|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 23, 2006 19:44:09 GMT 3
I dun think the Hunnus are ancestors of the Turks . You are right - the Xiongnu were already a Turkic people, they were not the ancestors of the entire Turkic peoples Besides, I would advise you to have a look of this: www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Saran on Nov 24, 2006 2:59:02 GMT 3
I dun think the Hunnus are ancestors of the Turks . You are right - the Xiongnu were already a Turkic people, they were not the ancestors of the entire Turkic peoples Besides, I would advise you to have a look of this: www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml But Tigin, during the spring of 2006 an international composium of the Mongol Studies was held (actually it was a series of several sessions) in Ulaanbaatar and Karakorum. During the sessions the researchers agreed that Mongol state started with the Hunnu 209 BC and then later the Great Mongol Empire was formed by Chinggis Khaan in 1206. So they agreed that Mongol state originated from Turkic people? Totally confused, anyway will visit the link
|
|
|
Post by Saran on Nov 24, 2006 3:02:41 GMT 3
Interesting article, thanks Tigin. Now I have the idea, finally ;D
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 24, 2006 20:27:02 GMT 3
If you check the Chinese sources, they always show a link or a relativeness between the Xiongnu and the other Turkic peoples like the Blue Turks, Dingling-Gaoche-Tiele (including Uyghurs), etc. Weishu clearly says that the language of the Xiongnu were the same with the language of the Gaoche people (ancestors of Tiele).
|
|
|
Post by Boorchi Noyan on Nov 24, 2006 22:17:00 GMT 3
Didn't the Blue Turks tell that they were descendents of Xiongnus in those Orkhun tablets' Chinese transcriptions?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 24, 2006 22:30:36 GMT 3
Didn't the Blue Turks tell that they were descendents of Xiongnus in those Orkhun tablets' Chinese transcriptions? Yes; in Köl Tigin's monument, there is a link shown in the 3rd-5th rows.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 24, 2006 22:53:19 GMT 3
But Tigin, during the spring of 2006 an international composium of the Mongol Studies was held (actually it was a series of several sessions) in Ulaanbaatar and Karakorum. During the sessions the researchers agreed that Mongol state started with the Hunnu 209 BC and then later the Great Mongol Empire was formed by Chinggis Khaan in 1206. So they agreed that Mongol state originated from Turkic people? Totally confused, anyway will visit the link no, the Xiong-Nu were the first Mongolian state because the XiongNu empire was situated in Mongolia, so it was Mongolian in a purely geographical sense.
|
|
|
Post by tengrikut on Nov 24, 2006 23:09:35 GMT 3
hey we are not settled people
|
|
|
Post by kareng on Dec 11, 2006 22:36:37 GMT 3
Hi,
Do you know if the Hun warriors (the Xiongnu) of the early first century AD would have armor? I'm helping an author with research and she has these warriors dressed in metal chain mail armor.
kareng
|
|
|
Post by Boorchi Noyan on Dec 11, 2006 23:10:34 GMT 3
hmm I don't know well but I think the Altai qurgans (tombs) are richer than Tien-Shan's tombs with respect to metals like gold iron etc. That shows Huns used the metals maybe in making armor. Because we know that they were buried with their swords bows arrows armors etc. I think they may have used armors. But Tigin will answer more clearly...
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 12, 2006 0:01:16 GMT 3
Yes, they used armor but not chain mail, mostly lamellar and/or scale armor. There are also accounts in the Chinese sources like Hanshu which describe the Xiongnu as armored warriors. Surely the majority must have been unarmored horse archers but we know that they also used armored cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 12, 2006 0:25:09 GMT 3
chainmail was invented by Celts and only reached beyond Central Asia after the Mongol invasions.
|
|
|
Post by Saran on Jan 18, 2007 14:13:10 GMT 3
Hunnu Empire /Hun/ In the third century of BC, the Hunnu Empire had formed up. The founder was the Modun Hyan and he became the ruler in 210 BC. During its 200 year-long existence, Hunnu had established the classical form of nomadic lifestyle. Particularly, they first made use of the structure of tens, dividing the territory into three parts /western, central, eastern/, the rulers and the statehood emblems /coat of arm, state seal etc/ and the later states inherited its cultural and social achievements.
At the peak of its expansion /2nd century of AD/, the Hunnu Empire was stretched to the Korean peninsula to the east, Balhash lake and Aral sea to the west. It was even dealing with the Roman Empire through its western neighbors. The domestic economy and the social structure of Hunnu state was described as the classical nomadic civilization and since it had a control over the Silk Road, their role in the entire Asia was dominant and approached the status of an Empire.
The fact that the Hunnu was such a powerful empire is proven by the later history. After its fall in central Asia /53AD/, the Hunnus who went to reside in the west had formed up Eftalit / Yoida in Chinese/ state in 430 and some nomads of Hunnu moved to eastern Europe and established Gunni state in the 2nd century of AD. There were 30 rulers in the history of Hunnu, Modun Shaniyou being the first and Shilishindodi being the last/ 48-56 AD/. Until the year 216AD, the North Hun state which was succeeded the South Hun state, had accepted the invasion of Han state of China and during its existence there were 21 khans /chen yui/.
|
|
|
Post by kokturk on Jan 18, 2007 17:18:28 GMT 3
Were Eftalits really Huns? AFAIK, it has not proven yet.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 19, 2007 3:26:10 GMT 3
They were called Huns by the Indians and Greeks, whereas Chinese travelers who visited White Hun territories say that the White Huns were related with the earlier Xiongnu.
|
|