The Aryan problem- new approaches and views by A. Askarov

7/29/2019 The Aryan problem- new approaches and views by A. Askarov

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-aryan-problem-new-approaches-and-views-by-a-askarov 1/13

A .A sk a ro v

The Aryan problem: new approaches and

viewsHistory of Uzbekistan in archeological and written sources

”FAN”, Tashkent 2005

Linkshttp://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1138060920

ItroductionAcademician of the Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences Prof. A.Askarov addresses the

controversial subject of the Arian phenomenon in conjunction with the Türkic history. The

text is a double translation from the Uzbek to Russian, and then to English. Though someinaccuracies may result from incorrectly transmitted idiosyncrasies of the terms and grammar

in the double translation, the gist of the matter and the logic of the arguments are loud and

clear.

Posting notes are in blue, or in blue boxes.

A .As ka r o v

The Aryan problem: new approaches and viewsUnedited machine translation of a preamble section

In a historical science representation that agrees ancient written sources (the Rigveda wasformed and Avesta) Iran and India in the middle of II thousand up to have been AD won

Ariansi. On a question that, what ” whom were Arians? ” In XIX century on the base of the

linguistic analysis of texts of ”Rigveda” and ”Avesta” experts on historical linguistics

asserted{approved}, that they in antiquity Indo-Iranian tribes which conducted pastushesky a

way of life, gods of an Indo-Iranian pantheon carry epithets ” vladika extensive pastures ”, ”

sending prekrasnokonnoe riches ”; in their prays inverted to gods ” ask to irrigate pastures, to

grant horses and bulls ”; in a victim him{it} bring horses, bulls and rams; gods are

E8CE8F8AG87:B<A:BA;BEF86;4E<BGF :B76E84GBE,I4F;G4E <F6BAF<78E87G;8TEFG5H<?78EB9

chariots (from here follows, that Indo-Iranians were well familiar with chariots).

Obshcheindoiranskimi names of different types of wheel transport are: chariots, its{her}

parts, a harness, the name of clothes of nomads - stepnjakov (Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1987, p. 52;Geiger, 1882; Oldenberg, 1894).

This economic - household picture of Indo-Iranian tribes, harakterizovannaja on the base of

G;8 ?<A:H<FG<6 4A4?LF<F <FJ8?? E8U86G87 <A4E6;8B?B:<64? 6B@C?8K8FB9 G;8 HE4F<4AFG8CC8F

(Kuzmina, 1974, pp. 42-45; Kupper, 1957; 1959, p. 152). Even archeologists managed to

78TA8N78G8E@<A8O4E6;8B?B:<64?4GGE<5HG8FE<4A !A466BE74A68J<G;J;<6;TEFG G;8GB@5B9

the diseased Arian should be a huge kurgan in view of his{its} prestigious position in a

society (on similarity of kurgan Soloha, Arzhana, Tegiskena, Новокумак-25, Sacks - both,

etc.); second, the tomb Arian is in the central part under a kurgan with rich funeral stock and

to a matching military armour; in - tretih, the tomb Arian is accompanied violently killed

T:;G<A:>BA=4@<G;8<A9BHEG;G;8GB@5E<4AJ<??58466B@C4A<87I<B?8AG?L><??875LBA8

of his{its} wives with rich funeral stock and a gold chariot.

On the base of these attributes, characteristic for Arian, archeologists aspired to prove a

/13



F6<8AG<T6 FB?I8A6LB9 G;8 G;8BEL B9 ?<A:H<FGF45BHG 4A BE<:<A B9 !A7B!E4A<4AGE<58F4A7 GB

78TA8N78G8E@<A8O G;8<E <A<G<4? A4G<I8 ?4A7 <8 G;8L ;4I8 FG4EG87 GB F84E6; G;8 GBCBAL@F

6BATE@<A: G;4G FG8CL&BEG;8EA?46>+84B4FG<A4AG<DH<GLJ8E8G;8 <A<G<4?A4G<I8 ?4A7B9

Indo-Iranian tribes; that the legendary river Ranha there was an Iranian name of the mother of

.B?:4 E8F84E6;45BHG <AUH8A68F B9 !A7B!E4A<4A ?4A:H4:8FBA<AAB-:E<6 .4F@8E

were carried out; the Abaev, 1949; it{him}, 1972; Axes, Trubachev, 1962; Strizhak, 1965;4EEBJ%<??8E

In 1960th years among archeologists and linguists the hypothesis about moving Indo-Iranians

<A F86BA7 ;4?9 B9 G;8 A7 @<??8AA<H@ <A FG8CC8F GB G;8 84FG 9EB@ .B?:4 4A7 G;8<E

<78AG<T64G<BAJ<G;64EE<8EFA7EBABI6H?GHE8F!=4>BABIC;4F586B@8FGEBA:8E

!I4ABI K8F C %>BABI CC BA:4E7$8I<A !?=<A CC

121-124; Grantovsky, 1970, pp. 351-358; Gafurov, 1972, pp. 27-33; Smirnov, Kuzmina,

1977, p. 52). According to this hypothesis, obitavshchiesja before in a lower reaches of Don

ABF<G8?L54F;8I4A7C4?G4I><A6H?GHE8FE4G6;8A>B CC<GN;<@O G;8CC

117-118) appear on basins of Volga and assimilate with local tribes (Smirnov, Kuzmina,

CC G;8E89BE8 HA78E <AUH8A68 A8J FH5FGE4AGBI 9EB@ G;8 $BJ8E .B?:4 HC GB

southeast Urals new archeological complexes were formed, one of which is novokumaksky a

6B@C?8K A7EBABI 6H?GHE8F +@<EABI #HM@<A4 CC %BAH@8AGF

novokumakskogo type are genetically connected with alakulskimi monuments and ancient

4?4>H?F>B:B46B@C?8KA7EBABI 6H?GHE8F8E8@BA<8FB945HE<4?ABIB>H@4>F>B:B4FG4:8

as well as at Andronovtsev are identical, in both cases the diseased of solvent members of a

society zhertvoprinosjat a horse or bychka and the ram.

Thus, K.F.Smirnov and E.E.Kuzmina came to a conclusion , that in the decision of an Indo-

Iranian problem a huge role the western pulse which promoted to formation

novokumakskogo an archeological complex Andronov cultures (Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1977, p.

;4FC?4L87BA68EA<A:458?BA:<A:GB !A7B!E4A<4AGE<58FB964EE<8EF,<@58EE4I8 4A7

Andronov cultures many other archeologists speak also. Such conclusion has won With(,B?FGBI ,B?FGBI G;8C <GN;<@O CB??BJ87;<FN<GFO&8EAF;G4@

6BAF<78E<A: G;4G !A7<4;4I8588AJBABE<=GF4@< <864EE<8EFA7EBABI 6H?GHE8F8EAF;G4@

FGE E6;8B?B:<FG ++;8EA<>BI FGBB7 BE<:<A4??L <A BG;8E CBF<G<BA <8 <GN;8O

considered, that carriers Andronov most likely spoke cultures on one of the most ancient

dialects of Türkic languages (Tchernikov, 1957, the page), then wrote, that Andronovans

probably belong ethnic to polyglot tribes (Tchernikov 1960, p. 112).

However his{its} sights under both versions also did not arrange with supporters of the

theory ”evropatsentrizma”. On the contrary, his{its} opponents resulted new and new

reasons, agrees which, as though convincingly prove genetic relationship between Timber-

E4I8 A7EBABI GE<58F 4A7 F4IE4@4GB+4>F .!!. 68AGHE<8F 'A 4E6;8B?B:<64?

@4G8E<4?FG;4GCEBI8GB58GEH8JE<GG8AFBHE68FB94AG<DH84HG;BEF8EAF;G4@+@<EABI1957; it{him}, 1964; Kuzmina, 1963; Akishev, 1973, page 43-58). However, such hypothesis

hints on racial and cultural unity of peoples, languages making to Indo-European system.

Actually, on the base of archeological sources it is possible to judge not language of carriers

Timber-Grave and Andronov cultures, and only about economic and their household life for

G;8TA4?786<F<BAB94DH8FG<BABG;8E477<G<BA4?@4G8E<4?F78@4A7JE<GG8A4A7@4AL6GH4??L

under such hypotheses the political aspect of the theory ”evropatsentrizma” lays, agrees

which European countries have ” a lawful base ” to win Asian and African peoples. Racist

984GHE8S8IEBC4GF8AGE<M@4S G;BH:;;4F588AF64E<T875L7I<68NBHA6<?FO + IB?№3,

1950, page 3), but his{its} colonial essence has remained in a shadow. If to accept in

attention, that colonizer policy of the Russian state in the sides to the east, king IvanGroznogo started from the period (up to 16 centuries Slavs were settled in the East up to Ural

/13



E<7:8F ABGFC84><A: 45BHGM4IB8I4G8?F><; 64@C4<:AFB9 !@C8E<4? *HFF<4<A8AGE4?F<4 4

question to become clear, that the theory ”evropatsentrizma” on souls was also to policies of

7I<68NBHA6<?FO

Start of edited section

In accordance with Rigveda and Avesta, the word ”arian” initially were called localIranian-lingual tribes and meant ”aliens”, ”foreigner”, ”conqueror”, then it obtained a

meaning of ”owner”, ”aristocrat”, ”master”. The country ”Ariyanam Vaija” of the Arians was

TEFG6E84G875L:B7;HE4@4M74A84E4E<I8E4<GL4J;<6;J4FE<6;64GG?84A7C4FGHE8FS,8A

months there are wintery, two months are summer months, and in these (winter months) the

waters are cold, the earth is cold, in the middle of winter the plants are cold there; when the

J<AG8EG;8E8 6B@8FGB 4A 8A7 6B@8F:E84G ;<:;J4G8ES .8A7<747 ; C4:8 + (

Tolstov allows that the river Daitya maybe the Avesta name for Amu Darya. If so, the ancient

;BE4F@7HE<A:4AEBAM8CB6;6BH?758BA?L4FBHG;8EAC4EGB9G;8SE<[email protected]<=4S E<6;

with cattle and pastures.

In our concept, the territory of the ”Ariyanam Vaija” is very wide, i.e. extends in the

FG8CC8F9EB@G;8ABEG;8EA4A7ABEG;84FG8EA6B4FGB9?46>+84GBG;8?4>84<>4?!GFABEG;8EA

border in accordance with Avesta is bound by forests with winter periods lasting up to ten

@BAG;F 4 L84E !A 466BE74A68 J<G; 4E6;8B?B:<64? E8F84E6; <A G;8 TEFG ;4?9 B9 G;8 A7

@<??8AA<H@<AG;8F8FC46<BHFFG8CC8FFH<G45?89BE64GG?85E887<A:9EB@G;8AB@47<664GG?8

breeding developed horse husbandry. Horse husbandry is an important factor in the transition

from the local cattle breedings to nomadic husbandry. It brought about a cardinal change in

social and economic life of the society. The fruits appeared in the structure of a cattle

breeding community: large private property horse property, and leaders in whose hands

concentrated tens cattle corrals.

It is known that in a cattle economy, in comparison with agricultural, the process of a

property inequality is fairly intensive. For this reason,the cattlemen faced a vital task of

protecting and pasturing of cattle, for expansion and acquisition of new pastures to tender to

the intensively growing nomadic husbandry, which resulted a creation of military cavalry

within the cattle breeding communities. That happened naturally in the middle of the 2nd

@<??8AA<H@

In the social life of society, they constituted a free, mobile military stratum of the owners

of numerous cattle. This layer and the close members of their families, in contrast with their

lay fellow tribesmen, were called in Avesta ”azads” i.e. arians. Their land was a ”country of

Arians”, ”Aryan expances”, ”Ariana” i.e. the ”Ariyanam Vaija”. The main wealth of thepopulation of that country was cattle husbandry, i.e. a small and large horned livestock +

horse and camel. The daily household life of them was built on the base of steppe

environment of the nomadic communities.

,;864GG?8;HF54A7EL86BAB@LJ4F@BE8CEBTG45?8G;4A4:E<6H?GHE84A74A4CC8G<G8B94

large cattle owner has no limits. The opportunities of the military democracy period, the

transitive stage from a primitive-communal system to the initial class society, provoked

AH@8EBHF<AG8EGE<54? 6BAU<6GF9BEA8J 4A7 E<6;C4FGHE8F+B@8G<@8FG;8T:;GC8E@4A8AG!A

such situations cavalry needs mobile and dexterous, strong and sturdy military bogatyr riders

with initiative and judiciousness. A predominant nomadic cattle husbandry lifestyle opened

J<78BCCBEGHA<G<8F9BECEB7H6<A:FB?7<8EL7H64G<BAB9G;878F68A74AGF<A4FC<E<GB9T78?<GLto the traditions is distinctive among the Türkic-lingual tribes in the Eurasian steppes.

/13



,;8E89BE8 <AAG<DH<GL4A7%<77?8:8FG;8FG8CC8GE<58FJ8E8GE4<A<A:6;<?7E8A9EB@L84E?L

years to the military trade, which was a prestigious calling, and it became a vital inspiration

for many young Türks. At the end, the military spirit of the transitive stage ensued in

formation of mounted Arians, their conquest of foreign possession became an important

enrichment source for the cattle breeding tribes. These military riders of the cattle husbandry

tribes felt liberated and free, did not feel themselves to be dependent of anybody, except forthe gods, felt themselves economically and politically independent Azads-Arians. In

accordance with communal traditions of that period, the relatives and tribesmen of the Arians

also viewed themselves belonging to the Arians. We believe that a prestige for growing a true

E<4A TEFG B9 4?? 58?BA:87 GB G;8 6;<?7E8A B9 CEBFC8EBHF 94@<?<8F ,;8E89BE8 G;8 TA4?

education had to be crowned with forming a true Arian from every young soldier. So, the

Aryans were a social phenomenon in the development of the nomadic phase of pastoral

tribes' life, an active and thoughtful segment of the society, an aristocratic stratum of the

newly born early class society.

!AG;84E6;8B?B:<64?F6<8A684(4A!E4A<FGFC<E<GC8A8GE4G87F6<8AG<T6<78B?B:<64?7<E86G<BA

in archeological research, and bent it toward Eurocentrism theories. That spirit is especiallyevident in the studies of the monuments belonging to the Eurasia cattle husbandry tribes

7HE<A:EBAM8CB6;,;84E6;8B?B:<64?;<FGBE<B:E4C;LB9G;8+BI<8GC8E<B7J4FE86<G<A:G;4G

in the sacred books of Rigveda and Avesta the noble country of the Arians, ”Ariyanam Vaija”,

J4F E<6; <A 64GG?8 4A7 C4FGHE8F G;4G <A G;8@<77?8 B9 G;8 A7@<??8AA<H@ G;8 E<4AF

conquered northwestern India and Iran, that the ancestors of Indoarian tribes spread in the

Eurasian steppes, was reciting about their customs, unity of culture and language, uniformity

of the religious beliefs, and at last was accentuating the common base of the lexicon (Tolstov,

,B?FGBI!<4>BABI 8EAF;G4@ +@<EABI!I4ABI ,BCBEBI

%<4>BABI E4AGBIF>L BA:4E7$8I<A !?L<A #HM@<A4

Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1977; Akishev, 1973; Kuzmina, 1994).

Accordingly, the Indo-European theory holds that assimilation of Indo-Iranian tribes with

?B64? GE<58F 4A7 ?B64?GE<58F 474CG4G<BAB9E<4A?4A:H4:8TA4??LE8FH?G87<A9BE@<A:B9 G;8

Iranian system of languages there.

BAGE4ELGB G;8!A7BHEBC84A G;8BELFBJ<78?L<@587787 <AG;8 F6<8A68B9G;8 9BE@8E

USSR, we advanced a concept about the Türkic-linguality of the Great steppe population,

<AFG847B9!E4A<4A?<A:H4?<AC4EG<6H?4EJ4FFH::8FG879BEG;8TEFGG<@8GB6BAA86GJ<G; the

population of the Great steppe the carriers of the Andronov culture, widely spread in the huge

open spaces of the Great steppe.

!A4AG<DH<GL4A7%<77?8:8F 4A77HE<A:G;8EBAM8CB6; G;8,QE><68G;ABF;4F588A

J<78?LFCE847ABGBA?L46EBFFG;8%BHAG4<A?G4< 5HG4?FB46EBFF%<77?84A7G;8$BJ8E+LE

4EL4 4A7<AG;84FG<GF5BHA74E<8FE846;87G;8%<AHF<AF>78CE8FF<BA+H5F8DH8AG?LG;8F8

regions had a name ”Dashti Kipchak”. In antiquity the modern Tashkent oasis, the whole

G8EE<GBELB9#4M4>;FG4A "8G<FH %BHAG4<A?G4< +BHG;8EA+<58E<4 4A74FG,HE>8FG4AJ8E8

considered to be a native land of the Türkic-lingual peoples speaking various dialects.

!A4 9BE@8E+BI<8G F6<8A68 54F87BA G;8B99BHA784E?<8E?<A:H<FG<649TA<GLB9SI8FG4S

”Rigveda” and modern European languages, prevailed views about Indo-Iranian linguistic

6?4FF<T64G<BAB9G;8 4A6<8AGC8BC?8F<AG;8E84GFG8CC84A7G;8%<77?8F<4F4E8FH?G;4F

coagulated a habitual point of view that the initial native land of Indoeuropeans was in theareas east of Urals, southeast from the Ural ridge, and that the initial carriers of these

/13



languages, the languages of the Arians, were the steppe tribes (Kuzmina, 1994). The postulate

about Iranian-linguality of the autochthonous steppe tribes, accepted on the base of existing

connection between the ”Avesta” and ”Rigveda” languages, does allow a place in the steppe

zone for the Türkic ethnos, and therefore it was presumed that in antiquity the zone of the

,QE><6?<A:H4?GE<58FJ4F?<@<G87 GB%BHAG4<A?G4< 4A7G;8J;B?8C8E<C;8E4?MBA87BJAGB

4=>4?J4FG4>8A4FCBCH?4G875LG;8!E4A<4A?<A:H4?GE<58F

In practice, was it so? The material culture, household life, anthropological form of the

Great steppe populations are close to each other, in many cases being straightforward

<78AG<64? <F<G9BEE84?G;4GG;864EE<8EFB9G;8%BHAG4<A?G4<6H?GHE8FCB>8<A,QE><64A7G;8

population of the surrounding zones were Iranian-lingual? First, is rising a question about

ethno-linguistic processes that were going 3,5 thousand years ago in the Eurasian steppes,

4A7 45BHG G;8<E ?4A:H4:8F<FGBE<64?74G4 G8FG<T8FG;4G <AG;4G4A7FH5F8DH8AGC8E<B7FG;8E8

?<I87,QE><6?<A:H4? GE<58F8EG4<A?L G;8?4A:H4:8 <F <A8KGE<645?L6BAA86G87J<G;4 JE<GG8A

culture. Therefore, writing is recognized in a science as a factor in social and economic, and

political and cultural unity, as one of leading factors in ethnic consolidation. Therefore, the

JE<G<A: <F E86B:A<M87 4F 4A <@CBEG4AG 6B@CBA8AG <A HA<T64G<BA B9 G;8 6?4A 4A7 GE<54?languages into a language of ethnos, and this view underlies ethnogenesis and ethnic history

of the Türkic-lingual peoples. The territory of the Türkic ethnoses can be traced through

geographical distributions of the ancient Turkic written monuments.

66BE7<A:GBG;8<A9BE@4G<BAB9G;8+B:7<B?B:<FG%!F>;4>BI G;84A6<8AG,HE><6JE<G<A:

had numerous local versions (Iskhakov, 2003, pp. 7-12). The ancient Turkic written

monuments are found not only in Orkhon and Yenisei, but also in the Southern Siberia, in

%BHAG4<A?G4< <A14>HG<4(i.e. Sakha) <AG;8'54A7!EGLF;E<I8E54F<AF 9EB@%BA:B?<4 GB

the Jeti-su, in the Talas valley, in Fergana valley, in the Kashkadarya oasis, in Kazakhstan

FG8CC8F !G<?.B?:454F<A <AG;8BAE<I8E54F<A <AG;8&BEG;8EA4H64FHF <AG;8#H54AE<I8E54F<A <A E<@84 <A%B?7BI4 <AHA:4EL4A7 H?:4E<4,;8 FCE847 B9 G;8 4A6<8AG,HE><6

JE<G<A:GB G;8 54F<A B94AH58 G8FG<T8F45BHG 4J<784E8A4 J;8E8 <A4AG<DH<GL 9BE@87G;8

Türkic historical, cultural, and sociopolitical space.

During the %<77?8:8 C8E<B7 <A 6BAA86G<BA J<G; G;8 47I4A68 B9 G;8 +?4IF <A G;8

Eastern Europe to the south, in the chain of Türkic ethnos formed relatively small gap, but in

G;8!G<?.B?:44E84 <AG;8&BEG;8EA4H64FHF <AG;8ABEG;J8FG8EA4FC<4AF844E84 <AE<@84

4A7%B?7BI4G;8,QE><6?<A:H4?C8BC?8F?<I8G<??ABJH?:4EF!AG;8?4FG@<??8A<H@HA78E4A

<AUH8A68 B9 G;8 CE8I4<?<A: FHEEBHA7<A: ?4A:H4:8 H?:4EF 5864@8 +?4I<6?<A:H4? (see the

linguistic and historical analysis of P. Tzvetkov ”Origin Of Bulgarians”),;8%4:L4EFJ;B

belong to the Altai linguistic family, till now live on the banks of Danube (The Altaiiccomponent of the Hungarian language is a widely known and argued secret) . A recognition

of the Don - Kuban complex of written monuments as a variation of the Türkic writing does

not leave any doubts of its attribution to the Türkic ethnos. In this respect is important the

BC<A<BA B9 4 >ABJA ?<A:H<FG % +6;8E54> J;B 64@8 GB 4 6BA6?HF<BA G;4G SF<:A<T64AG

number of the Türkic writing samples found in the basin of Don, from Novocherkassk to

.BEBA8= 64A 58 4GGE<5HG87 4F 58?BA:<A: GB 8F8ALBF 47=<A4>FS+6;8E54> CC

27-34).

(EB98FFBE %!F;4>BI 49G8E FGH7L<A: G;8 :8B:E4C;<64? 4E84 B9 4A6<8AG ,HE><6 JE<GG8A

monuments, came to a conclusion that distribution of Türkic writing along the thousand

kilometers, in the valleys and oases of the Eurasian steppes, and emerging of several its localI4E<4G<BAF 64AABG 58 :8B:E4C;<64??L E8FGE<6G87 BA?L BA?L GB G;8 G8EE<GBEL B9 G;8 %BHAG4<A

/13



?G4<4FG8EA,HE>8FG4A4A7+BHG;8EA+<58E<4 5864HF8G;8TA7FB9JE<GG8A@BAH@8AGFCB<AG

that the Türkic-lingual tribes from the most ancient times were autochthonous population in

4??<AA8EC4EGB9G;88AGE4?F<49EB@14>HG<4<AG;884FGGB4AH58<AG;8J8FG4A79EB@G;8

Kipchak northern steppes to the southern Turan (Iskhakov, 2003, pp. 7-12) (Iskhakov DM

Southeast Tatarstan: Problem of study the ethnic history of the region in the XIV-XVII

centuries. / Elmet - Almetievsk. 2003 ?).

Unfortunately, in the historical science settled an opinion that Türkic-lingual tribes came

G;8E84FS<@@<:E4AGFS S6BADH8EBEFS S<AI478EFS,;<FI<8J;4FABF6<8AG<T654F8!AE84?<GL

the migration took place in the most ancient and ancient history of our peoples. For example,

7HE<A: EBAM8 CB6; G;8 @<:E4G<BA B9 G;8 4A6<8AG 94E@8EFJ4F6BAA86G87J<G; 4A887 9BE

fertile lands, and migration of the nomadic tribes was connected with acquiring pastures for

cattle.

BJ8I8EG;8F8@<:E4G<BAF7<7ABGCEBI8G;4GF<A68@BFG4A6<8AGG<@8F<AG;8%<77?8F<4

lived only Iranian-lingual tribes. Simultaneously, in these territories side by side also lived

Türkic-lingual tribes and peoples. This historical truth is well traced on an archeological@4G8E<4?F<A684AEBAM8CB6;

+B:7<B?B:<FG CEB98FFBE %<EF47<> !F>;4>BI FG4G87 G;4G 4G F8I8E4? FG4:8F B9 ,QE><6

FG4G8;BB745<:EB?8 C?4L87G;8FG8CC8FB9#4M4>;FG4A 54F<AFB9 G;8$BJ8E.B?:4 FBHG;84FG

E8:<BAFB9G;8-E4?F%BHAG4<A?G4< 4FG8EA,HE>8FG4A+BHG;8EA+<58E<44A7G;8FG8CC8FB9

%BA:B?<4G;8L6EBFFG;8J;B?8HE4F<4<AC4EG<6H?4E4?FB<A%<77?8F<4 G;8L54F87G;8<E

CBJ8EBAG;8?B64?,QE><6GE<58FJ;BF8GG?87G;8E884E?<8E,;8CB?L8G;A<6F<GH4G<BA<A%<77?8

Asia did not substantially affect the political process. On the contrary, the autochthonous

!E4A<4A?<A:H4? 46GE<4AF +B:7<4AF ;BE4F@<4AF G;8 CBCH?4G<BA B9 ;46; 4A7 4A6<8AG

Fergana were interested in the protection of the Türkic states for international connections,

economical and cultural development.

Due to the Great Silk Road, in the 6th-8th started a rapid developments of the social,

86BAB@<6 4A7 FC<E<GH4?4A76H?GHE4?@HGH4? E8?4G<BAF4A7 <AUH8A68FG;4G E8FH?G87<A,QE>B

+B:7<4A FL@5<BF<F 4A7 4 F<:A<T64AG C4EG B9 G;8 +B:7<4AF 46GE<4AF 4A7 ;BE4F@<4AF

completely assimilated with the Türkic-lingual tribes, and knew Türkic language.

Subsequently, these assimilating processes resulted in a formation of the Uzbek nation.

ABG;8E C4EG B9 G;8 +B:7<4AF 4A7 46GE<4AF C4EG<4??L 4FF<@<?4G87 J<G; G;8 ,QE><6?<A:H4?

GE<58F 4A77HE<A:4C8E<B7B7!F?4@<M4G<BAHA78E4FGEBA:<AUH8A68B9G;8(8EF<4A?4A:H4:8

7HE<A:G;8+4@4A<7C8E<B79BE@87!E4A<4A?<A:H4?,47=<>C8BC?8,;88G;ABF8F+H:74;G4E

;BE4F@4A7F<@<?4E:EBHCF7<F4CC84E879EB@ G;8;<FGBE<64?4E8A44A7G;8<E ?4A:H4:8F;4I8gone out of use.

Secondly, returning to the ethnic structure of the most ancient population of the Eurasian

steppes, other ethnic layers in addition to the Türks gradually began appearing in these

E8:<BAF 9EB@ G;8 C8E<B7 B9 *HFF<4A ><A: !I4A G;8 ,8EE<5?8 4;EHF;<A #E4F<AF>L

89BE8 G;4G G;8 84FG8EA 8KG8AG B9 G;8 +?4IF E846;87 G;8 -E4? E<7:8F G;8 FBHG;EA

reached the river Yaik (Ural) (Artsihovsky, 1946; Grekov, 1946; Tretiakov, 1953; GSE, 1956,

volume 39, pp. 291-293).

,;<E7?LJ8??78TA87<AG;84E6;8B?B:<64?@4G8E<4?FB9G;8EBAM8CB6;HE4F<4AFG8CC8F

6H?GHE8FTEFGB94?? G;8A7EBABI 4A7,<@58EE4I8 6H?GHE8F6?BF8 F<@<?4E<GL4A74G G<@8Ftotal identity, close parallels shown in ceramic and metallurgical manufactures, the unity and

/13



uniformity in anthropological type of the tribes had researchers facing a most serious

DH8FG<BA45BHG ?<A:H<FG<6 49T?<4G<BA B9 G;8 E84G FG8CC8 CBCH?4G<BABJ8I8E ABA8 B9 G;8

E8F84E6;8EF4F>87G;8@F8?I8F4DH8FG<BASBJ6B@8G;8A7EBABI4AFB9G;8%BHAG4<A?G4<

are being Türkic-lingual, and the Andronov culture carriers of territories surrounding them

4E8 !E4A<4A?<A:H4?S864HF8 7HE<A: G;89BE@8E+BI<8G-A<BAFB@H6;F6<8AG<T6 ?<G8E4GHE8

was composed by the supporters of the Indo-European theory, the ideological and spiritualdirection of which constituted the ideological policy of the colonialists (For the genetical

origin of the Middle Asian nomads, see L.T. Yablonsky Ancient Chorasmia. For Caspian-Aral

populations and depopulations, see E. Tsvetsinskaya Amudarya Sarykamysh People).

It should be noted that it is possible to agree with the historico-archeological

interpretation of the origin B9G;8E<4AF 4A7F6<8AG<T6 <AG8ECE8G4G<BAB9 G;8<ECE<@4? A4G<I8

land. Actually, the Arians were a social layer, forming in a community of nomadic cattlemen

of the Eurasian steppes. The subject of their advance to the south in the middle of the 2nd

@<??8AA<H@ 4?FB@4G6;8F G;8 ;<FGBE<64?E84?<GLBJ8I8E G;84FF8EG<BA B9 G;8 ?<A:H<FGF

founded in our opinion on abstract rationalization of their Iranian-linguality, and attempts of

FB@84E6;8B?B:<FGF9B??BJ<A:G;8@GB4EG<T6<4??L6BATE@G;86BEE86GA8FFB9G;8?<A:H<FGFFG<??78@4A7F4J8<:;GLFC86<T6F6<8AG<T6CEBB9

It is known, that in the Soviet historical historiography it is considered to be, that Huns

4E8 ,QE><6?<A:H4? GE<58F >ABJA ,HE>B?B:<FG $&H@<?8I <A ;<F @BAB:E4C; SHAAH

(Huns)S JE<G8F G;4G <A G;8 ;<A8F8 FBHE68F G;8 HAF 4F 4A 8G;ABF 9BE G;8 TEFG G<@8 4E8

@8AG<BA87<AG;8 G;8A4:4<A<AG;84A7H@<?8I C(EB9

B7=48I FG4G8F G;4G <A G;8 ?4FG L84EF G;8 ;<A8F8 4A7 "4C4A8F8 F6<8AG<FGF 64EE<87 BHG 4

G;BEBH:; =B<AG E8F84E6; 9BE G;8 IB?H@8 ;<FGBEL B9 ;<A4 SEF;< F< F;<S (”History of

twenty-four dynasties”, 20 volumes, Zhonghua shuju reprint version, 1997 ?) and established

G;4GG;8 G8E@ S,QE>S <A 7<998E8AG I4E<4G<BAF<F 9BHA7 <AG;8 ;<A8F8 FBHE68F9EB@ G;8

<8@BE8G;8AG;BHF4A7L84EF4:BB7=48IC

For example, the northern province detachments of the of kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty)

4GG46>874 GE<58 S,H94A: H<94A: #HLHA:S G;4G ?<I8758LBA7G;8J8FG8EA

4A7ABEG;J8FG8EA5BE78EB9;<A4H4A$<4A6;<A IB? C,;8GE<58H<94A:B9G;8

northern kingdoms ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766), ”Shong” (Shang Dynasty)

4A7S;=BHS (Zhou Dynasty)<FG;8C8BC?8<A:?<A:H4A$<4A6;<A

IB?CCEB@<A8AG;<A8F8;<FGBE<4A$H<+<@<4A(Tsen Chünmian ?) writes that ”the

84E?<8E A4@8 <A?<A BE<A:?<A: ?4G8EJ4F64??87;<?8 BE ,8?8 (Tiele). Now we call them

”Uigur”, and in the west they are called ”Türks”. Actually, the Türks and Uigurs were

@8@58EF B9 G;8 S<A:?<A:S GE<54? HA<BA ,;8 ;<A8F8 4?FB 64??87 ;<?8 ,8?8”Gavche” (Gaoche) (Gaoche) (”љангли”)(Kangli). Though these names are also externally

not similar, they are unitary in their origin. The reason for their monikers ”Tele” и

”Gavche” (Gaoche) (Gaoche) ;4CC8A87 G;4G J;8A G;8 ;<A8F8 ;<FGBE<4AF SF;<S

encountered them - А.А.) a part of them that lived in the south of Great Sands were

subordinated by the dynasty Wei ”(220-260 AD) and were called ”Gavche” (Gaoche);

another part lived in the north of the same sands, and those who subordinated to Jujan tribe

were called Tele (Tiele)$H<+<@<4A(Tsen Chünmian ?), 1987, p. 87). In accordance with the

;<A8F8 JE<GG8A FBHE68F 7HE<A: G;8 ><A:7B@ S+;L4S(Xia Dynasty)(2205-1766) the tribes

”Tele” и ”Hunnu (Huns)” were part of the tribal union ”Shyungnu” (Hsiung-nu, Xsiung-nu,

etc.) or ”Hu” (”Hun”).

/13



,;8 G8E@FS,H94A:S4A7S<S J8E884E?<8FG8G;ABAL@F<AG;8;<A8F8FBHE68FB7=48I

2003, p. 179). The ”Historical notes” of Sima Tsyan (Sima Qian), based on the information of

G;84A6<8AG;<A8F8FBHE68FJE<GG8ABAFGBA85BA84A7;<A8F8E887 FG4G8G;4G9EB@

on the western and northwestern border of the Northern kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) lived

peoples ”Hu” or ”Hu-lu” (<6;HE<A, 1950, p. 40). The Sinolog professor A.Hodjaev states that

G;8 GE<58 SHS :8B:E4C;<64??L <F 7<I<787 BAGB G;8 J8FG8EA 4A7 84FG8EA SHS $4G8E G;8;<A8F8 FBHE68F 64??87 G;8 84FG8EA SHSJ<G; 4A 8G;ABAL@ SHA:;HS (Eastern Hu).

Through the Russian literature, this term came to our language as an ethnonym ”Tungus”.

The western wing of ”Hu” consists of two tribes, ”Rung” (Rong) and ”Di”. The ”Di”, in turn,

6BAF<FGB9*87<S;<<SE84G<S2;BA:<S4A7/;<G8<S4<<S(Bei Di). The

tribe ”Rung” (Rong) is divided into Western Rung (”Shi Rung ”) (Shi Rong)%BHAG4<A*HA:

(”Shan Rung”) (Shan Rong)4A79BE8FG*HA:S$<A:*HA:S(Ling Rong). The second part of

the ”anthology of the Huns” in the Han dynasty history states that ”in the south is a great

Han, in the north is a strong Hu” i.e. is ”Hunnu (Huns)”. The historian of the Eastern Han

;M;8A: +;H4A (Zhang Shuang)) wrote, that ”Hu are the real Sunnu (Xsiung-nu)” i.e.

SHAAHHAFS$4E:8<6G<BA4ELB9G;8;<A8F8;<8EB:?LC;FIB?C

,;HF 9EB@ G;84A4?LF<FB9 G;8 4A6<8AG;<A8F8JE<GG8AFBHE68F<A G;8SF;<S ABG8FB9 G;8

&BEG;8EA ;<A8F8 ><A:7B@S+;L4S(Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766), ”Shong” (Shang Dynasty)

4A7 S;=BHS (Zhou Dynasty) (1122-771) along the northwestern border in the

F86BA7;4?9B9 G;8E74A77HE<A:B9G;8A7@<??8AA<H@ HA78EG;8A4@8FSHS S<S

SHAS4A7 S,<8>S?<I87 G;8 ,QE><6?<A:H4? 64GG?8 5E887<A: GE<58F,;BH:; <A G;8 ;<A8F8

hieroglyphs they were pronounced differently, their belonging to the Türkic ethnos is without

doubt.

In those periods in the territory of the Southern Siberia were two archeological cultures:

Glazkov culture in the eastern Southern Siberia, and Andronov culture in the west

(Okladnikov, 1955, p. 8). The carriers of the Andronov culture were spread from the west of

Kazakhstan to the north-eastern region of the Ural ridges. S.V.Kiselev especially emphasized

G;4GG;8@BAH@8AGFB9G;8A7EBABI 6H?GHE87<F(8EF87<AG;8 G;68AGHEL<A%<AHF<AF>

depression and in the Yenisei basins in many respects were close to the Timber-Grave culture

B9G;8$BJ8E.B?:4BA8GF4A7BAFG8CC8F#<F8?LBIC,;84E84FB9G;8<EJ<78

7<FGE<5HG<BA E846;879EB@ G;8 FG8CC8FB9 G;8 $BJ8E.B?:4 GB%BA:B?<4 9EB@G;8 ABEG;84FG

-E4?E<7:8FGBG;8%<77?8F<4EL4MABI#E<IGFBI4E4>BI4BE@BMBI

,6;8EA<>BI %BF;>BI +BEB><A 87BEBI44I<7BI4 4I<7BI

8A<A:+GB>B?BF+4?A<>BI %4E:H?4A8G4? ;8EAL>;

#HM@<A4 !G<A4 274ABI<6; 274ABI<6; I4A8FBI4 4A7

BG;8EFBAF8DH8AG?L G;8@8AG<BA87<AG;84A6<8AG;<A8F8FBHE68F8G;ABAL@FSHSS<SSH<94A:S S,H94A:S S*HA:S SHAS 4A7 S;<?8S J8E8 64EE<8EFB9 G;8A7EBABI 6H?GHE8F

EB@G;BF8A7EBABI 6B@@HA<G<8F<AG;8A7@<??8AA<H@64@8G;8E<4AF8A68 G;8

Arians originated from the Türkic nomadic cattle husbandry tribes.

The concept about Andronov cultures belonging to the carriers of the Türkic-lingual

ethnos were also postulated earlier (Tchernikov, 1957; Amanjolov, 1971, pp. 64-66;

Amanjolov, 1975; Amanjolov, 1980). Now the numbers of scholars expressing this position

gradually grows (Askarov, 1996, p. 71; Askarov, 2001, pp. 69-72; Askarov, 2002, p. 55;

Askarov, 2004, p. 4-6; Hodjaev, 2003, pp. 176-184; Iskhakov, 2003, 7-12).

,;84E6;8B?B:<64?@4G8E<4?6BATE@F4C8A8GE4G<BA<AGJBFG4:8FB9G;8E<4AFS54E54E<6B66HC4G<BAS<AG;8A7@<??8AA<H@788C?LGBG;8 FBHG;,;8TEFG FG4:8;4CC8A87<AG;8

/13



@<77?8 B9 G;8 A7@<??8AA<H@%4FFBA CCF>4EBI CC

4A7G;8F86BA7FG4:8;4CC8A87<AG;8?4FGDH4EG8EB9 G;8A7@<??8AA<H@F>4EBI

CC ,;8 @4FF@<:E4G<BAB9 G;8E<4AF GBG;8%<77?8F<4 FG4EG87 <A G;8 EBAM8

CB6;E8FH?G87<AG;84E?L%<77?8:88CB6;J<G;6E84G<BAG;8E8,HE>B+B:7<4AFB6<4?4A7

ethnocultural space, and in that space the Türkic-lingual ethnic layer gradually increased,

which facilitated there a domination of the Türkic linguistic environment. However, in theG8EE<GBEL B9 !A7<4 4A7 G;8 !E4A<4A ;<:;?4A7F 7HE<A: G;8 EBAM8 CB6; 4A7 8I8A <A G;8

subsequent periods such social and ethnocultural process is not traced. Therefore it does not

4CC84ECBFF<5?8 G;4GG;8E<4AF J;B7HE<A: G;8 EBAM8 CB6;8KC4A787 GB!A7<4 4A7 !E4A

with their lower cultural and economic level than the locals, could change the language of the

autochthonous population. Actually, the hypothesis about Iranian-linguality of the Eurasian

steppe cattlemen, built on the comparative analysis of linguists between the languages of

”Avesta” and modern European languages, is a fruit of the Eurocentrism theories. According

to that theory the Türkic-lingual cattle breeding tribes of the Eurasian steppes were declared

to be Iranian-lingual.

The term ”aria” (independent, free, master) is widely spread among ancient Indo-Iranians. The cattlemen, who came from the northern regions, received in Avesta the name

Ariana, and occupied the Iranian heights. Therefore, according to historical tradition, the

ancient name of the Iranian heights became Ariana. ”Iran” is a new form of Ariana. In the

ancient history the term Ariana meant not only Iran per se, but it also applied to the territory

where Iranian languages were spread. For that reason, the science terms those Arians who

remained in Iran Iranians, and who left to India are called Indo-Arians.

,;HF G;8G8E@SE<4ASBE<:<A4??LJ4FHF87<A4FB6<4?4FC86G$4G8E J;8A<G4FF<@<?4G87

J<G; G;8 ?B64? CBCH?4G<BA <G @84AG 4 A8J 8G;A<6 6BAG8AG 4A7 HA78E G;8 <AUH8A68 B9 G;8CE8I4<?<A:?B64? ?4A:H4:8 G;8E<4AF:E47H4??L?BFG G;8<EA4G<I8,QE><6 ?4A:H4:8 4A7TA4??L

!E4A<M87 (BFF<5?L <A G;8%<77?8 4FG E8:<BA<A 4AG<DH<GL 4?BA:J<G; HEE<4A 4A7?4@<G8

?4A:H4:8F 4?FB 8K<FG87 F<78 5L F<78 G;8 4A6<8AG (8EF<4A ?4A:H4:8 4E< %BFG ?<>8?L <G

developed in the south of Iran, in Persida, as a native language of the Iranian Parses. The

Arians, who initially ensconced in Iran, established their political dominance over the

(8EF<4AFC84><A: 6B@@HA<G<8F ,;<F CBJ8E FG4EG<A: J<G; 4 EH?8E ;<F;C<F; (Teispes), a

descendant of the Arian military leader Ahaman (Ahamani, Ahaeman, Achaemenes), formed a

ruling system not only for economy, but also in the political-administrative direction, i.e.

within the limits of Southern Iran formed a possession Persida. During the kingdom of Kir II

(Cyrus II, 600 or 576 BC–530 BC) and Doro I (Darius I, 550–486 BC) this possession

E846;874CBF<G<BAB9 4 JBE?7><A:7B@ 4A7G;8 FC;8E8B9<AUH8A68G;84E< ?4A:H4:84F4language of the state extended to a wide geographical zone.

Thus, the logical analysis of the historical processes happening in the second half of the

A7@<??8AA<H@ 4A7 G;8 58:<AA<A: B9 G;8 FG @<??8AA<H@ ?87 GB 4 6BA6?HF<BA G;4G G;8

origin of the Ahaemenid dynasty is directly connected with the migration to the south from

G;8HE4F<4AFG8CC8FB9G;8,QE><6?<A:H4?E<4AF-A78E4FGEBA:<AUH8A68B9G;8CE8I4<?<A:

autochthonous language and cultural-economic potential of the ancient Persian communities,

they became Iranized. Therefore, the Ahaemenid kings Kir II (Cyrus II) and Doro I (Darius

I), knowing well that by the origin they are Arians, in their rock inscriptions proudly declared

that they are ”true Arians”. Not only they, but even the Kushan (ref. to the Rabatak

document) held themselves to be Arians, i.e. Türks by origin.

/13



Recently in the archeological literature, contrary to the existing concept about the origin

of the Arians, has appeared an unusual hypothesis, according to which the Arians belong to

G;864EE<8EFB9G;84A6<8AG4:E<6H?GHE4?GE<58FB9G;8EBAM8CB6;<AG;846GE<44A7%4E:<4A4

+4E<4A<7< ,;8FH::8FG<BAB9FH6;;LCBG;8F<FJ4FCEB@CG875L4TA7B9BA8GB@5 <A

4A86EBCB?<FB9G;8EBAM8CB6;9BEGE8FFBAHE<AG;8%HE:45B4F<FJ<G;45HE<4?B949B4?

The foal in the tomb was in contracted position without a skull. V.I.Sarianidi writes that tillthen, it was accepted in the science that IndoArians were Andronov nomadic tribes, that they

9BE@87<AG;8HE4F<4AFG8CC8F<AG;8@<77?8B9G;8A7@<??8AA<H@4A7@<:E4G87GBG;8

south. Those Arians who remained in Iran became Iranians, and those who left to India

5864@8 !A7BE<4AF(E8F8AG?L CEB@CG875L G;<FTA7 <FA868FF<GL GBE88I4?H4G8 G;8FH5=86G

of the initial native land of the Arians. Further, writes the author of the new hypothesis, in a

Swat necropolis in the northern Pakistan half a century ago were found two skeletons of a

;BEF8 ,;8 9BE@4G<BA B9 G;8 B9 G;8 +J4G 4A7 %# 46GE<45%4E:<4A 4E6;8B?B:<64?

6B@C?8K8F;4I8B946B@@BABE<:<ABAF<78E<A:G;4G<G586B@8F6?84EG;4GG;8E<4AFJ8E8

9BE@87J<G;<AG;86;4<AB9G;8EBAM8CB6;@BAH@8AGF<AG;8+J4G4A7%#+4E<4A<7<

2001, pp. 37-43). Apparently, V.I.Sarianidi did not factor those moments of the Arian

characteristic which stipulate that an Arian tomb should include a few horse skeletons with

466B@C4AL<A:@4G6;<A: B5=86GF 8G6,;8E89BE8TA7<A:E<4AF<A G;8@4G8E<4?FB9 G;8 +J4G

4A7 %#J8 788@ GB58CE8@4GHE8 BE E8I<8J B9+4E<4A<7< JBE>F F88 $4@58E:

Karlovsky ,;864F8B9G;8EBAM8:8!A7B!E4A<4AF).

Conclusion

The Arians are a social phenomenon in the development of a nomadic stage in the life of

the Eurasian steppes cattle husbandry tribes, they are an initiative and judicious layer of the

FB6<8GL 4A 4E<FGB6E4G<6 ?4L8E B9 E868AG?L 9BE@<A: 84E?L 6?4FF FB6<8G<8F BAGE4EL GB G;8

historical linguistics, they were not the carriers of the Iranian languages; on the contrary,

466BE7<A: GB G;8 6B@C4E4G<I8 F6<8AG<T6 4A4?LF<F B9 G;8 4A6<8AG;<A8F8 FBHE68F G;8E<4A

language belonged to the Türkic-lingual ethnos. Their migration to the south in the middle of

G;8A7@<??8AA<H@<FJ8??GE4687BAG;84E6;8B?B:<64?@4G8E<4?

,;8L FCE847@BFGJ<78?L 46EBFF G;8 G8EE<GBELB9 G;8 %<77?8F<4 J;8E8 7HE<A: 4E?L

%<77?8:88CB6;9BE@874,HE>B+B:7<4AFB6<4?4A78G;AB6H?GHE4?FC4684F4E8FH?GB9G;4G

within the limits of this ethnocultural space formed the Uzbek and Tadjik ethnoses. Though

the archeological material do not allow to trace the material culture associated with the

penetration of the Arians in the territory of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India, it

is possible to evaluate the social and economic changes connected with the crisis of the

Harappan civilization.

However, the Arians could not change the languages of the local population neither in

!A7<4ABE<A!E4A'AG;86BAGE4EL G;8?4A:H4:8FB9G;8A8J6B@8EFJ8E8TA4??L45FBE5875L

the languages of the autochthonous tribes. At that time in Persida in the south of Iran

functioned a local Farsi-Dari-Ancient Iranian language. Ensconcing their political rule over

the Persida, the Arians facilitated the expansion of the distribution area of the Ancient Persian

?4A:H4:8 4F4 ?4A:H4:8 B9G;8 FG4G8HA78EG;8<E EH?8BAF8DH8AG?L 9BEG;8 G8EE<GBEL B9 G;8

Ariana, the Iranian language is not a foreign, but a local language. The language of the

newcomerswas absorbed by the local languages.

Unedited Literature section(Not edited, but still an excellent reference, with few funny mistakes - Translator’s Note)

/13



$!,*,-*

548I.!'FF8G<6?4A:H4:84A79B?>?BE8%BF6BJ

2. Abaev V.I. To a question on the pra-native land and ancient migrations of Indo-Iranian

C8BC?8F!AA6<8AG4FG4A746?4FF<64?4AG<DH<GL%BF6BJ

3. Akishev K.A. Asian Sakas and European Scythians. In Archeological research in

Kazahistan. Алма-Ата, 1973.I4A8FBI4&H?GHE8 B9EBAM8CB6;C4FGHE4? GE<58FB9G;8F<4AC4EG B9G;8 -++*

Tashkent, 1991.

EGF<;BIF>L.H?GHE4? HA<GL B9+?4IF<A%<77?8:8F S +BI<8G 8G;AB:E4C;LS&B

%BF6BJ

@4A=B?BI+*HA<9BE@<AF6E<CG<BA9EB@+4>45HE<4?A84E?@4GLSH??8G<A6478@LB9

Sciences Kaz. SSR” No 2, Almaty, 1971.

@4A=B?BI+%4G8E<4? 4A7 E8F84E6;BA4 ;<FGBELB94A6<8AG ,HE><6 JE<G<A:HG;BE89

doct. diss. Almaty, 1975.

8. Amanjolov A.S. Turkic runic graphics. Almaty, 1980.

F>4EBI%BAH@8AGFB9A7EBABI 6H?GHE8<A ?BJ8E24E49F;4A!%#-&B ,4F;>8AG

1962.

F>4EBI +G8CC8 6B@CBA8AG <A F8GG?87 6B@C?8K8F B9 46GE<4 4A7 DH8FG<BAF B9 <GF

interpretation. In ”Interaction of nomadic cultures and ancient civilizations. Алма-Ата, 1989

F>4EBI%HFG43<??<> =<??4E<74G4E<; 4E6;8B?B:LI4 8GAB?B:LS-M58><FGBA74<M;G<@BL

fanlar ”, No 6, Tashkent, 1996.

F>4EBI,;8CE<@BE7<4?A4G<I8?4A7B94A6<8AG,QE>FS!%#-S&B,4F;>8AG

13. Askarov А. Uzbek halki etnogenezi va etnik tarihining bazi bir nazary va ilmij-

metodologik asoslari. ”Uzbekiston tarihi ”, No 4, Tashkent, 2002.

14. Askarov А. Uzbek halki etnogenezi va etnik tarihining bazi bir nazary va ilmij-

metodologik masalalari. ”Uzbek halkiнинг kelib чиkиши: ilmij-metodologik endashuvlar,

etnogenetik va etnik tarih” mavzusidagi Republic ilmij-nazary a seminar materiallari.Tashkent, 2004.

4EEBJ,+4AF>E<G%BF6BJ

4;EHF;<A +. +>8G6; BA ;<FGBEL B9 +<58E<4 6B?BA<M4G<BA <A 0.!0.!! 68AGHE<8F

%BF6BJ

8EAF;G4@&)H8FG<BAB9AB@47<6C8BC?8F;<FGBEL<A4AG<DH<GL#+!00.!%BF6BJ

1957.

<6;HE<A &14 !4><A9 B??86G<BA B9 <A9BE@4G<BA BA C8BC?8F <A %<77?8 F<4 7HE<A:

4A6<8AGG<@8FIB?%$

E84G+BI<8GA6L6?BC87<4IB?%BF6BJ

E84G+BI<8GA6L6?BC87<4IB?%BF6BJ

BA:4E7$8I<A%!?L<AA6<8AG!A7<4%BF6BJBA:4E7$8I<A%E4AGBIF>LEB@+6LG;<4GB!A7<4%BF6BJ

E4G6;8A>B+&(8E<B7<M4G<BAB9%<77?8EBAM8 @BAH@8AGF<A G;8 $BJ8EBA54F<A

Autth. kand. diss. Kiev, 1969.

E4G6;8A>B+&$BJ8EBA7HE<A:%<77?8EBAM88CB6;#<8I

.8A7<74G!AS<FGBELB9G;84A6<8AG4FG,8KGF4A77B6H@8AGFS%BF6BJ

.4F@8E%<8!E4A<8E<A+H7EHFF?4A7$8<CM<:

8A<A: . ;EBAB?B:<64? 6B@C?8K8F B9 0.! 68AGHEL BA @4G8E<4?F B9 +<AG4F;

burial). In ”Newest discoveris of Soviet archeologists”, part 1. Kiev, 1975.

E4AGBIF>L4E?L;<FGBELB9G;8!E4A<4AGE<58FB9F<4%<ABE%BF6BJ

49HEBI,47=<>F%BF6BJE8>BI *B?8B9+?4IF<A;<FGBEL B9JBE?7 6H?GHE8 "BHEA4?S+?4IFS &B%BF6BJ

/13



1946.

H@<?8I$&HAAHHAF%87<4?F<47HE<A:4A6<8AGG<@8F%BF6BJ

EL4MABI %(,E<58FB9 +<58E<4 4A7#4M4>;FG4A 7HE<A: EBAM8 CB6; S+>8G6;8F B9

-++*;<FGBELS%BF6BJ

EL4MABI%(<FGBELB94A6<8AGGE<58FB9G;8-CC8E'5%$

34. Geiger W. Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum. Erlangen-1882.H4A$<4A6;<A<A:?<A:?4E>ангkилар va turolar. 1-жилд, Уримчи-1996.

!%;<FGBEF7846BAFB9%87<4%$

%%F>8G6;F7846BAFB94;<FGBELB94A6<8AG!E4A%BF6BJ

274ABI<6; E8?4G<I8 6;EBAB?B:L B9 @BAH@8AGF B9 4 5EBAM8 4:8 B9 G;8 -E4?4

#4M4>;FG4AFG8CC8F!ASG;8EBAM84:8 B9-E4? !EGLF;F>B:B@8M;7HE86;=4 ;8?L45<AF>

1984.

274ABI<6;5EBAM84:8B9G;8-E4?4#4M4>;FG4AFG8CC8F;8?L45<AF>

!I4ABI...&+4AF>E<GFK8F%BF6BJ

!G<A4%;<FGBEB9FG8CC8GE<58F+BHG;8EA(E<4E4?=4%

#<F8?LBI+.4A6<8AG4;<FGBELB9+BHG;8EA+<58E<4%BF6BJ

#E4F<AF>L BADH8FG B9 +<58E<4 4A7 !I4A EBMAL= S)H8FG<BAF B9 4 ;<FGBEL S &B

%BF6BJ

#HM@<A45BHGFBHG;8EA?<@<GFB97<FGE<5HG<BAB9FG8CC86H?GHE8FB94AEBAM8CB6;

<A8AGE4?F<4!A%BAH@8AGFB9FGBA84A75EBAM868AGHE<8FB9HE4F<4%BF6BJ

BG;4A75BG; 4A75BG;4A75BG; 4A7

5BG;A7 BG;4A7 5BG; 4A7 5BG; 4A7

5BG; 4A7 5BG; 4A7 5BG; 4A7 5BG; 4A7

B76;8F>B:B 86BAB@L GB@4><A: 4A7 984GHE8FB9 78I8?BC@8AG B9 4 FB6<4? BE78E%BF6BJ

1974.

46. Kuzmina E.E.distribution of horse breeding and a cult of a horse at Iranian-lingual tribes

B98AGE4?F<4 4A7BG;8EC8BC?8FB9'?7$<:;G!A8AGE4?F<4 <A4AG<DH<GL4A7 4 %<77?8:8F%BF6BJ

47. Kuzmina E.E.Drevnejshchie cattlemen from Ural up to the Tien Shan. Frunze, 1986.

#HM@<A4J;8A6864@8<A7B4E<<%4G8E<4?6H?GHE8B9GE<58FA7EBABI4:8A8E4?<GL4A7

4ABE<:<AB9!A7B!E4A<4AF%BF6BJ

#HCC8E"*$8FAB@478F8A%8FBCBG4@<84HG8@CF78FEB<F78%4E<(4E<F

50. Kupper J.R., Akten des XXIV Internationalen Orientalisten Kongresses,

Wiesbadehn-1959.

$H<+<@<4A;M;HA:GHB@<AMHF;<*халkлари tarihi), Shanghai, 1987

%<??8E.'8G<AF><88GH78F%BF6BJ

%<EF47<D !FK4DBI F>< GHE> L4M<G?4E<A 6B:EBT4F< I8 GHE> 8GAB:8A8M FHE8=?4E<A G4E<;<

o'rtami. Тuгк<FG4A )BMB>GHE> HA<I8EF<G8G<A S,HE>B?B:<4S "HEA4?<A &B ,HE>8FG4A(Исќоков М. Kадимги GHE>L 8M@4 87:BE?<>?4E :8B:E4T=4F< I4 GHE>Lхалkлар etnogenetik

munosabatlar masalalari. Turkiston kозоk-турк universitetining ”Turkologija” zhurnali No 2.

Туркистон-2003).

%BF;>BI%&BIB#H@4>F>L4>HE:4A5HE<4?:EBHA75?<M'EF>%BF6BJ

%4E:H?4A ><F;8I # #47LE548I %# 'E4M548I %4A6<8AG 6H?GHE8 B9 G;8

8AGE4?#4M4>;FG4AАлма=Ата-1966.

%4FFBA.%E8IA8M8@?878?6;86H?GHE8%4E:<4AL%$

'>?47A<>BI(A8B?<G;4A745EBAM84:8B9(E<54<>4?L84C4EG%$

'?78A58E:<8*8?<:<BA78F.8748E?<A

#.F>8G6;FB@8AGH@FB94A4A6<8AG;<FGBELB9+BHG;8EA-E4?%60. Sarianidi V.I.necropolis Gonura and the Iranian paganism. î-2001.

/13



+@<EABI#CEB5?8@B94ABE<:<AB984E?L+4E@4G<4AF+&B%BF6BJ

+@<EABI#+4IEB@4GL%BF6BJ

63. Smirnov K.F., Kuzmina E.E.origin of Indo-Iranians in light noWeishchih archeological

7<F6BI8E<A:F%BF6BJ

64. Sorokin V.S.burial ground of bronze epoch Тати=Бутак%

+GB>B?BF .+ H?GHE8 B9 G;8 CBCH?4G<BA B9 4 5EBAM8 4:8 B9 +BHG;8EA-E4?F %BF6BJ1972.

66. Strizhak O.S.Gidronimija srednedneprovskogo left banks. Avt. kand. diss. Kiev, 1965.

,E8G=4>BI(&.BFGB6;ABF?4I=4AF><8GE<58F%BF6BJ

68. Toporov V.N., Trubachev O.N.linguistic the analysis of hydronyms Top Podneprovja.

%BF6BJ

87BEBI44IL7BI45HE<4?B94AEBAM8CB6;&8J #H@4>F>B:B45HE<4?:EBHA7

%BF6BJ

BE@BMBI ,B4DH8FG<BABA 4A BE<:<AA7EBABI 6H?GHE8F#+!!%# 000!0 %

1951

4A=H=74M<7=4A<GB=<8EB:?<U4E<>4GG4луђати), 8 zhildli. Сичуан-1987.

<GB=G<?<>4GG4<8EB:?<U4Eлуђати, 3-жилд, 2057 bet.

73. Хњжаев А. Kадимги Hitoj manbalaridagi turky халkларга oid ajrim etnonimlar.

”Uzbekiston њрта asrlarda: tarih va madanijat. Tashkent-2003

,6;8EA<>BI ++EB?8A7EBABI 6H?GHE8F <A 4 ;<FGBEL B98AGE4? F<4 4A7 #4M4;<FG4A4

KSIE, XXVI, 1957.

,6;8EA<>BI++84FG#4M4>;FG4A7HE<A:4AEBAM8CB6;%$

?46>&E8IA8=F;6;4=4@8G4??HE:LB9-E4?<(BIB?M;=4%

+6;8E54>%5BHG EHA<6 JE<G<A: <A FBHG;84FG HEBC8 S +BI<8G ,HE>B?B:LS&B

%BF6BJ

78. Uzbekiston milly entsiklopedijasi, 6-жилд. Tashkent-2003.

;@474?<+#*'.G;846478@<6<4A,(-4A4@8$BJ8EFThe article is published in

,;8 F6<8AG<T6 6B??86G<BASG;8<FGBELB9-M58><FG4A <A4E6;8B?B:<64?4A7JE<GG8AFBHE68FS

Otv. Editor A.A.Anarbaev, Publishing house ”FAN ”,

Tashkent 2005, pp. 81-91.

/13

The Aryan problem- new approaches and views by A. Askarov

Documents

Transcript of The Aryan problem- new approaches and views by A. Askarov