|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 8, 2010 18:32:45 GMT 3
If the maps and the word list is not evidence, why post it? What is it you want people to get from the posting of this data? You're getting something out of it, but what do you want other readers to get out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 9, 2010 2:42:05 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 9, 2010 2:51:08 GMT 3
Yes that is right. Going back to the maps: www.worldhistorymaps.infoI write it now conditionally: how meaningful would have been everything, how the maps would have talk for themselves from 0AD till 1000 AD if you could be sure that are without any errors. Anyway maybe are maybe not but was happy to "discover" it.  (Hjernespiser - Did not write as evidence)  |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 9, 2010 2:51:47 GMT 3
www.kubon-sagner.de/buch/neu/180_2008_12.html"U5275 HAZAI, GYÖRGY: Die Geschichte der Ungarn in einer osmanischen Chronik des 16. Jhs. Tercüman Mahmuds Tarih-i Ungurus. /=Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte u.Kultur d. Bln., K.Schwarz Verlag, 2008. ISBN 978-3-87997-355-2. , 92,00 Euro Der Titel dieser Chronik, Tarih-i Ungurus, stammt von dem bekannten ungarischen Turkologen Armin Vambery, der diese Handschrift in den fünfziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts in Istanbul entdeckt hat (Ungar. Akad. d. Wiss., Hs. Török F. 57). Der Autor des Werks, Tercüman Mahmud, war ein bekannter Diplomat des osmanischen Hofes. Nach seiner Darstellung hat er nach der Eroberung von Szekesfehervar (Stuhlweissenburg) durch die Osmanen 1543 in der dortigen Bibliothek ein in Latein verfasstes Buch gefunden, das eine ausführliche Darstellung der Geschichte der Ungarn enthielt. Er befand es für wichtig, dieses Werk ins Türkische zu übersetzen und damit dem Sultan ausführliche Kenntnisse über Ursprung, Landnahme und Entwicklung der Ungarn zu vermitteln. Die Textanalyse des Werks zeigt, dass seine wichtigste Quelle für die Geschichte der Ungarn die sogenannte Wiener Bilderchronik (Beginn des 14. Jh.) war. Was den danach folgenden Zeitraum betrifft, so hat er eine andere ungarische Chronik benutzt (wahrscheinlich das Werk von Thuroczy). Für die Kämpfe der Ungarn mit den Türken im 15./16. Jahrhundert hat er vermutlich aus der osmanischen mündlichen Überlieferung geschöpft..." From Google Translate:
The textual analysis of the work shows that his main source was) for the history of Hungary, the so-called Viennese Illuminated Chronicle (early 14th century. As for the following period, he has another Hungarian Chronicle used (probably the work of Thuroczy). For the struggles of Hungary by the Turks in 15-16. Century, it has probably drawn from oral tradition of the Ottoman
|
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 9, 2010 2:59:07 GMT 3
Armin Vambery - he was a famous turkologist, originally from a poor Hungarian-Hebrew family, He is considered to be from the city where I live now! - Dunajská Streda(SK) Dunaszerdahely(HUN). Anyway, I am not from this city and do not have Hebrew background. |
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on Mar 9, 2010 17:27:17 GMT 3
HI Magyar Tahnu ! It shows that you live in south Slovakia.I had a friend also from there.
Actually some Slovakians especially from that part have almost Hungarian mentality didn't they?
Do you speak Hungarian.And Actually Slovakia and parts of Checz Republic were forming part of the Magyar country,right and the later Austro-Hungarian Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 9, 2010 20:12:41 GMT 3
Ishan! Is it possible? if you belong to Oghuz - and within the Kara Koyunlu part, that we were neighbours around 450-480 AD? Actually, some of those maps are inaccurate about the Oghuz, because the Oghuz union was formed in the mid-8th century and it was mostly shaped in the late 8th-9th centuries Before that, some of the tribes that formed the Oghuz are recorded to have been living in Mongolia. Btw, I'm from the Karakeçili clan of the Kayı tribe; the Karakoyunlu clan belonged to another tribe |
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 9, 2010 21:10:13 GMT 3
HI Magyar Tahnu ! It shows that you live in south Slovakia.I had a friend also from there. Actually some Slovakians especially from that part have almost Hungarian mentality didn't they? Do you speak Hungarian.And Actually Slovakia and parts of Checz Republic were forming part of the Magyar country,right and the later Austro-Hungarian Kingdom. Greetings and Hello Asparuh! Yes, I am from South Slovakia but I am ethnic Hungarian. Today at least half million Hungarian people live in Slovakia as minority group. So all my family Hungarian - the closest true Slovak tie is my great great grandfather (grandfathers grandfather from mothers side). Otherwise some other great greatgrandparents have the family name as Toth and Horvath so it is possible that yes had more Slavic blood too. But look on my photo in the General session and decide whether I look Slavic or more like ancient Hungarian How about you? Bulgarian from where? |
|
|
|
Post by MagyarTanhu on Mar 9, 2010 21:57:18 GMT 3
Ishan, Wow, the "Epic of Köroğlu" and Kirat horse is fascinating! In Hungarian the wonder horse is called "táltos ló", "táltos paripa" or just "táltos" But this "táltos" also means kind of highest rank of shaman in ancient belief too. Please, those who know Slavic language do not write here it is from Slavic. At least this word was going from Hungarian to other Slavic languages. I put my neck on it! |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 9, 2010 23:57:30 GMT 3
Ishan, Wow, the "Epic of Köroğlu" and Kirat horse is fascinating! In Hungarian the wonder horse is called "táltos ló", "táltos paripa" or just "táltos" But this "táltos" also means kind of highest rank of shaman in ancient belief too. That's cool  |
|
|
|
Post by benzin on May 20, 2010 1:52:47 GMT 3
Dear hjernespiser : you said we cant believe something is true until there is a proof for that. Can you tell me what is the proof of the avars were not related to the huns ?
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 20, 2010 19:36:23 GMT 3
Normally, the way scholarship works is that those making the claim provide the supporting evidence. If the evidence doesn't stand up to peer review the claim can be rejected. It isn't until someone is able to provide good enough supporting evidence that the Avars and Huns are related that general consensus agrees that they were in fact related. Sometimes there are unworkable problems with the evidence so that the claim cannot be supported. It isn't to say that the Avars and Huns were not related, only that making the claim that they were related requires more and better evidence.
I could give one example of problematic evidence. According to Hungarian anthropologists (i.e., Pal Liptak), the arrival of the Avars brought an increase in the number of Europo-Mongoloid hybrids in the local population. Now if the Huns and Avars were so related, there shouldn't have been such a change. The local population should have already been similar to the arriving Avars. Such evidence can cast doubt on claims that the Avars and Huns were related.
|
|
|
|
Post by benzin on May 20, 2010 21:01:12 GMT 3
The Hun tribes after Attila got defeated are the Avars in my opinion, and they are called Székelys today. These tribes didnt fight against the incoming Hungarian tribes and accepted them as leaders. These groups has been moved to Transylvania from western Hungary, where most Avar grave found, and among them is the strongest belief that they are descendants of the Huns. Their number was not significantly less than the incoming population, and after hundreds of years, their beliefs mixed with the Hungarian's, that may cause that after many decades the Hungarian chronicles started to say Hungarians are descendant of the Huns as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 21, 2010 10:17:57 GMT 3
Avars and Huns may have been ethnically related (meaning that both peoples are believed to be Turkic speakers). But Avars aren't remnants of the Huns of Attila. The story of Avars appearance is well known, they came into Europe from Central Asia being chased by Turkuts in the 6th century AD. By that time Huns of Attila had been absent from the historical records for almost a century.
There are hints suggesting that Bulgars were remnants of the Hunnish confederation, but not the Avars who came later from the lands distant from the European Huns heartland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Asparuh on May 24, 2010 1:27:25 GMT 3
Beautiful picture.
|
|
(Hjernespiser - Did not write as evidence) 
