30 Kasım 2014 Pazar



The medieval Hungarian sources refer to the story of the Biblical Nimrod, son of Kush, and Eneth, whose two sons, Hunor and Magor, led the Huns and the Magyars from the regions neighbouring Persia to the land known as Scythia - a designation generally given to the region stretching from the Carpathians into Central Asia (1).

From Scythia, first the Huns (5th c. AD), then Árpád's Magyars (895-896 AD) established themselves in the Carpathian Basin. It is also stated in these sources that Árpád was a descendent of Atilla, and that therefore, under Árpád's leadership, the Magyars reconquered Hungary as their rightful inheritance from their Hun forebears (2).

The contemporary Persian, Armenian, Arab, Greek, Russian and Western sources generally concur with the Caucasian-Caspian origin of the Magyars and with the Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar identity (3). It is also interesting to note that although the Byzantine sources generally referred to the Magyars as "Turks" (Turkoi), they also mention that by their own account, the Magyars' previously known name which they used themselves was, in Greek translation, "Sabartoi asphaloi" (4).

This is extremely important because this name refers to the Sabir people, also known as the Subareans, who inhabited the land known by the Babylonians and Assyrians as Subartu which was situated in the Transcaucasian-Northern Mesopotamian-Western Iranian region (5). By their own account, the Sumerians of Southern Mesopotamia also came from this region which they referred to as Subir-Ki (6).

The Hun-Magyar relationship is also referred to in the recently published Hungarian translation of a Turkish version of the history of Hungary, (Tarihi Üngürüsz), based on an earlier Latin text lost during the Turkish wars (16th-17th c.). This source also mentions that when the Huns and the Magyars arrived in Hungary, they both found peoples already settled there who spoke the same language as themselves, thus lending support to the Hun-Magyar identity and extending the continuity of the Hungarian people in the Carpathian Basin further back in time (7) 


At the time of the Magyar settlement, the bulk of the Carpathian Basin's population was made up by the remaining Avars, Huns, and other previously settled non-Indo-European peoples (51).

The archeological and anthropological data shows that beneath the apparent constant discontinuity due to foreign invasions, there seems to be a fundamental similarity and continuity of non-Indo-European peoples in the Carpathian Basin going back to the Neolithic period (52).

Gyula László also pointed out the Avar-Magyar ethnic continuity in his book "Kettös honfoglalás", in which he referred to the anthropological evidence indicating that there was a considerable Avar population in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Magyar settlement, and that the Avars and the Magyars were anthropologically identical. Taking this into consideration with the accounts of contemporary Byzantine documents according to which the Avars spoke the same language as the Huns (53), the Hun-Avar-Magyar ethno-linguistic identity seems highly probable......

....It appears therefore that a fundamental revision of early Hungarian history is necessary in order to arrive at a more accurate picture, and much research work remains to be done in this field. Based on the available information, it seems most probable that the Hungarians are a synthesis of the peoples which have settled in the Carpathian Basin since the Neolithic period up to the Middle Ages: the Sumerian-related peoples of Near-Eastern origin (Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages), followed by the Scythians (6th c. BC), the Huns (5th c. AD), the Avars (6th c.), the Magyars (9th c.), the Petchenegs (11th c.), and the Cumans (13th c.)

Presently there are still many misconceptions concerning the Turanian peoples: it is still widely believed, erroneously, that the Scythians were an Indo-European people, that the Huns and Avars were Turkic-speaking peoples of Mongolian race or origin, and that the Magyars were a mixture of Finnic and Turkic elements.

These misconceptions originate from an inaccurate historical perspective which failed to recognize the existence of a distinct Turanian entity amidst the multi-ethnic conglomerates of the Scythians, Huns, Avars, and Magyars, whose empires consisted of tribal federations which included various other ethnic groups: Indo-Europeans, as well as Uralic and Altaic peoples besides the dominant Turanian elements.

It now seems that this Turanian ethno-linguistic group to which the Hungarians belong was a distinct group from which the Uralic and Altaic ethno-linguistic groups later evolved through a process of ethno-linguistic diffusion and hybridization. This explanation of the existing ethno-linguistic affinities between the Hungarians and the Uralic and Altaic groups would be more in line with the latest findings on this subject.

In light of these findings, it would seem appropriate to re-examine this question objectively, avoiding the officially imposed ideological biases which have clouded the issue since the middle of the 19th c. and still continue to do so today.

Subareans, Hurrians, Kassites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Medes, Parthians, Khazars 
Sumerian (Ki-en-gi), Scythians, the Huns, the Avars, the Magyars, the Petchenegs, Kipchaks, Cumans 
Turks, Turkish, Turanian

Huns - Magyars. The Military Culture of Magyars and its Related Peoples

"Huns - Magyars. The Military Culture of Magyars and its Related Peoples"

Kurultaj : in English
tribal assembly of the Hun – Turkic nations, celebration of the preservation of the ancient traditions


The historical geographical name of Turan refers to the area East of the Caspian sea. Archeological research has shown that this area saw the development of a highly evolved civilization of Sumerian (Mesopotamian) origin (S.P. Tolstov: Ancient Chorasmia). The Sumerians were the creators of the first known civilization, the inventors of agriculture, metallurgy, the wheel, writing, and astronomy, among others (S.N. Kramer: History begins at Sumer)

The 19th century researchers who discovered and studied the ancient Mesopotamian Sumerian language determined that it was related to the Turanian languages (M. Érdy: The Sumerian Ural-Altaic Magyar Relationship). Comparative linguistic analysis indicates that of all known ethno-linguistic groups, the Hungarian, Turkic, Caucasian and Finnic languages are by far the closest to Sumerian (K. Gosztony: Dictionnaire d'étymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée). This is confirmed by archeological and anthropological evidence which shows that thousands of years ago, the Sumerians and other related Near Eastern peoples settled in the vast region of Central Eurasia from the Carpathian basin to the Altai mountains, from the Urals and Siberia to Iran and India (L. Götz: Keleten Kel a Nap (The Sun Rises in the East))

The descendants of these Sumerian-related peoples were known as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Medes, Parthians, Chorasmians, Kushans, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Magyars, among others, and gave rise to the Finnic and Turkic-Mongolian ethnic groups. These Turanian peoples created flourishing cultures and states which exerted a determining influence on the peripheral Eurasian cultures of Europe, the Middle East, Persia, India, and China, as well as on the formation of the various Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups. See Historical Chronology 


Dogma #1: 
The myth of Indo-European "cultural superiority"
This myth was invented in the 19th c. and became the basis of the ideology of the Aryan master race. It claims that the ancient Indo-Europeans had a higher cultural level than various non-Indo-Europeans who were considered to be culturally inferior. This ideological bias manifested itself clearly at the so-called "Paris Peace Conference" after WWI, when the so-called "victorious" agressor states primarily responsible for the war (the "Allied and Associated Powers") invaded and dismantled two Turanian states, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire:

"reminiscing over Hungary's punishment at the Paris Peace Conference, the British diplomat Harold Nicolson noted: "I confess that I regarded, and still regard, that Turanian tribe with acute distaste. Like their cousins the Turks, they had destroyed much and created nothing." This Allied participant at the Paris Peace Conference did more than just express his unflattering opinion of the Hungarian people. He captured the biased political atmosphere of the international setting in which the historical Hungarian state met its death." (Borsody, 1988)

This ideological bias still influences Indo-European research: the so-called "Kurgan theory" of Indo-European origins developed by Marija Gimbutas is one of the more recent examples. This theory is still being misleadingly presented as a credible scientific theory despite its highly questionable interpretation of the facts, the lack of conclusive data supporting it, and the substantial contradicting evidence (Götz, 1994)

Dogma #2: 
Sumerians an "isolate" ethno-linguistic group
This claim states that the Sumerians were not related to any known ethno-linguistic group. However, there is evidence to the contrary: the Sumerians were not an isolated ethno-linguistic group, they were part of a larger non-Semitic and non-Indo-European ethno-linguistic group including the Subareans, Hurrians, Hatti, Kassites, and Elamites, which inhabited the ancient Near East before the appearance of the Semitic and Indo-European peoples in that region. 

In fact, the evidence indicates the existence of non-Indo-European peoples not only in the Near East, but also in Europe, Iran, Central and South Asia prior to the Indo-Europeans. Even if not all of these non-Indo-European peoples were originally related to the Sumerians, given the substantial linguistic, archeological, and anthropological evidence of the dominant ethno-linguistic, cultural, economic, and political influence exerted by the Sumerian civilization over 1500 years in Western and Central Eurasia, it is highly probable that most of these ancient non-Semitic and non-Indo-European peoples evolved into related ethno-linguistic groups through cultural and ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization with Sumerian or Sumerian-related peoples. 

The significant cultural and ethno-linguistic influence exerted over large areas of Eurasia by the Sumerians and related Turanian peoples played a key role in the development of the Semitic, Indo-European, and Ural-Altaic ethno-linguistic groups, as indicated by comparative linguistic analysis which shows that a significant number of words of Sumerian origin are present in those Eurasian language groups (Götz, 1994)

The fundamental problem with the Sumerian question is the fact that the creators of mankind's earliest known civilization were neither Semitic, nor Indo-European, and this is an inconvenient reality for certain leading interest groups whose ideological bias has been interfering with scientific research about the origins of the various Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups since the 19th century. 

Dogma #3: 
Single-source origin of Indo-Europeans
This is the so-called "family tree" theory which claims that the Indo-European languages and peoples originate from a single common ancestral language, people and homeland, based on Grimm's linguistic theory of sound change. So far all attempts at locating the presumed ancestral Indo-European homeland and to reconstruct the hypothetical ancestral Indo-European language have failed. The evidence suggests that there were no single Indo-European common ancestral language, people and homeland, but that the Indo-European languages and peoples evolved from a complex process of cultural and ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization among various proto-Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples, including Turanians. The failure of Indo-European linguistics is due to the fact that many words which are assumed to be of Indo-European origin are in fact of Sumerian origin, but Indo-European linguists simply continue to ignore this because of the erroneous belief that Sumerian was an "isolate" language (Götz, 1994)

Dogma #4: 
Scythians an "Iranian" people
The claim that the Scythians were "Iranian", and therefore Indo-European, is based on the highly questionable interpretation of a few names and words transmitted by Greek sources. The evidence indicates that there were non-Indo-European peoples in Iran and Turan long before the appearance of Indo-Europeans in those regions. Some of these pre-Indo-European peoples may have later become "Indo-Europeanized" to some extent. The Scythians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Medes, and Parthians were therefore not originally Indo-European, they were Turanians. Indo-European linguistics has a tendency to claim as "Indo-European" many ancient peoples who were in fact originally non-Indo-European, but may have later become "Indo-Europeanized" as a result of ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization. 

Dogma #5: 
Uralic and Altaic groups "not related"
Indo-European linguists reject the possibility of a connection between the Uralic and Altaic ethno-linguistic groups. This is an unfounded assumption as the evidence indicates that the Uralic and Altaic groups were formed through ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization with Turanian peoples such as the Sumerians and Scythians. The Uralic and Altaic groups therefore share common Turanian ethno-linguistic roots. 

Dogma #6: 
Existence of Turanian ethno-linguistic group dismissed
Based on the unsubstantiated claims that the Sumerians were an "isolate" ethno-linguistic group and that the Uralic and Altaic groups are "not related", Indo-European linguists deny the existence of an ancient Turanian ethno-linguistic group which included the Sumerians and the Scythians despite evidence to the contrary, evidence which they simply ignore or dismiss without valid justification. 

Dogma #7: 
The theory of the "Finno-Ugrian" origin of Hungarians
The so-called "Finno-Ugrian" theory of the origin of the Hungarian people and language is closely modelled on the Indo-European "family tree" linguistic theory. As such, not only is the "Finno-Ugrian" theory fundamentally flawed, it was also developed during the 19th century when Hungary was under the foreign rule of the Austrian Habsburgs. As a result, this pseudo-scientific theory was part of the anti-Hungarian cultural policy specifically designed to weaken the national self-consciousness of the Hungarian people by distorting and falsifying their origins and history. 

This was the case under the Habsburg regime's policy of Germanization just as it was the case under the Soviet Communist regime's policy of Russification. It was therefore in the interest of these regimes to

"let the conquered Hungarians believe that they have an ancestry more primitive than that of the Indo-European peoples. In Habsburg times Hungarian children were taught that most of their civilization came from the Germans: today they are taught that their 'barbaric' ancestors were civilized by the educated Slavs." (Bobula, 1982)

According to the latest genetic research (Semino, 2000), the main Hungarian ancestral population has inhabited its current Carpathian homeland for at least 40 000 years, and is of Central Eurasian origin. The genetic markers most characteristic of the Hungarian population are also present in Eastern Europe and Central and South-Western Asia, and correspond to the known distribution and movements of the ancient Scythian and Hun peoples based on the historical and archeological evidence, thus substantiating the Hungarian-Scythian, Scythian-Hun and Hun-Magyar ethno-linguistic connections. 

The genetic evidence also indicates that the genetic markers most characteristic of the Finno-Ugrians of Northern Europe, the Volga-Ural region, and Siberia are completely absent in the Hungarian population. Based on the latest linguistic, archeological, anthropological, and genetic research, Hungarians are therefore not of Finno-Ugrian origin, but the Finno-Ugrian ethno-linguistic group was formed under the dominant cultural influence of the Turanian peoples with whom the Finno-Ugrians came in contact, thus explaining the Hungarian-Uralic linguistic correlation.

Click on highlighted map links for images and documents on the historical Turanian empires at this link:


"All these linguistic findings combined with archaeological artifacts allow to confirm that Scythian had Turkic origin and modern Chuvashs are Scytians descendants."

"Hazarların menşei itibarıyla Türk olup, Orta Asya'dan geldikleri muhakkaktır.... X. yüzyıl İslaˆm tarihçisi Mes'udi İranlıların Hazar adını verdikleri kavme Türklerin Sabar (Sabir) dediklerini belirtmektedir."
[Hazarlar Hakanlığı, Yrd.Doç.Dr.Mualla Uydu Yücel-pdf

"Khazars are Turkish people and came from Central Asia... In the 10th c İslamic historian Mes'udi wrote: the Turks called Sabar (Sabir) but the Persians called Khazar. "


The "West" tried for centuries to deny Turks and their rich history. When any new scientific discoveries, presentations or evidence comes out to prove Turkish civilization, the "West" hurriedly develop fictionalize/fabricated programs and articles to lie about Turks and Turkish great history.

We are a huge family, and the "West" shall accept that soon...


Francis Bacon (1561 -1626)


Oghuz Kurgan / OĞUZ / Курган Огуз ve İskit

Oğuz Kurgan (Oğuz Turks) - Курган Огуз / Ukraine
Ukrayna / Khersonska / Nyzhni Sirohozy

Kazı öncesinde Ukrayna'nın en büyük kurganı, yüksekliği 20 ve genişliği 350 metre. 1891-1981 arası 100 yıl kazılıdı. 1988 yılında, höyük kısmen restore edildi, ama eski büyüklüğü yok.

*link    * link

Tsarskie skifi etnoyazikovaya identifikatsiya tsarskikh skifov i drevnikh oquzov 

Царские скифы: этноязыковая идентификация "царских скифов" и древних огузов Müəllif Гасанов Заур

Royal Scythians: ethnolinguistic identification 
"Royal Scythians" and ancient Oghuz 
Zaur Hasanov Müəllif

Azerbaycan Türkçesi ile e-book


Silver Cheek Pieces - Scythian Turks
from Kurgan Oghuz (OĞUZ - Курган Огуз) 4th c BC
Museum of Historical Treasures of Ukraine,

Saka kültürü. M.Ö.7.-6.yy
bronz; döküm. VIS. 26 cm
Boneyard Burabai (Kazıları AM Orazbayeva Akisheva ve KA), 
Orta Kazakistan
Antropoloji ve Etnografya Müzesi

Saka Culture 7th-6th c BC

Сакская культура. 7-6 вв. до н.э. 
Бронза; литье. Выс. 26 см 
Могильник Боровое (Раскопки А.М. Оразбаева и К.А. Акишева), 
Центральный Казахстан , Центральная Азия 
Музей антропологии и этнографии

According to Herodotus, “the Persians call all Scythians Sacae.” (VII, 64)

Symbolic Scythian Golden Stag in hunting scene  
4th Century BC, from Ukraine - link

İskit kültürü. M.Ö.5.yy
Barrow 401, Dinyeper, Cherkassy bölge (eski. Kiev vilayet), 
köy Zhurovka Rusya (şimdi Ukrayna)

Скифская культура. 5 в. до н.э. 
Курган 401, Приднепровье, Черкасская область (быв. Киевская губерния), село Журовка Россия (ныне Украина)

Odin ve Kargaları/Kuzgunları : 
Şaman İnancında yardımcı kuşlar/ruhlar

İskit kültürü. MÖ.4.yy
bronz; döküm. 17.4x5.6
Kuban, Rusya
St. Petersburg İmparatorluk Arkeoloji Komisyonu. 1909

Скифская культура. 4 в. до н.э. 
Бронза; литье. 17.4x5.6 см 
Прикубанье , Россия 
Императорская археологическая комиссия в С.-Петербурге. 1909

The Fish of Vettersfelde c.500 BCE

Scythian Taşbaba - Ukraine

İSKİT TAKILARI - MÖ.7.yy - MÖ.3.yy - link

The Legacy of Scythians by Valentyn Stetsiuk

(Extract from "Research into Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in East Europe", Book two)


The second part of the book deals with the ethnic paternity of Scythians.  In book one of the "Research into Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in East Europe" we found out that a Turkish tribe of Bulgar was settled on the area westward from the river Dnepr since III mill. BC. Ukrainian archeologists found here some artifacts of the earlier Scythian culture, which have its roots in native cultures of this region. While no native roots of the Scythian culture can be found in other regions of Ukraine. Therefore, assumption can be advanced that Scythian culture belonged to old Bulgarians, whose descendants are modern Chuvashs.

Comparison of Scythian onomasticon  the list of proper names) with modern Chuvash lexicon was performed in order to check this hypothesis. Onomasticon list is available in the Ukrainian text below. Out of 199 words of Scytian onomasticon have 130 Chuvash parallels. Some examples are the following:

Scyth. Argaio (Argaio) - Chuv. a rkay "trout";

Scyth. Dokiwn (Dokion) - Chuv. ta k "pour"+ yun ‘blood";

Scyth. Zoulemhs (Dzoulemes) - Chuv. çüleveç "lynx";

Scyth. Zwrqtinhs (Dzortthtinnes) - Chuv. ça rttan "pike" (fish);

Scyth. Pasarou (Pasarou) - Chuv. pa sara "polecat";

Scyth. Saitafarnou (Saitfarnou) - Chuv. se te "add" + parne "present, gift";

Scyth. Satra-baths (Satra-bates) - Chuv. sa ta r "rub" + pa ta "porridge, gruel".

Topics and personages of Scythian mythology also can be explained with the means of Chuvash language.

For example, Scytian gods Papay and Api are correlated to Greek Zeus and Gea. Chuv. "papay "grandfather, old man"and epi "grandmother" ("old woman") sound very suitable here.

The explanation of Scythian legend about Targitaios and his three sons Lipoxais, Arpaxais, Kolaxais as well Scytian toponimy are given in the book.

All these linguistic findings combined with archaeological artifacts allow to confirm that Scythian had Turkic origin and modern Chuvashs are Scytians descendants.

Valentyn Stetsiuk
Ukraine  -in Russian language download

"Welcome to Chuvashia my respectable brothers . 
This relatives visit makes us very happy.

Brothers, scientific research has clearly demonstrated , that the ancestors of Chuvash people is the Turks and they came here from Central Asia. Chuvash language takes place in Turkish language. The dialects which is distant to your language have common ancestors in language in fact.

Oghuz who lived in the Altai shaped the Chuvash language.

In 1000 BC these tribes were divided. A number of Oghuz tribe, had relationschip with the Indo-European language, the letter "R" and "L" exchange in time.

Over time this Oghuz tribes known as Ogur Turks.

Turkish dialects has been classified in both arms, "Z" letter into "R" and "Ş" letter into "L" . Based on this, the "Z" "Ş" dialect Eastern Turkish group, "R" "L" dialect Western Turkish group.

Our ancestors takes place in the second group, that's why become Oghuz into Ogur. Ogurs are the progenitors of the Huns.

When Mete Han establish the Hun Empire (Mete Han, the founder of Xiongnu Empire, ruled from 209 BC to 174 BC), his army was of the same root, but it consisted of people who speaks different dialect. Mete Han chose the language of Ogur, which is close to the present Chuvash Turkish, to unite the army.

The westward migration of the Huns in the 5th c.AD, moved our language with them. We taught the peoples in this region this language, but we have received from them words and grammatical editing also.

In summary, we Chuvash people speak our common ancestor, language of the Huns. Chuvash language is the only living language of Ogur language. Close relatives languages which is Hun, proto Bulgarian and the Caspian languages are dead now.

You asked me, where did our relation came from, here is my answer. The language I speak even if you don't undertand , you can feel the spirit. Because I carry your father, ancestors voice from yesterday to today. And if you say your language is changed, our relationship shall be broken.

When you look ethnically, as the Asian roots of the Chuvash communities, has also close blood ties to the Finno-Ugric roots. Great Bulgarian Khanate, established in the north of the Black Sea in the 7th century, and the Khanate of the Volga Bulgars, our ancestors did that.

European Huns, Bulgarian Turks community came out with a result of mixing of Ogur (Oghuz Turks) and Sabir (Sabar / Suvar Turks) . We established, the biggest pieces of these states in the steppes, we are the one of the constituent parts.

In the period of the Volga Bulgars Khanate, Sabir (Sabar/Suvar Turks) peoples and the people living around the city, during the Mongolian invasion, went to north and came here and they maintained their culture. We moved to the present day the legacy of our ancestors, despite all adversities and have appeared on the scene as the Chuvash.

Volga Bulgars State language was a great effect to the Slavs, Hungarians, Mari and Udmurtia language. What I'm telling you is, you can not do research today without knowing Chuvash Culture, because many culture have effect in Russia and Eastern Europe with the basis of the Chuvash history and their ancient culture "

Prof. Yegorov Nikolay Ivanovich 

"The ancestors of Chuvash are Suvar/Sabir/Sabar, the ancestors of the Bulgarian tribes Ogur (Oghuz). These two tribes origin is Central Asian Turkish roots.

Some scientists says , the ancestors of the Chuvash arrived in the 10th c BC in this region , while others says they were with the Hun Confederation. In this case, the arrival on the Kipchak steppes (Kipchaks are an other Turkish root, also called as Cumans or Polovtsy in Russia) of the Chuvashs ancestors is late 5th c AD.

The historian researches explanation of the origin of Chuvash peoples , they are more closely to the Finno-Ugric native peoples, but some says the Huns. There are different opinions about their ancient history,but there is no problem about their chronology. And it is been accepted in scientific circles, that the Chuvash peoples are Turkish root, and close relationship with proto Bulgarians.

And they say that the name Chuvash is estimated from Suvar."

Ahmet Yesiltepe Türkçe link

Kadim Subar Türkleri - pdf
Prof.Dr.Firudin Ağasıoğlu  

"Sabarlar, 463-558 yılları arasında Karadeniz’in kuzeyinde ve Kafkaslar’da mühim rol oynayan bir Türk kavmidir. ... 
Bizans kaynaklarında Sabar, Sabeir, Saber, Sabir, Ermeni kaynaklarında Svar, Sbar, S(a)bir, İslam kaynaklarında Sebir şeklinde geçmektedir ."

Prof.Dr.Ahmet Taşağıl - link


Francis Bacon (1561 -1626)



SI Rudenko
İskit zamanda Altay Dağları'nın nüfus Kültürü. - BOOK


1. Modern official historical science about ethnic roots of the Tatar people.
2. The historians about Scythians and Sarmatians.
3. What is the basis for Scytho-Iranian theory?
4. What the Scytho-Türkic etymology tells?
5. A general view of the historians on ancient Türks.
6. Which ancient peoples of Eurasia were Türkic speaking?
7. Ethnic components and ethnolinguistic continuity of development of the Tatar people in the Middle Volga and Urals.

Mirfatyh Zakiev
Origin of Türks and Tatars
READ   /    READ

Carthasis is not a name
the meaning in Turkish is "his brother" Kardeşi - Kardaschi
Scythians are Turks
They spoke Turkish.




Turkic Names of Pelasgians

The language spoken by the Pelasgians, pre-Greek settlers of Greece, has not been identified yet. Nor has the origin of the names of most pre-Greek provinces and cities, or the names of mythological images of the country been identified. What is known is that these names are not Greek. This is also confirmed by the interpretations of the Greek myths. According to H.Kitto, a researcher of ancient Greece, the conflicts between pre-Greek Athena and Greek Poseidon is, in fact, a reflection of the wars between the native Athenians and the Hellenic occupants. The Athenians, the inhabitants of Attica, were not Greeks, more exactly pre-Greeks. However, Poseidon, as a Greek god, represented the Hellenic people.

The later Greeks themselves believed in an original non- Hellenic population which they called Pelasgian, remnants of which still remained pure in classical times, speaking their own language. 

According to Herodotus, one of the two main branches of the later Greek people, the Ionians, were Pelasgian by descent, the other, the Dorians, were Hellenic. Greek-speaking people from the north migrated into this region and imposed their language on the Pelasgians.

To the earlier historians of Greece, Thucydides and Herodotus, the country before the Greeks settled, was called Pelasgia.

Herodotus regarded the Ioninas as a «barbarian» people who had been Hellenized.

So the pre-Greek settlers of Greece appear to have spoken a language, the origin of which is still unknown. In relation to that language Herodotus wrote: «What language the Pelasgians used I cannot say for certain, but if I may conjecture from those Pelasgians who still exist… they spoke a barbarian language» .

Neither could the European linguists manage to learn what language the Pelasgians used. Those who alleged it to be of Indo- European origin were not based on serious linguistic facts. Most of the researchers could not differentiate the early non-Greek substratum from the later Indo-European layer, which had appeared in early Greek onomasticon as a result of the assimilation of the Pelasgians. L.Gindin, a researcher of the pre-Greek substratum in the old Greek language, admitted the existence of the oldest non-Indo-European layer, referring it, however, not to the Pelasgians, but to those who had settled in Greece before the Pelasgians. Like other European linguists, he supported the Indo-European origins of the Pelasgians.

This point of view does not conform with some of the facts - neither does it conform with the Etruscan character of the writings found on Lemnos, settled once by the Pelasgians, nor with the information of ancient writers about the origin of the Pelasgians. Both factors tie the Pelasgians with the Etruscans who are commonly known to have been non – Indo-European by origin.

The Lemnos script has been proved by Western linguists to have only a dialectal difference from the Etruscan writings. 

It raises the question as to how the Pelasgians could have been Indo-European by origin in the event that their language had a close relationship with those of the non-Indo-European Etruscans. 

In the light of antique traditions the idea of their kinship appears to be more believable. The information by D.Halicarnasci concerning the Pelasgians and Tirrenians (Etruscans) being the same nation and by Thucydides concerning the Pelasgians being a part of the Tirrenians originate from the historical reality concerning which they were well-informed.

Tirrens or Tirsens in the old Greek language denoted the Etruscans.

A similar idea is shared by Helanic of Lesbos, a 5th century historian, who writes that Tirsens were initially called Pelasgians, some of which were later called Tirsens .

Another important factor that illustrates the non-Indo-European origin of the Pelasgians is their close relationship to the Thracians - pre-Greek settlers of Greece. Pelasgo-Thracian onomastic parallels, as well as the Thraco – Trojan kinship, dealt with in the "Iliad", exclude the Indo-European origins of both Pelasgians and Thracians, as long as the Trojans are known to have been neither Greek, nor of any other Indo-European peoples. 

According to sources, the pre-Greeks and Greeks also had racial differences. The Greeks were «Homer’s brown - haired Achaeans», who ruled over «black-haired people», the pre-Greek settlers of the Mediterranean basin.

According to Homer, Helen, Akhilles, Menelay and Agamemnon, who were symbolic of the Greeks, were blond, while Hector and Paris, the Trojan brothers, were dark-haired.

Who were these ethnically interrelated peoples – Tirsens or Pelasgians, Pelasgians or Thracians, Trojans or Etruscans? As our research on their onomasticon and epigraphy demonstrate, the
genealogical legends concerning their Turkic origin are to be trusted.

A significant part of the old Greek personal names is found in Turkic anthroponomy. They are the names usually mentioned in ancient literature as belonging to the early settlers of Greece and some of them are openly referred to as Pelasgian by origin: Abas. According to mythological traditions, Abas was the ancestor of the Abants, a Pelasgo-Thracian tribal unit .

A similar name, in different phonetical forms, is observed in old Turkic onomasticon: Abas, Apas, Abaz (personal names); Abas, Avas (ethnonyms); Abaz, Apas (toponyms), etc..

A tribe by the name of Abas belonged to the old Turkic Khazars. It was also the personal name of the Caucasian Albanians, within which the Thracian Abants once settled Albania (Northern Azerbaijan).

Kupavon. The personage who bore this name, according to mythology, was a «swan-man», a Pelasgian. 

It finds its interpretation in Turkic words such as ku, kub, kuw «swan» and Turkic ethnonyms with the same stems: kuban, kuwan, kuman which means «swan-man» .

As a mythological personage Kupavon («swan-man») was also brought to Italy by the Pelasgians. This personal name is also mentioned by P.V.Maron, a Roman author, in the list of those sent to help Eney, a Trojan commander. Here Kupavon is described with a swan’s feather on his head .

A. I. Nemirovski considers this personage to be alien to Latin and Osk-Umbrian languages. For Nemirovski, this symbol was borrowed from neighbouring Thraco-Illirian tribes by the Slavs .

The Turkic character of this personage is evidenced in Turkic mythology where the swan is regarded as a creative beginning and this belief has found its expression in the Turkic ethnonyms such as Kuman (<ku «swan» + man «man», Ku kizhi («ku» + kizhi «man»), the Tatar tribal names .

A great number of pre-Greek (Pelasgo-Thracian) dynastic names are also found to exist in the anthroponomy of Turkic languages – Old Turk, Tatar, Bashkir, Uyghur, Kazakh, Kirghizian, etc.

By denoting physical or moral superiority, these personal names answer the principles of anthroponomy. Such anthroponomic terminology was particularly characteristic of ancient peoples.

What is more, the terminology of all these names are Turkic and they are only observed in old and modern Turkic languages: Egey — a mythological king of Athena, the city which belonged to the Pelasgians. The same name is used in the Turkic (Kazakh) language.

Egey is either derived from the Kirghizian egey («a man with equal power») or consists of the Turkic ege («prince», «owner») and the suffix -y (-ay, -ey), widely used in the Turkic languages to form personal names (Bekey, Bakay, Tinay, Esey, etc.).

Keney, a pre-Greek personal name is the same Kirghizian Turkic Keney , which is derived from ken («vast», «spacious»).

Elat. In ancient literature Keney is presented as the son of Elat, a legendary pre-Greek king. It has a Turkic counterpart — Ilat, a Tatar personal name. It is derived from the Turkic ilat «population», elat «nomad», «nomadic» (people) . 

The same Turkic appellative is observed in old Greek – ilot «the lower layer of people», which refers to pre-Greek (Pelasgian) substratum in old Greek.

Danay. This pre-Greek personal name is completely consonant with the Turkic (Kazakh) personal name Danay .

A similar personal name — Tanay, used in Karachay, Balkar anthroponomy, was interpreted by G. Geybullayev as consisting of Turkic tang (tan, dang, dan «day-break», «dawn») and the suffix - y/-ay to indicate the time of birth. He also conjoins analogical personal name with the word tan – Tantuar («born at daybreak»), used in the anthroponomy of the Tatars and Bashkirs.

Danay also possibly derives from the Turkic word dan (dang, tan «honour», «fame», «nobility») , on the analogy of the Greek and Slavic personal names with the initial components cleo, slav («honour», «fame»).

Danay, like Egey, as a personal name is characteristic of the pre-Greek and Turkic anthroponomy that is not being observed in other languages.

Ergin. He is presented in Old Greek mythology as the son of Poseidon. Ergin has its anthroponomic parallel only in Turkic languages: Ergin (Turkish), Erkin (Kazakh).

Deriving it from the Turkic ergin is reasonable for its specific meaning to characterize a person both physically and morally: «adult», «mature», «free», «self-dependent». Ergin/Erkin, derived from the Turkic erg/erk («power», «strong», «right»), was also used as an official title in some Turkic languages.

Gerey. This name directly referred to the Pelasgians and is completely consonant with the Turkic Gerey . This Turkic personal name is connected with the Turkic appellative geray, girey («worthy», «respectable») and was used as an official title of the Crimean khans . On the basis of this semantics its transition to a personal name is quite possible. 

Inakh. A king of Argos, a Greek province, bore this name . 

Like Gerey, it appears to have originated from an appellative denoting a high title. Old Turkic inakh («a confidential person», «minister») was used as a title, the bearer of which was considered to have a close relation to the ruler. In the 15th C.Chagatay (Turkic) language it meant «minister» or «the representative of the emperor».

As a derivative of the Turkic inan («to believe») this title expressed the confidentiality of the person. .

Transition of this title to a personal name in Turkic languages has not been observed. Yapik. This pre-Greek personal name corresponds to old Turkic Yapig, a personal name . Plutarchus presents Yapik as the grandson of Pelasg, which personifies the Pelasgians.

Yapik, is described by Vergil as the son of Yasiy, who is the relative of Dardan, the ancestor of the Trojans . Yapik, in both sources, is associated with the Pelasgo-Trojan world.

This personal name, as well as its old Turkic counterpart, can be interpreted in two ways:

1. It can be derived from the Turkic yapig («closed») or from the Tatar yabik («closed», «thin», «tired», «miserable»). In the Tatar language it has anthroponomic semantics which is seen in the expression yabik kishi «miserable man»;

2. As a metonymic name it can be derived from the Turkic yapik («wide cloak made of felt or wool») . 

Analogical semantic phenomenon – change of the name of a cloth into a personal name is usual for Turkic languages. For instance, the nickname Tulum in the Gagauz (Turkic) language is derived from tulum («fur», «sheepskin»).

Tulumni, an Etruscan personal name, is of the same origin: tulum + ni adjective forming suffix, which means «a person with overalls» or «a person who makes overalls».

Yapik, the Pelasgian personal name, is a cognate of a tribal name of Attika , a Pelasgian province.

Homer. Homer, a famous pre-Greek poet, was an Ionian Greek. Ionian Greeks were originally Hellenized Pelasgians. 

Therefore, the similarity between the names Homer and Ghumar, an epic personage in the Kazakh mythology, as well as their being both folk singers and poets , serve as an argument to derive them from the same source - common for the Pelasgians and Turanians. If we remember the identity between the names of Priam, a Trojan king, and Priyam, a Turanian personage in the old Kazakh epos, and other anthroponomic ties, the Mediterranean – Turkic relations become even more and more visible.

According to A.Koniratbayev, a Kazakh researcher, the old Greeks might have inherited Homer and other epic personages from the old Turkic Saks, the direct ancestors of the Kazakhs, as a result of contacts . 

The Saks, and their kinsmen, the Cimmerians, are known to have settled the northern Black Sea basin from time immemorial . However, the old Turkic elements in the old Greek anthroponomy and literature originate from inside - from the language of pre-Greek Pelasgians. The old Greeks are known to have inherited most of their mythological epic characters from the Pelasgo-Thracian inhabitants of the country, who in the Bible were known under the names of Gomer, Tiras and others.

Those who consider the Turkic elements in the old Greek language to have been borrowed from outside, simply do not know about the origin of the pre-Greek population of Greece. If the Turkic elements in the old Greek language had been borrowed from outside they would not have covered onomasticon.

Among onomastic parallels there are not only personal names, but also names of rivers, ethnonyms, etc.

Ataman, a Thesalian tribal name , is consonant with the Turkic appellative ataman («leader») which can be associated with the superior position of the Atamans in the area. In the relations of ancient tribes military and political superiority was of significant importance.

Personal name Adaman, used by Turkic Kirghizians, sounds quite similar .

Tartar, the name of a river, which flowed in the territory of the the same province, is identical with Tartar, the name of a river in Azerbaijan.

The river Selenga flowing in the territory of old Greece, does not differ from the name of a Siberian river – Selenga. It originates from the Turkic seleng, selen («noise», «rumble»), an apparent hydronymic term. Similar river names (Seleng, Selenj) were used in many areas where Turkic peoples lived.

However, the interpretation of the pre-Greek Selenga by European scientists is quite unbelievable: they derived it from two theonyms – Selene and Ga, the mythological Mediterranean gods. If they had paid attention to the cognate Turkic river names (Selenga, Seleng), spread in large areas where the Turks lived, they would not have derived this river name from any local ethnonym.

Turkic names are also observed in the onomasticon of the Thracians, who are described as Turkic by origin in old Scandinavian sources . Some researchers consider the Thracians and Pelasgians to have been the same peoples . It is not by meer chance that a great number of Thracian names are found to be Turkic, like those of the Pelasgians.

Professor, Dr.Chingiz Garasharly of Philological sciences 
The Turkic Civilization lost in the Mediterranean basin
Bakü 2011 - Azarbaijan President Library e-book : 

more to read in his book:

I. Who were the pre – Indo – Europeans of the Mediterranean basin?
1.1. The origin of the early Mediterraneans in the Light of Legends
1.2. Turkic Names of Pelasgians
1.3. Tiras, Thracians and Turks
1.4. Turkic Substratum in Old Greek
1.5. Troy – the Mediterranean Turan
1.6. Trojans in the North: Turkic Kings of Scandinavian Sagas

II. Pelasgians and Trojans in Italy: Birth of Etruscan Civilization
2.1. Turkic Names of Roman Kings
2.2. Why Etruscan Writings Remained Mysterious
2.3. A glimpse of Turkic Component of Etruscan grammar
2.4. Etruscan Writings Begin to Speak Literature


"Birçok kez gerek Avrupa gerekse Asya Yunanistan'ında 
görülen Larisa adı bu yok olmuş dillere ait gibi gözükmekte ve 
kale surlarla çevrilmiş kent anlamına gelmektedir. 
Biz bu ilkel topluluklara PELASG adını veriyoruz.

Çünkü bu ad eskiler tarafından Helenlerden önce bulunan ve 
HELENCE OLMAYAN dili konuşanlara verilmiştir. 
Fakat PELASGLARIN gerçekten kim olduklarını bulmaktan vazgeçiyoruz. (...)" !!!NEDEN?-SB

İnsanlığın Evrimi Kollektif Sentez : Yunan Halkının Oluşumu
Henri Berr, 1923 (Fransız tarihçi-filozof- 1863-1954)



Batılıların kendilerini bağlamak için olağanüstü bir çaba gösterdikleri Yunan Medeniyeti, aslında Yunanistan'da değil, ANADOLU'da doğmuştur!...

Yunan Edebiyatı'nın ilk büyük eserleri BATI ANADOLU'da yazılmıştır!..

Yunan Medeniyeti'nin Atina'ya ulaşması, ETRÜSKLER'in İtalya'ya varmasından 7-800 yıl; Roma'nın kurulmasından da 200 yıl sonradır!..

Eskiden BATI ANADOLU'da yaşıyanlara İYON denirdi... Bölgenin adı da İYONYA idi. Batılılar Yunanlılara GREK veya HELLEN der... Biz ise Araplar'a uyarak YUNAN demişiz... Aslında kelime, Araplar'ın bölgede tanıdğı milletin İYON olmasından gelmektedir!..

PELASG Devleti M.Ö. 3000 yılında Yunanistan'da, ETRÜSK Devleti de M.Ö. 1300 yıllarında İtalya'da kurulmuştur... Akdeniz'in Batısına bugün dahi Tirhen (Tyrrhen) Denizi denir... Eski Yunanca'da Y harfi U okunurdu... Demek ki bu KELİME TURHAN'DIR.

ETRÜSK kelimesinin Yunancası da TYRRHEN'dir... Ancak eski Yunan yazarları TYRRHEN-PELASG olarak kullanırlardı... Yani PELASG-TYRRHEN-ETRÜSK aynı millet için değişik zamanlarda değişik toplumlar tarafından kullanılan adlardır!..

HERODOT, meşhur TARİH'inde PELASGOİ dediği PELASGLAR'ın göçlerini, âdetlerini anlatır ve eserinin bir çok yerinde bir çok kereler bu adı tekrarlar...

Buna rağmen, Batılı tarihçilerin çoğu, ve onları taklitten öteye gidemiyen bizim tarihçilerimiz PELASGLAR konusunda, adeta GİZLİ BİR ANLAŞMA İMZALAMIŞLAR GİBİ, söz etmekten kaçınırlar!..

Eski Büyükelçi ADİLE AYDA şu tesbitleri yapar:
"Fransız ve İngiliz yazarlar nedense PELASGLAR ile ilgilenmemişlerdir... Ancak Alman alimler PELASGLAR üzerine ciddi eserler vermişlerdir. Bunların başlıcaları BELOCH, FICK, TREIDLER, MEYER ve EHRLICH'dir."

Bu tutumun bir sebebi olması gerekir!.. Acaba PELASGLAR, Herodot'u etkilemelerine rağmen, önemsiz midir?.. Yoksa arkeolojik keşifler, tesbitler HERODOT'un iddialarını bir "efsane" mertebesine mi indirmiştir?...

Bunların hiç biri doğru değildir!.. Tam tersine zaman, HERODOT'un da HOMEROS'un da yazdıklarının tarihi temellere dayandığını göstermiştir. Öyleyse?.. Öyleyse sebep basittir. Eğer PELASGLAR, TYRRHENLER, ETRÜSKLER üzerinde çalışmalar yapılırsa, sadece DOĞU ANADOLU'nun tarihin ilk günlerinden beri TÜRK olduğu değil; BATI ANADOLU'NUN EGE ADALARI'NIN, YUNANİSTAN'IN, hatta İTALYA'NIN da TÜRKLÜĞÜ ispatlanmış olacaktır!..
İş bununla da kalmıyacak, Batılıların pek böbürlendikleri Yunan ve Roma Medeniyeti'nin TÜRK ve DOĞU kökenli olduğu ortaya çıkacaktır!.. 

O zaman KİMLERİN BARBAR OLDUĞU çok daha iyi anlaşılacaktır.
İşte bunu engellemek için Batılı tarihçiler PELASGLAR'ı hasıraltı ederler!..

Halbuki konu bizim için son derece önemlidir... İlk kadın elçimiz, 6 Batı dili ve bir o kadar da TÜRK lehçesi bilen büyük araştırmacı ADİLE AYDA; uzun çalışmalar sonucunda aşağıdaki hususları ortaya çıkartmıştır:

- Homer İLYADA'nın 2. Bölümü'nde eski ARGOS şehrinden söz ederken, bu şehri "PELASGİK=PELASGLARA AİT" olarak nitelendirmektedir.

- Homer, daha sonra Yunanlılar karşısındaki TROYA ordusunun "kataloğunu" yaparken, "LARİSSA şehrinin beslemiş olduğu SAĞLAM SÜNGÜLÜ PELASG KABİLELERİ"nden söz eder. LARİSSA, Tesalya'dadır.

- l0. Bölüm'de TROYALI HEKTOR Yunan donanmasını araştırmak üzere DOLON adında birini keşfe gönderir. DOLON yakalanır. Sorguya çekilir ve, "TROYALILAR'IN MÜTTEFİKLERİ'ni sayarken TANRISAL PELASGLAR"dan söz eder. Bu da PELASG liderlerinden en az birinin "gökten inme" olduğuna inandıklarını gösterir. OĞUZ EFSANESİ'nde olduğu gibi... (17)

- 15. Bölüm'de Grek AKHİLLOS arkadaşı PATROKL'u savaşa gönderirken kime dua eder, bilir misiniz? PELASGLAR'IN BAŞTANRISINA!.. Bu ne demektir, bilir misiniz?..

Ya Grekler düşmanları PELASGLAR'ın Tanrısı'nın kendi tanrılarından daha güçlü olduğuna inanıyorlardı, yahut ta PATROKL adlı kişi kendi PELASG'tır ve kendi tanrısına dua edilmektedir!
Böylece Girit medeniyetinde de TÜRK damgası olduğu ortaya çıkar.

- HERODOT, "Yunanistan'da biri YUNANLI, diğeri PELASG OLMAK ÜZERE İKİ IRK BULUNDUĞUNU, BİRİNİN VATANINDAN HİÇ AYRILMADIĞINI, İKİNCİSİNİN İSE GÖÇEBE OLDUĞU"nu söyler... SAMOTRAKE adasında oturan PELASGLAR önce ATTİKA'ya, oradan da HİMET Dağı eteklerine yerleşmişler. Sonra orayı da bırakıp LİMNİ Adasına geçmişler, M.Ö. 510 yılında adadan ayrılmak zorunda kalmışlar...

- HERODOT, LİDYA'ya hakim bir kralın TYRRHENOS adlı oğlunun ülke ahalisinin yarısı ile birlikte İTALYA'ya göç ettiğini anlatır.

- HERODOT'a göre TYRRHENLER'İN yukarısındaki KRESTON şehrinde, ÇANAKKALE BOĞAZI civarında, PLAKYA ve SKULAKA şehirlerinde oturan PELASG kalıntısı ahali, "barbar" bir dil konuşuyorlardı... Yunanlılar KENDİLERİNDEN OLMAYANA "BARBAR" DERLERDİ... Bu da PELASGLAR'ın Hint-Avrupaî olmadığının delilidir.

- HERODOT, "ATİNALI PELASGLAR"dan söz eder. Bunlar SOY bakımından PELASG oldukları halde, Yunanlılarla komşuluk yaptıklarından Yunanca konuşmaya başlamışlardır. (19) Bu kişiler daha sonra Roma hâkimiyetine girdiklerinde Latin dilini benimsemiş DAÇYALILAR, KOMANYALILAR, veya adları dahi TÜRK olan, ama Ortodoksluğu kabul edince slavlaşan BULGARLAR gibi idiler.

- HERODOT'a göre PELASGLAR'ın dini Animizm idi. Çok sonra, Mısırlıların tanrılarını aldılar. YUNANLILAR DA BU TANRILARI PELASGLAR'DAN ALDI!..

- HERODOT, KZERKSES'in ANADOLU seferini ve TROYA harabelerine yürüyüşünü anlatırken ANTANDROS şehrinden söz eder ve bu şehrin PELASGLAR'a ait olduğunu belirtir.

- HERODOT, bir kadının esir olarak satıldığı yerden söz ederken, "kendi zamanında Yunanistan (GREKYA) olarak bilinen ülkenin daha önceki adının PELASGİA olduğu"nu söyler!..

- HERODOT, "Yunan Mitolojisi'nin HEZİYOD ve HOMER tarafından PELASGLAR'dan alınmış tanrılardan yararlanılarak oluşturulduğu"nu söyler. (20)

- HERODOT, eserinin 4. Bölümü'nde "Atinalıların, AKROPOL'un etrafını duvarla çevirmeye karar verince, PELASGLAR'a başvurdukları"nı, tarihçi HEKATEOS'u kaynak göstererek belirtir. PELASGLAR öyle sağlam bir duvar yaparlar ki, bir parçası bugün dahi PELARJİK DUVAR adıyla turistlere tanıtılmaktadır!.. Yani Akrapol'da da TÜRK'ün tuzu vardır.

- HERODOT'a göre, "Yunanlılar büyük millet haline gelmiş olmalarını PELASGLAR'a borçludurlar!" Büyük Tarihçi, "Yunanlıların aslında ZAYIF bir millet olduğunu, ancak BARBAR milletler ve bilhassa PELASGLAR ile karıştıktan sonra büyük millet haline geldiği"ni belirtir...
Bunu biz değil, bir "Yunan" tarihçi söylüyor, hem de Batılılar'a göre, Tarihin Babası!..

- HERODOT'tan sonraki tarihçiler, PELASG ile TYRRHEN kelimelerini aynı anlamda kullanırlar.

- HELLANİKOS'a göre "PELASGLAR, İtalya'ya yerleştikten sonra TYRRHEN (ETRÜSK) adını almışlardır." (21)

- LESBOSLU MYRSİLOS'a göre "TYRRHENLER vatanlarından ayrıldıktan sonra PELASG olmuşlardır."

- HEKATEOS'a göre "BRAURON'da Atinalı kadınları kaçıranlar PELASGLAR'dır." Bu olay Orta Asya'da ve Anadolu'da hâlâ yaygın olan "kız kaçırma" adetinden başka bir şey değildir.

- PHİLOCOROS'a göre "Bu kadınları kaçıranlar TYRRHENLER'dir..." Ki, aynı şeyi anlatmış olur.

- İşte bu yüzden ARİSTOFAN, SOFOKLES gibi yazarlar PELASG-TYRRHEN birleşik adını kullanmaya başlamışlardır.

PELASGLAR M.Ö. 3000 yıllarında kuzeyden gelip Yunanistan'ı istila etmiş olan milletin adı idi... ETRÜSKÇE'ye çok benziyen dilleri Hint-Avrupaî olmayan bitişken (aglutinatif) bir dildi. Bu dilde küçük dağın adı TEPAE=TEPE idi!.. Tıpkı Kuzey Amerika kızılderililerinin çadırlarına verdikleri ad gibi!..

PELASGLAR, BATI ANADOLU'da yaşamış en eski TÜRKLER'dir. 1885 yılında LİMNİ adasında bulunan PELASG dilindeki yazıtlar, Batılıları çok şaşırtmıştı... Çünkü bunlar ETRÜSK harflerine ve diline çok benziyordu!..

Greklerden farklı özellikler gösteren ARKADYALILAR'ın PELASG olduğunu HERODOT söylemektedir!.. MAKEDONYA'ya eski Yunanlılar PELA(S)GONYA derlermiş... Hatta HERODOT "Bir zamanlar Yunanistan'a PELASGİA denirdi," diyor. (22)

Helenlerin Yunanistan'a gelişi M.Ö. 2000 yıllarındadır. PELASGLAR'ın boş bıraktığı yerlere savaşsız yerleşirler. PELASG dilinden Helen diline pek çok kelime geçer... Hint-Avrupaî dil kurallarına uymayan bu kelimeler, bugün dahi Batılı dilcileri şaşkınlığa uğratmaktadır... Açıklamayınca bu kelimeler için "Pre-Helenik, Akdeniz kökenli, Ege kökenli" veya "ASİATİK" gibi tanımlar getirmektedirler!.. Böylece bu kelimelerin Asya'ya ait olduğu hemen hepsi tarafından kabul edilmektedir... Bu kelimeler ETRÜSKÇE'ye çok benzemektedir.

Hz. İSA ile çağdaş Bizanslı tarihçi Strabon, başka Yunanlı tarihçilerin LİDYALI dedikleri kişilere PELASG der:

"Herkesin fikrine göre PELASGLAR, bir zamanlar bütün Yunanistan'a yayılmış, fakat özellikle TESALYA'da yaşıyan çok eski bir ırk veya milletti."

"LİMNİ ve İMROS adalarıyla, o civardaki başka adaları işgal edip, oralarda ilk defa oturmuş olanlar PELASGLAR'dır."

"PELASGLAR arasından Atys oğlu THYRRHEN adlı biri çıkmış. Kendisine bir takım arkadaşlar bulmuş ve onlarla birlikte İtalya'nın yolunu tutmuştur." (23)

Belçikalı tarihçi Albert Severyus, EGELİ tabirini icat eden kişidir. Şöyle der:

"Yunanlılar, kendilerinden daha kültürlü olan EGELİLER'den bronz, bakır, kalay, kurşun, demir, hatta maden anlamındaki kelimeleri almışlardır." (24)

PELASGLAR Yunanistan'ı M.Ö. 3000 yıllarında ele geçirmişlerdir. Grekler bu tarihten l000 yıl sonra ortaya çıkmışlardır.

M.Ö. 1250 yılında AKALAR ile TROYALILAR arasında 10 yıl süren savaş başladı. Yine aynı tarihlerde GİRİT Medeniyeti doruğa çıktı, MİKEN Medeniyeti gelişti.

M.Ö. 1200'lerde Yunanistan Helenler'in soyundan sayılan DORYENLER tarafından istila edildi.

M.Ö. 8. asırda Karadeniz'den bir PROTO-TÜRK dalgası geldi, EGE ve AKDENİZ'e yayıldı. Sonra bazı yerli kavimler ile birleşerek Mısır'a saldırdılar. Bu saldırı Mısır belgelerinde "Deniz kavimlerinin saldırısı" diye geçer. Kavmin adını ise bazı bilginler TÜREŞ, bazıları da TURŞA diye okumaktadır. (25)

Mısırlılar bu istilaya karşı koyunca, TURŞALAR geri döndüler, Batı Anadolu sahillerine yerleştiler. Fransız Rene Dussaud TURŞALAR'ın ETRÜSKLER olduğunu ileri sürer. (26) Zaten İranlılar da ETRÜSKLER'e TRUŞKA demektedir.

Bu da bize gösteriyor ki, PELASGLAR, AMAZONLAR,. TURŞALAR, TYRRHENLER, ve ETRÜSKLER, BATI ANADOLU'da yaşamış TÜRKLER'dir. Yunanistan'a ve İtalya'ya medeniyeti PELASGLAR ve ETRÜSKLER taşımışlardır.

ATATÜRK'ün tarih kongreleri ile 1930'larda ortaya çıkardığı bu gerçek, maalesef Milli Şef İnönü döneminden itibaren rafa kaldırılmıştır.

Sonraki yıllarda HALİKARNAS BALIKÇISI tarafından tekrar dile getirilmiş ise de; bizim Batı hayranı sola mütemayil tarihçilerimiz tarafından önemsenmemiştir.

Artık pek çok Batılı yazar medeniyetin ANADOLU'da, MEZOPOTAMYA'da başladığını, oradan MISIR'a ve EGE'ye yayıldığını, her iki kanaldan da ADALAR'a atladığını, sonra YUNANİSTAN'a ve ROMA'ya intikal ettiğini kabullenmektedir.

Bunun MEZOPOTAMYA-MISIR-EGE-ADALAR- YUNANİSTAN kısmı, zaten HERODOT'un çizdiği hattır... Hatta Herodot, bazı Libya kabilelerinin kendilerini TROYALI saydıklarını söyler!.. (27)
Bunlar herhalde M.Ö. 800'lerde Karadeniz'den Ege'ye, oradan da Mısır'a yayılan TÜRKLER'dir.

Derleme T.Türkkan

(17) - İlliade-Odyssee, Paris, 1965, sf. l27,132
(18) - aynı eser, sf.808
(19) - Herodotus, Oxford, 1949, sf.25,26,134
(20) - aynı eser, sf. 135
(21) - Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopade der Klassischen Altertumsvissen- shaft, 
Stuggart, 1948 , sf.1910
(22) - Powell, J. Enoch, Herodotus, Oxford, 1949, cilt 1, sf. 75
(23) - "Geographie de Strabon", Paris, 1867, sf. 366
(24) - "Greece et Proche-Orient avant Homere", Bruxelles, 1968, sf. 41
(25) - Realencylopaedia, Tyrrhen maddesi, sf.1909
(26) - "Prelydiens, Hittites, Acheens" Paris, 1958, sf.21
(27)- Herodot Tarihi, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1973, sf. 287


Türk‟ün Adı ve Adları : T+R

“Türk” adının çeşitli şekillerini, tarih boyunca değişikliklerini, Türklere takılan farklı adları ve anlamları iyi anlaşılmadığından karmakarışık isimler yanlış sonuçlar vermiştir. Türk‟ün “TRK” adı tartışmalı bir konudur. 

Önceleri bunun ancak 6. yüzyılda Gôktürklerle başladığı sanılmıştı. Çinli‟lerin “T‟ukü-e” (Tukyu) şeklinde yazmaları okunup da, ardından Orhun yazıtlarının çôzülmesiyle, asıl adın “Kôk-Türük” (Gôktürk) olduğu ortaya çıkmıştı.

Ancak, “Türk” kelimesinin çekirdeğini oluşturan “T+R”, bazen de “T+R+K” (veya sadece “T+K”) sesinin daha eski kayıtlarda keşfedilmesi bu adın 6. yüzyıldan ônce de kullanılmakta olduğunu gôsteriyor. 

Bu eski izi, M.Ö. 1400‟lerde de yakalıyoruz: Türk‟ler Orta Asya‟dan doğrudan doğruya (veya Sümer ilinden geçerek) ônce Kars civarlarına gelmişler, sonra Ege kıyılarına kadar gôçüp, orada denizci bir toplum haline gelerek Akdeniz‟e iyice açılmışlardır. Mısırlılar onlardan tarihlerinde, “başlarında tüyler takılı “Turuşka” deniz savaşçıları” diye bahsetmişlerdir. 

Hintliler bugün bile Türklere “Turuşk” ve “Turuhka” dediklerine gôre Mısırlıların M.Ö. 1400‟lerde kullandıkları “Turuşka” adının “Türk” kelimesinin bir şekli olduğunu kabul edebiliriz. Ön Asya çivi yazılarında da var.

Türşka‟kaların bir başka gôçü İtalya‟nın kuzey-batı bôlgesine yerleşen ve M.. 800‟lerde ünleri iyice parlayacak olan “Etrüsk”lerdir. Sonradan Romalıların taktıkları, kelime başı harflerini atarsak, “(E)Trüsk” kavim adıyla ve soykütükleri olan (R asena-Asena) bozkurt totemiyle karşı karşıya kalırız. 

İşte bu “TRSK” adı, “TURUŞKA” gibi, Türk adının en eski izidir. Etrüsk‟ün İtalya‟daki diğer izleri de hep (E) ile değil (T) ile başlar: yaşadıkları toprakların adı “Tuskan” idi (bugün de “Tuscany” denir). Kıyılarıyla başlayan denizin adı -bugün de- “Tirhen”dir. “Tirsen” ve “Turski” adlara da rastlıyoruz.

Çin‟e girip, Çinlileri M. Ö. 1100‟den 400‟lere kadar yôneten Türk kôkenli u/Su/eu sülalesinin yıllığında ve Hintli Aryen‟lerin “Avesta” destanlarında “T+R”li kavim adları vardır.

Çin kayıtlarında M.Ö. 1100‟lerden itibaren ve ôzellikle M.Ö. 1328‟de kuzeyli kavimler arasında gôsterilen Tu-Kue, “Tik” ve “Ti”lerin de “Türk”-Tu-çüe‟leri ifade ediyor olabilir. Sinolog L. K. Katona‟nın 1966‟da Sinologların Uluslararası Kongresinde verdiği bir tebliğde, Çin alfabesineki “r” harfinin eksikliğini bir kere daha -ôrnekleriyle- kanıtlamıştır. 

“T” ile başlayan çeşitli “kuzey boylarının”, sonunda hangi ekler gelirse gelsin, “T+r” şeklinde okunması doğrulanmış oluyor. “Ti” ve Tik‟in bir başka şekli de in arşivlerinin Toba (Topa)lardan sôzeden kısmında Tu-Ku oymağının ve Hyung-nu hanedanının Tu-Ko menşeinin “r” ile okununca “Turka” adı ortaya çıkıyor.

Türkistan‟ın Semerkant yakınlarında “Tukhs” ve Tukhsici” adındaki kôyler (YAQUİ, I, 828), Eşgil Bulgarlarının “Tukhsi” olarak anılması (İbn Fadlan 221, 222) Gene Çin‟de, De Groot‟un sôzünü ettiği “Tok-sin” ile “Tik”lerin bir kolu olarak gôsterdiği (28-29) “Tso”lar, Sarı Yugar Türklerinin Kansu‟da “Türgüş” ve “Togşı/Tukhsi” boyları (ZVT, 433, not 164) “r”li “r”siz telaffuzuyla “T+S+K” isim şekillerinin ne kadar yaygın olduğunu gôsteriyor.

Yunanlılar çağında da bôyle izler buluyoruz: M.Ö. 480‟lerde yaşamış olan ünlü tarihçi Herodot‟un, “yurkae” ve “targitoes” diye yazdığı adın, 2. Plinius ile P. Mela‟da “turkae” şeklinde geçmesi, artık açıkça “Türk” adını çağırıştırıyor. Truvalılarda “Tenkri‟ler” boy ismine rastlanıyor. Truva‟da ilk tabakalardaki halkın Türklerle akraba (Pelaj‟lar) tahmin ediliyor. Doğrudan doğruya Pelajlarda da “Turxum” şeklinde bir isme rastlıyoruz.

Prof.Dr.Reha Oğuz TÜRKKAN
TÜRKLER - CİLT 1 - pdf


The “fifteen achievements” E. Akurgal gathers in his book titled “The Aegean. Birth of Western Civilization” under the section referring to “The Importance of Eastern Hellenic Art and Culture in World History”; inessence, is a summary of the artistic and cultural superiority of the “Eastern Greeks” over the “Western Greeks”. 

My only disagreement with this statement is the use of the terminologies “Eastern Greek” and/or “Eastern Hellenic”. The Hellenic character of the Ionians doesn’t be based on the historical documents; instead it bases on the myths fabricated with the nationalist view in Athens, seven hundred years after the immigrations, in the 5th century.

It is obvious that themyth is not the history. The perception of the Ionian land as a part of the Hellenic land is because of the same myth. It was a tale of “colonisation” of the Hellenic people won by war, on the mid-west Anatolian costs and the nearby islandsby the leadership of the Athenians after the barbaric attacks of the Doric people. If it was a true story, Ionians who werethe creator of the western civilization, had to bring with them from Hellas their culture and art as well; however all thearchaeological evidences prove just the opposite of it. 

Although the pottery tradition was accepted as the most importantstandpoint, just like their sculpture and architecture, Ionians are not indebted to Hellas their pottery tradition as well.Ionians owe their Gods and Goddess, their script, their cultural and intellectual achievements to Anatolia. 

The archaeological evidence on about the identity of the Ionians has already been proved with a recent find in Egypt, by aninscription mentioning “Great Ionia” dated at least two hundred years before the migration. Therefore, it is the time questioning the definition of the “Hellenic identity” of the Anatolian civilizations with the scientific documents and evidences...

Prof.Dr.Fahri Işık : devamı


Francis Bacon (1561 -1626)