✠ Desht-i Kypchak ✠

Desht-i Kypchak, this was the name of the Hun Empire, from the Pazific to the Atlantic. A mighty and huge Empire which left several populations of its erstwhile populous regions of Central Asia: Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Caucasian, Iranian, Hungarian, Uralic ... etc... We are all comers from the far-away Altai! Nikolay Rerih noted it: "We do not know. But they know. Stones know. Even know The trees. They remember. Remember, who named the mountains And the rivers. Who built previous cities. Who named the immemorial countries. The words are unknown to us. But all of them have meanings." [...] [...] It was more than folk legend that was changed. The history of the Turkic people was maliciously altered, too. That was not done by some frightened monk in an out-of-the-way monastery. This was part of a policy that the Western church had pursued towards the Kipchaks. An insidious policy it was. But because of it very little truth is known about Desht-i-Kipchak and its people. Facts have, however, remained what they are - facts. They never change because they are held together by logic. Logic (a very clever science where proof goes) has helped reconstruct the events as they actually occurred and learn the whole truth. [...] The Kipchak Blood did not freeze in the veins of some Englishmen. Their appearance and behavior give out their roots... The English Kipchaks, seemingly, have forgotten the proverb of their ancestors long before Anglo-Saxon campaigns: "do not get in another's trousers". They will not hide you. ... [...] Having conquuered half of the world, the Kipchaks seems to have left the history. After each large intercene conflict an ulus after another ulus left- the Desht-i-Kipchak, becoming either a "new" people, or merging with another peoples. The Türks melted away, as snow under the sun. ... [...] With a firm grip on the Idel, Khan Aktash established a state that had a name already - Desht-i-Kipchak. The modern Kumyks, Bashkirs and Tatars were then all Kipchaks, a single nation with nothing to divide them, as they are divided today, with a common khan and one country. Centuries later, they have lost the sense of their common identity to an extent that they argue over priorities. A large Turkic khanate ruled by Khan Aktash arose in the 3rd century. It was an outcrop of the Great Migration. Development of new lands could only end in the emergence of new states, each with its own name, boundaries and ruler. Desht-i-Kipchak has a profound meaning. It is commonly translated today as the Steppe of Kipchaks (that is, Turkis who settled in the steppe). This translation explains very little, however, and is totally out of tune with Turkic tradition. We have very strong doubts about Desht or Dasht, which appears out of place here. Our doubts are reinforced by the fact that it was "foreign land", rather than "steppe" in ancient Turkic. Could then the steppe settlers call their new-found home something like "Kipchaks' abroad"? Hardly ever. Too indefinite. The puzzle is resolved if we take a closer look at the short "i" squeezed into insignificance by its two much bigger neighbours. It is what is actually left of the old isitep (sounds very much like "steppe"), which was Turkic for "shelter" or "protection", which leads us to "foreign land sheltering the Kipchaks". Now we have everything in its place, fine and clear. (Turkic syntax apart, the idea was exactly that.) "Desht-i-Kipchak" were the only appropriate words the Turkis migrating to the steppe to make it their new home could say - a new home where they were comfortable and happy. Steppe dwellers have no word more genial than isitep now. This is our land, the dearest of all. The Kipchaks could now say with every reason: "The Altai is our cradle and the Steppe is our Homeland." The phrase "Desht-i-Kipchak" may certainly be interpreted differently. Not unlikely, some people will see it as more precise. If, for example, you start from the Turkic tash (or dash), which...