Talk:First Turkic Khaganate

unsourcd flag

Where is the source for this flag? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Göktürk Empire example flag.png

The flag is mentioned and showed in many books about Gökturk Khaganate, examples : Sherqiy Turkestan Tarihi, Uyghur Tarihi. The flag is showed and officaly accapted by the History scholars as the flag of Gökturks. Dolatjan (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found these sources: and . The wolf head is confirmed, only the colors are not mentioned. Akocsg (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This is the only Göktürk flag I could find Dardanus 75 (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

National flags are a modern concept. Many historical states did not have a national flag so searching for one is futile. The flag linked is the flag of a modern far-right organisation, not of the Gökturk Khaganate. You'll need to accept that the Gökturk Khaganate did not have a flag. Kardoen (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Map

Wrong maps:File:Asia 565ad.jpg, File:Asia 600ad.jpg, File:Asia 700ad.jpg, File:Gokturkut.png, File:Тюркский каганат.png

These maps may be correct:File:East-Hem 565ad.jpg, File:East-Hem 600ad.jpg, File:East-Hem 700ad.jpg, File:GökturksAD551-572.png, File:China map.jpg, File:800px-Tang map.JPG

Map of Lev Gumilev: conquest in 550-600 AD - Mongolia, northern Inner Mongolia, southern Zabaykalsky Krai

Map of Lev Gumilev - 1st half of the VIII century: [1] - The Eastern Turkic Khaganate: Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern and northern Gansu. The Western Turkic Khaganate: Kazakhstan, northern Xinjiang, Kyrgyzstan, eastern Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and some territories north of Caspian Sea

Map of Lev Gumilev: late VI century: Mongolia, part of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, northern Caucasus, Tuva, Altai Republic, Khakassia, western Jilin, western Heilongjiang

Sui Dynasty (581–618) and Turkic Khaganate: [2], Category:Maps of the Tang Dynasty, [3]

[4] The khaganate wasn't 18,000,000 km2 in size. I changed to 6000000. Rein Taagepera "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.", Social Science History Vol. 3, 115-138 (1979); Jonathan M. Adams, Thomas D. Hall and Peter Turchin (2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires". Journal of World-Systems Research (University of Connecticut). 12 (no. 2): 219–229. See List of largest empires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecary (talk • contribs)

German works on Old Turkic inscriptions

Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)

https://archive.org/details/dertrkischetext00albegoog

Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)

https://archive.org/details/inscriptionsdel00thomgoog

Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)

https://archive.org/details/berdiekktr00banguoft

Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)

https://archive.org/details/wrterverzeichni00donngoog

Rajmaan (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish work

Orhun abideleri

https://archive.org/details/orhunabideleri00yaziuoft

History of Turks

https://archive.org/details/trktrh00yazi

History of Ottomans

https://archive.org/details/osmnltrh01yazi

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Yaziksiz%2C+Necib+%27Asim%2C+1861-1935%22

Language(s)

According to The Altaic World through Byzantine eyes: Some remarks on the Historical Circumstances of Zemarchus' Journey to the Turks (AD 569-570), Mihály Dobrovits, "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", Vol. 64, No. 4 (December 2011), page 382;

• "Sogdian played an important role in the life of the Turkic Empire. It was the language of the Bugut inscription (ca. 571-582), the first historical inscription of the Turks..."

Whereas, the source added by Acocsg contains no page number, yet when "Sogdien" is put in the search box[5], Roux, page 79;

• "La langue officielle de la dynastie, au moins a ses debuts, est le sogdien, comme le demontre l'inscription imperiale de Bugut, monument funeraire du fils de Bumin, Mugan Kaghan, le Mou-han Chinois(553-572)."
  

Translated:

• "The official language of the dynasty, at least at its beginnings, is Sogdian, as demonstrated by the imperial inscription of Bugut, funerary monument of the son of Bumin, Mugan Kaghan, the Chinese Mou-han(553-572)."

Oddly, this exact conversation occurred here. Where sources were presented that support Sogdian as the language used by the Ashina. Ashina being the founders of the Gok Turk/Turkic Khaganate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

More:

• Another one from Encyclopaedia Iranica;
  

"TURKO-SOGDIAN COINAGE, issues of the khaqans (ḵāqāns) of the Western Turkic khanate in Central Asia between the 6th and 8th centuries CE, so called because the Turkic rulers issued them with Sogdian inscriptions (Smirnova, 1952). --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Languages, again, et. al.

I noticed that "Old Turkic" has been added to the infobox with no source. Per Alexander Vovin;

• "This discovery has many important consequences for linguistic history and history of Central Asia, among which the most important are: first, the fact that the oldest language on the steppe of the “Ataic” type is Mongolic, and not Turkic, and second that this Mongolic language was the official language of the first Turkic khaganate, which in its turn explains why we have no inscriptions in Old Turkic before the second khaganate." -- Alexander Vovin, Groping in the Dark: The First Attempt to Interpret the Bugut Brāhmī Inscription, page 121.
  

and;

• "First, it demonstrates that the Mongolic language of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription(Vovin calls it Ruan-ruan, Vovin, page 133) is not an anomaly. Since the Brāhmī Bugut inscription turned out to be another one written in the Mongolic language, we should expect that we are dealing here with a regular phenomenon, and hopefully we will witness soon enough the discovery of other monuments in the same language, especially that the Mongolian archeology is still in its infancy."
• "Second, this discovery clearly shows that, as suggested previously by Étienne de la Vaissière, in addition to the Sogdian language that served as a "lingua franca" in the First Turkic khaganate, this was the imperial language." -- Vovin, page 133.

Clearly then "Old Turkic" should not be listed in the infobox, and Turkic_Khaganate#Second_Turkic_Khaganate should be removed from this article since it has an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It says common languages. So you claim, Old Turkic came from nowhere after foundation of 2nd Turkic Khaganate? Beshogur (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "So you claim, Old Turkic came from nowhere after foundation of 2nd Turkic Khaganate?"

Apparently you missed the source posted above, and have to make this personal(ie. "you claim"). So you have a source that the First Turkic Khaganate used Old Turkic? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You miss my point. I know that Otk is not used as lingua franca during 1st Gokturk empire, however the infobox says common language. You already did mention the official languages. Beshogur (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that the First Turk Khaganate used Old Turkic? Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well you should write Ruanruan instead of pre middle Mongolic. I agree that they spoke Ruanruan. Also It does not mean they did not spoke old Turk because they did not wrote old Turkic inscriptions. Can you prove the opposite? Beshogur (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Well you should write Ruanruan instead of pre middle Mongolic."

Where have I written pre middle Mongolic?[6]

• "I agree that they spoke Ruanruan."

I agree that Ruanruan was used, but to what extent I am not sure. Once Bumin overthrew the Rouran Khaganate, it is a given that the people that make up the khaganate still existed, therefore their language would still be used.

• "Can you prove the opposite?"

I do not have to prove a negative, you have to prove they spoke/used Old Turkic. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to include that information in the article then you have to provide a source that supports said information.

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not using personal opinion, personal thought(s), or personal POV. You have been here since 2016, I am sure you already know this, since on multiple occasions you have asked for sources.

And this;

• "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history."

is not correct. The Second Turkic Khaganate, which is a completely different entity, is known for the first written record of the Turkic language. Talk about an historical inaccuracy!--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there is a misunderstanding then. I am going to change the language into Ruanruan language. You do not understand. We are talking about a pre medieval state which their only written inscriptions are Bugut inscription and Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi. Do not expect me to prove something that does not exist. It is already mentioned that Ruanruan and Sogdian was the lingua franca, however the infobox says common languages. So you claim that Turkic was never spoken in an entity that used the name "Turk" which subjugated Turkic tribes? That is my point. "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history.", where did I say that? Of course Orkhon inscriptions are the first written record of any Turkic language. So Western Turkic Khaganate, who said "Onoq" to themselves, which means "Ten arrows" in Turkic never used Turkic? Also "Our sources clearly show that the Turks were within the boundaries of the empire when they revolted. It does seem that the formation of the new state meant simply a shift of the ruling class from one ethnic group to another, an event which may have had relatively little imparct on the rest of the population. We do not know what the language of the Juan-juan was, but we do know that Türks spoke Turkic. It is possible that there was no linguistic difference between the Juan-juan and their Türk successors. Beshogur (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Do not expect me to prove something that does not exist."

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, if no source exists then that information should not be in Wikipedia.

• " "...is known for the first written record of any Turkic language in history.", where did I say that?"

Never said you said anything. Compared to your continued "you claim" nonsense.

Your quote is not from The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p. 101, but Sinor's "Inner Asia: History-Civilization-Languages, page 101, published by Indiana University 1969. Please be more careful when citing a source, if a source does not check out some editors/IPs are more than willing to remove first and ask questions later.

I believe the source you provided should work. Next time, refrain from the "you claim" nonsense. I am only interested in what sources state, nothing else.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I believe it Inner Asia is the name of the first volume of the book I mentioned. Beshogur (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• East-Hem 600ad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gokturk cav.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Relations with the Byzantine Empire

The current section on the relations with the Byzantine Empire is a copy from the Greece-Turkey relations which I wrote in January on @Beshogur's prompting . Since it was copied here's its been edited for relevance to just the First Turkic Khaganate which is appropriate but shows how we can lose knowledge. A third issue, is when I was researching, I had to scope it down myself because it was not relevant to what I was writing for but it's historical information that would do well to be expanded.

In light of consolidating knowledge, effort and sources to improve accuracy and to reduce Wikipedia'a duplication, I received approval to create Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire. My proposal is to remove it from this page (and any other) and simply have a link now to this new page where I will expand on it. Please let me know if you agree. Elias (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Poma mask

This article contains a reference to the Silk Road Foundation, which is used to source the addition of a gold mask from Poma cemetery. The Silk Road Journal is an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has nothing to do with this talk page section.

The Silk Road Journal in question is focuses on Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by mostly Russian and Chinese researchers. There is only one editor of the journal, an American man named Daniel Waugh, who has candidly stated that the journal has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

This is pretty much the definition of a predatory publisher.

And predictably, this source contains the kind of erroneous information that one would expect from these kinds of standards. I would just like to note that this source does not even say that this mask is from the First Türkic Khaganate. Quite the opposite, it quotes a researcher who says that it is found in association with items (namely, a cup) obtained by trade with the Türkic empire (whatever that is supposed to mean):

The crescent-shaped garnets which depict the beard of

the mask are similar to those of the studs (Inv. Nos. 2001.21.52–53); however the mount of the Boma mask is of much better quality and workmanship, with the cells of the single crescent stones surrounded by an accurate granulation. The “Western” characteristics of the cup with panther handle and of the other fi nds from Boma, have been discussed in detail by Lin Ying (2008). She interpreted them as objects produced in the Turkic Empire of Central Asia and adds that these populations “transmitted material and cultural achievements between East and West, but also combined in their own distinct culture the elements of different civilisations” such as the Byzantine, Iranian,

Indian and Chinese (Ying 2008, p. 25).

Yet, as we would expect from a low quality source, this is unlikely, because this source also got the dating of the mask awfully wrong. This mask is not from the 5th-6th centuries CE. Every source I have seen places the dates of the golden masks to within the 1-5th centuries CE. From The Himalayan gold masks from a Eurasian perspective, Tao Tong and Linhui Li (2016):

The dates of these gold masks are all around the 1st–2nd centuries CE

On the ruby-inlade Poma mask that this section concerns:

one made of gold from a tomb at Poma (1st–5th century CE

Thus this mask actually pre-dates the First Türkic Khaganate, possibly by hundreds of years, so whatever the Silk Road Journal meant by "Turkic empire", this mask has nothing to do with the First Türkic Khaganate, and since no source actually claims that, it should not be placed here. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Qaghan Khaganate

It is obvious that Khaganate is derived from Bumin Qaghan's name, yet when transliterated in Wikipedia, the name is consistently spelled with a "Q" while the dynasty is spelled with a "Kh." Looking through the sources it does not seem that Khaganate exists as a word in Turkic or Old Turkic. If this is the case then Qaghan would be a trasliteration while Khaganate is a retronym, which is fine. Historians have been applying retronums for a long time. The question is why would the spellings be so different? If "Q" is the the proper transliteration of the first letter of the name, why would it not also be the same for the dynasty? A similar inconsistency exists later in the name and dynasty when the consonant after the first vowel is transliterated "gh" in the name but only "g" in the dynasty. I do realize the in Semitic languages often have subtle internal pronunciation differences when a syllable is added to the word, which could explain "gh" vs. "g" but not "Q" vs. "Kh." The Turkic language these words come from may have the same types of differences leading the "gh" and "g," I don't know for certain though.

The point of this question is consistency. From reading the words individually, it is not obvious they come from the same place, yet the context makes their common origin obvious. Transliterations should be consistent. Why the different spellings? Mike32065 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Map question

@पाटलिपुत्र: Hello. What source(s) did you use for this map? I'm very surprised to see Gorgan and parts of Bactria under the control of the First Turkic Khaganate in 576, during the reign of Khosrow I (Battle of Gol-Zarriun, for example, comes to mind). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HistoryofIran:. You're right, I tweaked accordingly (Bactria and the easter side of the Caspian). Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HistoryofIran: Hmmm, on second thought... according to Grousset and Christoph Baumer, after the recovery of Bactria by the Sasanians in 565-568, the Turks took Bactria back from the Sasanian Empire in 568 under Istämi (specifically including Balk and Kunduz) Grousset p.82 Grousset p.83 Baumer p.174. Baumer continues that the Turks suferred a serious defeat in Herat in 588 or 589 Baumer p.174. Also see Harmatta&Litvinsky p.367. So at the date of this map (576), Bactria would indeed have been under the Turks?... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ll try to make a reply today. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please use citations from the sources, it will make it much more practical. Also, I still think we should be very careful with using History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, considering how much outdated info it has (I also stood by this back in 2020 [7]).

"We may be fairly certain that, in the reign of Khusro I, the empire of Iran reasserted control over most of the region of Bactria, for the striking of Sasanid coins resumed at the mints of Marv, Herat, Sakastan, Chach, Samarqand, and Balkh.267 Possession of those territories may be confirmed by the evidence of sealings, dated to the reign of Khusro I, found as far as Zabulistan and Kadagistan, a region to the east of Rob in Bactria.268 This evidence, which is more trustworthy than the Persian royal tradition, suggests that Khusro and the khaghan had agreed to divide Hephthalite lands between them, but the Turkish portion was by far the larger. The relics of the Hephthalite state were now confined north of the river Oxus and south of the Pamir mountains in Bactria, where mints continued to produce coins in the old style.269 That debased Hunnish remnant may have extended into the region of Badakhshan. But the old king Ghatfar was dead. Faghanish, his successor, wherever he pretended to rule, was nothing more than an Iranian client,270 and that moribund monarchy hobbled on until it vanished altogether in the eighth century." - Bonner, Michael (2020). The Last Empire of Iran. New York: Gorgias Press

"Grousset, perhaps a bit contradtionary later says in page 85; "This quarrel between the western T'u-chiieh and the Byzantines did not prevent the former from continuing their war against Persia. In 588/589, they invaded Bactria or Tokharistan and advanced as far as Herat."

This is what Shahbazi says in regard to what happened between the Turks and Sasanian at that time (dating it to 569/570 instead of 568) [8]; "In 569 or 570 Ištämi/Sizibul, who had conquered the Avars and the remnants of the Caucasian “Huns” and thereby had come to control the Silk Road, attacked Persia with the encouragement of the Romans and pillaged some border areas (cf. Menander, tr., p. 147). Ḵosrow contained the Turkish assault and concluded a treaty with them, but his marriage with the daughter of the Ḵāqān is chronologically impossible (see HORMOZD IV). He fortified the northeastern provinces against their further incursions. Sizibul died soon after, and his successor declined Byzantine’s offer of alliance against Persia and instead invaded the Bosporus area."

"Apparently, Sabe Khan, Hormizd’s uncle and the son of the previous Khagan, attacked the Sasanian troops in Balkh, setting them to flight, and conquering Balkh, Talaqan (the one to the west of Balkh), Hari (Herat), and Badghıs. At the same time, attacks by the Romans, Arabs, and Khazars were also reported. So Hormizd, attempting to set affairs back in order, chose Wahram Cˇobın ‘of the family of Gurgin son of Mılad’ as the general of his armies against the Turks. Before these wars, the Sasanian troops were in possession of the area of western Tokharistan and were mainly stationed in Balkh, the centre of the former Hephthalite imperial power. The entrance of the Turks into this region was thus a breach of an agreement concluded between Khosrow I and the Khaghan (Sinjibu) that had set the Oxus as a boundary between the empires." page 177, - Rezakhani, Khodadad (2017). "East Iran in Late Antiquity". ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press

Daryaee seems to date it to 572-577; "In the east in 557–558 CE, Khusro I defeated the Hephthalites and between 572 to 577 CE, checked Turkic incursions into the Near East." - page 30, Daryaee, Touraj (2014). Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B.Tauris --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Haug, the Hephthalites were still ruling Tokharistan (Bactria), but as vassals of the Turks: "By the 580s our literary sources show the Hephthalites again ruling Ṭukhāristān, but this time as the vassals of the Turks. Michael Jackson Bonner has argued that this transition appears messy because the Sasanians did not actually participate in the conquest of the Hephthalite Empire but used its destruction for propaganda purposes. (...) Numismatic evidence similarly shows spotty Sasanian rule in Balkh and elsewhere that does not line up neatly with the narrative presented by our literary sources. What may likely be the case is a situation like the one described in the previous chapter in which the major urban centre of Ṭukhāristān, Balkh, along with some isolated regions such as the province of Kadagistān, which is known only from the Bactrian documents and administrative seals, retained a connection to the Sasanian Empire while the Hephthalites held the lands around them." (Haug, Robert (27 June 2019). The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-78831-722-1.) पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, so Haug seems to be the only source here that fully acknowledges these rather awkward contradictions and goes a bit into depth about it. Well, his book is dedicated to stuff like that I guess. I don't mind using him for this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I will leave the map without Bactria anyway, since the situation at that time seems rather complicated (or even unresolved...), and simple suzerainty over the Hephthalites in Bactria might not really count as direct territorial occupation (depending on interpretation)... It doesn't change the thrust of the map, and anyway the region of Bactria was soon under the control of the Turks through the Tokhara Yabghus. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty to the Eastern Turkic Empire reparations?

You reversed the two sides that made the reparations. On August 28, 626, Emperor Taizong of Tang met with the Eastern Turkic khan on the Wei River. Emperor Taizong intimidated the khan by force (Emperor Taizong had invited him to a duel in Binzhou two years earlier), and the khan was terrified and agreed to withdraw his troops and pay reparations.On September 1, Khan offered 3,000 horses and 10,000 sheep as compensation, but Emperor Taizong of Tang did not accept them, believing that these were too little.After more than three years, Emperor Taizong decided to teach the khan a lesson. So more than 100,000 soldiers and horses (about one-fifth of the total strength of the Tang army) were dispatched to attack the Eastern Turk Empire, and more than three months later, the Eastern Turks perished.Source: Books "Old Book of Tang", "Zizhi Tongjian". 李双能 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Turkish Commonwealth 879BC - 580AC

First of all I would like to ask a few questions regarding the amount of inscriptions and sources that have been made during this time period (879 BC - 580 AC). There are a total of over 300 inscriptions about the period of the "Khaganates"(source: see "TURK BITIG.com all inscriptions have been archived here 300+!) yet little to none of them have been properly read or have not even been touched at all! For example; the (wrong name but what you call) the Göktürks had a total of 5 different historians who we know the names and lifes of (1 oldest and first historian in the world history Bilge Atuñ Uquq from 565 BC), (Öñre Bıña Başı from 530 BC), (Alp Ërin from 322 BC), (Çur Tïgin 551 BC), (Tört Tïgin 551 BC). And also the very oftenly mentioned "Yoluğ Tïgin" meaning the "Palace historians" who we have many different works of dating from the period 879 BC to 580 AC. Now, I doubt any of you have even ever heard of these people's because none of the inscriptions have been properly read. Let me start with the name of this "Göktürk", "Köktürk" or "Turkic Khaganate".(???) First of all the name Göktürk comes from the misreading of Köktürk which itself is also a misreading of "Ökük Türük". First of all this name is only mentioned ONCE! (In the kültïgin inscritpion) in ALL of the 300+ inscriptions and its written like this;[𐰜𐰇𐰚:𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜] from right to left we First see the [𐰜] letter which is the ÖK/ÜK/KÖ/KÜ. So its not possible to read this as just "K" or as "G". Afterwards we see [𐰇] Ö/Ü. And at last before the : seperator we see [𐰚] K/İK/Kİ. Now from right to left if we would try to read this in NO POSSIBLE WAY you could ever get "kök" or "gök". If you would want it to start with a K it would be read as köök/köük/küük/küök. Which all have no meaning and therefore are wrong translations. So let's look a little further; let's read this as ÖK/ÜK and see what words we get. Ökök (again no meaning/doesn't make sense [skysky, heavenlyheavenly???]), Ükük (again making no sense). What about ÖK - Ü - K? Ökük? Does this mean anything? YES! "ÖK" "ÜK". Now let's combine this with the TÜR>ÜK< [𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜]. We get ÖKÜK TÜRÜK. Meaning the HOLY RACE (DESCENT)/(FROM) THE HEAVENS (WITH)/(WHO KNOWS) ITS ÖK! (ITS CREATOR!). Shortened we read this as Holy Türk. The name TÜRÜK itself means TÜR & ÜK. TÜR means in Turkish "RACE", and ÜK means heavenly. ÖK means creator (we can still see traces of this in todays Turkish for example the name we Turks give to people who have no mother we calk them "ÖKSÜZ" "ÖK - SÜZ" meaning "without an ÖK" meaning WITHOUT A >CREATOR<!). So now the translation we have Ökük Türük is a correct reading of these 2 words [𐰜𐰇𐰚:𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜].

And even if any still deny this Ökük Türük reading. The commonly widely accepted "Kök" and "Gök" are both completely out of consideration since both are totally wrong.

Now that we have settled on the name scandal. Lets look at the historians we just mentioned and give a short reference to their works.

(Before I start I would like to mention that I have all of the inscriptions that these historians have left with the correct translations and also their names mentioned in the inscriptions itself ALL in PDF style I can send it to anyone whos having doubts. My telegram=Jesse Kruitman).

I want to start with ÖÑRE BIÑA BAŞI, Now this historian has left behind 2 large inscriptions for us. The (what you call) Tariat inscription, and the (what you call) Şine-Usu inscriptions. Now the officials don't give any worth to these 2 inscriptions and say these belong to the so called "Uyghur Khaganate"(which is never mentioned in any inscription just like the Göktürk/Köktürks) and say they belong somewhere in between the 700s - 900s AC. However this is fully and completely wrong and I will explain now why.

The problem we face when trying to date stone inscriptions is that we cannot do C-14 carbon tests in them, and therefore fully rely on what the inscription tells us and the form of writing used on the inscription to try and give a date. Now what the officials completely overlooked is that these 2 inscriptions give the date they have been erected in INSIDE of the inscription itself!! For example in thr Tariat inscription Öñre Bıña Başı says

"ÜR-ÖGIN BUNTA OY-URUTUDIM, UÇI-AT BUNTA AT-UQUTDIM. >>>*BİÑ YILLIQ*<<< ÖTÜMIN KÜNLIK BİTİGİMİN-BÏLGÜMİN BUNTA OY-IŞI >>>*TAŞQA OY-URUTIDIM*<<< AT-ULUQ UTUŞQA AT-UQITIDIM."

BİÑ YILLIQ - TAŞQA OY-URUTIDIM. I wrote on the stone in memory of the thousand year past. Anyone who knows Turkish and Kazakh will be able to understand these words Biñ Yıllıq meaning Bin yıllık in todays Turkish means "thousand year past". And Taşqa urutıdım, "Taşqa" still same in todays Kazak and Turks "Taşta" meaning on the stone. And "Urutıdım" comes from Kazak and still spoken in some Anatolian Turkish dialects the verb "URMAK", "TAŞ'A URMAK" means "hitting/punching it on the stone". (Litteral english translation means writing it on the stone/noting it on the stone). Here what Öñre Bıña Başı is saying is that he erects this stone in memory of the thousand year past. Now if we look at the previously mentioned state by Öñre Bıña Başı where he refers to the "AT OY BÏL"

(ÏL-BÏLGE QATUN QAĞAN AT-OĞ QATUN AT-OĞ ATANIP ÖTÜKÜN KIDIN UÇINTA İTİZ BAŞINTA ÜR-ÖGİN (ÏTİTİDİM].... ANTA, OY-URUTUTDIM BARŞ YILQA, YILAN YILQA, ÏKİ YIL YAYLADIM. ULU YILQA ÖTÜKÜN URITU UŞINTA UŞ ÖÑIN BUDUNI IDUQ-BAŞIQIN ÖÑINTE YAYALADIM.)

from after first the BARŞ yılqa(tiger year, 522 BC), afterwards YILAN yılqa (snake year, 519 BC) and "ïki yıl yayladım" meaning 2 years (Yılan yıl - ïki = Snake - 2 = 519-2= 517 BC)  and afterwards ULU yılqa.(Holy/great year, 1517 BC). Now the year 517 BC we have Öñre Bıña Başı says "in memory of the thousand year past" so 517 BC -1000=1517 BC confirming the date we gave in the old Turkish calendar. Now that after the 1000 years have past would mean it was erectes in QOÑ YILQA (Sheep year 517 BC).

Now this whole dating I have done this according to the old Turkish Calendar. I have a whole PDF explaining how the calendar works and I also give many examples to inscriptions where this calendar is used. Now I have not gone deeply into explaining the calendar I just kept it short. Anyone whos curious or doubts this can message me anytime on telegram and I will provide all proofs needed. (Telegram= Jesse Kruitman).

Now that we have settled on the year, I do not only have this year from the calendar but also from Herodotus. (Anyone who wants to hear it message my telegram). because Öñre Bıña Başı in the (what you call) Şine-Usu inscription in the part D11 explains his campaign to Gallipoli (mentioned as "TUTUQ BAŞ" campaign) and here Öñre Bıña Başı not only gives us the year but also gives us the day with the month, the day of the month, and the year all together (BC 20/7/516).

"OQ-ÏÇİN(BÏÇİN) YILININ YÏTİNÇ AY, YİGİR(MİKE) ÏSKE ÖGÜS OQ-AT UB-UÇUĞQA BARTUĞ YILUNQA, TOQİSUNÇ AY, OQ-UŞUY QARA OZIĞ UYULTIM. KÜZTE AT-UB-UÇ(UĞQA) SÜLEDİM. ËDGÜ-ON ANÇA BÜ-AT ÖGİMİ SÜLEP YORIMAZUN ÖKÜ-OL ÏLİK US UŞ-OĞI."

Lets have a look at this part, (D11 Şine-Usu inscription). Anyone who speaks and understand Turkish can also come very far understanding certain words here. Now lets look at the date which is given. "OQ-ÏÇİN(BÏÇİN) YILININ YÏTİNÇ AY YÏGİR ÏSKE." (Todays Turkish: Bïçin yılının yedinci ayın yirmisinde), English: (the Monkey years seventh months 20th day), which gives us according to the Turkish calendar BC 20/7/516.

Öñre Bıña Başı gives the most dates in this part of the inscription of TUTUQ BAŞ campaign. In D12 he explains himself passing the "Ïster ırmağı" which is the Ister river by gallipoli, and using guerilla warfare against Darius I. And afterwards defeating him.

So we have a Turkish historian. From the years 500 BC, who erected a stone inscription in 517 BC, in memory of a state that existed 1000 years prior to that called At-Oy-Bïl. Who also used Old Turkish calendar on his inscriptiond and gave the dates all the way to the DAY and MONTH. In depth explaining certain events that took place. And explains how he defeated Darius I. In Gallipoli, the official historians and scholars completely deny the existance of this person, the calendar used on this stone. And have not even properly ever read any inscription and gave this state a fake name. Göktürk/Köktürk. Or the Khaganates, Uyghur Khaganate. + the year 552 has never been proven and neither has the year 732 of the Kültïgin inscritpion ever been proven. Kültïgin = Mukan Qağan and died in 575 not in 732. This is according to Chinese and Byzantine sources. Anyone who has questions message my telegram.

Now this is just 1 historian. Öñre Bıña Başı, just like him we also have Alp Ërin who has defeated Alexander the Great. He wrote this also himself in the Bolbol Uqus (what you call Ongin inscription). And also the "myth" that Tomyris beheaded Cyrus the Great is also noten in these inscriptions.

I suggest a whole complete renovation of this page!! History is a lie!!! This all what I am saying has been proven by Kazım Mirşan, Liu Mau Tsai, De Groot and Rallof!! I have all proofs in PDF style message my telegram anyone who has questions! TELEGRAM=Jesse Kruitman. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for 552?

May I ask anyone what the source is that this "khaganate" was established in 552? And by someone called "Bumin" Khagan? Please give a direct source. Not some random article by any historian/writer only just mentioning this. Proof. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)