تاریخ‌نگاران
باید در مورد
واژه‌ی ترک و
محدوده‌ی آن
با احتیاط
مقاله
بنویسند. زیرا در متون
اعراب، واژه‌ی
ترک به معنی
قومی نبوده
است بلکه به
معنی ساکنین
آسیایه‌میانه
است (مانند
واژه توران که
در زمان اوستا
تعلق به قوم
ایرانی داشت و
سپس در دوران
اسلام، کم کم
این واژه شکل
قومی گرفت).
این منابع که
امیدوارم
زمانی به
فارسی ترجمه
شود، این نکته‌ی
مهم را بیشتر
توضیح دادند و
به دو بخش
(ریشه‌ی واژه
ترک و محدوده‌ی
واژه‌ی ترک
تقسیم
میشوند).
همچنین نکته‌ی
مهم دیگر
اینست که
منابع علمی تازه
حرف اول را
میزنند و بر
منابع کهن
برتری دارند.
ریشه‌ی واژه
ترک هرچند
مشخص نیست،
اما تحقیقات
بسیار نوین آن
را ایرانی (و
نه آلتایی
میدانند) و گرو
اشراف
اتحادیه
"ترکان آبی"
را نیز ایرای‌تبار
(سکایی)
میدانند:
Golden, Peter B. "Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples". (2006) In: Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World. Ed. Victor H. Mair. University of Hawai'i Press.
pp 142-143
The ethnonym "Turk" has similar connections. The
Chinese form, "T'u-chùeh" < 'T'uat-kiwat reflects "Turkut,"
the plural form, as we have noted. This plural in –t could be Altaic. It is common in
Mongol, rare in OldTurkic, and usually found in
titles taken from the Jou-jan (e.g., tegin, tegit) —who, it is
believed, but not universally, were speakers of some Proto-Mongolian Ianguage (they contained Hsiun-pi
[Proto-Mongolian] and Hsiung-nu elements; Janhunen [1996,190], however, recently asserted a possible
Turkic affiliation). It might also be Soghdian or some
other Iranian tongue. In the earliest inscription from the Tùrk
empire, the Bugut Inscription, which is written in Soghdian, not Turkic, we find trwkt
' ‘sy-ns’: Turkit / Turukit Ashinas (Mori-yasu and Ochir 1999,123). The Sui-shu tells us
that the name "Tûrk" in their own tongue
means "helmet" and that it comes from the fact that the Altay région, where we find the Tùrks
at the time in which they form their empire, looks like a helmet. "The
people call it a 'helmet,' t'u-chiïeh; therefore,
they cail themselves by this name" (Liu 1958,1: 40). This is a folk etymology, and there is no attested
Turkic form of "Tùrk" meaning "helmet."
As Rôna-Tas
has pointed out, however, there is a Khotancse-Saka
word, tturaka, mcaning
"lid" (1999,278 - 281). It is not a serious semantic stretch to
"helmet." Subsequently, “Tùrk" would
find a suirable Turkic etymology, being conflated
with the word tùrk, which means one in the
prime of youth, powerful, mighty" (Rona-Tas
1991,10-13).
It seems
hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tùrks, per se,
had strong connections with — if not ultimate origins in — Irano-Tocharian
east Turkistan. They, or at least the Ashina, were
migrants to southern Siberia-northern Mongolia, where we seem to find the major
concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples. There are a considarable
number of Tocharian and Iranian loan words in Old Turkic — although a good
number of these may have been acquired, especially in the case of Soghdian terms, during the Tùrk impérial period, when the Soghdians
were a subject people, an important mercantile-commercial element in the Tùrk state, and culture-bearers across Eurasia. It also
should be noted here that the early Tùrk rulers bore
names of non-Turkic origin. The founders of the state are Bumïn
(d. 552) and his brother Ishtemi (552-575), the Yabghu Qaghan, who governed the
western part of the realm. Among their successors are 'Muqan/Mughan/Mahân/Muhân
(553 - 572), Tas(t)par (572 -581), and Nivar/Nâbàr/Nawâr (581-587). None of thèse names is Turkic (Golden 1992,121 - 122; Rybatzki 2000.206-221).
András Róna-Tas,
Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages: an introduction to early
Hungarian history, Central European University Press, 1999,
PP 281:"We can now reconstruct the history of
the ethnic name Turk as follows. The word is East Iranian, most probably Saka, origin, and is the name of a ruling tribe whose
leading clan Ashina conquered the Turks, reorganized
them, but itself became rapidly Turkified"
محدود‌ی
واژه‌ی ترک و
استفاده‌ی آن
برای
ایرانیان در
متون اعراب:
M.
A. Shaban goes further:“These new troops were the
so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the
most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam
on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they
unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great
majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed
out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples
of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects
of the Sassanian empire as
Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from
every locality. The group from Farghana
were called after their district, and the name continued in usage
because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya,
the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities
who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term
Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such
foreign names. The Khazars
who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they
were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called
Turks on the ground of racial affinity. However, other groups from
Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars
under the general description.”
(M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”,
Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63)
“The name Turk
was given to all these troops, despite the inclusion amongst them of some
elements of Iranian origin, Ferghana, Ushrusana, and Shash – places
were in fact the centers were the slave material was collected together”(ʻUthmān Sayyid Aḥmad Ismāʻīl
Bīlī, "Prelude to the Generals",
Published by Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2001.)
Note unlike what M.A. Shaban states,
someone like Ibn Khaldun
has stated the Soghdians as a “Turkish” group.
“In reference to the first two centuries of Islam, the
term “Turk” as used by Arabic and Persian sources presents difficulties.
The Muslim authors mean different things by the term, depending on their era,
proximity to Inner Asia and knowledge of the region. It can overlap with
other ethnic names (e.g. “Soghdian, Khazar, Farghanian”). (D. Pipes. Turks in
Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978, 2, 85—96.)
One Soghdian(Iranian) in particular who was mistaken for a Turk was the
general Afshin. That is while two old
Arabic sources mention Afshin as a Turk, it is clear
to modern scholars he was a Soghdian and other
sources have mentioned him as such.
Daniel
Pipes states:"Although two classical sources claim him a Turk, he
came from Farghana, an Iranian cultural region and
was not usually considered Turkish"( D. Pipes. Turks in
Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978, 2, 85—96.)
Bernard Lewis also states: "Babak's Iranianizing
Rebellion in Azerbaijan gave occasion for sentiments at the capital to harden
against men who were sympathetic to the more explicitly Iranian tradition.
Victor (837) over Babak was al-Afshin,
who was the hereditary Persian ruler of a district beyond the Oxus, but also a
masterful general for the caliph.”( Bernard
Lewis, "The Political Language of Islam", Published by University of
Chicago Press, 1991. Pg 482)
And J.H. Kramer states about Oshrusana:
“Under Mamun, the country had to be
conquered again and a new expedition was necessary in 207/822. On this last
occasion, the Muslim army was guided by Haydar (Khedar), the son of the Afshīn
Kāwūs, who on account of dynastic troubles
had sought refuge in Baghdād. This time the
submission was complete; Kāwūs abdicated
and Haydar succeeded him, later to become one of the
great nobles of the court of Baghdād under al-Mutasim, where he was known as al-Afshīn.
His dynasty continued to reign until 280/893 (coin of the last ruler Sayr b. Abdallāh of 279
[892] in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg); after this date, the country became
a province of the Sāmānids and ceased to
have an independent existence, while the Iranian element was eventually almost
entirely replaced by the Turkic.”( J.H. Kramers
"Usrūshana." Encyclopaedia of Islam.
Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth ,
E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs.
Brill, 2007)
Thus modern scholars affirm Afshin was
Iranian. However to Arab authors at the time, the term “Turk” did not
specifically mean Altaic speakers as much as a person from the far away regions
of Central Asia.
According C.E. Bosworth, "The Appearance of the Arabs in
Central Asia under the Umayyads and the establishment
of Islam", in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV:
The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One:
The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by M. S. Asimov and C. E.
Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing, 1998. excerpt from page 23: "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically,
still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian
languages.
C. Edmund Bosworth: "In early Islamic times
Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan
were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam
essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes,
and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky,
"Turan"). Turan
thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing
ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic
times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were
the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians
and Khwarezmians."( C.E. Bosworth, “Central Asia: The Islamic period up to the
Mongols” in Encyclopedia Iranica).
Thus one should be careful in looking at Arabic sources that were
written by authors far away from Central Asia. With regards to the
language and culture of the region, the work of Biruni
is clear and he differentiates clearly between Iranian(Chorasmians, Persians, Soghdians)
and Turks. But the work of Arab authors and those from Western Iran are
less careful.