|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 18, 2008 18:20:41 GMT 3
I think you think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. This is very very absolutely untrue.
Why do you people keep insisting that the Huns were non-Turkic? They were. I already posted dozens of evidences for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 18, 2008 19:20:00 GMT 3
But as I've written the Lebedias was only a spiritual leader over a part of the tribes, the real power was in the hands of the Dsula of the tribe Magyar. So if it has happened at all, Levedi may has just said this to the Khagan in his own words. Firstly, why would the Khazars, who had the dual kingship system themselves, have bothered asking a kende to be gyula if they knew ahead of time it wouldn't have been feasible? Secondly, where does it say that Leved was kende? The Leved usurpation story was for Subu'atai. I wasn't clear on that. For the Sabir ethnonym to transform into Savartoi Asphaloi you have to first find the original version of the ethnonym and then explain how it gets recorded by the Byzantines as Savartoi Asphaloi. Regardless of the ethnic identity of the Sabirs, the part in DAI about the Magyars migrating towards the borders of Persia and there being called Savartoi is misleading because of the mistranslation from the Greek. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Dec 18, 2008 20:00:46 GMT 3
I think you think that there were no Turkic peoples before the 6th century. This is very very absolutely untrue. Why do you people keep insisting that the Huns were non-Turkic? They were. I already posted dozens of evidences for that. No, I don't. I haven't reached so far yet, but at my present knowledge the Turks descended from Dingling, whose were in alliance with the Xianbei and Chinese against the Northern Xiongnu so they couldn't be the same. And after the Xiongnu went west and Xianbei south, the Dingling took over the northern steppe from them, and stayed there and became known as the Gaoche, and later, the Tiele. But I'm listening if you have some idea. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 18, 2008 20:02:01 GMT 3
In the middle ages there was a noble class (whose members don't mixed with the common people), Recent genetic studies I've read also find that the "high-born" conquering Magyars had a higher incidence of certain Asian genes than the "commoners", which blows the theory that class divisions only began in the Middle Ages out of the water. I think the claim that they were anthropologically homogeneous is false. If they were such, how does one explain then the mixed anthropology of skulls found in Conquest-era graves? I think the conquering Magyars were just as "mixed" then as they are today. The Magyars aren't the only group either. The Cumans look to have been heterogeneous too. I'm familiar with the so-called Ugor-Turk war. The difference between those on the "Finn" side from those on the "Turk" side happens to be that the "Finn" side was arrived at by looking at the raw data and forming a theory from it rather than having a theory to start with and trying to find data to support it. Regardless, it is a linguistic debate that some people are still tied up in with outdated 19th century people=language ideals. Linguistics shows the history of a language and it can sometimes inform the other disciplines that help researchers looking at ethnic origins. Rona-Tas is certainly on the "Finn" side, but only so far as language is concerned. Did you know he thinks the Magyars are Ugor-Turks? That the ethnonym comes from the Ugric Magy plus the addition of the Turkic Ar? Is he still then on the "Finn" side? |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 18, 2008 20:10:51 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Dec 18, 2008 20:24:44 GMT 3
But as I've written the Lebedias was only a spiritual leader over a part of the tribes, the real power was in the hands of the Dsula of the tribe Magyar. So if it has happened at all, Levedi may has just said this to the Khagan in his own words. Firstly, why would the Khazars, who had the dual kingship system themselves, have bothered asking a kende to be gyula if they knew ahead of time it wouldn't have been feasible? Secondly, where does it say that Leved was kende? The Leved usurpation story was for Subu'atai. I wasn't clear on that. For the Sabir ethnonym to transform into Savartoi Asphaloi you have to first find the original version of the ethnonym and then explain how it gets recorded by the Byzantines as Savartoi Asphaloi. Regardless of the ethnic identity of the Sabirs, the part in DAI about the Magyars migrating towards the borders of Persia and there being called Savartoi is misleading because of the mistranslation from the Greek. Ok, on Leved, I see. I think on the Sabir that it doesn't matter that there was a mistranslation or not about their migration to the border of Persia (But in my opinon they invaded the Caucasus what was in the direction of Persia), because DAI stands that the Magyars' former name was Sabartoi, what was said to Constantine by Termachu, grandson of Arpad, and Constantine transcripted the Sabir to Sabartoi, like Almos to Almoutzis or even Tormas to Termachu and so on. But I admit the word needs further examination. |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 18, 2008 20:29:14 GMT 3
Back to this... Arpad being descended from Attila and Magyars being descended from Huns are two different topics actually, supported by the idea that the conquering population was heterogeneous. In the middle ages there was a noble class (whose members don't mixed with the common people), Recent genetic studies I've read also find that the "high-born" conquering Magyars had a higher incidence of certain Asian genes than the "commoners", which blows the theory that class divisions only began in the Middle Ages out of the water. I think the claim that they were anthropologically homogeneous is false. If they were such, how does one explain then the mixed anthropology of skulls found in Conquest-era graves? I think the conquering Magyars were just as "mixed" then as they are today. The Magyars aren't the only group either. The Cumans look to have been heterogeneous too. I'm familiar with the so-called Ugor-Turk war. The difference between those on the "Finn" side from those on the "Turk" side happens to be that the "Finn" side was arrived at by looking at the raw data and forming a theory from it rather than having a theory to start with and trying to find data to support it. Regardless, it is a linguistic debate that some people are still tied up in with outdated 19th century people=language ideals. Linguistics shows the history of a language and it can sometimes inform the other disciplines that help researchers looking at ethnic origins. Rona-Tas is certainly on the "Finn" side, but only so far as language is concerned. Did you know he thinks the Magyars are Ugor-Turks? That the ethnonym comes from the Ugric Magy plus the addition of the Turkic Ar? Is he still then on the "Finn" side? |
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 18, 2008 20:31:45 GMT 3
because DAI stands that the Magyars' former name was Sabartoi The strange thing is that DAI gives an explanation for why the Pechenegs former name was Kangar but not for the Magyars. One has to look for a Kangar-Sabir battle because DAI is drawing some sort of comparison with it to a Pecheneg-Magyar battle. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Dec 18, 2008 21:12:01 GMT 3
In the middle ages there was a noble class (whose members don't mixed with the common people), Recent genetic studies I've read also find that the "high-born" conquering Magyars had a higher incidence of certain Asian genes than the "commoners", which blows the theory that class divisions only began in the Middle Ages out of the water. I think the claim that they were anthropologically homogeneous is false. If they were such, how does one explain then the mixed anthropology of skulls found in Conquest-era graves? I think the conquering Magyars were just as "mixed" then as they are today. The Magyars aren't the only group either. The Cumans look to have been heterogeneous too. I'm familiar with the so-called Ugor-Turk war. The difference between those on the "Finn" side from those on the "Turk" side happens to be that the "Finn" side was arrived at by looking at the raw data and forming a theory from it rather than having a theory to start with and trying to find data to support it. Regardless, it is a linguistic debate that some people are still tied up in with outdated 19th century people=language ideals. Linguistics shows the history of a language and it can sometimes inform the other disciplines that help researchers looking at ethnic origins. Rona-Tas is certainly on the "Finn" side, but only so far as language is concerned. Did you know he thinks the Magyars are Ugor-Turks? That the ethnonym comes from the Ugric Magy plus the addition of the Turkic Ar? Is he still then on the "Finn" side? The noble class was mainly from the nomads of the 9th century with some German heavy cavaliers from the time of Saint Stephan when his wife Gizella came and her brother the HR emperor Henrik sent a contingent of armored men with her. On the recent genetic studies, the noble thing was just a simple guess or sudden think and rating from me it has not connection to the studies. The homogeneous statement, I guess, applies to two things of: that they were anthropologically homogeneous as the proto-Bulgars were (which was not regarded this way before) and confutes the former theories that the Homeconqueror Hungarains were consisted of a Turkic leader class with common Ugric people. But you can read them yourselves if you want when I will be ready with the translation and post, with the Majdar article too of course. On Tas, he is not on the classic Turk side, he writes his theories with derogatory style and purpose so I think he is biased by some haughtiness. I was reading him only earlier, but I'll look over his new works. And I am on neither side as I said. The only purpose of my researches is the truth, as far as it can be uncovered, but I think there is still much to do here. On the case of Magar, I've found some interesting thing on the etimology site you suggested that Bator or Bagatir (Maotun) is from the Altaic word of Magha or Maghar  . It's quite suprising  and new  to me that needs some in depth examination I think. (So by the way thanks again.) |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Dec 18, 2008 21:21:15 GMT 3
because DAI stands that the Magyars' former name was Sabartoi The strange thing is that DAI gives an explanation for why the Pechenegs former name was Kangar but not for the Magyars. One has to look for a Kangar-Sabir battle because DAI is drawing some sort of comparison with it to a Pecheneg-Magyar battle. Yes, I've also read theories about the Pecheneg-Magyar battle of the 9th century of DAI regards some earlier one, but I couldn't look into them as yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Dec 18, 2008 21:24:35 GMT 3
Back to this... Arpad being descended from Attila and Magyars being descended from Huns are two different topics actually, supported by the idea that the conquering population was heterogeneous. The recent researches support the homogeneous variant. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 21, 2008 12:29:46 GMT 3
No, I don't. I haven't reached so far yet, but at my present knowledge the Turks descended from Dingling, whose were in alliance with the Xianbei and Chinese against the Northern Xiongnu so they couldn't be the same. And after the Xiongnu went west and Xianbei south, the Dingling took over the northern steppe from them, and stayed there and became known as the Gaoche, and later, the Tiele. But I'm listening if you have some idea.  |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 2, 2009 15:03:23 GMT 3
they all were united under the tribe of Magyar (their former name was Sabir) Are you referring to the name "Sabartoi asphaloi" in De Administrando Imperio and the claim that this was a name Magyars were formerly known by? The Sabir identity of Magyars usually derives from this mention in DAI (the only place this story comes from), but I think it is misleading. Why would Magyars use a different name, one that even contains a Greek word, asphales? Even less is known about the Sabirs than the Huns, just a few names that appear Turkic so I find it difficult to say who they were exactly. Janos Harmatta suggested the Sabirs were Saka! , according to Jordanes, were a horde of Attila's Huns, known by the name of Hunugurs. The Hunnic word Var mentioned by Jordanes, also can be a Hungarian word. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 2, 2009 15:10:55 GMT 3
I'm familiar with the so-called Ugor-Turk war. The difference between those on the "Finn" side from those on the "Turk" side happens to be that the "Finn" side was arrived at by looking at the raw data and forming a theory from it rather than having a theory to start with and trying to find data to support it. Regardless, it is a linguistic debate that some people are still tied up in with outdated 19th century people=language ideals. Linguistics shows the history of a language and it can sometimes inform the other disciplines that help researchers looking at ethnic origins. Rona-Tas is certainly on the "Finn" side, but only so far as language is concerned. Did you know he thinks the Magyars are Ugor-Turks? That the ethnonym comes from the Ugric Magy plus the addition of the Turkic Ar? Is he still then on the "Finn" side? It may be, but must note that Rona-Tas considers the Hunnic language unknown not Turk. "We don't know what was the language of the Huns", 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by Maotun on Jan 2, 2009 15:25:04 GMT 3
" I set to bring together in one volume the stories of that nation [Hungary] scattered and spread in various sources through Italy, France, and Germany. " 1 So do you think that all those chronicles lied? 1 I think they are state propaganda, truth mixed in with lies. "Comparative analysis of the Hungarian chronicles and the contemporaneous European sources has revealed that not only the idea of a Hunnish-Magyar kinship, but also the arguments supporting it and the actual phrasing originate from the western sources" I don't exactly get what do you mean. Do you consider that the stating of "Hungarians were the descendants of Huns" in various sources through Italy, France, and Germany, was the official state propaganda and a lie of Italy, France, and Germany? And if you do, why would they state this? |
|
. It's quite suprising 
and new 
to me that needs some in depth examination I think. (So by the way thanks again.)