Talk:Turkology

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030812135147/http://www.turkiye.net/sota/sota.html to http://www.turkiye.net/sota/sota.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific theories

I do not think that the "Pseudoscientific theories" section was created by writing unbiased and correct sources. 9th source offers scientific research on a completely different topic (Word Formation in the Turkic Languages). The research is not about the scientific methods used in Turcology. Most likely, the author mentioned his personal observations and comments on Turcology at the beginning of the book. In short, it is a subjective comment. Turcology is a discipline in which many scientists from different countries work. It cannot be vilified by the subjective comments. If such a problem arises in a scientific work on this subject, we accept it. In such a case, everyone who is interested in Turkology works to change this. However, Turkology and Turkology scientists cannot be accused of being unscientific, with subjective and non-scientific knowledge.

The 10th resource is about Russia and Russian scientists as mentioned in its title. The research is not about Turkology and Turkish speaking peoples. I guess the person making the addition does not know that Turkish is not spoken in Russia. For those who don't know, the official language in Russia is Russian. In the excerpt given with the source, the thoughts of a Russian scientist are shown. All Turkology and Turkish-speaking countries cannot be vilified with one scientist. In addition, Turcology is a value not only for Turkish-speaking countries, but for the whole world. Scientists from many different countries are working on this discipline. Turcology is too valuable to be vilified with biased, insecure sources and a biased perspective. That's why I'm removing the "Pseudoscientific theories" section. It was brought back even though it was previously removed by somebody saying it is "No basis in fact " and “This is not part of wikipedia as what is designed as past failures, a very biased statement intended to hurt feeling of other people rather than provide quality information”. Please do not bring back this biased, subjective "Pseudoscientific theories" section. Please respect Turkology scientists and their work. Özgür-asena (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC).

The first source is by Columbia University Press which is certainly reliable, and you haven't provided any proof of conflict of interest or personal bias of the author. As for the second source your argument is disingenuous, Russia has millions of Turkic people and both "Russian" authors referred to by the source are Tatar. A discipline being "valuable" (which is merely your own subjective opinion) is not an argument to discredit a valid source that criticizes it. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Too many lists

This page is in need of some serious cleanup. The entire page consists of lists that would work better as links to categories. Per WP:LC, these should be cut down and links added to . I also don't think the list of persecuted Soviet Turkologists is necessary, although it may be worthwhile to include a brief discussion of the topic.Straughn (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Falsification under Stalin

Decrees of the "ЦК ВКП(б)" Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar and Bashkir party organizations" of August 9, 1944.

At which it was decided to share the history of the Volga Bulgars jointly by the Kazan Tatars, where the concept was imposed that the ancestors of the Chuvash were Suvars (noted in the note of Ibn Fadlan), and the ancestors of the Tatars were Bulgars.

They also needed a reason to explain why only the Crimean Tatars were deported, and the Kazan Tatars were not touched.

In the USSR, the study of the history of the Golden Horde became a "mistake of a nationalistic nature." In order to prevent the processes of national revival in Tatarstan from unfolding, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks began to prepare materials for a pogrom decree. Even before the war, it was decided to create a research institute in Kazan for a comprehensive study of the problems of the history and culture of the Tatar people. in 1939, the Tatar Research Institute of Language, Literature and History was created, for which not a single candidate of sciences was found. Taking advantage of this, historians and literary critics are actively starting to create new works. Despite the war and the lack of personnel, the historians of Kazan (N.F. Kalinin, Kh.G. Gimadi), together with scientists evacuated from Moscow (B.D. Grekov, S.V. Bakhrushin, L.V. Cherepnin), prepared "Essays on the history of the TASSR", which emphasized the local Bulgar basis of the Tatar people, criticized the aggressive policy of the Mongols and khans of the Golden Horde.

It all started with the folklorist N. Isanbet, who published a summary text of the Tatar epic about "Idegei" with his comments, which gave a vivid description of Idegei's personality and noted the enormous contribution of Ulus Jochi (Golden Horde) to the history and culture of the Tatar people. They believed that measures to rewrite history were the best way to cultivate and strengthen the friendship of peoples, and the dastan about Idegei was a kind of manifesto of nationalist agents in Tatarstan that should be banned. The plays "Zhiren-Chichen", "Alchinchech", "Chur Zagitov" were sharply criticized... Also, the programs of universities and secondary schools in history and literature were revised, from which references to the epic and the Golden Horde were removed. the epic "Idegey" is generally permeated with "the ideas of pan-Turkism and nationalism."

They sharply oppose "the popularization of Idegei as a hero of the Tatar people and give a whole digression of history, noting in conclusion that he" like Mamai, like Toktamysh, sought to restore the former power of the Golden Horde by raids on Russian land ". 1945, where among the main problems, the preparation of a university textbook of history was singled out.The main guidelines and target designations of this "history" were defined in the resolutions quite clearly: a ban on the study of the Ulus of Jochi in Tatarstan (and in general on the mention of this state and its cultural achievements in a positive sense).

On September 6, 1944, a special bureau of the regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, after a long and thorough investigation of the reasons that led to the appearance of such an "ideological sabotage", adopted a resolution "On the work and mistakes of the Tatar Research Institute of Language, Literature and History." The document itself is so eloquent and odious that until recently it was top secret and, despite constant references, has never been cited. And only recently has it become possible to look into its secrets. It directly and unambiguously states that "the grossest mistake of the institute is the complete identification of the history of the Golden Horde with the history of the modern Tatar people."

The purpose of this frenzied campaign was to overthrow Idegei from the "pedestal of history", and after him a whole layer of Tatar history. Overnight, Ulus Jochi, its population, culture and statesmen sank into oblivion, and the Tatars became Bulgars. At the same time, a new reality of history as Tatar Bulgarism and Chuvash Suvarism takes root in newspapers, magazines and books.

Historians understood the essence and depth of the problem, if we give the history of the Bulgars to the Tatars, then where to put the Chuvash at hand? Here it was decided to make the Chuvash descendants of Suvar, which are described in the Notes of Ibn Fadlan.

It was decided to fill the gaping gap that appeared after the ban on the history of the Jochi Ulus with "local Bulgarian roots". The consolidation of this provision was the so-called "scientific session on the origin of the Kazan Tatars" (April 25-26, 1946), held jointly by the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It heard reports and speeches by specialists in history, archeology, Turkology and anthropology, who unanimously proposed to continue to consider modern Tatars as descendants of the Volga Bulgars, and consider Ulus Jochi as a purely external phenomenon for the ethnic history of the Tatar people. It was not a line of science, but was opportunistic and definite line of party ideology, slightly covered with a scientific veil.

However, the main problem was not in the very fact of such an identification, but in the forced party-administrative methods of its establishment. Later, from the period of the “thaw” (the end of the 1950s) to the “perestroika” (the end of the 1980s), the Bulgarist concept, which enjoyed official support and was actively developed in Soviet historiography, acquired the form of a scientific concept and became the basis for writing history textbooks for schools and universities, basic scientific papers.

Let us pay attention to the statement of V.D. Dimitriev. In the article “Historiography of the ethnogenesis of the Chuvash people”, the professor wrote: “In the post-war years, the issue of the origin of the Chuvash people was considered at two scientific sessions. At a scientific session on the origin of the Kazan Tatars (April 25-26, 1946), held by the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Kazan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the speakers made biased reports in order to “prove” the previously accepted leadership of the Institute of Language, Literature and History ( IYALI) of the Kazan branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences "decision" on the origin of the Tatars from the Volga Bulgarians. In the short prospectus "Essays on the History of Tataria" published back in 1945, it was indicated that the authors sought to proceed from the instructions made in the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On the state and measures to improve mass-political and ideological work in the Tatar party organization". If you look into the historical data, we see everywhere that until the 20th century it was always said and written that the Tatars are Kipchaks and descendants of the Kipchak horde.

In the book: "Alphabetical list of peoples living in the Russian Empire" 1895. it is written: Kazan Tatars are the descendants of the Tatars of the Kazan kingdom of the Kipchak Horde (oddly speaking in the Kipchak language)! And there are no Bulgar Tatars there. There are only Kazan Tatars - the Kipchak Horde, Crimean Tatars - the Crimean Horde, Astrakhan Tatars - the Golden Horde, Siberian Tatars - the Siberian kingdom.

The Arab historian Al-Omari (Shihabuddin al-Umari) wrote that, having joined the Golden Horde, the Polovtsians switched to the position of subjects. The Tatar-Mongols who settled on the territory of the Polovtsian steppe gradually mixed with the Polovtsians. Al-Omari concludes that after several generations the Tatars began to look like the Polovtsians: “as if from the same (with them) clan”, because they began to live on their lands.

During the period of the Golden Horde in the XIV - the first half of the XV century. from the Central Asian Tatar tribes who arrived along with the Mongols and appeared in the Lower Volga region as early as the 11th century. Kypchaks (Polovtsy, Cumans, Pechenegs) a new Tatar people begins to form. On the Bulgar land there were only insignificant groups of Kipchaks, and on the territory of the future Kazan Khanate there were very few of them. But during the events of 1438-1445, associated with the formation of the Kazan Khanate, about 40 thousand Tatars arrived here at once with Khan Uluk-Mukhammed. Subsequently, Tatars from Astrakhan, Azov, Sarkel, Crimea and other places moved to the Kazan Khanate.

Miller writes that the Kazan Tatars themselves claim that they are descended from the remaining warriors of the Nogai Tatars: All the Orenburg Kazan Tatars outnumber the real Kazan Tatars, and the rest, living in the dispersion, will be no less than the Kazan ones. The Kazan Tatars got their name from the main city of Kazan - and it was nicknamed so from the Tatar word kazan, a cauldron, which was not deliberately omitted by the servant of the founder of this city, Khan Altyn Bek, when he drew water for his master to wash, in the river now called Kazanka. In other matters, according to their own legends, not a special tribe, but descended from different generations of warriors who remained here [in Kazan] in the settlement and from foreigners attracted to Kazan, but especially the Nogai Tatars, who all through their union into a single society made up a special people. Miller Karl Wilhelm. "Description of all peoples living in the Russian state, .." Part two. About the peoples of the Tatar tribe. S-P, 1776. Transl. from German. The Tatar queen Syuyumbike, who is loved in Kazan, was also the daughter of the Nogai biy.

As described in these ancient sources of scribes (Journey to Muscovy by Baron Augustine Mayerberg and Horace Wilhelm Calvucci, ambassadors of the August Roman Emperor Leopold to the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich in 1661, described by Baron Mayerberg himself), it is said that Kazan was founded by fugitive Tatars from the Crimea (taurids). When this Tatar (Kazan) Khanate was taken by Ivan IV the Terrible together with the Mari (Cheremis), he forced them to come to terms with the power of Moscow (read the Cheremis wars). And then right here we see the Bulgars classified as a separate people and separate neighboring land holdings. Here is the text: However, in the form of a reward for the insult (to the Bulgars), he subjugated (Moscow) neighboring Bulgaria, which he could not stand for frequent rebellions, so that this country, not accustomed to humility, learned to wear someone else's YGO. As it is obvious from the description of the Tatars of the Kazan Khanate and the Bulgars of the Bulgar land, these are different peoples and territories! This is also evidenced by the coats of arms on the big seal of Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

Suvarism (Neo-Suvarism) is an ideology whose central position is the "revival of Suvar identity" and Suvar statehood. The movement originated at the beginning of the 20th century, after August 9, 1944, the ideas of Suvarism were used by various socio-political, scientific and cultural movements, primarily representatives of the Chuvash movement "Suvar". The movement is the opposite ideology to the ideas of Bulgarism, which denies the Bulgar and Turkic origin of the Chuvash.

The Bolsheviks still failed to hide the fact that 90% of the epitaphs of the Volga Bulgars out of 400 found were written in the Chuvash R-language in Arabic script.

They also failed to erase the quotes of the first Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev 1721, where he personally visited the Chuvash Volga region and founded the city of Stavropol on the Volga (now Togliatti) stated:

“Down the Volga River, the Chuvash, the ancient Bulgarians, filled the entire county of Kazan and Simbirsk!” "Chuvash, the Bulgarian people"; “Bilyars, or Bulgarians, and Cholmats lived down the Kama (Chulna - this is how the Zakama Chuvashs call the Kama River) the remnants of their Chuvash, who are enough down the Volga” (Cholmats, because they call the Kama River "Chulma" now Chelny, the Tatars called Chulman Idel). "The remaining Bulgarian peoples of the Chuvash"; "The Volga Bulgarians speak the same language as the Hungarians (Wunogur) and the Danube Bulgarians (Bulogur) from the same descendants" “The law they [Bulgarians] had was the Brahmins*, as it was said above, that even in their remnants it is visible, because the Chuvashs believe something about the passage of souls from one to another.” (*Brahmins - Ibrahim - сhv.Pryahim) Tatishchev also wrote: "Their own name (Bulgars), according to Karpein, is seen as bilirs, the TATARS call them bulir. These Bulgarians were divided in two among the Russians: upper and lower." That is, the Tatars called the Bulgars - Bilirs! That is, this means that the Tatars could not be Bulgars in the root! If they CALLED THEM BILIR, that is, NOT THEMSELVES! and THEM! That is, and only the Chuvash have a division into Horse (Turi) and Lower (Anatri)!

Only in 1863, the Tatar scholar Hussein Feyzhanov managed to unravel the mysteries of the Bulgar epitaphs and wrote a flock: “Three tombstone Bulgarian inscriptions”, in which he presented to the scientific community the results of the decoding of the Bulgar epitaphs in Chuvash words. That is, Tatishchev at that time did not even know about the fact with the Bulgar monuments, and H. Feizkhanov only confirmed this fact about 200 years after Tatishchev's death!

The title of the Bulgar king is mentioned twice in “Risal” by Ahmad ibn Fadlan ibn al-Abbas ibn Rashid al-Baghdadi, an Arab traveler and writer of the 1st half of the 10th century. First, we are talking about a letter from the Bulgar ruler "Almush, son of Shilka Yaltyvar, king of the Sakaliba (Slavs of the Imenkovites?)". Then the title sounds in the khutba: “O Allah! Save [in prosperity] the king of Yaltivar, the king of the Bulgars. The title Yaltavar was formed from the Turkic word il, el, yal - "settlement, state, region" and the Turkic tuvar - "unharness", "unharness"; Kumyk., legs. tuvar, bashk. Tugar, Chuv. tăvar, Tat. Tuar, Kazakh. dogar "to unharness"; tofal. dӳhӳr "unload" and literally means "autonomous ruler of the region" but dependent on the kagan/khakan (khan of khans). Almush was just dependent on the Khazar Khaganate.

To date, it has been 100% established that the Bulgars were clearly tribes of Ogur origin (Ogurs, Onogurs, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Bulgurs) the word "Ogur" comes from the Hungarian Ökör - Ox, Bull: which in turn penetrated from the Bulgar language into which linguistic rotacism is applied, and is a reflection of the Chuvash word "Văkăr" (Wogor), in contrast to the tribes "Oguz" from the Turkish Öküz - Ox, Bull: where the Z-language is used instead of the Chuvash-Bulgarian R-language. To date, it has been precisely established that the only living language of the Bulgar-Ogur group is the Chuvash language. The Oguzes and Oghurs (Ökör and Öküz) so called their tribes Turks, due to the fact that the nomads moved on loaded oxen, in that era there were yurts on wheels that were dragged and dragged by oxen (bulls), one cart one family, there is even an engraving of Chepetsky Tatars, which depicts a caravan of harnessed oxen with yurts on wheels. For example "Onogurs" (Onökör) means "ten oxen" i.e. "10 tribes". Painting: Aul of Kungur Tatars roaming along the banks of the Akhtuba River. Travels through the Southern provinces of the Russian empire. London, 1802. Oğur ~ Oğuz Ökör ~ Öküz

Oguz - Öküz - Ox, Bull Ogur - Ökör - Ox, Bull Öküz -> Ökör -> bulgar rotacism Ökör -> Wăkăr (chuvash lang.)

The ancestors of the Chuvash are the tribal group Ogur (eng. Ogur) there are several of them:

1) Saragurs > Saragurs > Sara ökör > Shură văkăr > White oxen (tribes) 2) Onogurs > Onogurs > On ökör > Vun văkăr > Ten oxen (tribes) 3) Kutrigurs > Kutrigurs > Kutri ökör > Kutri văkăr > oxen (tribes) of Kotrag 4) Utigurs > Utigurs > Uti ökör > Uti văkăr > oxen (tribes) Uti 5) Bulgars > Bulgars > Bul ökör > Pil văkăr > Five oxen (tribes)

rhotacism *r < z ogur < ökör < wăgăr < (вол, бык) ox, bull oguz < öküz < (вол, бык) ox, bull

On-Oğur > (H)Ungari. Hungarians -> Hun Oghur -> (ten oghur tribes): On ökör -> On ogur -> up.chv. Won wogor -> dow.chv. Wun wăgăr -> belor. Wugorac -> rus. Wenger -> slove. Vogr, Vogrin -> cheh. pol. Węgier, Węgrzyn, -> lit. Veñgras.

Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "onogundur" and "hunugundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten ox bulls. 176.52.99.73 (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Related periodical publications"

The section consists of dead links. I think it would be better to remove it altogether, although the possibility of filling it with better sources is not disregarded. Voixsereines (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should remove it altogether. A list of working wikilinks to articles on en.wikipedia about notable publications would be welcome, but an arbitrary list of periodicals on the same topic as this one is really low value content, even if the links were all working. Most publications aren't notable, and as WP:NOTCATALOG notes, Wikipedia isn't an arbitrary catalog of otherwise non-notable things. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)