|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 1, 2009 22:02:08 GMT 3
Mongolians themselves have also contrary work, due to the large number of Turkic-speaking tribes united in the 13th century Mongolia. Only thing we have to go on either the Secret History of the Mongols are linguistics, which ends up being easily confused with ethnic after a while.
I guess thats why modern Mongolians tend to put a lot of importance on language, losing your language means one is lost, and to some; no longer Mongol. Wonder if this occurance similar with Turks?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 1, 2009 22:23:08 GMT 3
No they are not serious, they all are motivated by political agendas. Indeed ;D ;D ;D Seriously, among the Central Asian experts in Turkey, it was actually only Ahmed Zeki Velidî Togan who insisted that Činggis Qan was Turkic. Even though Bahaeddin Ögel showed that Temüjin's tribe's name was probably of Turkic origin, Temüjin was nonetheless a Mongol, not a Turk. There was in fact a disagreement between Ögel and Togan - during one of their chats, Ögel asked Togan why he was so obsessed with trying to proove Činggis Qan's Turkicness, and Togan replied "What should we do? Let those barbarian Mongols claim over such a great ruler?" Togan was a great scientist but his obsession with Činggis Qan's Turkicness was beyond scientific logic, and that obsession led him re-write entire Turkic history in a very weird way in his Umumî Türk Tarihi'ne Giriş (Introduction to General Turkic History). Yep, that's the same case with the Turks. Afghanistan, Arab nations and the Balkans are full of Turkic peoples who lost their identities and got assimiliated into the natives after losing their own language. The only exception were the Cumans in Hungary though.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 1, 2009 22:40:04 GMT 3
Political and personal agendas when it comes to steppe history are very common it seems. It's very hard to stay objective when there is so little written history, yet so much conflict, changes so rapid that confederations could rise and fall in less then one generation. It leaves a lot to people's own imagination which unfortunately end up being used for their own agendas.
Turks in Turkey aren't the only ones Khagan, sometimes Mongolians are also guilty of adding to this confusion. You have so much knowledge here Khagan why aren't you publishing it at least? Heh
As for the assimilation, it's kinda sad eh? In my experience it's not good when you are called "assimilated" by your own people you know. And then have people deny your own identity! Heh I know this very well... unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 1, 2009 22:49:43 GMT 3
Indeed. Thanx Heh, I'm doing publications once in a while ;D Yep. And most of those assimiliated Turks (excluding those in the Balkans) lost their identity mostly because of Islam, contrary to what those conservative historians in Turkey claim (they say Islam was the best religion that fit the Turkic culture, and that only Muslim Turks preserved Turkic identity - that is absolutely nonsense). As Prof. Salim Koca once said, "The Middle East is a big Turkic-grinding machine".
|
|
|
Post by nomadi on Sept 2, 2009 14:53:01 GMT 3
Other ideas:
Borjigin Meaning: Wolf Nephew ( Bori Jigen)
Kazakh-Kyrgyzs: "Bori Jigen"
Turkey Turks: "Bori Yigen or Kurt Yigen"
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 2, 2009 17:36:13 GMT 3
Hmmmmmm that is also possible, but I think Böri Tigin looks more possible.
|
|
|
Post by kenmirzz on Sept 3, 2009 6:29:25 GMT 3
Yes Mr Ihsan, Islam has done much harm to the Turkic culture because it's based on Arabic imperialistic endeavor to eliminate other culture prevalent in this lovely Mother Earth of ours. It's not just Turkic, the Persian culture was also lost as a result clinging to Islam.
I do extremely wish that The Kazakh, Krygyz and many Central Asian people do not lost their identity after adopting Islam. Luckily, these people did not just adopt, but adapt.
As for the topic about "Khan", I suppose many Afghanian, Pakistani and Indian have this epithet at the back of their name. In fact, my maternal grandpa has this name: "Fer Khan". Is it Turkic name?
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Sept 3, 2009 7:10:26 GMT 3
Yes Mr Ihsan, Islam has done much harm to the Turkic culture because it's based on Arabic imperialistic endeavor to eliminate other culture prevalent in this lovely Mother Earth of ours. It's not just Turkic, the Persian culture was also lost as a result clinging to Islam. I do extremely wish that The Kazakh, Krygyz and many Central Asian people do not lost their identity after adopting Islam. Luckily, these people did not just adopt, but adapt. As for the topic about "Khan", I suppose many Afghanian, Pakistani and Indian have this epithet at the back of their name. In fact, my maternal grandpa has this name: "Fer Khan". Is it Turkic name? Ferkhan comes from the Arabic word Furqan
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 3, 2009 13:07:12 GMT 3
The Pakistanis and Indians with the last name Khan are descendents of state officials in the Baburid (Mughal) Empire.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 3, 2009 13:11:27 GMT 3
^ ?!?!?!?!?! NO WAY!
Source plz =/
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 3, 2009 13:25:24 GMT 3
State officials (Begs) in the Baburid Empire, as well as the Delhi Sultanate before, carried the title Khan. How come people today can still have that as lastnames? They must be the descendents of Baburid state officials.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 3, 2009 13:43:09 GMT 3
I still do remember the Indians that I've met in the past did mention that the surname Khan being the same as the Altaic title Khan is actually nothing more then a coincidence. I've even met one whose surname was Khan but he himself also mentioned too that it's nothing but a coincidence.
I never asked this question amongst Indian historians however, but non-historian Indians (especially one whos surname was KHAN) should at least know such basics. Therefore a source to prove that it's more then a coincidence would be nice - because now I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 3, 2009 21:05:25 GMT 3
You can see "Khan" everywhere where at least minor Turko-Persian influence existed. Yes, Persian also adobted title Khan for themselves and influenced other peoples through their culture including India.
So, Khan with the meaning "King/ruler" has been adobted into many languages including Hindi a very long time ago.
Just think about Sher-khan (Tiger-king) from Kipling's "Maugli." Just some people are too ignorant and narrow-minded to see that the origin of the word is actually Altaic.
It's your Indian friend who should have given some source for his laughable claim that Indian Khan has no relation to Turko-Mongol Khan. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 3, 2009 22:14:45 GMT 3
however in Persian tradition (incl. Muslim India) the title Khan was more similar to prince/duke in rank than in Central Asian Turko-Mongol tradition where Khan (Khaghan) is the highest ranking ruler title (after Temüjin only possible for members of his Golden Family). some Pakistani/Muslim Indians also have Mirza (royal prince) as last name.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 3, 2009 22:57:38 GMT 3
Haha yeah I think I assume too much from ignorantos. Most people tend to be too ignorant when it comes to Steppe History anyway ;D
Ok, so the Indian surname Khan has a very high probability that it was influenced by the steppe, but is this just linguistical influence, or also direct ethnic descent from Turco-Mongols?
|
|