I.

Uluslararası 1st International

Türk Dünyası Symposium on
Tarım ve Gıda Agriculture and Food
Sempozyumu in Turkish World
I. Международный Симпозиум Тюркского Мира
По Сельскому Хозяйству и продовольствия

19-21 Aralık 2019

EÜ Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Enstitüsü
İzmir – TÜRKİYE

19-21 December March 2018

E.U. Institute of Turkish World Studies
Izmir – TURKEY

I. ULUSLARARASI TÜRK DÜNYASI TARIM VE GIDA SEMPOZYUMU BİLDİRİLER KİTABI

1ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD IN TURKISH WORLD
BOOK OF PROCEEDINGS
I. МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ СИМПОЗИУМ ТЮРКСКОГО МИРА ПО СЕЛЬСКОМУ ХОЗЯЙСТВУ И
ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВИЯ СБОРНИК ДОКЛАДОВ

EDİTÖRLER/EDITORS
Arş. Gör. Ali BALCI
Arş. Gör. Şengül AYGÜMÜŞ

Kapak Tasarımı, Afiş, Dizgi ve Ağ Sayfası/Graphics and Page Design

Arş. Gör. Şengül AYGÜMÜŞ
Arş. Gör. Ali BALCI
Arş. Gör. Recep Efe ÇOBAN

ISBN

978-605-81731-1-8
ARALIK 2019 İZMİR

Destekleyenler/Supporters
 ONUR KURULU
Necdet BUDAK EÜ Rektörü
Kemal ABDULLA Azerbaycan Diller Üni. Rektörü
Serghei ZAHARİA Moldova Komrat Dev. Üni. Rektörü

DÜZENLEME KURULU
Prof. Dr. Nadim MACİT
(EÜ Öğretim Üyesi)
Prof. Dr. Nedim KOŞUM Prof. Dr. Hasan YILDIZ
(EÜ Öğretim Üyesi) (EÜ Öğretim Üyesi)
Prof. Dr. Eftal DÜZYAMAN Prof. Dr. Figen ERTEKİN
(EÜ Öğretim Üyesi) (EÜ Öğretim Üyesi)
Doç. Dr. Nurcan KOCA Öğr. Gör. Kenan DOĞAN
(EÜ Öğretim Üyesi) (EÜ Öğretim Üyesi)

SEKRETERYA
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Muhammet ŞEN EÜ Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Ens.
Öğr. Gör. Kenan DOĞAN EÜ Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Ens.
Arş. Gör. Şengül AYGÜMÜŞ EÜ Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Ens.
Arş. Gör. Ali BALCI EÜ Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Ens.

BİLİM KURULU
Prof. Dr. Figen KOREL
Prof. Dr. Neriman BAĞDATLIOĞLU
Prof. Dr. Ayhan TOPUZ
Prof. Dr. Semih ÖTLEŞ
Prof. Dr. Meltem SERDAROĞLU
Prof. Dr. Ufuk YÜCEL
Prof. Dr. Yonca YÜCEER
Prof. Dr. Şebnem HARSA
Prof. Dr. Coşkan ILICALI
Prof. Dr. Fikret PAZIR
Prof. Dr. Adnan HAYALOĞLU
Prof. Dr. Mükerrem KAYA
Prof. Dr. Semra KAYAARDI
Prof. Dr. Medeni MASKAN
Prof. Dr. Fahrettin GÖĞÜŞ
Prof. Dr. Şebnem ELLİALTIOĞLU
Prof. Dr. Saliha KIRICI
Prof. Dr. Erdoğan GÜNEŞ
Prof. Dr. Turğay TAŞKIN
Prof. Dr. Levent ARIN
Prof. Dr. Harun KESENKAŞ
Prof. Dr. Abdırakhman OMBAYEV
Prof. Dr. Constantin TAUŞANCI
Doç. Dr. Nurudin KYDYRALİEV
Doç. Dr. Serghei CARA
Doç. Dr. Anar HATEMOV
İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü
Celal Bayar Üniversitesi
Akdeniz Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
Çanakkale OnSekiz Mart Üniversitesi
İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü
Kırgızistan Manas Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
İnönü Üniversitesi
Atatürk Üniversitesi
Celal Bayar Üniversitesi
Gaziantep Üniversitesi
Gaziantep Üniversitesi
Ankara Üniversitesi
Çukurova Üniversitesi
Ankara Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
Namık Kemal Üniversitesi
Ege Üniversitesi
Kazak Ulusal Tarım Üniversitesi
Moldova Komrat Devlet Üniversitesi
Kırgız Türk Manas Üniversitesi
Moldova Komrat Devlet Üniversitesi
Azerbaycan Devlet Tarım Üniversitesi
 İÇİNDEKİLER

1 Genetic Resources of Animal of Kazakhstan

Abdirakhman Ombayev

5 Kazakların Geleneksel Mutfak Kültürü ve Hızlı Yemek Sistemi (Fast Food)

Askar Turganbayev

Sürdürülebilir Arıcılık Açısından Çevresel Sorunların Bal Arıları Üzerine Etkileri

11 The Effects of Environmental Problems on Honey Bees in View of Sustainable Beekeeping

Banu Yücel
Ekin Varol

Türkiye ile Türk Cumhuriyetleri Arasındaki Ekonomik İlişkilerin Dış Ticaret Açısından Değerlendi-
rilmesi
Evaluation of Economic Relations in terms of Foreign Trade Between Turkey and Turkish Republics
17 Berna Türkekul
Özlem Yıldız
Funda Gençler
Buket Karaturhan

Türkiye’deki Sürdürülebilir Tarımsal Üretim Sistemleri ve Toprak Verimliliği Yönetimi

29 Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems and Soil Fertility Management in Turkey

Bihter Çolak Esetlili
Mahmut Tepecik

Türk Dünyasının Geleneksel Fermente Süt Ürünlerinin Dünya Pazarında Yer Bulma Olanakları

35 Marketing Potentıal of the Traditional Fermented Dairy Products of the Turkish World in the World
Market
Cem Karagözlü

Türkiye’de Tüketicilerin Sağlık Bilinci

Consumers’ Health Conscious in Turkey
45 Cihat Günden
H. Ece Salalı
Ela Atış

55 Ekonominin Tarım Sektöründe Tek Vergi Sistemi: Yeni Bir Paradigma

Constantin Tauşancı

İklim Değişikliği Koşullarında Su Kaynakları ve Tarımda Su Kullanımı

Water Resources and Water Usage in Agriculture Within the Climate Change Conditions
59 Ela Atış
H. Ece Salalı
Yarkın Akyüz

Türk Dünyası için Yerli Bitki Koruma Ürünlerin Geliştirilme ve Kullanılma

Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi

67 Evaluation the Development and Use Potential of Local Plant Protection Products for the Turkish
World
Enver Durmuşoğlu
Aylin Aydın
 Mikroçoğaltımla Anaç ve Aşılı Fidan Üretiminin İhracat Durumları
(BİOTEK Biyoteknoloji Ltd. Şti. ve Orta Asya Örneği)
Micropropagation Rootstock and Grafted Sapling With Export Situations
75 (BIOTEK Biotechnology Ltd. Sti. and Central Asia Case)
Erdem Doğru
Serdar Polat
H. Tuba Türen

Döner Üretiminde Uygulanan Yöntem ve Parametrelerin Ürün Kalite Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri
The Effects of Methods and Parameters Used in Döner Production on Product Quality Characteris-
83 tics
Gülen Yıldız Turp
Begüm Özçetin

99 Kazak Kültüründe Gıda Olarak At ve Kımız

Gülmira Karimova

Kefir; Bir Mucize mi?

103 Harun Raşit Uysal
Aslı Akpınar

Sosyo - Kültürel Bir Unsur Olarak Yiyecek ve Mutfak

111 Food and Cuisıne as a Socio-Cultural Element
Hayati Beşirli

Küresel İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadelede Tarım Topraklarının C-Yutağı Rolünün İrdelenmesi
117 C-Sequestration Role of Agricultural Soils in Combating Global Climate Change
Hüseyin Hüsnü Kayıkçıoğlu

127 Imported Cows of Holstein Breed to Productive Qualities in Karakalpakstan

Amina Saginbaevna

Türkiye Sanayi Domatesi Üretim Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi

133 Evaluation of Turkey Processing Tomato Production Potential

İbrahim Duman
Fatih Şen

Орто Aзия Aлкaгындa Кыргызстaндa Aйыл-Чaрбa Иш Чaрaлaрындaгы Жaңы Трендтер

143 Orta Asya Bağlamında Kırgız Cumhuriyeti Tarımsal Faaliyetlerde Yeni Trendler
Kanatbek Kaparov

Biyokömürün Tarımda Kullanılması

147 Use of Biochar in Agriculture

Mahmut Tepecik
Bihter Çolak Esetlili

151 Dünyada Tarımsal İstihdam Yapısındaki Değişim ve Tarımın Sürdürülebilirliği

Mizgin Karahan
Canan Abay
165 Hibrit Mısır (Zea mays L.) Çeşitlerinin Geliştirilmesi
Development of Hybrid Maize (Zea mays L.) Varieties
Muzaffer Tosun
Fatma Aykut Tonk
Deniz İştipliler
Ayten Pekbağrıyanık

Different Physiologikal Indications of Different Genotype Bulls in Experiment in Karakalpakstan

171 Condition
Nawrizov Toxtamis

Türkiye’de Koyun Yetiştiriciliğinin Mevcut Durumu, Sorunları ve Geleceği

Nedim Koşum
175 Turğay Taşkın
Çağrı Kandemir
Funda Erdoğan Ataç

187 Кыргызстандын Тамак-Аш Өнөр Жайы

Nurudin Kıdıraliyev

Türk Dünyasının Coğrafi İşaretleme Potansiyeli ve Bu Potansiyeli Yönetişimle Değerlendirme

Fırsatları
The Geographic Indication Potentials for Turkish World and Valorization Opportunities of this Po-
191 tential with Governance
Onur Özdikicierler
Merve Yazılıkaya
Fahri Yemişçioğlu

197 Beekeeping and Ethno-Linguistic Origins: a Scrutiny of the Turkic Case

A. Osman Karatay

Tuzlu (Çorak) Toprakların ve Tuzlu Suların Islahında Deniz Börülcesi

203 Glasswort in Breeding of Salted Soils (Barren) and Salted Waters
Serdar Polat

ATU Gagavuzya’da Bağcılıkta Gelişme 2007- 2018

213 Development Viticulture in the Atu Gagauzia 2007-2018
Serghei Cara

Kapsayıcı İş Modeli Olarak Süt Üreticiliğinin Desteklenmesi

219 “Sütümüzün Geleceği Bilinçli Ellerde” Projesi

Ümit Savcıgil
Murat Birsin

Tarım ve Gıda Üretim Süreçlerinde Ekserji Analizi

223 Exergy Analyses in Agriculture and Food Production Processes
Zafer Erbay

233 Yazarlar
Listesi
 I. ULUSLARARASI TÜRK DÜNYASI TARIM VE GIDA SEMPOZYUMU BİLDİRİ KİTABI
1ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD IN TURKISH WORLD
BOOK OF PROCEEDINGS
I. МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ СИМПОЗИУМ ТЮРКСКОГО МИРА ПО СЕЛЬСКОМУ ХОЗЯЙСТВУ И
ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВИЯ СБОРНИК ДОКЛАДОВ

Beekeeping and Ethno-Linguistic Origins:

a Scrutiny of the Turkic Case

Prof. Dr. Osman Karatay *

Those working on Khazarians are familiar with the word ‘honey’ mentioned often and regularly
in Islamic sources as an export product of this country. Muqaddasi of the 10th century depicts
Khazaria as “abundant in sheep, honey and Jews.” 1 Some sources, by the way, add that honey
was imported from Volga Bulgar (what is today Tataristan and its surroundings) to Khazaria,
likely to transfer to the Islamic countries. 2 Today, Bashkirian honey is very famous. It is funny
but no need to associate it with the Hungarian honey through the historical Hungaro-
Bashkirian connection. 3
According to Crane’s maps and figures, Khazar and Bulgar countries (lower and mid-Volga
basin) were the easternmost places to deal with bee-keeping in ancient and medieval world.
Arctic Europe and northern half of Asia, including deserts and steps of Central Asia were bee-
less in the exact sense. 4 The honeybee was introduced in Siberia about 230 years ago. It was
the dark-colored forest bee Apis mellifera mellifera L., or the Middle Russian race. 5 That the so-
called Finno-Ugric peoples living to the northeast Europe and northwest Siberia loaned the
words for bee (*mekše) and honey (*mete) from the Indo-Europeans, rightly from Indo-
Iranians living to their south in the Bronz Age. 6 That suits well to the (reconstructed) pre-
historical framework, there seems no problem. Perhaps people living to the east of the
Southern Urals did not learn about bee and honey for many millennia, but the IE words
advanced eastward with the migration/dispersal of the Ugric branch. Then, not having bees
there, ancestors of the Vogul and Ostiaks forgot about it, and Proto-Hungarians living to their
south kept the word, for their lands were eligible.
As for the Eastern Asia, China, Korea and Japan were/are within the borders of bee-lands.
Chinese mì ‘honey’ (< *mit) is to be a loanword from Tochar B mit ‘honey’ < Proto Indo-
European *medhu. 7 This cannot be taken certain and may be merely a coincidence. Korean has

* Osman Karatay, Prof., PhD, Ege University, Institute for the Turkic World Studies, Bornova – İzmir, Turkey, ORCID:
0000-0002-1566-3283, karatay.osman@gmail.com.
1 Mukaddesî, İslam Coğrafyası, p.355.
2 Khazar economy can be read in Noonan, “Some Observations on the Economy of the Khazar Khaganate”, p.207-

244.
3 See for a discuss in historical perspective Tryjarski, “Beekeeping Among the Turks”, p.241-277.
4 Crane, “The Past and Present Importance of Bee Products to Man”, p.3; The World History of Beekeeping and

Honey Hunting, p.13.

5 Crane, The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, p.366; Ostroverkhova et all, “A Comprehensive

Characterization of the Honeybees in Siberia (Russia)”, p.1. The latter established in their genetic study that 64% of
bee colonies in Southern Siberia and the Altai region originate on the maternal line from the Middle Russian race,
28% of colonies originate from southern (mainly Uzbekistan) subspecies, and 8% were mixed bee colonies (idem,
p.7, 10).
6 Carpelan and Parpola, “Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan

in Archaeological Perspective”, p.114.

7 Carpelan and Parpola, “Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan

in Archaeological Perspective”, p.117.

 Osman Karatay

its own k:ul for honey (skúr, pskúr <*skúr). In spite of other suggested Altaic cognates and the
ultimate *šḭṑgV ‘juice’, 8 none of the concerning words has the same meaning. The Japan word
hachimitsu ‘honey’ was derived from hachi ‘bee’.
Common Turkic word for honey is bal, with the expected Chuvash version pıl, which can
easily be reconstructed as *bal, perhaps *pal with a slightly long vovel is Proto-Turkic. It occurs
from the 11th century on. Mongolian bal ‘honey’ is a loanword from Turkic. 9 It is suggested to
be a l-w from Indo-European, however, instead of the geographically closer Sanskrit mahdu,
Avestan maδu or Slavic med, it resembles Latin mel, Greek meli, Hitite milit, Albanian mjal and
Armenian mełr ‘honey’. 10 This is a paradox. On the other hand, though the known b ~ v
transitions, PIE *medhu > Tr. bal needs further phonetic explanations for the known, relatively
short period of Old Turkic, if the latter did not take it from the Greeks or Latins. Just as, PIE >
OT loans are impossible for time and space reasons in the conventional views. If it was taken in
the Proto Turkic age(s), then we need to adjust geography of the Proto-Turks to be closer or
adjacent to the IE, or at least Indo-Iranians.
On the other hand, if the Turkic bal necessarily descends from an IE source, then (Proto)
Turks would have taken it earlier than the so-called Uralic peoples, since PIE *medhu <
*melit. 11 Of course, this is not out of possibility, as long as we suppose a PT-IE contact in early
Bronze Age or late Neolithic.
History of the word bal poses a great problem within itself, and perhaps this problem
would present a solution to the question. According to Mahmud of Kashgar, recording this
word first time in c.1073, that word belongs to the dialects of Suvars, Kipchaks and Oğuz, while
Turks (in general) call it arı yağı ‘bee butter’. 12 Those are Turkic peoples of South and
Southwest Siberia, who should not have known about honey 1000 years ago! Interestingly,
linguistic records earlier than Mahmud of Kashgar do not have the word at all. Well, runic
inscriptions may not have contents to use that word, but the countless Uighur ‘paper’
documents, which contain rich texts on social life never take is in their vocabulary. Instead,
they use two loanwords from Sanskrit. 13 Earliest available Turkic records (8th century on) are
from the Easternmost Turks: Köktürks, Uighurs, Kirghiz etc. We can compare their position
with that of the earlier separating Uralic peoples -if they are-, Samoyeds and Ob-Ugrics.
Simply, perhaps they migrated to the lands where bees cannot go, and then forgot about bee
and honey. Absence of bal in Köktürk and Old Uighur clarifies also the very phonetic similarity
of the Mongolian bal: It was loaned possibly in late Medieval. This also cancels a hypothetic
Proto-Altaic effort concerning this word.
According to EDAL, PT *bạl ‘honey’ is cognate with Mong. *milaɣa- ‘to smear with oil’ and
M-T *mala ‘sesame oil, plant oil’, all going to PA *malV. 14 Meaning of honey can be extended
to some drinks, especially juice (cf. Persian may ‘fruit’ < PIE *medhu), but purely oil is
something totally different. Various extensions of the Mongolic word have nothing to do with
‘honey’: Middle Mong. malija- ‘to offer’, mali’an ‘service’; Western Mong. milaɣa- , Kh. ḿalā-,
Buryat mila ‘satiety’, milāŋ ‘birthday’; Kalmuk melέ-, malī-, maĺā- ‘to smear with oil (on
occasion of birth etc.)’. 15 On the other hand, Turkic has no such semantic extensions and

8 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.41, 1336.

9 Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov -B-, p.47; Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth
Century Turkish, p.330.
10 Taken from Pokorny, Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, p.2033-2034.
11 Pokorny, Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, p.1998.
12 Maḥmud al-Kāšγārī, Compondium of the Turkic Dialects -II-, p.228.
13 Tryjarski, “Beekeeping among the Turks”, p.244.
14 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.41.
15 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.897-898.

198
 I. Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Gıda ve Tarım Sempozyumu

cognate words with bal. If it was a Proto Altaic word, then various cognate words, even verbs
would be expected in Turkic, too. Thus, it seems Mongolian has only bal ‘honey’ from Turkic,
and others have nothing to do with it.
Korean has pēl ‘bee’, which is regarded to be tied with our work. 16 This word seems to
come from the root *pə̄r ‘bee’, as examined below. If there was no the Middle Korean pə̄r
‘bee’, it could be suggested to relate it to PTU *pīlu- ‘to soar; to drop (of leaves)’and PMong.
*hele- ‘to soar’, reconstructed to PA *p′ῒle ‘to fly, soar, flap’, together with PJ *pìrù(n)kap in
EDAL. 17 Otherwise, non-existence of true cognates of Tr. bal in Mongolian and M-T is
troublesome.
Suvars lived on the territory westward from the Tobol River. Kipchaks were just to their
east, on the Upper Irtish basin. The Oğuz union was formed it the Western Kazakh steppes, just
to the south of the former two, and with additions from South Siberian Turkic tribes. And our
word seems to be restricted to that area. This restriction was due to biological reasons, rather
than being a linguistic case. If zoological reports are precisely true, then Suvars were on the
eastern edge of the European beekeeping territorial unity. From there the word should have
spread to other Turkic peoples, including those living in and around the Altai ranges. Not in
today’s density, domestic or wild honey production should have had a slow dispersal towards
the closer east. If bees can live today in Southern Siberia, why not in the past? This would
explain existence of the concerning terminology in Turkic as native vocabulary.
Name of the people is not important. Here is a lingua-genetic case. Proto Turks or a group
of the Turks lived in the beekeeping area from an unknown time on, maybe early medieval,
maybe much earlier. In contrary to the Uralic peoples, they did not need to borrow foreign
(Indo-European) words for honey, because they had. We could check this as a particular case,
without making overall evaluations, if the Turkic word for bee was not in the same situation.
Bee in Turkic languages is arı, with a few harı variations. 18 It is even more widespread than the
word bal, by including the far eastern Yakut.
Occurrence of the word in Khalaj, a Turkic dialect spoken in Iran, in the form harı is directly
associated with the Proto Turkic form *parı (cf. CT ayak ~ Khalaj hadaq ‘foot’ < OT adak PT
*padak). 19 Thus, association of EDAL of this word with Proto Tunguz *perē- ‘bumble-bee’
(however, attested only in Evenki), Proto Mongol *herbekei ‘butterfly’, Proto Korean *pə̄r ‘bee’
and Proto Japan *pátí ‘bee’ 20 would have a solid base. Presence of the Turkic cognate in Yakut
means that it was common among the Eastern Turks, too, since the Yakut separated from
them. Statement of Mahmud of Kashgar that Turks (other than Suvars, Kipchaks and Oğuz) call
honey as arı yağı also reinforces popularity and common character of this word among all
Turks.
However, the cases of Mongol and Manchu-Tunguz are troublesome. The former has
butterfly instead and the latter has only in one (northern) dialect). The both language families
have a common word directly for bee: Proto Tunguz *ǯuge- ‘wasp, bee’ and Proto Mongol
*ǯogej ‘bee’ (< *ǯuge). 21 This can be explained with the absence of bee in the territories of the
both people in olden times and transfer of the so-called Altaic word to other meanings.

16 In reference to Räsänen, Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (glasnye), p.187.

17 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.1142
18 Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, p.196-197; Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij

slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (glasnye), p.186-187.

19 Poppe, Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, p.197, makes it Proto Altaic.
20 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.175, 1135-1136. On the other hand, Japan has

ari ‘ant’ in the related group of words (idem, p.312).

21 Starostin et all, An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages, p.1552.

199
 Osman Karatay

Meanwhile, existence of related words in the so-called Finno-Ugric languages should be

observed carefully. We have *perma ‘Bremse’ in a widespread way, including the Saami
languages. 22 Formerly Räsänen took attention to the Finnish paarma ‘gadfly’, Lap. pòaru,
Mordvin puromo and Mari pormə̄ ‘bee’. 23 They are hardly unrelated to PT *parı. Their situation
can be compared to the Mongol and M-T cases: If there is no bee around, the word is applied
to some other insects. So, the Turkic word has connections beyond the so-called Altaic domain,
and reaches to the ultimate borders of Fennic languages. Cf. also Ugric pölɜ ‘Bremse (Insekt)’, 24
which can be compared to above mentioned PA *p′ῒle ‘to fly, soar, flap’.
Original meaning of the now Uralo-Altaic word *parV is difficult to identify, however, the
fact that if there is bee around it is given to it (Turkic, Korean, Japan, and perhaps Tunguz), if
not, it is assigned to gadfly or butterfly or any other fly (Uralic, Mongolian) may show that it
originally meant bee. Just, if there is a word for honey, there should be one for bee, too, as an
Old Turkic idiom says: asal kayda erse bile arısı “Wherever there is honey, there is a bee with
it”. 25
The very popularity of the word throughout Eurasia excludes borrowing from Old Indian
alíh ‘bee, scorpion’; 26 likely it was loaned from a Proto Turkic source. This also explains the
case of Arabic ary ‘honey’. In spite of the debates on the vowel quality of the Turkic word, 27
Turkic has no an expressed long a-, and the Arabic form is almost the same as the Turkic
pronunciation. If not coincidental, it should be result of a medieval interaction. The word is not
widespread in Arabic; the expected words for bee and honey are respectively nahl and asal. It
might be a Turkic loanword, since Turkic veterans were in service of the Abbasid caliphs from
the late 8th century on in great numbers, especially from the honey abundant Khazaria. 28
Nor the Persian word ary ‘making honey (a bee)’ is a popular one. Steingass marks it as an
Arabic l-w. 29 In contrary to the great majority of IE languages, Persian is very irregular in
keeping the concerning inherited words. This may be due to their ancestors’ long stay in
‘Ariana’, the bee-less Western Turkestan in the late Bronze Age. That the word has a- at the
beginning shows that it was borrowed from Turkic in a relatively late time, after the harı > arı
change, which we may date to early medieval. 30 Thus, Arabic might have loaned it from Old
Persian, too.
Turks were/are central in the Uralo-Altaic world. Considering that they have the popular
word for bee and particular word for honey in their languages, without any borrowing relation,
we can eventually conclude that the Turks emerged in an area livable for bees. If one insists
that the Turks loaned it from an Indo-European source (a ‘Nostratic’ approach may be more
appropriate), it should have occurred very early, not later than the year 0 A.D., and it cannot
be in the east of Inner Asia for biological reasons. Then at least some parts of the Turks should
have been living in the South Ural region in those days, if Turkic Urheimat is not in that region.

22 Rédei, Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, p.373.

23 Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (glasnye), p.187.
24 Rédei, Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, p.416.
25 Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, p.197.
26 Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (glasnye), p.187.
27 See Sevortjan, Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (glasnye), p.187.
28 See for instance Golden, “Khazar Turkic Ghulâms in Caliphal Service: Onomastic Notes,” p.15-27.
29 Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, p.40.
30 The contemporary Khalaj hadaq ‘foot’ is adaq in Old Turkic during the Köktürk age. Thus, OT was an adaq

language in Poppe’s terms (Introduction to Altaic Linguistics,p.59, in spite of claims of Doerfer that OT had h-, but
did not use in script. See for a discussion Gülsevin, “Eski Türk Yazıtlarında Kelime Başında /h-/ Sesi Gösterilmiş
miydi?”, p.127-136). If the phonetic correspondence is true, Old Persian might have loaned it as early as, at least,
the 7th century).
200
 I. Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Gıda ve Tarım Sempozyumu

KAYNAKÇA
Carter, Martin R. Conservation tillage in temperate agroecosystems. CRC Press, 2017.
Carpelan, Ch. – Parpola, A., “Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-lndo-European,
Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspective”, Early Contacts between Uralic
and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, ed. Ch. Carpelan – A.
Parpola – P. Koskikallio, Helsinki (2007): p.55-150.
Clauson, Gerard, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, Oxford
1972.
Crane, Eva, “The Past and Present Importance of Bee Products to Man”, Bee Products
Properties, Applications, and Apitherapy, ed. Mizrahi A. – Lensky Y., New York (1997): p.1-
13.
Crane, Eva, The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, New York 1999.
Golden, Peter B., “Khazar Turkic Ghulâms in Caliphal Service: Onomastic Notes,” Archivum
Eurasie Medii Aevi, 12 (2002-2003): p.15-27.
Gülsevin, Gürer, “Eski Türk Yazıtlarında Kelime Başında /h-/ Sesi Gösterilmiş miydi?”, Türk
Dünyası Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 42 (2016): 127-136.
Maḥmud al-Kāšγārī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīvān al-Luγāt at-Turk), Part II,
trans. R. Dankoff, Harvard 1984.
Mukaddesî, İslam Coğrafyası (Ahsenü’t-Takâsîm), trans. D. A. Batur, İstanbul 2015.
Noonan, Thomas S., “Some Observations on the Economy of the Khazar Khaganate”, The
World of the Khazars, ed. P. B. Golden – H. Ben-Shammai – A. Róna-Tas, Leiden – Boston,
(2007): 207-244.
Ostroverkhova, N. V. et all, “A Comprehensive Characterization of the Honeybees in Siberia
(Russia)”, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/62395.
Pokorny, Julius, Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, A Revised Edition of Julius
Pokorny’s Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2007 (at www.dnghu.org).
Poppe, Nicholas, Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Wiesbaden, 1965.
Rédei, Károly, Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Budapest 1988.
Sevortjan, E. V., Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov (Obštetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie
osnovy na glasnye), Moskva 1974.
Sevortjan, E. V., Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov “B”, Moskva 1978.
Starostin S. A. – Dybo, A. V. – Mudrak, O. A., An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic
Languages, Leiden 2003.
Steingass, Francis, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, 5th ed., London 1963.
Tryjarski, Erward, “Beekeeping Among the Turks”, Acta Orientalia, 32 (1970): p.241-277.

201