Mongols
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13715
Printed Date: 10-May-2024 at 13:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mongols
Posted By: Afsar Beghi
Subject: Mongols
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 15:43
|
There are sources that indicate that the mongols were very close to the
turkic people of CA. Could it not be that Mongol was a tribe name they
gave themselves because they were the leading elite? That also explains
why their army was mostly turkic, and only the leading tribes were
mongols.
------------- Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur, Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur, Nice koç yiğitler yere serilir, Olen ölür kalan sağlar bizimdir! |
Replies:
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 16:12
|
Why don't share your sources with us? ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 19:46
yeah
btw cool avatar  ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 04:20
|
Who are the mongols' mother-father nations? |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 03:15
|
Funny question, there is no way to say mother-father nation for an ethnic group.
Disregarding some mixing between the neighbour nations, a general picture is :
Mongols----Mengwu Shiwei--------Xianbei (Siyanpi)--------Donghu (Tunggus)
Huns defeated Donghu. Donghu had two branches, one is Xianbei and the other is Wu huan.
Nothern wei, Sui etc Dynasties were Xianbei (Tuoba) origin.
Qitans were mainly from Wuhuan, the rulers of Liao dynasty.
Manchu (ruler of Qing dynasty) were Jurjan origin also related to Donghu.
Tonggus in Uyghur turkic language means Pig, although we also use Choshqa.
Hitay (Qitay, Qidan) means Chinese now.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 10:31
| Sorry,ı used it because Turks have only two mother nations. And thanks. |
Posted By: Toluy
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 08:51
Oh, what are they?
BTW, what does mother-father nation mean, dose it mother nation? And what dose mother nation exactly mean?
|
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 10:51
|
Toluy, I think you are trolling.
Anyway, I think I can tell you what he means. I already told him the nonsense of seperating mother and father nations. But you can use "two mother nations" to desribe certain ancestors of a nation. If a present day nation has two very significant ethnic contribution from ancient ancestors, then you can say they are the two mother nations. In this sense, He might mean that the two mother nations of the people in Turkey are the Turks from Central Asia and the Local Anatolians.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 05:12
Alpins and Asian redskins friend.
|
Posted By: cliveersknell
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 00:18
|
Mongol's homeland is not the Republic of Mongolia, but
the Hulun Buir grasslands of western Manchuria. More specifically around the arguna river. r's Clive |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 09:35
|
Exactly, ancient Mongols were originated from there. But present day Mongols mixed with the remnant locals in Mongolia. They have ancestors native to this land.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Toluy
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 03:09
|
I heard about there are the last congregated descendents of Mongols in Crimea except the Republic of Mongolia. I wonder some current condition about them. Anyone knows? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 06:54
|
their condition are better than other nationalities in china.
they have more scholars,Phds and others.
and they are very proud of themselves.
but they were not related to turkic people in the beginning.
only mixed later. ------------- |
Posted By: Tangriberdi
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 15:47
|
Uyghur Aryan
An aryan uyghur.
You must have studied in europe. In Germany?
Be proud of your own Turkic heritage.
Dont be a wanna be
Since the very beginning in every source Uyghurs are apparently Turkic.
Do not re write history.
Uyghurs are one of our dearest brothers.
Our heritage is common.
History is common
Language is common
And go and ask to your grandfathers . They will call themselves Turk or Muslim alongside Uyghur.
And stop this Aryan confusion
We are all ,-all Turkic nations are altaic to some extent
and caucasoid to some extent
Not only Uyghurs all Turks are a mix of Asiatic and Caucasoid.
Your country under Chinese invasion and occupation is called Turkestan for ages.
Uyghurs fought for an Independent East Turkestan Sharki Türkistan
Your all past is full of Turkic consciousness and pride.
Claiming to be an Aryan should be an insult for an ordinary Uyghur.
I think you should shame on you.
Come back to earth.
No need to discover America again.
------------- |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 18:46
| Modern Khalkha-Mongols have no relation to Genghis-Khan's "Mongols" -Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts, etc., who all spoke Turkic language (including Genghis Khan himself), and now are parts of modern Kazakhs. Khalha-Mongols renamed ALL geographical names mentioned in the Secret Histrory includng Genghis Khan's sacred Burkhan Khaldun mountain! Today it is Tzagaan-Uul. They used stones of Genghis-Khanites capital Qara Qorum to build their Buddhist monastery. Only a single thing survived in Qara Qorum - stone turtle. Just these two facts are enough to any reasonable person as a proof that modern Khalkha-Mongols are not descendants of Genghis Khan's "Mongols". |
Posted By: tadamson
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:00
Alski you've posted this rubbish before, why repeat false information ? ------------- rgds. Tom.. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2006 at 23:07
| This is not "false information". If you want, I can present direct links as proofs, as I always did before. |
Posted By: Savdogar
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 06:07
|
First of all. What do you mean by Central Asia Turks?Kazakhs and Kirgizs? if so, maybe they have much common with Mongols. In Kazakhstan, new era of nationalism began. They are claiming that Temujin was not Mongol but Turk. Young scientists who doesnot know anything but copy and plagiarize from external resources are telling many stories about Chengiz Khan. I DONT BELIEVE THAT HE WAS TURK. Turks were civilized nations, Look at scholars in Central Asia. Turkic poetry! NO! NO! Temujin only destroyed. IF HE IS TURK THEN UZBEKS ARE NOT TURK. if Kazakh people are very close to Mongols it does not make Mongols Turkic. Maybe those CA turks are Mongols? *EDITED EXCLAMATIONS* Keep your sentiments under control. Thanks. ------------- ...i dont need this... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 06:20
| The Mongols were Mongols during that period anyway. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 08:44
how do you think uzbekistan got his name uzbek beg ring a bell in the mongol horde so if you feel that the mongols should feel ashamed or guilty uzbeks and all other turks who were in the armies should also feel ashamed ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 11:13
|
Uzbeks were called such because of Uzbekhan, who was the decendant of Chengizhan. But this doesn't mean he and his followers were Mongols.
Note the name itself, Uzbeg, it is pure Turkish.
He and his followers were well Turkified.
However, denying the relation between Uzbeks (Qipchaq) and Mongols isn't very rational.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2006 at 22:31
|
For those who can read Russian: About Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" О Чингиз хане и его "монголах": http://zonakz.net/phorum/viewtopic.php?t=370&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=23&st=0 http://www.rupoint.co.uk/showthread.php?t=15084 http://www.kub.kz/viewtopic2.php?topic=215&forum=10&start=720&status=&asc= http://bb.ct.kz/index.php?showtopic=10532 |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 12:06
|
What was the necessity for Mongols to loose their mother tongue and to be part of Turkic world? That's what has happened to Kereyits, Naimans, etc. See, I don't beleive these tribes were Mongol. But that's what you suggest. All old Mongol names are really somehow unintelligible or seem very archaic for modern Mongol speakers. In fact, those Mongolian words which seem to be understable in Turkic are not few (in fact, the name 'Temyrshy' itself is of Turkic origin)
Why virtually all Hazaras believe their ancestors spoke Turkic and not Mongolian? Why they changed all those old names (Burqan Qaldun for instance)? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Savdogar
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 14:39
|
Ok i will tell you WHY WE GOT the name UZBEK. in 1924, our "leaders", Russians who are "extremely" clever about our culture, history started to divide nations into ethnic groups. All who live in Bukhara, Khiva, Turkestan became uzbeks due to last invader Shaybanikhan. WE ARE NOT NACIONALIST. WE dONT CARE WHAT BLOOD WE HAVE. WE ARE MIXED. I accept some uzbeks have blood of Kipchaks, but they usually live in Surkhandarya and Kashkadarya.
I am from Tashkent, who are karlug turks speaking Chagatai turk, in great ALisher Navoi wrote his "bestsellers".
THIS HISTORY FORUM, YOU SHOULD KNOW TURKS STARTED INVADE UZBEKISTAN (modern) before Christ. IN VI century, Tashkent became part of TURK KHAKANATE.
AND WHERE ARE THESE TURKS UNTIL SHAYBANI, DID THEY DISAPPEAR????
so until shaybani this region was populated by mongols, right???they built this ancient cities, right?
------------- ...i dont need this... |
Posted By: Savdogar
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 14:49
|
Please, tell me, why those italians who live ITALY, claim ROMAN EMPIRE, CIVILIZATION. Oh my GOD, how they DARE?! Romans were not italians. please find me any word "italian".
we have the same situation. there was CITIZINSHEP of CITY. THERE WERE NO ETHNIC groups, no NATIONALITY in modern Uzbekistan, or Maverounnahr or Bukhara, Khiva, Kokand khanates.
Aksakal, why do you need HIM?
Timur is another issue, it is cult of Karimov (he is from Samarkand, got it?)
although he invaded many countries, he REBUILT Samarkand.
I should admit that those Kipchaks also did very great. they rebuilt Bukhare, which was heavily destroyed by Chengiz khan.
when I write in CAPS LOCK, I show my emotions.
please dont take it as a REMARK.
Omadlar.
Good Luck ------------- ...i dont need this... |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 15:18
No persians did ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 20:32
|
Our history was totally distorted, perverted and stolen. By Russian
Communist chauvinistic censors, by Khalkha-Mongol nationalistic
Communist censors, by most of Western historians who do not understand
importance of the Steppe nomads tribal structure and who do not care
about difference between Khalkha-Mongols and Turkic nomads (i.e.
Kazakhs, Noghays, Turkmens, Kyrghyzs), and because of
terrible phonetical problems of Chinese script. Now it is time to restore historical truth. Achievements in DNA analysis and efforts of new young well-educated multi-lingual independent historians will help. |
Posted By: raygun
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 21:41
|
Hi all.
I have always enjoyed reading the history of the steppe. But I have to say it is also very confusing for the outsiders not living in the steppe region to understand the dynamics of normadic culture.
The one issue that confound me is, why did the modern Mongols not speak Turkic, if Genghis Khan (he's Mongol right?) had unified both Mongol & Turkic tribes int eh 13th centuary?
Surely the majority would have assimilated the lesser tribes into their language & culture? Also, why have the Turkic people adopted Islam, but not the Mongols? Why did Mongols chosed Tibetan religion instead & not join their Turkic friends?
cheers
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2006 at 22:20
|
Good questions raygun. If only I had the answers!
Take any theory (just don't think they're all mine, cause most of these sentiments have been shared on these very pages by various members before): - the modern Mongols are Khalka's who later established themselves into Mongolia and hence their language is dominant. - the modern Mongols are really the same as the historical Mongols and they always spoke Mongolian. - the historical Mongols spoke Turkish and they now live outside of Mongolia. The current Mongolians are not the same as them. - the modern Mongols speak Mongolian while the Khazak mongolians speak Turkic. There are more modern Mongols in Mongolia, so they win. - I've been drinking too much tea and the caffine is making me say these things. - ... The Altin Ordu (Golden Horde) 'Mongols' actually did take up Islam. As did most of the Ilhanids. They all set up camp and established their own empires in previously Islamic lands mind you. Same for the influence regarding the residents of Mongolia taking on the Tibetan Buddhism. http://www.innermongolia.org/english/tibetan_buddhism.htm - http://www.innermongolia.org/english/tibetan_buddhism.htm ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2006 at 16:29
|
Kazakhstan is new young nation. They need historical deep root which they find it only in Chinggis Khaan lines. It is true that most of aristocrats from Mongolia to Altan Ord were Chinggisids. Uzbeks and Khazaks are from Zochi line and Tsagadai line and their subjects Mongol tribes and subjugated Kypchag, Other Turkic tribes, Persian people. Generation after generation, these groups heavily mixed. Mongols adapted turkic language and islam. So they become foundation of present day tatars, kazakhs, uzbeks who are muslims. Even Russian Kossaks are from Mongol tataar stock. Heavily mixed with runaway russian peasants. Russian peasants adapted nomadic life style, still christian, stealing a women from Tatar, Turkic tribes. Kossaks were enjoying in the vacuum left by Altan Orda.
Zuungar Empire was built by non-chingisid mongols. Zuungars were powerful due relative properity from controling Silk road through Tarim basin, avoiding struggle against Ming which was taking toll of Eastern Mongols. Zuungar Mongols tried to claim throne of all Mongolia. But it was never accepted by Chinggisid Mongols. Zuungar Mongols were controling Kazakhs, Tibets and Tarim basin silk road cities:-Kashgar Khotan.
After several generation Kalmyks moved to west
Kalmyks- (Torguud Mongols) moved to west. They were completely strangers to their long lost cousins Crymean tataars or Kazakhs. Kalmuk Mongols accepted agreement with Russia to be border state against North Caucasia and Crymea.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Mongolia.
Mongolian aristokrats are from Ogedei and Tolui line
The heads[zasag noyod] of more than 300 khalkh-mongolian banners were all descendants of Chinggis Khan, i.e. of Gersenz Khuntaiji(youngest son of Batmunkh Dayan Khan). They ruled till 1921, partly till 1930. In addition there were so-called "taijis", who had not much power but certain number of subjects[albat ard] due to their descent line of Chingis(esp. of Gersenz). Poor taijis, who had not any subject and property, were called "хохь тайж". In Mongolia there are many people whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers were taijis or sons of taijis. Moreover the nobles who bore the manchu titles such as "wang", "gung", "beil", "beis", "tuslagchi gung", "zangi" etc were all descendants of Gersenz, i.e. of Chingis. Such a title was inherited from father to one of his sons since the khalkha nobles were bestowed by Manchu King with this titles in 1696. Chinggunjav of Hotogoid and the second Bogd of Khalkha were famous Chingisids of 18th century. Chinggunjav was executed for his rebellion in Beijing. The Bogd's brother Rinchindorj was also brought to Beijing and forced to take poison. The most famous Chingisids of the 20th century were: Sain Noyan Khan Namnansuren (first prime minister after 1911) Khoshoi Chin Wang(this is title) Khanddorj(he was one of the initiators, who declared independence from Manchu. In 1911 he went to Petersburg for a treaty with Russia) Tusheet Khan Dashnyam(Together with the other 3 Khans, i.e. Zasagt Khan, Sain Noyan Khan and Cecen Khan, he sent a letter to Russian Tzar for help) Natsagdorj(he was a famous writer and his father was a "хохь тайж") ------------- |
Posted By: raygun
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2006 at 22:18
|
Thks for your relpies Seko and Zorigo.
If I read correctly, Khalkha Mongols are decendents of Ghengis Khan yes. Then is their difference from other Mongolic tribes like Khazaks and Uzbeks (in terms of language and religion) an attempt (for lack of a better word) to differentiate their Ghengis Khan lineage from other non-Ghengis decended Mongols?
Looking at the map we can see that East Turkistan stands between Mongolia and Tibet. I would have thought that the Uyghurs being closer would have affected Mongolians not only with their written script, but also spoken language (Turkic) and religion (Isalm) as well.
But somehow, Mongolians only adopted the script, but retained their spoken language (with some Turkic loan words, yes?) and leap-frog over Uyghur's Islamic influences to the Tibetans for their religion.
My line of thought is that it was a matter of choice, not of circumtances.
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2006 at 23:24
|
Zorigo keeps to falsify history. Even in 1600's Genghis Khanites who ruled Khalkha Mongols - Altyn Khan, Dayan Khan - spoke Turkic language. Russian envoys sent to them in 1600's used Kyrghyz (i.e. Turkic) interpreters. (see "Russia, Mongolia, China" by John F.Baddeley, in two volumes, Burt Franklin, New York 1967) Russians of 13-16 centuries always used term "Tatars" for Turkic nomads, and when Calmucks arrived later, they called them Kalmyks, not Tatars, because they understood the difference. Calmucks were totally different people - not Turkic one (although with some Turkic influence), very close to the the Khalkha-Mongols and Buryats, Buddhists as well, and their rulers were not Genghis- Khanites. Rene Grousset "The Empire of the Steppes - a History of Central Asia" transl. from the French by Naomi Walford, Rutgers University Press New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, Sixth paperback printing, 1999 p.528 "...Galdan reacted vigoriously. At the beginning of 1688 he in his turn invaded the territory of the Tushetu-khan, annihilated his army on the Tamir, a tributary of the Orkhon, and allowed his men to PLUNDER THE JENGHIS-KHANITE TEMPLES OF ERDENI DZU AT KARAKORUM..." It is funny - but Calmucks claim too that they have direct relation to Genghis Khan! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 19:12
|
I think there are some terminolgy need to be clarified. Khalkha Mongol, tataar, Kazakh and Uzbeks :-- Most confused one is Tataar.. Before Mongol conquest to west, this name used to apply only to Eastern Mongolian tribal alliance- Tataar. The original Tataar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols - Mongols ( Ta-ta or Da-da in chinese source) inhabited the north-eastern Mongolia by lake Buir in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century - 5th century and, after subjugation in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_century - 9th century by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_dynasty - Khitans , later when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurchen - Jurchen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Dynasty_%281115-1234%29 - Jin Dynasty annexed Khitan Liao State, Tataars had formal relationship with Jin State, migrated southward, stayed there till founding the Mongol empire under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan - Genghis Khan . Earlier before Chinggis Khaan, Ambagai Khan of Hamag Mongol clan was betrayed by Tataars who sent him under arrest to Jin state, Beijing (Jundu or Zhongdu) where Ambagai was executed by nailing to wood horse. His last wish was "take my revenge from Tataar" Tataar/Tatar actually comes from "tata", the old Mongolian word for nomad (it literally means "to haul."). The Chinese and Europeans obviously borrowed the term from the nomads themselves. There's a lot of confusion about the word because many steppe tribes used it in their names (The 30 tatars, the Buir lake tatars, etc.)
One of these tribes killed (poisoned) Genghis Khan's father Esugei baatar in 1170. 1194. Mongol tribes Hatagin, Saljiud assaulted border towns of Jin 1195. Jin sent armies of combined force of Chinese and Tatar to pacify the Hatagin, Saljiud tribes, occupied 14 camps. But Tatar and Jin alliance broke over war booty and other ethical issues. 1196. Jin desided to teach disobiedent Tataars. Temujin allied with Jin. First time Temujin won Tatars near Ulz river which is Eastern Mongolia. 1200. Hatagin Saljiud tribes attacked Temujin and they were beating back. Same winter Tsagaan, Tutaud, Alchi, Aluhai 4 tataar tribes attacked Temujin. 1202. Temujin fought against Tataar tribes and utterly destroyed them near Dalan Nomrog. Chingis Khaan issued following law before the fight -"Don't go after war booty before you destroy your enemy. Once enemy is destroyed, their things are ours anyway, there will be enough time to divide. If we retreat, everyone should come back where we started. Whoever did not come back shall be killed" in SHM 154. After the battle, Chinggis Khaan called all people from close relatives (Altan Urag) in one yurt (ger) and started khurultai to discuss about faith of lost tatars "Because tatars killed our ancestors since a ancient time, we have to finish them at once, measuring the men to wheel of cart. Their wife and children shall be divided to every door, they will be our slave generation to generation" After decison was made, all went out of yurt (ger) Tataar Lord Ikh Cheren asked Belgutei :- What did you discuss/ decide? Belgutei answered:- You 'll be all measured to wheel of cart. Taller will be killed. Upon hearing that Tataar Ikh Cheren called his subject to be prepared and built a barricade/ obstruction. Mongols paid heavy cost for destroying the barricade. When Mongols started executing tataars , tataars all had knife hidden in their sleeves and saying:- need pillow to die. So in that way many Mongol soldiers also suffered very much. After finishing the execution, Chinggis Khaan issued order :- We all discussed together. Because of Belgutei revealed the secret decision of khuriltai, our soldiers suffered lots of loss. Belgutei is not allowed to join Khuriltai anymore. Chinggis Khaan made Esugen-daughter of Ikh Cheren his queen. Esugen said;- Dear Khaan, if you wish you can find my sister-Esui. She is more beautiful, only for khaan. But i don't know where she is now Chinggis Khaan said :- If you say so, i can find her, but how about you? Are you leaving your queen place for your sister? Esugen said:- Dear Khaan, if you find my sister, i'll give my place to her. Chinggis Khaan found Esui. Esugen kept her words and sat below her sister. That was how wise queen Esui found. So all tataar men are killed, their families distributed among every door-Mongol family. Under the leadership of Chinggis's grandsonn Batu Khan, Mongols moved westwards, driving with them many stems of the Turkic Ural-Altayans towards the plains off Russia The name of Tatar, given to the invaders, was afterwards extended so as to include different stems of the same Turkic-Mongoloid branch in Russia, and even the bulk of the inhabitants of the high plateau of Asia and its northwestern slopes, described under the general name of Tatar.
They got the name "Tatar" probably because others started calling them such, not because they had special ties to one particular pre-Genghis tribe Mongol Tatar of Eastern Mongolia. For Europeans and Russians the name Tatar was most suitable for invading Mongol horde whose orgin is unknown, probably from hell-Tartarus, they rumored- which is derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus - Tartarus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars#_note-0 - [1] , the Greek god of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld - underworld , as a reference to the brutality of Turco-Mongol hordes in Europe.
They are ALL descendants of the Golden Horde of Batu Khan regardless of their ethnic background . (of course, heavily mixed with different substratal groups). However, it is probable that it was mostly members of the subjugated Tatar tribe that followed Bat Khan in founding the Golden Horde.Tatars today got to be Sunni Muslims. But when the Russians used the name on Golden Horde related tribes, it most likely meant ANY Turkic-speaking Muslim groups near the Russian zone of influence. Please note that the Crimean Tatar language is very different from Kazan Tatar, which is in fact much closer to Kazak and Kyrgyz, who do not usually use the name "Tatar. The Kazakhs are very much similar to descendants of the Golden Horde. They don't seem to use the name "Tatar" themselves much, unlike their cousins in Kazan and Crimea. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Interesting to see there are Tatars everywhere-from China, Siberia to Poland
Chinese Tatar's ancestors are Volga Tatar tradesmen who settled mostly in Xinjiang. Kazan (Tatarstan) Tatars have more common with the Chuvash, Maris and Russians. But Chuvash, Maris are not considered as Tatars. Bashkirs speak a language very similar to the Kazan Tatars language. But Bashkirs are not Tatars. The Crimean Tatars are subdivided into three sub-ethnic groups: the Tats (not to be confused with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tats - Tat people ) who inhabited the mountainous Crimea before 1944 (about 55%), the Yalıboylus who lived on the southern coast of the peninsula (about 30%), and the Noğays (not to be confused with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogais - Nogai people ) - former inhabitants of the Crimean steppe (about 15%). The Tats and Yalıboylus have a Caucasian physical appearance, while the Noğays retain Central Asian characteristics. Nogai Tatars - are mixed origin with Turks and Mongols. Named after their leader Nogai, fierce independance made them eventually separate ethnic.
Western Qasim Tatars capital is the town of Qasнm inn Ryazan oblasti with, closely allied with Moscow. Lithuanian Tatars- After http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokhtamysh - Tokhtamysh was defeated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlane - Tamerlane , some of his clan sought refuge in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania - Grand Duchy of Lithuania . They were given land and nobility in return for military service and were known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars - Lipka Tatars . They are known to have taken part in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald - Battle of Grunwald .
Polish Tatars:- The Tatar settlers were all granted with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta - szlachta (~ nobility) status, a tradition that was preserved until the end of the Commonwealth in the 18th century. They included the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars - Lipka Tatars (13-14 centuries) as well as Crimean and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_people - Nogay Tatars (15th-16th centuries), all of which were noticeable in Polish military history, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars#Kazan_.28Qazan.29_Tatars - Kazan Tatars (16th-17th centuries).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tatars are remnants of Golden Horde (Altan Orda of Batu Khan). Various turkic, bulgar, kypchag, mongol tribes were heavily mixed and disintegrated depending on their location, alliance and their leader's preferance during long decline of Golden Horde Empire.
I assume name tatar is for those who were subject of Golden Horde. ------------- |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 19:16
Let me try to explain, friend.
Khazakhs and uzbeks are not mongols but turks. But in the past their nobles were of mongol origin because Genghis Khan had conquered the kyptchak turks, made the other turkic tribes vassals and given those subjected people to his sons Jochi and Cagadai. So today's kazakhs and uzbeks are mixed people of mongolian and turkic origin and those of turkic origin were in the past in overwhelming majority and the mongolian minority was assimilated by their turkic subjects. Do you understand? (My english is not good)
Also the mongolian language is much different than turkic although both belong to Altaic language group. Altaic languages are: Mongolian, Turkic, Tungus(Manju, Evenki, Nanai etc).
There are common words in Mongolian, Turkic and Tungus languages. But mongols took their script from uighurs and not the language. There are turkic words in Mongolian but in Turkic there are also many mongolian words specially in the so called Cagadai-turkic language. ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 19:30
On the other hand one can ask: Why should mongols speak turkic if they had their own language. Mongols had conquered whole China but they didn't speak chinese to each other.
Mongols and turks were not always friends. Greater part of turks adopted islam long before Genghis Khan. I think, mongols adopted tibetan buddism because of political reasons beacuse at that time there was no unity between mongols. ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 19:55
Mrs Akskl . Since you don't know Mongolian Language, leave Mongolian language alone. Instead of accusing me false or trying to prove Mongols as Turks:-
Why don't you post about real origin of Kazakh people. That would be very interesting. ------------- |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2006 at 20:31
Akskl, I think you are wrong.
There were 2 Altan Khans: 1) Altan Khan of Tumed. He never ruled Khalkha. His horde was in today's inner Mongolia. 2) Altan Khan of Hotogoid. He didn't rule Khalkha too, because at that time there were 3 khalkha khans(Tushet Khan, Jasagt Khan, Cecen Khan). Hotogoid was then not regarded as part of Khalkha although this Altan Khan (his given name is Sholoi) was the cousin of Jasagt Khan Laikhur.
In russian archive there are still letters of this Altan Khan and his son Ombo-Erdene sent to russian tsar. They were all written in mongolian language. See this in the book "Russko-mongolskiye posolskiye otnosheniya 17. veka" by N.P Shastina. In this book there are also letters from khalkha Tushet Khan and oirad Galdan Boshigtu Khan to russian tsar, written in mongolian language.
And the kyrgyz interpreter doesn't matter because Altan Khan always invaded kyrgyzs of Ob and Yenisey and they were vassals of Altan Khan. So, according to russian sources, kyrgyzs(I don't mean the kyrgyzs of Tien Shan ) prefered to serve russians and hoped that they could free them from the yoke of the mongols.
Of course kalmyks and turks are different, because kalmyks are mongols. Tatars of today are turkic but 800 years ago they were mongols.
The rulers of oirads or kalmyks were also descendants of Chingis Khan's brother Khasar.
And on the other hand to be a mongol one don't need to be a descendant of Genghis Khan.
ERDENI DZU was founded in the late 16th (after 1580) on(or near) the ruin of the former mongol capital Kharakhorum. It has nothing to do with Genghis Khan. ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:03
|
Kazakstan is a new COUNTRY; but not a new nation. You can't ignore Kiptchaks' history. In an story which is for the founder of Hunnic Empire (Mete Qaan = Oghuz Qaan), in a part, there goes to talk about Kiptchaks.
Accepting new languages and religions, as Savdagar says, is not like having a morning breakfast. And as they believe, Turks were ranked as 3rd or 4th in Mongolian society. So, how come they LOST their language (their heritage) and even their CULTURE?
AkSakal is right when he talks about what Russian historians have written. They clearly distinguished Tatars from Kalmyks. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:07
|
Old Mongolian language is really difficult (if not to say impossible) for modern Khalkha Mongols. The structure is also VERY different. One of the parts linguists focus on to show their difference (old Mongolian and modern day Khalkha Mongolian) is that modern Mongolian lacks the use of '- qan' or '- ken' which is frequent in old day Mongolian (and also in Turkic). Instead, '- yan' is used which is EXACTLY the same as Tungusic language. As for me, I believe Khalkha Mongol PEOPLE and LANGUAGE are of Tungusic origin. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2006 at 15:56
1. Please try to put word examples and comparission your fact about mongolian language ending- (qan-ken).
What is "an"
Due to grammatical differences of Old Mongolian Script and Modern Kirillic Script, some spelling of words changed in XX century.
for example;-
Ulaanbaatar is Modern mongolian
Ulaganbagatur is Old Mongolian-
Old Mongolian long vowel -always had G -in between. Modern Mongolian doesn't have.
Language sentence structure and everything else is same.
2. Mongolian language speaker can not communicate with Tungus speakers at all. It is very different.
------------- |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 23:18
It is evident that you don't know old and new mongolian at all. Of course written language of the 13th century mongols is phonetically different than modern mongolian. Every language's phonetic changes during the time.
If you think that mongolian language and people are of tungusic origin, it simply shows that your lack of knowledge concerning both mongolian and tungusic.
I quote from Secret History of Mongols, which was written in 1240.
Transcription from the original text
-------------------------------------------
http://altaica.narod.ru/SECRET/oldmng.html - http://altaica.narod.ru/SECRET/oldmng.html
Č = Ch
q = kh
ĵ = j
ķ = g
§1. Čiŋķis qağan-no huĵaur Deere Teŋķeri-eče ĵayaatu toreksen Borte-Čino aĵuu. ķerķai ino Qoai-Maral aĵiai. Teŋķis ķetulĵu ireba. Onan-muren-no teriune Burqan-qaldun-na nuntuqlaĵu, toreksen Bata-Čiqan aĵuu. Modern mongolian
------------------------
Chingis khaanii yazgur deer tengerees zayat törsön Börte Chono ajguu. Gergii n Goo Maral ajee. Tengis getelj irev. Onon mörönii tergün Burkhan Khalduna nutaglaj, törsön Bat-Cagan ajguu.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:01
|
Alright, I don't know. But people like J.J. Sanders who have invested his LIFE in Mongolian Studies, you think he's wrong also? Look:
'Known as Classical, or Literary, Mongolian, the written language generally represents the language as it was spoken in the era of Genghis Khan and differs in many respects from the present-day spoken language, although some colloquial features were introduced into Classical Mongolian in the 19th century. Though best known for its centuries-old role in the transmission of Buddhistic literature from Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese sources, Classical Mongolian has proved remarkably durable and equal to the task of a modern national language.' And I said, Modern Mongols seems to be of Tungusic origin. By the way, what you have written also shows your lack of politeness. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:04
|
Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies: 'Historical change in the language is indicated by the fact that reading The Secret History of the Mongols (mid-13th century), the oldest major document written in Mongol, is for the Mongols of today like reading the work of Chaucer for the modern English. Pan-Mongolism, the desire to reunite politically all the Mongols, was always more a romantic than a practical idea, and is now a dead issue.' He might be wrong also, huh? If he were, anyhow, It wouldn't justify your 'being impolite'... ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:15
|
By the way, about Tatars, there's something interesting that shows they were NOT Mongols:
William Rubruck, along with 3 Christians started a journey. They reached 'Sartak'(Batu's son) camp in 31rd january. Before visiting Sartak, they were warned not to call Sartak, a Christian; because 'he's not a Christian, but a Mongol'. Rubruck explains 'in their idea 'Christianity is the name of a race and they're so much vain that although they might believe some principles of Christianity, they don't want to be called a Christian. They want their own name (Mongol) to be placed above any other name. Also, they don't want to be called Tatar since Tatars are different people.' The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:21
|
Well, let me explain in this way. All we know there are different kinds of Mongoloid face. But the most distinct one, is the Tungusic face which very very flat. I've always said you've got to live in these societies to be able to distinguish such faces.
It's not only limited to Tunguses. Also there are lots of Koreans which have got this face, and a lot of Japanese people. Because these two nations are said to be descendant of Tungusic invadors. Linguists show that Modern Mongolian have got an especial tendency (I mean a similarity which isn't normal, when comparative lingustics is done for old Mongolian and Tungusic language). What's more, most of Modern Khalkha Mongols have got Tungusic faces. This is argued in anthroplogy. That's all I mentioned. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:27
|
Anyhow, Kereyits, for sure, were Turks. Their titles and names are Turkic and 'Toghryl' (their Khan) isn't a Mongolian name. The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:28
|
Onguts were a group of Turkic people. The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:37
|
Social Organization of Mongol - Turkic Pastoral Nomads - L. Krader: The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century AD. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars(or Tartars). ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:40
|
Social Organizatoin of Mongol - Turkic Pastoral Nomads - L.Krader:
Among the peoples who have been considered possibly Mongol, the most important tribal names are Sienpi (Hsien-pi), who may however have been Tungus (modern Evenk) rather than Mongol, recorded in Han dynasty annals. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:54
|
Mongolia: A Country Study
It is unfortunate, because confusing, that 19th-century physical anthropologists introduced the terms Mongol and Mongolian as descriptive of racial type. The Mongols exhibit a wide range of physical characteristics and should be considered not as a race but as a group of peoples bound together by a common language and a common nomadic tradition. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 03:55
|
Ramstedt:
The rank of khan and the title of Genghis (Chinggis)—a word deriving probably ultimately FROM THE TURKIC 'tengiz', meaning “a large body of water, the ocean”; although this explanation has not convinced all Mongol scholars. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:16
Of course I hold Sanders in esteem. But Khereit means in Mongolian "Ravens" (khere - raven, khereid-ravens) and toghru(l) means "crane".
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:19
Why is Tengiz/Tengis a turkic word? In the oldest primary source concerning Genghis Khan there are two different words "Tengis" and "Chingis".
And in addition the title "khan" was used first by Joujans, who are regarded by many historians as proto-mongolian.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:46
I couldn't find in your quote that Sanders asserted, mongolian was some sort of tungusic language.
Another example:
Inscription of Stone of Genghis(written about 1225)
----------------------------------------------------------------- Transcription:
Cinggis qan-i sartaGul irgen daquliju baGuju xamuG monGol ulus-un arad-i Buqa Sociqai xurigsan-tur Esunke QonGodorun Gurban jaGud Gucin tabun alda-tur ontudluGa.
Modern Mongolian:
Chingis haanii sartuul irgen dagulj buuj hamag Mongol ulsiin ardiig Bukha Sochigai hursand Yesunkhe Khongodorun gurvan zuun guchin tavan aldad onolo.
Translation:
While all the mongols were celebrating the victory of Genghis-khan over the Sartool people in Buqa Sociqai, Esunke Qongodorun shot an arrow up to the 335 fathoms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't think that the above inscript is written in turkic or tungusic. It's old mongolian but still mongolian language. The situation is same with many turkic dialects: The spoken and written language of the 13th century turks is different than today's turk dialects. There is no language which stayed unchanged during 800 years. North Mongols(Khalkhas, Buriads, Oirads etc) used the old writing system till 1945, south mongols(inner mongols) use it still today. Of course there is difference between spoken and written language. Some examples:
Written - Spoken
bagatur - baatar
abu - aav
eji - eej
ulagan - ulaan
shibagun - shuvuu
chilagun - chuluu
erüke - örk
jagun - zuun
minggan - myanga
Don't you give reasons for it?
Oh, don't be girlish my friend! I am very sorry If I hurt your soul. Please forgive me! ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 05:07
Well I can only say that the <Secret History of Mongols> was written in old mongolian but still in mongolian and not in tungusic or turkic. No serious researcher can deny it.
gok_toruk, how old are you? Your quotes have nothing to do with your assertion that mongolain language and people are of tungusic origin.
I know the Canterbury tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. It is old english but still english.
I quote again from SHM. See the difference and similarity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcription:
§ 17. Tein atara, Dobun-Merķan uķai bolba. Dobun-Merķan-i uķai boluqsano qoina, Alan-ğoa, ere uķaiui boet, ğ urban kout toreulbi. Buğu-Qadaği, Buqatu-Salĵi, Bodončar-muŋqaq nere ten bulee.
Modern Mongolian:
Tiin atal Dobun-Mergen ügüi bolov. Dobun Mergeniig ügüi bolsnii khoino Alan Goo er ügüi bögööd gurvan khövgüüd törüülev. Bugu-Hatagi, Bukhatu-Salji, Bodonchar munkhag nerten bilee. ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 12:36
I agree with you that the Mongolian in Chengiz time was surely not close to Turkic, as I couldn't understand a word from the transcript, Although I can understand much earlier Turkic monuments pretty much.
But as for the Jurjans, historians are still have dispute about them. Remember the Wei (Tuoba Xianbei origin, who are Proto-Mongol) claimed them to be Hunnic in nature. They had Xianbei element though. So the word Khan to be proto-Mongolic is questionable. ------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 17:38
Mr Gok turk.. Seems like you have History of Mongol Conquest by J.J.Sanders. I have too.
If you quote from his book- please put page number and lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found that he clearly explained how Mongol tribes assimilated to Turkic. His book was actually very much pro-mongol ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:32
|
I couldn't find any relationship with the arguement when you asked my age.
Jourchens were not completely Mongolian. And it's almost totally accepted worldwide that 'Khan' is Turkic, rather than Mongolian. In fact, some people argue that Chengiz Khan wasn't completely a Mongol; because his title was a Turkic one. And I didn't say Mongolian is a Tungusic language. All I mean is, modern Mongolian is more closer to Tungusic than the old one. Languages do differ by time. But just to some extent. Turkic is, yes, a bit different from the old version; but just a bit. But let me quote a Mongol's saying about old Mongolian: ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:33
|
By Baras-aghur Naran (qairatai@aol.com):
1- The official language of modern Mongolia is a dialect called Khalkhan. This dialect supposedly had its roots in Ghengis Khan's original tribe. Old Mongolian is very different from this. 2- The old language used to write Old Mongolian is very different from the Modern language . Spoken Mongolian has three major periods. The earliest form of Mongolian is called Ancient Mongolian and was used up until the 12th century. Ancient Mongolian was characterized by an intervolic consonant "g" (pronounced gh in English) proceeding a long vowel and a vocalized "h" proceeding an opening vowel. The second period for Mongolian is called Middle Mongolian, found in use up to the 16th century. Middle Mongolian was characterized by the replacing of the intervolic consonant before the long vowel with something similar to a glottal stop and the retention of the vocalized "h". It is this version of Mongolian that gave birth to the English word "horde". This word comes from the Middle Mongolian word "(h)Ordu, meaning 'camp'. Modern Mongolian, or Khalkhan, has lost the vocalized "h" and dropped some final consonants and medial vowels, which makes it read and sound totally different from Middle Mongolian. 3- The language used to write Mongolian in period is an 11th or 13th century dialect that kept the intervolic "g" of Ancient and Middle Mongolian, but dropped the vocalized "h" proceeding opening vowels. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:35
|
Just go to the part (at the end of book) as 'notes of chapters'. I haven't got the book in front of me, for the time being. But as I remember, these are in 'notes of the chapter 4' or 'notes of chapter 6'. Let me check it back and be sure about it.
Well, yeah, J.J. Sanders is actually, rather on Mongols' part  . But he explainex about most of those tribes; even mentioning about William Rubruck and what Sartak says (that Tatars are different from Mongols).------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:37
|
And about Modern Mongolian and their similarity to Tunguses:
1- Asia, East by South, 2nd ed. 2- The Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:43
|
I said, as I myself believe. I didn't force my idea. I just told you about the way I believe. That's why I didn't quote about Khalkha Mongols and their relationship with Tungusic people.
By the way, I was just kidding about being polite or not. Repeating the same sentence was just kind of a joke. Hope I didn't offend you.
Well, friends, let's keep this conversation in a more peaceful environment. Take good care and take it easy.
Kind regards,
Iltirish Yemreli ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Forgotten
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 22:57
talk about your self , you dont represeant the real uzbeks , remember that your grandfather is arab , thanks to the russians who made you an uzbek.
|
Posted By: Forgotten
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 23:02
|
russians , chinese and iranians were in fight with the turkic and mongol tribes from the ancient times so for sure that most of the historical books that we have now and written by these nations contains alot of falses and not true things about turks and mongols , why everyone is angry if the kazakh scholars today realised this fact and started to search and write thier own history !
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2006 at 23:30
|
Forgotten, tone it down and stop insulting others. ------------- |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 09:02
Surely, they should write their own history, but they can't change or distort historical facts. Claiming "Chengiskhan was Qazaq, Qazaqs are pure Turks" etc are ridiculous. After these, who will believe in their other claims even if they are true? ------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 15:46
|
Modern Khalkha-Mongols have no relation to Genghis-Khan's
"Mongols" - Kereits, Naimans, Jalairs, Qongyrats, Onguts,
etc., who all spoke Turkic language (including Genghis Khan himself),
and now are parts of modern Kazakhs. Khalha-Mongols renamed ALL
geographical names mentioned in the Secret Histrory includng Genghis
Khan's sacred Burkhan Khaldun mountain! Today it is
Tzagaan-Uul. They used stones of Genghis-Khanites capital Qara
Qorum to build their Buddhist monastery. Only a single thing survived
in Qara Qorum - stone turtle. Just these two facts are enough to any
reasonable person as a proof that modern Khalkha-Mongols are not
descendants of Genghis Khan's "Mongols". Genghis Khan himself was a Turkic speaking guy. He was vassal of the Toghryl - Khan of Kereits. What language did they speak with each other? Of course using language of sovereign - not of vassal - i.e. Turkic one. Most probably that Genghis Khan "Mongols" were the same "Mongols", like say, Alban tribe of modern Kazakhs are Albanians, and Cherkesh tribe are Circassians. Genghis Khans' mother and first wife were Qongyrats (see www.elim.kz). Just because Turkic nomads united into new POLITICAL union - changed their name to Kazakhs - does not mean previous unions, or tribes with previous names stopped to exist. For example, Greeks used to call themselves as Ellins, Spartans, Athenians, etc. and later Byzantines, and now Greeks, but nobody says that thay are separate and totally not related peoples. Of course, many parallels between nomadic and settled peoples very often don't work. 19th century Russian historian Ivan Berezin, British scientist Colonel Yule, famous Soviet historian L.L.Viktorova, French Academician Rene Grousset, Australian professor de Rachewiltz, German professor Paul Ratchnevsky, Chinese professor Tu Ji (or Tu Chi), Dutch historian Leo de Hartog, US historians R.P.Lister, J.J.Saunders, and many others think that Naimans, Kereits, Merkits, Onguts, Qongyrats, etc. were TURKIC speaking steppe peoples. Today they are parts of modern Kazakhs, and they still speak the same Turkic language . I did read many of publications of the above-mentioned authors. They wrote about so-called "Turko-Mongols" (sounds like "Arabo-Negroes" when speaking about Sudanese or Mauritanian Arabs) - i.e. Turkic speaking peoples or tribes. Even when the authors write "Mongols" that does not mean that the "Mongols" are somehow related to the modern Khalkha-Mongols. They are more related to Great Moghuls and to Moghulistan - Turkic speaking nomads. Why the continuation "doesn't exist"? They still live practically at the same territories, keep speaking the same language, having the same traditional culture and food - horse meat, kurt - dried cheese, drinks - kumyss, traditional religion - Tengri, Umai, and even having the same tribal names! It is well-known fact that settled peoples could not be compared to the nomads in ancient and medieval times (before intruducing of firearms and artillery) as warriors. Any army must be a nomad, that is why the nomadic Turks were many times better soldiers than settled peasants who were absolutely not prepared to the harsh conditions of life and war in open fields. And that is why alsmost all medieval rulers preffered to hire nomads to be their mercenaries. It was much cheaper than to create and support their own big army. Usually they could afford only a small personal guards not more that several hundred or thousand men. Turkic nomads were excellent riders and archers since childhood. Otherwise they wouldn't survive in Steppe. Naimans, Kereits (Kereis), Jalairs, Qongirrats, etc - all these well-known from the "Secret History" names of the nomad tribes are parts of the modern Kazakh Turkic speaking people. They were Turkic speaking tribes long BEFORE the 12th-13th centuries and they are Turkic speaking NOW. Marco Polo spoke to Kublai Khan in "Tartar" i.e. Turkic language. Plano de Carpini's interpreters were Turkic speaking Kumans (Kipchaks, Polovtsy) - part of the modern Kazakh people as well. Wang Khan Toghryl - Khan of Keraits (Turkic speaking people baprized in 1006 by Nestorians) was Genghis Khan's named father. What language they used? Of course Turkic!Genghis Khan did not know any other language but his own - Turkic language. Nomad peoples of the Steppe had practically the SAME language almost everywhere because they were NOMADS. There are thousands and thousands of direct Genghis Khan's descendants in Kazakhstan. Genghis Khanites always were rulers in Kazakh Steppe till the abolition of Khan power at the beginnig of 19th century by the Russian colonial power. For anybody who read the "Secret History" it is absolutely obvious that all the characters speak the same language. Genghis Khan, his relatives,a and so called "Mongols" - from one side, and Kereits (Keraits, Kereis), Qongirats (Ongirrats, Ungirrats, etc.), Naimans, Tatars, Uighurs, Onguts - Turkic peoples - from the other side. There are plenty of dialogs, tet-a-tet conversations, messages, etc. How all this can be explained? Genghis Khan and his so-called "Mongols" are many times closer to modern Kazakhs than to modern Khalkha-Mongols (who monopolized all his heritage). This is a historical, ethnographical and linguistical fact. |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 15:54
|
Great stuff AkSakal. I agree with you on what you've provided us with. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 19:25
|
AKSKL is weird. How would you guys describe Mr Akskl ------------- |
Posted By: Forgotten
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:08
Its Weird When We Hear From Chinese & Russians Historians And Newdays Nationalists That Temujin Is Chinese And Attila Is Russian , This Is Weird.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:36
|
Let them say what ever they think.
Mr Akskl is clearly old Soviet educated, wanna be Kazakh Nationalist. Actually my fellow kazakh friends don't care about that.
During the Soviet time, Soviet Historians seriously distorted history of Mongols. They completely downplayed Altan Ord's role in forming of Russia Muskovite State. By doing so they distorted Chinggis Khaans history. For that reason they had to neglect Mongol identity. To destroy Mongol identity they reinforced all those turko- tataar sources. Even they have created Buryatia or Kalmykia as separate nation, not Mongol almost. These people were almost disconnected from their Mongol root except few intellectuals.
Here is interesting research from japanese scholar on how Mongolian Language -Buryat and Kalmyk- is separated from each other during soviet times.
http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no10_ses/11_arai.pdf - http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no10_ses/11_arai.pdf
After few decades, a Buryat or Kalmyk ( until 1930-ies these people used to identify themselves as Buryad Mongol, Kalmuk Mongol, after late 1930-ies word Mongol was completely forbidden to use) might say they were completely different nation. -Chinggis khaan is not Khalkha, just like Mr Akskl.
Ironically Chinese does opposite. Chinese are doing their best teaching their school children that Chinggis was Chinese Hero and Mongols are long lost brothers waiting to join big China family.
Now these so-called Turkics like Akskl or Goktoruk are trying to undermine the Mongol nations' identity online by telling modern Khalkha Mongols are not real Mongols actually and so on.... Ignorant blokes could buy your ideas.
What Mr Akskl is trying to prove is actually not helping Kazakh Identity and History.
Why don't you leave Mongol history alone. Mongols never try to overwrite history at all. We don't have time for it ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 07:29
|
Well, AkSakal has not offended any of the forumers. So, please be more tolerant. Let's, instead, find answers to the questions AkSakal has raised. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:01
|
I am surprised to discover that Central Asian turkic-speaking people (e.g., Kyrgyz, Kazakhs and others) seem to be very interested in Mongols history, Chinggis haan, Origin of Mongols and Mongolians. Of course, this is my own personal observation, and I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask forum participants the question
-: Why this is the case all over suddenly since their new independance? You guys never mentioned your interest in History of Mongols before, when Mongolia was trying celebrate 800 years birth of Chinggis Khaan in 1960-ies. Many peope were persecuted for celebrating.
In Mongolia itself, there is not much interest in or discussion about Central Asian turkic-speaking people. I think the only turkic speaking people who gets coverage in the Mongolian media are Mongolian Kazakhs who live in Bayan-Ulgii and those Kazakhs who moved to Kazakhstan. I think that few Mongolians would name the new capital cities such as Astana and Bishkek. Present time, Mongolians are obssessed with the Chinese and Koreans (South), and much of the discussions with Chinese are very negative.
There are alots of coverage now days about Mongol-speaking people in China (Inner Mongolians, and other Mongol minorities), Russia (Buryats, Kalmyks, and Tuvinians), and other countries (e.g., USA).
So why Central Asians seem to be interested in History of Mongols and its people of Mongolia, while Mongolians seem to be indifferent to Central Asians? It seems like -while poor Mongolians trying to salvage its history from Chinese Chauvinsts, supposedly brother-nomad like Akskl trying to stub Mongolia from behind. ------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:12
|
We're not INTERESTED in Mongol's history. We're talking about Chengiz Khan himself. And because the majority of Mongol horde was Turkic, that's why you see Central Asian Turks here.
Anyhow you didn't answer AkSakal questions. By the way, I've got a question too. You know Hazaras are said to be descendants of old Mongols. But virtually all of them claim that their ancestors spoke Turkic. How can you justify this? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 15:43
aKSAKAL DID NOT ask any questions. He stated what he believe which many people would not agree.
About hazaras, better to post in hazara people -post. Mongolian don't really know much about hazaras . Just brief news during Afgan wars something like hazaras are mongol descendants of Chinggis Khaan.
Respond would be :- Really, then why they don't speak Mongolian. If not ,they lost they Mongolness. Now They are different people like Kazakh Uzbek, Kyrgyz and Tatars.
Mongolians pay more attention to Kalmuk, Buryat, Inner Mongolians and other Mongol speaking people. We pay more interest in their cultural revival.
Inner Mongolians are repressed and on the way to be completely sinocized. Buryat and Kalmyks consider themselves almost different group non-mongol. Their politicians and Russian masters are encouraging the idea of Khalkha is not exactly Mongol of Chinggis, widening the gap between brothers.... Then where is Mongol?
...Chinggis is Turko.... Khalkha Mongol is Tungusic-Chinese something like that ...Hazaras are Persians... Kalmuks and Buryats are something new , fallen from Moon.... and so on......blah blah.... At the end of the time You'll be chinese all....
------------- |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 01:10
 Oh, Zorigo, I didn't want to offend you. If I did sorry. But Aksakal really had lots of quetion, especially on Secret History's names. And Hazaras as they claim themselve and as the history says, are direct descendants of old Mongols. But, they're not like modern day Khalkha Mongols. They're exactly like Central Asians. And they believe their ancestors spoke Turkic; and not Mongolian. And see, if Mongols were the conquerors, why should they loose their language and pick up a new one which they conquered?------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:04
Why don't you respond blitz's posts? He/she refuted you guys' stupid claims with solid proofs. Old Mongolian might be quite different from Halkha Mongolian, but you should make clear which period is this Old Mongolian is refering to? You really need some books on logic.
BTW, Akskl's comment aren't worthy of replying. He comes here once in a while, repeat his nonsense then leave.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Savdogar
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:32
|
aksakal, your government is treating you that you are great Turks, but why you look MONGOLIAN. Look at uzbeks (you like to call us as SART) we are also turkic nation we also have mongol blood, but turkic is dominant and that is why we dont look like Mongols.
yes, i accept, 80% of uzbeks are not real uzbeks actually. But WE HAVE STOLEN this name, OK? we did not have nationality and took Uzbek as our nationality. And please DONT MAKE US CLOSER TO KAZAKHS.
if you are real Kazakh, you must know uzbek-kazakh relations, attitudes. ------------- ...i dont need this... |
Posted By: Savdogar
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:37
|
SeCondLy, We DONT THAnK to RusSians.
they have divided our lands into many pieces by creating artificials republics like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kigizia and Tajikistan.
No doubt, Uzbekistan is predecessor of Khiva, Bukhara, Kokand khanates and all empires ever existed in Central Asia.
WE WILL RETURN OUR LANDS.AND NEW EMPIRE, MAVERAUNNAHR will arise. ------------- ...i dont need this... |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 03:43
|
Even the Mughals claimed to be mongols, although they were turk & used persian language in the court.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 13:30
|
Barbar; see, I can be up, to anytime you may think. So, stop being rude. The way you think mine is rough, we think yours is rough. We're not certain cause we weren't in the past. We're just trying to reach a conclusion. So, what's the reason to be offensive, huh? I replied Blitz by what a Mongol himself believed. The Mongol I gave you his email address and his thoughts told you what you should know. Re-read the posts. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: THE_UNBANNABLE
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 22:10
|
famous quote from a mongol dude:
Hey...
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 22:19
You are right someway. Akskl is doing these comments for years, maybe last 5 years as i know. His card are following:-
1. - Language issue, Mongols and turks communicated each other. According to his assumption Mongols/ Chinggis were Turkic. But many don't so because there many facts. - as Blitz and i put some old mongol, modern mongol differences, changes. But pro-akskl don't interest or comment on those at all.
Linguists should study how the language developed and changed as time goes by. Even turkic speaking nations have hard time understanding each other too- crymean tatar, kazan tataar understand each other hardly. Kazakhs, Uzbeks or Yakuts languages have significant differences.
2. - Name of the clans are overlapping each other. For example khongirad or jalair- Modern Mongolia, Buryat Mongols, Kazakhs and even Lithuanian Tataars have these clan names. In these case, a scholar should follow the earliest mentioned sources as origin. Others who have same name are descendants/ maybe subjects of original clan that carry the name.
Also Akskl accuse Mongolians changed names of land which mentioned in Secret History. I would say names changes as time goes by according to historical accounts or loss records. But still there are lots of names stay the same.
3.- Khalkha Mongol - Akskl insists on Khalkhas are something completely different than Chinggisid Mongols. That is not true. There are lots of record books in Mongolian language that support Khalkha Mongols were more like connecting body of various Mongol clans. Even Sartuul ( descendants of Khwaresm- its Mongol name is Sartaul) tanguds and Urianhai tribes were first Khalkha formation along with many Mongol tribes.
Those historical accounts should be translated into english. There significant number of material in Russian language. Unfortunatly AE does not support cyrillic fonts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalkha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalkha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics - linguistics .
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 22:20
|
Arash (THE UNBANNABLE), How many different user names and computers have you used up in your school? Keep on trying. Cause we'll let you hang out with us for entertainment purposes. Then we'll just ban you as usual. Bye for now! ------------- |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 19:59
|
You guys should better regard primary sources when you are discussing about history.
It's nonsense to assert that the 13th century mongols were turkic. There are too many sources which prove that they(mongols) spoke mongolian language.
One example is Ilkhan Arghun's letter to the Pope Nicholas IV, written in Mongolian language, in 1290.
(This is not arabic script! Turn 90° to your right hand.)
.jpg) ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: Jonon
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 13:25
|
Hi Blitz. It is definitely old Mongolian Script. Interesting what would be the content.
|
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 00:56
|
The so-called old Mongolian script was taken by Genghis Khan from
Turkic Naimans whos chancellary was lead by a Turkic Uyghur - Tatatonga
(his name in distorted Chinese phonetics). The above presented letter can be read in old Turkic language. |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 01:15
 Germans adopted their script from romans. It doesn't mean that germa language is roman.
You need some logic, my friend! ------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 04:34
|
He's talking about the language. He means only the alphabet is in Mongolian script. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 07:07
My friend, don't be obstinate! This letter is written in mongolian language.
The first 3 sentences:
Transcription:
...busuda aliba irgen öber-ün nom bichig ier ... jalbiraqu bui. misiqa-iin nom tengri dor taigci ünen bui. edüge il-khan misiqa-iin nom dur ortugai hemejü ileceqü chi.
modern mongolian:
...busad aliva irgen ööriin nom bichigeer ... zalbirakh bui. misikhagiin nom tengert daigch ünen bui. edüge il-khan misikhagiin nomd ortugai khemeej ilgeeje chi.
Translation:
...every nation ... believes in its own book and script. It's true that the book of Misikha[=Christianity] is famous under the heaven. Now you have sent to me that Il-Khan should believe in Misikha's book.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 07:16
|
I am confused with all this. Were the original turks mongoloid or had West Asian features as in Turkey proper. They could have been only one thing. If Genghis was a turk, then most of present day turks with West Asian features would not be turks & vice versa.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 09:27
|
Well, turks are much mixed with people of iranian stock. But there are still turks who are not mixed, for example,tuva people.
------------- Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less! |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 10:45
|
A script from another nation can be adapted phonetically for one's own language so its not necessary to learn Turkic to read Mongolian script as the Uighur script was adapted for Mongolian language not Turkic.
Uighur script's ancestor is the Aramaic script which influenced the Sogdhian script and in turn the Uighur script, would you say that the Turks spoke Aramaic then to read the Uighur script? No!!
Either way, the Uighurs did a great service to the Mongols.
------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 11:53
|
I'm not saying these are Turkic; but Blitz, could you please help me translate some specific words?
See, the first sentence would be, in Turkic:
'qasy budun öbür nom bychyk iyer yalbyraq erken.
'irgen' was never (isn't either) a common word in Turkic. Also instead of verbal form 'jalbyraqu', 'yalbyraq', the subject form is used.
The second sentence:
'Misiqa-nyng nomy Tangry tayqayin ünken erken.
Turkic use 'bar' instead of 'bui'. But in sentences like this, 'erken' is more suitable.
Now, could you please tell me, what are words 'oturgay', 'hemeju',ilgeeje (chi)'? ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 07:31
Also mongols,ı think there aren't any mongols didn't mixed with Turk blood.
There was a brotherhood within Turks and Mongols.Some people think we are the same nation!=)
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 08:04
Do the tuvas look west asian or mongoloid ? Also how far does this brotherhood go? Do the Mongolians also think similarly. How many consular offices do turkey & mongolia have in each other countries. How many turkish tourists visit Mongolia each year & vice versa. What is the trade volume between the two countries. Do the citizens of turkey & mongolia need passports to go to each other's countries ? If they are brotherhood then they should not need one. Like India-Nepal or India - Bhutan ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 10:19
|
don't mix turkey's populatin with turkic. There are turkmens(ethnic turks in anatolia were first called turkmens) with locals like laz kurds greeks assyran etc. and in the west lot of peoplefrom the balkan. I think you should look in the past. the turkic countries don't have time for other people they have there own problem.
We were in the mongol hordes and vice versa. Mongols were just another tribe back then.
btw you asked like what tuvas look well they look mongol not mongoloid but realy mongol slight difference thow.
  you should listen to HUUN HUUR TU rrealy good throat singing
------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 00:34
|
And what about commerce between them etc.. Are they also related.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:36
|
Russian historian Rassadin thinks that language of the "Secret History" is much closer to Turkic than to Mongol one: ...язык "Сокровенного сказания..." стоит гораздо ближе к языку древних и средневековых тюрков, чем современные монгольские языки... Translation: ...language of the "Secret History" is much closer to language of ancient and medieval Turks than modern Mongol languages... http://www.philology.ru/linguistics4/rassadin-95.htm Please read about Genghis Khan's so-called "Mongols" who all spoke TURKIC language (click on the right edge of the pages and read Chapter 1): http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0631189491/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8945389-6424103#reader-link |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:40
|
Akskl, you have presented the link to that book before. Instead of reverting to the same old stuff, feel free to add more of your knowldge on the subject. Thanks. ------------- |