Richard Frye (Aga Khan Professor Emeritus of Iranian Studies at Harvard) discusses the usage of “Tazi,” “Tazik,” and “Tajik” on pp. 96 and 98 in his book The Golden Age of Persia. He says that the word was originally used by Central Asian Turkic and Iranian peoples (like the Sogdians) to describe Arabs, who invaded Central Asia with armies composed of Turkic, western Persian, and Arabic soldiers.

This is backed up by my reading of Nasir-i Khusrow’s Safarnama, in which the writer uses the phrase “zaban-i tazi” for the Arabic language. Nasir-i Khusrow was a member of the Ghaznavid court, before moving to Merv in Khorasan to work for the Seljuks. After his travels, he lived out his exile in Badakhshan. A good Persian/English edition of this work is Thackston’s.

Frye also says that the word “Tazi,” or later “Tajik,” came to signify any Muslim in Central Asia. This was before the total conversion of the region, which took centuries. He quotes one historical source that tells of a Bukharan man who converts to Islam, at which point people begin to refer to him as a “Tazi.”

At around the mid-eleventh century the word Tajik began to be used to differentiate Persian-speaking people, or people who identified as Persian, as attested in Bayhaqi’s history of the later Ghaznavids, “Tarikh-i Mas’udi”. He repeatedly uses the phrase “Tork o Tajik” to mean something like “everyone.” The differentiation may have been important to the Ghaznavids, because they were the first identifiably Turkic of the early Islamic dynasties. It may be that around this time, the ‘k’ was added to Taji, possibly because it is a common ending for Turkic adjectives, possibly for euphony in the phrase “Tork o Tajik.” An English translation of Bayhaqi doesn’t yet exist, but A. K. Arends made an excellent Russian translation last published in Moscow in 1969.

As to the original etymology of the word (possibly coming from Ta’izz, one of the Arab tribes that constituted the army invading Central Asia), I haven’t found a good source yet. Any help would be appreciated.

a) the role of wandering Sufi preachers along the trade routes;

b) the commercial contacts with the Arab world;

c) the fact that pre-Islamic Persian-Zoroastrian societies has a caste system which frustrated the socially mobile who then found an alternative in Islam or, be it to a lesser extent, Christianity.

Also, the Arab and Turkic warrior races put again some manhood into cultures that were, at that time, in full decadence and effemination.

[BTW, reg. “Tajiks had in their time.” What do you refer to exactly? The Sogdians, the Acheamenid and Sassanid Persians, the Samanids, all of them?]

Also, admit that modern-day Tajik identity as it is put forward by the regime in Tajikistan is basically a Soviet or very Soviet mind framed creation.

Thank you. That is too generous.

I am glad you have some sense of humor left in you

The first Russian state, Kiivskaya Rus, for example was basically founded and named by/after Viking invaders (’rus’=prob. of Viking origin for ‘rowers’/boatsmen which the Vikings were) who inter-married with Easter Slavic tribes. Similar for the Mughal dynasty in North India whose founders came from what is now Uzbekistan.

Ataman, thanks for these insightful examples from history but I am afraid they don’t address the question head-on. Here is why:

1. While you are right about Rus being of viking origin, but your evidence misses the point. Rus become the term used to describe folks (both invaders and locals) who lived in the area. With time and intermarriage these two distinct groups merged and became known as russians. Again Vikings called themselves and those who they married the Rus, which is different to say naming Slavs, Dum-Dums despite their destinctive name (which is the point you were trying to make regarding Tajiks).

2. There is no such thing as Mughul nation in India, is there? By the way Mughul is a Tajik word and it means literally Mongol That should give you an idea who uzbaks are originally. The reason they called themselves Mughul has to do with the fact that all these guys spoke persian (hence the prevalence of persian words in Urdu and Hindi is easily noticed). To sum up this particular point, Mughul is again a term which invaders used to describe themselves.

Another example: the Uighurs. Before the 1930s there was no nation called as such even though there used to be a medieval Uighur kingdom in present Mongolia. People in present Xinjinag primarily identified themselves with their oasis of origin (Kashgar, Yarkand, …) until the Soviets, who had considerable clout in Xinjiang in the 1930s, created an Uighur nation pretty much as they did in the USSR proper.

Hmm… nice reference, but the word Uighur is not Russian. The fact that Russians “restored” the name for a group of people does not equate actually coming up with a distinct name for people.

The main point of my argument actually lies in psychology and the issue of self-awareness. It has been known to this day that only humans (and chimps, as latest studies indicate) are capable of self-awareness (i.e. distingushing their self from others). From self-awareness grow the feelings of individual and group identities. Those, in turn, are used as building blocks of self-identification among other groups/nations.

That’s why when people discover continents, new species of animals etc. they call them whatever they want (e.g. przhevalsky’s horse, etc.), but when a new tribe of humans is discovered say in the jungles of amazon, scientists at least have decency of asking what they call themselves and refer to them as a new tribe of “blah blah”. Even tribes whose living habits has not changed for centuries are capable of knowing who they are. They have a name for themselves.

So in this context if you assume that a nation is not capable of coming up with a name for itself (and thus relies on others to identify itself), you’re basically denying it as a member of homo sapiens and that, my friends, is insulting!

Especially given the fact that mongols, turks or arabs, to which you seem to attribute the term Tajik, had not reached a fraction of development Tajiks had in their time.

Why’s that? Several civilisations were founded and named by groups or individuals coming from ‘the outside’. The first Russian state, Kiivskaya Rus, for example was basically founded and named by/after Viking invaders (’rus’=prob. of Viking origin for ‘rowers’/boatsmen which the Vikings were) who inter-married with Easter Slavic tribes. Similar for the Mughal dynasty in North India whose founders came from what is now Uzbekistan.

Another example: the Uighurs. Before the 1930s there was no nation called as such even though there used to be a medieval Uighur kingdom in present Mongolia. People in present Xinjinag primarily identified themselves with their oasis of origin (Kashgar, Yarkand, …) until the Soviets, who had considerable clout in Xinjiang in the 1930s, created an Uighur nation pretty much as they did in the USSR proper.

“However ridiculous, you are entitled to your opinion!”

Thank you. That is too generous.

I would also like to thank your for your contribution. I will be honest, I don’t know as much about my roots as the history and culture of my nation warrant.

It is in this kind of discussions that I personally find new perspectives that help me better understand who I am. So thank you for that.

PS/ Tajik Boy is right, in “official” tajik, there are no turkic words…more precisely, very very few.

I have no doubt that “official Tajik” has been cleansed of Turkicisms (tho everyone calls everyone else aka–which by the way is the origin of Iranian Persian’s agha as well) and Arabicisms. So on that point I have no disagreement. I’m even willing to concede the point that in spoken usage, Arabicisms are used less than phrases that are particular to Tajik. I’m certainly not a native speaker, nor have I counted the Arabic words in either dialect. So, unless anyone can find any better information, I’d say you and Tajik Boy are right.

I’ll even withdraw my comment about the pronunciation of Middle Persian. It’s not crucial for me that anyone believe that we can’t know how dead languages were spoken with much accuracy.

The claim I have a problem with is that Tajik was spoken “first” in territory of present-day Tajikistan:

Doesn’t this give an indication as to where persian was spoken first?

When in fact we know pretty well that the Persian dialect now spoken there is a descendant of the language spoken by the Islamic armies that invaded from the west. And that the people we call Tajiks are totally mixed genetically with other peoples of the region.

I have to say that this discussion is fascinating to me, and I thank Doroud and Tajik Boy for indulging me. I still think that when ideology mixes with the study of cultures, you tend to hear more about purity and priority, whereas when individuals talk to each other face-to-face (or post-to-post), you learn more important things about dialogue and diversity.

Are you a native farsi (iranian) speaker?
I am, and I can very openly tell you that farsi DOES have many more arabic words and expressions than Tajik; even iranians agree on this. Maybe this is less visible in written, but in spoken language, Tajiks use many less arabic words; many archaic farsi words dead in spoken farsi and only seen in farsi literature are used every single day by tajiks…if you want a source, read works by Prof. Qubodioni (linguist, professor of farsi and tajik, ancient chairman of tajik state university, faculty of languages).

Secondly, being of indo-european origin, thorough researches have been made into the language and roots of the words, with modern indo-european languages as models to see what pahlavi really sounded like. They use so many unimaginable ways of determining the sonority of ancient languages that i guess they are more right than you and me, even if they can “only” conjecture about what it could have been like) I think that just saying that there is no recording of middle persian is not a very strong argument against all the research done in the field; especially by persianologists and linguists. (and these researchers are more of scientists than politicians; i have seen quite a many, and believe me they are passionate about it, so i don’t think political motivation a source of trying to misguide people into believing nonsense; ofcourse i am not generalising, so there are always those who do write nonsense).

You are right about the indication that history may give about the deplacement of peoples and invasions of territories, but even this is argued upon many historians; this is just an indication a strong one ofcourse, but again it doesn’t “stick” to my logic as there is no solid proof for it.

You may or may not be right, all I am doing is giving my opinions and trying to give a solid argument about my observations; my conclusions are personal and may or may not be convincing. After all not everyone’s logic reasons in the same manner.

Last but not least; Ian, I am not pro spreading the idea that Tajiks are “pure” descendants of whatever clan or peoples and that tajik is purer than whatever other modern language in the region…
On the contrary, I believe the richness of a language and equally a culture is it’s diversity of it’s sources and it’s speakers’ origins; and it is true that the people of Tajikistan comprise a vast number of origins and minorities.

It is true that the government has done a good job spreading alot of false propaganda regarding the history of Tajiks in a vain attempt to try to create a cohesion between the minorities which have to co-exist together in a small country, but I also think that every side of the story should be precisely analysed, before giving any conclusions regarding a subject as sensitive and with as less certitudes as this .

What I base my arguments upon, are sources written by some researchers, and somehow their logic convinced me, even though the contrary is more widely believed (by most iranians and you ).

What is most “frappant” is that, in the whole Central Asia, one single small country (+ Samarkand and Bukhara, actually Tajik territories) continue to speak Tajik, and all the others…derivatives of turkic…

PS/ Tajik Boy is right, in “official” tajik, there are no turkic words…more precisely, very very few.

Doroud to all.