Hungarians

[Subu'atai]

Ah, I see, though it seems you are supportive of their claims lol

[ALTAR]

Not at all, dear Qirat brother. I disagree in some points. For instance, I dont look them only descendands of Hunns. They had also sizeable stock of Avars, Cumans and etc.

Anyway, I'm not disturbed by the Hungarians or Mongolians who adopted Huns culture, language, life style.

But I am always in the opposite of unscientific chavaunistic pretensions like "Hunns were only belonged to Hungarians or Mongolians".

This is a reality that Hunns(I mean Xiong-Nu Era) are common ancestors of Turk-Mongol steppe nomads.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

I am more picky at that issue. I don't think the Mongols had anything to do with the Asian Huns. They are all descendents of the Dong Hu 東胡 and Serbet (Xianbei 鮮卑), while the Asian Huns were related with other Turkic peoples. But you may say that the Turkic Huns once ruled the ancestors of Mongols ;D

[Subu'atai]

I'm assuming you're joking, cause otherwise us Mongols would be looking at you rather funny o.O

Some Mongols are also picky but I tend to disregard them, saying the days of Attila and of Chingghis Khaan no Turkic tribe fought as equals but fought as slaves. Heh. Ne ways the Dong Hu and Serbet are Tungus confederations, not Mongolic.

The early history of the steppes were all confederation of nomadic tribes where such titles did not carry any weight whatsoever. Are Mongols Turks? No, are Mongols Tungus? No, Mongols are Mongols.

Both Turkic and Mongolic tribes were part of the Xiongnu, as both our histories reflect. However this argument can become opinionated from both sides as 'who was the master? Turk or Mongol?' while nothing can be proven unless we have a time machine. Hopefully we won't get into another directionless debate.

So far the only reliable facts that exists to conclude this whole issue is: Asian Huns = Ancestors of Mongols and Turks. And as for back then, Mongols and Turks weren't so different. As for my own tribal background, Mongol became our new identity in the 13th century.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Oww woww woww, no wayy ;D ;D

I'm assuming you're joking, cause otherwise us Mongols would be looking at you rather funny o.O

No I'm not joking, I'm talking about straight facts here.

Some Mongols are also picky but I tend to disregard them, saying the days of Attila and of Chingghis Khaan no Turkic tribe fought as equals but fought as slaves. Heh. Ne ways the Dong Hu and Serbet are Tungus confederations, not Mongolic.

If you accept that the Dong Hu and Serbet were Tungusic, you would also automaticially accept that all Mongols are Tungusic. If you examine Chinese sources, you would see that all the Tabġač (Tuoba 拓跋), Kitan (Qidan 契丹), Shiwei 室韋, etc peoples are descendents of the Serbet. And the Shiwei are the direct ancestors of the original Mongqol (Menggu 蒙古) people from whom Temüjin came. The Chinese always distinguished Turkic and Mongolic peoples; the 5th-8th century Turkic peoples like the High Carts (Gaoche 高車), Tägräg (Tiele 鐵勒), Uyġur (Yuanhe 袁紇, Wuhu 烏護, Wuhe 烏紇, Weihe 韋紇, Huihe 迴紇) and Türük (Türk, Tujue 突厥, Gök Türk) are clearly stated to be relatives or descendents of Asian Huns (Xiongnu 匈奴), while the links between the Mongolic people of that period with the earlier Serbet are clearly shown. There is no need to doubt this. You can check the sources themselves if you want. In the beginning, it was thought that the Dong Hu and Serbet were Tungusic, but this theory is now outdated.

The early history of the steppes were all confederation of nomadic tribes where such titles did not carry any weight whatsoever. Are Mongols Turks? No, are Mongols Tungus? No, Mongols are Mongols.

Both Turkic and Mongolic tribes were part of the Xiongnu, as both our histories reflect. However this argument can become opinionated from both sides as 'who was the master? Turk or Mongol?' while nothing can be proven unless we have a time machine. Hopefully we won't get into another directionless debate.

So far the only reliable facts that exists to conclude this whole issue is: Asian Huns = Ancestors of Mongols and Turks. And as for back then, Mongols and Turks weren't so different. As for my own tribal background, Mongol became our new identity in the 13th century.

It is true that the Asian Huns ruled over the ancestors of modern Turkic and Mongolic peoples, there is no doubt in that. And all these Hunnic subjects were called Xiongnu 匈奴 after being conquered by the Huns. The thing I express is that the original Hun (Xiongnu 匈奴) people that founded and ruled this empire was Turkic.

[Subu'atai]

Origins of Xiongnu are still unknown either then location. Mongol ancestors are unknown unless from oral history of Modu Shanyu - that he was a Mongol tribal leader not Turkic. Of course Turks do not accept this.

Descendants of the Donghu confederation have been documented as mixing with the local Mongolic population so it is definitely not certain that the Donghu are ancestors of all Mongols. Shiwei are proposed as the ancestors of East Mongols but it seems they like other Donghu tribes intermixed with Mongolics according to contradicting sources. As for the Khitan peoples they migrated westward past Uighur territory bordering Persia. The Chinese only distinguished tribal confederations from the north and Turkic/Mongolic to them was the same.

As for the origins of the Xiongnu none to date has proved unquestioned facts. Mongols educated in Mongolia insist on Mongolic origin, I'll leave it for them to arrive and enforce my point further, though they might take it too far.

As I wasn't educated in Mongolia, the only facts I have collected is that the only source of information in regards to origin are through languages, which comprise of both Mongolic and Turkic. Now if the Xiongnu are a purely Turkic force, why is the Mongolic language spoken rather strongly within the Xiongnu confederation.

Tribal confederations in the past didn't pay much heed to either Mongolic or Turkic identities, you can take the Uriankhai, the Naiman, the Merkit, the Kereyid, who all lived in very close proximity to the other east tribes of Kiyad, Tayichuud and Tatar in Mongolia. Turkic/Mongolic tribes became Mongol, as is common amongst tribal confederations, which adds to more confusion.

As for the Western Huns such as Attila, the Mongolic appearance is certain. Where for Turkics most have more Caucasiod features as their origins began from west Mongolia and almost always went westward in migrations.

[ALTAR]

Nov 25, 2008 9:54:47 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

Origins of Xiongnu are still unknown either then location. Mongol ancestors are unknown unless from oral history of Modu Shanyu - that he was a Mongol tribal leader not Turkic. Of course Turks do not accept this.

You drunk too much brother.

Not only Turks, The Whole World dont accept it ;D

[Subu'atai]

Heh I'm quite sober now thanks. The whole world doesn't accept either claim whether Turk or Mongol in the first place, and in the case of the ignorant majority most view Turks as not having anything to do with Mongolia at all heh.

As for my response above - I'm just responding opinions with opinions

Modu Shanyu's name was Baatur, Mongolian word for hero/warrior. His father who ruled the Xiongnu united all nomadic tribes of native Mongolia, including Mongolics and Turkics, though some Mongols do not agree with Turkic tribes having anything to do with the Xiongnu except with some of the Xiongnu who migrated westward. Of course the Turkish side of things likes to deny Mongolics have anything to do with the Xiongnu, and even claim they are the true natives of Mongolia, which doesn't fly well unquestioned either.

So yeah, as you can see, we can go on forever in this little debate with no end unless we were actually there

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Ah too bad I have to leave now, gotta read my reply soon

[Subu'atai]

Heh me too, I'll conclude with this: You have sources that take the Turkic side and sources that take the Mongolic side and sources in between. I personally gave up on finding a fact through this as to me these 'facts' are opinions thanks to so many confusion sources, same thing I've done with my own tribal history regarding origins of Merkits and Uriankhai.

[Temüjin]

Nov 25, 2008 13:03:20 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

Modu Shanyu's name was Baatur,

what's your source for that?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Heh, back ;D I was with our dear Yabġu Altar

Ok, but I still have to make some clarifications. After all, this is a public place, and our mission is to inform people about Steppe History, or get informed about that, isn't it?

Origins of Xiongnu are still unknown either then location.

Uhm sorry but that's not true. Wolfram Eberhard notifies us that the ancestors of Xiongnu 匈奴 were Xunyu 獯鬻 and Xianyun 玁狁 peoples.

Mongol ancestors are unknown unless from oral history of Modu Shanyu - that he was a Mongol tribal leader not Turkic. Of course Turks do not accept this.

I keep hearing about these legends but never had access to their texts. From which century are they from? And how do they call the Huns and their ruler Modu Chanyu 冒顿單于?

Descendants of the Donghu confederation have been documented as mixing with the local Mongolic population so it is definitely not certain that the Donghu are ancestors of all Mongols. Shiwei are proposed as the ancestors of East Mongols but it seems they like other Donghu tribes intermixed with Mongolics according to contradicting sources. As for the Khitan peoples they migrated westward past Uighur territory bordering Persia. The Chinese only distinguished tribal confederations from the north and Turkic/Mongolic to them was the same.

According to Shiji 史記 (43: 1806, 110: 2885), Hanshu 漢書 (94: 3758), Hou Hanshu 後漢書 (90: 2985), Sanguozhi 三國志 (30: 832, 836) and Jinshu 晉書 (108: 2803-2804), the Xianbei 鮮卑 (Serbet) were descendents of Donghu 東胡. According to Beishi 北史 (94: 3129), Suishu 隋書 (64: 1882, 1886) and Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 (199: 5356), the Shiwei 室韋 were closely related with the Qidan 契丹 (Kitan) or they were a group of them, and their language was similar to theirs. Xin Tangshu 新唐書 (219: 6167, 6176) clearly states that both the Shiwei and Kitan were descendents of the Donghu and the Serbet. No mention of Huns. Given all these, Wolfram Eberhard also concludes that all these peoples were Mongolic.

Now, what are your sources which claim that these people were Tungusic and not related with each other? I didn't use any Turkish researchs, you see, I used the Chinese sources themselves. If you don't believe me, you can check them here, from where I also use: www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/ftmsw3

As for the origins of the Xiongnu none to date has proved unquestioned facts. Mongols educated in Mongolia insist on Mongolic origin, I'll leave it for them to arrive and enforce my point further, though they might take it too far.

As I wasn't educated in Mongolia, the only facts I have collected is that the only source of information in regards to origin are through languages, which comprise of both Mongolic and Turkic. Now if the Xiongnu are a purely Turkic force, why is the Mongolic language spoken rather strongly within the Xiongnu confederation.

What are your evidences for Mongolian words that existed among the language of the Huns? Never heard nor seen any. I think you confuse the Huns with the Tabġač (Tuoba 拓跋), because it's the Tabġač whose language contain both Turkic and Mongolic words, as shown by Peter A. Boodberg and Louis Bazin. Interesting thing is that, even though we know that the Tabġač were originally Mongolic Serbet, they heavily mixed with the Turkic Huns, so the amount of Turkic words found in the Tabġač language is much more than Mongolic ones. Plus, I again do not use any Turkish researchs, they are all Western (Anglo-Saxon and French) I don't think Boodberg or Bazin had any Turkic ancestors No Mongolian words from the Huns too, as far as I know. Neither from the Asian Huns, nor from the European Huns. The European Hunnic names contain both Turkic, Germanic and Iranic words, but no Mongolian, as Otto Maenchen-Helfen points out (oh and he's German, plus very against Pan-Turkic authors, to note) The thing is that, I don't take sides, I just use historical sources and check modern researchs, which are mostly European and some Japanese. I actually rarely use Turkish researchs. But you admitted that you take a side. I don't.

Anyway, it's not finished ;D How are you going to explain these quotes from Chinese sources?

- Weishu 魏書 (102: 2268) and Beishi 北史 (97: 3219-3220) say that the customs and language of Yueban Xiongnu 悅般匈奴 were the same with the Gaoche 高車 (ancestors of Tägräg / Tiele 鐵勒 Turks).

- Beishi 北史 (98: 3270-3271) gives the ancestry legend of the the Gaoche 高車 which link them with the Xiongnu 匈奴.

- Zhoushu 周書 (50: 907) and Beishi 北史 (99: 3285) state that the Tujue 突厥 (Türük, Gök Türks) were from another branch of the Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

- Suishu 隋書 (84: 1879) states that the ancestors of Tiele 鐵勒 (Tägräg) were descendents of Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

- Xin Tangshu 新唐書 (217: 6111) says that the ancestors of Huihe 回紇 (Uyġurs) are the Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).

Now, given all these notes from various Chinese sources, we can clearly see that the Huns were closely related with the other Turkic peoples of 4th-7th centuries. You know what, I never ever saw any sources that show any relationship between the Huns and other Mongolic peoples. I am eagerly waiting Mongolians to show any, but I think their efforts will be for nothing, as there simply exists no such records.

Oh and finally, I have a small list of non-Turkic scholars who think that the Huns were Turkic: de Guignes, Klaproth, Hirth, Marquart, Pelliot, Franke, Németh, McGovern, Grousset, Eberhard, Szász, Bazin, Altheim, Haussig, Samolin, Pricak (Pritsak), Clauson, Roux, Gumilëv, Remusat, Chavannes, Radloff, Loufer, Parker, Krouse, Bernshtat, Howorth, Wang Guowei, Lin Gan and Ma Zhanshan.

Do you need anything else?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Nov 25, 2008 13:03:20 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

Modu Shanyu's name was Baatur, Mongolian word for hero/warrior. His father who ruled the Xiongnu united all nomadic tribes of native Mongolia, including Mongolics and Turkics, though some Mongols do not agree with Turkic tribes having anything to do with the Xiongnu except with some of the Xiongnu who migrated westward. Of course the Turkish side of things likes to deny Mongolics have anything to do with the Xiongnu, and even claim they are the true natives of Mongolia, which doesn't fly well unquestioned either.

Baġatur or Boġatïr has a Turkic etymology already, it's not a Mongolic word. If it is, you must explain the real meaning of it (I mean, show the root word). The root is probably Boġa which means Bull (the word also passed to Mongolian) while -tur/-tïr is an indicative suffix in Old Turkic.

And guess what? There simply were no Mongols in Mongolia for a long time, the Mongolic tribes start migrating there much later. Mongolia is the original land of Turkic peoples.

[Subu'atai]

Hmmm, still not convinced

Though you do present quite interesting arguments. And yup Wolfram Eberhard is one source, though Paul Pelliot is another who studied both Chinese sources and central asian history, thus pure Turkic origins have yet to be concluded on this debate.

I haven't read that much though on ancient Mongolian history (which is difficult as Mongols didn't write much) to speak on native Mongols behalf, as Kalmyk Mongols we're mostly taught about our own history from Dzungaria and our ancestors who fought for Chingghis Khaan. So if you can get Bor Chono or someone in here it would be a better debate.

I do know that Mongolian schools do teach of the history and ancestry of Mongols related to the Xiongnu and Modu Shanyu being Mongol. So I'm certain any educated native Mongolian will provide you with the sources necessary based on archaelogical finds rather then written records (as Mongol history wasn't well documented), though hey - with history we have to take what we can get.

Also I never said Tungus didn't mix at all with the local Mongolic population. Btw the link isn't working, are those meant to be Chinese characters cause I don't have Mandarin font installed. As for the language of the Xiongnu it still fails to conclude on their origins which contradicting information indicate.

Baatur is a Mongolian word, which was changed to Bahadur I've learnt from a Turkish source who studied the Turkic migration westward - so might have to track him down again. Not much records of the Mongolic people exist which is true, the secret history only documents the blue wolf and doe, but it also describes the birthplace of the Mongolic people being the Onon river - Mongolia.

Personally I've never been certain of Mongolic origins pre-Chingghisid. I once actually considered Mongols Turks before adopting a new identity much like how my tribes became Mongol in the 13th century.

So what you're saying prior to Chingghis Khaan, Mongols came from non-Xiongnu tribes, and their claim to the Huns are indeed only from subjicated people? It's a bold claim of the origins of the Mongols.

Also, you did mention the genetic makeup of Turks did alter a bit due to Causasoid interference and mixing correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, this was a while back. I have read however that archaelogical finds to date who have uncovered Xiongnu remains show definite Mongolic appearance then Turkic. However, more finds are still in progress, American and Mongolic achaeologists are digging them up as we speak. Heh.

Your theory of pure Turkic origin for the Xiongnu is not accepted as a fact yet so I'll have to research why it isn't. Thanks for this information though, I've posted a topic on pan.mongol forum (though it's small community) so hopefully one of them will answer or find someone to answer. Post is in general lounge

[Temüjin]

it is not uncommon, particularly in the Steppe that people who inhabit a certain area now have originated from somehwere else. given the fluid history of the Steppe, it is rather hard to believe that Mongols lived on the area of modern Mongolia ever since.

and btw what's up with Serbet? is that a word for Xianbei? where does it come from?