) • Intervocalic consonants: Siberian Turkic d/t/z vs. Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk y Tuvan adaq, Yakut ataχ, Khakas azaχ vs. Ogh/Kip/Kar ayaq ‘foot’ • Suffix-initial -G: loss in Oghuz Turkic vs. preserved in Kipchak and Karluk Turkic Participle -Gan: Azeri qalan vs. Kip/Kar qalγan ‘(having) remained’ • Devoicing of suffix-final -G: devoiced in Karluk vs. loss in Kipchak Adjectival suffix: Uyghur taγliq vs. Tatar tawlï, Kirghiz tōlū ‘mountain’ • Initial h-: preserved in Khalaj hadaq ‘foot’ vs. loss elsewhere TURKIC LOANWORDS IN URALIC • Mordvin, Mari, Permic (Wichmann 1903; Räsänen 1920; Raun 1957) • Old Chuvash loanwords (7th–8th centuries) • Later Chuvash and Tatar loanwords (13th century until today) • Hungarian (Gombocz 1912) • Ancient contact: Onogur-Bulgar Turkic (r-Turkic) loanwords (before the conquest in 896 AD) • Middle-Age contact: Khwarezmia & Volga Bulgaria (Kipchak Turkic?) (12th–13th centuries) • Recent contact: Ottoman Turkish (z-Turkic) loanwords (16th–17th centuries) • Ob-Ugric (Paasonen 1902; Kannisto 1925; Toivonen 1944) • Ancient Turkic loanwords in Proto-(Ob-)Ugric • Siberian Turkic loanwords: 550–600 in Mansi, 250–300 in Khanty • Samoyedic (Donner 1924; Joki 1952; Márk 1975-1976; Janhunen 1977) • Ancient Turkic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic • Siberian Turkic loanwords in South Samoyedic languages TURKIC-URALIC CONTACTS • Ancient Turkic loanwords in the Proto-Samoyedic stage as of the beginning of the 1st century or even earlier (evidence from both North and South Samoyedic languages) • After the split, South Samoyedic languages (Selkup, Kamas, Mator, Koibal) continued intense contacts with Turkic, while North Samoyedic (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan) did not. • Hungarian was in contact with Turkic before the migration towards the present-day Hungary in the 10th century. • Earliest Turkic loanwords in Uralic came from r-Turkic dialects. • Contacts during the Middle Age between Volga Turkic (Chuvash, Tatar, Bashkir) and Volga Uralic (Mordvin, Mari, Permic) < Golden Horde (13th–16th century) • Bolgar Türk Empire (Vikings did cross this) left some language attestation in Arabic script, pointing to Islamism. However, this empire later became Chuvashia, which was Christianised, possibly due the influence from Mari (and some other Uralic tribes) who shifted their language to the Bolgar Turkic! • Bashkir = Magyar (= Mansi)?, cf. Language shift from Uralic to Turkic in Chuvashia, Tataria and Bashkiria https://photos.travellerspoint.com/396820/large_mONGOL_eMPIRE_1294.jpg https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesFarEast/CentralAsia_MapAD1501.htm EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN SAMOYEDIC Proto-Samoyedic ← Ancient Turkic 1) *inä ‘elder brother’ *ini > OTurk ini ‘younger brother) 2) *kåpstə̑ ‘to castrate’; *kåpstə̑ ‘a castrated reindeer ox’ *qaptï > OTurk qap- ‘to grasp with teeth or hand’ 3) *ken ‘sheath (for knife)’ *qï̄n > OTurk qï̄n ‘sheath (for knife)’ 4) *ker- ‘to enter’ *kir > OTurk kir ‘to enter’ 5) *kiľ ‘sable’ *kil > OTurk kiš ‘sable’ 6) *kiľ ‘winter’ *qïl > OTurk qïš ‘winter’ 7) *ki̮r ‘grey hair (of animals)’ *qïr > OTurk qïr ‘grey, colour of horse’s coat’ 8) *kün ‘navel’ *küŋ > OTurk kin-dik ‘navel’ 9) *päjmå ‘boots’ *poyma ‘felt boots’ > OTurk oyma 10) *puro ‘grey, wolf-grey, wolf-grey dog’ *boro > OTurk bōz ‘grey’ 11) *tə̑r ‘hair’ *tar > OTurk tara- ‘to comb the hair’; tar-γaq ’comb’ 12) *yam > Nenets yamda- ‘to wander with a tent-caravan’ *yam > OTurk yam ‘a posting station’ 13) *yunta ~ yuntə̑ ‘horse’ *yuntă > OTurk yunt ‘horse’ 14) *yür ‘hundred’ *yür > OTurk yüz ‘hundred’ EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN SAMOYEDIC • Turkic archaisms are preserved in Samoyedic • Final vowel PSam *puro ‘grey’ ATurk *boro > OTurk bōz ‘grey’ PSam *yunta ~ yuntə̑ ‘horse’ ATurk *yuntă > OTurk yunt ‘horse’ • Initial *p- PSam *päjmå ‘boots’ ATurk *poyma ‘felt boots’ > OTurk oyma • Proto-Turkic *ľ > *š (ca 1st century BC?) PSam *kiľ ‘sable’ ATurk *kil > OTurk kiš ‘sable’ PSam *kiľ ‘winter’ ATurk *qïl > OTurk qïš ‘winter’ SAMOYEDIC SUBSTRATE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Etymological and Lexicological Note on the Words for Some Ancient Eurasian Grain Legume Crops in Turkic Languages
    Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 2011, 16(2): 179-182 AN ETYMOLOGICAL AND LEXICOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE WORDS FOR SOME ANCIENT EURASIAN GRAIN LEGUME CROPS IN TURKIC LANGUAGES Aleksandar MIKIĆ1* Vesna PERIĆ2 1Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Serbia 2Maize Research Institute Zemun Polje, Serbia *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] Received: 06.07.2011 ABSTRACT On their way to both Europe and Caucasus, during the 7th and 6th millennia BC, the most ancient Old World grain legume crops, such as pea (Pisum sativum L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.), passed through the region of modern Turkey but also spread towards the original Altaic, and then, Turkic homeland. The assumption that at least some of these crops were known to the ancestors of the modern Turkic nations is confirmed by attesting the Proto-Altaic *bŭkrV, denoting pea and its descendant the Proto-Turkic *burčak, being responsible for all the words denoting pea in the majority of the modern Turkic languages and the borrowed Hungarian borsó. The Proto-Altaic root *zịăbsa, denoting lentil, gave the Proto-Turkic, *jasi-muk, with the same meaning and with numerous, morphologically well-preserved descendants in modern Turkic languages. Key words: Etymology, grain legumes, lexicology, Turkic languages. INTRODUCTION uncertain origin (Georg et al. 1999) and still disputed by some as being true Altaic languages. Majority of the traditional Eurasian grain legume crops, such as pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris The supporters of the existence of the Altaic language Medik.) originated in the Near Eastern centre of diversity, family assumed that its five branches had a common ancestor while faba bean (Vicia faba L.) originated in the central referred to as Proto-Altaic, although the written records on its Asian centre of diversity (Zeven and Zhukovsky 1975).
    [Show full text]
  • The Turkmen Date: March14, 2012 No: Art.2-C1412
    The Turkmen Date: March14, 2012 No: Art.2-C1412 Being a family in the large Turkic race, any article about the Turkmen will be in short supply if it does not present information about the other two related terms; Turks and Oghus. Turks By referring to the excavation of the Russian archaeologists, the Turkish historian Y. Oztuna relates the origin of Turkic peoples to the Brachia-cephalic Andronovo Man who lived 2000 years BC on the widespread lands between Tanri and Altay mountains.1 The historians, who are specialized in pre-Islamic Turkish history such as W. Eberhard, B. Ögel and L. Rasonyi state that the Hsiung-nu (Asian Huns) are the Proto-Turks.2 J. Klaprothe, J.V. Hammer, W. Schott, A. Vambery, E. Oberhummer reports that the Turks were originally a vassal tribe of a people called the Jouan-Jouan, who might have been a remnant of the Hsiung-Nu, at some point thought to be approximately 522 BC. Kafesoglu identifies the Turks with the Hsiung-nu. According to him the ethno Turk was derived from the “Tu-ku” or “Tu-k'o”, the family or tribal name of Mo-tun (Turkish Teomen). In Zent-Avesta and Old Testament, the grandchild of the prophet Noah is called "Turk". Turac or Tur was the son of a ruler in Avesta, which was reported as a tribe named Turk.2 The Chinese Sources state that the Gokturks, Uygurs, and Kyrgyz are descended from the Hsiung-nu people.3 In their correspondences from 1328 BC, they use the name “Tik” for Bozkir Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Koshymova Aknur the Role of Oghuzes in the VIII-XIII Centuries In
    Koshymova Aknur The role of Oghuzes in the VIII-XIII centuries in the formation of ethno genesis of Turkic peoples ANNOTATION To the dissertation prepared to get PhD degree in “History” – 6D020300 General description of the dissertation. The dissertation paper explores the place of Oghuz in the ethnogenesis of the Turkic peoples in the context of the history of the Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, and Turks. The relevance of the research. The studied problem reflects one of the topical issues that has a peculiar place both in national history and foreign historiography. Due to the antiquity and deep historical roots of the ethnogenetic process of the formation of the late Turkic peoples, the researchers recognized the direct involvement of the Oghuz clans and tribes in the history of the Kazakhs. During the study of the ethnogenesis of a single Turkic people, the process of its formation, development paths and features, you can see how great the role of migration and assimilation processes in the content of ethnic mixing of the autochthonous population and alien tribes, which determined the future ethnic composition, language, culture, and this circumstance allows us to consider this factor as the leading one. Therefore, the history of the Oghuz-speaking peoples who inhabited Central and Asia Minor, the Caucasus, from a modern point of view, must be investigated in close connection with the history of the Kazakh people, which makes it possible to obtain valuable scientific results. The history of the Oghuz originating in the VIII century from the territories of the Mongolian plateau and the northeastern part of modern Kazakhstan, which as a result of mass movements occupied the Syrdarya valley, then the territory of modern Turkmenistan, then Azerbaijan and Anatolia, which led to dramatic changes in ethnic processes in these regions, it is necessary to consider taking into account the historical and genetic continuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Medieval Turkic Nations and Their Image on Nature and Human Being (VI-IX Centuries)
    Asian Social Science; Vol. 11, No. 8; 2015 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Medieval Turkic Nations and Their Image on Nature and Human Being (VI-IX Centuries) Galiya Iskakova1, Talas Omarbekov1 & Ahmet Tashagil2 1 Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Faculty of History, Archeology and Ethnology, Kazakhstan 2 Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Faculty of Science, Turkey Correspondence: Galiya Iskakova, al-Farabi Avenue, 71, Almaty, 050038, Kazakhstan. Received: November 27, 2014 Accepted: December 10, 2014 Online Published: March 20, 2015 doi:10.5539/ass.v11n8p155 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n8p155 Abstract The article aims to consider world vision of medieval (VI-IX centuries) Turkic tribes on nature and human being and the issues, which impact on the emergence of their world image on nature, human being as well as their perceptions in this case. In this regard, the paper analyzes the concepts on territory, borders and bound in the Turks` society, the indicator of the boundaries for Turkic tribes and the way of expression the world concept on nature and human being of above stated nations. The research findings show that Turks as their descendants Kazakhs had a distinctive vision on environment and the relationship between human being and nature. Human being and nature were conceived as a single organism. Relationship of Turkic mythic outlook with real historical tradition and a particular geographical location captures the scale of the era of the birth of new cultural schemes. It was reflected in the various historical monuments, which characterizes the Turkic civilization as a complex system.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkic Languages 161
    Turkic Languages 161 seriously endangered by the UNESCO red book on See also: Arabic; Armenian; Azerbaijanian; Caucasian endangered languages: Gagauz (Moldovan), Crim- Languages; Endangered Languages; Greek, Modern; ean Tatar, Noghay (Nogai), and West-Siberian Tatar Kurdish; Sign Language: Interpreting; Turkic Languages; . Caucasian: Laz (a few hundred thousand speakers), Turkish. Georgian (30 000 speakers), Abkhaz (10 000 speakers), Chechen-Ingush, Avar, Lak, Lezghian (it is unclear whether this is still spoken) Bibliography . Indo-European: Bulgarian, Domari, Albanian, French (a few thousand speakers each), Ossetian Andrews P A & Benninghaus R (1989). Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert (a few hundred speakers), German (a few dozen Verlag. speakers), Polish (a few dozen speakers), Ukranian Aydın Z (2002). ‘Lozan Antlas¸masında azınlık statu¨ su¨; (it is unclear whether this is still spoken), and Farklı ko¨kenlilere tanınan haklar.’ In Kabog˘lu I˙ O¨ (ed.) these languages designated as seriously endangered Azınlık hakları (Minority rights). (Minority status in the by the UNESCO red book on endangered lan- Treaty of Lausanne; Rights granted to people of different guages: Romani (20 000–30 000 speakers) and Yid- origin). I˙stanbul: Publication of the Human Rights Com- dish (a few dozen speakers) mission of the I˙stanbul Bar. 209–217. Neo-Aramaic (Afroasiatic): Tu¯ ro¯ yo and Su¯ rit (a C¸ag˘aptay S (2002). ‘Otuzlarda Tu¨ rk milliyetc¸ilig˘inde ırk, dil few thousand speakers each) ve etnisite’ (Race, language and ethnicity in the Turkish . Languages spoken by recent immigrants, refugees, nationalism of the thirties). In Bora T (ed.) Milliyetc¸ilik ˙ ˙ and asylum seekers: Afroasiatic languages: (Nationalism).
    [Show full text]
  • Review the Legacy of Nomadic Empires in Steppe Landscapes Of
    ISSN 10193316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009, Vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 473–479. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2009. Original Russian Text © A.A. Chibilev, S.V. Bogdanov, 2009, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2009, Vol. 79, No. 9, pp. 823–830. Review Information about the impact of nomadic peoples on the landscapes of the steppe zone of northern Eurasia in the 18th–19th centuries is generalized against a wide historical–geographical background, and the objec tives of a new scientific discipline, historical steppe studies, are substantiated. DOI: 10.1134/S1019331609050104 The Legacy of Nomadic Empires in Steppe Landscapes of Northern Eurasia A. A. Chibilev and S. V. Bogdanov* The steppe landscape zone covering more than settlements with groundbased or earthsheltered 8000 km from east to west has played an important role homes were situated close to fishing areas, watering in the history of Russia and, ultimately, the Old World places, and migration paths of wild ungulates. Steppe for many centuries. The ethnogenesis of many peoples bioresources were used extremely selectively. of northern Eurasia is associated with the historical– Nomadic peoples affected the steppe everywhere. The geographical space of the steppes. The continent’s nomadic, as opposed to semisedentary, lifestyle steppe and forest–steppe vistas became the cradle of implies a higher development of the territory. The nomadic cattle breeding in the early Bronze Age (from zone of economic use includes the whole nomadic the 5th through the early 2nd millennium B.C.). By area. Owing to this, nomads had an original classifica the 4th millennium B.C., horses and cattle were pre tion of its parts with regard to their suitability for set dominantly bred in northern Eurasia.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Plan – Silk Road Encounters
    Unit Plan – Silk Road Encounters: Real and/or Imagined? Prepared for the Central Asia in World History NEH Summer Institute The Ohio State University, July 11-29, 2016 By Kitty Lam, History Faculty, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, Aurora, IL [email protected] Grade Level – 9-12 Subject/Relevant Topics – World History; trade, migration, nomadism, Xiongnu, Turks, Mongols Unit length – 4-8 weeks This unit plan outlines my approach to world history with a thematic focus on the movement of people, goods and ideas. The Silk Road serves a metaphor for one of the oldest and most significant networks for long distance east-west exchange, and offers ample opportunity for students to conceptualize movement in a world historical context. This unit provides a framework for students to consider the different kinds of people who facilitated cross-cultural exchange of goods and ideas and the multiple factors that shaped human mobility. This broad unit is divided into two parts: Part A emphasizes the significance of nomadic peoples in shaping Eurasian exchanges, and Part B focuses on the relationship between religion and trade. At the end of the unit, students will evaluate the use of the term “Silk Road” to describe this trade network. Contents Part A – Huns*, Turks, and Mongols, Oh My! (Overview) -------------------------------------------------- 2 Introductory Module ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Module 1 – Let’s Get Down to Business to Defeat the Xiongnu ----------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • The Genetic Traces of Turkic Nomadic Expansion
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/005850; this version posted August 13, 2014. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 Title: The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia 2 Short Title: The Genetic Traces of Turkic Nomadic Expansion 3 4 Bayazit Yunusbayev1,2*, Mait Metspalu1,3,4*, Ene Metspalu3, Albert Valeev2, Sergei Litvinov1,2, 5 Ruslan Valiev5, Vita Akhmetova2, Elena Balanovska6, Oleg Balanovsky6,7, Shahlo Turdikulova8, 6 Dilbar Dalimova8 Pagbajabyn Nymadawa9, Ardeshir Bahmanimehr10, Hovhannes Sahakyan1,11, 7 Kristiina Tambets1, Sardana Fedorova12,13, Nikolay Barashkov12,13, Irina Khidiatova2, Evelin 8 Mihailov14,15, Rita Khusainova2, Larisa Damba16, Miroslava Derenko17, Boris Malyarchuk17, 9 Ludmila Osipova18, Mikhail Voevoda16,18, Levon Yepiskoposyan11, Toomas Kivisild19, Elza 10 Khusnutdinova2,5, and Richard Villems1,3,20 11 12 13 1Evolutionary Biology group, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia 14 2Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Research Centre, RAS, Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia 15 3Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia 16 4Department of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, USA 17 5Department of Genetics and Fundamental Medicine, Bashkir State University, Ufa, Bashkortostan, 18 Russia 19 6Research Centre for Medical Genetics,
    [Show full text]
  • Some Remarks on the Turkicisation of the Mongols in Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Qipchaq Steppe
    Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 71 (2), 121 – 144 (2018) DOI: 10.1556/062.2018.71.2.1 SOME REMARKS ON THE TURKICISATION OF THE MONGOLS IN POST-MONGOL CENTRAL ASIA AND THE QIPCHAQ STEPPE JOO-YUP LEE Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies Marston Road, Oxford, OX3 0EE, U.K. e-mail: [email protected] The Turkic nomads of the Mongol successor states in Central Asia and the Qipchaq Steppe arose from the merging of various Turkic groups and the Mongols. The former had consisted of hetero- geneous elements that did not coalesce into a single entity sharing a common identity and historical consciousness. They thus did not constitute a uniform majority in relation to the more cohesive Mongols. In terms of tribal and genetic compositions, the Turkic nomads of the Mongol successor states were closer to the Mongols than to the pre-Mongol Turkic groups. Naturally, they held on to a predominantly Mongol orientation rather than reverting to pre-Mongol identities. Key words: Turkic nomads, Mongol Empire, Mongol descendants, Turkicisation, Mongolness, Y-DNA haplogroup, Central Asia, Qipchaq Steppe. Introduction By the late 14th century, the Mongol descendants in Central Asia and the Qipchaq Steppe, including the members of the Chinggisid dynasty and such tribes of Mongol origin as the Barlas, Manghit, and Qunghrat, had become speakers of Turkic lan- guages. Historians accordingly remark that these Mongol descendants were “Turki- cised” and refer to them as “Turks” or “Turkicised Mongols”.1 However, we hear of no Turkic amīrs or tribal leaders of the Mongol successor states2 in Central Asia and 1 For instance, Peter Golden (2011, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • TURKIC POLITICAL HISTORY Early Postclassical (Pre-Islamic) Period
    HUMANITIES INSTITUTE Richard Dietrich, Ph.D. TURKIC POLITICAL HISTORY Early Postclassical (Pre-Islamic) Period Contents Part I : Overview Part II : Government Part III : Military OVERVIEW The First Türk Empire (552-630) The earliest mention of the Türks is found in 6th century Chinese sources in reference to the establishment of the first Türk empire. In Chinese sources they are called T’u-chüeh (突厥, pinyin Tūjué, and probably pronounced tʰuot-küot in Middle Chinese), but refer to themselves in the 7th - 8th century Orkhon inscriptions written in Old Turkic as Türük (��ఇ఼�� ) or Kök Türük (�� �ఇ �� :�� �ఇ �఼ �� ). In 552 the Türks emerged as a political power on the eastern steppe when, under the leadership of Bumin (T’u-men in the Chinese sources) from the Ashina clan of the Gök Türks, they revolted against and overthrew the Juan-juan Empire (pinyin Róurán) that had been the most significant power in that region for the previous century and a half. After defeating the Juan-juan and taking their territories, Bumin took the title of kaghan, supreme leader, while his brother Istemi (also Istämi or Ishtemi, r. 552-576) became the yabghu, a title indicating his subordinate status. Bumin was the senior leader, ruling the eastern territories of the empire, while Istemi ruled the western territories. Bumin died in 553, was briefly followed by his son followed by his son Kuo-lo (Qara?), and then by another of his sons, Muhan (or Muqan, r. 553-572). In the following decades Istemi and Muhan extended their rule over the Kitan in Manchuria, the Kirghiz tribes in the Yenisei region, and destroyed the Hephthalite Empire in a joint effort with the Sasanians.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia BUDAG BUDAGOV
    BUDAG BUDAGOV Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia BUDAG BUDAGOV Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia © “Elm” Publishing House, 1997 Sponsored by VELIYEV RUSTAM SALEH oglu T ranslated by ZAHID MAHAMMAD oglu AHMADOV Edited by FARHAD MAHAMMAD oglu MUSTAFAYEV Budagov B.A. Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia. - Baku “Elm”, 1997, -1 7 4 p. ISBN 5-8066-0757-7 The geographical toponyms preserved in the immense territories of Turkic nations are considered in this work. The author speaks about the parallels, twins of Azerbaijani toponyms distributed in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Altay, the Ural, Western Si­ beria, Armenia, Iran, Turkey, the Crimea, Chinese Turkistan, etc. Be­ sides, the geographical names concerned to other Turkic language nations are elucidated in this book. 4602000000-533 В ------------------------- 655(07)-97 © “Elm” Publishing House, 1997 A NOTED SCIENTIST Budag Abdulali oglu Budagov was bom in 1928 at the village o f Chobankere, Zangibasar district (now Masis), Armenia. He graduated from the Yerevan Pedagogical School in 1947, the Azerbaijan State Pedagogical Institute (Baku) in 1951. In 1955 he was awarded his candidate and in 1967 doctor’s degree. In 1976 he was elected the corresponding-member and in 1989 full-member o f the Azerbaijan Academy o f Sciences. Budag Abdulali oglu is the author o f more than 500 scientific articles and 30 books. Researches on a number o f problems o f the geographical science such as geomorphology, toponymies, history o f geography, school geography, conservation o f nature, ecology have been carried out by academician B.A.Budagov. He makes a valuable contribution for popularization o f science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin 2 Béla Miklós Szőke the Carolingian Age in the Carpathian Basin
    THE CAROLINGIAN AGE IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN 2 Béla Miklós Szőke THE CAROLINGIAN AGE IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN PERMANENT EXHIBITION OF THE HUNGARIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM HUNGARIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM ■ BUDAPEST ■ 2014 EXHIBITION CATALOGUE CURATORS OF THE EXHIBITION Annamária Bárány EDITORS Katalin Gergely László Révész Ágnes Ritoók Béla Miklós Szőke István Vörös PHOTOGRAPHY András Dabasi Judit Kardos CONTRIBUTOR Katalin Gergely ILLUSTRATIONS Balázs Holl Main partner institution (in the preparation and exhibition Béla Nagy of the Carolingian period) RESEARCH CENTER FOR Narmer Architecture Studio HUMANITIES, HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF Sándor Ősi SCIENCES, INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Zsolt Vieman LENDERS Balatoni Múzeum, Keszthely TRANSLATED BY Judit Pokoly Göcseji Múzeum, Zalaegerszeg Lara Strong Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest Christopher Sullivan Rippl-Rónai Múzeum, Kaposvár Soproni Múzeum BOOK LAY OUT Dóra Kurucz Thúry György Múzeum, Nagykanizsa PRINTED BY Dürer Nyomda Kft. MODELS Narmer Architecture Studio PUBLISHED BY Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, ANIMATION Narmer Architecture Studio László Csorba Történelmi Animációs Egyesület BOWS AND BOW RACKS Pál Szabó ISBN 978 615 5209 17 8 Interactive Exhibits Kft. ARCHITECTURAL AND GRAPHICAL DESIGN Narmer Architecture Studio © Authors, 2014 © Hungarian National Museum, 2014 CONSTRUCTION Vektor Kft. Beige-Bau Kft. GRAPHICS Drava Dekor Kft. CONSERVATION Department of Conservation of the Hungarian National Museum HAS Institute of Archaeology, Conservation Lab THE EXHIBITION AND THE CATALOGUE WERE SPONSORED
    [Show full text]