Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 19, 2011 22:05:34 GMT 3
I didn't meant he insulted me but what do you mean, that I insulted? I didn't insult anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 19, 2011 22:30:04 GMT 3
Modu Tanhu,
I welcome you to the forum. I apologize for not being more clear with you on my own thoughts on the subject. Your responses seemed to operate on the underlying assumption that I'm a Hungarian advocating for Altaic origin, which is far from the truth. I think you'll find that we agree more than we disagree. I encourage you to look through some of the other threads on this subject to gain a fuller understanding of them. I always try to write from a disinterested, non-emotional, and detached position, which is difficult given that I'm highly interested in the subject. I think my style tends to put people "off" sometimes. Readers fill in their own emotions when there's an absence of them. My native language is English. My ancestors were all from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. K.u.K.!
|
|
Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 19, 2011 22:46:10 GMT 3
No don't apologize, you didn't do anything bad to me.
Indeed I thought you were Hungarian, but I'm new to this forum so I just have to spend time to know everyone and their intention.
And yeah for 10 years I've tried to understand Hungarians. But they just keep on insisting they are the real Huns and that Atilla was a Magyar like them and that the Huns have nothing to do with Turkic people, or they claim Atilla and the Huns and at the same time they add their selves into the Turan legend. I didn't meet ONE Hungarian who didn't say this. And I just became really SICK and TIRED of their tales and obsession that's why I am like this towards Hungarians.
And please don't take it personal, but I saw some sort of sarcasm or degradation when you wrote to me and that's why I wrote back like that. But I can be wrong too, thinking it had a bit sarcasm.
The common problem people have is 'misunderstood-ness'.
I apologize I said he to you when Ihsan said she I totally oversaw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 20, 2011 10:25:40 GMT 3
You must be talking to the wrong Hungarians then.  I should add though that the Magyar legends can indeed describe a possible royal line (the Arpads) descent from Attila and/or his Huns. That isn't to say that all Magyars are related to the Huns. The historic sources confirm that the ancient Magyar ruling class mixed with Khazar, Onoghur, Alan, and later Cuman (and if not, they certainly copied the political organization). The archaeological record seems to support this while also showing that the lower classes had a different kind of admixture. The mistake is to say that Attila and the Huns were some sort of proto-Magyar. I won't say they were exactly Turkic. I think there just isn't enough data to support a firm conclusion. I've also seen a theory that the Huns represent an Altaic group that was more pre-Turkic, like an earlier branch related to Turkic. |
|
Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 20, 2011 16:03:57 GMT 3
I don't deny admixture. What I am trying to say, Magyars remain Magyar.
My ancestry is Turkic no doubt, but it is obvious Turkic people had an admixture, but this won't change the fact I am from Turkic ancestry. I come from the Oghuz Turkmens and they come from the Gokturks and they come from the Xiongnu = I am Turk.
What Magyars do is take out the 0,2% - 0,5% Turkic blood they have and they claim theyr'e the Huns!
Magyars are indeed mixed with Turkic people in the past. But for some reason researchers can't trace any DNA relating that much to Turkic people in Magyars from now.
They conclude that 13% of the Magyar people in the 13th century had Mongoloid blood and the rest was mainly Uralic and a bit Indo-European.
But due to contact with Europeans in those 800 years (DUH THEY'RE SURROUNDED BY INDO-EUROPEANS) 90%+ of their DNA came out to be Indo-European.
The rest 10% is Uralic and none to 1% is Turkic.
I've read some test results by Magyars of hoping they are related to Huns or being "Turanid" (which doesn't exist). Much of their DNA came out to be Polish. They have a huge amount of Slavic DNA. How very disappointing for them it has to be!
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 20, 2011 19:24:55 GMT 3
We have no solid evidence to proove that the Oghuz were descendents of the Gokturks - in fact, most probably they were not (we discussed a lot about this in other threads). Regarding the Gokturk-Hunnic connection, it is also not so clear (which is another story).
This is very normal because when the Magyars came in the late 9th century, Pannonia was inhabited by a Slavic population that was under the rule of the Slavic Great Moravian Kingdom. In fact, before the establishment of this kingdom in Slovakia and Hungary, the Avars were living in Pannonia quite mingled with their Slavic subjects and vassals. The Avars themselves seem to be more like a military and administrative elite ruling over a mixed population, of which only parts of it were "ethnicially" Avars (if such a thing really existed at all - perhaps the Avars were formed in a pattern similar to the much later Cossacks). Besides, after Hungary was conquered by the Austrians, there were several waves of Slavic, mostly Serbo-Croatian AFAIK, migrations to Hungary, most of them coming from the Balkans as they fled the Habsburg-Ottoman war zones in the 17th-18th centuries. And not to forget all that German-speaking population sent to Hungary by the Habsburgs to settle down.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 20, 2011 19:48:07 GMT 3
In addition, the arriving 9th cent. Magyars brought a rather mixed population. It seemed to be that most of the "invaders" to that area were already mixed well before arriving.
It is taught that the Ottomans depopulated south and central Hungary, killing off a mostly Magyar population, which in turn spurred the immigration policies of the Austrians (and why Turks are not looked upon favorably by the average Janos). That's the time when the classical image of the Hungarian csiko and the hajduk brigands was formed. The land became open range with the lack of people farming it and thus perfect for both increased animal husbandry and brigands. When the Hapsburgs gained Hungary, they invited settlers to repopulate it. Whole villages sprung up along ethnic lines. The Austrians also kept records about the migrants: where they came from, where they went to, what they did, what they had, what they were given to start a new life; which is how my family has been tracing my mother's line.
|
|
|
|
Post by aynur on Sept 20, 2011 21:19:43 GMT 3
What you had especially during Attila's time were peoples of different origin (Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Baltic and Finno-Ugric) that formed, re-formed and un-formed over a vast period of time for a myriad of reasons. No one can deny that the Magyars were certainly culturally adapted to a Turkic/Mongolic way of nomadic life on horseback and that a portion of their ancestors formed a part of the Hunnic confederation during the Western Roman Empire's fall.
I'm not very safe in saying that the Magyars were purely Finno-Ugric. I mean, certainly there were at least two or three Turkic tribes absorbed into the Magyar confederation by the time they began migrating west from the lower Ural Mountains but their way of life was extraordinarily similar to the Huns. And so it is very probable that the Magyars who arrived in the Pannonian plain intermingled with the region's Germanic and Slavic population (must I add, in a very similar fashion to the western Finns mixing with the Vikings in the coastal areas of modern-day Finland, but probably in smaller quantities).
Why shouldn't they? Attila's court was located in modern-day Hungary and many ethnic (not political) Huns migrated there because it was an area covered in vast steppe regions, ideal for horse and cattle breeding.
I doubt it makes any difference for a Hungarian that a Turkish person denies the partial origin of the Hungarian nation as being Altaic. People can't solve these mysteries and intrigue through polit(r)icks or senseless ranting, but through cohesive and reliable research that combines archaeology, study of historical texts and denial of superstitious claims that would not coincide with the base evidence provided.
So if a Hungarian that had ancestors who were one-hundred percent Turkic in origin and began to mix with Germanic and Slavic tribes like the Turkmen with Arabs and Persians, why can't he refer to himself as being Turkic while you can?
Your pattern of speech is as follows -- Turkish people have mixed with Arabs, Persians, Native Anatolians, Greeks, Armenians and Georgians but the majority of them are still Altaic. Hungarians have mixed with Germanic and Slavic tribes yet they can only hope of being Altaic.
My friend, you need a reality check. I carry no grudge against you or Turkish people but there are some serious faults in the way you speak and refer to things that you should improve upon.
I personally remember being very denying of the fact that the Western Finns have a great and rich admixture with the Germanic peoples who came from the west, such as the Vikings, remote Gothic tribes and the Swedes and Norwegians but gradually accepting and embracing it. It is a part of me that I should be proud of (and indeed I am, for the Germanics were great warriors!)
|
|
Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 21, 2011 1:52:07 GMT 3
You totally get me wrong... I am NOT talking about blood or admixture here...
Do you even read what I've said before?
I say this: Turkish people have mixed with Arabs, Persians, Native Anatolians, Greeks, Armenians and Georgians but those Turkish people are still TURKISH. Why? Because our ancestors are Turkic, our culture is Turkic, our language is Turkic, we know we come from the Oghuz, we know we come from the Gokturks.
Why do we say NE MUTLU TURKUM DIYENE? IT IS BECAUSE I AM A TURK FROM TURKIC ANCESTORS, ADMIXTURE OR NOT!!!!!!!
Do you get me?
By the way, do you have the ability to comprehend? I really wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 21, 2011 4:36:29 GMT 3
Modu Tanhu,
Aynur's post only reminds me of my own struggle at trying to understand what your criteria are for saying X people are something but Y people are something else. To me it seems like the criteria is applied selectively. For example, Hungarians do not have a Uralic culture (what is a Uralic or Turkic culture anyway?) nor did they remember that they came from Finno-Ugric peoples. They have a difficult time understanding their closest linguistic relative, unlike a Turk trying to understand a Kazakh. Etc. How do we say they are Uralic? How do we distinguish Turkic from Turkish culture or Hungarian from Uralic?
|
|
Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 21, 2011 5:38:02 GMT 3
Oh my God... fo' real, Dear Lord, Ya Rabb, Ey Göktanri, Holy Jesus, oh great Oghuz Qaghan and Modu Shanyu! PLEASE, give me patience... HELP ME!! Ihsan agabey, you agreed with what I've said. I repeated what I wrote several times, yet no success. Why don't you give a try? because I just keep on repeating myself and I don't want to copy paste what I wrote!!  |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 21, 2011 6:00:44 GMT 3
Modu Tanhu,
It isn't a matter of repeating what you already wrote. All you're being asked to do is expand upon what you wrote. What is a Turkic culture? How are you defining that? Culture is a very big thing and people interpret it differently. I don't want to jump to any of my own conclusions about what you wrote.
For example, culture can mean music, religion, social customs, funerary practice. It can mean material productions such as baskets, pots, metalworking, jewelry, technology, etc. Culture is also highly transferable. Anthropologists tend to speak of "cultures" instead of ethnic identity because of that. What would make up a Turkic culture?
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 21, 2011 7:40:41 GMT 3
|
|
Modu Tanhu
Tarqan
Yağmur yağdı ıslanmadım, kar d?k?ld? uslanmadım.
Posts: 96
|
Post by Modu Tanhu on Sept 21, 2011 13:55:32 GMT 3
No thank you I don't need to read it because you don't get what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 21, 2011 14:12:59 GMT 3
|
|
I should add though that the Magyar legends can indeed describe a possible royal line (the Arpads) descent from Attila and/or his Huns. That isn't to say that all Magyars are related to the Huns. The historic sources confirm that the ancient Magyar ruling class mixed with Khazar, Onoghur, Alan, and later Cuman (and if not, they certainly copied the political organization). The archaeological record seems to support this while also showing that the lower classes had a different kind of admixture. The mistake is to say that Attila and the Huns were some sort of proto-Magyar. I won't say they were exactly Turkic. I think there just isn't enough data to support a firm conclusion. I've also seen a theory that the Huns represent an Altaic group that was more pre-Turkic, like an earlier branch related to Turkic.
