Jump to content

Talk:Balkars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Khan of Bulgars

[edit]

In the section History and Cultural relations Bulgars are listed as one of the 11 possible ancestors of Balkars. In other words no definite link between those two is estanblished. But, the article Batbayan of Bulgaria claims that Turkic Bulgars in the 7th century are the ancestors of Balkars. The difference between the two articles need attention of an expert. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satire

[edit]

"In 1944, the Soviet government celebrated International Women's Day by forcibly deporting almost the entire Balkar population"... isn't that a bit snarky? It sounds more appropriate to the National Lampoon than Wikipedia (I got a smile out of it, though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkars call themselves "Malkar"

[edit]

b > m (sound change) Böri (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkars or Malkars are designated by other peoples in over a dozen ways, including Alan, Asi (Osi), Asiat, Balqar, Basiani, Basman, Belkyur, Bulgar, Malkan, Malqar, Musavi, Osson, Ovsi, and Saviar. But the self-designation is Alan and/or Taulula. --Greczia (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2012 (CEST)

Karachays and Balkars call themselves Alans

[edit]

May I can ask why my edits were deleted?

My edit countains following points:

1. The Balkars call themselves Alans,
2. and the Ossetianss call them Ases or Oses.
3. In present ethnography the apparently Turkic ethnonym Alan is wrongly attributed to Iranian-speaking Ossetians.

As we know the Ossetians call themselves Iron, isn't it?

Notice:Alan has nothing to do with the historical Iranian-speaking Alans. So please don't misinterpret me. Thanks.

--Greczia (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (CEST)

First of all Balkars don't call themself Alans. The self-designations of Balkars are well-known ([1]). The citation you provided says:

Before the annexation to the Russian Empire the Balkars (self-designation Alan or Taulula) were settled in the inaccessible gorges on the northern slopes of the central part of the main Caucasus range

Do you really believe that comment phrase in the 2008 year book about Islam in NC is reliable here? Sure not. Where M. Gammer took that information from? Why it first appeared in 2008 year and why not in book about Balkars? And finally why M. Gammer? Is he reliable in this topic?
Ossetians called Balkars Asiag(means from As). It is well proven that Ossetians populated what are now Balkaria, Karachay and Kabarda before Turkic tribes. That group of Ossetians and the region were called As. So Eastern Ossetians called new neighbors As after previous population. That is proven by Abaev, Miller and some other notable scientists. The ancestors of As subgroup of Ossetians are Jassic people in Hungary.
There is no Turkic ethnonym Alan. That is pseudo-science.
P.S. Western Ossetians call themself Digor, Eastern - Iron. But in folklore there survived old common name of Ossetians. That is Allon. And unlike your pseudo-scientific theories this is supported and stated by science.--Bouron (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer to your question. Your source is not reliable.--Bouron (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the source is about Ethno-Nationalism and Islam in Northern Caucasus, so entirely reliable. And yes, you are right, the self-designations of Balkars are very well-known:
  • "Так, на 117 с. книги говорится, что карачаевцы и балкарцы именуют и именовали себя всегда этнонимами алан и ас; см. также на с. 109 и 115." (Амин Кабцуевич Шагиров, Институт языкознания (Академия наук СССР), Заимствованная лексика абхазо-адыгских языков, "Наука", 1989, p.74)
  • "Балкарцы и карачаевцы именуют себя этнонимом алан, как, например, адыгейцы, кабардинцы и черкесы называют себя адыга." (М. З Закиев, Я. Ф Кузьмин-Юманади, Волжские булгары и их потомки, ИНСАН, 1993, p.76)
  • "Сами карачаевцы и балкарцы именуют себя этнонимом алан." (Магомет Ахияевич Хабичев, Именное словообразование и формообразование в куманских языках, Наука, 1989, p.21)
  • "The modern Ossetes use Asi, with the adjective asiag, of the neighbouring Balkar (who speak Turkish). Similarly the Megrel (Mingrelians) call the Karacai, who speak Turkish, Alani. In Megrel also alani k'oii is "heroic man" and alanuroba is "tournament". " (Ehsan Yar-Shater, Encyclopaedia iranica, Vol. 1, Issues 5-9, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, p.803) --Greczia (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In ancient times (approximately until the 11th century), the Karachay and Balkar people were under the cultural influence of Alani with whom they entered into a political union. It is pointed out in specialist literature that their ethnonym was Alan. Alan is the common address of the Karachay and Balkar to each other. The Mengreli and Noghai also call them Alani (Habichev 1971a:126)." (Ėmma Shirii︠a︡zdanovna Geni︠u︡shene, Zlatka Guentchéva, Reciprocal Constructions, Band 3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007, p.971)
Before you are going to discredit this citation: The primal source is from Habichev, M.A. 1971a. "Ob etnonimax alan, byzynnyly, malkarly, karačajly, tegejli" [On the ethnonyms alan, byzynnyly, malkarly, karačajly, tegejli]. Sovetskaja tjurkologija, 2, 126-9
  • "The situation is complicated by the fact that not the Iranic Ossetians, but the Turkic Karacay-Balkars, likely descending from the old Bulgars, are called Alan both by their neighbors, and by themselves. This cannot be due to the fact that the Karacay-Balkars occupies a former Alanic territory, since Turkic population of the region, at least Bulgars, were older in the central ranks of the Caucasus than the Alans." (Osman Karatay, In Search of the Lost Tribe: The Origins and Making of the Croatian Nation, Ayse Demiral, 2003, p.14)
Before you are going to discredit this citation: Osman Karatay is a notable scientist. He is one of the leading Balkanologs of Turkey, as well as a prominent Medieval historian.
  • "The Circassian- (Adygey, Cherkess, and Kabard) and Alan- (Balkar and Karachay) populated republics [...]." (Joint Committee on Soviet Studies (U.S.), Post-Soviet affairs , Vol. 24, Issues 1-4, V.H. Winston & Son, Inc., 2008, p.23)
  • "Balkar is an artificial ethnic and nation name made up by the Soviet regime, which wanted to unite people of the mountains living in the Bashan, Chegem, Holam, Bizingi and Malkar plains under one name. Karachay- Malkars use a historical etymon for themselves "Alan" and call each other "Alan"." (Hasan Celâl Güzel, Cem Oğuz, Osman Karatay, The Turks: Turkey (2 v. ), Y. T., 2002, p.64)
Before you are going to discredit this citation: This work is part of the big Turkish Encyclopedia. The most relevant works for every historical research.
Is this enough to convince you to keep the article as it is now? --Greczia (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bouron, why you are ignoring the evidences I've bring forward? It is clear, Balkars call themselves Alan. Your revertion is breaking the wiki-rules. I hope you know that? I am warning you, as long as you can't disprove the well known fact that Balkars call themselves Alan, you can't even think about a revertion. --Greczia (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't revert because it would be edit war and I am sure you would revert it back. What about your sources. All of them are pseudo scientific. See Shnirelmans work. I have few time, but soon I'll provide citations from his book.--Bouron (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are joking, isn't it? How can you declare this sources as pseudo scientific? How can you dare to postulate such an ignorant thought? I will take my revertion back, untill the problem with your acceptance is cleared. --Greczia (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Still waiting for your justification. --Greczia (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to see those citations as soon as possible? --Greczia (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reveal of Greczia's statement

[edit]

User Greczia claims that Balkars self designation is Alan, which is said to be not connected to the Alans.

When XXX is self designation of people YYY then in the dictionary of YYY language XXX should be YYY. XXX should be mentioned as self designation of YYY in various encyclopedias, academic works about YYY and so on. What do we have in the case of Balkars.

  • A lot of Encyclopedias say that Balkars self designation is Taulu, Malkar (self designation of part of the Balkars). No one mentions Alan.
  • Alan entry in Balkar-Russian dictionary sais that Alan is an appeal and means Hey!, Listen, Friend! There is a translation of “Алан, Сюлемен, къайры бараса?” into Russian. It means “Hey, Suleyman, where you are going?”
  • It is well known that before the Russian revolution, Balkars didn't have common self designation. See Shirelman. In 20th century they accepted Taulu which means Highlander.

What about your citations.

  • First citation says about what is stated in another book.
    • This citation is not reliable because of author is not reliable in this topic and the work “Заимствованная лексика абхазо-адыгских языков” is not about Balkars.
  • Second citation is of Zakiev who stated that Scythians were Turkic people. Sure, Alan in the citation refers to Alans. That is well-known pseudo-scientific theory. Not for this discussion. So it doesn't support your statement because you said That Alan in your edit/statement is not connected to the Alans.
  • Habichev is another marginal who said that Alans were Turkic peoples. The same as in previous citation.
  • The article from encyclopedia Iranica sais about name of Karachays in other languages. Nothing about self designation.
  • Habichev. See above.
  • About Osman Karatay. Alan in his citation is connected to Alans. So it is not support for you.
  • The next citation. Nothing about self designation of Balkars.
  • Next citation contains nonsense. If Balkars are artificial ethnic group and appeared in 20th century, then how could they have historic self-designation? BTW They had no self designation before Russian revolution.

Anyway your citations are not reliable. I have noticed several similarities in your citations.

  • Most of your authors are of Turkic origin, so they possibly are biased.
  • In the most of your citations Alan is connected to Alans and their authors are supporters of pseudo scientific theory of Alans were Turkic people.
  • Most of your authors are not famous. They are not widely recognized and not cited by other scientists. Mainly they cite each other.

--Bouron (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to admit that your "argumentation" is not really strong enough to reveal the amounts of evidences given by Greczia. --Aparhan (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reveal of Bouron's argumentation

[edit]

Deciphering your arguments, it turns out that Ossetians at first called themselves and their territories Asiag, then, when the Ossetians snoozed, came Balkars and transferred sleeping Ossetians to another territory, taking their former land. The next day the Ossetians woke up and, using the name of the territory, began to use their own ethnonym Yases for Balkars, instead of themselves, as before, and also began to call themselves Ironians, for they did not recall how they were called earlier. It would be clear to every child that in the real life this does not happen and cannot happen. This fairy tale was necessary "to prove" by any means the equivalency of the historical Ases and Ossetians.

:-)
  • The so called result for "алан" in the dictionary on elbrusoid.org is a typical russian-made pseudo-work based on artificial misnomers by the former soviet regime. You can read the right definition of "алан/alan" from a Karachayan person:

Сторонники ираноязычия алан склонны предпологать, что слово "алан" применяется в смысле "друг, товарищ и т.д." Это ошибочное мнение, т.к. для обозначения этих слов в карачаевском языке есть слова "тенгим, шохум". Примечательно что со словом "алан" можно обращаться как к мужчине так и к женщине, как к молодым так и к пожилым людям, а вданном случае прием сторонников ираноязычия не работает. Приведу лишь один типичный пример из обычного разговора в среде балкарцев или карачаевцев: - "Алан, сен таулу тюйюлмюсе?", "Алан, ты не горец, что ли?"; - "Аланла, Аллах ючю сёз айтыргъа бир къоюгъуз-мен кесим эшитгенме!"-"Аланы, дайте, ради Аллаха, сказать мне хоть слово - я ведь сам слышал! " - "Алан, не адамса сен? Сен къуру эшитген этгенсе, мен а анда болгъанма"-"Алан, что ты за человек? Ты только слышал, а я сам был там! Хотите - расскажу. " - "Алан, къайда къалдынг?" "Алан, где ты задержался?" - "Алан, сен залим кёреем!", "Алан, ты молодец!"

Так же примечательно, что Карачаевцы и Балкарцы когда обращаются к большой массе людей (имеется ввиду людей своей национальности) не обращаются к ним со словом Карачаевцы!!! или Балкарцы!!! В данном случае используется именно Аланла или же Джамагъат!!!

Short summary-translation:

1. the Karachayan author says that it is a misconception that "алан/Alan" would allegedly mean "friend" or "comrade".
2. in the Karachay and Balkar language we have already two words for "friend", namely "tengim" and "shohum".
3. Then the author adduced some Karachayan sentences for instance and said that men and women, young and old persons can be called "Alan", and that whole crowds of peoples are called "Alan" refferig to an ethnonym: In Karachay-Balkarian -> "Alanla Dzhamagat" (means: "Alanian nationality")
  • Coming to your next point with Shirelman. I've already shown that forebearers of the Karachay-Balkars are reffered in specialist literature as "Alan".
"In ancient times (approximately until the 11th century), the Karachay and Balkar people were under the cultural influence of Alani with whom they entered into a political union. It is pointed out in specialist literature that their ethnonym was Alan." (Ėmma Shirii︠a︡zdanovna Geni︠u︡shene, Zlatka Guentchéva, Reciprocal Constructions, Band 3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007, p.971)
So, Shirelman can't be right, he is simply a liar, when he is ignoring those specialist literature.

Coming to your doubts on my citations:

  • My first citation is taken from a book about linguistics, in particular about loanwords of Abkhaz-Adyghe languages. This work is not alien to the topic, so, the reliability of this citation can't be questioned.
  • Regarding my second citation you are generalizing. This work was made by two authors: M. S Zakiyev and J. F Kuzmin-Yumanadi. Further, I never said, that Alan is not connected with Alans/Az/As Turks mentioned in the gokturk inscriptions, who are part of the Tiele-confederation of nine Turkic peoples and 40 sub-tribes :-) I just said that Alan has nothing to do with so called Iranic Pseudo-Alans. That Alan in the citation refers to Alans is not pseudo-scientific theory. It is a well-known fact which is ignored by pseudo-scientific authors, who are claiming that the whole ethnic substratum of the Alans was Iranian. Indeed it wasn't. There were many ethnic subgroups within the Alans confederation: Iranic, Finno-ugric, Turkic and Slavic. Wikipedia is not listing them. Why? Because it contradicts the weak Scytho-Iranian concept, because the vigilant editorial censorship by the proponents of the Scytho-Iranian concept makes the subject totally devoid of the substance, especially made by militant proponents of the Scytho-Iranian hypothesis.

Even in one of your cited russian source we find following citation:

"Балкарцы - результат слияния аланов с тюркскими племенами." (Russian)
"Balkars - the result of merging with the Turkic tribes of the Alans." (English)
so far about pure Iranic Alans :-)
  • My next citation says: "[...] Alan- (Balkar and Karachay) populated republics [...]."

Well, this means that those who are living in the Balkar and Karachay mountain districts of the republics of Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia are called with the ethnonym "Alan".

  • My next citation says that Karachay-Balkars use a historical ethnonym for themselves "Alan" and call each other "Alan". I've already shown you that "Alan" is mentioned in specialist literature for centuries. I repeat: Regarding this point Shirelman is a typical Soviet liar.

All in all: Beside the fact that Karachay-Balkars are called by allmost all of their neighboring peoples as "Alan" and "As", you even could not at least reveal my citations which I've brought forward. It's clear that there are people who want to hide the self-designation of the Karachay-Balkars. Don't feel offended, but You are one of them. I see you have skipped some of my citations, Habichev is not marginal. I will adduce further citations to silence you:

  • "Wichtige Stereotypen, die innerhalb der karatschaisch-balkarischen ethnischen Gemeinschaft entwickelt wurden und weite Verbreitung im nationalen Massenbewußtsein sowie in geisteswissenschaftlichen Werken, in der Journalistik und Literatur finden, betreffen die vorherrschenden Versionen vom Ursprung (Ethnogenese) des karatschaisch-balkarischen Volkes (von den alten Alanen); seine frühe Zugehörigkeit zur islamischen Religion und Zivilisation - mindestens seit dem 13. Jahrhundert." (Svetlana Mikhaĭlovna Chervonnai︠a︡, Die Karatschaier und Balkaren im Nordkaukasus: Konflikte und ungelöste Probleme, Bundesinstitut für Ostwissenschaftliche und Internationale Studien, 1999, p.34)
  • "Alanen heißen heute im Kaukasus die in den früheren Wohnorten der Osseten angesiedelten Bergtataren oder Balkaren." (Hugo Adolf Bernatzik, Die grosse völkerkunde: Asien, Bibliographisches institut a.g., 1939, p.9)
  • "Общими самоназваниями балкарцев и карачаевцев являются этнонимы алан 'аланы', таулу 'горец', [...]." (Bŭlgarska akademii︠a︡ na naukite. Otdelenie za ezikoznanie, literaturoznanie i etnografii︠a︡, Linguistique balkanique, Bände 27-28, 1984, p.66)
  • "[...] и балкарской народностей наряду с северокавказскими аланами — носителями этнонима «алан». Этот этноним до настоящего времени сохраняется как самоназвание народа в языке карачаевцев и балкарцев в значении «единоплеменник»" (Академия наук СССР., Азăрбайян ССР Елмлăр Академийасы, Советская тюркология, Изд-во Коммунист, 1989)
  • "В обращении к соплеменникам бытует слово «алан». In einer Botschaft an Landsleute gibt es das Wort "Alan"." (Б. Б Боромангнаев, Вклад репрессированных народов СССР в Победу в Великой Отечественной войне 1941-1945 гг: монография, Band 1, Джангар, 2010, p.?)

Taulu just means mountaineer:

  • "Еще один этноним — таулу «карачаевец», «балкарец» (букв. «горец»)." (R. A. Ageeva, Какого мы роду-племени?: народы России, имена и судьбы, Академия, 2000, P.152)

There is even an ethnic self-designation of Karachay and Balkar organization:

  • Interregional Karachai Association "Alan" (president A. Katchiev)

For further academic information, see below...

Alan (Karachaevo-Balkar) in the historical record:

Historical information on the Karachay and Balkar:

Alans (Karachay-Balkar) Latin alphabet:

Even the Karachay-Balkarian websites contains the self-designation/presentation "Alan":

Oh! And not to forget the self-designation "Alan" in traditional Karachay-Balkarian (Alanian) folklore and music. Here are some keywords I've catched with my ears for you: :-)

So many self-designations? Accidental? Very strange for somebody calling "his Friends" :-) There was, there is, and there never will be a doubt that Karachay-Balkars call themselve with the etnonym "Alan" and their land with "Alania".

--Greczia (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding from Caucasus Foundation:

"The nearest neighbors call Balkarians "As" (Ossetians), "Balkar" (Kabardins), "Az" or "Ovs" (Swanes); for instance, Megrelians call Karachais "Alan". The word "alan" is used by Balkarians to address each other. [...]. In 1395/96, world conqueror Timur and his biographers called Balkarians and Karachais "As" and were in fierce struggle against them. Until now, Balkarians and Karachais are called "As" by their immediate neighbors, Ossetians." (General description of the Karachai-Balkarian people by Ismail M. Miziyev)

The Caucasus Foundation is a non-profit Nongovernmental Organization, carrying out several activities for preserving and fostering socio-cultural relations of the Caucasians living at diasporas or at Caucasus. --Greczia (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have to add sources in the edit-page before you do your edit. --Aparhan (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strike-out per http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 --Cold Season (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five groups

[edit]

This source mentions five tribes:

  • Bizingi
  • Chegem
  • Kholam
  • Malqar
  • Urusbiy

I found this because elsewhere someone mentioned Urusbiy as a surname, so I assume there is a connection. The Bizingi people are also mentioned here, Chegem here (as well as being a place name), Kholm here, Malqar here. I'm sure there are plenty of sources, but perhaps someone else has more information on hand, such as whether these still exist as distinct groups. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22 February, 2018

    • These tribes/groups have only historical meaning only, not as distinct group. For nowsdays, they are irrelevant and only general "Balkars" as description used. --Zzem (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balkars&oldid=1199418058"