|
Post by massaget on Nov 17, 2012 15:40:01 GMT 3
Maybe our etnogenesis happened the same way as bolgars. a türkic ruling elite ,who mixes up among the locals. why would it happen differently ? nothing proves.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 17, 2012 18:26:35 GMT 3
Might original Hungarians be an "outgroup" of Turks? Mainly the Ogur?
And I think the ruling elite was not Turkic but rather non-Turkic among those people.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 17, 2012 18:47:35 GMT 3
Magyars are probably not even Hungarians. Hungarians are the Onogurs, they came around 680 to the carpathian basin. Its quite possible that this country was called Hungaria before the Magyars arrived.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 17, 2012 18:54:28 GMT 3
And were Magyars in anyway related to any Turkic ethnos?
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 18, 2012 1:53:31 GMT 3
Yes, thats what they say, they were Türks. Im not sure myself but I dont have much against it. THey were outnumbered by the locals at least 1:20 according to archeology, their language probably died out very quicly in few generations.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 18, 2012 17:31:21 GMT 3
Magyars are probably not even Hungarians. Hungarians are the Onogurs, they came around 680 to the carpathian basin. Its quite possible that this country was called Hungaria before the Magyars arrived. please elaborate...
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 19, 2012 19:07:01 GMT 3
Yes, Anonymous' Gesta is full of folk etymologies for place names. I'm not surprised that ASSes would reject scientifically based etymologies for those written by an untrained armchair philologist from 1000 years ago. There is a similar case in Ottoman historiography. When the late 15th century Ottoman prince-in-exile Sultan Cem (Djem) met with Hasan al-Bayati, a Turkmen scholar from the Bayat tribe, during his pilgrimage, Hasan al-Bayati wrote down the work Jām-i Jam Āyīn. This book was comprised of a royal lineage of the Ottoman dynasty going back to the legendary times, and a short history of the Ottomans. In this work, Hasan al-Bayati recorded many folk etymologies for various Turkic names in the royal lineage but most of them are etymologically false.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Nov 20, 2012 0:25:57 GMT 3
hjernespiser : wich magyar tribe/personal names do you consider as finno-ugrian hungarian ? only nyék comes to my mind. even magy-ar is doubted I haven't read much about the tribal names other than some supposed and questionable connections with a few Bashkir tribal names. Then there's the supposed connection to the Meshchera/Misher names. I think we tend to attach genealogical ideas to steppe tribe names when it isn't wholly warranted. The tribes were a way for steppe nations to arrange people into political/military units and thus they did not always reflect family relations though they did, over time, become the basis of ethnic identity. This site says it much better than I: turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/"Alien clans could also be integrated into a local society, which explains why we find, for instance, Kipchak clans as far apart as the Altai Mountains and the Black Sea, and which also explains why people with different DNA haplogroups could be part of a society speaking the same language. " and "in practice the Smith family name was probably reinvented and readopted many times, so not all the Smiths are related to each other; by the same token, this analogy explains that not anyone who is called a Tatar or Kypchak has in fact anything to do with the original progenitor of Tatars or Kypchaks" and "At times, a group could branch off from the rest of the old clan and receive the name of its new ruling bey, thus forming a new clan."
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 20, 2012 11:15:29 GMT 3
Indeed, that is how tribal/political unions like Huns, Oghuz, Kazakhs and Cossacks were established.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 20, 2012 21:58:34 GMT 3
Not yet researched. This theory is quite new and based on the last few decades archeology. Similar dresses and equipment were found several places on the steppe, mostly north of the caucasus, some south east to the Ural mountains. We dont know how their wear looked like before the 9th century, so dont know where to search. And were Magyars in anyway related to any Turkic ethnos?
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 20, 2012 22:02:37 GMT 3
I forgot one thing wich may show something, maybe dont. The complete name of the madyar tribe in kazakhstan called madyar-kipchak. and the country in the caucasus, where the bishop was called from christian hungary by the locals in the 13th-14th century was Kummagyaria. Kum probably means Cuman.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 20, 2012 22:28:59 GMT 3
One thing that crossed my mind was whether the name of Turkey's capital Ankara is related with Onogur (like Hungary) or not. I find it hard to accept that the name comes from Greek anchor which was only used for "ships anchor" back then.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 20, 2012 22:45:35 GMT 3
there's a theory that it goes back to hittite times...indeed, central anatolia wasn't a place traditionally colonized by greek settlers...
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Nov 21, 2012 3:50:07 GMT 3
ancalimon : not too likely, no.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 21, 2012 10:55:38 GMT 3
One thing that crossed my mind was whether the name of Turkey's capital Ankara is related with Onogur (like Hungary) or not. Of course it is not related with such an anachronistic name.
|
|