The doctored history of the Turks or 'Epistulae virorum obscurorum'

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jun 18, 2009 at 16:24

Dear Glafira,

Thank you very much for your long and interesting comment. I understand that Suleymanov's book has impressed you deeply. But let me tell you why I think you should not be so easily impressed and should rather critically re-consider your too hasty agreement with him.

>>I have briefly done it. Prehistory knows no Turks. They emerge for the first time around B.C.300 as Hiung-Nu in Chinese documents. They stand on a very low level of civilizations. Due to internecine war , population pressures part of them migrates westwards and around A.D. 375 emerges as the Huns on the Volga. Around the Altai mountains the other primitive Turks undergo heavy influences from higher Iranian cultures from where they borrow most civilizatory vocabulary and their first Iranian alphabet which they use to write their oldes written monuments - the Orkhon and Yenissei inscriptions... Lev Gumilev is one of the most outstanding Turkologists. I'd suggest for every Turk to read him first before turning to the powerful ignoramus and obscurantist Kemal Pasha and inspecting his pseudo-historical forgeries and lullabies."<<

>This argument is really out-of-date, whether one likes it or not. The studies show that the Turk civilization is maybe (with high possibility) as old as Sumeric and Egyptian ones.<

What do you mean by 'civilization' if I may ask you ? A pair of fishermen's and hunters' huts and tents seem to be far removed from what we associate with the Nile valley or on the lower Tigris and Euphrates in the 3^rd -2^nd millenia A.D.

There is an interesting article on the oldest pre-Turkic 'civilization' as reconstructed on the basis of the Altaic languages by A.V. Dybo from the Languistics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He finds out that i.al. :

"6. The pre-Altaic economy was predominantly based upon season pasturing or season hunting and herding. There are terms related to the horse and horse-riding . Agriculture was of lesser importance. The main tool was sort of a wooden hoe (possibly used also to unearth edible wild roots.

11. Nomadic character is more clearly stressed in the lexicography of pre-Altaic. There is no way to infer the 'wheel' given the pre-Altaic thesaurus which is quite different from pre-Indo-European.

12. There are no words for clan settlements and inner structuring in them. ...There are no terms for the palace or house of the ruler or temple.

15. ..there is no special term for a sword , just for sorts of knives

16. The religious notions contain names for shamans , ghosts and shamanic rites ...which makes it so different from Indo-European with its richly ramified pre-Indo-European mythology."

And you repeat Suleymanov's to make us believe that this primitive people who knew no wheel, had a very primitive social structure, poor and innumerous religious concepts gave birth to Sumer and Egypt with their superb achievements in all fields of intellect and technology and administration ?

> Bona fide linguists and turkologists admit now that one can weightily talk about Pre-Turks in Pre-History. By the way, such is the name of one of the exceptional linguistic studies by Mr. Suleymenov, Olzhas.<

How about the Turkologist whom I quoted above? Would you call him 'mala fide' as his linguistic conclusions seem to collide with Suleymanov's ?

>The relationship between Sumeric language and Turkish one is obvious enough.<

For whom ? For Ataturk and his followers? It's well-known all Turks do it for political reasons. They all depend on state financing and so do their contract.

I have never seen any serious Assyriologist uphold this thesis. Is Suleymanov an Assyriologist by the way ?

Can't you see the impossibility of the relationship given the above facts ? How can the pre-Turks produce Sumerian if they were on such a low level of civilization ? Who created Sumerian myths if pre-Turks had none ? Who gave them wheel ? The pre-Turks had none. Who cretaed the Sumerian city-state and later kingship unknown to pre-Turks? ... etc. , etc. , etc.

> Anyway, I would not refer and trust to Chinese sources due to the well known fact that each their dynasty or ruling house falsified the history to the benefit of the current ruler.It's the common tendency in written history, of which the historians are aware.<

Now, may I draw your attention to the sad fact that what you say does apply fully to history written by Turks which is all official history with all the unwelcome and vicious implications of the fact ?

Now I understand that Chinese dystastic historians could have had much interest to pervert internal Chinese history to glorify the winners and vilify the losers in civil wars, explain away misgovernment, corruption blaming the predecessors. This is routinely done everywhere and the target group is inernal. In that case the Chinese educated circles, officials, poets, Confucian schoalrs, public opinion, the military. Now tell me what interest could they have to falsify things about Turks? Who should be duped ? The poor illiterate nomad and his Chinese slaves ? The great Turkic hordesmen who practised human sacrifices, were dirty and primitive and always lurking to rob some Chinese goods ?

You come up with your statement that in fact the Chinese were so cunning and vicious that they wanted to deceive their readers after two thousand years and more ? ...

' The Chinese falsified Turkic history. Where they saw great progressive learned monarchs and their academias they represented ugly predators and robbers.' Isn't it what you are driving at by implying the Chinese "falsified" ancient Turkic history while today's biased and state-sponsored Turks rectify it ? Aren't you asking for too much, dear Glafira ?

Take a sober glance at the known and not imaginary Turkic history. All peoples that came in touch with early Turks – Hiung-Nu, Patzinaks or Kumans or Seldjuks - describe the same primitive backward and predatory horde with savage customs. Even up to Kemal's 'reform' the literary Osmanli language had nothing good to tell about "Turks". To uphold your irrational view of the Turkish "civilization" you have to reject and vilify all the innumerable and consistent accounts and documents about what the Turk really represented and what level of civilization they were on and invent obscure and unsubstantiated 'theories' and 'theses'.

So who falsifies what?

> Nevertheless, everything goes on and things develop, as we know.

Develop or regress ...Let's not confuse garbling with history or re-writing history with developing it. Turks are master falsifiers. They exterminated 1,5 mln Armenians, 1 mln Greeks and many other nations and it's unthinkable for a Turk to admit the well-known facts of history. Even on this forum you'll find Turks who rational as they may at first glance turn into irrational lie machines the moment the question of Turkishness and Turkish past is raised in a critical light. I warn you against accepting what the Turks tell you, dear friend.

> If Mr.Suleymenov's books are widely translated into English, everyone could follow his fascinating investigations and agree with most conclusions, including one that derives the Hebrew language from pre-Turkish one…

Agree? Are you sure of what you're writing about ? Isn't Suleymanov's 'conclusion' a direct emanation of the mad Turkish Sun Language Theory or the theory that Jews are in fact Khasars?

A few line above you stated 'Sumerian is Turkic". Now you state "Hebrew is Turkish"...Go on! Ataturk said 'Hittite was Turkic', didn't he? So hire a Turkish professor and he'll 'prove' 'Hittite is indeed Turkic'... And Russian ? Isn't it Turkic too? Well...Let's take Turkish 'yemek" ...In Russian it is "yest'...So can't we conclude Russian is also Turkic ?

> Neither Mr.Suleymenov, no (moreover) me intends to offend Jewish people (I'm partially Jewish myself) – he just tries to objectively analyze the things.

"Objectively"? Are you sure about that? Isn't he trying to substantiate the pre-conceived Pan-Turkic nonsense invented by Mr. Gazi Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ?

>I trust his argumentation because he is almost the only one linguist in the world who knows equally in depth both Slavic and Turk etymology.<

Dear Glafira, you don't trust Chinese historians and scholars who had no need to falsify anything about the barbarains that made life for Chinese border provinces so difficult and yet you trust a Turk who has no interest whatsoever to face and admit all the negative scientific doucmentation on Turks.How can a person with your intellect be so easily hoodwinked? Look at the website I have referred to or google for more sites on your own. I think Russians have the best specialists in the field of Altaic studies and Turcology. You'll find fine material in Russian on the subject without the ideological political bias and erratic ideas Suleymanov fas fallen victim to or is intentionally promoting. Compare things and then make your conclusions.

>I would recommend in this regard the brief introductory materials from the International conference "First Great Migrations", which was held in Paris last year. (http://www.firstgreatmigrations.org/index.php). The profound studies are made by researches from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Universities, US. I would also recommend another Mr. Suleymenov's fundamental work "Language of writing" (I'm not sure whether it's available in English and Turkish. There, you would found out that the name of the ancient Egyptian god Osiris derives from the pre-Turk "eus" (soft "o"), though just like the modern Turkish "os", which means "grow" in ALL Turk languages (with this or that phonetic options). And, following the language logics, "Osiris" means "one which grows" or very close to that.<

Thanks for your recommendations and ample use of laudatory phrases including the name of the excellent universities.Yet, you could hardly find a greater contrast between your recommendations and the ridiculous examples given. I couldn't help laughing seeing this ointed nonsense by Suleymanov's being sold as scientific knowledge. Your greatest expert on Slavonic and Turkish seems to stand in a desperate need of the most basic Epytological education.

"Orisis" is a Greek adaptation of the Egyptian word which in Copyic (another Turkic dialect?) is Asar(i) (seat-maker)

It seems though to come from Old Egyptian 'w'sr' (we don't know the vowels ) with the emaning 'mighty'. Asari , Greek Osiris, is 'the Mighty One'. Can you find the slightest hint at it in Suleymanov's magnum opus ?)

> In modern Kazakh, for example, they still say "osir" when want to use the imperative form of Indefinite "os": "Osir" a tree and it will give you a shade when you suffer from the sun….<

Evidently the Kasakhs existed before the Greeks if they gave this word to the Greeks in Naucratis who heard it directly from the Egyptians.

>And the pre-Turkish "Pir" gave the rich roots (directly or indirectly) in a lot of languages:

Isn't it found also in today's Turkish 'pire' 'flea' ?

>As everybody knows now, the Olympus Mountain from ancient Greek mythology is located in modern Turkey, not far from Kemer resort, and not in Greece.

As everybody should know Olympus in Mysia is one of at least 19 mountains bearing that name in antquity including Mysian, Paphlagonian, Lycian and Cyprus Olympus. The gods were living on Olympus in Northern Greece though.

The Osman jihadists occupied Mysian Olymus at the beginning of the 14^th c. A.D.

> One of Mr.Suleymenov's versions is that the tradition of Olympic Games originates in those times when the pre-Turks or other ethnos who perceived their culture, used to elect in such way their Head (of kin, kingship, etc.).

"Versions" ? I'd call it "fairy tales"... See above on the lack of terms for kingship and king's palace in pre-Altaic.

Olympic games which I am afraid you may be confused about originated in Western Peloponnesus in the city of Olympia in ancient Elis in B.C. 776. They were purely Hellenic events where no barbarians were admitted.

>According to Mr.Suleymenov, Olymp is from "Olym" and "Pir/Pyr", which meant "Dead Lord"…

Looks like his "Osiris" etymology! No proof and much wishful thinking! This reminds of his great master's Ataturk's "etymology" of 'Niagara' from 'Ne yayagara!" (What tumult) and 'Amazon' from "Ama uzun" (But it's long!;)

> When the Head left this world, his tribe or people arranged the competition to reveal the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc. guy…who then was elected as a Pir. Again, in Kazakh, they still say "ol" for "die". He "oldy" - he died, he's gone.

There were no Kazakhs or Turks in Asia Minor before A.D. c.1050. And the arguments here are infantile . This way you can prove that Turks gave the word 'old' to the English language as 'old' and 'dead' are so closely asociated.

It's well known that historical Turks e.g. Kumans used to sacrifice humans at the death of their leaders.

"Pir" also gave "bir" (one, first – in Turksigh languages), "pervy" (the same meaning in all Slavic languages) and ….

Another drivel ! The Russian word "первый" has a well-established Indo-European etymology.

Compare also Max Fassmer's , 'Etymological dictionary of the Russian language' to see the impossibility of the proposed etymology.

>"Pharaoh" as "The First, the Highest" (between others).

He makes a fool of us again. The etymology is quite different and well-established.

"The term pharaoh ultimately was derived from a compound word represented as pr-'3, used only in larger phrases such as smr pr-'3 'Courtier of the High House', with specific reference to the buildings of the court or palace itself.^[3] From the twelfth dynasty onward the word appears in a wish formula 'Great House, may it live, prosper, and be in health', but again only with reference to the royal palace and not the person.

The earliest instance where pr-'3 is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) in the mid-eighteenth dynasty (1550-1292 BC) which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!"

>Some Iranian dialects still have this word with the same meaning – Master, Lord. One also can meat this word in Persian fairy tales.<

And as far as I know 'pir' in the meaning implied is a loanword in Turkish (until Kemal's language re-making more than 80% of words in Turkish were non-Turkish at all) from Persian where 'pir' means 'elder','master', 'prior'. While it disappeared in cleansed Turkish it survived in dialects. This word like a plethora of others was borrowed by Turkic speakers from Persian or Chinese (Trkic words for 'silver' (gumush) , gold (aldin) and iron(demir) are of Chinese origin). They borrowed also the Sogdian alphabet, names of domestic animals and plenty of other civilizatory terms and contrary to what the Turks are commanded by the anti-scientific Turkish propaganda machine to 'demonstrate' nowadays.

> The famous Norwegian traveler and researcher Tur Heyerdahl was droved also by this breathtaking possibility of pre-Turks drift from Asia to Americas.

It must be another invention of Suleymanov's. I have never heard Heyerdahl say that rubbish of pre-Turks. And while the American legends speak of "white gods" , the ancient Turks belonged to the Mongoloid race.

>Nobody explains distinctly the origin of country name "Peru".

"The word Peru is derived from Birú, the name of a local ruler who lived near the Bay of San Miguel, Panama , in the early 16th century. When his possessions were visited by Spanish explorers in 1522, they were the southernmost part of the New World yet known to Europeans. Thus, when Francisco Pizarro explored the regions farther south, they came to be designated Birú or Peru. The Spanish Crown gave the name legal status with the 1529 Capitulación de Toledo, which designated the newly encountered Inca Empire as the province of Peru. Under Spanish rule, the country adopted the denomination Viceroyalty of Peru, which became Republic of Peru after independence."

>One can find the well-reasoned explanation of this "pir-pira-pra-per-peru, etc." etymology nest in Mr.Suleymenov's studies.

;) You call it "well-reasoned"? I call it infantile and sucking. How would you call the non-Suleymanovian etymology current in the New and Old non-Turkic World? "Anti-Turkish" ?

> Actually, Mr.Suleymenov suggested the revolutionary approach to the linguistic analysis – "etymologic nests which are deriving from pictograms and then hieroglyphs", opposite to still popular within the "old-school" narrow specialists "phonetic similarity" approach.

Another of his inventions and these insidious ideological concepts 'old school' vs. 'new approach' serve no other purpose than that of promoting his unverifiable fantasies. Turkish propaganda knows how to mislead people. His 'revolunationary' approach is nothing but linguistic Bolshevism or Turkish jihad against well-established and corroborated facts and scientifically verifiable insights. It's rather primitive and unverifiable. I know that for a Turk it is as hard to resist Turkish brain-washing as for a Moslem Islamic brain-washing. Yet what Suleymanov's does is pure pseudo-science and ( perhaps well-intentioned) falsehood in the service of Turkish racist and jingoistic worldview. If you agree with him you are forced to adopt the Turkish slogan " Turks are creators and inheritors of all civilization."

> Mr. Gumilev knew about the close relationship between Turk languages and American Indians languages, including those of Maya, Aztec, Sioux-Dacota. He mentioned in one of his work that the Turkish word/title "Quaghan" (which then transformed into "khan") is directly linked to Sioux-Dacota "Waqan".

I can't believe he made this direct etymology. Where did he say that ? Anyway, the word reminds of the Chinese 'wang' 'king'.

> As to Mr.Suleymenov's story, he knew Mr. Gumilev very closely and the last one considered him as a son for maybe 2 reason's: first, Mr.Suleymenov's father (repressed Kazakh poet) was the cellmate of Mr.Gumilev (who was also repressed as a son of "people enemy"), in prison camp in Kazakhstan. Second reason, maybe more weighty: both were the like-minded persons. Mr. Suleymenov was almost the last person whom Mr.Gumilev received before his demise. And the Great Turkologist Mr.Gumilev believed (and publicly stated this) Mr.Suleymenov the outstanding Turko-Slavic linguist.<

And what does it prove? As you can see from the above the references by Gumilev didn't prevent Suleymanov from saying sheer nonsense, being anti-scientific and engage in linguistic Bolshevism for Pan-Turkic glory. So let's leave this father-son relation to our dear Moslems and their stupid tafsirs and concentrate on common sense so that we may avoid speaking of things we are ignorant of, telling fairy tales we call 'development of science' and making fools of readers , my dear Glafira.

> I would also refer to the revolutionary works in genetics (which is more close to my educational background and current occupation), particularly in DNA genealogy and Y-chromosome haplotype analysis by American, Israel, German, Hungarian researchers – one can find them if really interested in this information. From these studies, one can learn that:

- modern Tuscans and Umbrans who partially originates from ancient Etruscan, bear the R1a haplotype group which is known as Altaic.

Or really ? Do you know what happened when the Turks arrived in Asia Minor in 1050? They raped any woman they could get hold of and so with time their Mongoloid faces were replaced by European ones. True, they souls remained as barbarian as before. But wait ... your genetic approach doesn't care much about such historically well-documented trifles ? You can see what is today and not how things came to be as they are. Am I correct ?

- Modern Ashkenazim Jewish also bear the same Altaic haplotype group and the appearance of this group in Jewish genotype is dated as early as III AD – they obviously must have had time to move from Altay to Western Asia and it means they already were a civilized ethnos by that time (latest studies say even about 7 BD, Kir's epoch, when the mixture of genetic material could take place during Median invasion into empire and further exodus of Jewish people to Judea and constructing the first City of Jerusalem – but of course, this should be investigated impartially and using the latest technology and conceptual achievements)

Well, looking at those long centuries and millenia , reading about the incredible vicissitudes of the Near East, that abyss of nations - Hittite, Assyrian, Scythian, Cymmerian, Thracian, Hunnic, Persian, Gallic ... invasions which were all invariably accompanied by mass rapes, abductions, massacres , new settlements and comparing all of it to your clever genetic blueprints and hasty conclusions, I wonder what sort of tool this genetic in fact is ? If you bear in mind what and how things happened , you can't be but very sceptical about DNA results.

-Modern Slavic people bear the Altaic haplotype group starting from about XV BD…

The long Mongolian/Tatar yoke's legacy ? Remember that last time the Tatars burned down Moscow and abducted masses of Russian slaves was in 1572.

>One should also take in account the following: the linguists already know that the Etruscan script can be deciphered with help of pre-Slavic and pre-Turk runic scripts.

Where did you read that, by Ianus the Etruscan god of gates? This is like a quote from the Quran to prove Aztecs spoke an Arabic dialect.

>Just to remind - the Etruscan scripts are dated back to VII BD…

And the Sogdian (or 'pre-Turk') which contain the first Turkic language to c. AD 700 ...all in all 1400 years and thusands of miles of difference ...How are you going to circumvent that small inconvenience of time and space ? With Suleymanov's fairy tales of pre-Turks founding every civilization and his fraudulent methodology heavily relying on his readers' ignorance ?

>Going back to Chinese source, I would, again, refer to Mr.Suleymenov's study and investigation of how pictograms developed into hieroglyphs and then alphabet.

The Chinese didn't develop alphabet. And the Turks had nothing to do with them. They got their alphabet from Sogdiana , an Iranian province.

>Chinese hieroglyphs took a lot from pre-Turk runic scripts – I'm not a professional linguist but accept the logics of argumentation here.

There are no pre-Turkic scripts. These are Eastern Iranian scripts that the Turks adopted very late. Another borrowing from a higher civilization which the Turks now impudently claim as their own.

>By the way, this was mentioned also by Dane Dr.Thompson who was the first to link the Orkhon-Yenisei petroglyphs to Turk runes.<

Sure.

>Talking about Iranians let me remind that they are the close relatives to the Slavic ethnoses – they are branches of one great Aryan tree…one can make further conclusions.<

These conclusions have long been made. Turks are late comers to the world history. Pre-history is silent on them. What linguistics and archaeology show are primitive and backward barbarians. They are destructive parasitic nomads. They didn't contribute anything to civilization. Even now the feverish efforts of Turkish propagandists to invent Turkic super-race and super-civilization are futile and anti-scientific as the above examples have demonstrated. They all show the old barbarian plundering history to occupy a place that doesn't belong to him.

To conclude, my (and not only mine, let me notice) impression is that the Turk (not just Turkish) history undergoes a crucial revision towards more ancient age and much greater influence on the human civilization in general, than it was considered earlier.<

Yes, your conclusion is right if you mean 'revisionism' in the most notorious politicised form. Now that Kemalist Turkey has embarked upon its imperial Pan-Turkic road the Turks need a historical myth to back their new imperial ambitions to create a Pan-Turkic empire at Russia's cost across Central Asia up to the Tien Shan and Altai mountains and the Upper Volga.

>As to the current battles around modern Turkish ambitions – it's just the sign of the growing Turks self-identification (this process can be observed in all Turkish-speaking countries and communities throughout the world) from one side, and the resistance to this process from that part of the world community which believes this process to be threatening to certain ethnic or/and political groups interests.<

What Enver Pasha failed to achieve making fool of the Bolsheviks to create a Pan-Turkic emirate in Turkiestan today's warlords in Ankara are trying to re-assume. They spread myths, lies and promises to attract Turkic-speaking peoples to Turkey. A bastard nation that consists of Islamized and Turkified Greeks, Slavs, Laz, and Armenians – dreams of her superior racial purity and a call from Allah to form a new Khaganate.

>What's going on is the new turn of the mankind evolution.

Now, dear Glafira , it's nothing new. It's the old reshaped story of Turkey's megalomania, imperial dreams and nostalgy, overpopulation pressures (soon Turkey will have 100 000000 inhabitants and her resources are scarce) and bloody militarism that are all driving her into a new and dangerous scramble for Turan just like in 1914.

>And it is particularly Mr.Gumilev's merit that he analyzed and substantiated the inevitability of the historic processes and the great significance of the human factor (human dignity) in them.

He developed this passionary theory which explained the upsurges of the Turkic tribes' successful politics.

>The collapse of the Khazarian khaganate was predicted due to the immoral basis of that society.

I am not sure what you are talking about. The Khazars were Turks professing Judaism. They succumbed not so much to moral shortcomings as to Sviatoslav's Russo-varangian warriors around 965.

>In some sense, the current economy crisis is the collapse of another Khazarian khaganate.

Have you notice any Rus 'druzhyna' (military company) defeating the world financial system as it defeated the Khasar Khaganate?

With best regards ,

Ianus

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".