110 replies to this topic

[yan]

http://www.tc.umn.ed.....53 to1255.pdf

The Turkic and Mongol words in William of Rubruck's Journey (1253-1255)
Larry Clark, Indiana University, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol.93, No 2, (Apr.-June., 1973), pp 181-189.

p.189
...With tumen our survey is completed, and a summary of our identification can be made. The following words are only Turkic: ayran, *kam, karakumis, kumis, soyur, su, yam, yastuk. One could also add to this list the words kulan and kurut, but the fact is that these were early borrowed by the Mongols, so that Rubruck need not have recorded them as Turkic. Also to be considered is the ambivalent nature of the words kaptarayak, which is Turkic, but restricted largely to Mongol, and nasich (~nashich), which is Persian, but is found in identical forms in Coman and Mongol. The words which are only Mongol are bokta and *darasun, to which tang may be added, keeping in mind its Tibetan origin. Four words are Turko-Mongol: bal, orda, toyin, tumen.
Viewed in one way, all but three of Rubruck's words could potentially have been recorded from Turkic speakers. This brings to mind a statement of Pelliot's to the effect that, since Rubruck's vocabulary is essentially Turkic and not Mongol, the international language current at the beginning of the Mongol Empire was Turkic. 74 (Pelliot, "Le pretendu mot "iascot" chez Guillame de Rubruck," p.919).

Another nice example of selective quoting by Akskl. Why don't you give just one more sentence from Mr. Clark?

I am not at all certain that such an important conclusion should be based upon such meager evidence. It is well to recall that the vocabulary of Rubruck's predecessor, Plano Carpini, contained 9 Mongol words as opposed to only 2 certainly Turkic words, and 4 Turko-Mongol words. (Sinor, Carpini, p. 551; Professor Sinor here counts orda among the "purely Turkic" words, whereas I include it among the Turko-Mongol words.) Clearly, just the opposite conclusion to Pelliot's could be reached on the basis of Carpini alone.

Edited by yan, 11 May 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[Akskl]

Васильев В.П. История и древности восточной части Средней Азии, от X до XIII века, с приложением перевода китайских известий о Киданях, Джуржитах и Монголо–Татарах.// Записки Императорского Археологического общества. Том XIII. Санкт-Петербург,1859. -: \\"..и еще интересный и весьма мало известный факт - родной народ Чингиз хана и сам он «не говорили на языке, который мы ныне называем монгольским»\\"

Translation from Russian:
Vasil'ev V.P. History and Antiquities of the Eastern Part of Central Asia - from Xth to XIIIth centuries, with amendment of the Chinese sources translation about Khitans, Chjurchjits and Mongolo-Tartars. //Records of the Imperial Archaeological Society, v.XIII. St-Petersburgh, 1859.- \\"...and another one interesting and very out-of-the-way fact, that native people of Genghis Khan, and he himself "did not speak language, which we call today Mongol"\\"

Edited by Akskl, 01 October 2009 - 12:09 AM.

[Akskl]

Henry H. Howorth "History of the Mongols" Part I "The Mongols Proper and the Kalmuks", London, Longman, Green and Co, 1876

p.696
The Keraits.
So far as I know there has been a perfect agreement among all the autors who have hitherto written about the Mongols or about Prester John in making the Keraits Mongols. I have held that opinion very firmly myself, and I did so, as maybe seen on turning to Chapter X, devoted to the Keraits and Torguts, till very lately. But after a great deal of thought and of sifting of evidence, I am convinced that that position is a false one, and that Keraits were not Mongol but Turks. If we examine the direct evidence upon which the Keraits have been treated as Mongols, it will be found to be very feeble. It consists mainly in the fact that Jingis Khan had intimate relations with their chief. This is not much. So he had with the chiefs of the Karluks and Uighurs, who are everywhere allowed to have been Turks. Pallas and other pointed out that chief family among the Torguts is still called Keret; but as Kerait is composed of the particle kara, which both in Turk and Mongol means black, this is very weak evidence. How weak may be seen when we find that not a family mere, but the principal tribe among the Kirghises proper or Buruts is still called Kirei, while there are two tribes among the Kazakhs (Kirgiz Kazaks), one of the Little Horde and other of the Middle, respectively called Kereit and Kirei, while it is very probable that the name Ghirei, by which a famous family in the history both of the Kazaks and of Crim was known is but a form of the same name. Now, while we know of no tribe among the Mongols bearing the indigenous name Kerait, save the small family I have mentioned among the Torguts, it is curious that Karet is the generic name by which the Buriats call the Chinese (Georgi's Reise., i.285). It is also very remarkable fact that no ansient author, so far as I know, calls the Keraits Mongols. Raschid classified them among the people who afterwards adopted the name of Mongols. He puts them in a separate class with five others; none of which are Mongols, four being Turkish, and the fifth (the Tanguts) Tibetans. Marco Polo does not mentions the Keraits by name, with him Prester John is merely the ruler of Tenduch. Carpini does not name them either, as we shall show, the Mekrits and Merkits were in reality the same people. Rubruquis is in the same position, for he has transferred his Prester John to the Crit and Merkit (i.e. to the Mekrits and Merkits). On the other hand, in the notice of Abulfaradj quoted in the 19th chapter, and which is the very first mention we have of either Prester John or the Keraits, we are told that the king of the Keryt lives on the inner Turk land. In another place the same author speaks of him as ruling over a tribe of barbarian Huns called Keryt (Oppert's Presbyter Johannes, 88 and 92). Khondemir speaks of the Keraits as Turks (Id., 98 Note).
We thus see that there is no direct evidence in favour of making the Keraits Mongols....

[Akskl]

Henry H. Howorth "History of the Mongols" Part I "The Mongols Proper and the Kalmuks", London, Longman, Green and Co, 1876

Chapter VII. Chakhars and the Fourty-nine Banners.

p.394
The Naimans
NAIMAN means seven (eight -A.) in Mongol, AND THIS TRIBE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAIMANS OF THE DAYS OF JINGIS, WHO WERE TURKS....



NOTES, CORRECTIONS, AND ADDITIONS

p.693
...I have remitted the proof that the Naimans were Turks to these notes, and I will now adduce them:-
Schmidt and D'Avezac have leaned to the opinion that they were Mongols, relying almost entirely on the fact that a small and obscure tribe of the Forty-nine Banners is still called Naiman. Beyond this, I do not know of a tittle of evidence to support such a conclusion. Now, as Naiman merely means eight in Mongol, this coincidence in name proves very little, while the evidence that the Naimans against whom Jingis fought were Turks seems to me irresistible. In the first place, if there is a small tribe of Eastern Mongols called Naiman, there several very important tribes of Turks so called. Thus one division of the Uzbegs is called the Uighur Naiman. The Uzbegs are typical Turks. So are the Kazakhs (Kirgiz Kazaks).... End of quote


Next H.H.Howorth presents 3 pages of proofs that the Naimans of the Genghis Khan times were Turkic-(not Mongol)-speaking nomads - i.e. direct ancestors of part of modern Kazakhs (and of some very close to Kazakhs peoples).

Edited by Akskl, 19 October 2009 - 09:43 PM.

[Akskl]

Henry H. Howorth "History of the Mongols" Part I "The Mongols Proper and the Kalmuks", London, Longman, Green and Co, 1876

p.700
...Among the tribes of the Forty-nine Banners there is one called Jelaid, which I have identified with Jelairs. It has however been suggested that this name Jelaid is a corruption of Juriat or Jadjerat, a well known tribe in the time of Jingis Khan. Ssanang Setzen however distinctly names a tribe Jalair. He also speaks of the Khalkha Jalair. Notwithstanding this survival of the name among the Mongols (Khalkha - A.), I believe that the Jelair tribe, who are frequently mentioned in the early days of Jingis, was TURKISH, and not Mongol. This I judge from the fact thar while only an obscure tribe of Jelairs survives among the Mongols (Khalkha - A.), that one of the divisions of the Uzbegs is still called Jelair, while Levshine tells us that Jelairs occur among the Kirghiz Kazakhs (i.e. Kazakhs - A.) of the great Horde. They were not originally a part of the Kazakhs proper, but joined them about the same time that the Naimans did. Secondly, I notice among the constituent tribes of the Jelairs, as described by Raschid, a tribe Tulangkit, which may be compared with the Turkish Telenguts. Thirdly, Raschid does not class the Jelairs among the Mongols proper, neither Niruns nor Darlegins, but among those tribes which were styled Mongols in later times. These facts are anything but conclusive, they only weigh down the balance in one direction until fresh evidence accrues, and the conclusion is a purely tentative one.... End of quote

[HanTUG]

Thank you for aksakal and those who opened this thread and discussed here, its a bit old but very interesting thread.
Was Ghingis Khan a Turk, Mongol,or something else? without finding the places where he is now sleeping and looking for his genetic tests we can't say 100% to which ethnical group he belongs. BUT We can say 100% he was not chinese!

Turks and Mongols are 2 different ethnic groups. They are linguistically related and assimilation has happened over the centuries due to the proximity of where the tribes were based and were competing for dominance over one another.

@Sinoid,
without scientific research, without any quotations.. how can you write such subjectiv sentence? Every sentence you write about history must have a relations to any historical enciclopaidias or books, must have quotations. What you belive what you wish, hold it for you! Your sentence is like from a child who is about 10 years and says "my father is stronger than your father"
research to the genetic tests between Turks and Mongols, look for Y-Haplogroup you will find your answer!!

Edited by HanTUG, 06 November 2009 - 04:39 PM.

[harandaa]

Dear all,
This has been an interesting, at times frustrating discussion. I feel your pain, Akskl - a visitor to Ulaanbaatar might well conclude that the Khalkha Mongols 'own' Činggis Qan and the empire, and there are a number of reasons to challenge this comfortable alignment between Chinggisid 'Mongol' empire and contemporary Mongolian Republic, not least the difficulties in tracing an unclear and disrupted succession to the Northern Yuan between 1368 and the establishment of Dayan Khan.

However I think one can discern a type of 'Mongol-ness' being defined by Činggis and his descendants at the elite level, expressed primarily through the narrative of the Secret History of the Mongols, and to some degree through Rashid ad-Din's Jami' at-Tawarikh, Juvaini's Tarikh-e Jahan-Gusha and the Yuan Shih (each with differing priorities and emphasis).

The empire surely succeeded when and to the extent that it did due to the skill displayed by Činggis, Ögödei, and others, in binding the various Turco-Mongol peoples of the steppe, and many others in settled areas, to their cause. One of the legacies of this was the diffusion of Chinggisid dynasties and individuals across Asia, contributing further layers of complexity to the development of Turco-Mongol identities across the continent. Rashid notes in his section on Turks who now describe themselves as Mongols that the Barulas call themselves Mongols - not something that Babur, a Barlas descendant of Timur and Činggis, would have been happy to read.

On a practical note, I think we have to be careful when placing so much reliance on Howorth's history - many of his conclusions have been chewed over quite thoroughly over the last century or so, and few scholars would use him as a reliable reference today.

[kenmirzz]

Dear all,
This has been an interesting, at times frustrating discussion. I feel your pain, Akskl - a visitor to Ulaanbaatar might well conclude that the Khalkha Mongols 'own' Činggis Qan and the empire, and there are a number of reasons to challenge this comfortable alignment between Chinggisid 'Mongol' empire and contemporary Mongolian Republic, not least the difficulties in tracing an unclear and disrupted succession to the Northern Yuan between 1368 and the establishment of Dayan Khan.

However I think one can discern a type of 'Mongol-ness' being defined by Činggis and his descendants at the elite level, expressed primarily through the narrative of the Secret History of the Mongols, and to some degree through Rashid ad-Din's Jami' at-Tawarikh, Juvaini's Tarikh-e Jahan-Gusha and the Yuan Shih (each with differing priorities and emphasis).

The empire surely succeeded when and to the extent that it did due to the skill displayed by Činggis, Ögödei, and others, in binding the various Turco-Mongol peoples of the steppe, and many others in settled areas, to their cause. One of the legacies of this was the diffusion of Chinggisid dynasties and individuals across Asia, contributing further layers of complexity to the development of Turco-Mongol identities across the continent. Rashid notes in his section on Turks who now describe themselves as Mongols that the Barulas call themselves Mongols - not something that Babur, a Barlas descendant of Timur and Činggis, would have been happy to read.

On a practical note, I think we have to be careful when placing so much reliance on Howorth's history - many of his conclusions have been chewed over quite thoroughly over the last century or so, and few scholars would use him as a reliable reference today.

Hello Mr Harandaa, the problem with Mr AKSKL is that he completely convinced that the present day modern Khalkha Mongol has nothing to do with Chinggis Khaan and switched his progeny to the Kazakh that inhabited Eastern Kazakhstan and Western Mongolia. He also believe that Chinggis Khaan mother tongue was Turkic, instead of Mongolic. This is clearly preposterous.

The Secret History obviously was authored by a Mongol with in Old Mongolian. There's no denial about a certain degree of intermingling between ancient Turkic and Mongolic tribes that occurred during the era of Chinggis Khaan, or even prior to that. Nevertheless, a blind conclusion that Chinggis Khaan was Turkic speaking had no credible evidence whatsoever.

The Khalkha Mongols were a confederation of various tribes too, not a sole single tribe.

[harandaa]

Hello Mr Harandaa, the problem with Mr AKSKL is that he completely convinced that the present day modern Khalkha Mongol has nothing to do with Chinggis Khaan and switched his progeny to the Kazakh that inhabited Eastern Kazakhstan and Western Mongolia. He also believe that Chinggis Khaan mother tongue was Turkic, instead of Mongolic. This is clearly preposterous.

The Secret History obviously was authored by a Mongol with in Old Mongolian. There's no denial about a certain degree of intermingling between ancient Turkic and Mongolic tribes that occurred during the era of Chinggis Khaan, or even prior to that. Nevertheless, a blind conclusion that Chinggis Khaan was Turkic speaking had no credible evidence whatsoever.

The Khalkha Mongols were a confederation of various tribes too, not a sole single tribe.

I agree that Akskl is overstating his case rather considerably, and over-emphasizing the turkic elements of the imperial dynasty, and his apparent refusal to consider the Mongol language and nature of the Secret History (even though it was probably partially composed by a Tatar), and thus, arguably, the heart of the Empire, is baffling. You are right, too, that the Khalkha were, and are, a varied group of Mongol peoples, probably defined as much by developments during the Qing period as by the empire, and including a number of elite elements claiming Borjigid descent via Dayan Khan and others.

[kenmirzz]

I agree that Akskl is overstating his case rather considerably, and over-emphasizing the turkic elements of the imperial dynasty, and his apparent refusal to consider the Mongol language and nature of the Secret History (even though it was probably partially composed by a Tatar), and thus, arguably, the heart of the Empire, is baffling. You are right, too, that the Khalkha were, and are, a varied group of Mongol peoples, probably defined as much by developments during the Qing period as by the empire, and including a number of elite elements claiming Borjigid descent via Dayan Khan and others.

I think the core of the issues lie in those Russian educated Kazakhs who are interested to retrace their history. In fact, frankly speaking, the Kazakh had no history prior to the era of Chinggis Khaan. That's explain the prime motive of their recent claim of this historic figure. While I may not denied the fact that Jochi, one of the son of Chinggis Khaan who went westward, might had contributed to the emergence of Kazakh Khanate,I may not deny that the Mongols were suddenly become well known globally due to Chingis Khaan too.

Even the DNA C3 haplogroup were abundant in greater proportion among the Mongol and Kazakh, that's explain their common origin or inter mixture since ancient time.

[DerChagatai]

in so far as kazakhs and khalkha mongols are concerned both are rather new tribes that are a mix of mongol and turk speaking tribes of the past
kazakhs can claim heritage of Jenghiz Khan because they have mongol in them but it is not accurate to say Jenghiz Khan is turk

his father is from the Kiyad clan, they are mongol
his mother is from olkhunuud, they are also mongol

but in his life he of course worked with many turks
his first ally and mentor the kerait are turks
his son jochi used mostly turks, so did chagatai

[Dagvadorj]

I really wonder why this thread still goes on. What is the intention of Akskl anyway? Is it that Mongolia as a country can not be proud of Genghis Khan. I don't understand. We all know that Genghis Khan is a Mongol.

Edited by Dagvadorj, 22 October 2010 - 05:05 AM.

[Akskl]

"Cathay and the Way Thither - Being a collection of Medieval Notices of China" - Translated and edited by Henry Yule, new edition, revised throughout in the light of recent discoveries by Henri Cordier. Volume I. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1998, First published 1916 by Hakluyt Society, London.

p.148, 1
...Che-lu-ku, second son of Jin tsung (kings of Kara-Khitais -A.) , was dethroned by his son-in-law Kuchluk, chief of the Naimans, a Turkish tribe, subjugated later by the (so-called - A.) Mongols of Genghis Khan; see Notice of the Kara Khitai or Si Liao in Mediaeval Researches form Eastern Asiatic Sources, by E. Bretschneider, i.


http://www.altaica.ru/SecretH.htm
...."Сокровенное сказание" - древнейший литературный памятник "монголов". Считается, что оно было создано в 1240 году в правление Угедей-хана. Оригинал памятника не сохранился. Самая древняя дошедшая до нас рукопись представляет собой "монгольский" текст, затранскрибированный китайскими иероглифами и снабженный переводом на китайский язык....

Translation from Russian:
..."The Secret History" is a literature antique of the "Mongols". It was supposedly created in 1240 during the Ogadai reign. ORIGINAL OF THE MANUSCRIPT IS NOT EXTANT. The most ancient extant manuscript is a "Mongolian" text transcribed by the Chinese ideographs and supplied with Chinese translation...

Thomas J. Barfield "The Perilous Frontier - Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757" Blackwell, Cambridge Massachusetts & Oxford UK
Notes on Transliteration
...It should be noted from the outset that foreign names and places derived from Chinese ideographs, whose original pronunciation is now unknown and which often did violence to the original even when it was known, are less than satisfactory but are often the only renderings we have for early periods. The reader should realize that the transcriptions of foreign words extracted from Chinese characters often produce awkward strings of linked syllables which bear about as much relation to their original pronunciation as an attempt to pronounce the written score of a Mozart sonata rather than play it. Lacking the music, we transcribe the notes.

Edited by Akskl, 26 November 2010 - 06:46 PM.

[Dagvadorj]

The whole oriental look in the Central Asian tribes and the Kazakh nation itself are nothing other than Mongols' contribution to the history. Akskl's attempt to unrelate Chinggis Khan from his nation "Mongolia" is very ugly. If he were living today, you would be most ashamed.

"Cathay and the Way Thither - Being a collection of Medieval Notices of China" - Translated and edited by Henry Yule, new edition, revised throughout in the light of recent discoveries by Henri Cordier. Volume I. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1998, First published 1916 by Hakluyt Society, London.

p.148, 1
...Che-lu-ku, second son of Jin tsung (kings of Kara-Khitais -A.) , was dethroned by his son-in-law Kuchluk, chief of the Naimans, a Turkish tribe, subjugated later by the (so-called - A.) Mongols of Genghis Khan; see Notice of the Kara Khitai or Si Liao in Mediaeval Researches form Eastern Asiatic Sources, by E. Bretschneider, i.


http://www.altaica.ru/SecretH.htm
...."Сокровенное сказание" - древнейший литературный памятник "монголов". Считается, что оно было создано в 1240 году в правление Угедей-хана. Оригинал памятника не сохранился. Самая древняя дошедшая до нас рукопись представляет собой "монгольский" текст, затранскрибированный китайскими иероглифами и снабженный переводом на китайский язык....

Translation from Russian:
..."The Secret History" is a literature antique of the "Mongols". It was supposedly created in 1240 during the Ogadai reign. ORIGINAL OF THE MANUSCRIPT IS NOT EXTANT. The most ancient extant manuscript is a "Mongolian" text transcribed by the Chinese ideographs and supplied with Chinese translation...

Thomas J. Barfield "The Perilous Frontier - Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757" Blackwell, Cambridge Massachusetts & Oxford UK
Notes on Transliteration
...It should be noted from the outset that foreign names and places derived from Chinese ideographs, whose original pronunciation is now unknown and which often did violence to the original even when it was known, are less than satisfactory but are often the only renderings we have for early periods. The reader should realize that the transcriptions of foreign words extracted from Chinese characters often produce awkward strings of linked syllables which bear about as much relation to their original pronunciation as an attempt to pronounce the written score of a Mozart sonata rather than play it. Lacking the music, we transcribe the notes.

[DerChagatai]

^
There are also many Koreans who are revising the history of others and stating that Genghis Khan is Korean



http://www.sgtusa.co...16&thread=25r03