|
Overview of Sarmatian chronology |
Alan Dateline |
||
|
Zakiev M. Z. PROBLEMS of
the HISTORY and LANGUAGE WHO ARE ALANS?
Contents
1. General
information. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
§ 1. General information.
As is known from multiple sources, differently speaking people lived in the
expansive region of Eurasia, namely in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus, in Near
East, Middle East, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Southern and Western Siberia,
called by the Greek until the 9- 8 cc. BC, and then by the Roman historians,
by a common name Cimmerians, in the 9-3 cc. BC by the Scythians (in Russian:
Skif, in Western European: Scyth), at the same time they also called them
Sauromatians, in the 3 cc. BC - 4 cc. AD they also called them Sarmatians.
Then into general use came an ethnonym Alan. In the Indo-European and official
Soviet-Russian historical sciences all of them are recognized as Iranian
speaking, in particular, as the ancestors of Ossetians, not on the basis
of a comprehensive study of the linguistic, mythological, ethnological,
archeological and historical data, but coming only from isolated linguistic
deductions. This implies that the ancestors of Ossetians lived in the
expansive region of Eurasia under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians,
and Alans (Ases) during one thousand years BC and a thousand years AD, but in
the beginning of the second millennium AD they extraordinarily quickly
diminished (or adopted Türkic language) and remained in small numbers only in
the Caucasus. Even based on the following general considerations, such
presentation of the historical process in Eurasia does not bear criticism.
The historical process of the development or assimilation of peoples does not
support the opinion about Iranian-linguality of the Scythians, Sarmatians,
and Alans. If in such extensive region of Eurasia, as the Iranists assume,
lived Iranian speaking Ossetians during a period of not less than two
thousand years, then, on one hand, at the ‘arrival’ of Huns they would not
have suddenly disappeared without a trace, and would not immediately turn
into Türks, and on another hand the Türks, if they did not live earlier in
these regions, could not have created instantaneously in the 6 cc. the Great
Türkic Kaganate on the most expansive territory from the coast of Pacific
Ocean to the Adriatic sea. We should also keep in mind that the depiction
of that ancient population as Iranian speaking contradicts the information of
the ancient historians about multilingualism of Scythians and Sarmatians, and
is not supported by the toponymical data of the above named extensive region. Besides, if Scythians and Sarmatians were
Iranian speaking, the ancient Assirian, Greek, Roman, Chinese historians
could not fail to notice it, they knew well both Iranians - Persians, and the
Scythians - Sarmatians, i.e. describing these peoples they would have surely
noted somehow the similarity or affinity of the Persian and ‘Scythian’
languages. But we do not find even a hint of this from the ancient writers.
At the same time there are many cases of identification of Scythians,
Sarmatians, and Alans with various Türkic speaking peoples. Lastly, if in the extensive territories of
Eurasia under a common name Scythians and Sarmatians lived only Iranian
speaking peoples, from where would then suddenly appear Slavic, Türkic, and
Finno-Ugrian peoples. An ironical question is only left to be asked: maybe
they ‘fell from sky’?! Thus, even the general review of the results of
the Scythian and Sarmatian studies of Iranists shows that in their
tendentiousness they crossed the limits of unrealistic, unprovable fantasy
and concoction. On the other hand, even before, and after the
emergence of the Scythо-Iranian concept, many scientists were proving
and confirming the Türkic-speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans,
recognizing the presence among them of Slavic, and Finno-Ugrian, and Mongolian,
and also, in the smallest degree, of the Iranian peoples. In the opinion of
this group of scientists, even long before our era, on the extensive
territories of Eurasia, under the general names of Scythians, Sarmatians, and
Alans (Ases), lived the ancestors of the Türkic peoples. They continued and
continue to live now in the same regions, under various ethnonyms, since the
middle of the 1st - beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. In fact, starting in
the 11 c., from the beginning of the Crusader campaigns, the settlement areas
of the Türks gradually narrowed. But, despite the presence of the two different
prevailing points of view, the (Russian
- Translator’s note) official
historical science by all possible and impossible rationales tries to prove
the truthfulness of the Scythian-Sarmatian-Alanian-Ossetian theory. Here is
what V.A.
Kuznetsov writes in BSE (Big Soviet Encyclopedia): ‘Alans (Lat. Alan),
self-name - Irons, in the Byzantian sources - Alans, in Georgian - Osses, in
Russian - Yases, numerous Iranian speaking tribes, separated in the last
century BC from the semi-nomadic Sarmatian population of N. Caspian, Don and
Pre-Caucasus area, and settled in the 1 c. AD (per Roman and Byzantian authors'
writings ) in the Meotia and N.Caucasus, from where they were making
devastating incursions into Crimea, Meotia and N.Caucasus, Asia Minor, Midia.
The basis of the Alan economy of that time was cattle breeding...’ Further, the author describes that in the
Central N.Caucasus they formed an association, which was referred to as
Alania. In the 8-9 cc. it was included in the Khazar Khaganate. On the turn
of 9-10 cc. the Alans form an early feudal state. In the 10-th c. the Alans
play a significant role in the Khazaria’s external connections with
Byzantium, whence Christianity infiltrate to Alania. V.A.
Kuznetsov’s information about Alans is stated basically adequately,
except that in the first part of the first sentence it does not correspond to
reality at all: it is clear that Alans (Ases) never called themselves Irons,
Irons is a self-name of Ossetians only. Hence, V.A. Kuznetsov begins the
statement with a falsification, with a priory equating of Alans as Ossetians. § 2. On what basis was originally
built the opinion about Ossetian speaking of the Alans (Ases)? Here we
meet with a few ‘incontestable’ facts ‘proving’ the Ossetian linguality of
Alans. It is known that the ancient historians
repeatedly noted a complete similarity in the language and dress of Alans and
Scythians. Besides, per ancients’ message, Alans are one of Sarmatian
peoples. As Iranists classify the Scythians and Sarmatians as Ossetian
speaking, so, in their opinion, the Alans should certainly be recognized as
Ossetian speaking. It is known that the theory about Iranian (or
Ossetian) speaking of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans was not developed in
the objective research, and was created purposefully by tendentious
etymologization of Scythian and Sarmatian words, through application of
exclusively Indo-Iranian languages. Iranists tenaciously did not admit any
other languages to the etymology of these words, not Türkic, or Slavic, or
Finno-Ugrian, or Mongolian, whose carriers did not ‘fall from the sky’, but
lived in these territories for centuries. We and many other scientists more than once
have shown that Scythо-Sarmatian key words are better etymologized with
the help of Türkic languages. The existing etymologies of these words on the
basis of the Iranian languages are not convincing, do not have an elementary
system, and certainly Scytho-Sarmatian words do not have any Iranian
etymology. We list below some key Scythian- Sarmatian words for illustration. It is known that the name Scythians for the
first time shows up in the Assirian documents in the middle of the 7 c. BC.
The country of Scythians is called Ishkuza, Scythian kings were Ishpakai
and Partatua [Pogrebova
M.N., 1981, 44-48]. The word Ishkuza on the Iranian basis
has not been explained, but in Türkic it has possible etymologies: 1) Ishke~Echke ‘internal’, Uz -
Türkic ethnonym of Oguz part of Türks (oguz~ok-uz ‘white, noble
Uzes’), 2) Ishke~Eske, the first part from a
word Scyth~ Scyth ~ ~Eske-de, the word Eske in the pure
state, i.e. without an affix, is a Türkic ethnonym. The word Scyth(Eske
-le) means ‘the people mixed with the people ‘Eske’. The word Eshkuza~Eske
-Uz is used as Uz, i.e. related to the people ‘Eske’, it is
the name of the people and of the country, 3) Ishkuza consists of parts Ish-Oguz,
where ish is a variation of a word As, the ancient name of the
Türks, Oguz consists of words ak and uz, and means
‘white, noble Uses’, in turn, Uz also ascends to ethnonym As, Oguz
is an ethnonym of a part of the Türks. Abaev and Fasmer explained Ishpakai as
Iranian word aspa ‘Horse’. Suggesting that the name of the Scythian
prince is taken from the name of his people, in words Ishkuza and Ishpakai
the initial Ish is a part of the same word. Then it is possible to
suggest that in a word Ishpakai~ Ishbaga the part ishis‘equal,
friend’ + basa ‘brings up’, ish baga ‘ finds himself equal,
friends’. Partatua has no Iranian etymology, in
Türkic par-tatua~bardy-tua~bar-ly- tua is ‘born for creation of
property, wealth’. The key words, saved in the Greek sources, are
first of all the names of Scythians’ ancestors: Targitai, Lipoksai, Arpoksai,
Kolaksai, Scythian ethnonyms: Sak, Scyth, Agathir
(Agafirs), Gelon, Scolot, Sarmat, Scythian words that were etymologized by
Herodotus himself: eopata, enareis, arimasps, And also the names of Scythian gods: Tabiti, Papai, Ani etc. All these words are etymologized on the basis
of Türkic language [see Ethnic
Roots Of The Tatar People § 3]. By their ethnological features the Scythians
and Sarmatians, certainly, are ancient Türkic people. Specifically, it is the
ethnological affinity of Scythians and Türks that deters the advocates of the
Scythian-Ossetian theory from the research of the Scythian ethnological
problems. As to the Scythо-Türkic ethnological parallels, they were
already noted by the first, and then by the subsequent Scythologs, who came
to a conclusion that ‘the vestiges of Scythian culture were perpetuated and
persistently preserved in the culture of Türkic -Mongolian (and in an a
smaller measure in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples’ [Elnitskiy
L.A., 1977, 243]. P.I.Karalkin also came to a conclusion that The Royal
Scythians were the ancestors of the Türkic speaking peoples [Karalkin
P.I., 1978, 39-40]. The ethnological features of the Scythians and
Sarmatians are studied in detail in the book of I.M.Miziev ‘History beside’.
It lists 15 Scythian-Türkic (in a wider sense- Altaic) ethological parallels,
and concludes that ‘all noted characteristics of the Scythian-Altai parallels
find the nearest analogies, nearly without exception, in the culture and life
of the many medieval pastoralists of the Eurasian steppes: Huns, Kipchaks
etc., and almost completely continue in the traditional culture of the Türkic
-Mongolian peoples of the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Volga basin, Caucasus and
Altai’ [Miziev
I.M., 1990,]. Thus, the message of the ancients about the
similarity of the languages of Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans is not a
basis at all for identification of Alans as Iranian speaking. The results of
the research of many scientists show that the Alans, as well as their
ancestors, the Sarmatians and Scythians, were mainly Türkic speaking, i.e.
ancestors of the Türks. § 3. What are the other reasons to recognize
Alans (Ases) as Türkic speaking? A 1949 issue of V.I.Abaev monograph ‘Ossetian
Language And Folklore’ confirms the hypothesis about Iranian speaking of
the Alans, in addition to the Scythо-Ossetian etymology, by: 1) text of a Zelenchuk epitaph, carved in the
11 c., and 2) phrases in the Alanian language given by the
Byzantine writer Ioan Tsets (1110 - 1180). The Zelenchuk inscription, written in Greek
letters, for the first time was deciphered by Vs.F.Miller in the end of the
19 c., based on the Ossetian language. His translation reads: ‘Jesus Christ
Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son Bakatar Bakatai son Anban Anbalan
son of adolescent monument (?) (Adolescent Ira) (?)’. This translation by
Vs.F.Miller is considered quite satisfactory, he makes only one slightly
critical note: ‘Though the name Anbalan we cannot find at Ossetians, it
sounds quite Ossetian ‘ [Miller
Vs.F., 1893, 115]. V.I.Abaev makes an insignificant change in the text of
the translation: ’Jesus Christ Saint (?) Nikolai Sakhira son Kh...r son
Bakatar, Bakatar son Anbalan, Anbalan son Lag - their monument ‘ [Abaev
V.I., 1949, 262]. Vs.F.Miller added 8 additional letters to the
text in the very beginning of the reading of the Zelenchuk inscription, without
which he would not find any Ossetian words whatsoever [Kafoev
A.J., 1963, 13]. Following him, all supporters of the Alanian-Ossetian
theory, reading the Zelenchuk inscription, always resorted to various
manipulations with the letters and words of the inscription [Miziev
I.M., 1986, 111-116]. It should be noted that even after the deliberate
modifications, the text of the Zelenchuk inscription in the Ossetian language
remains only a senseless set of personal names and nothing more, but in
Karachaevo-Balkarian language it is read precisely and clearly. The words
there, certainly, are Türkic. For example, yurt is ‘native land’, Yabgu
‘governor’, yiyiyp ‘gathered’, ti ‘speak’, zyl ‘year ‘, itiner
‘aspire’, bülünep - ‘separated’, etc. [Laipanov
K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993]. In 1990 F.Sh.Fattakhov made a critical analysis
of the available interpretations of the Zelenchuk epitaph, and came to a
conclusion that the inscription is freely read on the basis of the Türkic
language. The translation from the Türkic language says: ‘Jesus Christ. Name Nicola. If had grown, would
not be better to patronize leading yurt. From yurt of Tarbakatai-Alan the
child should be made a possessing Khan. Year of Horse’ [Fattakhov
F.Sh., 1990, 43-55]. Thus, the Alanian inscription, found in the
land of Karachais and written in the 11 c., is more accurately deciphered
through the language of the Karachai ancestors. Hence, the Zelenchuk
inscription cannot serve as a proof of the Iranian speaking of the Alans. As to the Alanian phrase of the Byzantinian
writer Ioan Tsets (1110-1180), kept in the Vatican library in Rome, its
deciphering was attempted with the help of the Ossetian language, with
various manipulations of the text: ‘corrected’, and rearranged, and even
added letters. In the translation of V.I.Abaev the record of Ioan Tsets
sounds thus: ‘Good day, my Master, Queen, where from came you? Aren’t you
ashamed, my Lady?’ [Abaev
V.I., 1949, 245]. A question rises immediately, is such reference
to a Lady, a Queen, possible? Apparently, not. The Tsets' phrase has such
common Türkic words as khos~khosh ‘good, bye’, khotn ‘madam’, kordin
‘saw’, kaitarif ‘returned ‘, oüngnge - the idiom meaning in the
Balkarian ‘how could it be?’ [Laipanov
K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 102-103]. The Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets was also
deciphered by F.Sh.Fattakhov, it was shown that it is a Türkic text:
‘Tabagach - mes ele kany kerdets [...] yurnetsen kinya~e mes ele. Kaiter ony
[- -] eige’ or ‘Pot hook - copper handle where did you see (?) [...] Should
send a smaller (a small) handle. Bring it [- -] home’. [Fattakhov
Ф., 1992]. Thus, Alanian phrase of Ioan Tsets
unequivocally speaks about the Türkic linguality of Alans. In the opinion of the supporters of the
Alanian-Ossetian theory, there is another incontestable proof of the Ossetian
speaking of Alans-Ases, it is the book of the Hungarian scientist Y.Nemeth
‘List of words in the language of Yases, Hungarian Alans’, published in
German in Berlin in 1959, translated to Russian by V.I.Abaev and published as
a separate book in 1960 in Ordjonikidze. The entire logic of this book is built on an
unconditional, a priory embrace of the Ossetian speaking of the Ases-Alans.
Because the author Y.Nemeth presents Ases -Alans as necessarily the Ossetian
speaking, he attributes the list of the words with the Ossetian lexical
units, accidentally found in the 1957 in the State Archive, to the Hungarian
Ases (Yases). All the dictionary transcription work and etymologization of
its words is done with a passionate aspiration to certainly find in the list
the Ossetian words, to attribute them to Ases (Yases), and to force the proof
that they are Ossetian speaking. Therefore the dictionary awaits impartial
researchers. This is a task of the future, and we are not concerned about it
here. Our question is: whether it is possible to recognize the
Hungarian Yases as Ossetian speaking even with this book of Y.Nemeth, and
from this whether Y.Nemeth acted correctly in attributing the list of words
with expected Ossetian lexical units to the Hungarian Yases? Let us listen to the author. He writes: “1.
Until the 19 c. Yases in Hungary formed one administrative unit with Cumans
(Cumans, Russ. Polovets),
both peoples usually carry a common name Yazs-Kunok, i.e. ‘Yases-Cumans’.
Explanation for this is possible only as a result of old close links between
two peoples” [Nemeth
Y., 1960, 4]. This message of the author leads to a thought that Yases
and Cumans among Hungarians make basically a monolingual community, because
they settled together, on the same territory, and carry a common ethnonym
Yases-Cumans. Let us imagine, if Cumans and Yases spoke unlike languages, if
they came to Hungary at different times, would they settled together and
would they carry a common ethnonym? Probably, not. Further, Y.Nemeth continues: ‘Cumans came to
Hungary in 1239, escaping from the invasion of the Mongols. It is therefore
possible to think that Alans appeared in Hungary mainly in conjunction with
the Cuman union. In its favor also speaks the coexistence of Cumans and Alans
in the Northern Pontic, in the Caucasus and in Moldova’ [Ibis,
4]. We already know that in these regions Alans were Türkic speaking and
consequently lived together with Cumans, moreover, Balkars and Karachais
still call themselves Alans, and Ossetians call Balkars Osens. We know
well that Volga Bulgars in another way are called Yases. The Hungarian
scientist Erney informs that after a Svyatoslav victory over Bulgars in the
969, the Bulgarian Muslims resettled to Hungary, and they were called Yases [Shpilevsky
S.M., 1877, 105]. Let us continue the message of Y.Nemeth. ‘There
are seven districts in Hungary with a name Eszlar ~ Oszlar
(from Aslar - ‘Ases’). It is believed that in these names is hidden
the name Yases: As is the Türkic name of Alans, and lar is
Türkic plural suffix, it follows that Cumans called Yases Aslar.
However it should be noticed that in comitate Somogy (south of lake
Platten) the name Eszlar is witnessed in the 1229, i.e. before the
coming of Cumans, and, in addition, it was in the form Azalar’ [Nemeth
Y., 1960, 4]. Here nothing is left to assumption, it is clear that the
discourse is about Ases, that they call themselves Aslar in Türkic.
Hence, they surely spoke Türkic, instead of Ossetian. Y.Nemeth himself writes
that the plural affix lar is not the result of the Türkic-Cuman
language influence. We do not know cases when any people apply their own
ethnonym with plural affix from another language. Further, the following message of Y.Nemeth
says: ‘Anywhere, where are Cuman populations, we meet
Yas settlements’ [5]. If Cumans and Yases were speaking unlike languages,
would they settle adjacently everywhere? Surprisingly, after these assertions, which
should tip Y.Nemeth to the opinion of the ethnical and linguistical
similarity or affinity of Cumans and Yases, the author comes to a conclusion
that ‘Cumans and Yases are of different origin. Cumans are a large Türkic
people... and Yases are people of the Iranian origin, branch of the Alans,
related to Ossetians’ [6]. The list came to storage from the archive of a
Batiani family. ‘Date of January 12, 1422. Contents: judicial case of the
widow of George Batiani against Ioan and Stephan Safar from Chev’ [7]. Except
for a notation that settlement Chev is located in the vicinity of Yas
settlement, there is no basis for the assumption that this list of the
words belongs to Yases, short of a deep belief by Y.Nemeth himself that the
list, of supposedly Iranian with Ossetian tilt words, should be attributed to
Alan-Yas language. The surname Batiani says that he, apparently, was of a
Caucasus-Ossetian origin, therefore the list of words has many Ossetian
words. At the same time the list has plenty of Türkic words. I.M.Miziev
analyzed the list, found in Hungary, from that point of view [Miziev
I.M., 1986, 117-118]. Thus, the postulation of Y.Nemeth that the
list, containing Ossetian words, belongs to Yases -Alans is more than
disputable. Even more, the list of words should now be impartially deciphered
anew, instead of a prejudiced aspiration to find Ossetian words there. § 4. With what peoples their
contemporaries identified Alans? It is a very important question. One
thing is the opinion of the historians contemporary with Alans, and
absolutely different are the attempts of modern scientists to explain the
history in a certain way according to their agenda. Reviewing the so-called Scythо-Sarmatian
extensive territory, we see that the preceding peoples are frequently identified
with the subsequent peoples. Thus, in the Assirian sources of the 7-th
c. BC the Cimmerians are identified with Scythians, but the modern historians
interpret it as if the ancient historians confused them by mistake. For
example, M.N.Pogrebova, speaking about it, writes: ‘It is possible, Assyrians
also confused them.’ [Pogrebova
M.N., 1981, 48]. Further, in later sources the Scythians are identified with
Sarmatians, Sarmatians - with Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans - with
Huns, Alans, Huns - with Türks (i.e. with Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Cumans,
Kipchaks, Oguzes) etc. Let’s present some testimonials about the
Alans. The Roman historian of the 4-th c. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was well
acquainted with Alans, and who left the most complete description of them,
wrote, that Alans ‘in everything are similar to Huns, but are a little bit
softer in customs and way of life’ [Ammianus
Marcellinus, 1908, Issue 3, 242]. The translator of the ‘History of the
Judean war by Josephus Flavius’ (written in the 70 AD) to the Old Russian
language, translates the ethnonym Alans by a word Yas and, without a shadow
of doubt, asserts that the ‘language of Yases is known as born from the Cuman
kin’ [Meschersky
N.A., 1958, 454]. Vs. Miller also gives this citation, where Alans-Yases
are identified with Cumans-Türks, and he points out that the interpreter has
replaced Scythians with Cumans, and Alans with Yases [Miller
Vs., 1887, 40]. It is clear that this remark does not help Vs.
Miller to identify Alans with Ossetians at all, on the contrary, it
says that in the 11-th c. the interpreter realized very well that Cumans are
descendents of Scythians, and that Alans are Yases. Besides, it is necessary to remember that the
ancient historians always described Alans next to Aorses (i.e. Avars), Huns,
Khazars, Sabirs, Bulgars, i.e. with Türkic speaking peoples. Alans left a notable trace in the Middle Volga
basin, here again they were identified with Türks, in particular, with
Khazars. Thus, existing toponyms in this region ascend to ethnonym Alan.
Udmurts have legends about ancient populations. They call a mythological hero
Alan-Gasar (Alan-Khazar) and everything that was attributed to
him was related to the Nugai people, i.e. Tatars, who in another way were
called also Kuruk (Ku-iirk, where, ku ‘white-faced’, iirk
- a synonym of the ethnonym Biger ‘the owner, rich’ - M.Z.) [Potanin
G.N., 1884, 192]. Here is an obvious identification of Alans with
Nugais-Tatars. In the (Russian-
Translator’s note) official
historical science the cases of the identification of the Scythians-Alans-Huns-Khazars-Türks
are usually explained by the fact that the ancient historians, apparently,
frequently confused these peoples. Actually, they could not be confused, for
they talked of the events they witnessed themselves. They did not have
political directives to consciously confuse . In our deep belief, ancients
confused nothing, but the modern historians, acting from their biases or
political directives, want to interpret the ancient sources in their own way
and they start ‘correcting’ them. Careful and impartial examination of the
ancients’ messages shows incontestably clear that in the so-called
Scythian-Sarmatian regions, both in antiquity, and in the Middle Ages, lived
basically the same peoples. Essentially the same peoples occupy these
territories now. It is impossible not to notice that the
supporters of the Alano-Ossetian theory recognize as correct only that part
of the statements of the ancients, which recorded the linkage of the
Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans, but the other part of the message, about the
linkage of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Huns-Türks-Khazars-Bulgars etc.they
thoroughly ignore. Hence, they approach the study of ancient sources
tendentiously and nonsystematically. This is firstly. Secondly, as we saw
above, their presumed identification of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans is not
the proof of the Ossetian-speaking of Alans, for the Scythians and Sarmatians
were not Ossetian-speaking. One more fact deserves an attention. How some
modern historians visualize the ethnic processes in the Eastern Europe? They believe that several waves of the new
peoples continuously came from Asia to the Eastern Europe: some of them in
due course were dissolved in Europe, where the conditions of life were
better. And in Asia, where the conditions of life were worse than in Europe,
the new peoples quickly multiplied while closely observing the Europe: as
soon as some ethnicities began to disappear there, they appeared to rush to
Europe. Periodically, this process was repeated. Thus, unveiled by the
supporters of the official
historical sciences, Cimmerians have disappeared - and appeared Scythians or,
the opposite, appeared from Asia Scythians - disappeared Cimmerians, appeared
Sarmatians, disappeared Scythians, among Sarmatians procreated Alans, then
appeared Huns (would be first Türks), gradually disappeared Alans, appeared
Avars (Aores -Aorses), disappeared Huns, appeared Türks, disappeared Avars,
appeared Bolgars, disappeared Khazars, then gradually from Asia to Europe
came Kangars, Kipchaks, Tataro-Mongols, after which the arrival of Türks from
Asia to Europe stopped. For a rationally thinking scientist, such process of
constant re-supply of the population of Europe due to the arrival of ‘nomads’
from Asia can not plausibly seem to reflect the reality. Why the ancient historians frequently
identified (not confused!) the previous with the subsequent? The answer is
clear: in such extensive territories the people basically did not change,
changed only the ethnonym. The name of the group that occupied a ruling
position became a common ethnonym of the whole people or even of the whole
large territory subordinated to that group. And in various periods of history
various groups were ruling. Therefore the same people with the flow of time
had changing ethnonyms. Thus, in the extensive territories of Scythians and
Sarmatians in antiquity lived the ancestors of those peoples that basically
occupy these territories today. From this point of view, in the Cimmerians,
Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans we first of all should search for Türks,
Slavs and Finno-Ugrians, instead of Iranian lingual Ossetians, who left
intermittent traces only in the Caucasian region. The cases of identification
of the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans with Türkic people reach to the present.
For example, as in antiquity, so also now the Türkic ‘Balkars and Karachais
call themselves by an ethnonym Alans, as, for example, Adygeys... call
themselves Adyga, the Georgians - Sakartvelo, Ossetians - Iron,
Yakuts - Sakha etc. Mengrels call Karachais Alans, Ossetians call
Balkars Ases’ [Khabichev
M.A., 1977, 75]. It is a fact, it is impossible to hide from it. But one
of the founders of the Sarmato-Scytho-Ossetian theory, Vs. Miller, falsifies
it as follows. Assuming that Balkars and Karachais should certainly be
immigrants, and the Ossetians are aborigens, he writes: ‘Balkars (an
immigrant tribe), purged Ossetians from these places, they (i.e. Ossetians)
call them Ases (Asiag is Balkarian, Asi is the country they occupied), the
ancient name is preserved in the annals in the form Yases. However, there is
no doubt, that not Balkars, who came to the present place rather late, but
the Ossetians were Yases of our annals, but the name was attached to the
district and has remained, despite of the change in the population. Chechen
is called in Ossetian Ttsetsenag, Ingush - Mäkäl, Nogai - Nogayag’ [Miller
Vs., 1886, 7]. There is a question, why Ossetians name correctly both
Chechens, and Ingushes, and Nogais, making mistake only in respect to
Balkars? Deciphering the mysterious tangle of Vs. Miller, it turns out that
Ossetians at first called themselves and their territories Asiag, then, when
the Ossetians snoozed, came Balkars and transferred sleeping Ossetians to another
territory, taking their former land. The next day the Ossetians woke up and,
using the name of the territory, began to use their own ethnonym Yases for
Balkars, instead of themselves, as before, and also began to call themselves
Ironians, for they did not recall how they were called earlier. It would be
clear to every child that in the real life this does not happen and cannot
happen. This ‘fairy tale’ was necessary for Vs. Miller to prove by any means
the equivalency of the historical Ases and Ossetians. Further, Vs. Miller gives examples from the
Caucasus toponymy reminding Ossetian words. Nobody would doubt that among
Caucasian toponyms are Ossetian’s, for they lived there, but at the same time
there are a lot of Türkic names, experts estimate there are many more of the
last. From the several toponymic facts and from the fact that instead of
themselves Ossetians call Balkars (by ‘mistake’) Ases, which works against
the author, Vs. Miller concludes: ‘There is a reason to think that the
ancestors of the Ossetians were included in the composition of the Caucasian
Alans ‘ [Ibis,
15]. Thus, he kept mum about the fact that Balkars and Karachais call
themselves by the ethnonym Alans, and that Mengrels call them Alans. Thus, Alans, in the firm opinion of their
contemporaries, were Türkic speaking. If they were Ossetian or Iranian
speaking, the numerous historians would have mentioned it somewhere. § 5. Ethnolinguistical nature
ofAses -Alans by other data. The name Alans is mentioned for the first time
in the sources in the 1c. BC, but the variants of the name As are
found much earlier. For example, in the Assirian and other ancient Eastern
sources ‘the name Uds is traced from a deep antiquity, namely from the 3
millennium BC, which can be connected with Caspian Uds’ [Elnitskiy
L.A., 1977, 4]. Based on the usual interchange of sounds d-z in
Türkic languages it is possible to conclude, that the name Ud is a
variation of the ethnonym Uz, which, certainly, meant Türks (compare ashina~asina
‘mother of As’) and means a part of the Türks, i.e. Oguzes (ak~uz
‘white, noble Uzes’). The phonetic variations of the ethnonym Uz are well
known: Ud, Us, Os, Yos, Yas, Ash, Ishetc. It remains a puzzle why Ases became referred to
as Alans, why the sources known to us identify Ases and Alans. About the
etymology of the word Alan there are various points of view, but none of them
tries to deduce it from the word Alban. Meanwhile, such attempt could be very
fruitful, for Alans lived in the Caucasian Albania and until now it is not
known who were these Albans. From the 1-st c. BC to the 8-th c. AD this people
is frequently mentioned in many sources, its main population lived in
Caucasian Albania, with the territory by the Caspian sea, north of the river
Kura. Albania approximately corresponds to Shirvan. In the Scythian and Sarmatian time in this
region could have lived one of the ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis, called Aluan
(Aluank). As notes F.Mamedova, the Albanian self-consciousness of the
inhabitants of these places is reflected in their self-name ~etuank
from the 1-st c. BC to 8 c. AD, within the limits of all of the Albania, and
after the ‘fall of the Albanian Kingdom, as a fragmental phenomenon, both the
ethnonym, and the Albanian self-consciousness is traceable in the 9-19 cc. in
one part of the country - in Artsakh ‘ [Mamedova
Farida, 1989, 109]. By the phonetic laws of the Türkic language the
word aluank could have variants Alan, Alban, Alvan. The
sound k, apparently, is a part of an affix of belonging -nyky (Aluinnyky
- ‘the people belonging to aluan’). Strongly reduced y is almost not
heard, therefore it dropped out very quickly, double nn in due course
gives one n, thus comes a word aluank , where the sound k
is further reduced. As to the sound u, it sounds as w, and w
usually sounds as a zero sound, or b, or v. So, from Aluau~Alyuan
were formed Alan, Alban,and Alvan. All of them were
actively used. Variation Alban in Yakut means ‘resourceful, good
looking, beautiful’. If this meaning was used in the word Alan, it proves the
message of Ammianus Marcellinus that ‘almost all Alans are tall and have fair
hair, beautiful face, eyesight is if not furious, still is fearsome’ [Ammianus
Marcellinus, 1908, 241]. Thus, Alans in Caucasus, possibly, were
originally known under ethnonym Alyuan, which then has received the forms
Alan, Alban, and Alvan. Let’s address another ethnonym of Alans,
ethnonym As with its numerous phonetic variations. In the ancient Türkic
inscription monuments of the 8 c. Ases are listed as Türkic tribes. They are
mentioned multiple times next to the Türks, Kirghiz, and are presented as a
branch of Türks-Turgeshes [Bartold
V.V., 1968, 204], and Kirghizes in the valley of the river Chu [Bartold
V.V., 1963, 492]. The Eastern historians of the 10-11 cc., including
M.Kashgari, write about the tribe ‘az keshe ‘people Az’ which,
alongside with Alans and Kasa (Kasogs), undoubtedly, were Türkic tribes [Bartold
V.V., 1973, 109]. Al Biruni as a scientist declares that the language of
Ases and Alans reminds the languages of Khoresmians and Cumans [Klyashtornyi
S.G.,1964, 174-175]. Here it should be noted that Khoresmian is presumed
as an Iranian language solely on the basis of few words preserved in the
Arabian sources, just as Iranists have imposed this language on Tokhars and
Sogdians, and other historical peoples. Actually, Khorezmians were basically
Türkic speaking, and were included in the Massagetan confederation union,
which the ancients identified with Huns. And as stated by Al Biruni, the
Khoresmian language was close to Cumanian, which, in turn, as acknowledged by
the interpreter of Joseph Flavius, resembled Alanian-Yas language. Let’s turn to the Russian annals, which say
that in 965 AD Svyatoslav attacked Kozars (Khazars - M.Z.) and defeated both
Yases, and Kosogs. Here is an implication, identifying Khazars with Yases.
Besides, the Orientalists, identifying this statement with that of the
Eastern historian Ibn Khaukal, assert that it tells about the Svyatoslav
Volga campaign against Khazars, Bulgars, and Burtases [Shpilevsky S.M., 1887,
103]. If that is so, it means that Bulgars and Burtases of Volga were called
Yases. As writes S.M.Shpilevsky, the Russian prince Andrey Bogolubsky, living
in the 12 c., had a Bulgarian wife [Shpilevsky S.M., 1877, 115]. And historian
V.N.Tatischev calls ‘Yasian Princess’ the wife of the Prince, and asserts
that the brother of the ‘Yasian Princess’ (brother - in - law of the Prince)
Küchük killed Prince A. Bogolubsky in 1175 [Tatischev V.N., 1962, 375].
Küchük is obviously a Türkic name. The presence of this word in many Türkic
ethnonyms also says that ethnonym Asdesignated Türkic tribes. So,
V.Romadin, who prepared the works of V.V.Bartold for publishing, based on the
fact that in the composition of the 7 c. ‘Badaiat-tavarikh’ the Kirghizes are
called Ases, the ethnonym Kirghiz, which consist of two words kyryk
and As(‘forty Ases’), connect it to the ethnic or geographical term Az,
As or Us [Bartold V.V., 1963, 485]. The basis as (yas, az, us,
uz), apparently, is present in the ethnonyms Burtas, (burta-Ases)
- ‘forest as’ or ‘asses, engaged in honey’, Yazgyr (Oguz tribes in
M.Kashgari), Yasyr - Türkmenian tribes [Kononov A.N., 1958, 92], Yazygs
is a Sarmatian tribe, Oguzes ‘white, noble Uses’, Taulas (tauly
Ases), i.e. ‘ mountain Ases’, Suas ‘water Ases’. Maris, in their
ancient tradition, called Kazan Tatars Suases, and a part of them does
it now. Ethnonym Suas was a self-name of Tatars [Chernyshev E.I.,
1963, 135, Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 50-54]. Let’s pay a special attention to last two ethnonyms:
Taulas and Suas. As in a word Taulas (tu las),
which is the name of one of the mountain areas of Khazaria [Bartold V.V.,
1973, 541, 544], and also, apparently, of its population, so in the word Suas
the root As is applied together with Türkic determining words, which
once again proves the Türkic speaking of Ases. The Perm Tatars, whose ancestors were directly
connected with Biar (Bilyar) and Bulgars, before acceptance of the ethnonym
Tatars, which at that time was a status rank, called themselves Ostyak, which
means ‘Ossian (Yasian) people’, for Ostyak comes from a word Ostyk
~ Oslyk. Ostyaks also took part in the formation of Bashkirs, therefore
Perm and Western Siberian Tatars, and a part of Bashkirs, who were their
Eastern neighbors, are called now Ostyak -Ishtyak- Ushtyak. The Tatar
historian of the end of the 18-beginning of 19 cc. Yalchigul considered
himself to be Bolgarlyk Ishtek. Even in the 18 c. the Perm Tatars, in
their appeals, stated that their ancestors were called Ostyaks[Ramazanova D.B.,
1983, 145]. Also interesting is the fact that the ancient settlement centers
of Perm Tatars, later becoming district centers, were called Os and Kungur,
these names coincide with ethnonym As and Kungur (i.e. Kangyr -
Kengeres). Thus, the word As with all its
phonetical variations in the designation of the Türkic-speaking peoples was
applied very widely, and in parallel with a word er (ir-ar).
Apparently, in antiquity the Western peoples also quite actively used the
ethnonym As as the name of Eastern peoples. So, in the Scandinavian
mythology Ases was the name for the main group of gods, and at the
same time it was stated that Ases came from Asia, hinting of the identity of
the words Ases and Asia [Myths of the peoples of the world,
1980, 120]. There is one curious stroke in the Iranists’
description of the Alanian history. After deportation of Karachais and
Balkars from Caucasus, the basically Türkic Nartovian epos that become common
for them during the long centuries of Karachais-Balkars coexistence with
Ossetians, was declared to be solely Ossetian, and on this ground the
Ossetians were identified with Alans. Actually, here again the door opens
very simply: Balkars and Karachais call themselves Alans from the most
ancient times until present, and this epos first of all tells about
Alans-Türks (i.e. Karachais-Balkars), and in the long years of joint life the
Ossetians acquired the Nartovian epos. § 6. Close interaction of
Alans with Huns, Khazars and Kipchaks. Tracing the Alanian history, it is
not difficult to notice that they cooperated most closely with Türks, at
first with Sarmatians and Sarmatian people, Roxolans (in Türkish - Uraksy
Alans, ‘Alans-farmers’), Siraks (i.e. Sary-ak people ‘white -
yellow’, ancestors of Cumans), Aorses (Aor-Awar-Avars, -os is a
Greek ending), Yazygs (Türks - Uzes). All historians admit the close link of
Alans with these peoples, only in the definition of ethnolinguistic
classification of these peoples do the opinions differ. Iranists classify
them as Iranian speaking, Türkologists - as Türkic speaking, as supported by
numerous historical facts. Prior to sorting out the Alanian-Hunnish links,
one should visualize Huns. The official
historical science postulates that Huns, first mentioned in the Chinese
sources, sometime in the II c. migrated from Central Asia to Urals, and from
there in 70ties of the 4 c. poured into the Eastern Europe, thus initiating,
supposably, the so-called The Great Migration of Peoples, allegedly Huns were
the first Türks appearing in Europe, on the way to Europe they would have
subdued Alans in the Northern Caucasus, and, led by the leader Balamber,
crossed river Don, defeated Goths, Ostgoths, and Vestgoths, who infiltrated
the Northern Pontic, and expelled Vestgoths to Thracia, supposedly crossing
through Caucasus, they devastated Syria and Cappadocia, settled in Pannonia,
and kept attacking the Eastern Roman empire. In 451 under Attila they invaded
Gaul, but at Catalaun fields the Romans, Vestgoths, and Franks defeated them.
After the death of Attila (453.) there were conflicts among Huns, and the
German tribes devastated them in Pannonia. The Hunnish union broke up, and
they left to Northern Pontic. Gradually, Huns disappeared as people, though
their name still lingered for a long time as a common name for Northern
Pontic nomadic pastoralists [Gumilev L.N. Huns] Such an unreal explanation of the history by
L.N.Gumilev raises questions: whether could nomads, having forded Volga,
defeat strong Alans, Goths, Syrians, Anatolians (in Cappadocia), population
of Pannonia, Gaul, Northern Italy? Certainly, this is unreal. How could
L.N.Gumilev determine that Huns disappeared, while their ethnonym continued
to last as a common name of the Pontic nomads? How he could know that
ethnonym Huns for long time designated not Huns, but others? Whom? Why the
advancing Romans, and together with them other peoples (more correctly,
armies and colonists), did not constitute the Great Migration of Peoples,
while creating a huge Roman empire, but the movement from the periphery to
the central regions of the Roman empire of other peoples (liberation army,
avenging colonists) is called a Great Migration of Peoples? Why Türks, at
first as Huns, and then under the names of Avars, Türks, Khazars, Cumans, and
Kipchaks constantly migrated from Asia to Europe? Where would they disappear
there? How did they procreate so quickly in Asia? Etc. Trying to answer these
questions makes it clear that the traditional presentation of Türks’ history
is fashioned tendentiously, irrespectively of the real historical conditions. Summarizing impartially all historical data
based on real historical grounds, it is not difficult to suggest that Huns (Sen
or Hen) at first were an undistinguished Türkic people among Türkic
Scythians and Sarmatians. They started making themselves known in the 1 c.
AD. The Greek historians, marking their presence in Europe, did not say a
word about their arrival from Asia. Thus, Dionysus (the end of the 1st - beginning
of the 2nd c.) notes that on the Northwestern side of the Caspian sea live
Scythians, Uns, Caspians, Albanians, and Kaduses... [Latyshev V.V., 1893,
186]. As we were proving more than once, Scythians were basically Türkic
speaking (see ETHNIC ROOTS OF THE TATAR PEOPLE, § 3), Uns are Huns,
with sound h dropped, Caspians also are Türkic ‘people of rocks’ (kas
‘rock’, pi~bi~bai ‘rich owner’), Albanians are Alans, Kaduses are
Türkic Uzes~Uses among kath ‘rocks’. Ptolemy
(2 c. AD, B.3 Ch.5 - Translator’s note) writes that in the European
Sarmatia ‘below Agathyrsi (i.e. Akatsirs~agach ers‘forest
people’- M.Z.) live Savari (Türkic Suvars - M.Z.), between Basternae and
Rhoxolani(Uraksy Alans, i.e. ‘Alans-farmers’ - M.Z.) live Huns [Latyshev
V.V., 1883, 231-232]. Philostogory, living in the end of the 4 c.
(i.e., when, in the opinion of certain scientists, Huns moved to Eastern
Europe), describing Huns, does not say a single word of their arrival from
the Asia, and writes: ‘These Uns are probably the people who the ancients
named Nevrs, they lived at Ripean mountains (Don Ridge S. of Donets river,
Mid-Europian Uplands N. of it - Translator’s note), from which come
the waters of Tanaid’ [Latyshev
V.V., 1893, 741]. Zosim (2nd half of the 5c.) suggests that Huns
are Royal Scythians [Ibis, 800]. The impartial analysis of the ethnographic
data provides a basis to state that Royal Scythians were ancestors of Türkic
peoples [Karalkin
P.I., 1978, 39-40]. Thus, among the peoples named Scythians and
Sarmatians, at the beginning of our era, the Huns make themselves known, in
the Assirian and other Eastern sources they were mentioned among the people
living in the 3rd millennium BC. In the 4-th c. in a fight for a domination
in the Northern Caucasus they defeated the Alanian power, and together with
them revolted against the colonial policy of the Roman empire, at first in
Cappadocia, then in the western part of the empire, where appeared new Gothic
colonizers. Naturally, neither the Huns, nor the Alans, did not move to the
West as a people, as it is imagined by the supporters of the ‘Great Migration
Of Peoples’, it was the Hunnish-Alanian army that penetrated deep into the
West. The main body of the Hunnish and Alanian peoples remained in the same
old places of habitation. In the end of the 4 c. the Huns, together with
the Alans, fell on the Goths, who wanted to colonize the Northern Pontic. The
main historian of the Huns and Alans of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus,
frequently equated them, for they were ethnically very close. ‘Ammianus
Marcellinus not only emphasized that precisely the assistance of Alans helped
Huns, but also quite often called attackers Alans’ [Vinogradov
V.B., 1974, 113]. After the death of Attila (453), the Hunnish
union gradually disintegrated, and Huns as a ruling power do not appear any
more, they fused with the Türkic Alans and Khazars, while keeping their
ethnonym Hun (Sen). In the Gaul the Alans entered into a close
contact withthe Vandals (Eastern Germans), together they devastatedthe Gaul,
and in the 409 they settled in Spain, wherethe Alans received the middle part
ofthe Lusitania (later - Portugal) and Cartagena. However, in the 416the
Vestgoths entered Spain and defeatedthe Alans. Inthe May of the 429 the
Vandal King Geizerix together withthe subordinated Alans went to Africa, and,
defeating the Roman armies, created a new Vandal and Alan state. As the
result the Alanian troops dissolved amongthe Vandals andthe local population.
But in the Northern Pontic and in the Caucasus the Huns and Alans continued
to cooperate closely. Following the disintegration of the Hunnish
empire, in the decentralized period, various tribes and peoples tried to
become the ruling group, therefore in the Byzantian sources frequently appear
ethnonyms: Akathirs, Barsils, Saragurs, Savirs, Avars, Utigurs, Kutigurs,
Bolgars, Khazars. All these ethnonyms belong to the Türkic populations. The
Barsils are the inhabitants of the Berselia (Berzilia), which in many sources
is considered as the country of the Alans. Here is an obvious identification
of Alans with Barsils~Bersuls, deemed related to Khazars [Chichurov
I.S., 1980, 117]. More than that, the Khazars also came from Berzilia.
So, Theophan in 679-680 writes: ‘From the depths of Berzilia, the first
Sarmatia, came the great people Khazars and began to dominate all the land on
that side down to the Pontic Sea’ [Chichurov
I.S., 1980, 61]. From the 5 c. among the Caucasian Alans, i.e.
numerous Türkic peoples, also began to make themselves knowntheother tribes:
Khazars, Bulgars, Kipchaks etc. After the brilliant performance of the Türkic
peoples, led by the Huns, against the colonial policy ofthe Goths andthe
Romans, the Huns ceased to be ruling, andtheAlans and Khazars took their
place, competing on the political arena up to the 10-th c. ‘From the 5-th c.
the push of the Khazar Khaganate grows, establishing control overthe Alans’ [Vinogradov
V.B., 1974, 118]. In the 8 c., at the time of the Alanian expansion, the
Alans once again proved that they supported Khazars. ‘The 10-th c. marks a
turn. Now the Khazars had to recognize their former vassals with the
following words: ‘The Alanian Kingdom is stronger and tougher than all other
peoples around us’ [Vinogradov
V.B., 1974, 118-119]. In the 11-th c. others nations begin to raise
in the Northern Caucasus, Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets), who at once joined with
the Alans, and established peaceful and loving relations [Djanashvili
M., 1897, 36]. In this area the Alans, together with the Kipchaks,
adopted Christianity. In the 1222 Alans and Kipchaks come out
together against the Mongolo-Tatars. Seeing that they together represent an
undefeatable force, the Mongolo-Tatars used a trick. ‘Seeing a danger, the
leader of the Chengizkanids (Subetai - Translator’s note)... sent
gifts to the Kipchaks and ordered to tell them, that they, being the same kin
as the Mongols, should not rise against their brothers and be friends with
Alans, who are entirely of another lineage’ [Karamzin
N.M., 1988, 142]. Here the Mongolo-Tatars figured, apparently, that
their army at that time consisted primarily of the Kipchak Türks of the
Central Asia, therefore they addressed Kipchaks as kins, andthe Alans ofthe
Caucasus were partially Kipchaks (ancestors of Karachai-Balkars), and
partially Oguzes (ancestors of Azerbaijanis -the inhabitants ofthe Caucasian
Albania, Alania). It is known that soon all Kipchak steppes
passed into the hands of Mongolo-Tatars. The Volga Bulgaria, the main
component of whose population was referred to as the Yases, subordinated to
the Mongolo-Tatars in 1236, and the Alans - Yases of the Northern Caucasus in
1238. Thus, Alans made their celebrated military and
political route hand-to-hand with their Türkic kins: Huns, Khazars and
Kipchaks. From the 13 c. Alans-Yases cease to be ruling among the other
Türkic people. But it does not mean at all that they physically disappeared,
they lived among others Türkic people and gradually entered into their
ethnicity, accepting their ethnonym. Such a strong, scattered along all
Eurasia people as Alans-Yases, cannot be equated to Iranian speaking
Ossetians by a single trait, and could not be suddenly reduced ‘by a miracle’
to the strictures of the Caucasus Ossetians. If the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans were
Ossetian speaking, all Eurasia should have Ossetian toponyms. They do not
exist, unless artificially (quasi-scientifically) produced. Thus, in all
their attributes the Alans were Türkic, and took part in the formation of the
many Türkic peoples. Abaev V.I. Ossetian
language and folklore. Vol.1. M. L.1949. Ammianus Marcellinus.
History. Kiev. 1908. Issue3. Bartold V.V. Kirghizes. A
historical sketch // Works Vol. II, Part I. M., 1963. Bartold V.V. History of
Türkish-Mongolian peoples // Works Vol. II, Part I, М., 1968. Bartold V.V. Introduction
to the edition ‘Khudud Al-Alm’ // Works Vol. VIII. M., 1973. Bartold V.V. Geography of
Ibn Said // Works Vol.VIII. M., 1973. Vinogradov V.B. Alans in
Europe // Questions of history. 1974. No 8. BSE. 3rd edition. Vol. 7. Djanashvili M.
Chronicles of the Georgian annals about Northern Caucasus // Collection for
the description of Caucasian places and tribes. Tiflis, 1897. Issue. 22. Elnitskiy L.A. Scythia of
the Eurasian steppes. Historical Archeological Notes. Novosibirsk, 1977. Zakiev M.Z. Problems of
language and origin of Tatars. Kazan, 1986. Karalkin P.I... About most
ancient milking of cattle // Ethnography of the peoples of Altai and Western
Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1978. Karamzin N.M. History
of the Russian state. M., 1988. Kafoev A.J. Adygian
monuments. Nalchik, 1963. Klyashtornyi S.G.
Ancient Türkic Runic monuments. M., 1964. Kononov A.Н. A family
tree of Türkmen. M. L.1958. Kuznetsov V.A. Alans //
BSE. 3rd Edition. Vol. 1. Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M.
About the origin of Türkic peoples. Cherkessk, 1993. Latyshev C. C. Records of
the ancient writers about Scythia and Caucasus. SPb., 1893. Vol.1. Mamedova Farida. To a
question about Albanian (Caucasian) ethnos // News AS Azerb. SSR. A series of
history, philosophy and law. Baku, 1989. No 3. Meschersky N.A. A
history of Judean war by Joseph Flavius in ancient Russian translation M.
L.1958. Miziev I.M. Close to
history. Nalchik, 1990. Miziev I.M. Steps to sources of an ethnic
history of Central Caucasus. Nalchik, 1986. Miller Vs.F. Ancient
Ossetian monument from Kuban area // Materials on Archeology of Caucasus. M.,
1893 Issue. 3. Miller Vs. Ossetian
etudes. Researches. M., 1887. Miller Vs. Inscriptional Iranian
traces in the south of Russia // Magazine of the ministry national education.
1886. October. Myths of the peoples of the
world: Encyclopedia. M., 1980, Vol.1. Nemeth. J. 1959, 1960. Eine
Worterliste der Jassen, der Ungarlandischen Alanen. Berlin, 1959 (In German.)
Ordjonikidze, 1960 Pogrebova M.N. Monuments
of Scythian culture in Transcaucasia // Caucasus and Central Asia in an
antiquity and Middle Ages. M., 1981. Potanin G.N. At Votyaks of
Elabujskiy district // News of society Archeology, History and Ethnography at
Kazan University. Kazan, 1884. Vol. III, 1880-1882. Ramazanova D.B. To
history of formation of dialect of Perm Tatars // Perm Tatars. Kazan, 1983. Tatischev V.N. Russian
History. M. L.1962. Vol.1. Fattakhov F.Sh. Zelenchuk
epitaph... // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature
monuments. Kazan, 1990. Fattakhov F.Sh. In what language
spoke Alans? // Language of casual and poetic stiles of Tatar literature
monuments. Kazan, 1990. Khabichev M.A.
Karachai-Balkars construction of names and words. Cherkessk, 1977. Chernyshev E.I. Tatar
village of second half 16 and 17 cc. // 1961Year-book on an agrarian history
of Eastern Europe. Riga, 1963. Chichurov I.S. The
Byzantian historical works. M., 1980. Shpilevsky S.M. Ancient
cities and other Bulgaro-Tatar monuments in Kazan province. Kazan, 1877. |
|||
|
Overview of Sarmatian chronology |
Alan Dateline |
||
Section 19 – The Kingdom of Alanliao (the Alans)
1. Alanliao [A-lan-liao] = the Alans. It was recognized very early on that the Yancai and the Alans of the Chinese accounts must refer to the Aorsi and the Alani of the Classical authors. Not only are the names very similar, and they occupied the same region between the Caspian and Black seas, but the timing of the appearance of the name of the Alan / Alani people corresponds in both Chinese and Western accounts. See, for example, Chavannes (1905), p. 558, n. 5.
These correspondences have been discussed at length by many authors and may be taken as certain, so I won’t bother repeating all the evidence here. Those who would like to read further on the subject may check the discussions in: CICA (1979), p. 129, n. 318; Zadneprovskiy (1994), pp. 467-468; and Leslie and Gardiner (1996), pp. 258-259.
There is extensive and convincing numismatic and archaeological evidence for the early use of a trade route linking the northern Black Sea with Central Asia, China and India dating back to at least the 2nd century BCE, and probably earlier. See, for example, the excellent summary of the evidence in Mielczarek (1997).
I thought that it would be of interest here to quote Strabo’s account of the Aorsi because it contains the earliest historical reference we have to the use of the northern route around the north of the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Azov by camel caravans from the East:
“The next peoples to which one comes between Lake Maeotis [the Sea of Azov] and the Caspian Sea are nomads, the Nabianai and the Panxini, and then next the tribes of the Siraces and the Aorsi. The Aorsi and the Siraces are thought to be fugitives from the upper tribes of those names and the Aorsi are more to the north than the Siraces. Now Abeacus, king of the Siraces, sent forth twenty thousand horsemen at the time when Phrarnaces [II – Anatolian king of Pontus and son of Mithradates VI Eupator] held the Bosporus [between 63 and 47 BCE]; and Spadines, king of the Aorsi, two hundred thousand; but the upper Aorsi sent a still larger number, for they held dominion over more land, and, one may almost say, ruled over most of the Caspian coast; and consequently they could import on camels the Indian and Babylonian merchandise, receiving it in their turn from the Armenians and the Medes, and also, owing to their wealth, could wear golden ornaments. Now the Aorsi live along the Tanaïs [the Don], but the Siraces live along the Achardeüs [the Kuban] which flows from the Caucasus and empties into Lake Maeotis.” Strabo (c. 23, XI. v. 8.)
I will include here the roughly contemporaneous account of the Yancai [Yen-ts’ai] from the Han shu here for comparison:
“It is said : “Some 2000 li [832 km] to the north-west from K’ang-chü is the state of Yen-ts’ai. The trained bowmen number 100,000. It has the same way of life as K’ang-chü. it is situated on the Great Marsh, which has no [further] shore and which is presumably the Northern Sea.” CICA pp. 129-130.
Both
the Shi ji and the Han shu place Yancai, [‘Vast steppe.’ Yen-ts’ai]
almost 2,000 li (832 km) to the northwest of Kangju, near a great marsh.
This is supported by the fact that it seems likely that the Tashkent oasis was
the centre of Kangju, and travelling 832 km to the northwest of Tashkent brings
one to the region of the lower Syr Darya (Yaxartes) plain, just before the
river empties into the Aral Sea. Zadnesprovskiy (1994), p. 463 also places the
Yancai in the region of the Aral Sea. It seems that by the time of the Hou
Han shu they had moved or extended as far as the lands to the north of the
Black Sea.
Chavannes (1907), p. 195, n. 2
believes the text of the Hou Han shu here is mistaken. The Wei lue
only includes the first two characters à and l á n in the name of
this kingdom. He suggests that the last character here, li à o , should
be read as the very similar-looking li ǔ [= willow] which is
listed as a separate kingdom in the Wei lue:
“Then there is the kingdom of
Liu, the kingdom of Yan (to the north of Yancai), and the kingdom of Yancai
(near the mouth of the Syr Darya), which is also called Alan. They all have the
same customs as those of Kangju ( Tashkent plus the Chu, Talas, and middle
Jaxartes basins). To the west, they border Da Qin (Roman territory), to the
southeast they border Kangju.
These kingdoms have large numbers of famous sables. They raise cattle and move
about in search of water and grass. They are close to a big marsh (to the
northeast and north of the Aral Sea). Previously they were vassals of Kangju. Now they are no longer vassals.”
“... HHSCC Mem. 78.16b, remarks that the country was a dependency of K’ang-chü, that the dress and the customs of the people, who lived in towns, were identical with those of K’ang-chü, that the climate was mild, and that there were many fir-trees. The memoir adds, that Yen-ts’ai later adopted the name of A-lan-liao....” CICA, p. 129, n. 316.
It is clear from the text that Yancai had recently allied itself to, or joined with, the Alan tribes who stretched west past the Caspian, and were in regular contact with Roman-controlled cities via the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.
“Now there was the nation of the Alani, which we have formerly mentioned somewhere as being Scythians, and dwelling about the Tanais [River – the Don] and the Lake Maeotis [the Sea of Azov]. This nation about this time [73 CE] laid a design of falling upon Media and the parts beyond it, in order to plunder them; with which intention they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was master of that passage which king Alexander [the Great] shut up with iron gates. The king gave them leave to come through them: so they came in great multitudes, and fell upon the Medes unexpectedly, and plundered the country which they found full of people, and replenished with abundance of cattle, while nobody durst make any resistance against them; for Pacorus, the king of the country, had fled away for fear, into places where they could not easily come at him, and had yielded up everything he had to them, and had only saved his wife and his concubines from them, and that with difficulty also, after they had been made captives, by giving them an hundred talents for their ransom. [The Alans then also defeated Armenia]. So the Alani, being still more provided by this fight, laid waste the country, and drove a great multitude of the men, and a great quantity of other prey they had gotten out of both kingdoms along with them, and then returned back to their own country.” Josephus (75-79 CE), p. 264: VII. 7, 4.
“The third major nomadic state, that of the Yen-ts’ai, was situated in north-western Central Asia in the steppe around the Aral Sea and the northern shores of the Caspian, where it was in contact with the world of the Sarmatians. The nomadic population of this region belonged to the Sarmatian group of tribes which replaced the Scythians around the turn of the third century B.C. During the second century B.C., a new major grouping of Sarmatian tribes, of which the chief were the Siraci and Aorsi, appeared on the steppes between the Caspian and the Tanais (the River Don), as Strabo describes. Abeacus, King of the Siraci, could mobilize 20,000 horsemen (at the time when Pharnaces was lord of the Bosporus), while Spadinus, King of the Aorsi, commanded as many as 200,000 and the Upper Aorsi even more. That explains their camel caravan trade in Indian and Babylonian goods which they procured by barter from the Armenians and the Medes (Strabo XI.5.8).
It is evident from this text that the Aorsi and their kinsmen, the Upper Aorsi, were tribes of Sarmatian origin and were masters of the lands lying along the coast of the Caspian Sea. The precise eastern boundaries of the Aorsi are unknown, but their influence probably extended to the Aral Sea. They were a great military power and for almost three centuries, until the arrival of the Alans, they played a major role in events of the northern Pontic region. King Eunonus of this tribe was an ally of Mithradates VII (A.D. 40-44) in his struggle against Rome, and offered him asylum after his defeat.
Strabo refers to the established international trade links of the Aorsi with the states of the Caucasus. They also controlled trade routes leading from the Bosporus and other Black Sea states to Transoxiana and China. According to Chinese sources, one of the branches of the Silk Route – the Northern Route – passed through East Turkestan, Ta-yüan and K’ang-chü, ending in the country of the Yen-ts’ai. Chinese artifacts from archaeological excavations provide concrete evidence of the use of this route during the first few centuries A.D.
Scholars generally identify the Aorsi mentioned by the classical writers with the Yen-ts’ai state of the Chinese sources.
The Shih-chi states that Yen-ts’ai lies almost 2,000 li north-west of K’ang-chü, and it is a nomadic country whose customs are like those of K’ang-chü. Its army numbers over 100,000. It lies on a large lake that does not have high banks – the Northern Sea.
This independent nomadic state played a role of some significance in the history of Transoxiana and the neighboring localities along the international trade route. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Han Empire should have sent embassies there and fostered trade relations. Eventually, in the first century B.C., Yen-ts’ai lost its independence and became a dependency of K’ang-chü. According to the Hou Han-shu: ‘The domain of Yen-ts’ai was renamed A-lan-ya, over which K’ang-chü held sway.’ Another country to lose its independence was Yen, which paid tribute in furs. Many scholars seek to identify A-lan-ya (or A-lan-liao) with the Aorsi and Alans of the ancient sources. It should be noted that the appearance of the name A-lan-ya in the Hou Han-shu coincides with the emergence of the Alan tribes on the political stage.” Zadneprovskiy (1994), pp. 465-467. See also: Teggart (1939), pp. 197, 199, 203-205; Chapter 13 on the Alains, in Pelliot (1959), pp. 16-25; Pulleyblank (1962), pp. 99, 220; (1968), p. 252; (1999), p. 74.
2. Di may be a transcription of a local name but, as its meaning is ‘place,’ ‘locality,’ ‘earth,’ the term dicheng could just mean something like ‘walled place.’
3. Baicao = ‘White grass’ or ‘White herb’ = aconite, see note 5.3
above.
|
Comments |
|
Hyrcania - Türkic word for nomads, Iyrk, for the "Iurcae", "Hyrcae" for the nomads near the Caspian Siraci - Türkic "Sary Ases" Aorsi - Türkic Avars, "Aw-ar". |
|
Alans
and Ases |
|
If you want to see a clever, informed, and mostly balanced article about the traces of the Alanian language in the European languages, read on. A large portion of interest in the article is in its linguistic part. The unfortunate double/triple translation (Catalon => German, German => Russian, Russian => English) may lose some semantical precision, but still would preserve the meaningful essence of the words. The spelling of the Karachaevo - Balkarian words is transcribed from the Greek-based quasi-Cyrillic, which is used in the original work, to English, with the following conventions: Replaced: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alans in Pyrenees |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Foreword |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The present official history is so inconsistent that to speak about it as a science in full sense is obviously impossible. Its main problem is the methodology. The modern history is rested upon three whales: archeology, written sources, comparative linguistics. The stability of this threesome foundation is rather contingent, as each element suffers serious shortcomings. For the archeology it is an absence of a reliable dating tool; for the written sources it is a possibility of forgery; for comparative linguistics it is an absence of equivalency between a language and an ethnos (for example, Jews talk in any language). Besides, the history does not use at all the mathematical apparatus, which would alighn it with the current science (A.Fomenko applied statistical analysis to the chronology and received appalling results). In such circumstances the history becomes an assembly of guesses, with infeasible assessments of probabilities. The situation could be changed only turning to the new methods of research. One of such methods could become an "energetic" method, it is successfully applied in various branches of the science, because it mostly precisely reflects the causes of the phenomena and their reasons. To following this method we should treat the cause as paramount importance. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To criticize the rooted concepts seems to be a hopeless occupation, it is possible with the same success to question the number "pi", but at times at the base of some scientific constructions are not the facts, but only the names of the famous scientists. One of such "constants" in the modern history is the Iranizm of the Alans . On this subject ware written dozens of works by the researchers of the different countries, their assertions are quite categorical. For a better conspicuousness, the following are some examples: - " I also do not deem necessary address the question about the proofs of the Alan's belonging to the Aryan race and specificallyt to its Iranian branch, considering this question to be finally decided in the works of the linguists, and between them - prof. Vsev. Miller in his "Ossetic etudes" (Kulakovskiy Ü.A.,1919-1855) - "The attribution of those tribes, which at the ancient writers carried the name of Sarmatians, to the Iranian branch of the Aryan race in the modern science is elevated to the status of a firmly established fact" (Kulakovskiy Ü.A.). - " The works of many scientists firmly established the Iranian-linguility of the Alans and their direct genetic connections with the Iranian (linguistically) Sarmatian tribes" (Kuznetsov V.A., 1992). - " It is possible to say without exaggeration that despite some doubts, the theory of the Alanian origins the Ossetians received citizenship rights and rightfully determined the path for further research" (Gagloyti Ü.S. 1964). - " The main premises about etnogenesis of the Ossets cost stand firmly and unshakably: the presence of the Iranian element in their ethnic culture and their primary cultural and linguistical relation with other peoples of the Indo-European circle, northern way of their migration to the Caucasus; their successive connection with Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans" (Abaev V.I., 1949). - "Also there are enough reasons to think that languages of ancient Scythians and Sarmatians" were Iranian (Abaev V.I.). - " Linguistic evidence did not play a main role for identification of the Ossets with Alans. The direct historical testimony were eloquent enough. The cross comparison of the historical records from the Georgian, Armenian, Byzantian, Latin, Arabian, Russian (annalistic) sources did not leave any doubts that under the names of Os (Osset), As, Yas, Yazyg, Alan hide the same people" (Abaev V.I.). This list can be prolonged, without a particular need, as the idea of the abopve authors appears quite clearly: without sufficient actual material, they try to construct a historical concept based on their firm assurances. As we see, these researchers are not isolated loners, but represent a whole branch of the historical science, for a number of reasons recast into a replica of a reactionary sect. The benevolence of the authorities and, as result, an absence of criticism, transformed the Soviet Scythology into an alloy of arrogance and naivety. Trained in unscrupulosity, the academic scientists spoke and continue to tell nonsense with a clever look. Following are a few citations from the works of the glorified Iranists-Scythologists-Osetinologists, for the reader to personally see the accuracy of our statement. - "…at the end of the 4th century began the epoch of "Great Movement of Peoples", which opened a new page in the history of Europe and left in it a deep mark. At the same time ended centuries-old and unlimited rule of the Iranian-lingual nomads - Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, in the steppes of the Northern Pontic, they were replaced by incoming uncountable Türkic tribes and peoples who emanated from the depths of Asia" (V.A. Kuznetsov). This is one of the most harmful myths in the history of Eurasia. If the reader would think that Kuznetsov only generalizes the rich factual material about the replacement of the Iranian-lingual population by the Turkic, that would be a gross lmistake, because the evidence for event at is completely absent. This is a most poor description of such a global process. Is it easy to break the "centuries-old and unlimited rule"? How would the people of many thousands to overcome the way from the Altai to the Carpathian mountains? Why in the Northern Pontic did not remain any hint of the presence of the Iranian-lingual population? The reader certainly can recollect the rivers with ostensibly Iranian names - Danube, Dnepr, Dniestr, Don, but Herodotus does not know these rivers during the Scythian times, and their appearance on the map is shrouded in a mistery. It is not also known what moved these human masses, in fact the Asian space even now does not suffer from overpopulation (for example, in Mongolia the population density is one person per square kilometer). Having accepted this myth, the scientists in every way deny a presence of the Türks in Europe before the 4th century. Kuznetsov is not at a loss to put into question the words of Claudis Ptolemy, who already in the 2nd century places Hunns between Aorses and Roksolans. - "As is known, in the territory of the present Ossetia in the Middle Ages was the state and the capital of Alans. From the multitude of the facts testifying to it, Pototsky considered the most convincing the message of Constantin Porfirogenetic who placed Alania "next to the Svans" (Ü.S.Gagloyti). A look at the map shows that the Svans live along almost all the length of the southern slopes of the Caucasian ridge, while Ossetia stretched only a few tens of kilometers along the northern slopes, therefore the words "next to svans" can be perceived as any place to the north from the Caucasian ridge, but turning to archeology and toponymics it appears that the Alan did not leave in the territory of the modern Ossetia any traces. - " … the self-name of Alans in the Northern Caucasus was "Ir" (modern "Iron")" (V.B.Kovalevskaya). This, absolutely not supported statement by Kovalevskaya, may be regarded as falsification squared: first the Osetinologists tried to attach the name "Alan" to the Ossets, and here transfer now the self-name of the Ossets, "Iron", to the medieval Alans. "An idea about a lion was so alien to the Ossets, that when in the newer times they had to give it a name, they did not find any better than to transfer to it the name … of the bison (dombay) (V.I.Abaev). Note, that this is Balkaro-Karachayan name of the bison. In addition to the lion, to the Ossets were alien also such concepts as "sea" and "wolf" ("tengiz", "bTürksërTürksü") which they, most likely picked up from the Yakutian language, because according to the same Abaev " the cultural and linguistic influence of the Balkarians on the Ossets by virtue of their numertical ratio was, and should be, completely insignificant". It is difficult to tell where the Ossetic language was formed, in fact on the earth there is only one place where there are no wolves, lions, and sea simultaneously, it is in the center of Antarctica. These people cited constitute the avant guarde of the modern Osetinology: Ph.D.'s, academicians … But judging by their statements, they are rather far from the science, however their official status allows them publish their works and thus influence minds of the thousands people. In a different situation we would not even want to polemize them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Written sources |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Information about Alans on Pyrenees is quite piteous, even in the special literature (B.Bahrah " Alans in the West", V.B.Kovalevskaya " Alans in the Western Europe") to this subject are devoted only a few lines. These authors emphasize study of France and Italy. This looks rather strange, as Alans in significant numbers settled in the Iberian peninsula. Even such star of Alanology (fr Alan and "logos" - knowledge, a typical way of creating new terminology on the fly - Translator's Note) as Ü.A.Kulakovsky, limits himself to simple stating the fact: " In the 409 the allies (Alans and Vandals - H.M.) crossed to Spain, and in 411 divided this country among themselves, Alans received the center part, Luzitania and Carthagena" (Sel. Works on history of Alans and Sarmatia, p.113). A similar position is taken by the modern Osetinologists-Skithologists. Their unwillingness to study the history of Spain causes a mass of questions. Apropos, recall one ten years' old event. In the summer of 1993 the North-Osetian institute of humanitarian research undertook an unprecedented action "Via Alanica" ("Alanian Road"), which primary goal was "to acquaint with the state of studies of the ancient Iranian, and in particular Alanian, problems in the Western Europe" (Bliev M.M., Alanica III, Vladikavkaz 1995. p. 410). The group of Ossetian scientists replicated the path of the suggested route of the Alans to the West. Stopping in Rostov, Kiev, Budapest and Paris, the travelers safely returned back. During their stops the scientists attended museums, were acquainting with the Scythian heritage, met with researchers, officials and fellow countrymen. The program was rather saturated, but however, judging from the dispatches of the expedition participants M.M.Bliev and L.A.Chibirov, this endeavor did not return any appreciable results. It appeared that the Iranian problem is not properly studied in Europe. Bliev complains about the Rostov colleagues: " The majority of the discoveries of the Rostov's archeologists, including the Alanian ones, were published. A deficiency of these publications, however, is that the Alanian problems, and in particular its ethnogenetic (non-dictionary word, but seems a transparent afjective - Translator's Note) aspects, as a rule, were not examined. Maybe for this reason today the Don Cossacks also already, as the museum employee T.A.Skripnik told us, began to consider themselves to be Sarmatians by origin". (Bliev p. 412). Nobody has a right to refuse the Cossacks in their desire, let them have enough reasons for this proposition. Judging from the historical information, Alans have not stopped in France, they passed through the Iberian peninsula and landed in the north of Africa, where together with Vandals they founded a state which subsequently was crushed by the Byzantian general Velisarius. Thus, the Libyan desert should be listed as a final point of the Alanian movement to the West. Besides, a significant number of Alans settled in Iberia, where until now is a Catalonia province, which preserved in its name the name of the Alanian people. It would be logical to assume that the Ossetic scientists would aspire to go Catalonia, but they do not have such a desire and in their plans, on the contrary, said Bliev, in the following stage "Via Alanica" will be visiting Italy, Mongolia, China and India. Diesner, Hans-Joachim: Das Vandalenreich. Aufstieg und Untergang, Stuttgart u.a. 1966 He tried to remain reasonably close to the official Soviet position on issues. Sinor ignores Diesner's work. Courtois, Christian: Les Vandales et l'Afrique, Paris 1955 A little bit more information for our theme gives Hans-Joachim Diesner in his work "Das Vandalenreich. Aufstieg und Untergang", but he tries to describe the history of Vandals in isolation, therefore we should make some comments. Long before their appearance in Iberia (beginning of the 4th century), the Alans and Vandals were united in an intertribal union. In the subsequent centuries the history of these peoples happen to be closely bound. Until now the reasons of such consolidation are not clear. Disner writes: "Since 418 Hasdings, Silings (divisions of Vandals - H.M.) and Alans were united on the rights of the personal alliance by the Hasdings' king. The name "Hasdings", which earlier designated the whole tribe, gradually began to be used only for the name of the dynasty. At last, was introduced the title "Rex Vandalorum et Alanorun" ("King of Vandals and Alans") (34). Thus, any mention of Vandals in Spain and in the north of Africa we shall perceive in connection with the Alans. Major movement stages of Alano-Vandals are following. At the end of the 4th century, because of the increasing pressure from the Huns and Goths, the Vandals, Alans and some divisions of the Gepids and Sarmatians, united a coalition under a leadership of the Hasdings' King Godigizel. In 401 the (Western Roman, under Emperor Honorius, 395-423 - Translator's Note) empire concludes with the union an accord of federation, by which Alano-Vandals received an area in the territory of the modern Bavaria. However by the 406 they, contrary to the accord, penetrated into the Southern Gallia (present France - Translator's Note). For some time the Roman armies managed to hold the Pirenees ridge, but in the 407 the immigrants break in to Spain. And already in the 411 empire concludes an accord of federation with the union by which Hasdings received the east, and the Suevs the western Galicia (northwest Spain), while Silings received Betica (southern Spain), and Alans received Lusitania (approximately corresponds to modern Portugal and parts of Spain) and the area of New Carthagena (eastern Spain). Already in the 425 the Alano-Vandals plundered Balearic islands and even coast of Mauritania on the commandered Roman ships. In the following years the fleet was expanded and staffed with their tribesmen. Even more significant were the successes on the land: by the 428 all Roman cities of Pirenees were included in the Vandals' sphere of influence, including Gispalis (Seville) and New Carthaggena (Cartagena). Thus, the political, military and economic situation of Alano-Vandals by the time of Gunderih death (428) obviously improved in comparison with the first years in Spain. In the 429 Alano-Vandals, avoiding confrontations with Suevs and Vestgoths, crossed to Africa and land in Tingis (Tangier). In essence, this is all that is known to us about Alans abiding in the Iberian peninsula, their further existence in the given territory is shrouded in a secret, in any case people cannot completely disappear, even as a result of full assimilation some original features should be kept. Certainly, to hope for it, after fifteen centuries, it is rather precipitate, though who knows? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Barbarians in Iberia |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As noted above, the advocates of the Iranian-linguality of Alans are reluctant to study the Iberian peninsula, and there is a simple reason for that. Taking any other area of Europe where dwelled Alans, it appears that there were also the Huns, and Savirs, and Avars, and Kipchaks, and Bolgars, and Barsils, i.e. some Türkic tribes, and therefore it is impossible to tell precisely, exactly who left the Türkic elements in the toponymy and lexicon. But for Iberia, it appears that only three barbarous tribes were there: Alans, Vandals and Goths. Thus it is a unique territory where it is possible to isolate Alans. If the Goths and Vandals are German (whish is still unproved), then how to explain a presence in Spain of the Türkic elements, which, as we shall show, are there in massive quantities. Now the oddity in the attitude of the Iranists becomes clear: any Turkic element outside of the Iberian peninsula can be explained by the influence of any other Türks, except for Alanian, but the presence of Türkisms in Spain completely discredits the Alano-Iranian theory, and therefore the Osetinologists conscientiously ignore the history of this region. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dictionary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acquaintance of the author with the Catalonian dictionary gave an impetus for this article. The fact that Catalonia originally was called Goth-Alania and received its name from the union of the Alans and Vestgoths raised a hope that in the Catalonian language could be preserved Türkic elements brought by the Alans. But a search for the necessary dictionary turned out to be a serious problem, as the seven-million European nation did not get interested the Russian linguists in any way, and the Catalono-Russian dictionary was not created. However, the author was lucky to get a Catalono-German dictionary. The work was complicated by a double translation, but, eventually, we have been rewarded for the labors, about a hundred of transparent Balkaro-Karachayan lexemes were found. Next followed the Spanish and Portuguese languages, and they brought the same results. A completely new aspect of the Alanian history opened up. Judging by the found words, the Alans were widely spread across the all Iberian peninsula, and impressed a big influence on the formation of the local population. This presents an opportunity to see that the Türkisms cover almost all spheres of the Pirenees languages: pronouns, verbs, life, culture and many other things. It is also interesting that some words are in several languages at once, and because the Catalonian, Spanish and Portuguese belong to the Romance group of languages, it can turned out that they are early loans from the Turkic into Latin. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spanish |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Portuguese |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toponomy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Passing on to the geographic placenames, here are some introductory points. In places where the Turkic tribes live, the following terms have a
greatest distribution: The term "kala" is even borrowed from Turkic language by some Romanian with a meaning "port", but points with the name "kala" are also met in a distance from the coast, therefore we show all similar toponyms. In addition to the geographical terms, the etnonims are preserved, as a rule, in the toponomy. Also into account should be taken the low stability of the place-names, as any new power, aspiring to eternalize itself, starts with renaming villages and cities, and therefore to expect that Alans left strong marks on the map of the Pirenees is very optimistic. We investigated some maps, for the separate provinces and for the entire Iberian peninsula, in the scale of 1:1,100,000 (1 sm - 11 kms) and 1:400,000 (1 sm - 4 km). Results: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I. Spain, Portugal, Andorra, the south of France |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The major cities of the region, Barcelona (Bars - Alan) and Marseilles (Bars - el - city of bars) (leopard is bars in Türkic - Translator's Note) should be attributed to the same group. The leopard was a totem for Alans, therefore its appearance in the toponyms is not accidental, and, in addition, the presence of the term "bars" confirms the Türkic linguility of the Alans, as this is a prime Türkic word. In the work "Alans in the Western Europe", V.B.Kovalevskaya gives a list of several hundred toponyms which evidence the stay of the Alano-Sarmatians in the Western Europe. The term "court" has a special significance, as the most widespread: "in respect to the word "court, courties", which Varron identified as a shelter for cattle, it is interesting that it (caert, courtis, court) is Irano-Germano-Italo-Caucasian isogloss, equally clear for the Iranian-lingual Alans, German and Roman (Krt - a yard in Ossetic, Kert with the same meaning is in Nakho-Dagestanian, Kartvelian and Armenian languages). In the toponymy of France, J. Johnson collected 183 toponyms with 'court' " (p. 55). The nations, certainly, have a right to call their land a catlleyard, especially cattle breeding people, as the Alans. But we in the word "court" see a common Türkic term "kurt" (kort, gurd, jurt, Türksürt) in the meaning "native land, motherland, province, side, place, location", which more corresponds semantically. So all 183 toponyms with the word "court" we dare to ascribe to the Türks. Something similar happened with the Türkic word "sarai" - "palace", in the Russian languge it was dimunitevely transformed into a dwelling for cattle. Now some dumb people think that in the capital of the Golden Horde lived domestic animals. The Kovalevskaya's list is interesting by that there are two-component words, one part of which is etnonim (Alan, As, Sarmat), and the other is a transparent Türkic word. Here is the list in the author's order. 31. Alan je (Alan-yer) Something wrong is happening with toponyms in Ossetia: "For France and Northern Italy we mapped more than 70 Alanian etnotoponyms (out of the list of 90 names), which is a strikingly great number, while, for example, in the Northern Ossetia in the Caucasus, where Alano-Oses live until present, there is only one toponym containing in its root the etnonim "Alan" (58). And even this only toponym, Alanboz, has a transparent Türkic ring, but Kovalevskaya does not despare and continues branding Alans an Iranian-lingual. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conclusion |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Today tens of the Türkic nations live in Eurasia, many of which have their own states and, accordingly, their academies of sciences, which makes possible a detailed study of the history within their framework . This task is one of essential subjects for the Türksürks, as the link between the ancient and present Türks in the modern history is practically not described. The situation gets to ridiculous: nobody dares to pretend on the inheritance of the Scythians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Huns, Alans, Khazars, Avars, Kipchaks, Besenyos, as though these peoples did not leave descendants. In these conditions, certainly, there are seekers for the nice history. And then the · Scythians become the ancestors of the Slavs, · Sarmato-Alans become the ancestors of the Ossets, · Bulgars become the ancestors of the Chuvashes · and the · Türkic descendants begin helping the impostors (two Balkarian scientists write books about Alano-Ossets). The great scholars tell us that in all the human history on the Earth, there were only a few civilizations, they can be counted by the fingers, but among them the Turkish is not present, even though its traces stretch from North Africa to Japan and further to America, near it the Greek-Roman civilization looks a dwarf. Even the most ancient civilizations of the world (in the official version) like Sumer, Ancient Egypt, China, and India during various times experienced the influence of the northern nomads, is not it for this reason their languages abound with Türkisms (somebody could see it as blasphemy, but the Türkisms are in Latin, and in the Ancient Greek, and in Hebrew, and in Avestian, and in Sanskrit, and in the languages of the American Indians). Such a wide spread of the Türkic elements proves the existence once united Turanian state, about it also tells the affinity of the modern Türkic peoples: the Balkars easily understands the Kirghiz, and the Crymchak understands the Altaian, though they are separated by thousands of kilometers. The modern academic history managed to do what could not do the greatest powers of the past: to destroy the Türkic civilization. But, to our luck, there is also a non-official history, where not the professionals, but simply loving people, they are restoring the building ine brick at a time. This work is not easy. Just remember the book of Oljas Sulemenov "AS and Me" ("ASIA" in Russian - Translator's Note), what was the indignation of the Soviet academicians when the real Türkic history was only slightly unfolded for them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Overview of Sarmatian chronology |
Alan Dateline |
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlanAndRomanLanguagesEn.htm