the present Qychaq speaking Tatars are descendant of the Kimek union or not and is cross-osted to ther groups(my conclsuion is that they are not) repost from another thread: On Oct 24, 12:51 pm, Yusuf B Gursey > On Oct 10, 10:40 pm, Darkstar > > On 29 =D1=81=D0=B5=D0=BD, 08:30, Yusuf B Gursey te: > > > On Sep 22, 3:54 pm, Darkstar > > > > On 10 =C3=93=C3=85=C3=8E, 03:02, Yusuf B Gursey wrote: > > > > > In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey > > > > > <94d9fd82-07a7-4821-98f5-2c4a27643...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.co= m>: > > > > > : On Sep 7, 11:13 am, Darkstar > > > > > :> On 5 ??????, 04:14, Yusuf B Gursey > > > > > :> (Kipchak was a TRIBE in the KIMAK UNION of tribes that "had se= ven > > > > > :> heads" with TATAR, KIPCHAK, KIMAK among them! I have no idea w= hy > > > > > : "Tatar" was not part of the Kimak Union. they were probably tur= kified > > > > > more probably vowel harmonic kime:k > > > > > : (or partially) mongols. Kashgari says they speak turkic but hav= e a > > > > > this would be consistent with they being mentioned together with = the > > > > > mongolian qa:y tribe. > > > > > : (non-turkic) language of their own. this is consistent with the > > > > > : etymology > > > > > : tat (in turkic "foreign subject, foreigner") + ar (collective s= uffix). > > > > > : the Tatar > > > > > : tribe was decimated by Chinggis but for some reason it came to = be > > > > > : applied to the turkic soldiery in the Mongol armies, particular= ly in > > > > > : the Golden Horde. later it came to mean the Kypchakized turkic > > > > > : population in the statesthat formed in its wake. > > > > Tatars will rip you apart if they hear this. No, the ethnonym Tatar > > > that's a problem for nationalists. > > > > was used early on, and again, it was part of the Kimek confederatio= n. > > > yes, Gardizi (Garde:zi: ; 11th cent.) mentions them as part of the > > > Kimek > > > federation, at least their ruling house came from a member of the > > > Tatars, > > > they were partly Turkicized. perhaps it was a section of them. the > > > people > > > called "Tatars" before the mongol period have little to do with the > > > with > > > the people called Tatars on the wake of the Mongols. incidentally, > > > acc. > > > to Enc. of Islam II "Tatar" that in 13th cent. Chinese sources use > > > "Black Tatars" to designate the Mongols, while "the White Tatars" > > > desgnated the Turkic tribe of the =C3=96ngg=C3=BCd. > > What =C3=96ngg=C3=BCd? Oghuz? > not Oghuz. > here are somelinks I found about them: > http://chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3D12671 > http://www.nestorian.org/rabban_bar_sawma.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongud > The =C3=96ng=C3=BCd, or =C3=96ng=C3=BCt, were a Turkic[1] tribe, active i= n Mongolia > around the time of Genghis Khan (1162=E2=80=931227).[2] Many members were > Nestorian Christians.[3] They lived in an area lining the Chinese > Great Wall, in the northern part of the Ordos and territories to > the northeast of it.[2] They acted as wardens of the marches for > the Chinese Empire to the north of the province Shansi.[4] > The ancestors of the Ongud were the Shatuo Turks of the Western > Gokturk Khaganate.[5] In the 7th century they moved to eastern > Xinjiang under the protection of the Tang Dynasty. By the 9th > century the Shatuo were scattered over North China and modern > Inner Mongolia. A Shatuo warlord, Li, mobilized 10,000 Shatuo > cavalrymen and served the Tang as ally. In 923 his son defeated > the rebellious dynasty and became emperor of the Later Tang Dynasty. > After the overthrow of the Li family, the Shatuo commanders > established the Later Jin Dynasty, and the Later Han Dynasty > and the Northern Han. > ... > The =C3=96ng=C3=BCt chief Alakush tegin revealed the Naiman plan to > attack Genghis in 1205 and allied with the Mongols ... > 1. Grousset, R, The Empire of the Steppes, 1970, p. xxxv, 213, > Rutgers University Press > note the turkic name Alakush "spotty (variegated) colored bird" > > > but Kashgari gives a hint of their language on p. 25 of the original, > > > p. 83 of Dankoff and Kelly: [...] are footnotes. > > > << > > > Among the nomadic peoples are the *Ch*=C3=B6m=C3=BCl - they have a g= ibberish > > > (raTa:na) of their own but also know Turkic well, also Qa:y, Yaba:qu, > > > Tata:r and Basmil [MS. > > > groups {Hizb} has its own language {lu*gh*a(t))}, but they also know > > > Turkic well. > > > Then Qirqiz, Qif*ch*a:q, O*gh*uz, Tuxsi, Ya*gh*ma, *Ch*igil, > > > O*gh*ra:q [MS > > > thin pen)] and *Ch*aru:q - they speak Turkic, a single language > > > {lu*gh*a(t))}. > > > Approaching these is the the language {lisa:n} of Yem=C3=A4:k and > > > Ba*sh**gh*irt. > > > Qa:y is a known mongolian tribe, so one may conclude that their nativ= e > > > language is a dialect of mongolian, and the Tatar are grouped togethe= r > > > with them. nevertheless it is true that, in spite of their having a > > > different native language, Kashgari regards each of them as "a tribe > > > (ji:l) of Turks" {ji:l-un mina~t-turk}. perhaps because of the spread > > > of turkic among them and perhaps because of tribal alliances. > > What MaK writes on Turkic classification, is so fuzzy, it can't be > > used to make any conclusions. I've already run into difficulties with > > Oghuz being represented as Kipchak(Kimak). > he only mentions some common characteristics. he does not "classify". > > > later (early 14th cent.), Rashiduddin includes the Tatar among the > > > Mongols, > not the Mongols proper, but what we would call Mongolic. > > > but then adds that the name was adopted by others and became > > > generalized, > > > attributing it to their fearsome reputation. (I don't have the book > > > handy > > > to quote directly). in the "Oghuzname" section of Rashiduddin's book (introduction and the first chapter of tome one) in which is the legendary history of tribes that are well known turkic tribes (curiously, the Qirqiz are mentioned elsewhere) he says (of the Turks) in the Introduction: (v.i p. 24 of Thackston's translation, p. 24 of the Persian Karimi edition of Tehran; the M numbers are the pages in the Moscow edition) {Rashiduddin regards the Mongols as a type of Turk} << With the passage of time, branches and sub-branches, and in every era new branches have come into being, and each one has acquired a name, and an epithet for some reason or other, like the Oghuz, the totality of which nation is at present called Turcoman and has branched off into the Qipchaq, Qalach, Qanqli, Qarluq, [M76] and other branches attributed to them, and like nations that are known as Mongols, like the Jalayir, Tatar, Oyirat, M=C3=A4rkit, &c. Some other nations that resembled the Mongols-such as the Kerayit, the Naiman, the =C3=96ng'=C3=BCt, and their likes-each had its own autonomous ruler. Th= e nations that have been known from olden times until now by the names Qunqirat, Qorolas, Ikir=C3=A4s, Eljigin, Uriangqat, Kilingghut, &c. are called altogether the D=C3=BCrl=C3=BCk=C3=BCn Mongols. The Niru'un nations,= who are pure Mongols, as will be described and explained, are closely linked and resemble each other in terms of physiognomy, dialect, and vocabulary; nonetheless, because of each territory in temperament and climate, a slight variation has appeared in form and shape and in the dialect of these Turkic nations. >> here, Rashiduddin clearly includes the Tatars among the Mongols (in a somewhat general sense). the Tatars are discussed in detail in Chapter Two (Chapter One is the Oghuzname section, dealing with the Turks). on p. 37 (47 of Karimi): << CHAPTER TWO THE TURKIC NATIONS THAT ARE NOW CALLED MONGOLS BUT IN TIMES PAST WERE SEPERATE NATIONS, EACH WITH ITS OWN LANGUAGE AND NAME Each of these nations had a leader and a commander, and from each of them branched off tribes and clans, like the Jalayir, the oyirat, the Tatar, &c., as will be explained in this chapter. Their yurts [grazing grounds] and dwelling places were in designated areas and their features and language resembled those of the Mongols, [M130] for at that time the Mongol branch was one of the Turkic nations, whereas now, because of their great fortune, might and magnificance, all the other nations have been subsumed under the name Mongol. The histories of these nations are as follows. ... {p. 43 , Karimi p. 57, onwards} The Tatar Nation Their name has been famous throughout the world since ancient times. Many lines of them have branched out, and the total of this nation was seventy thousand hosueholds. Their dwelling place and yurts, seperate tribe by tribe and branch by branch, were well delineated and near the territories of Cathay. The yurt for which they were especially known was a place near Bu'ir Na'ur. 1 At most times they have been in obedience and paid tribute to the rulers of Cathay, although they have rebelled in every age, and rulers of Cathay have mounted armies against then to bring them into submission. They have also disputed [M160] and quarrelled with each other, and there was war among these tribes for many long years. ... They are especially known for wielding knives, and at the slightest provocatiobn they stab each other and use their swords without remorse, like the Kurds, Shul, 1 and Franks. The law that exists among the Mongols now did not exist in their time, and vengeance, wrath and envy were dominanat in thier natures. With their great numbers, if they had agreed with one another and not fought, neither the Cathaians nor any other creature could have withstood them, and even though there was constant enmity and rancor among them, in ancient times they were usually dominant over most nations of the region. Because of the glory, might and respect they commanded, other types of Turks, [M162] in all their variety and names, made themselves known by their name, and all were called Tatar Indeed they considered it an honor to call themselves Tatar, just as at present, because of the great fortune of Genghis Khan and his urugh, because they are Mongols, other tribes of Turks like the Jalayir, Tatar, Oyirat, =C3=96ng'=C3=BCt, Kerayit, [58] Naiman, Tangqut, &c= ., each with its own special name and sobriquet, all are proud to call themselves Mongol. Whereas before they used to deride this name, now their sons imagine that they have been known as Mongol from a long time ago. In ancient times, the Mongols were but one of all the tribes of nomadic Turks, but divine favor shone upon them ... At that time the other tribes were not called Mongol, but since they were close to one another in terms of shape, form, vocabulary, dialect, cutoms and manners, regardless of the difference in dialect and customs that had existed in ancient times, now it has come about that the peopels of Cathay, Jurcha, Nankiyas, Uyghur, Qipchaq, Turcoman, Qarluq, Qalach, and all the prisoners and Tajik races that have been brought up among the Mongols [M164] are also called Mongols. All the assemblage takes pride in calling itself Mongol. Prior to this, because of the strength and glory of the Tatars, the same thing happened, and that is why all Turkic peoples are still called "Tatar" in the realms of Cathay, Hindustan, Chin and Machin, the lands of the Qirqiz, Kilar-Bashghurd, the Qipchaq Steppe, the territories of the north, the Arab peoples, Syria, Egypt and North Africa. The tribes of Tatar are well known and famous there, and each seperately had an army and a ruler. They consist of six tribes, as follows: Tutuqli'ut Tatar, Alchi Tatar, Chaghan Tatar, K=C3=BCyin Tatar, Nira'ut Tatar, and Burquy Tatar. 2 1. The shul are the inhabitants of Shulistan, a region always mentioned in conjunction with either Kurdistan or Luristan. It is the present-day Mamasani in Iran. ... 2. {In the Secret Hitory the names are respectively Duta'ud, Alchi, Chahan or Cha'a'an, J=C3=BCyin, Ayiri'ud (the persian text requires an emendation), Buiru'ud (the persian text requires an emendation)} >> in the above Rashiduddin has clearly stated how the name "Tatar" came to be generalized from that of a particular tribe, just as the word "Mongol" did. incidentally, the same thing happened to the name "Turk". > > > Enc.of Islam II "Tatar" starts out as "the name of a Mongolic tribal > > > grouping" by P.B. Golden the article also quotes Rashiduddin << Tatar , the name of a Mongolic tribal grouping. Their earliest attestation is in the 8th century Orkhon T=C3=BCrk inscriptions in which the Otuz Tatar ("Thirty T.") are noted (KT, e14, s1) together with other Proto-Mongolian peoples (the =C4=B6itan, Tatab)) as rebellious subjects of the T=C3=BCrk Empire. Elsewhere (B=C4=B6, e35), the To=C4=B7uz Tatar ("Nine T.") are reported as allies of the Oghuz who were defeated by Bilge =C4=B6aghan (Tekin, Orhon yaz=C4=B1tlar=C4=B1, see also r= unic fragments from Tuva and Khakasia, Vasil=E2=80=99ev, Korpus, 33-4; Klja=C5=A1tornyj, Das Reich, 75) and in the late 740s by the Uyghurs. Attempts to connect the Otuz Tatars to the people called Shih-wei in Chinese sources are problematic (Gumilev, Drevnie Tyurki, 31; Viktorova, Mongol), 156). The colophon (ca. 825-32) of the Manichaean Mah.rn=C4=81mag mentions an official Tatar Apa Tekin (M=C3=BCller, Ein Doppelblatt, 9; Klja=C5=A1tornyj, Das Reich, 78). The earliest Chinese reference to the Ta- ta is recorded in a letter of 842 (Pelliot, Comans, 143). Tenth- century Chinese documents from Tunhuang place them around Suchou, indicating a polity in the Kansu-East Turkistan region. Ninth-10th century Khotanese Saka sources also report the involvement of the tt=C3=A4ttar=C3=A4/ttattara and k=C5=ABysa ttattara [Kuz Tatars] in Uyghur = and Northern Chinese affairs in the Kansu region (Bailey, Culture, 80, 85-7; idem, Khotanese texts, vi, 92-3). On occasion, they accompanied Uyghur embassies to China (e.g. in 958), offering assistance, in 996, against the Hsi Hsia/Tanguts (Pinks, Die Uiguren, 30, 107; Hamilton, Les Ou=C3=AFgours, 89, 138; Malyavkin, Uygurskie gosudarstva, 75). A 10th- century Chinese embassy to the Uyghurs also notes the Chiu-tzu Ta-tan ("Nine T.") with whom the Kao-ch=E2=80=99ang Uyghurs had close ties (Pellio= t, Comans, 147-48; (zgi, =C3=87in el=C3=A7isi, 48-50). This close connection i= s reflected in the early notices in Islamic sources. Thus the H.ud=C5=ABd al- `=C4=81lam , tr. 94, reports that the "Tat=C4=81r too are a race ( djins ) = of the Toghuzghuz". Some of the Tatar groupings appear to have come under the control of the =C4=B6itan/Liao (907-1125) who vied for control of Northern China with the Sung (960-1279). The Chinese sources of this era make frequent reference to the Tsu-pu (cf. Tibet. Sog-po "Mongol"), a tributary tribal confederation of the =C4=B6itan/Liao, whom Wittfogel and F=C3=AAng, Hist. Chinese soc., 50, 101, 102) view as either identical with or closely related to the Tatars. Viktorova (Mongol),163-4), argues, however, that Sog-po derives from the designation for Soghdian (now expanded to other peoples) and suggests that the Sung authors used Tatar as a collective term for the Inner Asian steppe nomads. The Tangut ruler Y=C3=BCan-hao claimed in 1039, that the T`a-t`a, among others in the Kansu region, had submitted to him (K=C3=AF=C4=8Danov, O=C4=8Derk, 134). Chinese = sources of the 13th century use the term Hei-Ta(-ta) "Black Tatars" to designate all the Mongols, and Pei Ta-ta "White Tatars" to signify the =C3=96ngg=C3= =BCd, a Turkic people (Olbricht and Pinks, Meng-ta Pei-lu, 4, 6). Gard=C4=ABz=C4=AB (ed. H.ab=C4=ABb=C4=AB, 258), in his account of Kimek [se= e kim=C3=A4k ] origins (this people being an important Turkic or Turkicised tribal confederation in Western Siberia which had extensive trade relations with Muslim merchants), derives their ruling house from the mihtar of the Tat=C4=81rs. Moreover, a tribe named "Tat=C4=81r" constituted one of th= e seven core tribes of this union. Mah.m=C5=ABd al-K=C4=81shghar=C4=AB (Danko= ff, i, 82-3, 312) considers the Tat=C4=81rs "a tribe of the Turks", but notes them among the distant, Inner Asian nomadic peoples near China, the =C4=B6=C4=81= y, Yab=C4=81=C4=B7=C5=AB and Basm=C3=AFl who each have "their own language but= they also know Turkic well". According to the anonymous Mudjmal al-taw=C4=81r=C4=ABkh, 421= , the "P=C4=81dish=C4=81h of the Tat=C4=81r is called symwn bywy h.y=C4=81r". ... With the overthrow of the Liao, the Tatars were forced to send hostages to the Djur=C4=8Den/Chin who supplanted the =E1=B8=B2itan. There t= hen began a complex relationship with the Chin in which the Tatars until ca. 1190 alternately policed the Mongolian steppes for them or themselves revolted against =E1=B8=8Ej=CC=B2ur=C4=8Den overlordship. At thi= s time, they were located south of the Mongol tribe/union in Northeastern Mongolia. Rash=C4=ABd D=C4=ABn, i, 159 ff. ed. Kar=C4=ABm=C4=AB, i, 57 ff., in an ext= ensive report on them, mentions two Tatar habitats, one on the B=C5=AByir Nor and the other on the Angara (=E2=80=9CAn=C4=B7=C5=ABra=E2=80=9D) river in South Sib= eria, the latter a memento, perhaps, of an earlier alliance with the =C4=B6i=CC=8Arghi=CC=8Az = (on this, see Klja=C5=A1tornyj, Das Reich, 76). They were reportedly a bellicose, strife-ridden people famous for fighting with knives (k=C4=81rd-zan=C4=AB),= who possessed a land rich in silver. Although =E2=80=9Can =C4=ABl {Enc. of Isla= m II "Il" : << In Persia the word was used of =E2=80=9Ctribesfolk=E2=80=9D (syno= nym: ulus [q.v.]}, having a quasi-Arabic plural =C4=ABl=C4=81t [q.v.]. >>} and a subj= ect people who paid tribute to the P=C4=81dish=C4=81hs of Khat=C4=81y=E2=80=9D,= they frequently rebelled. Had they been more constant in their unity, he maintains, =E2=80=9Cthe other tribes of the Khat=C4=81ys and others would have had no = success in resisting them=E2=80=9D. Nonetheless, they were more often than not victorious over their neighbours. As a consequence of their grandeur (`izzat) and magnificence (h.ashmat), other tribes "made themselves famous with their name and are all called Tat=C4=81r". Herein, as Rash=C4= =ABd D=C4=ABn notes, i, 163, lies the origin of the widespread usage of this name as a general designation of the Mongol-speaking tribes and others of the =C4=8Cinggisid era. He further remarks that the name "Mugh=C5=ABl (Mongol) spread in much the same fashion", and names (i, 165) six Tatar tribes divided into three groupings: T=C5=ABt=C5=AB=C4=B7l=C4=ABy=C5= =ABt and K=C5=ABy=C4=ABn, Al=C4=8Di and Tar=C4=81t, =C4=8Cagh=C4=81n and Bar=C4=B7=C5=ABy, with the T=C5=ABt=C5= =AB=C4=B7l=C4=ABy=C5=ABt (< Turk. tutu=C4=B7, a title of Chinese origin + Turk suffix -l=C3=AF + Mong. pl. -ut), having the highest standing. ... In May-June 1196, =C4=8Cinggis Kh=C4=81n and his allies attacked the Tat=C4=81rs, who had now fallen afoul of the Chin, and came away with great booty for "at that time the Tat=C4=81r tribes were the most blessed with bounty (mun`amtar=C4=ABn) and wealthiest (mutamawwiltar) of all those who live in the steppe". In 1202, at a battle near the Khalkha river, the Mongols utterly routed the Tat=C4=81rs. =C4=8Cinggis Kh=C4=81n, as a consequence of= their long-standing hatred, "ordered that they be completely slaughtered and not one be left alive to the extent that the yasa=C4=B7 allows, that women and little ones also be killed and the bellies of pregnant women be torn asunder completely. No one was permitted to give them sanctuary" (Rash=C4=ABd D=C4=ABn, i, 172-3, 175). Many Tat=C4=81rs, however= , had intermarried with Mongols and in this way sizeable numbers survived and not a few of their descendants later became important personages in the =C4=8Cinggisid empire. Rash=C4=ABd D=C4=ABn, i, 189, mentions among = others Abish=C4=B7a (Abusha Noyan of Perso-Turkish sources), a descendant of a Tat=C4=81r orphan taken in by one of =C4=8Cinggis Kh=C4=81n=E2=80=99s Tatar= wives, who ruled R=C5=ABm, and his nephew, Bektut, was the commander of the =C4=B6ar=C4=81= =C5=ABnas, the Turco-Mongol group found in the region of Transoxania and Afgh=C4=81nist=C4= =81n in the 7th-8th/13th-14th cenuries. (P.B. Golden) >> BTW Rashiduddin treats the =C3=96ngg=C3=BCd seperately from the =C4=8Cagh= =C4=81n (=3D "white" in mongolic) Tat=C4=81rs. evidnetly the Tatars themsleves and the Chinese were at odds as to the identity of the "White Tatars". NB << As a consequence of their grandeur (`izzat) and magnificence (h.ashmat), other tribes "made themselves famous with their name and are all called Tat=C4=81r". Herein, as Rash=C4=ABd D=C4=ABn notes, i, 163, = lies the origin of the widespread usage of this name as a general designation of the Mongol-speaking tribes and others of the =C4=8Cinggisid era. He further remarks that the name "Mugh=C5=ABl (Mongol) spread in much the same fashion", ... >> > > [...]- Enc. of Islam I "Tatar" (c. 1931) says: << TATAR, written Tat=C4=81r, T=C4=81t=C4=81r and Tatar, the name of a people = the significance of which varies in different periods. Two Tatar groups of tribes, the "thirty Tatars" and the "Nine Tatars", are mentioned in the Turkish Orkhon inscriptions of the eight century A. D. As Thomsen (inscriptions de l'Orkhon, Helsingfors 1896, p. 140) supposes, even at this date the name was applied to the Mongols or a section of them but not to a Turkish people; according to Thomsen, these Tatars lived southwest of Baikal roughly as far as Kerulen. With the founding of the empire of the Kitai [see =C4=B6ARA KHITAI] the Turks were driven out of modern Mongolia and Mongol tribes took their place. The district of =C3=9Ct=C3=BCken, continually mentioned in the Orkhon inscriptions as the dwelling-place of the Turks, lay, according to Mah.m=C5=ABd al-Kashgh=C4=81= r=C4=AB in his time (second half of the vth =3D xith century), in the land of the Tatars. That the language of the Tatars was different from Turkish was known to Mah.m=C5=ABd al-Kashgh=C4=81r=C4=AB (op. cit. i. 30). A number of = Tatar clans had joined with Turkish peoples and had moved westwards. In the anonymous H.ud=C5=ABd al-`=C4=80lam (cf. Zap. x 121 sqq.) the Tatars are described as part of the Tughuzghuz [cf. GHUZZ] (cf. W. Barthold, Ot=C4=8Det o poiezdkie v Srednuyu Aziyu, St. Petersburg 1897, p. 34), by Gard=C4=ABz=C4=AB (op. cit. p. 82 sq.) as part of the Kim=C3=A4k [q.v.] on = the Irtish [q.v.]. In the anonyumous Mudjmil al-Taw=C4=81r=C4=ABkh (c. 520 =3D 1126), = in the list of titles of rulers (in Barthold, Turkestan, i 20), is given a Tatar ruler S=C4=ABm=C5=ABn buy=C5=ABy (or b=C4=ABw=C4=AB ?) djay=C4=81r, n= owhere else mentioned. In the reports of Sul=C5=A3=C4=81n Muh.ammad b. Takash [see KHw=C4=80RIZM SH= =C4=80H] against the =C4=B6=C3=AFpca=C4=B7 [q.v.] is mentioned a campaign by him in 615 (121= 8-1219) against =C4=B6ad=C3=AFr Kh=C4=81n, son of Tat=C4=81r Y=C5=ABsuf (=C5=A2aba= =C4=B7=C4=81t-i N=C4=81sir=C4=AB, transl. Raverty, 1881, i. 267) . In the accounts of the Mongol conquests of the viith (xiiith) centruy the conquerors are everywhere (in China, in the Muslim world, in Russia and Western Europe) called Tatars (Chin. Ta-ta); the same name is given in Ibn al-Ath=C4=ABr (ed. Tornberg, xii. 178 sq., 236 sq.) to the predecessors of =C4=8Cingiz Kh=C4=81n, the Naiman under K=C3=BC=C4=8Dl= =C3=BCk [see =C4=B6ARA KHITAI]; according to Ibn al-Ath=C4=ABr (op. cit., p 237), these were the "first Tatars" (al-Tatar al-=C5=ABl=C4=81). Rash=C4=ABd al-D=C4=ABn who kne= w nothing of the use and dissemination of the word Tatar before the Mongol period, speaks of the Tatars as if they were a seperate people distinct from the Mongols, whose main centre had been the country on the Buir Nor (S.E. of Kerulen). After the conquests of =C4=8Cingiz Kh=C4=81n many of the people subdued by him had, says Rash=C4=ABd al-D=C4=ABn, adopted the name "Mogh=C5=ABl" (Mongol); the Tatars previously had been equally powerful; many peoples had been so called; therefore "in Khitai, Hind=C5=ABst=C4=81n, =C4=8C=C4=ABn, M=C4=81=C4=8Din, among the Kirghiz, in Kel=C4=81r (Poland), B=C4=81sh=C4=B7= ird (Hungary), in the steppes (dasht) of =C4=B6ip=C4=8Da=C4=B7, lands among the Beduins, in S= yria, Egypt and in the Maghrib, all the Turkish peoples are to this day called T=C4=81t=C4=81r" (text ub Trud=C3=AF. Vost. Otd. Arkh. Obsh=C4=8D., = vii. 64). The peoples of Mongol origin and language had apparently always called themselves Tatar. After the time of =C4=8Cingiz Kh=C4=81n, this word= was completely supplanted in Mongolia and Central Asia by the word "Mongol" (in the Muslim manuscripts Moghol or Mogh=C5=ABl and in every day language of the descendants of the Mongols in Afgh=C4=81nist=C4=81n, who ha= ve kept their language to the present day, Moghol), officially introduced by =C4=8Cingiz Kh=C4=81n. In the most western parts of the Mongol empire, t= he word Mongol never became predominant, although it was introduced there officially, as we know from European travellers (John of Pian de Carpini and William of Rubruck; Hackl. Soc., 1905, Index s.v. Mongol and Tatar). The people of the kingdom of the Golden Horde [see B=C4=80T=C5= =AA KH=C4=80N and BERKE] and of the later minor kingdoms in the same region are always called "Tatar". As the many documents preserved in the Public Library in Leningrad show, the Turkish speaking peoples of the Crimea were not only called "Tatar" by the Ottomans (as by the Russians) but also called themselves Tatars. ... Later in Russia and in Western Europe we find the name Tatars applied to allthe Turkish peoples with the exception of the Ottomans; this use of the word is still found in Radloff, Aus Sibirien, Leipzig 1884, passim. After the example of the Chinese, the name has been extended to the Mongols also and especially the Manchus (cf. the "Tatar town" in Peking). As the name of a particular people, the word Tatars is used only for the Turkish speaking people of the Volga basin to Astrakhan, the Crimea, and a part of Siberia; in the printed list (spisok) of the year 1927 of the peoples of the Union of Soviets, the Tatars in the Crimea, the Tatars of the Volga, the Tatars of Kasimow [q.v.] and the Tatars of Tobolsk are given as seperate peoples, in addition to the Tatars of White Russia whose ancestors were deported to Poland as prisoners from the Crimea. They have adopted the language of the White Russians but have remained faithful to Isl=C4=81m. ... (W. BARTHOLD) >> IMO Tat=C4=81r is the correct vocalization, as Kasghari uses little spelling conventions and tries to give vowel length accurately. it is obvious from the above that they were originaly a mongolic people, in close contact with various turkic people. the qypchaq speaking modern Tatars have only the name in common with the Tatars in the Kimek confederation. this is what "Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire" Copyright 2004 by Christopher P. Atwood has to say under the entry "Tatars": << The tribal name Tatar served successively as a name for the nomads of Mongolia as a whole, for a Mongolia-speaking tribe in the HULUN BUIR area, for the Mongol conquerors as a whole, and for the Turkish- speaking Muslim peoples in the Russian Empire. The Tatar name first appears in the K=C3=BCl-Tegin inscription of 731, in which the "Thirty Tatars" and the "Nine Tatars" are grouped with various peoples as enemies of the T=C3=BCrks (see T=C3=9CRK EMPIRES). The Tatars seem to have been east of the T=C3=BCrks' central Mongolian heartland, perhaps in the area east abd southeast of LAKE BAIKAL, in what would later be the Mongol heartland. The Tatars next appear around 842, when they submitted to the Kyrgyz Empire based in southern Siberia (modern Khakassia). After the decline of the unstable Kyrgyz Empire, the Tatars flourished. They appear regularly in the Chinese records as "Dadan" (derived from Tatar) and also in Persian and Islamic records. Ibn al-Athir described the Tatars and KITANS in 1043 as the only nomads untouched by Islam. Around the same time Mahmud Kashghari, the Turkish lexicographer, described the Tatars as people who speak their own language but "also know Turkish." This presumably indicates that the Tatar were Mongolic speaking. By this time the Kitan Liao dynasty in North China and Manchuria had established its dominance over the MONGOLIAN PLATEAU. In 942 Kitan armies attacked and defeated several branches of the "Tatars," a term that the Kitan inscriptions used for a wide variety of nomadic peoples of Mongolia. Sources based on Mongol oral history, however, use the term Tatar only for a particular tribe in the Hulun Buir area of northeast Inner Mongolia. The Tatars, even in this narrow sense, numbered 70,000 households according to RASHID-UD-DIN FAZL-ULLAH. The tribe was divided into various clans, such as the Chagha'an (White) Tatar, the Alchi Tatar, the Tutuqlu'id (Chiefly) Tatar. The JIN DYNASTY in Nort China enrolled the Tatars as j=C3=BCyin, or border auxilaries, recieving subsidies from the dynasty in return for joining Jin attacks on hostile tribes, especially the MONGOL TRIBE to their west. At times, however, the Tatars would threaten the Jin themselves and had to be attacked. Rashid-ud-Din describes the Tatars as courageous and savage wrriors, like the Kurds and the Frankish Crusaders; if they had been united, they would have been irresistable. Economically, the Tatars seem to have benefited from their relations with the Jin Dynasty. The children of Tatar chiefs had silver cradels, gold nose rings, gold- embroidered silk clothes, and pearl-encrusted quilts. The Mongol chiefs, by contrast, were reduced to wooden stirrups and arrows of bone. Apart from their internal feuds, the Tatars fought repeatedly against the Mongol tribe and the KEREYID Khanate. ... ... Later, YIS=C3=9CGEI BA'ATUR, another Mongol chief, was poisened by a party of Tatars when coming home from the camp of his son's betrothed Qonggirad bride. This son, Tem=C3=BCjin (later CHINGGIS KHAN), was himself named after a captive Yis=C3=BCgei had taken from the Tatars in battle. Chinngis Khan thus inherited the traditional Mongol feud with the Tatars. Not until 1196, however, did Chinggis Khan get an opportunity for revenge. ... Later, the Tatars under Jalin-Buqa of the Alchi Tatar, supported Chinggis Khan's rival, JAMUGHA, who was enthroned as a rival to Chinggis in 1201. Chinggis Khan dispersed this coalition and in autumn 1202 launched a campaign of annihilation against four major Tatar clans. The Mongols were victorious, and Chinggis Khan, remembering the long Mongol feud, decreed that all Tatars taller than an linch pole would be slaughtered and the children enslaved. When the Tatars learned of this decision, they organized for a desperate last stand but were destroyed, and the sentence carried out. The Tatars disapeared as a corporate tribal body. When the Mongols conquered Eurasia, Muslim and Chinese writers continued to call all the nomads of the Mongolian plateau Tatars, as they had since the 10th century. In western Europe this unfamilair name was distorted further to "Tartar"; medieval writers punned that the name was appropriate for a savage people from Tartarus (that is, hell). The Chinese envoy Zhao Gong reported that in 1220s the Mongols still accepted this term for themsleves. The Mongols, however, soon came to object to this term and insisted that they be called Mongols. Eventually the term Tatar went out of useamong writers subject to the MOngols, but it continued to be used by Indians, Arabs, Russians and Europeans. Through the Russian use of this term the people of the Turco-Islamic successor states of the GOLDEN HORDE came to refer to themselves as Tatars, although only a few leading families were of Mongol descent. Despite the extermination of the Tatar tribe, a surprising number of Tatars achieved high offfice in the later MONGOL EMPIRE. ... Even so, the Tatars never again achieved independenant influence, and the clan name Tatar is currently found among the MOnggoljin in southeastern Inner Mongolia. >> from the above articles one may conclude that: 1. the original Tatars were a mongolic tribe. 2. they were intermingling with Turkic people or were subject to them. 3. the name "Tatar" was generalized to most nomadic mongolic people. 4. with the ascendancy of the Mongol tribe, this was replaced by the Mongols themselves to "Mongol". 5. the original Tatar tribe was decimated by Chinggis. 6. the old generalization "Tatar" remained with the Russians, Arabs (and other muslims) and others. 7. the western Mongols became turkified and their Turkic subjects were called "Tatar" by Russians (and also by muslims) 8. the successor states of the Golden Horde were completely turkified, the Russians still called them "Tatars". 9. this name was adopted by the Qypchaq Turkic people of the successor states of the Golden Horde by themselves. 10. that the original Tatars and Qypchaq were in the Kimek union, and that later there appears people by the name of "Tatar" Qypchaq speaking groups is purely coincidence. a somewhat different interpretation is given by K. Menges in "Turkic Languages and Peoples ..." (2nd ed.) "B. History of their migrations" p. 37: {I had to change some of the phonetic characters for ease of typing and viewing, the topic of discussion is the present Turkic peoples} << It was under the realm of the Golden Horde the realm of the Golden Horde that the Tatars and the No=CE=B3ajs came into their later habitat. Both names are of Mongolian origin. No=CE=B3aj goes back to Mongolian noqaj, noxaj =3D "dog", probably since the dog was the totem of the Mongolian tribal groups which originally bore that name.. The name of the Tatars first appears in the Orxon inscriptions: the K=C3=BCl-Tegin monument only mentions the Otuz-Tatar ("Thirty Tatars"), while in the Chinese texts the Tatars, D.a-t`an ..., D.a-D.a ..., do not occur before 842, which is quite late. In the Dynastic Annals of the Qyta=C5=88 and =C7=AE=C3=BCr=C4=8Den their name is rarely found. In its place Czu-b.u = ..., Czu- p`u ..., are used, a term which resembles the Tibetan designation for the Mongols, Sogbo. The Tatars were originally and basically a Mongolian tribal confederation of major importance among =C4=8Ci=C5=8Bgis Qa=CE=B3an'= s tribes. Later on, after the Mongolian campaigns up to the Volga basin, the Turkic groups, which had come with and after the Mongolian armies, were assigned to the Mongolian Tatar tribe, and therefore assumed this name as their overall designation-a reccurrent feature of the tribal history of Eurasia. The Tatars were distinguished by region into those of Qazan, Astraxan, the Crimea, Q=C4=81simov-Me=C5=A1=C4=8Dersk, and Wester= n Siberia. The Tatars centered in and around the former realm of the Volga- Bulgarians, on the estuary of the Volga and on the northern approaches to the Crimea. The No=CE=B3ajs seem to have originated from a tribal group under =C3=84m=C4=ABr No=CE=B3aj of the Golden Horde (1280?-1299), who was a descendant of =C7=AEo=C4=8Di-X=C4=81n; down to the 19th century they lived = all over the Ponto-Caspian steppes between Caspian and the Dobru=C7=AFa. ... >> the interesting part is: << Later on, after the Mongolian campaigns up to the Volga basin, the Turkic groups, which had come with and after the Mongolian armies, were assigned to the Mongolian Tatar tribe, and therefore assumed this name as their overall designation-a reccurrent feature of the tribal history of Eurasia. >> However, the primary sources available to me, and the secondary sources I quoted do not mention this and seem to contradict it. nevertheless it is an intriguing theory, though I am inclined to reject it. Menges was a linguist, not a historian. there are other problems with the above passage: - I believe the name "Tatar" to be of Turkic origin, from "tat", as I had explained in the previous post quoted here. - first it says that the Noghay were named after a tribe that had a dog as their totem, and then he says (correctly) they were named so because of a Chinggisid prince named Noghay. - he says that the Tatars were an important part of Chinggis's confederation, whereas they were his enemies that he decimated. only a handful of survivors and their descendants became prominant. - Chinggis never took the title Qaghan, he is never so called by Rashiduddin. he is called Khan, and that is only attested in his own time by some Transoxanian coins in arabic script. nevertheless, Rahiduddin implies that the office became that of a Qaghan (pronounced and written in pero-arabic script Qa'an): {in the beginning of the chapter on =C3=96g=C3=B6d=C3=A4i Qa= 'an, first so called, son of Genghis Khan}: << After Genghis Khan had tested his sons and discovered for what each of them was suited, he had some hesitation over the throne and office of qa'an. ...>> Other posts:
• MURDER, CHILD RAPE,
HUMAN SACRIFICE COMMANDED IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE (Links)
• IMAGE PORTRAYS A MUSLIM http://tinyurl.com/y9a2yp6 • YOG AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE MEANING OF 108 *** Jai Maharaj posts • Synchronic analysis of "rare"? • Did "awful" use to mean "awsome" • the name "Tatar" (was: Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell) • Phrase Detectives • bede and bead • falling in love • John Adams accents • BHARAT MAP DURING RAMAYAN TIMES; MAP OF SHREE RAM'S TRAVEL THROUGH THE FORESTS |