|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 8:39:04 GMT 3
Rona-Tas again on the Onoghur name being applied to Magyars...
The story of the ethnic name Onoghur in Europe can thus be traced from the middle of the 5th century up to the time of the Conquest. Until the 7th century, the ethnic name Onoghur denoted the people who lived on the Pontus steppe. After the fall of Khuvrat's empire, the part of the Turkic people who moved to the Danube area were called Onoghur and Onoghundur, and the subsequent versions of these, and Bulghar. It is also clear that the ethnic names Onoghur and Onughur were used for the Magyars by the Slavs. All that remains to determine is the time and the place.
The Slavs emerged in the Balkans over the period from the middle of the 6th century up to the 630s. Around 670, the Onoghur-Bulghars who arrived in the Danube area were certainly known by these two names. The ethnic name Onoghur persisted from that time on among the Slavs as the name of peoples who followed a nomadic way of life and spoke a Turkic language or had a Turkic culture. It is highly probably, but difficult to prove, that the Slavic version of the ethnic name Onoghur was extended to the Magyars living in the Etelkoz. The ancient Russian chronicles note that the Magyars passed below Kiev, and in one place year Kiev was still known at the time of writing the chronicles as the Hill of the Ugrians. The Russian chronicles mention the White Ugrians, who, following the Bulghars, settled on the lands of the Slovenes by the banks of the Danube. These Ugrians emerged, so the primary chronicle claims, at the time of Emperor Heraclius (610-641). Since the Russian primary chronicle was written in the 11th century, no great importance is attached to whom the Slavs actually called White Ugrians, i.e. Magyars, in the 7th century. In any case, the Slavs had relations with the White Ugrians from the beginning of the 7th century. What is certain is that the neighbours of the Slavs adopted the Slav form Ungri (< ongre) to designate the Magyars, and that this could not have occurred later than the 9th century, because subsequently the nasal element disappeared from the word. Weighing up the arguments from history and the process of phonetic change, the Slavic form must have passed to the Slavs' neighbours in the late 8th or the 9th century.
Then he goes on to mention the legends of Cyril and Methodius, who also called the Magyars Ugri. Both Cyril and Methodius may have met with Magyars on the Crimean Peninsula in 861 and Methodius with the "Ugrian King" on the bank of the Danube in 881-882, somewhere on the lower course of the river, on his way to Constantinople. No available manuscript of the Cyril legend is earlier than a 15th century copy. The earliest Methodius manuscript is from the 12th century. In the original manuscripts the form was quite certainly Ungri, which means that the Slavs used this name for the Magyars after the middle of the 9th century. It was from them that the Slavs' neighbours took the word and, as evidence from sources attest, only used it for the Magyars from the year 882 onwards. After the Conquest this became the most frequent designation of the Magyars in Latin sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedrito on Jan 30, 2009 11:45:41 GMT 3
Maotun and hjernespiser: Sorry, but I was wrong in my communication (always my big issue  ) - what I meant by being within the Czech Kingdom was more meaning that we were under the same ROYAL FAMILY. That's what I meant, not that Hungary was essential part of the Czech Crown territory. Therefore since we were under same Royal Family, the people tended to move around. That's why I was referring to settlements of Slavic people in Hungary, but also vice versa some Hungarians went to current Moravia. I hope now it is clearer. Also what is related to the families - yes, I know Luxembourg were foreigners  Just the name, but what I meant was the fact that in Charles IV. the Czech Premyslid family merged with Luxembourg, since his mother was from Premyslid family. Hence the continuation and Charles strong inclination towards his Premyslid roots and his sentiment towards Bohemia. On the other hand Sigimund was rather referring to his Luxembourg blood although this was very marginal given the origin of his mother and father. At the end it is the preference of any person to prefer what he wants. I know that Hungarian perceive him as very important king in their history. Same for Jagellonians - I know they were old Polish/Lithuanian family however Vladislav, if I'm not wrong, was also connected with Premyslid/Luxembourg roots due to his mother. That's what I technically meant. BTW Great Moravia - well, it's more complicated than that Hungarians sent help, you are right. But the complexity of relations within Moravia is actually still under deeper research and it is not my favorite period, so I am not fully aware of new outcomes. What is concerning the Ottokar and the impact after battle - sorry it is not truth about Holy Empire, I don't wanna largely dwell on this topic anymore, since it is very complicated. If you were referring that we lost Austria, Croatia, etc. - yes. What we lost from our historical Crown Territory unluckily was Moravia, but Bohemia and Silesia (on current geography) remained intact and in Czech hands. I know in foreign literature it is written then the Czechs had only area around Prague, but if the kingdom was so weak how come that we went to campaign in Poland (Krakow, etc.) ?? And rule of Otto IV Margrave of Brandenburg I hope is not perceived abroad as part of Holy Roman Empire?? But as I said the most difficult part when we can be perceived as part of Holy Empire is the time of princedoms from 800-1000 AD and 1600-1620, which based on the newer discoveries of documents is really hard to explain now. This will need greater explanation and reference to books - however 800-1000 is the part which is commonly referred in foreign literature as we sort of became vassals or semi-vassals like e.g. of Henry II. in 1003, etc. However the proper analysis of the various bulas issued by Holy Emperors, due to Czech involvement in Italian, Polish campaigns, etc. is really a topic on a historical study. But I agree that this area is very complicated from foreign point of view, since even Czech historians has different interpretations, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Pedrito on Jan 30, 2009 12:03:31 GMT 3
But I have also one question towards Hungarians - in various chronicles it is written that Avars when they came to Hungary were accompanied by Chionittes. However based on what is known to me, I didn't see what happened after - one theory claims they settled within Byzantine, on the other hand the other theory states that they went north to Slovakia, Poland, etc. Do you have any information concerning these tribes?
Thank you - why is it important is that one polish friend was "playing" with idea that the name of Poland at the end might come from Chionittes and their Polona empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 18:55:57 GMT 3
Maotun and hjernespiser: Sorry, but I was wrong in my communication (always my big issue ) - what I meant by being within the Czech Kingdom was more meaning that we were under the same ROYAL FAMILY. That's what I meant, not that Hungary was essential part of the Czech Crown territory. Therefore since we were under same Royal Family, the people tended to move around. That's why I was referring to settlements of Slavic people in Hungary, but also vice versa some Hungarians went to current Moravia. I hope now it is clearer. Yes, it is clean now, thx. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 19:02:56 GMT 3
But I have also one question towards Hungarians - in various chronicles it is written that Avars when they came to Hungary were accompanied by Chionittes. However based on what is known to me, I didn't see what happened after - one theory claims they settled within Byzantine, on the other hand the other theory states that they went north to Slovakia, Poland, etc. Do you have any information concerning these tribes? Thank you - why is it important is that one polish friend was "playing" with idea that the name of Poland at the end might come from Chionittes and their Polona empire. About Chionittes and Poland, I never heard of that. I only read that after the Frank war the remained western Avars, settled around Sabaria, in Hungary, and presentday Burgenland in Austria. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 19:36:58 GMT 3
Rona-Tas again on the Onoghur name being applied to Magyars... Then he goes on to mention the legends of Cyril and Methodius, who also called the Magyars Ugri. Both Cyril and Methodius may have met with Magyars on the Crimean Peninsula in 861 and Methodius with the "Ugrian King" on the bank of the Danube in 881-882, somewhere on the lower course of the river, on his way to Constantinople. No available manuscript of the Cyril legend is earlier than a 15th century copy. The earliest Methodius manuscript is from the 12th century. In the original manuscripts the form was quite certainly Ungri, which means that the Slavs used this name for the Magyars after the middle of the 9th century. It was from them that the Slavs' neighbours took the word and, as evidence from sources attest, only used it for the Magyars from the year 882 onwards. After the Conquest this became the most frequent designation of the Magyars in Latin sources. So it is a name of them from 882 in Rona-Tas' opinion. It is oblivously errorous, because they were mentioned in 862 in Annales Bertiniani, and 881 in Annales Salzburg, or if Rona has right, who were these people? But the main question here that what was their name among Slavs before these dates, because it is known from Persian sources that they lived nearby Slavs and made a number of wars against them in Etelkoz and Lebedia. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 20:30:50 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. An intersting coincidence: in Hungarian pronunciation these names Ruan-ruan, juan-juan, are zsuanzsuan, so this Yujiulü is can be (N)Yüzsi-(g)ő, which means wriggling, which was their Chinese designation "wriggling insects/fodder". This is errorous: most historians consider them as Xianbei, also the Book of Wei states them as an offshoot of the Xianbei. 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... So in my opinion the Ruanruan was the Tan-Tan (Chinese pinyin: Tántán; literally "Tartar"), the ancestors of Tartars. And for Avars: 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. The Alchon were called Varkhon or Varkunites (OuarKhonitai) by Menander Protector (538-582) literally referring to the Uar & Hunnoi. Around 630, Theophylact Simocatta wrote that the European "Avars" were initially composed of two nations, the Uar and the Hunnoi tribes. *** Pritsak takes them as Southern Xiongnu: "Shortly after 450, the Chinese Wei dynasty (the T'o-pa, Tabgach, of Proto-Mongolian origin) put an end to the state of Pei-Liang, the last of the Hunnic commercial centers created by the Hsiung-nu on Chinese territory, in the economically vital province of Kan-su. Some of the defeated ruling clans managed to flee to the distant Hsiung-nu successor state near Lake Balkash, an area known as Yüe-pan in the Chinese sources, reflecting *Ör-pän as the old pronunciation. This same designation also occurs in the Old Turkic Bilgä Qagan inscription of 732 (II E 20). A century later, the Turks (T'u-chüe) proclaimed their pax in Eurasia (550), and some of the young people of the Örpän-Hunnic group, to the number of about twenty thousand (two tümäns), fled to the European frontiers of the Byzantine empire. Theophylact Simocattes (fl. 610-641) called them, properly, Οὐάρ Ouar (= *r > vär) and Χουννί Chounni, but he also wrote that these refugees pretended to be the true Avars, "for among the Scythian nations that of the Avars is said to be the most adept tribe". *** So to comprehensively summarize all these, in my opinion the later Avars were composed from the parts of the tribes of: -the remained northern Xiongnu clans, who fled west, from Ruan-Ruan confederation after its collapse. -the White Huns (Uar-Huns) tribes, without the ruling tribe Hephtal, which fled to the east. -clans of Southern Xiongnu of Northern Liang and Xia. -and other earlier Yuepan Hun Xiongnu clans. But in my opinion: also among the main Huns could have been Southern Xiongnus too: a branch from the Han Zhao, ended in 329, destroyed by Shi Le of Later Zhao, but he allowed the Han Zhao forces to retreat. And from Later Zhao itself, which was destroyed in 351, but not the armies of it in battle but with the capturing of the ruler family. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 20:57:16 GMT 3
This is errorous: most historians consider them as Xianbei, also the Book of Wei states them as an offshoot of the Xianbei. Are you referring to the Var? Yea I found this point difficult to be clear about. I just keep in mind Pal Liptak's "Avars and Ancient Hungarians" which shows a clear Mongoloid ruling class for the Avars from the archaeological record and find that this must be reconciled with the history of whoever was ruling the Avars (The Varkhon). The Var must have been descended from a group like the Xianbei, like you point out, but see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uar, especially where it mentions the Book of Wei. "one scholar admitted that he could not make clear their origins at all" |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 30, 2009 20:59:58 GMT 3
Maotun and hjernespiser: Sorry, but I was wrong in my communication (always my big issue ) - what I meant by being within the Czech Kingdom was more meaning that we were under the same ROYAL FAMILY. That's what I meant, not that Hungary was essential part of the Czech Crown territory. Therefore since we were under same Royal Family, the people tended to move around. That's why I was referring to settlements of Slavic people in Hungary, but also vice versa some Hungarians went to current Moravia. I hope now it is clearer. Yes, it is clean now, thx. Yes, I agree, although I question that this is a driving reason for the movement of people across borders. Usually the reasons are much more complex. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 30, 2009 21:16:46 GMT 3
This is errorous: most historians consider them as Xianbei, also the Book of Wei states them as an offshoot of the Xianbei. Are you referring to the Var? Yea I found this point difficult to be clear about. I just keep in mind Pal Liptak's "Avars and Ancient Hungarians" which shows a clear Mongoloid ruling class for the Avars from the archaeological record and find that this must be reconciled with the history of whoever was ruling the Avars (The Varkhon). The Var must have been descended from a group like the Xianbei, like you point out, but see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uar, especially where it mentions the Book of Wei. "one scholar admitted that he could not make clear their origins at all" I referred to the RuanRuan. Also the Ruanruan were different from the Varchuns. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 30, 2009 22:24:54 GMT 3
OK, then actually I got slightly misunderstood what you mean - I guess it was a matter of words and intensity - for me Turkic features meant much more like also size, body constitution, etc. When you say influence it was having different connotations to me as well, also in regards to Bulgars, etc. So now it seems that we are not in disagreement, since some parts of Hungary really have Turkic features (as e.g. in comparison to your pictures of your friends). Definitely Also what is concerning the Mongols one question - Can you explain me how the word Mongol appeared? What I read in Asian archeological books that the name comes from the Chinese derogation of the Mongolians. BTW this theory was also confirmed by my friends who travelled to Mongolia, since the Mongolians were referring to themselves e.g. as Khalkha, not Tatarians or Mongols. Mongol was supposed to be a bad derogation coming from Chinese Muan Ghul or how it is written within 8th century records of the Chinese Tang dynasty and subsequently in 11th century. Later the Genghis Khan and Mongolians were supposed to use it for all the integrated tribes. I don't think that the word Mongol is coming from the tribe of Monguor as some scholars depicted, since in most cases this word is also coming from external party. Oh well, what we see in Tang 唐 period sources is that Mongol was the name of a forest people living around Western Manchuria. These are the ancestors of Mongols who founded the Chinggisid Empire in the late 12th-early 13th century - i.e., the original Mongols. The name wasn't a deragotary term in Chinese, it's a real Mongol name You might be confusing that with the Chinese name Ruanruan (Juan-Juan) 蠕蠕 which means "Wringling worms", a deragotary name used by the Chinese for the 5th-6th centuries steppe empire which the Chinese tell us that the natives called as Rouran (Jou-jan) 柔然. The name Khalkha appears much later. About Attila - I just wrote "might", since about this person there is not so much evidence, however the Chinese concubine mother is written in either Goth Jordanes or Roman Ammianus Marcellinus chronicles of Huns. I am not sure which source was stating there, however I think it was the Roman one since Attila spend significant time in Rome and he shared some parts of his life. I don't know whether it was confirmed by modern genetic tests or sources Uhm, I thought Ammianus Marcellinus lived before Attila  This went until around 567, when the Avars came and taken their lead, who were also a branch of Huns. As we can see in the chronicles, and moreover the Turk chagan himself also referred them as Huns. So this identification also stands. Are you sure the Türk ruler called Avars "Huns"? Where exactly is this info given? Never saw such a record before. 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. The characters of Yujiulü (Yü-chiu-lü) are 郁久閭 However, I am not sure if it would be good to create a connection between the dynasty ruling the Rouran 柔然 empire with the Oġurs, because Chinese sources tell us that this dynasty were from the Serbi (Xianbei 鮮卑). Btw, thanx for the infos |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 31, 2009 0:09:40 GMT 3
The Turk ruler apparently told the Byzantines to stop calling the Pseudo-Avars "Avars" saying that they just stole the name due to its prestige. Then who was he supposedly calling "Huns"? These Pseudo-Avars or the Real Avars (Varkhon?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 31, 2009 4:22:58 GMT 3
OK, then actually I got slightly misunderstood what you mean - I guess it was a matter of words and intensity - for me Turkic features meant much more like also size, body constitution, etc. When you say influence it was having different connotations to me as well, also in regards to Bulgars, etc. So now it seems that we are not in disagreement, since some parts of Hungary really have Turkic features (as e.g. in comparison to your pictures of your friends). Definitely A large number of Turkic people settled in Hungary in the Middle Ages too, after the Pechenegs lost their last battle against Byzant, they've become the royal bodyguards of the King of Hungary. And later the Cumans came, and settled in the Great and Little Cumania of the Great Plain of Hungary. Yes, the European Avars. I don't remember exactly but not only one, I guess either Mugan or Istemi and Istemi's son too. It is in Menandros, and Simocattes. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 31, 2009 4:31:32 GMT 3
The Turk ruler apparently told the Byzantines to stop calling the Pseudo-Avars "Avars" saying that they just stole the name due to its prestige. Then who was he supposedly calling "Huns"? These Pseudo-Avars or the Real Avars (Varkhon?) the pseudo European Avars, something like this "...they are not the Avars, who live under my rule in Asia, but the Uarxuns..." literaly Varhuns, Uar and Hun. (in Hungarian Várhun/Várkhun/Várkun) Interesting that in Hungary this name lived through until nowadays too in places' and persons' names. For example there is a city of Varkon, with the remains of a great Avar city and cemetery in its countryside. And also the city of Sarwar, mentioned in Charlemagne's chronicle still exists. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 31, 2009 6:02:00 GMT 3
The Hun in Varkhon is the Xion, one of the Hephthalites.
|
|
) - what I meant by being within the Czech Kingdom was more meaning that we were under the same ROYAL FAMILY. That's what I meant, not that Hungary was essential part of the Czech Crown territory.
Just the name, but what I meant was the fact that in Charles IV. the Czech Premyslid family merged with Luxembourg, since his mother was from Premyslid family. Hence the continuation and Charles strong inclination towards his Premyslid roots and his sentiment towards Bohemia. On the other hand Sigimund was rather referring to his Luxembourg blood although this was very marginal given the origin of his mother and father. At the end it is the preference of any person to prefer what he wants. I know that Hungarian perceive him as very important king in their history. 
