|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 0:52:07 GMT 3
Priskos the Rhetor tells us that the Saraghurs, the Ughors, and the Onoghurs sent emissaries to Byzantium. From these emissaries it was learned that some peoples living on the sea coast had driven out the Avars, who then sent the Sabirs into flight, and then Sabirs attacked the Saraghurs and Ughors, which caused these Oghur tribes to appear around the Maeotis. This occurred around 463 AD. The Oghurs did not form out of the remnants of Attila's Huns just 10 years after his death. They were already a people in existence. Some Huns probably got assimilated into the Oghurs because the Oghurs became the great power on the steppe. That doesn't make the Oghurs Huns anymore than the Jasz element in Magyars doesn't make the Magyars Jasz. Oghur tribal names were Saraghur (Sara Oghur), Onoghur (On Oghur), Khuturghur (Khutur Oghur), Uturghur (Utur Oghur). Khutur is believed to be a version of r-Turkic tokhur (z-Turkic tokhuz) 'nine'. Utur is r-Turkic for z-Turkic otuz 'thirty'. We already understand On.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 1:08:18 GMT 3
Priskos the Rhetor tells us that the Saraghurs, the Ughors, and the Onoghurs sent emissaries to Byzantium. From these emissaries it was learned that some peoples living on the sea coast had driven out the Avars, who then sent the Sabirs into flight, and then Sabirs attacked the Saraghurs and Ughors, which caused these Oghur tribes to appear around the Maeotis. This occurred around 463 AD. The Oghurs did not form out of the remnants of Attila's Huns just 10 years after his death. They were already a people in existence. Some Huns probably got assimilated into the Oghurs because the Oghurs became the great power on the steppe. That doesn't make the Oghurs Huns anymore than the Jasz element in Magyars doesn't make the Magyars Jasz. Oghur tribal names were Saraghur (Sara Oghur), Onoghur (On Oghur), Khuturghur (Khutur Oghur), Uturghur (Utur Oghur). Khutur is believed to be a version of r-Turkic tokhur (z-Turkic tokhuz) 'nine'. Utur is r-Turkic for z-Turkic otuz 'thirty'. We already understand On. This ok. But the Onogurs and Hungarians are not considered to be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 1:14:57 GMT 3
Rona-Tas mentions that the Ughurs can be found in 6th-7th century Chinese sources. They gave three characters for the names of the leading Ruanruan tribes, rendered as Yujiulü (He doesn't give the actual characters). Reconstruction of early Chinese pronunciation yields *ugur(i). Part of this tribe had stayed in the east and joined the Khitai dynasty in the 10th century.
Around 450, the Ruanruan (Avar) khaghan defeated the Ughurs, who were living in the lands vacated by the westward-fleeing Huns in 350. He placed Avar leaders at their head, called the Vars (Uars), also found in Chinese as 滑. Then they became a "leading" tribe in the Ruanruan Empire. The Var are supposedly Ephthalites and both the Var and Xion are supposed to have ruled over the Ughurs (i.e. the Varkhon).
I think you're confusing the idea of the remnants of Attila's Huns with the Xionites.
Just some notes from Wikipedia:
"The Kidarite dynasty which ruled the Xionites came from the Uar."
"The Uar and the Xionites are supposed to have united around 460 under the rule of one of the five Yuezhi families - the Hephthal."
"Alchon or Alχon (Uarkhon) became the new name of the Chionites in 460 when Khingila I united the Uar with the Chionites under his Hephthal ruling élite. In India the Alchon were not distinguished from their immediate White Huns predecessors and both are known as Sveta-Hunas there."
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 1:33:01 GMT 3
"In Old Church Slavic, if there was a nasal consonant (n, m, ng) after an o vowel, then the o itself became nasal (as at the end of words in modern French), and later the nasal on became un, and the nasal element ultimately disappeared from the un. Thus from the plural form Ongre there was a systematic shift via Ungri to Ugri. The form Ongre is the Slavic plural of Onghur or Onoghur or more like Onughur."
"It is interesting that the groups that occupied the land next to the Danube retained both the names Onoghur and Bulghar. As well as the ethnic name Onoghur, or in place of it, we often come across Onoghundur and its later versions Vlendur and Nandor. The name used by the Magyars for the Balkan Onoghurs was Nandor, and medieval Hungarian sources refer to Belgrade as Nandorfejervar (The White Castle of the Onoghur-Bulghars)."
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 1:37:29 GMT 3
Also note that Onogundur-Bulgar Empire and Onoghuria were alternate names for the old Great Bulgarian Empire. The Slavs were the ones who started calling Magyars as Ongre.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 1:44:32 GMT 3
There's too much information.  The Avar history is somewhat confusing because no one appears clear on a number of points and Onoghurs are tied up in it. I don't want to spend time right focusing on this because I've got the Roheim book in hand and want to delve into Hungarian legends... |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 1:52:44 GMT 3
There's too much information. Rather there is too few, actually  . |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 1:55:37 GMT 3
These are known to me too, but the problem in question here is that who were the Hungarians actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 2:00:01 GMT 3
There's too much information. The Avar history is somewhat confusing because no one appears clear on a number of points and Onoghurs are tied up in it. I don't want to spend time right focusing on this because I've got the Roheim book in hand and want to delve into Hungarian legends... Ok, I see, it is a complicated matter, and have fun on those  but you may can answer sometime to my earlier question on what would prove the continuity and kindred of the Hungarians and for i.e. Avars in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 2:04:21 GMT 3
I think you're confusing the idea of the remnants of Attila's Huns with the Xionites. I don't, but also not consider the European Avars as the ancestors of Uyghurs. I meaned that the Avars were described as Huns in the contemporary records of Europe. But this doesn't mean by all means that they were part of Attilanic Huns. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 3:05:52 GMT 3
No, not Uyghurs; Ughurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 3:14:42 GMT 3
There's too much information. The Avar history is somewhat confusing because no one appears clear on a number of points and Onoghurs are tied up in it. I don't want to spend time right focusing on this because I've got the Roheim book in hand and want to delve into Hungarian legends... Ok, I see, it is a complicated matter, and have fun on those but you may can answer sometime to my earlier question on what would prove the continuity and kindred of the Hungarians and for i.e. Avars in your opinion? Earlier you asked "But in your opinion what would prove the truth or falsity of the identification?" I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Continuity and kindred are two different things, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 3:48:31 GMT 3
Ok, I see, it is a complicated matter, and have fun on those but you may can answer sometime to my earlier question on what would prove the continuity and kindred of the Hungarians and for i.e. Avars in your opinion? Earlier you asked "But in your opinion what would prove the truth or falsity of the identification?" I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Continuity and kindred are two different things, no? Yes there is difference, but I meaned that if the people of Onogurs and Ungars are different they may have been confused in the sources, and they had different origins. There were On-Ogurs and (H)ungars too, separately. And parts of the latter Hungarian tribes were among the Avars and Onogur/Proto-Bulgars and Sabirs too. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 3:59:17 GMT 3
yes, I see  , sry Just some notes from Wikipedia: "The Kidarite dynasty which ruled the Xionites came from the Uar." "The Uar and the Xionites are supposed to have united around 460 under the rule of one of the five Yuezhi families - the Hephthal." "Alchon or Alχon (Uarkhon) became the new name of the Chionites in 460 when Khingila I united the Uar with the Chionites under his Hephthal ruling élite. In India the Alchon were not distinguished from their immediate White Huns predecessors and both are known as Sveta-Hunas there." I meaned the Varchuns as the Avars, partly of white Hunnic origin. And noting that in the Hungarian chronicles/legends there is also a mention of a ruler named Kadar, what could be a referring to the Kidarita dynasty of the Avar khagans, if they had such origin. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 8:08:54 GMT 3
I'm hoping someone else can elucidate us on the details about the Ruanruan, these Ughur/Yujielu and Var. I could repeat what Rona-Tas writes, but honestly he isn't exactly clear to me on the "pseudo" Avars versus the "real" Avars. On the one hand, the "pseudo" Avars are supposed to be Ughurs who are calling themselves Avars due to the name's prestige. On the other hand the "real" Avars are Ughurs who are being ruled by Varkhons or the Varkhons themselves are the "real" Avars. I suppose I need to go review what my other Central Asian history books say...
|
|
.
, sry