arshba.ru

1st millennium BC

Turanians — in Zoroastrianism, the name for nomadic peoples inhabiting the Eurasian steppe. In the "Avesta" they are called "tūra" ("tūr") or "Tur with swift horses". They are contrasted with settled Iranian farmers. The struggle between Turan and Iran occupies a central place in the Avesta. Turanians (tura) 3,000 years ago, at the time of the formation among the steppe tribes of the economic structure of nomadic transhumance pastoralism, began to be called representatives of this (then completely new) type of economic activity. And the first to give the "Turanian name" to their nomadic neighbors (whose self-name is Sakas) was the Eastern Iranian settled population of the territory of modern Iran. In later times, Turanians were called Sakas, Massagetae, Kushans, Parthians, Hephthalites, Türküt, Karluks, and other nomadic peoples. The term designated practically all of Central Asia where these peoples lived. In Persian literature, the theme of the centuries-long confrontation between Iran and Turan is widely covered.

The origin of the Turanians is associated with the Andronovo archaeological culture, whose successors are referred to in sources as Sakas, Scythians, Massagetae, Sarmatians. In modern science, there are two versions of the origin of the Turanians. Both versions have both supporters and opponents. The first version speaks of the Aryan (Indo-European) origin of the ancient Turanians, and consequently, of their Iranian-speaking nature. The supporters of this version are Iranists. At present, it is the official one. According to the established scientific tradition, the founders of which were L. Zgusta, M. Vasmer, J. Harmatta, E. Grantovsky, and V. I. Abaev, the Turanians had Indo-European origin and spoke Eastern Iranian languages. "... we have obtained a certain sum of positive, firm, and indisputable data that cannot be shaken by any future research and discoveries. These data characterize the Scythian language as an Iranian language with features of a peculiar and well-expressed individuality," writes Iranist V. I. Abaev.

The critics of the official version are mainly supporters of the second version — Turkologists. At the same time, they quite reasonably point out that the main source for reconstructing the language and attributing it to Iranian are the personal names of the rulers of nomadic Scythians and Sarmatians, recorded by Greek and Persian authors. T. A. Mollaev in his book "A New Look at the History of the Ossetian People" writes: "The Scythian words were explained by 'Iranists' as follows: some anthroponym, ethnonym, etc., recorded in ancient written sources was taken, then a lexical unit suitable in sound was selected from Ossetian, or from other Iranian, or even from other Indo-European languages. And after that, it was considered that the lexical unit of Scythian words subjected to such comparison is translated in such and such a way from Iranian languages. In this way and with the same success, it was possible to compare lexical units of any other languages of the world with Scythian words. And after that, with some coincidence of sound, to declare Scythian words translated from these languages. Thus, the initial absence of the necessary scientific methodology, or rather, its ignorance, determined the possibility of the emergence of this theory and its penetration into historiography. The initiators of this theory were three very tendentiously minded Indo-Europeanists of the 19th century (J.G. Klaproth, K.W. Müllenhoff, V.F. Miller). Using a similar method, with some desire, any word can be etymologized from any language of the world."

The Turkologist M. Z. Zakiev also speaks about this: "The theory of the exclusive Iranian-speaking nature of all Scythian-Sarmatian tribes... seemed plausible when Iranists conducted etymological research... only on the basis of selecting words (ethnonyms) of unequivocally Iranian root... It turns out a vicious circle: archaeologists, guided by the opinion of linguists, attribute archaeological cultures of the Scythian and Sarmatian period to Iranian-speaking tribes, and Iranist linguists, to confirm their theory, refer to the conclusions of archaeologists."

And Yu. N. Drozdov: "In accordance with the concept of modern historical science, all these (Scythian) tribes are considered Iranian-speaking (more correctly, Persian-speaking). Moreover, this point of view has acquired the status of a stable axiom... A number of scientists and specialists have been convincingly asserting for quite a long time that all Scythian-Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-speaking."

In support of their version, Turkologists cite a number of arguments. One of the outstanding archaeologists, Gordon Childe, for example, speaks of the correspondence of the Scythian burial rite described by Herodotus with the rites of the Altai peoples: "Many researchers believe that the Scythians were Iranians. Linguistic data, which are limited to a few proper names, mainly of later times, are not very convincing... The study of their burial rite acquires decisive importance for the ethnic identification of the Scythians. It differs greatly from the rite that was inherent in Iranians or Indians, as well as any other Indo-European people. These customs are described by Herodotus, their traces have been found in the excavation of many mounds, but they are completely non-Aryan. They find exact correspondences among the nomads of Mongolia."

In addition, it is noted that there is a very definite archaeological complex of steppe peoples, primarily under-mound burials in wooden frames, burials with horses, etc., which in the archaeological materials of the steppe belt of Eurasia are quite clearly linked by continuity with the culture of indisputably Turkic peoples. The beginning of this continuity goes back at least to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. The well-known archaeologist and historian Alexander Natanoivich Bernshtam also wrote about the Turkic-speaking nature of the Tien Shan Sakas, who also noted: "Tracing through archaeological monuments the history of the development of nomadic societies and revealing the autochthonous process of their development, we come to the conclusion that where, starting from the Bronze Age, the process of the formation of nomadic society took place, there the final result of the process was Turkic ethnogenesis."

Consequently, supporters of the "Turkic concept" identify Central Asia with the legendary, epic toponym Turan, mentioned in Iranian-language sources, and, based on the phonetic proximity of the ethnic ("turk" — Turk, Turkic) and geographical (Turan) designations, localize one of the ancestral homelands of the Turks in Central Asia. The Persian author Ferdowsi, who conveyed to us the ancient Iranian epic, identifies the concepts of "Tur" and "Turk", being a native speaker of Persian, does not recognize "Iranian-speaking" for the Turanians. This continues to be ignored by modern Iranists. In Ferdowsi's book "Shahnameh", the borders of the country of the Turs are clearly shown, it is said that Tur received "Turan to the limits of Chin" as his possession. This understanding gave reason to believe that Turan is the entire steppe zone of Kazakhstan, and accordingly, the entire zone that in the Middle Ages was also inhabited by Turkic tribes. As evidence, in addition to the fact that all the names and ethnoterms mentioned in Greek and Persian sources have been deciphered by Turkologists, in particular M. Z. Zakiev based on the Turkic language, both archaeological data are cited: features of the burial rite, material culture found in burials (the oldest spoked cart, felt products, ornamentation, remains of horses, weapons, etc.), and information about spiritual culture, descriptions of habits, customs, relationships left by various ancient authors, their analysis, comparison of information and territory of settlement, comparison with information about medieval Turks.

VARIANT NAMES: Greek Τουρανούς, Russian Turantsy, Avestan tūra.


Sources:

Ethnogenesis of the Abkhazians. D.A. Arshba, 2015