Chinggis Khaan, and following Great Khaans Options

[Flowerseed]

And there's even more han chinese. Doesn't make it "credible" at all really.

so the view and knowledge of the mongolian chinese and han chinese who have been living side by side for centuries are less credible than the few outer mongolians who were under heavy soviet influence for decades and neglected their culture to the point of losing their own traditional script?

[thehorsemen]

You obviously missed my point. What type of people are going to be the ones frequenting a CHINA history forum. I'm sorry but the hans shouldn't have any sort of claim to be credible when it comes to mongolian history. I know that might seem to rip you off somehow of any future claims as you'd like. But hey, thats the breaks. I never said anything about mongolian chinese. Just han chinese so don't put words into my mouth, thanks.

[thehorsemen]

Oh and about the script jab. [sarcasm] Thanks china for being so kind, not letting us practice much of our culture, but hey we have the classic script! Thanks![/sarcasm]

[Flowerseed]

Funny, but "script" is just one of the example, although language is one the the basic factors of the culture. There are also lots of efforts being put into preserving other things, like clothing, art or music, many initiatives were taken to preserve mongolian culture (often in coorperation with outer mongolia), you will have to be blind for not seeing that. The biggest "loss" would be changing the traditional livestyle, but those were steps naturally taken because of transformation into modern society, given the trend of westernisation and city concentration in outer mongolia, the same things could be expected.

[kenmirzz]

so the view and knowledge of the mongolian chinese and han chinese who have been living side by side for centuries are less credible than the few outer mongolians who were under heavy soviet influence for decades and neglected their culture to the point of losing their own traditional script?

I am afraid this is not true. As I am a Mughal who have Mongolian blood inside my vein and my wife is a Mongol, I am qualified to learn and appreciate the history of the Mongol people and be proud of it.

As for the losing the traditional script, my wife can still read the old script and when we went to the countryside, the folks there can write beautiful old scripts. They are starting to learn and applying the old scripts. But for practical purpose, the adoption of the Cyrillic script was inevitable.

What are you talking about? Genghis Khan was Indian. Just ask some of the Indian posters here

I take it as a joke. Anyway, I hope the Chinese and Korean will leave the discussion to Mongol and Kazakh, and of course, Moghul and Hazara fit into the Mongol side of the criteria.



Humanity is but one family.

[thehorsemen]

Funny, but "script" is just one of the example, although language is one the the basic factors of the culture. There are also lots of efforts being put into preserving other things, like clothing, art or music, many initiatives were taken to preserve mongolian culture (often in coorperation with outer mongolia), you will have to be blind for not seeing that. The biggest "loss" would be changing the traditional livestyle, but those were steps naturally taken because of transformation into modern society, given the trend of westernisation and city concentration in outer mongolia, the same things could be expected.

I'd gladly give up script to be able to live as I wish.

[kenmirzz]

I extremely hope that the Chinese and Korean leave this discussion for Mongol, Kazakh, Moghul and Hazara.

Chinggis Khaan was never a Han Chinese, that's enough.

Mr AKSKL in his link clearly believe that the honorable leader of Mongol warrior was a Kazakh and speak Turkic. Let's maintain the discussion in a civilized way without insults and abusive words before this eventually started.




Humanity is but one family.

[thehorsemen]

Ken, we can handle this without your input, thanks.

This post has been edited by thehorsemen: Dec 4 2009, 09:04 PM

[kenmirzz]

Ken, we can handle this without your input, thanks.

As you wish, sir. My apology if you feel irritated. Mind you refuting Mr AKSKL so that I can sit around the corner silently?





Humanity is but one family.

[thehorsemen]

Whats the point? Why refute something that SHOULDN'T need it in the first place?

[kenmirzz]

Whats the point? Why refute something that SHOULDN'T need it in the first place?

You never fail to amaze me with your coolness. Just hope that nobody will take Mr AKSKL arguments as fact.



Humanity is but one family.

[thehorsemen]

If they have any common sense they won't. If you caught me a couple years ago I'd refute everything. Now it's just like "Whats the point?" And what is it? I can refute people that won't change their opinion anyway?

[Akskl]

George Lane "Genghis Khan and Mongols Rule" -- Greenwood Guides to Historic Events of the Mediecval World, Jane Chance, Series Editor, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 2004

p.1
...Although the major tribal confederations at this time are often divided into Mongols, Tatars, Naimans, Merkits, and Keraits, with numerous subdivisions, these groups were in no way distinct either linguistically or ethnologically. "Mongols" could be found in "Naiman" tribes for example, and Turkish would be used as a first language in any number of these groupings...


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.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cmedst/gmap/uploade...53%20to1255.pdf

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).


David Christian "A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia" v.1
Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 2000, 2001

p.388
...Temujin grew up in Mongolia organized in loose tribal federations. The names of these federations - the "Mongols", Tatars, Kerait, Naiman and others - create the illusion of a federation of nations. In reality, like most steppeland tribal names, these names describe fragile and unstable alliance systems headed by local aristocratic or royal clans and including many heterogenous elements. The most important groupings in Temijin's times were his own tribes, the "Mongols", which may have been a part of the larger Tatar groupngs, whose centre lay further east, near the Khingan mountains; the Turkic and partly Nestorian Kerait, based on the Orkhon river; the Naiman in Western Mongolia whose leading clans were probably Oghuz Turks and may also have been Nestorian; and the Merkit of the Baikal region 8...

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 (eight) in Mongol, AND THIS TRIBE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAIMANS OF THE DAYS OF JINGIS, WHO WERE TURKS....

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 Merjits 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....



David Morgan "The Mongols" Blackwell, Cambridge MA & Oxford UK

p.114
...It was in Ogedei reign, too, that the Mongol Empire acquired a capital - Qaraqorum, in the Orkhon valley of central Mongolia, the area formerly dominated by the Naimans. The city was first walled by Ogedei in 1235, though Chingiz Khan seems previously to have used the site as a base camp. ... ...THE RUINS WERE EXTENSIVELY PILLAGED IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO PROVIDE BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE ERECTION OF A BUDDHIST MONASTERY NEARBY, but the site was excavated in 1948-9 by Russian archaeologists.6...

[BurdenOfAges]

You obviously missed my point. What type of people are going to be the ones frequenting a CHINA history forum. I'm sorry but the hans shouldn't have any sort of claim to be credible when it comes to mongolian history. I know that might seem to rip you off somehow of any future claims as you'd like. But hey, thats the breaks. I never said anything about mongolian chinese. Just han chinese so don't put words into my mouth, thanks.

I have to agree with Flowerseed that this argument is very narrow-minded. Weren't you the one calling for people to be judged as individuals rather than groups? In that case, what's wrong with Han Chinese studying and making claims about Mongolian history? This is not the Chinese government we're talking about, here. Should Westerners be prevented from making claims about Chinese history, then? Should the entire world simply limit themselves to their subjective and parochial views of reality?

Or perhaps my memory fails me, and it was someone else who said that individuals shouldn't be judged for the past actions of their groups.

This post has been edited by BurdenOfAges: Dec 4 2009, 11:23 PM

[Aza]

George Lane "Genghis Khan and Mongols Rule" -- Greenwood Guides to Historic Events of the Mediecval World, Jane Chance, Series Editor, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 2004

p.1
...Although the major tribal confederations at this time are often divided into Mongols, Tatars, Naimans, Merkits, and Keraits, with numerous subdivisions, these groups were in no way distinct either linguistically or ethnologically. "Mongols" could be found in "Naiman" tribes for example, and Turkish would be used as a first language in any number of these groupings...


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.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cmedst/gmap/uploade...53%20to1255.pdf

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).


David Christian "A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia" v.1
Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 2000, 2001

p.388
...Temujin grew up in Mongolia organized in loose tribal federations. The names of these federations - the "Mongols", Tatars, Kerait, Naiman and others - create the illusion of a federation of nations. In reality, like most steppeland tribal names, these names describe fragile and unstable alliance systems headed by local aristocratic or royal clans and including many heterogenous elements. The most important groupings in Temijin's times were his own tribes, the "Mongols", which may have been a part of the larger Tatar groupngs, whose centre lay further east, near the Khingan mountains; the Turkic and partly Nestorian Kerait, based on the Orkhon river; the Naiman in Western Mongolia whose leading clans were probably Oghuz Turks and may also have been Nestorian; and the Merkit of the Baikal region 8...

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 (eight) in Mongol, AND THIS TRIBE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAIMANS OF THE DAYS OF JINGIS, WHO WERE TURKS....

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 Merjits 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....



David Morgan "The Mongols" Blackwell, Cambridge MA & Oxford UK

p.114
...It was in Ogedei reign, too, that the Mongol Empire acquired a capital - Qaraqorum, in the Orkhon valley of central Mongolia, the area formerly dominated by the Naimans. The city was first walled by Ogedei in 1235, though Chingiz Khan seems previously to have used the site as a base camp. ... ...THE RUINS WERE EXTENSIVELY PILLAGED IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO PROVIDE BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE ERECTION OF A BUDDHIST MONASTERY NEARBY, but the site was excavated in 1948-9 by Russian archaeologists.6...

The kazakhs are Mongols ,not Turks.

[thehorsemen]

I really don't care who you agree with. Han chinese claiming Mongolian history is as credible as any one of us claiming the chinese that helped us in history but I won't do that. I have a bit more respect than that, it seems that you two don't.

[BurdenOfAges]

I really don't care who you agree with. Han chinese claiming Mongolian history is as credible as any one of us claiming the chinese that helped us in history but I won't do that. I have a bit more respect than that, it seems that you two don't.

You are mistaken. "Claims" in this case means claims about Mongolian history, not claims on Mongolian history. The whole business of making claims on history is itself flawed from many angles, but making claims about history - that's what all scholars do. It has nothing to do with disrespecting a subject. In fact, if you disrespected it, you wouldn't study it.

This post has been edited by BurdenOfAges: Dec 5 2009, 12:07 AM

[thehorsemen]

Thats interesting, then why are you in here trying to refute anything? Seems llike covering for claims "ON" history to me.

[BurdenOfAges]

Thats interesting, then why are you in here trying to refute anything? Seems llike covering for claims "ON" history to me.

Because you stated that a history board is irrelevant solely on the basis of it being Chinese. I happen to visit CHF, and have a great deal of respect for some of the posters there. You are doing them a grave injustice by dismissing their credibility solely on the basis of their ethnicity.

[thehorsemen]

No I'm judging based on their biases, which obviously leans towards the chinese. Your respect for someone is irrelevant.