Hungarians

[Subu'atai]

I managed to grab a source off a Mongol who translated a Russian's Turkologist book called "Ancient Turks" by L.N. Gumilev. Which although this text is based on Asena (mother of Turks), it contradicts Turkic claims to native Mongolia.

Descendants of a she-wolf. The knowledge of family trees and their special studying was long since characteristic for centralasian people . It is Thus rather curious that many of them named the ancestor of this or that animal. So, Mongols - a grey wolf and a fallow deer, Teleuts - too a wolf and the daughter of shan-yu of Huns, and Turks from Huns kings and a she-wolf considered as the ancestors and the Tibetians of the male of a monkey and a female rakshas (wood spirit). Two last legends have arisen very much for a long time, apparently even in dwelling of these people on southern suburb of great desert Gobi as the mythology is somewhat corrected by the facts of political history and etnogenez. Among the tribes won Toba people at conquest by them of northern China, there were "five hundred families Ashina" . These "five hundred families" have arisen "from mixture of different sorts" Shaanxis living in the western part, won in IV century at Chineses Huns and Xianbeys . Ashina submitted to prince Muganju of Huns owning Hesi (area to the West from Ordosa, between a bend of Huang He and Nanshanem). When in 439 Toba people have won Huns and have attached Hesi to empire Vej the prince "Ashina with five hundred families ran to Juan Juan people and, having lodged on a South side of the Altay mountains, extracted iron for Juan juan people" . The text narrates about an origin not all people ancient òurkic, but only their ruling clan. In this version of an origin ancient òurk anything legendary is not present. Apparently, Ashina was the leader of the small team consisting from , for some reason or other not got on in numerous Xianbey"s and Hun"s princedoms. Such small military units which it is impossible to name the states, constantly arose during a rebellious epoch III - V centuries and disappeared, without having left a trace. Chineses named subject khans of Ashina - Tyu-kyu. This word is successfully deciphered by P.Pelo as "the Turk +iuò", i.e." Turks ", but with plural suffix not Turkic, but Mongolian. In old-Turkic language all political terms are made out by the Mongolian plural. It gives the grounds to think that they are introduced in the Turkic language environment from the outside. The word" turk "meaned" strong, strong ". According to A.N.Kononovu, it is a collective name which has turned subsequently to the ethnic name of breeding association. Whichever there was an initial language of this association, by V century when it left on the history arena, to all its representatives interbreeding language of that time - Xianbey was clear, i.e. ancient mongolian. It was language of a command, a market, diplomacy. With this language of Ashina in 439 have passed to northern suburb Gobi. The word" Ashina "meant" a wolf ". On-turkish a wolf - Buri or Kaskir, and on-mongolian Shino or Chino" And "- a respect prefix in the Chinese language. Hence," Ashina "means" a noble wolf ". The word has remained in the Arabian record of this name of Shane . A question on that, it is how much lawful to name khans of Ashina , at a current state of our knowledge cannot be resolved
, but it is clear that the name "wolf" had for VI. huge value. The Chinese authors consider concepts "the Turkic khan" and "wolf" as synonyms, probably leaning against views of Turkic khans. Not casually a queen of Xianbey speaks about the husband, khan Shabolio: "the khan on its properties is a wolf" and in the instruction at an attack on òurks it is told:" That should use a measure: to drive nomadic and to attack wolves . The gold wolf head flaunted on Turkic banners , and, at last, in two legends about an origin of turks the first place belongs to the progenitress-she-wolf . For both a little legends that in them there is no hint on historical event - transition of a horde of Ashina from Gansu is characteristic. Therefore it seems legends have arisen on Altai and, maybe, have been created to prove specially the rights of newcomers to exclusive position. The first legend is curious that she knows about" branches of the house of Hunnu from the Western edge on the West ", i.e. about power Attila. This branch has been absolutely exterminated by neighbours; one nine-year boy to whom enemies have chopped off hands and feet has escaped only, and most have thrown in a bog. There from it the she-wolf has become pregnant. The boy all the same have killed, and the she-wolf has escaped to Altai and there has given birth ten sons. The sort has bred, and "after the lapse of several knees somebody Asjan-she with all tribes left a cave and recognised itself as the vassal of the Juan Juans khan". So, according to this legend, the Altay Turks-tukyu (òurkiut) occur from western Huns, but not directly, and miserely, via a she-wolf, and, if to consider that western Huns have been destroyed about 468, and Turks act as the people already in 545 it would be possible to marvel only to speed of their reproduction and alternation of generations! The second legend deduces òurk from a local sort With and besides she-wolves. All representatives of a sort With, on a legend, were lost "because of own nonsense" (in what it was shown, it is not explained), only four grandsons of a she-wolf have escaped. The first has turned in a swan, the second has lodged between the rivers Abu and Gjan under a name of Tsigu, and the third and the fourth - on the river of Chusi (Chui) in southern Altai. This legend is explained Í. And. Aristov who has compared From a legend with it come With at Kumandins - the North Altay tribe on the river of Bie, the first grandson has co-ordinated to a tribe Swan - ku-kizhi, and the second - with Kirgis, living between Abakan (Abu) and Yenisei (Gjan-whom). The grandson of the elder son - Asjanshe of the first legend. Here both of them are closed . Foothills of Mongolian Altai where fugitives have got, have been occupied by the tribes occurring from Huns and speaking in Turkic languages. With these natives combatants of prince Ashina have merged and have allocated with their name "Turks", or "Turkiut". The destiny of this word is so remarkable and important for our theme that it is necessary to give particular attention to this plot. The word "Turks" for 1500 some times changed value

Whatever origin there were those "five hundred families" which have united under a name of Ashina, between themselves they spoke in mongolian until peripetias of military success have not thrown out them from China to Altai. However centenary stay in òurkospeaking, certainly, should promote to environment fast change of informal conversation as "five hundred families" of Mongols were a drop in the Turkic sea. Probably that to the middle of VI century and members of a sort of Ashina and their companions were absolutely divided out and have kept traces mongolianspeakness only in òitul which have brought with itself. On the basis of the above-stated it is visible that an origin òþðêîÿçû÷èÿ and occurrence of the people which have named "Turks" "Turkiut", - the phenomena absolutely different. The languages nowadays named Turkic, have developed in an extreme antiquity , and the people "Turkiuts" have arisen in the end of V century owing to ethnic mixture in the conditions of a forest-steppe landscape, characteristic for Altai and its foothills. Merge of newcomers to local population has appeared so full that in hundred years, to 546, they represented that integrity which it is accepted to name ancient turkish a nationality or òurkiuts.

I think I need to study this book further though I'll still have to get in contact with this guy. Ne ways either then arguing about languages the Turkic identity never rose until the Gokturk period nor did Mongol identity rise until the Mongol period. Now I'm going to be sober again! Meh, I think I'll drink instead and reply to this topic in a few days ;D

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Well you have denied all the evidences, I don't think you would accept anything else, but still I'll keep posting. I will not let anyone twist history here in my place ;D ;D

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.

Do you think Eberhard studied Central Asian history with the language of the Zulus? ;D ;D Just like Pelliot, he also was a very good Sinologist. Besides, I have used the same sources Eberhard has used. Plus, Pelliot does not deny the Turkicness of the Huns.

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.

Well well, Mongols are just trying to glorify their history and I don't really care, Mongols are barely scientific at all ;D (no offence to Mongolians ;D - hell yeah, most of the Turkic scholars are barely scientific either ;D)

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.

No, the link doesn't contain any Chinese characters, but if your computer doesn't have Chinese support, it wouldn't change much at all, even if you can enter the site, you can't use it But hey, maybe someone would use that anyway ;D As for the language of the Huns and Tabġač, you must read Boodberg, Bazin and Maenchen-Helfen. Nothing has failed from these. Trying to disproove them like what some obscure Hungarian guys do, claiming that the Huns spoke a Palaeosiberian language, is out of way. I won't buy into such unscientific theories that have political basis (I'm sure the inventor of that silly theory is an Ugrist who tries to proove that the Huns were Ugric, thus direct ancestors of Magyars).

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.

How can you proove that Baġatur is Mongolian? You did not give me a convincing etymology, I'm still waiting Oh and no, Old Turkic Baġatur or Boġatïr became Bahadur in much later Western Turkic dialects.

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.

That is birthplace of the original Mongqol people, which was just one of the many Mongolic peoples. And if you check Chinese sources, you can see that the Shiwei 室韋 lived very close to the place described in the Secret History of the Mongols. But before the appearance of the Mongqol people, and before the appearance of the Shiwei 室韋, there still were other Mongolic peoples.

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.

Read Eberhard's China's Northern Neighbors (hope it has an English translation).

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.

It is not a claim, it is a certified fact as I have shown you.

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.

Ok, what do you mean by Mongolic appearance? You surely confused the terms Mongolic with Mongoloid, which goes for all Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic peoples. And what is your definition of Turkic appearance anyway?

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

A lot of Western scholars have accepted that the original Hunnic people that founded the Asian Hun Empire and ruled over many Turkic, Mongolic, Tokharian, etc peoples who also became called as Huns was of Turkic stock. This is what I have been pointing to everyone from the very beginning. Politicially, the name Hun includes everyone living in this empire, just like how the name Türk was used during the Türk Qaġanate period. Ethnicially, the original Huns were a Turkic people like the Dingling 丁零 and the Jiankun 堅昆 (Qïrġïz).

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

Paul Pelliot has suggested that the Chinese transcriptions Xianbei 鮮卑 stand for a Proto-Mongolic name which he reconstructed as *Särbi, plus suggesting that it's plural was *Särbät. I prefer writing it as Serbi and Serbet.

I managed to grab a source off a Mongol who translated a Russian's Turkologist book called "Ancient Turks" by L.N. Gumilev. Which although this text is based on Asena (mother of Turks), it contradicts Turkic claims to native Mongolia.

Gumilëv did not have access to the Chinese sources themselves and he did not know the Chinese language. He used the earliest translations made to Russian in the 19th century, which contain quite a lot of errors. Gumilëv just didn't have any idea what he was actually writing about. He is not a credible scholar when compared with Édouard Chavannes or Paul Pelliot or Wolfram Eberhard or Annamarie von Gabain or James Russell Hamilton or Mori Masao 護雅夫. Don't come to me with him, please ;D

Chineses named subject khans of Ashina - Tyu-kyu. This word is successfully deciphered by P.Pelo as "the Turk +iuò", i.e." Turks ", but with plural suffix not Turkic, but Mongolian. In old-Turkic language all political terms are made out by the Mongolian plural.

Yes, I faced with this excuse while writing my thesis. It was actually first made by Pelliot himself. I had to challenge this theory, because the useage of "-t" as plural suffix is not unique to Mongols, it also existed in Old Turkic and it was not a borrowing from Mongolian, it was a common suffix that probably survived from the common-Altaic-language phase. Like "-t", Turkic and Mongolian share some other plurality suffixes such as "-s", "-z" and "-š". I am not sure if Mongolian has "-n" as plurality suffix too, but Old Turkic has. Only the "-lär/-lar" suffix is unique to Turkic, as far as I know. Anyway, regarding these facts, Pelliot's theory is outdated.

Whatever origin there were those "five hundred families" which have united under a name of Ashina, between themselves they spoke in mongolian until peripetias of military success have not thrown out them from China to Altai. However centenary stay in òurkospeaking, certainly, should promote to environment fast change of informal conversation as "five hundred families" of Mongols were a drop in the Turkic sea.

Yes, I had read Gumilëv's book's translation during my BA years. He appearantly did not get his facts straight. He simply does not have any evidence to proove that the earliest Türük (Tujue 突厥) tribes were Mongolic. That is just not true. The Türük people was composed of Huns, some South Siberian Turkic tribes probably related with the Yenisei Qïrġïz and some Turkic tribes, maybe descendents of Western Huns that did not migrate to Europe and stay in Turkistan (they were appearently under some Iranic lingual influence, as some of the names and titles of the Türük nobility being of Iranic and Sanskrit origin proove this). Gumilëv claims that the original Türük tribes were of Serbi origin, but he shows no solid evidence and appearently, he does not have a clear idea about the ethnic structure of Northern China of that period. Contrary to him, Eberhard is the perfect expert on this.

I think I need to study this book further though I'll still have to get in contact with this guy. Ne ways either then arguing about languages the Turkic identity never rose until the Gokturk period nor did Mongol identity rise until the Mongol period.

The existence of languages and cultures is something else, the existence of a common "pan-like" identity among related peoples is something else.

Now I'm going to be sober again! Meh, I think I'll drink instead and reply to this topic in a few days ;D

LOLOL ;D ;D

[Subu'atai]

LOL evidence contradicts itself with Xiongnu research which you should know full well ;D

Well, this is pretty much as far as evidence goes. I think I gave out all the information I could, though I invited some to this topic to provide some more. As for myself, I'm not staying sober to argue this ne longer! ;D

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

LOL which evidences? ;D ;D

[Subu'atai]

Both your sources and mine (another Mongol's actually but he should be here to discuss this and I should be drunk! But it's the other way around for now)

I don't really like discrediting sources myself, I treat them as pieces of a puzzle, but that's just me.

We kinda went a little deeper and I can't really agree on it as a fact until it's unquestioned myself. But it does seem the Huns did have a Turkic form of government. Either then that, I'm skeptical on everything else. Ne ways it is really hard to discuss this when more then half of Mongolic tribes today are also considered Turkic.

[sarmat]

Nov 26, 2008 0:41:58 GMT 3 Subu'atai said:

I managed to grab a source off a Mongol who translated a Russian's Turkologist book called "Ancient Turks" by L.N. Gumilev. Which although this text is based on Asena (mother of Turks), it contradicts Turkic claims to native Mongolia.

Descendants of a she-wolf. The knowledge of family trees and their special studying was long since characteristic for centralasian people . It is Thus rather curious that many of them named the ancestor of this or that animal. So, Mongols - a grey wolf and a fallow deer, Teleuts - too a wolf and the daughter of shan-yu of Huns, and Turks from Huns kings and a she-wolf considered as the ancestors and the Tibetians of the male of a monkey and a female rakshas (wood spirit). Two last legends have arisen very much for a long time, apparently even in dwelling of these people on southern suburb of great desert Gobi as the mythology is somewhat corrected by the facts of political history and etnogenez. Among the tribes won Toba people at conquest by them of northern China, there were "five hundred families Ashina" . These "five hundred families" have arisen "from mixture of different sorts" Shaanxis living in the western part, won in IV century at Chineses Huns and Xianbeys . Ashina submitted to prince Muganju of Huns owning Hesi (area to the West from Ordosa, between a bend of Huang He and Nanshanem). When in 439 Toba people have won Huns and have attached Hesi to empire Vej the prince "Ashina with five hundred families ran to Juan Juan people and, having lodged on a South side of the Altay mountains, extracted iron for Juan juan people" . The text narrates about an origin not all people ancient òurkic, but only their ruling clan. In this version of an origin ancient òurk anything legendary is not present. Apparently, Ashina was the leader of the small team consisting from , for some reason or other not got on in numerous Xianbey"s and Hun"s princedoms. Such small military units which it is impossible to name the states, constantly arose during a rebellious epoch III - V centuries and disappeared, without having left a trace. Chineses named subject khans of Ashina - Tyu-kyu. This word is successfully deciphered by P.Pelo as "the Turk +iuò", i.e." Turks ", but with plural suffix not Turkic, but Mongolian. In old-Turkic language all political terms are made out by the Mongolian plural. It gives the grounds to think that they are introduced in the Turkic language environment from the outside. The word" turk "meaned" strong, strong ". According to A.N.Kononovu, it is a collective name which has turned subsequently to the ethnic name of breeding association. Whichever there was an initial language of this association, by V century when it left on the history arena, to all its representatives interbreeding language of that time - Xianbey was clear, i.e. ancient mongolian. It was language of a command, a market, diplomacy. With this language of Ashina in 439 have passed to northern suburb Gobi. The word" Ashina "meant" a wolf ". On-turkish a wolf - Buri or Kaskir, and on-mongolian Shino or Chino" And "- a respect prefix in the Chinese language. Hence," Ashina "means" a noble wolf ". The word has remained in the Arabian record of this name of Shane . A question on that, it is how much lawful to name khans of Ashina , at a current state of our knowledge cannot be resolved
, but it is clear that the name "wolf" had for VI. huge value. The Chinese authors consider concepts "the Turkic khan" and "wolf" as synonyms, probably leaning against views of Turkic khans. Not casually a queen of Xianbey speaks about the husband, khan Shabolio: "the khan on its properties is a wolf" and in the instruction at an attack on òurks it is told:" That should use a measure: to drive nomadic and to attack wolves . The gold wolf head flaunted on Turkic banners , and, at last, in two legends about an origin of turks the first place belongs to the progenitress-she-wolf . For both a little legends that in them there is no hint on historical event - transition of a horde of Ashina from Gansu is characteristic. Therefore it seems legends have arisen on Altai and, maybe, have been created to prove specially the rights of newcomers to exclusive position. The first legend is curious that she knows about" branches of the house of Hunnu from the Western edge on the West ", i.e. about power Attila. This branch has been absolutely exterminated by neighbours; one nine-year boy to whom enemies have chopped off hands and feet has escaped only, and most have thrown in a bog. There from it the she-wolf has become pregnant. The boy all the same have killed, and the she-wolf has escaped to Altai and there has given birth ten sons. The sort has bred, and "after the lapse of several knees somebody Asjan-she with all tribes left a cave and recognised itself as the vassal of the Juan Juans khan". So, according to this legend, the Altay Turks-tukyu (òurkiut) occur from western Huns, but not directly, and miserely, via a she-wolf, and, if to consider that western Huns have been destroyed about 468, and Turks act as the people already in 545 it would be possible to marvel only to speed of their reproduction and alternation of generations! The second legend deduces òurk from a local sort With and besides she-wolves. All representatives of a sort With, on a legend, were lost "because of own nonsense" (in what it was shown, it is not explained), only four grandsons of a she-wolf have escaped. The first has turned in a swan, the second has lodged between the rivers Abu and Gjan under a name of Tsigu, and the third and the fourth - on the river of Chusi (Chui) in southern Altai. This legend is explained Í. And. Aristov who has compared From a legend with it come With at Kumandins - the North Altay tribe on the river of Bie, the first grandson has co-ordinated to a tribe Swan - ku-kizhi, and the second - with Kirgis, living between Abakan (Abu) and Yenisei (Gjan-whom). The grandson of the elder son - Asjanshe of the first legend. Here both of them are closed . Foothills of Mongolian Altai where fugitives have got, have been occupied by the tribes occurring from Huns and speaking in Turkic languages. With these natives combatants of prince Ashina have merged and have allocated with their name "Turks", or "Turkiut". The destiny of this word is so remarkable and important for our theme that it is necessary to give particular attention to this plot. The word "Turks" for 1500 some times changed value

Whatever origin there were those "five hundred families" which have united under a name of Ashina, between themselves they spoke in mongolian until peripetias of military success have not thrown out them from China to Altai. However centenary stay in òurkospeaking, certainly, should promote to environment fast change of informal conversation as "five hundred families" of Mongols were a drop in the Turkic sea. Probably that to the middle of VI century and members of a sort of Ashina and their companions were absolutely divided out and have kept traces mongolianspeakness only in òitul which have brought with itself. On the basis of the above-stated it is visible that an origin òþðêîÿçû÷èÿ and occurrence of the people which have named "Turks" "Turkiut", - the phenomena absolutely different. The languages nowadays named Turkic, have developed in an extreme antiquity , and the people "Turkiuts" have arisen in the end of V century owing to ethnic mixture in the conditions of a forest-steppe landscape, characteristic for Altai and its foothills. Merge of newcomers to local population has appeared so full that in hundred years, to 546, they represented that integrity which it is accepted to name ancient turkish a nationality or òurkiuts.

I think I need to study this book further though I'll still have to get in contact with this guy. Ne ways either then arguing about languages the Turkic identity never rose until the Gokturk period nor did Mongol identity rise until the Mongol period. Now I'm going to be sober again! Meh, I think I'll drink instead and reply to this topic in a few days ;D

Speaking of Gumilev. He never doubted that Hunnu were Turkic. To be more precise. He believed that Xiongnu were Turkic and European Huns are Xiongnu with Ugric admixture. He wrote a number of special articles about that.

The paragraph posted just analyzes the origins of Ashina clan and hypothesize that it could be Mongolic or Donghu. However, Gumilev views of Ancient Turks and their relation to Xiongnu and occupation of the lands of Modern Mongolia is complitely in line with the "Turkic view." In fact "Turkic view" is based on Gumilev's works.

And he is not just a Turkologist. He studied all the nomades. Though Turks and Mongols are his favorites.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Oh and yes, forgot to mention this ;D

www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml

[hjernespiser]

Pulleyblank and Vovin are far from "obscure Hungarian guys" advocating for a Yeniseian language for the Xiong-nu. (Or are you referring to the Csaba Detre Hun word list with Magyar words in it?) I respect that you, Ihsan, view Turkish sources as too biased in this matter and try to rely upon non-Turkish scholars for your information. I don't see how this is any different. Vovin is a historical linguist specializing in Altaics, particularly Japanese. Interestingly, apparently he used to be an advocate for the Altaic language family but has since become critical of the theory. You can see a list of his publications here: www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sulj/vovin.html

To be fair, I'd like to read responses and criticisms to Vovin's independent verification of Pulleyblank's theory, but haven't heard of any yet. Boodberg, Bazin and Maenchen-Helfen are getting outdated, not through any fault of their own. We sadly don't have the luxury of knowing what their opinions would be if they were given the chance to review the amount of new linguistic data collected since they published.

As for Gumilev, the Dingling article over at Wikipedia got a lot of criticism for being too heavily based on Gumilev. In particular, there was a claim that the Dingling were "tattooed giants with red hair" according to Chinese sources and that this was coming from Gumilev's writing. Apparently there is no Chinese source regarding the Dingling as being "tattooed giants with red hair". I'm ignorant of the details, personally.

Regarding the question about if the Mongols descended from Xiong-nu, I think it rather disingenuous towards human nature to suggest it can only be one way or the other. People like having sex! People living in a certain area tend to have descent from the conquered just as much as from the conquerors.

[hjernespiser]

Nov 25, 2008 20:59:42 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

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 ... 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.

Just wondering...

Are you saying there aren't any Turkish scholars worth their salt? (That would be unfortunate!) Or are you avoiding Turkish scholars in order to remove any perception of bias because of the bad rep caused by Pan-Turkism? What's the real state of scholarship in Turkey?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Pulleyblank and Vovin are far from "obscure Hungarian guys" advocating for a Yeniseian language for the Xiong-nu. (Or are you referring to the Csaba Detre Hun word list with Magyar words in it?)

I know they are not obscure Hungarians ;D But the inventor of this theory is Hungarian, as you pointed out.

Vovin is a historical linguist specializing in Altaics, particularly Japanese. Interestingly, apparently he used to be an advocate for the Altaic language family but has since become critical of the theory. You can see a list of his publications here: www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sulj/vovin.html

Hmm ok, but appearently, his specialisation is Japanese, right? Not Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic or Palaeosiberian languages.

Boodberg, Bazin and Maenchen-Helfen are getting outdated, not through any fault of their own. We sadly don't have the luxury of knowing what their opinions would be if they were given the chance to review the amount of new linguistic data collected since they published.

Well, sorry but they are not outdated. Regarding the lingual materials of the Asian Huns and the Tabġač found in Chinese sources, these sources always give both the sounds and the original meanings. Boodberg and Bazin have successfully decoded and reconstructed so many words correctly that it would be impossible to simply rule them out. That would be out of way.

As for Gumilev, the Dingling article over at Wikipedia got a lot of criticism for being too heavily based on Gumilev. In particular, there was a claim that the Dingling were "tattooed giants with red hair" according to Chinese sources and that this was coming from Gumilev's writing. Apparently there is no Chinese source regarding the Dingling as being "tattooed giants with red hair". I'm ignorant of the details, personally.

The Chinese sources describe the Dingling 丁零 as people whose bodies were covered with hair from head to toe. No mention of red hair nor tattoes. Gumilëv probably confused them with the Yenisei Qïrġïz.

Just wondering...

Are you saying there aren't any Turkish scholars worth their salt? (That would be unfortunate!) Or are you avoiding Turkish scholars in order to remove any perception of bias because of the bad rep caused by Pan-Turkism? What's the real state of scholarship in Turkey?

Well, sort of all inbetween. The number of Turkish scholars studying who knew or know Classical Chinese is very low (the only ones since the 1930s are Muhaddere Özerdim, Bahaeddin Ögel, Ayşe Onat, Özkan İzgi, İsenbike Togan, Gülçin Çandarlıoğlu, Polat Otkan, Ahmet Taşağıl and Konuralp Ercilasun; but there are also a few Uyġurs in Turkey who know Chinese). Most of the scholars using Chinese sources used them from translations and most of the time, they don't have any idea about the language itself, causing them to make some serious mistakes. Plus, an important number of scholars are highly biased and blinded from Pan-Turkism (I don't want to give any names here).

[hjernespiser]

Nov 26, 2008 23:25:10 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Pulleyblank and Vovin are far from "obscure Hungarian guys" advocating for a Yeniseian language for the Xiong-nu. (Or are you referring to the Csaba Detre Hun word list with Magyar words in it?)

I know they are not obscure Hungarians ;D But the inventor of this theory is Hungarian, as you pointed out.

I don't really consider Lajos Ligeti obscure though. He was a philologist specializing in Altaic languages. If anything, his bias would have been towards Turkic for Xiong-nu. www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/ligeti/LLeletrajz.en.utf8.html

From a footnote in Vovin's article:
"The first suggestion that the Xiong-nu language may belong to Yeniseian family belongs to Ligeti who demonstrated that Xiong-nu (more exactly Hu) *sak-dak "shoe" is reminiscent of Ket sagdi "id." (1950), however, it was Pulleyblank who presented the credible evidence first that also included examples from basic vocabulary."

Hmm ok, but appearently, his specialisation is Japanese, right? Not Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic or Palaeosiberian languages.

True and that may count for something, but it also counts for something that linguistics is a symbolic logic discipline, like mathematics. Application of the methods in one language is generally transferable to other languages. And if it isn't, it means the theory driving the method requires refinement or replacement. Mostly when someone "specializes" in a certain language or language family, it means they are familiar with the current research related to it, are familiar with the theories surrounding it, not that the methods of study are any different.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

I don't really consider Lajos Ligeti obscure though. He was a philologist specializing in Altaic languages. If anything, his bias would have been towards Turkic for Xiong-nu. www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/ligeti/LLeletrajz.en.utf8.html

Uh oh, sorry, didn't notice it was Lajos Ligeti who first made up the theory... I mis-remembered the name with somebody else's Ligeti was a serious researcher of course. I take back my "obscure Hungarian" expression.

From a footnote in Vovin's article:
"The first suggestion that the Xiong-nu language may belong to Yeniseian family belongs to Ligeti who demonstrated that Xiong-nu (more exactly Hu) *sak-dak "shoe" is reminiscent of Ket sagdi "id." (1950), however, it was Pulleyblank who presented the credible evidence first that also included examples from basic vocabulary."

Ok, but that is still one word. What about the hundreds of Turkic words?

True and that may count for something, but it also counts for something that linguistics is a symbolic logic discipline, like mathematics. Application of the methods in one language is generally transferable to other languages. And if it isn't, it means the theory driving the method requires refinement or replacement. Mostly when someone "specializes" in a certain language or language family, it means they are familiar with the current research related to it, are familiar with the theories surrounding it, not that the methods of study are any different.

I see. Still, I would prefer somebody who is the expert of the exact field (i.e. Sinology, Turkology and Mongolistics, like Pelliot, for example).

[hjernespiser]

Nov 27, 2008 3:49:02 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Uh oh, sorry, didn't notice it was Lajos Ligeti who first made up the theory... I mis-remembered the name with somebody else's Ligeti was a serious researcher of course. I take back my "obscure Hungarian" expression.

That's ok. The field is still rife with obscure Hungarians too.

Ok, but that is still one word. What about the hundreds of Turkic words?

I can't really answer that question I guess as I haven't looked at it enough. The Vovin article focuses mostly on the Jie poem and isn't a complete review of the problem. He writes a little bit about some vocabulary and concludes that Xiong-nu must have been phonologically a Pumpokol-like language. What someone needs to really do is review those other words and the older work on the subject using some newer sources like Vovin did, i.e., Baxter for Old Chinese pronunciation. It would probably reveal some exciting new information.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Ok, I see

[Subu'atai]

Well there's also theories about Xiongnu being also Soghdian o.O