DNA study, -- Europeans & Middle Ages

[a425couple]

From:
http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-ancestor-europeans-lived-1-000-years-ago.htm

"DNA Reveals Common Ancestor for Europeans that Lived 1,000 Years Ago
Scientists analyzed and compared DNA samples and discovered that Europeans
might have a lot more in common than previously believed. Based from the DNA
samples from people throughout the continent, scientists unveiled that most
of the people shared common ancestors just over 1,000 years ago. This
discovery reconfirmed previous mathematical models that suggested a link
between Europeans."

"Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had identical
DNA parts that could be traced backed to the Middle Ages. These findings
suggest that even after huge population movements stopped before the Middle
Ages, people still continued to move throughout the continent at a
respectively large rate."

[Paul J Gans]

Hmm. I doubt a common ancester 1000 years ago unless Casanova
had a serious ancestor. I think that there are a few zeros
missing in the time reported.

Also, there were very very few large scale population movements
in Europe going back to late classical times. There are one or
two notable exceptions. But a typical "mass migration" likely
involved only a few thousand individuals tops.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Bill]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:39:45 -0700, "a425couple"
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>From:
>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-ancestor-europeans-lived-1-000-years-ago.htm
>
>"DNA Reveals Common Ancestor for Europeans that Lived 1,000 Years Ago
>Scientists analyzed and compared DNA samples and discovered that Europeans
>might have a lot more in common than previously believed. Based from the DNA
>samples from people throughout the continent, scientists unveiled that most
>of the people shared common ancestors just over 1,000 years ago. This
>discovery reconfirmed previous mathematical models that suggested a link
>between Europeans."
>

That's way too late.

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> From:
>> http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-ancestor-europeans-lived-1-000-years-ago.htm

...

>
>> "Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had identical
>> DNA parts that could be traced backed to the Middle Ages. These findings
>> suggest that even after huge population movements stopped before the Middle
>> Ages, people still continued to move throughout the continent at a
>> respectively large rate."
>
> Hmm. I doubt a common ancester 1000 years ago unless Casanova
> had a serious ancestor. I think that there are a few zeros
> missing in the time reported.

Cheri Cheng, the author of the piece really over-interprets the results
of the research. According to the body of the article, researchers found
only that Europeans as distant as 2000 miles shared some DNA sequences
that date back to about the millenium, _not_ a single ancestor. Of
course this web site farther on down advertises "Russian Gymnast Has the
World's Strongest Vagina" (!) so how credible can _Counsel&Heal_ be?

Paul

[John Oliver]

Given the amount of fighting and raiding a thousand years ago and
given that women were part of the spoils of war, I would expect a lot
of genetic mixing.

--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au

[Bill]

There may have been a lot of raiding and fighting, but by 1000AD
most of Europe had calmed down quite a bit. By then raiding and wars
were pretty localised.

The 'migration period' was long over and people had more or less
stopped doing large scale migrations.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Bill wrote:

> On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:57:45 +1000, John Oliver
> <jdol...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:55:36 -0400, Paul F Austin
> ><pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> From:
> >>>>
> http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-a
> ncestor-europeans-lived-1-000-years-ago.htm
> > > ...
> > > >
> >>>> "Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had
> identical >>>> DNA parts that could be traced backed to the Middle
> Ages. These findings >>>> suggest that even after huge population
> movements stopped before the Middle >>>> Ages, people still continued
> to move throughout the continent at a >>>> respectively large rate."
> > > >
> >>> Hmm. I doubt a common ancester 1000 years ago unless Casanova
> >>> had a serious ancestor. I think that there are a few zeros
> >>> missing in the time reported.
> > >
> > > Cheri Cheng, the author of the piece really over-interprets the
> > > results of the research. According to the body of the article,
> > > researchers found only that Europeans as distant as 2000 miles
> > > shared some DNA sequences that date back to about the millenium,

> > > not a single ancestor. Of course this web site farther on down

> > > advertises "Russian Gymnast Has the World's Strongest Vagina" (!)
> > > so how credible can _Counsel&Heal_ be?
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Given the amount of fighting and raiding a thousand years ago and
> > given that women were part of the spoils of war, I would expect a
> > lot of genetic mixing.
>
> There may have been a lot of raiding and fighting, but by 1000AD
> most of Europe had calmed down quite a bit. By then raiding and wars
> were pretty localised.
>
> The 'migration period' was long over and people had more or less
> stopped doing large scale migrations.

If you calculate the theoretical number of ancestors 1000 years ago,
that far more than the world population. So you are basically
descendant from everyone that lived in your area 1000 years ago, but a
few of those individuals has migrated from another area, so you are
related to those people as well.

1000 years ago the elite was connected all over Europe, and would have
people in their court from those related families, so there is bound to
be genetic contact between all Europeans from 1000 years ago.

But in practice the far away genes may form only a small percentage,
and the bulk will be from the local variety, which explains that
despite the existance of far away connections, local racial
characteristics have been maintained or even enhanced on average.

--

[SolomonW]

Particularly, if you consider that during the earlier Roman era, there was
already a lot mixing. The DNA for these so-called common ancestor is quite
possibly much older than the 1000 years of this study.

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/8/2013 7:57 PM, John Oliver wrote:

> Given the amount of fighting and raiding a thousand years ago and
> given that women were part of the spoils of war, I would expect a lot
> of genetic mixing.
>

Highlands Triathlon: Raping, Croft Burning and Cattle Lifting.

Paul

[Bill]

On 09 May 2013 10:54:53 GMT, "Erik Springelkamp"

<er...@springelkamp.invalid> wrote:


>If you calculate the theoretical number of ancestors 1000 years ago,
>that far more than the world population. So you are basically
>descendant from everyone that lived in your area 1000 years ago, but a
>few of those individuals has migrated from another area, so you are
>related to those people as well.
>
>1000 years ago the elite was connected all over Europe, and would have
>people in their court from those related families, so there is bound to
>be genetic contact between all Europeans from 1000 years ago.
>
>But in practice the far away genes may form only a small percentage,
>and the bulk will be from the local variety, which explains that
>despite the existance of far away connections, local racial
>characteristics have been maintained or even enhanced on average.

I know it's 40 generations, and I know that there was some movement,
but I still doubt that there was that much mixing in a Europe that was
noted for the static nature of its society for the first half of the
period.

[a425couple]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> John Oliver <jdol...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> From:
>>>>> http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-ancestor-europeans-lived-1-000-years-ago.htm

>>>>> "Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had
>>>>> identical
>>>>> DNA parts that could be traced backed to the Middle Ages. These
>>>>> findings
>>>>> suggest that even after huge population movements stopped before the
>>>>> Middle
>>>>> Ages, people still continued to move throughout the continent at a
>>>>> respectively large rate."
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I doubt a common ancester 1000 years ago unless Casanova
>>>> had a serious ancestor. I think that there are a few zeros
>>>> missing in the time reported.
>>>
>>>Cheri Cheng, the author of the piece really over-interprets the results
>>>of the research. According to the body of the article, researchers found
>>>only that Europeans as distant as 2000 miles shared some DNA sequences

>>>that date back to about the millenium, _not_ a single ancestor. ---

>>
>>Given the amount of fighting and raiding a thousand years ago and
>>given that women were part of the spoils of war, I would expect a lot
>>of genetic mixing.
>
> There may have been a lot of raiding and fighting, but by 1000AD
> most of Europe had calmed down quite a bit. By then raiding and wars
> were pretty localised.
> The 'migration period' was long over and people had more or less
> stopped doing large scale migrations.

Yes, Thank You, or I agree, that Bill's above statement,
is the point I took from the cite.

(Very unlike, for example, changes in North America,
South America or Australia/Oceania in last 500 years.)

Question, what were some of the more recent other
major DNA mixings?

Did the Mongol Empire's growth 1206 to ~1335
stir up a lot ? (Central Asia & Eastern Europe)
(Or was that mostly just rulership, not real
population change?)

[Peter Jason]

Has anyone grouped sets of minorities, like Jews,
and compared their DNA to the average?

[Erik Springelkamp]

1000 years ago in Europe a very dynamic period was on the way, with
many new land development projects with a lot of people moving around.
Not the invading kind of movement, but the colonising movement.

--

[AlexMilman]

On May 9, 2:31 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> >  John Oliver  <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:

> >>  Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>  Paul J Gans wrote:

> >>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> From:
> >>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...

The wars could be localized but there was plenty of them and there was
extensive slave trade all over Eastern Europe. Some of these wars were
not even quite 'local': you can find "Pechenegs" on wiki. In the late
XI the whole nation of Pechenegs had been pretty much annihilated and
substituted by Polovtsy (Kumans). Territory from modern Hungary to
modern Kazakhstan and Polovtsy moved here from modern western
Siberia.

>
> (Very unlike, for example, changes in North America,
> South America or Australia/Oceania in last 500 years.)
>
> Question, what were some of the more recent other
> major DNA mixings?
>
> Did the Mongol Empire's growth 1206 to ~1335
> stir up a lot ?

Of course, it did and in a whole variety of ways. Voluntarily and
forced migrations had been quite extensive. Mostly, of course, in Asia
(where there was a lot of 'stirring' even without Mongols) but eastern
Europe also got its share.

>(Central Asia & Eastern Europe)
> (Or was that mostly just rulership, not real

> population change)

The whole multinational armies ended up settling in the new areas
mixing with the locals and producing at least one brand new nation
(Tatars) with more than one disappearing (including real Tatars whom
Genghis almost completely annihilated .

[Bryn]

This is complete crap. Haplotyping paints a completely different and surprising picture.

Bryn

[Bryn]

The original hypothesis of the thread, not any of the replies...

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/10/2013 6:43 PM, Peter Jason wrote:

>
> Has anyone grouped sets of minorities, like Jews,
> and compared their DNA to the average?
>

Because of genetic diseases among (mostly) Ashkenazi Jews, the genetics
of Jewry has been investigated vigorously, even prior to modern DNA
mapping. Here's a very high level article on the status of research into
the origins of modern Ashkenazi:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130116195333.htm

The upshot is that Eastern European Jews came from a fairly small group
of people residing in 15th Century Germany who moved east and expanded
rapidly once while remaining closely related with relatively little
out-marriage.

Paul

[AlexMilman]

Jews provably lived in Poland at least since XIII century. DNA are
fine but the legal documents are even better: Boleslav V granted
privileges to the Polish Jews in 1264 and these privileges had been
confirmed by Casimir the Great in 1334. In other words, this theory
simply does not hold the water even without considerations listed
below.


BTW, your description of the article is incorrect. It is about a study
regarding origin of the European Jews and what you wrote above is a
brief description of a theory to which this study contradicts:

"The Rhineland Hypothesis has been the favoured explanation for the
origins of present-day European Jews, until now. In this scenario Jews
descended from Israelite-Canaanite tribes left the Holy Land for
Europe in the 7th century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine.
Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately
50,000 left Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they
maintained high endogamy, and despite wars, persecution, disease,
plagues, and economic hardships, their population expanded rapidly to
around 8 million in the 20th century. Due to the implausibility of
such an event, this rapid expansion was explained by Prof Harry
Ostrer, Dr Gil Atzmon, and colleagues as a miracle."

So, (a) this is a Hypotesis and (b) a discredited one. Most of the
article dedicated to Dr Elhaik's theory which seems to be in a direct
contradiction with Rhineland Hypothesis and "identified the Caucasus-
Near Eastern and European ancestral signatures in the European Jews'
genome along with a smaller, but substantial Middle Eastern genome."

Quite obviously you read just beginning of the 1st paragraph and not
the whole article because it says:

"Dr Elhaik writes, "The most parsimonious explanation for our findings
is that Eastern European Jews are of Judeo-Khazarian ancestry forged
over many centuries in the Caucasus. Jewish presence in the Caucasus
and later Khazaria was recorded as early as the late centuries BCE and
reinforced due to the increase in trade along the Silk Road, the
decline of Judah (1st-7th centuries), and the rise of Christianity and
Islam. Greco-Roman and Mesopotamian Jews gravitating toward Khazaria
were also common in the early centuries and their migrations were
intensified following the Khazars' conversion to Judaism… The
religious conversion of the Khazars encompassed most of the Empire's
citizens and subordinate tribes and lasted for the next 400 years
until the invasion of the Mongols. At the final collapse of their
empire in the 13th century, many of the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern
Europe and later migrated to Central Europe and admixed with the
neighbouring populations."

In other words, he insists on Khazarian version but also takes 'Greko-
Roman' Jews into a consideration (and those could live anywhere in
Europe, even outside Khazaria itself).

[Michael Kuettner]

Yeah, sure.
No Magyars, Slavs, Normans or Saracenes, to name just a few.
All was quiet by 1000 AD.
<snort>

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

On May 13, 3:08 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:57:45 +1000, John Oliver
> > <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:55:36 -0400, Paul F Austin
> >> <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> >>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> From:
> >>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...

No disappearance of the whole Pecheneg state (with whoever left
fleeing into Hungary and Bulagria and mixing with the locals). No
Kumans staring raids into Southern Rus and Byzantine Empire. 1st
independent Walachian kingdom had been created by one of the Kuman
leaders. Poles, Danes and Germans just started protracted wars against
the Wends (territories between Elba and Order), which lasted for 2
centuries and ended with the serious changes in demographics.

[Paul J Gans]

Don't snort. How many people were involved with those
adventures? Even England, almost swimming distance from
Normandy, did not have a huge number of Normans coming
to settle.

The ethnic origins of today's Hungarians is the subject
of serious dispute.

The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
or grouping.

The Slavs, on the other hand, did migrate in some
numbers. But their migrations were mostly done by the
6th century.

And by the way, I did not say there were no wars. I
did say that after 1000 AD there were very few, if any
mass migrations in Europe.

[Paul J Gans]

AlexMilman <alexm...@msn.com> wrote:

>On May 13, 3:08?pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>> > On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:57:45 +1000, John Oliver
>> > <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:55:36 -0400, Paul F Austin
>> >> <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> From:
>> >>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...
>> >>> ...
>>
>> >>>>> "Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had identical
>> >>>>> DNA parts that could be traced backed to the Middle Ages. These findings
>> >>>>> suggest that even after huge population movements stopped before the Middle
>> >>>>> Ages, people still continued to move throughout the continent at a
>> >>>>> respectively large rate."
>>

>> >>>> Hmm. ?I doubt a common ancester 1000 years ago unless Casanova
>> >>>> had a serious ancestor. ?I think that there are a few zeros

>> >>>> missing in the time reported.
>>
>> >>> Cheri Cheng, the author of the piece really over-interprets the results
>> >>> of the research. According to the body of the article, researchers found
>> >>> only that Europeans as distant as 2000 miles shared some DNA sequences
>> >>> that date back to about the millenium, _not_ a single ancestor. Of
>> >>> course this web site farther on down advertises "Russian Gymnast Has the
>> >>> World's Strongest Vagina" (!) so how credible can _Counsel&Heal_ be?
>>
>> >>> Paul
>>
>> >> Given the amount of fighting and raiding a thousand years ago and
>> >> given that women were part of the spoils of war, I would expect a lot
>> >> of genetic mixing.
>>

>> > There may have been ?a lot of raiding and fighting, ?but by 1000AD

>> > most of Europe had calmed down quite a bit. By then raiding and wars
>> > were pretty localised.
>>
>> > The 'migration period' was long over and people had more or less
>> > stopped doing large scale migrations.
>>
>> Yeah, sure.
>> No Magyars, Slavs, Normans or Saracenes, to name just a few.
>> All was quiet by 1000 AD.
>> <snort>
>>

>No disappearance of the whole Pecheneg state (with whoever left
>fleeing into Hungary and Bulagria and mixing with the locals). No
>Kumans staring raids into Southern Rus and Byzantine Empire. 1st
>independent Walachian kingdom had been created by one of the Kuman
>leaders. Poles, Danes and Germans just started protracted wars against
>the Wends (territories between Elba and Order), which lasted for 2
>centuries and ended with the serious changes in demographics.

Could you give dates for these events, noting which led to
great population shifts after 1000 AD?

[Surreyman]

In the 1300s my great-whatever grandaddy moved down to Caerphilly Castle in Wales ........ :-))

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 13, 7:41 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >Bill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:57:45 +1000, John Oliver
> >> <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:55:36 -0400, Paul F Austin
> >>> <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> >>>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...

I could shed some light on that, elaborate.

the Hungarian confederation, under the Hunno-Turkic name On Oghur (Ten
Oghur) from which "Hungary" derives. were mostly Finno-Ugric speaking
Magyars and a smaller Hunno-Turkic (Bulgharic) ruling elite. later
Turkic (proper) speaking Bashghirds (Bashkirs), Pechnenegs and Comans
joined. the resulting Hungarian (Magyar) language is still a Finno-
Ugric language, albeit with a large and significant Bulgharic
vocabulary. it is thus a source of study of the Bulgharic branch of
Turkic, today represented only by Chuvash. the Magyars were also
called Turks because prior having a prince of one of the Bulghar clans
(Attilid?) they had a Khazar prince. the Khazars were also Bulghar
Turkic speaking people, but had a dynastic alliance (or affiliation)
with the former Asiatic Tu"rk Empire. very likely the European Huns
were Bulghar speaking and probably had brought that Turkic idiom into
Eurasia. I don't think that this part is controversial anymore. things
have been more or less sorted out. in the linguistic and "racial"
mixture, Slavs, Gemanic tribes and various Iranian elements like the
Alans were also involved.

the Panonian plain was a favorite place of settlement for the
linguistically allied Huns and Avars as well. the Avars are more
enigmatic, although the Turkic origin is gaining acceptance. some had
thought they were Mongolic group with Hunnic soldiery. increasingly
they are described as a Hunnic group that had adopted the Iranian name
(Avar) of the Ruan Ruan confederacy. just how much Mongolian or Hunnic
was involved in the language of the elite of that confederacy could be
argued. OTOH there is a recent decipherment of the Runic inscription
of a needle receptacle of late Avar provenance as mainstream Turkic.

>
> The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
> or grouping.

originally it refered to Arabs, or rather the Arabs of the desert and
peninsula, or having come from them, rather than the Arabs that those
who had settled in the Fertile Crescent that were partially
Aramaeanised

[AlexMilman]

On May 13, 7:42 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Of course. Pecheneg Khanate had been destroyed between 1091 and early
1120's (by 1121 they already had been squeezed toward Bulgaria). They
are still mention as an separate national group in 1151 but, AFAIK,
their independent state already had been gone and they lived in
Hungary and Bulgaria. The Kumans/Polovtsy/Kipchaks expanded from the
area East of Volga all the way to modern Bulgaria/Romania. Ah, yes,
they also contributed to the demographic changes by doing couple
centuries worth of raiding and slave trading (after which they had
been doing the same thing until mid XVIII as 'Tatars').

Wendish Wars started on a serious scale around 1068 (even if Wendish
Crusade had been declared only in 1147). Besides baptism of the
locals, there was a massive (by the standards of time) addition of the
German population and eventual Germanization of Brandenburg and Lower
Saxony.

[AlexMilman]

On May 13, 7:41 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >Bill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:57:45 +1000, John Oliver
> >> <jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:55:36 -0400, Paul F Austin
> >>> <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/8/2013 2:53 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> >>>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...

How many people had been involved with the earlier 'adventures'? It is
not like the Goths, Vandals, Francks, etc. invaded in millions. The
Huns were a split off a relatively small tribe who had been fleeing
from their homeland (possibly picking some other losers on their way)
and yet, they managed to cause a huge domino effect and to terrorize a
big chunk of Europe. The Magyars also had not been a huge mass of
people but they managed to penetrate a big part of the Western Europe
(and probably live some ... er ... 'genetic footprint' in it). BTW,
while defeat at Liechfield stopped their Westward raids, their
activities in Eastern and South-Eastern directions continues for the
centuries to come and their control extended all the way to the
Balkans.

>Even England, almost swimming distance from
> Normandy, did not have a huge number of Normans coming
> to settle.

Normans are quite separate issue: unlike earlier invaders (Saxons,
Danes, whoever) they contributed mostly elite. The same goes for their
activities in Sicily and Southern Italy (change 'Normans' to 'Variags'
and you'll get the same picture in Rus). But the cultural impact of
their activities had been quite substantial (DNA aside).

>
> The ethnic origins of today's Hungarians is the subject
> of serious dispute.
>

Mostly politically motivated. Quite obviously, local population is a
mix of various ethnic groups and, on the top of it has some Turkish
'contribution' as well.

> The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
> or grouping.
>
> The Slavs, on the other hand, did migrate in some
> numbers.  But their migrations were mostly done by the
> 6th century.

This is a very interesting statement. By 6th century most of what is
now Central Russia was populated by non-Slavic ethnic groups. By the
early XIII there was practically no Slavic presence East of Volga. By
the early XVIII there was practically no Slavic presence on the Baltic
shore. By the mid-XVIII there was no Slavic presence in what is now
Southern Ukraine and Southern European Russia. Slavic migration into
Siberia and Central Asia started in XVI century.

>
> And by the way, I did not say there were no wars.  I
> did say that after 1000 AD there were very few, if any
> mass migrations in Europe.

By 'after' do you mean 'soon after' or 'after' in general? In
general, there was German migration into Brandenburg and Prussia and,
to a lesser degree, into Latvia and Estonia. There was very serious
reshuffling of the local population in Volga-Don area as a result of
the Mongolian conquest. There were significant changes after expulsion
of the Moors and Jews from Spain. There was Slavic expansion
Southward, Eastward and Westward. There were Ottomans who left
significant footprint in the Eastern Europe. There was mass migration
of the French Protestants after Louis XIV abolished Edict of Nantes.
Most probably there were significant migrations of the Jewish
population (and I'm not even talking about XX century).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

they were also traded as slaves, mainly as military slaves to muslim
countries and in Egypt they formed a slave "dynasty", the Mameluks,
where the manumated slaves became rulers and the military elite,
bought their own kin (from the Golden Horde, by that time also Kypchak
Turkic speaking) until the supply of non-Muslim Kypchaks ran out, and
Circassians took their place. trading in Circassians, especially
women, continued until well into the 19th cent. despite their formal
to Islam. reports that they still ate pork etc. may be seen in this
light, although the caste system among Circassians themselves may have
been also a factor IMHO. the Circassians in Egypt, as long as the
Mamluk state lasted, simultaneously kept up Turkic traditions. after
that, and even today, there are Circassian Egyptians who have kept up
contact with the Caucasus and Circassian traditions.

a further influx of Circassians into the Middle East occured as a
result of the Russian conquest in the 19th cent.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

there is still a Turkish minority in Kosovo, Macodonia, Bulgaria and
especially Greece (W. Thrace). part of my own family settled in
Istanbul from there in the beginning of the 20th cent. there is also
the Christian Gagauz in Moldova, who had sought refuge in Russian
territory in the 19th cent. from the Dobruja region of Romania and
Bulgaria. they are from a group of Anatolian Turks who were at the
lossing, Byzantine supported side against the victorious Mongol
supported side in a dyanstic civil war who sought Byzantine protection
and were settled there. they may have absorbed Coman remnants since
that area was a favorite spot for Turkic settlement.

[Bryn]

[Bryn]

Looking at an overview the DNA of Scottish "Clan" name projects, Danish (Western Atlantic Modal)Y-DNA provides the largest proportion, only a small percent are Norse (Elite) and even smaller percent are Jewish. This is normal in each of the projects. It appears that only Campbells break this pattern.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 14, 12:37 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:

many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
(a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists) as a symbol
of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only. the legend of the
association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.

[AlexMilman]

I was talking strictly about European changes.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Kypchak Turkic speaking people who trace their ethnicity to a group
claiming to be a successor to the Golden Horde are known as Tatars,
while those identifying with the rebel Noqai ("dog" in Middle
Mongolian, Modern Khalkka has IIRC nokhoi) are known as Noghay.

many Kazan Tatars also identify as Bulghars and many are in fact
Kypchakized Volga Bulghars as evidenced form the language change found
for a family on tombstones fairly recently by a turkologist. Kazan
Tatar (as well as Bashkir) have a vowel system that reflects Chuvash
(i.e. Volga Bulghar) influence and Chuvash can be found in vocabulary
as well. in the Soviet era the authorities were OK with identification
with the relatively peaceful heritage of the Bulghar kingdom (in
contrast to the anti-Russian Godlen Horde) but Muslim Kazan Tatars
calling themslelves Bulghars was problematic as there is a polemic
between the Kazan Tatars (who can claim the geography as well as the
Islamc heritage of the Bulghar kingdom), the Chuvash (who can claim
the language of the Bulghars) and the Bulgarians (who claim the name)
as to who is the heir to the historical Bulghars. nowadays, there are
some Muslim Kazan Tatars who have identified themsleves as Bulghars.

[Michael Kuettner]

1066 ? ;-)

> Of course. Pecheneg Khanate had been destroyed between 1091 and early
> 1120's (by 1121 they already had been squeezed toward Bulgaria). They
> are still mention as an separate national group in 1151 but, AFAIK,
> their independent state already had been gone and they lived in
> Hungary and Bulgaria. The Kumans/Polovtsy/Kipchaks expanded from the
> area East of Volga all the way to modern Bulgaria/Romania. Ah, yes,
> they also contributed to the demographic changes by doing couple
> centuries worth of raiding and slave trading (after which they had
> been doing the same thing until mid XVIII as 'Tatars').
>
> Wendish Wars started on a serious scale around 1068 (even if Wendish
> Crusade had been declared only in 1147). Besides baptism of the
> locals, there was a massive (by the standards of time) addition of the
> German population and eventual Germanization of Brandenburg and Lower
> Saxony.
>

Then there's the battle of Lechfeld in 955, where the march of the
Magyars was stopped.
The meaning ? No more conquering. Meaning what ? The Magyars sat where
formerly other peoples had dwelled. Those had moved northwards and
southwards and westwards from their original habitate.
So we have a major Slavic influx along those lines.
Plus : Bulgarian Khanate against Byzantinium (ending in the 11th
century), fresh influx of Slave in the Balkans, etc.
There's also the disappearence of the Old Prussians (Pogesanier,Barten,
Galindern,Sudauern) in Masurien.
Sicily and Southern Italy had also large shifts.
Normandy (Rollo) in the 9th century leading to 1066.

After that : Eastern crusades (Deutscher Orden), etc.

Need any more hints, Paul ?

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

See my other post.
Anglo-Saxon historiography is so blessedly insular.
Magyars, Bulgarian Khanate & cie. don't mean anything to you.

> The ethnic origins of today's Hungarians is the subject
> of serious dispute.
>

Exactly, my dear man.
And why might that be the case ?
Might it be that major population shifts happened ?

> The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
> or grouping.
>

It refers to people who have _not_ originated in Europe
and came in great numbers.
That's the definition of "major population shift" ...

> The Slavs, on the other hand, did migrate in some
> numbers. But their migrations were mostly done by the
> 6th century.
>

Bullshit.
Their ethnogenesis was finished in the 6th century.
Plus : Their migrations started to interrupt the landlines
between the Byzantine empire and Europe in the 6th century.

And all those Magyars just happened to land in one of the most fertile
areas where noone was settling ? Those dumb Europeans ...

> And by the way, I did not say there were no wars. I
> did say that after 1000 AD there were very few, if any
> mass migrations in Europe.
>

Ah, now you're down to "few, if any " from "no" mass migrations.
Well, how about the Eastern colonization starting in the 12th
century (Deutschorden, eg) ?
In the 10th century, we still see the foundation of new Markgraft�mer,
as another example.
While the English language still has the term "margrave" for Markgraf,
English people haben't the foggiest notion what that really means.
It means founding a border mark with special privileges for the farmers
dwelling there : They are free men, owning their ground and paying few
taxes. But they are subject to Heerfahrt (meaning : they were constantly
under weapons to defend the territory).
Where did those people come from ? (Hint : Not from the indigenious
population).

Europe's not just France and the British Isles.
Although some Anglo-Saxon historians seem to hold that opinion.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

They ARE 'successors' of the Golden Horde.

> while those identifying with the rebel Noqai

Nogai/Nohoi was not necessarily a 'rebel'. He was a Ghengizid and for
quite a while had been sharing power with the Khan of the Golden
Horde. Then, he was killed in a battle with the 'main' Khan but this
was more or less usual situation.

>("dog" in Middle
> Mongolian, Modern Khalkka has IIRC nokhoi) are known as Noghay.
>
> many Kazan Tatars also identify as Bulghars

Which they are: Bulgar on Volga had been destroyed by the Mongols and
territory became a part of the Golden Horde.

> and many are in fact
> Kypchakized Volga Bulghars as evidenced form the language change found
> for a family on tombstones fairly recently by a turkologist. Kazan
> Tatar (as well as Bashkir) have a vowel system that reflects Chuvash
> (i.e. Volga Bulghar) influence and Chuvash can be found in vocabulary
> as well. in the Soviet era the authorities were OK with identification
> with the relatively peaceful heritage of the Bulghar kingdom (in
> contrast to the anti-Russian Godlen Horde) but Muslim Kazan Tatars
> calling themslelves Bulghars was problematic as there is a polemic
> between the Kazan Tatars (who can claim the geography as well as the
> Islamc heritage of the Bulghar kingdom), the Chuvash (who can claim
> the language of the Bulghars) and the Bulgarians (who claim the name)
> as to who is the heir to the historical Bulghars.

Bulgarians are mostly Slavs: they got their name from the invading
Bulgars (split from the Great Bulgaria on Volga) who mixed with the
locals (and more or less organized them into a state).

[AlexMilman]

Only small percentage of the highlanders are Jews? Why am I not
surprised? :-)

[John Oliver]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote:

>On May 14, 4:26�pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 11:14�pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:

>> > On May 9, 2:31�pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>> > > > �John Oliver �<jdoli...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > > >> �Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > >>> �Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > > >>>> a425couple <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> From:
>> > > >>>>>http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5284/20130508/dna-reveals-common-...
>> > > >>>>> "Individuals that lived around 2,000 miles from one another had

please <snip>!

--
John Oliver
jdol...@westnet.com.au

[Yusuf B Gursey]

but their national narrative as heirs to the Bulghars falls short on
linguistic grounds. Bulghar Turkic split off from the rest of Turkic
more than a thousand before that event and pursued its own
development. the language of Kazan is of mainstream Turkic of teh
Kypchak variety and in fact shows signs of literary contact with
Central Asian Turkic ("Old Uzbek"). as I said, it is only in the
phonetic development of certain vowels and some local vocabulary items
is the influence of the Volgabulghar substrate observed.

the Chuvash are probably descendants of the Bulghar population that
was rural, either did not adopt Islam or were only superficially
Muslim lapsed, when the kingdom disolved, lived across the river or
sought refuge their or were deported there. that being said, there is
still some Persian vocabulary in Chuvash that cannot have come via
Kazan Tatar on phonetic grounds and thus dates to the Volga Bulghar
period.

> > and many are in fact
> > Kypchakized Volga Bulghars as evidenced form the language change found
> > for a family on tombstones fairly recently by a turkologist. Kazan
> > Tatar (as well as Bashkir) have a vowel system that reflects Chuvash
> > (i.e. Volga Bulghar) influence and Chuvash can be found in vocabulary
> > as well. in the Soviet era the authorities were OK with identification
> > with the relatively peaceful heritage of the Bulghar kingdom (in
> > contrast to the anti-Russian Godlen Horde) but Muslim Kazan Tatars
> > calling themslelves Bulghars was problematic as there is a polemic
> > between the Kazan Tatars (who can claim the geography as well as the
> > Islamc heritage of the Bulghar kingdom), the Chuvash (who can claim
> > the language of the Bulghars) and the Bulgarians (who claim the name)
> > as to who is the heir to the historical Bulghars.
>
> Bulgarians are mostly Slavs: they got their name from the invading

indeed they are. but they claim (this is more about national
narratives) continuity with the Bulghars based on contuinity of the
Bulgarian state and name. calling the Danube Bulghar language
"Protobulgarian" (prabylgarski, drevnobylgarski = pardon my Slavic) as
literature on the subject emanating from Bulgaria is hardly accurate.
in linguistic terminology "Protobulgarian" would be the dialect of
reconstructed proto-South Slavic that was first spoken in present day
Bulgaria.

judging from the amount of linguistic remains of Danube Bulghar in
Bulgarian, one can conclude that the population of Hunnic Bulghars
was small. moreover, Iranian words or Turkified Iranian words point to
the fact that a significant number of Iranian speaking Alans came
along with them for the ride.(that branchof Iranian is now represented
by Ossetic). the Turks of Deli Orman, hailed by some Bulgarians as
descendants of the Bulghars speak an idiom close to Gagauz, that is
they are descendants of the group of Anatolian Turks I talked about
earlier seeking refuge in Byzantine territory. it's just that these
remained Muslim, albeit in heterodox form.

Modern Bulgarian has many loans from Ottoman Turkish and few remnants
from Bulgharo-Turkic.
Hungarian is the opposite case with few loans from Ottoman Turkish but
a very considerable amount of loans from Bulgharo-Turkic.

[Bill]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 04:31:11 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
>> or grouping.
>
>originally it refered to Arabs, or rather the Arabs of the desert and
>peninsula, or having come from them, rather than the Arabs that those
>who had settled in the Fertile Crescent that were partially
>Aramaeanised

Depends on the date and who the Christians were killing that week.

Certainly Turks were routinely called 'Saracens'.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 15, 4:24 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 04:31:11 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>

> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The term "saracen" refers to Muslims, not to a tribe
> >> or grouping.
>
> >originally it refered to Arabs, or rather the Arabs of the desert and
> >peninsula, or having come from them, rather than the Arabs that those
> >who had settled in the Fertile Crescent that were partially
> >Aramaeanised
>
> Depends on the date and who the Christians were killing that week.

I said "originally". this passage from Enc. of Islam II "Saracen"
section "Early usage" by Irfan Shahid more or less confirms what I had
in mind but gives more detail: note the qualification "Arab
*pastoralists*"

<<

Even more important is the denotation of the term. It clearly was
applied originally to a group of Arab pastoralists in northwest
Arabia, but soon it became the generic term for all the Arab
pastoralists within as well as without the Roman limes. And so it was
used by the secular and ecclesiastical historians of the 4th century,
such as Ammianus Marcellinus and Eusebius respectively. The latter
developed an interest in both the term and what the term stood for.
For them, the Saracens were the Biblical people, the sons of Ishmael,
hence the children of the bondwoman Hagar and thus “outside the
promises”. As some of the Saracens attacked the inmates of the
monastic establishments in the Orient, such as those in Chalcidice and
the Desert of Judah near the Jordan, they acquired a bad reputation
among these ecclesiastical historians, some of whom indulged in
etymologising the term “Saracen” along pejorative lines. Such was
Sozomen, who suggested that in order to avoid the opprobrium attaching
to their descent from Hagar, the bondwoman, the Arabs started to call
themselves by a name that related them to Sarah, the wife of the first
patriarch. These perceptions of the Arabs most probably explain the
emergence of other Biblical terms for the Arabs, such as Ismailitai
and Hagarēnoi, with the same pejorative implications.

>>

in the section "In medieval European usage" by Bosworth, it says:

<<

The term “Saracen” (OFr.Sar(r)azin, Sar(r)acin, OEng. Sarracene),
whatever its origin (see above, 1.) came into both Late Greek and Late
Latin usage during late antiquity, and at that time simply meant
“Arab”. With the rise of Islam, and in subsequent mediaeval European
times, European writers used “Saracen” to denote “Arab” or “Muslim” or
both, according to context. With the contacts of the Crusaders with
the Sald̲j̲ūḳs of Rūm in the 6th/12th century and the rise of the
appellation Turcia for Asia Minor, and, above all, with the appearance
of the Ottomans, “Saracen” in the sense of “Muslim” gave place to
“Turk”. As the Christian reconquista in the Iberian peninsula
progressed, followed by Spanish and Portuguese attacks on the North
African mainland, “Saracen” in the sense of “Arab” began to be
generally replaced by “Moor”, since the Christian peoples of the
Iberian peninsula had used Mauri and Moros for the Arab-Berber
invaders of their land [see moors ]. The increasing numbers of Western
travellers in North Africa and the Near East also came to use “Arab”
more particularly in a pejorative sense (here following the usage of
the indigenous urban populations of those lands) for “Bedouins,
brigands”. Hence in Western Europe, by the later Middle Ages,
“Saracen” had tended to fall out of usage and to be replaced by
somewhat more specific terms.

[Bill]

>and Hagar?noi, with the same pejorative implications.

>
> >>
>
>in the section "In medieval European usage" by Bosworth, it says:
>
> <<
>
>The term �Saracen� (OFr.Sar(r)azin, Sar(r)acin, OEng. Sarracene),
>whatever its origin (see above, 1.) came into both Late Greek and Late
>Latin usage during late antiquity, and at that time simply meant
>�Arab�. With the rise of Islam, and in subsequent mediaeval European
>times, European writers used �Saracen� to denote �Arab� or �Muslim� or
>both, according to context. With the contacts of the Crusaders with

>the Sald?j???s of R?m in the 6th/12th century and the rise of the

>appellation Turcia for Asia Minor, and, above all, with the appearance
>of the Ottomans, �Saracen� in the sense of �Muslim� gave place to
>�Turk�. As the Christian reconquista in the Iberian peninsula
>progressed, followed by Spanish and Portuguese attacks on the North
>African mainland, �Saracen� in the sense of �Arab� began to be
>generally replaced by �Moor�, since the Christian peoples of the
>Iberian peninsula had used Mauri and Moros for the Arab-Berber
>invaders of their land [see moors ]. The increasing numbers of Western
>travellers in North Africa and the Near East also came to use �Arab�
>more particularly in a pejorative sense (here following the usage of
>the indigenous urban populations of those lands) for �Bedouins,
>brigands�. Hence in Western Europe, by the later Middle Ages,
>�Saracen� had tended to fall out of usage and to be replaced by
>somewhat more specific terms.

Well yes, so what?

[Bryn]

I was surprised that there were any at all but every clan name project has a few J1s and & J2s.

*#;=]

[Michael Kuettner]

Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
would be more correct.

> (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
> other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
> cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)

Not just people. Islamic people.
Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
(Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with
that. They had much weight in the empire (and sadly, they ruled over
the Czechs and Slovaks - mutual hate ...)

> as a symbol
> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.

Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
that.

> the legend of the
> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>

It would be rather surprising.
The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
much later) Magyarian findings.
And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Yusuf B Gursey]

do I always have to argue for or against something?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.

German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
the Russian imitation.

>
> > (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
> > other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
> > cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)
>
> Not just people. Islamic people.

should be Muslim people.

again, this included many non-Muslim people

Hungarian pan-Turanism was also embraced by the Hungarian right-wing
between the wars and it served as an anti-Russian, anti-Soviet
ideology as well.

> Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
> (Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with

there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW

> that. They had much weight in the empire (and sadly, they ruled over
> the Czechs and Slovaks - mutual hate ...)
>
> > as a symbol
> > of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
> > emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>
> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
> that.
>

well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
"horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> > the legend of the
> > association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> > be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.

see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.

>
> It would be rather surprising.
> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> much later) Magyarian findings.

not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.

the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.

> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....

Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
Turkic etymology.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 16, 6:41 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > the legend of the
> > > association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> > > be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>
>
>
> > It would be rather surprising.
> > The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> > much later) Magyarian findings.
>
> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>

gyula, the title of the Hungarian aristocracy is Turkic and has a
cognate in the Bulgarian King's List (though admittedly it is quite
garbled and should be used with caution).

> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>
> > And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
> Turkic etymology.

see "The World of the Huns"

[Bill]

no.

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:

<snip>

>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>>
>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
>> would be more correct.
>
> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>

Of course it has to do with Islam.
Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".

> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> the Russian imitation.
>

The Hungarian answer to what ?
To Herder and Fichte, whose ideology was also rejected by us Austrians ?
What the fuck do you think 1866 was about ?
A little hint : We wanted a Germany including Hungarians, Czechs, etc.
We lost. The (Polish) Hohernzollern won.
The rest is history...
As for Russian Pan-Slavism - that was a nice construct of the Czar to
spread unrest on the Balkans. He succeeded in 1914 ...

>
>>
>>> (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
>>> other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
>>> cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)
>>
>> Not just people. Islamic people.
>
> should be Muslim people.
>

Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?

> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>

Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?

> Hungarian pan-Turanism was also embraced by the Hungarian right-wing
> between the wars and it served as an anti-Russian, anti-Soviet
> ideology as well.
>

Not really.
After fucking "President Wilson" fucked up Europe, there were wars
in all of the successor states.
Pilsudski also comes to mind ...
Arbitrarily drawn borders lead to wars...

>> Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
>> (Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with
>
> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>

Well, there you go.
You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...

>>> as a symbol
>>> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
>>> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>>
>> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
>> that.
>>
>
> well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
> the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
> "horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.
>

Well, yes. That may be very well true and all that.
Except that the "officialdom" in AUSTRIA-HUNGARY didn't give a flying shit.
There was no "poor suppressed Hungary ruled by bas Austrians".
That's Anglo-Saxon bullshit for justifying the devastation of Europe
after 1918 ...

>
>>> the legend of the
>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>>
>> It would be rather surprising.
>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>

Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.
Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
Byzantinum).
I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>
>>> the legend of the
>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>

What about them ?
See the writings of Vergil for the Troian origins of the Romans.
Archaeology tells another tale ...

>>
>> It would be rather surprising.
>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>
> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>

<sigh>
The archaeological findings also show no relation to the MUCH LATER TURKS.
Or, just to state it again : Who the Huns were (a mixture of foreign
troops under a dux (Attila)) or a tribe can't be determined.

> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>

I claim descent from Aeneas.
Has sweet fucking all to do with history.

>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
> Turkic etymology.
>

In Turkey ? But not really elsewhere. Sweet Jingoism ...
Turkish historiography under the current government has gone down the
drain. Sometimes one wishes for the army to come to power again ...

Cheers,

Michael� Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 16, 6:41 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> the legend of the
>>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>>
>> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It would be rather surprising.
>>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>>
>> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
>> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
>> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
>> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>>
>
> gyula, the title of the Hungarian aristocracy is Turkic and has a
> cognate in the Bulgarian King's List (though admittedly it is quite
> garbled and should be used with caution).
>

There you go again.
Dubious sources by Turkish historians.

>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>>
>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>
>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
>> Turkic etymology.
>
> see "The World of the Huns"
>

The world of the Huns ?
By whom ? Anything worthwhile in there ?
I've looked at excavation reports - general trend : Could be Hun, could
not be Hun.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> >> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> >> would be more correct.
>
> > this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> > nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> > not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> Of course it has to do with Islam.
> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".

And both Hungarian revolutions (in XVIII and XIX) had been about
Hungarian independence and not Turanism.

>
> > German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> > language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> > the Russian imitation.
>
> The Hungarian answer to what ?
> To Herder and Fichte, whose ideology was also rejected by us Austrians ?
> What the fuck do you think 1866 was about ?
> A little hint : We wanted a Germany including Hungarians, Czechs, etc.
> We lost. The (Polish) Hohernzollern won.
> The rest is history...
> As for Russian Pan-Slavism - that was a nice construct of the Czar to
> spread unrest on the Balkans. He succeeded in 1914 ...
>
>

Actually, 1st "success" was achieved after the war of 1877/78. Russia
was royally screwed at the Berlin Congress: after huge losses and
expenses she got Batum while the Brits got Cyprus and AH - Bosnia-
Herzegovina (well, I'm not sure if this was any gain economically).

>
> >>> (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
> >>> other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
> >>> cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)
>
> >> Not just people. Islamic people.
>
> > should be Muslim people.
>
> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>
> > again, this included many non-Muslim people
>
> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>
> > Hungarian pan-Turanism was also embraced by the Hungarian right-wing
> > between the wars and it served as an anti-Russian, anti-Soviet
> > ideology as well.
>
> Not really.
> After fucking "President Wilson" fucked up Europe, there were wars
> in all of the successor states.
> Pilsudski also comes to mind ...
> Arbitrarily drawn borders lead to wars...

AFAIK, pant-turanism or not, between wwi and wwii Hungary was not
trying to create an extended state that would include Tatars, Turic
and Ural people so what would be usefulness of this theory?

Pilsudski, of course, is a totally different story.

>
> >> Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
> >> (Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with
>
> > there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
> > Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>
> Well, there you go.
> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>
> >>> as a symbol
> >>> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
> >>> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>
> >> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
> >> that.
>
> > well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
> > the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
> > "horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.
>
> Well, yes. That may be very well true and all that.
> Except that the "officialdom" in AUSTRIA-HUNGARY didn't give a flying shit.
> There was no "poor suppressed Hungary ruled by bas Austrians".

Well, I think there was. In XVII century (whatever was there under
Austrian rule).

> That's Anglo-Saxon bullshit for justifying the devastation of Europe
> after 1918 ...
>
>

AFAIK, Hungary ended up on the list of 'oppressors' and lost Slovakia
and Transilvania (of course the local Romanians want this separation,
etc. but Hungary being on a loosing side helped a lot in the terms of
official recogniotion).

>
> >>> the legend of the
> >>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> >>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> >> It would be rather surprising.
> >> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> >> much later) Magyarian findings.
> >> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.

And Julius Caesar had been tracing his lineage to it (and to Venus, by
extension).

> Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
> Byzantinum).
> I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P
>

Of course. To found a credible dynasty I'd better descend from someone
with an impressive reputation. Preferably in the military area. There
were few exceptions here and there (like Romanovs) but the rule holds
and by the time of Arpad you hardly could do better than Atilla. :-)

[AlexMilman]

I wonder what Genghis had to do with the Turks and Iranians (and their
mythology).

> I claim descent from Aeneas.

If you read Sienkewich, claiming Roman or Troyan ancestry was quite
popular thing among Polish nobility of XVII. :-)

> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.

Any doe (or some other animal or a bird) anywhere in your lineage? :-)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

well, for starters Chinggis had a Turkic name (both his original as
well as the one he was given), Turks and Mongols have been
intermingilling for millenia. Iranians (i.e. Scythians) were there
too, but in the context of the Bulghars I refer to teh Alans (the name
of whom is just a variant of Aryan i.e. Iran). I use "Iranian"the way
linguists do, I do not refer to the geographic or political area of
moern day Iran.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 16, 4:43 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> > >> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> > >> would be more correct.
>
> > > this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> > > nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> > > not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> > Of course it has to do with Islam.
> > Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>
> And both Hungarian revolutions (in XVIII and XIX) had been about
> Hungarian independence and not Turanism.
>
>

as I explain below it was about "feeling good" about feeling part of
grander entity that was not Western Europe.

feeling important. also so in the 19th cent.. moreover, 19th cent.
linguistics divided languages inflectional (Indo-European dubbed
Aryan), agglutinative (all such languages of Eurasia and even Sumerian
were thought to be related on this typological basis and dubbed
"Turanian" inspired by the Persian epic where Iran - i.e. Aryan - who
are the good guys guided by Ahura-Mazda, is pitted against Turan which
are the eastern enemies of Iran - the bad guys guided by Ahriman, i.e.
the Devil) and isolating (such as Chinese). this is based on how words
are formed from other words and how nouns recieve case endings. at any
rate, inflectional languages were thought to be superior to
agglutinative languages (and spoken by higher developed humans) and
agglutinative languages superior to isolating ones. so Hungarians and
Turks gained from pan-Turanism what Western Europeans gained (or
rather thought they gained) from all that talk about the Aryan race
etc.

pan-Turanism was also an anti-Russian / anti-Soviet ideology as it
advocated the breakup of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union.

but more credibly, very likely Arpad and Attila both spoke the same
language (given the evolution of some centuries) and were very likely
of the same ethnicity.

> > Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
> > Byzantinum).
> > I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P
>
> Of course. To found a credible dynasty I'd better descend from someone
> with an impressive reputation. Preferably in the military area. There
> were few exceptions here and there (like Romanovs) but the rule holds
> and by the time of Arpad you hardly could do better than Atilla. :-)

what I say (more importantly what Omeljan Pritsak says) is that the
claim may very well have gone to the time in the Eurasian steppe and
may not have been invented in Europe.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 16, 3:14 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 16, 6:41 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>>> the legend of the
> >>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> >>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> >> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>
> >>> It would be rather surprising.
> >>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> >>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>
> >> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
> >> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
> >> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
> >> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>
> >   gyula, the title of the Hungarian aristocracy is Turkic and has a
> > cognate in the Bulgarian King's List (though admittedly  it is quite
> > garbled and should be used with caution).
>
> There you go again.
> Dubious sources by Turkish historians.
>

what's Turkish about Omeljan Pritsak, who was Ukranian? he founded the
journal "Harvard Journal of Unkranian Studies". he was also a leading
Turkologist. hi specialty was studying early Ukranian and Russian
history through "oriental" sources.

> >> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> >> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> >> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> >> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>
> >>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> >> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
> >> Turkic etymology.
>
> > see "The World of the Huns"
>
> The world of the Huns ?
> By whom ? Anything worthwhile in there ?

by Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen. the work is better known as "Maenchen-
Helfen". it's the classic introduction to things about the Huns.

I just downloaded it from Scribd, though I also have the book.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> >> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> >> would be more correct.
>
> > this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> > nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> > not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> Of course it has to do with Islam.

please enumerate these 19th cent. / 1930's Hungarian Muslims.

> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>

that's patriotism. nationalism is just feel-good superiority.

> > German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> > language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> > the Russian imitation.
>
> The Hungarian answer to what ?

German supriority.

> To Herder and Fichte, whose ideology was also rejected by us Austrians ?
> What the fuck do you think 1866 was about ?
> A little hint : We wanted a Germany including Hungarians, Czechs, etc.
> We lost. The (Polish) Hohernzollern won.
> The rest is history...
> As for Russian Pan-Slavism - that was a nice construct of the Czar to
> spread unrest on the Balkans. He succeeded in 1914 ...
>
>
>
> >>> (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
> >>> other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
> >>> cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)
>
> >> Not just people. Islamic people.
>
> > should be Muslim people.
>
> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>
> > again, this included many non-Muslim people
>
> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>

the idea is uniting them.

> > Hungarian pan-Turanism was also embraced by the Hungarian right-wing
> > between the wars and it served as an anti-Russian, anti-Soviet
> > ideology as well.
>
> Not really.
> After fucking "President Wilson" fucked up Europe, there were wars
> in all of the successor states.
> Pilsudski also comes to mind ...
> Arbitrarily drawn borders lead to wars...
>
> >> Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
> >> (Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with
>
> > there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
> > Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>
> Well, there you go.
> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>

I was talking about the early Middle Ages. here's more: certain areas
of Hungary got to be known as Turcia. later Mamluk Egypt was known by
that name, not surprising since the Mamluk Empire was known in Arabic,
at the time, as "The Turkish State", a name which the Ottoman Empire
did not use. only later was the Ottoman Empire or Anatolia called
that.

> >>> as a symbol
> >>> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
> >>> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>
> >> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
> >> that.
>
> > well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
> > the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
> > "horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.
>
> Well, yes. That may be very well true and all that.
> Except that the "officialdom" in AUSTRIA-HUNGARY didn't give a flying shit.
> There was no "poor suppressed Hungary ruled by bas Austrians".
> That's Anglo-Saxon bullshit for justifying the devastation of Europe
> after 1918 ...
>

well, that's politics I won't get into.

>
>
> >>> the legend of the
> >>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> >>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> >> It would be rather surprising.
> >> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> >> much later) Magyarian findings.
> >> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.
> Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
> Byzantinum).
> I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P

except that the claim of the dynasty later known as the Arpads may
have dated to the time when the Hungarians were still in the Volga
area. and at least the ruling clan spoke the same language

>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

On May 16, 9:52 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 4:43 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> > > >> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> > > >> would be more correct.
>
> > > > this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> > > > nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> > > > not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> > > Of course it has to do with Islam.
> > > Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>
> > And both Hungarian revolutions (in XVIII and XIX) had been about
> > Hungarian independence and not Turanism.
>
> as I explain below it was about "feeling good" about feeling part of
> grander entity that was not Western Europe.

In other words, it had nothing to do with the true Hungarian
nationalism or with anything having any practical besides it being
used by Vamberi as a cover-up for his spying activities (him being on
a payroll of the FO). British-Russian competition in the Central Asia
had nothing to do with pan-Turanism.



[]

> > AFAIK, pant-turanism or not, between wwi and wwii Hungary was not
> > trying to create an extended state that would include Tatars, Turic
> > and Ural people so what would be usefulness of this theory?
>
> feeling important. also so in the 19th cent..

Feeling important is hardly the same as anti-<whatever> propaganda.
Neither (AFAIK) was Horti government trying to unite all Turic people
(and neither did A-H). In other words, at beast (espionage aside) it
was a purely linguistic exercise. BTW, according to Wiki, "he idea of
the necessity of "Turanian brotherhood/collaboration" was borrowed
from the "Slavic brotherhood/collaboration" idea of Panslavism." and
not other way around as you are seemingly implying (unless I
misinterpreted your post).


> moreover, 19th cent.
[]

>
> pan-Turanism was also an anti-Russian / anti-Soviet ideology as it
> advocated the breakup of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union.

Taking into an account almost total impracticality of the exercise on
this specific basis, it does not worth serious discussion. Pre-WWI
variety was at least about uniting 'Turks and Hungarians against Slavs
(in general) and pan-Slavianism. It seems that a target more practical
than Russia would be Slavs on the Balkans.

Of course, the Young Turks had pipe dreams about restoration of the
Ottoman Empire but I'm afraid that such a program was a little bit on
impractical side and would definitely had problems with the Hungarians
(most of whom would hardly enjoy an idea of a new occupation by their
'Turanic brethren'). Not to mention that by this time the Turks had
been consistently loosing wars even to the Balkan states.

> > > >> It would be rather surprising.
> > > >> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> > > >> much later) Magyarian findings.
> > > >> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> > > Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.
>
> > And Julius Caesar had been tracing his lineage to it (and to Venus, by
> > extension).
>
> but more credibly, very likely Arpad and Attila both spoke the same
> language (given the evolution of some centuries) and were very likely
> of the same ethnicity.

As far as I can understand, most of your linguistic associations are
based on few common words. Well, there are numerous English and French
words in the modern Russian so, following this way of a reasoning,
Russians should have French and English roots (or other way around as
some modern Russian 'historians' are claiming).

One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.

>
> > > Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
> > > Byzantinum).
> > > I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P
>
> > Of course. To found a credible dynasty I'd better descend from someone
> > with an impressive reputation. Preferably in the military area. There
> > were few exceptions here and there (like Romanovs) but the rule holds
> > and by the time of Arpad you hardly could do better than Atilla. :-)
>
> what I say (more importantly what Omeljan Pritsak says) is that the
> claim may very well have gone to the time in the Eurasian steppe and
> may not have been invented in Europe.

AFAIK, Arpad operated exclusively in Europe and so did Atilla (the
Huns crossed Volga in 370s). So whatever claim was, it can't go back
to the 'Eurasian steppe' unless you are talking about European part of
this steppe. In other words, story (true or false) most definitely
originated in Europe.

[AlexMilman]

Or perhaps you are simply using Turic spelling of his title ("Genghis
Khan" was a title, not name) and I have doubts that Temujin is a Turic
name.

>Turks and Mongols have been
> intermingilling for millenia.

Not to a degree you are claiming.

> Iranians (i.e. Scythians) were there
> too,

In Mongolia? Wow!

>but in the context of the Bulghars

What they have to do with Genghis and mythology related to his birth?

> I refer to teh Alans (the name
> of whom is just a variant of Aryan i.e. Iran). I use "Iranian"the way
> linguists do, I do not refer to the geographic or political area of
> moern day Iran.

As usually, you start with one thing and ended being all over the map.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote:

>> I claim descent from Aeneas.
>
>If you read Sienkewich, claiming Roman or Troyan ancestry was quite
>popular thing among Polish nobility of XVII. :-)
>
>> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.

Heck - back around that time (and earlier) that sort of thing was
common in MOST of Europe including both Britain and pre-revolutionary
France.

(Personally I don't try to trace my own back further than the
Mayflower - and I do have one of those in my family tree which my aunt
says is verified by the Daughters of the American Revolution gorup -
but even assuming it's true - so? Please bear in mind that I am NOT
American...)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

he was given the honorary name Chinggis is from Turkic Tengiz
"Sea" (perhaps in this case "Ocean"). in present day Altai Turkic such
a pronounciation is found. it is not a cognate, for phonetic reasons.
cf. Dalai Lama (this was given by the Mongols) dalai being "sea" in
Mongolian (Turkic taluy, obsolete). Khan is a title common to Turks
and Mongols. Temüchin is a variant of Mongolian temürchin
"blacksmith" (the Chinese rendering of his name makes it mean
"Greatest Man in the World") temür is "iron" is found in Mongolian but
from Turkic (perhaps ultimately Iranian) as iron working came from the
west. the suffix -chin / -chi appears in Turkic as -chi and is a
common and productive suffix forming names of proffessions. Chinggis
(Temüchin) was named after a Kara Khitai military leader. the Kara
Khitai were of Mongolian origin ruling a largely Turkic population
west of the original Mongols.

> name.
>
> >Turks and Mongols have been
> > intermingilling for millenia.
>
> Not to a degree you are claiming.
>

linguistics indicates that Mongolian and Turkic have had massive
lexical exchanges in several stages trhoughout millenia. this has made
establishing a genetic link between the two dififcult. if the two
groups have genetic relationship, it dates to a time before the
breakup of Indo-European. in addition they share the culture of the
Asian steppe in the fields of religion, military and class
organization, lifestyle etc.

> > Iranians (i.e. Scythians) were there
> > too,
>
> In Mongolia? Wow!

well, yes. there are still pockets of Iranian speech in Xinjiang,
China. Sogdian, the lingua franca of the Silk Road in the 1st.
millenium, was used in the earliest monuments pf the Türk Empire,
whose center was Western and Central Mongolia. the Mongolians were
orginally further east than they are now, the various Turkic people of
South Siberia represent the remnants who have remained behind,

>
> >but in the context of the Bulghars
>
> What they have to do with Genghis and mythology related to his birth?
>

not specific to Chinggis, a creation myth of his ancestry.

the Asiatic Turks share a wolf (the sex is different) in their
creation myths of their dynasty with that of the Mongols, I don't
think it is illegitemate to venture the possibilty that the Bulghars,
a Turkic people that share in their language charcteristics with
Mongolian not otherwise shared by other Turkic languages, might share
the doe. a wolf also figures in Bashgird legends BTW.

> > I refer to teh Alans (the name
> > of whom is just a variant of Aryan i.e. Iran). I use "Iranian"the way
> > linguists do, I do not refer to the geographic or political area of
> > moern day Iran.
>
> As usually, you start with one thing and ended being all over the map.

the Alanic influence in Bulghar is independent of any Iranian
infleunce in other Turkic languages or Mongolian. it's just
coincidental or marginal that it crops up.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

ideological myths are rarely practical.

> variety was at least about uniting 'Turks and Hungarians against Slavs
> (in general) and pan-Slavianism. It seems that a target more practical
> than Russia would be Slavs on the Balkans.

but it served bad mouthing Russia in other ways as well.

>
> Of course, the Young Turks had pipe dreams about restoration of the
> Ottoman Empire but I'm afraid that such a program was a little bit on

they tried a holding strategy for some time. by WWI this was confined
to the Arab provinces (which was given as a virtual fiefdom to Cavit /
Javid Pasha), Enver Pasha had actual dreams of making an Asian Empire
and disasterously tried to put into practice, and Tal'at (Talaat), the
civilian, who later acquired the civil title of Pasha had the job of
Anatolia, the detials of which Turkish laws prevent me from saying.
Bulgaria became an ally and a piece of territory was yielded to it.

> impractical side and would definitely had problems with the Hungarians
> (most of whom would hardly enjoy an idea of a new occupation by their
> 'Turanic brethren'). Not to mention that by this time the Turks had
> been consistently loosing wars even to the Balkan states.
>
> > > > >> It would be rather surprising.
> > > > >> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> > > > >> much later) Magyarian findings.
> > > > >> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> > > > Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.
>
> > > And Julius Caesar had been tracing his lineage to it (and to Venus, by
> > > extension).
>
> > but more credibly, very likely Arpad and Attila both spoke the same
> > language (given the evolution of some centuries) and were very likely
> > of the same ethnicity.
>
> As far as I can understand, most of your linguistic associations are
> based on few common words. Well, there are numerous English and French

the linguistic association between Hungarian and Turkic due to massive
borrowing and not genetic relationship. the relationship between
Bulgharic (represented today by Chuvash) is genetic and not
controversial. there is a controiversy over the relationship between
Turkic and Mongolian. it is unclear how much is due to genetic
relationship or the massive borrowing that has been known to have
taken place. if there is a genetic, as many still maintain, it is
probably at a time depth greater than the breakup of Indo-European or
at a time depth that involves very long range relationships. as for
the language of the European Huns unfortunately there is very little
data. proper names and historical records indicate the best candidate
to be Bulgharic (branch oif Turkic) and this has grown to be much less
controversial than previously. the language of the Asiatic Huns, the
Xiongnu is a seperate controversy, though many maintain it to be an
archaic form of Turkic and the Chinese had associated the Türk with
the Xiongnu while not associating others. there is always the problem
that these steppe confederations did not have a homgenous linguistic
and ethnic makeup and these charcteristics frequently changed over
time.

well, above is not neccessarily my view but the present state of
"Altaic" (whether or not such a genetic grouping actually exists)
studies, controversies and caveats and all.

> words in the modern Russian so, following this way of a reasoning,
> Russians should have French and English roots (or other way around as
> some modern Russian 'historians' are claiming).
>
> One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
>

Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian. he was respected
Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
history from a perspective of "oriental" sources. his last tenure was
at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies. I
recommend you read his works and I am

>
> > > > Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
> > > > Byzantinum).
> > > > I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P
>
> > > Of course. To found a credible dynasty I'd better descend from someone
> > > with an impressive reputation. Preferably in the military area. There
> > > were few exceptions here and there (like Romanovs) but the rule holds
> > > and by the time of Arpad you hardly could do better than Atilla. :-)
>
> > what I say (more importantly what Omeljan Pritsak says) is that the
> > claim may very well have gone to the time in the Eurasian steppe and
> > may not have been invented in Europe.
>
> AFAIK, Arpad operated exclusively in Europe and so did Atilla (the
> Huns crossed Volga in 370s). So whatever claim was, it can't go back
> to the 'Eurasian steppe' unless you are talking about European part of
> this steppe. In other words, story (true or false) most definitely
> originated in Europe.

nevertheless the Huns after Attila retreated back to Eurasia under
Irnak and it is not unimaginable that his reputation and dynasty lived
on. the Bulghars appear in the area after the Hun dissolution. at
least Omeljan Pritsak thought so.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 16, 3:11 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >>> the legend of the
> >>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> >>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> > see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>
> What about them ?
> See the writings of Vergil for the Troian origins of the Romans.
> Archaeology tells another tale ...
>

Omeljan Pritsak (passed away not too long ago) was a very respectable
Harvard proffesor and was an academic in Germany before. an ethnic
Ukranian from Gallicia, he had been educated in Poland before the war

>
>
> >> It would be rather surprising.
> >> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> >> much later) Magyarian findings.
>
> > not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
> > Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
> > medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
> > legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>
> <sigh>
> The archaeological findings also show no relation to the MUCH LATER TURKS.

I said Turkic, and Turkic of the Bulghar group. Turkic is a linguistic
grouping.

> Or, just to state it again : Who the Huns were (a mixture of foreign
> troops under a dux (Attila)) or a tribe can't be determined.
>

yes, those confederations were of varied ethnic composition and the
Huns were willing to admit into their ranks whoever was willing to
blend in (there is a report of a Roman among them who dressed like
them and had adopted their customs).

> > the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> > the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> > original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> > ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>
> I claim descent from Aeneas.
> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.
>

common motifs in myths may be an indicator of a shared cultural
complex.

> >> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> > Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with

> > Turkic etymology.a

>
> In Turkey ? But not really elsewhere. Sweet Jingoism ...

no this is quite respectable etymology. some of them are quite
transparent.

> Turkish historiography under the current government has gone down the
> drain. Sometimes one wishes for the army to come to power again ...
>

actually emphasis and exageration and crackpottery on Turkish orgins
and their external relations are the domain of secularist
ultrantionalists, many of whom identify as Kemalists. these matters
are of no or secondary concern to Islamists who have their own myths.

> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian. he was respected
> Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> history from a perspective of "oriental" sources. his last tenure was
> at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies. I
> recommend you read his works and I am
>
>

sure you will find them interesting,

[AlexMilman]

On May 17, 5:51 am, The Horny Goat <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
>

And (correct me if I'm wrong) you are not a founder of a royal dynasty
either. :-)

Things which are of a little or no importance for the ordinary people
in a modern world were extremely important for royal/aristocratic
personages of the past. Prestige of a dynasty, position within the
ranks of aristocracy, these things were taken quite seriously.

Did you hear about "mestnichestvo" in the old Russia?

[AlexMilman]

On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> he was respected
> > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.

I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
authenticity of the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a
meaning of approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
century.

> his last tenure was
> > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.

I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
involved.

> I
> > recommend you read his works and I am
>
> sure you will find them interesting,

After reading quite a few books by Gumilev, I think that I have enough
of the Asiatic theories.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

we don't have linguistic remains that extend to the area of Mongolia
of antiquity, and the Scythian complex was likely to have been
multilingual. but DNA analysis of skeletons are discussed under
"Scythians" in Wikipedia:

In 2001, the discovery of an undisturbed royal Scythian burial-barrow
illustrated for the first time Scythian animal-style gold that lacks
the direct influence of Greek styles. Forty-four pounds of gold
weighed down the royal couple in this burial, discovered near Kyzyl,
capital of the Siberian republic of Tuva.

Burials at Pazyryk in the Altay Mountains have included some
spectacularly preserved Scythians of the "Pazyryk culture" – including
the Ice Maiden of the 5th century BC.

In a 2009 study, the haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human
specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area in Siberia dated from between the
middle of the 2nd millennium BC to the 4th-century AD (Scythian and
Sarmatian timeframe). Nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R-M17.
The study authors suggest that their data shows that between Bronze
and Iron Ages, the constellation of populations known variously as
Scythians, Andronovians, etc. were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned
and light-haired people who might have played a role in the early
development of the Tarim Basin civilization. Moreover, this study
found that they were genetically more closely related to modern
populations of eastern Europe than central and southern Asia.[22]

In a 2004 study, analysis of the HV1 sequence obtained from a male
Scytho-Siberian's remains at the Kizil site in the Altai Republic
revealed the individual possessed the N1a maternal lineage.[23]
Mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from two Scytho-Siberian
skeletons found in the Altai Republic (Russia). Both remains were
determined to be of males from a population who had characteristics
"of mixed Euro-Mongoloid origin". One of the individuals was found to
carry the F2a maternal lineage, and the other the D lineage, both of
which are characteristic of East Eurasian populations.[24]

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 11:56 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> > he was respected
> > > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.
>
> I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
> authenticity of  the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
> sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
> of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a
> meaning of  approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
> both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
> it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
> century.
>
> > his last tenure was
> > > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.
>
> I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
> involved.
>

he wrote much about the Origins of the Rus:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Rus-Vol-Scandanavian/dp/0674644654

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 11:56 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> > he was respected
> > > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.
>
> I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
> authenticity of  the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
> sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
> of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a

perhaps by linguistic analysis, cf. Karl H. Menges "The Oriental
elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the Igor' tale,
Slovo o polku Igorev'e"

> meaning of  approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
> both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
> it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
> century.
>
> > his last tenure was
> > > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.
>
> I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
> involved.
>
> > I
> > > recommend you read his works and I am
>
> > sure you will find them interesting,
>
> After reading quite a few books by Gumilev, I think that I have enough
> of the Asiatic theories.

there are others who are more mainstream

[Michael Kuettner]

AlexMilman wrote:
> On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>>
>>>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
>>>> would be more correct.
>>
>>> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
>>> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
>>> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>>
>> Of course it has to do with Islam.
>> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>
> And both Hungarian revolutions (in XVIII and XIX) had been about
> Hungarian independence and not Turanism.

Exactly - no Turanism.
But also not about Hungarian independence, but along the lines
of 1848 ...

>>
>>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
>>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
>>> the Russian imitation.
>>
>> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>> To Herder and Fichte, whose ideology was also rejected by us Austrians ?
>> What the fuck do you think 1866 was about ?
>> A little hint : We wanted a Germany including Hungarians, Czechs, etc.
>> We lost. The (Polish) Hohernzollern won.
>> The rest is history...
>> As for Russian Pan-Slavism - that was a nice construct of the Czar to
>> spread unrest on the Balkans. He succeeded in 1914 ...
>>
>>
>
> Actually, 1st "success" was achieved after the war of 1877/78. Russia
> was royally screwed at the Berlin Congress: after huge losses and

Austria was screwed, too. Franz-Joseph wasn't too bright ...

> expenses she got Batum while the Brits got Cyprus and AH - Bosnia-
> Herzegovina (well, I'm not sure if this was any gain economically).
>

Yeah, Britain screwed the rest of the continent, again. Balance of power
and all that.
As for Bosnia-Herzegovina :
Austria was granted the "right" to station troops there to prevent
Russia from moving in.
Meaning : Austria protected territories of the Ottoman Empire against
Russia.
OTOH, it was Ottoman territory; all taxes and benefits went to Istanbul.
So, what did we have here :
After the Congress of Berlin the Ottomans didn't give a flying fuck for
Bosnia-Herzegovina; they let civil order and government break down.
After a generation of protecting Ottoman territory where the country
broke down along tribal rules, while Austria just guaranteed the borders
of this shithole, there were just two alternatives in 1908 :
Either move out and let the explosion on the Balkans happen or move in
and bring law and order back (the so-called annexion).
Loking back, we should have moved out and let those savages slaughter
each other.

>
>>
>>>>> (a pipe dream of a vast solidarity involving Uralic and Altaic and
>>>>> other people stretching from eastern Europe to east Asia) in the 19th
>>>>> cent. (before it was adopted by some Turkish nationalists)
>>
>>>> Not just people. Islamic people.
>>
>>> should be Muslim people.
>>
>> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>>
>>> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>>
>> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>>
>>> Hungarian pan-Turanism was also embraced by the Hungarian right-wing
>>> between the wars and it served as an anti-Russian, anti-Soviet
>>> ideology as well.
>>
>> Not really.
>> After fucking "President Wilson" fucked up Europe, there were wars
>> in all of the successor states.
>> Pilsudski also comes to mind ...
>> Arbitrarily drawn borders lead to wars...
>
> AFAIK, pant-turanism or not, between wwi and wwii Hungary was not
> trying to create an extended state that would include Tatars, Turic
> and Ural people so what would be usefulness of this theory?
>

Yep- Hungary gained much territory from Wilson; motto : "Claim this
strip of land is Hungarian and get it.". Plattensee comes to mind.
They also got territories from Czechoslovakia and led some borderwars
under Horty.

> Pilsudski, of course, is a totally different story.
>

Not really. He was just the most extreme leader of the newly
created states; they all had some minor border-wars - Pilsudski
just took it to another level ;-)

>
>>
>>>> Since the Austrian emperor was the official king of Hungary
>>>> (Stephanskrone), most Christian Hungarians didn't have any problem with
>>
>>> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
>>> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>>
>> Well, there you go.
>> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
>> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
>> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>>
>>>>> as a symbol
>>>>> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
>>>>> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>>
>>>> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
>>>> that.
>>
>>> well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
>>> the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
>>> "horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.
>>
>> Well, yes. That may be very well true and all that.
>> Except that the "officialdom" in AUSTRIA-HUNGARY didn't give a flying shit.
>> There was no "poor suppressed Hungary ruled by bas Austrians".
>
> Well, I think there was. In XVII century (whatever was there under
> Austrian rule).
>

Nope.
Officials in Hungary had to speak German and Hungarian.
All people in the empire had the same (lack of) rights.
Contrary to the British sahibs we didn't treat any peoples in the empire
as second-class citizens.
Contrary to the Hungarians, when they were allowed to govern Czechs and
Slovaks. Those peoples really hated each other...

>> That's Anglo-Saxon bullshit for justifying the devastation of Europe
>> after 1918 ...
>>
>>
> AFAIK, Hungary ended up on the list of 'oppressors' and lost Slovakia
> and Transilvania (of course the local Romanians want this separation,
> etc. but Hungary being on a loosing side helped a lot in the terms of
> official recogniotion).
>

See above. They certainly oppressed Czechoslovakia; but they belonged
to the winners of WWI.
You know, "right of self-determination of the peoples" claimed by
Wilson; except for the peoples who lost the war.

>>
>>>>> the legend of the
>>>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>>
>>>> It would be rather surprising.
>>>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>>>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>
>> Btw, association with Troia was classical Roman.
>

Ah, yes. "Classical" is a very wide field ;-)

> And Julius Caesar had been tracing his lineage to it (and to Venus, by
> extension).
>

Yep.
The only refreshing idea in the business of tracing lines came from the
Merovingians - their kings descended from a maritime monster which raped
their ur-mother while she took a bath.

>> Association with Imperial Rome was also Medieval (in the Frankia and
>> Byzantinum).
>> I'd be surprised if the Arpads didn't try something similar ... ;-P
>>
>
> Of course. To found a credible dynasty I'd better descend from someone
> with an impressive reputation. Preferably in the military area. There
> were few exceptions here and there (like Romanovs) but the rule holds
> and by the time of Arpad you hardly could do better than Atilla. :-)
>

Or, like Carolus, one gets legitimacy by the church.
Descend from someone famous was out in this case; the Hausmeier disposed
the rightful king who stemmed from a famous sea-monster ;-)

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 11:56 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> > he was respected
> > > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.
>
> I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
> authenticity of  the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
> sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
> of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a
> meaning of  approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
> both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
> it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
> century.
>

I had briefly read about issue, forgot where. if you know any journal
articles or other references (in English or French) on the issue, it
would be most welcome.

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>>
>>>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
>>>> would be more correct.
>>
>>> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
>>> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
>>> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>>
>> Of course it has to do with Islam.
>
> please enumerate these 19th cent. / 1930's Hungarian Muslims.
>

The only Pan-Turanists would have been Muslims.
Do you really think that Hungarians would want to claim kinship
to people who devastated their country more than once ?

>> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>>
>
> that's patriotism. nationalism is just feel-good superiority.
>

Nope, that's not patriotism.
Stephanskrone, again.
Austria-Hungary was _one_ country before nationalism.

>>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
>>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
>>> the Russian imitation.
>>
>> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>
> German supriority.
>

What do have Germans to do with Austria ?
You really should read up on the events leading up to 1866 -
you know, "Prussian" supremacy in the Deutscher Bund which later
became "German" superiority in the _newly formed_ Germany, but never
in Austria.


<snip>

>> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>>
>>> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>>
>> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>>
>
> the idea is uniting them.
>

Ah, yes, the Caliphate. Which Turkey still propagates.
The old Ottoman empire under the rule of Turkey.Yes, we listen to the
nonsense of your president ...


<snip>

>>> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
>>> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>>
>> Well, there you go.
>> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
>> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
>> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>>
>
> I was talking about the early Middle Ages. here's more: certain areas
> of Hungary got to be known as Turcia. later Mamluk Egypt was known by
> that name, not surprising since the Mamluk Empire was known in Arabic,
> at the time, as "The Turkish State", a name which the Ottoman Empire
> did not use. only later was the Ottoman Empire or Anatolia called
> that.

Was known as "Turcia" in Turkish historiography ?
Like Curds are known as "Mountain-Turks" ?
<snort>
So the Turkish state is Anatolia ?

>
>>>>> as a symbol
>>>>> of their rejection of Austria and Europe, while officialdom in Austria
>>>>> emphasized their reltionship with the Finns only.
>>
>>>> Hm ? Officialdom in the Austro-Hungarian empire emphasized nothing like
>>>> that.
>>
>>> well, Hungarian *is* "genetically related Finnish. although I forgot
>>> the reference, this complaint by 19th cent. nationalists is from the
>>> "horse's mouth. at least they *claimed* it was so.
>>
>> Well, yes. That may be very well true and all that.
>> Except that the "officialdom" in AUSTRIA-HUNGARY didn't give a flying shit.
>> There was no "poor suppressed Hungary ruled by bas Austrians".
>> That's Anglo-Saxon bullshit for justifying the devastation of Europe
>> after 1918 ...
>>
>
> well, that's politics I won't get into.
>

You've already got into that by talking about "officialdom in Austria".
That seems to be some Turkish "historiography"; if you think it through,
what would the evil Austrians oppressing the poor Hungarians gain by
claiming that their language was Finnish ? Hm ?
OTOH, what would nowadays Turks gain ? Some poor oppressed brethren
which should still be freed. And all the language coming from your
government points to this ...

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

I'm talking about "gyula".
Who has borrowed from whom ?
I'll start another Journal. "Studying early Ukrainian and Russian
history through European source".
Since there are no written documents before Old-High-Slavonian,
it's rather pointless to speculate about the history of those peoples
apart from Archaeology.
I'll change "Turkish historian" to "Turkologist".

>>>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
>>>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
>>>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
>>>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>>
>>>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>
>>>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
>>>> Turkic etymology.
>>
>>> see "The World of the Huns"
>>
>> The world of the Huns ?
>> By whom ? Anything worthwhile in there ?
>
> by Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen. the work is better known as "Maenchen-
> Helfen". it's the classic introduction to things about the Huns.
>
> I just downloaded it from Scribd, though I also have the book.
>

And he's sadly out of date and mostly contradicted (re. Huns).

>> I've looked at excavation reports - general trend : Could be Hun, could
>> not be Hun.
>>

So we're back to this statement.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 16, 3:11 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>>>> the legend of the
>>>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>>
>>> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>>
>> What about them ?
>> See the writings of Vergil for the Troian origins of the Romans.
>> Archaeology tells another tale ...
>>
>
> Omeljan Pritsak (passed away not too long ago) was a very respectable
> Harvard proffesor and was an academic in Germany before. an ethnic
> Ukranian from Gallicia, he had been educated in Poland before the war
>

Yes. And he claimed that the origin of modern Russia lay in Ukraine.
Not Turks involved.

>>
>>
>>>> It would be rather surprising.
>>>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>>>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>>
>>> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
>>> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
>>> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
>>> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>>
>> <sigh>

>> The archaeological findings also show no relation to the MUCH LATER TURKS..

>
> I said Turkic, and Turkic of the Bulghar group. Turkic is a linguistic
> grouping.
>

So why do you always switch between a linguistic grouping and modern Turks ?

>> Or, just to state it again : Who the Huns were (a mixture of foreign
>> troops under a dux (Attila)) or a tribe can't be determined.
>>
>
> yes, those confederations were of varied ethnic composition and the
> Huns were willing to admit into their ranks whoever was willing to
> blend in (there is a report of a Roman among them who dressed like
> them and had adopted their customs).
>

WHICH HUNS were willing, etc ?
As far as we can tell now, Huns were a group of auxilii.
Not a tribe.
Look at that :
<http://www.museum-globasnitz.at/51-0-Graeberfeld.html>
Deformed skulls, but the rest is Ostrogothic.
So what do we have from "Huns" ? Deformed skulls, which also
were detected in the Mayan culture. So the Huns were Mayan ?

>>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
>>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
>>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
>>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>>
>> I claim descent from Aeneas.
>> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.
>>
>
> common motifs in myths may be an indicator of a shared cultural
> complex.
>

Let's get back to the basics. "Attila" means "V�terchen" and is Gothic,
not Turkish.
This diminuitive stems from Indo-European of which Turkish was never a
part nor ever will be.
What language the "Huns" spoke we also don't know. Unless you can point
to some script which is clearly "Hunnic". Which you won't be able to do.

>>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>
>>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
>>> Turkic etymology.a
>>
>> In Turkey ? But not really elsewhere. Sweet Jingoism ...
>
> no this is quite respectable etymology. some of them are quite
> transparent.
>

Transparent ? In the sense that you can't see them at all ?
Now show me some "Huns" who have been "identified".
And some "Turkic etymology". Should be rather tricky since we
have nothing written from "Huns".

>> Turkish historiography under the current government has gone down the
>> drain. Sometimes one wishes for the army to come to power again ...
>>
>
> actually emphasis and exageration and crackpottery on Turkish orgins
> and their external relations are the domain of secularist
> ultrantionalists, many of whom identify as Kemalists. these matters
> are of no or secondary concern to Islamists who have their own myths.
>

Yep. And your government managed to marry those two extremist parties.
Because your government is Islamic and ultra-nationalistic.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

I know.

[AlexMilman]

On May 17, 12:30 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 11:56 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > > > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> > > he was respected
> > > > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > > > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.
>
> > I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
> > authenticity of  the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
> > sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
> > of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a
>
> perhaps by linguistic analysis, cf. Karl H. Menges "The Oriental
> elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the Igor' tale,
> Slovo o polku Igorev'e"

See second half of a sentence below. It explains why linguistic
analysis can explain anything depending on author's inclination.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > meaning of  approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
> > both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
> > it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
> > century.
>
> > > his last tenure was
> > > > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.
>
> > I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
> > involved.
>
> > > I
> > > > recommend you read his works and I am
>
> > > sure you will find them interesting,
>
> > After reading quite a few books by Gumilev, I think that I have enough
> > of the Asiatic theories.
>
> there are others who are more mainstream

Gumilev was quite prominent specialist in the nomadic cultures.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 4:59 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 12:30 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 11:56 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 11:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 8:18 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > One prominent Ukrainian historian claimed that Buddha was 'proto-
> > > > > > Ukrainian' and so were at least some of the pharaohs. You can find any
> > > > > > number of the crazy theories based on over-inflated national ego.
>
> > > > > Omeljan Pritsak was certainly no fringe historian.
> > > > he was respected
> > > > > Turkologist and respected historian of early Russian and Ukranian
> > > > > history from a perspective of "oriental" sources.
>
> > > I know: looked at his biography. He was invited to Harvard to prove
> > > authenticity of  the 'Song of Igor' 'through the use of oriental
> > > sources'. Interesting task but not sure how one can prove authenticity
> > > of a document which does not exist anymore in an original copy, with a
>
> > perhaps by linguistic analysis, cf. Karl H. Menges "The Oriental
> > elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the Igor' tale,
> > Slovo o polku Igorev'e"
>
> See second half of a sentence below. It explains why linguistic
> analysis can explain anything depending on author's inclination.
>
>
>

all the more reason to get a review and another specialist.

any english or french references as to the dispute of the date?

>
>
>
>
> > > meaning of  approximately every second word being hotly disputed and
> > > both meaning and dating being disputed as well. Gumilev insisted that
> > > it was mid XIII while 'classic' interpretation puts it into XII
> > > century.

that's not too much of a difference IMHO

>
> > > > his last tenure was
> > > > > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.
>
> > > I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
> > > involved.
>
> > > > I
> > > > > recommend you read his works and I am
>
> > > > sure you will find them interesting,
>
> > > After reading quite a few books by Gumilev, I think that I have enough
> > > of the Asiatic theories.
>
> > there are others who are more mainstream
>
> Gumilev was quite prominent specialist in the nomadic cultures.

but I gather he had an agenda.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

it's Turkic, dating to the Xiongnu, the Asiatic Huns.

Danube Bulghar dulo, Hungarian (i.e. Volga Bulghar gyula). Old Turkic
yula

the sound changes are regular, Old Turkic reflecting the latest stage.

> I'll start another Journal. "Studying early Ukrainian and Russian
> history through European source".

it's within the purvue of the journal I mentioned anyway.

> Since there are no written documents before Old-High-Slavonian,
> it's rather pointless to speculate about the history of those peoples
> apart from Archaeology.

well, historians would be out of bussiness if such a high a standard
would always be held.

> I'll change "Turkish historian" to "Turkologist".
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> >>>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> >>>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> >>>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>
> >>>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> >>>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
> >>>> Turkic etymology.
>
> >>> see "The World of the Huns"
>
> >> The world of the Huns ?
> >> By whom ? Anything worthwhile in there ?
>
> > by Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen. the work is better known as "Maenchen-
> > Helfen". it's the classic introduction to things about the Huns.
>
> > I just downloaded it from Scribd, though I also have the book.
>
> And he's sadly out of date and mostly contradicted (re. Huns).
>

the etymologies given at the end mostly stand.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 3:42 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 16, 3:11 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >>>>> the legend of the
> >>>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
> >>>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>
> >>> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>
> >> What about them ?
> >> See the writings of Vergil for the Troian origins of the Romans.
> >> Archaeology tells another tale ...
>
> > Omeljan Pritsak (passed away not too long ago) was a very respectable
> > Harvard proffesor and was an academic in Germany before. an ethnic
> > Ukranian from Gallicia, he had been educated in Poland before the war
>
> Yes. And he claimed that the origin of modern Russia lay in Ukraine.
> Not Turks involved.
>
>

well that claim was never disputed and is hardly unique to Pritsak.
but Pritsak did have a lot to say about the relations of the Rus with
the Khazars :)

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> It would be rather surprising.
> >>>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
> >>>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>
> >>> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
> >>> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
> >>> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
> >>> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>
> >> <sigh>
> >> The archaeological findings also show no relation to the MUCH LATER TURKS..
>
> > I said Turkic, and Turkic of the Bulghar group. Turkic is a linguistic
> > grouping.
>
> So why do you always switch between a linguistic grouping and modern Turks ?
>

I haven't. you brought in the modern Turks of Anatolia (Turkey) by
claiming that the hypothesis was ideologically motivated. it is also
dififcult to discuss the history of Turkic people without using the
term "Turk" since that term has been used for nearly all speakers of
that family (and also for those dynastically or politically connected
to them) for at least some 1500 years. for the state that originally
gave that name I use the current English convention as calling it the
Türk Empire (wthh umlauts) and the idiom they used Old Turkic. it is
only relatively recently that "Turk" designates the Turks of
Anatolia / Turkey exclusively.

> >> Or, just to state it again : Who the Huns were (a mixture of foreign
> >> troops under a dux (Attila)) or a tribe can't be determined.
>
> > yes, those confederations were of varied ethnic composition and the
> > Huns were willing to admit into their ranks whoever was willing to
> > blend in (there is a report of a Roman among them who dressed like
> > them and had adopted their customs).
>
> WHICH HUNS were willing, etc ?
> As far as we can tell now, Huns were a group of auxilii.
> Not a tribe.
> Look at that :
> <http://www.museum-globasnitz.at/51-0-Graeberfeld.html>
> Deformed skulls, but the rest is Ostrogothic.
> So what do we have from "Huns" ? Deformed skulls, which also
> were detected in the Mayan culture. So the Huns were Mayan ?
>

that's a straw man argument.

> >>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
> >>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
> >>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
> >>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>
> >> I claim descent from Aeneas.
> >> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.
>
> > common motifs in myths may be an indicator of a shared cultural
> > complex.
>

> Let's get back to the basics. "Attila" means "V�terchen" and is Gothic,
> not Turkish.

I didn't dispute that. but that is not the only Hunnic name known to
us and may just be a rendering by Goths of a native name. and the
language in question is not "Turkish" in the sense of Anatlolian
Turkish but a language in the same family that diverged from the main
body of that family some 2000 or so years ago.

> This diminuitive stems from Indo-European of which Turkish was never a
> part nor ever will be.

I didn't dispute. that.

> What language the "Huns" spoke we also don't know. Unless you can point
> to some script which is clearly "Hunnic". Which you won't be able to do.
>

you mean "inscription" - the script is irrelevant, and the more
familiar the script is to us, the better the inscription can be read.
a unique script is not a requirement.

again, if such high a standard were always applied, historians would
be out of bussiness and it would be a dull world. in the absence of
direct evidence, one relies on reports from other sources, such as
proper names.to form a working hypothesis subject to change if new
data contradicts it. it's just that human curiosity compells us.

> >>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>
> >>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
> >>> Turkic etymology.a
>
> >> In Turkey ? But not really elsewhere. Sweet Jingoism ...
>
> > no this is quite respectable etymology. some of them are quite
> > transparent.
>
> Transparent ? In the sense that you can't see them at all ?
> Now show me some "Huns" who have been "identified".
> And some "Turkic etymology". Should be rather tricky since we
> have nothing written from "Huns".
>
> >> Turkish historiography under the current government has gone down the
> >> drain. Sometimes one wishes for the army to come to power again ...
>
> > actually emphasis and exageration and crackpottery on Turkish orgins
> > and their external relations are the domain of secularist
> > ultrantionalists, many of whom identify as Kemalists. these matters
> > are of no or secondary concern to Islamists who have their own myths.
>
> Yep. And your government managed to marry those two extremist parties.
> Because your government is Islamic and ultra-nationalistic.
>

well, since I don't think this government represents my interests, I
don't consider it "my" government.

but admittedly it's not that "ultra-nationalistic" in the sense of
perpetuating an ethnic myth and admittedly has taken a bold step on
the Kurdish issue, whatever its motives may be.

the party that is both ideologically ultra-nationalistic and Islamist
is the Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi - BBP), and their
members and leader have blood on their hands. fortunately it is a
small party.

> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 17, 1:55 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> >>>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> >>>> would be more correct.
>
> >>> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> >>> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> >>> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> >> Of course it has to do with Islam.
>
> > please enumerate these 19th cent. / 1930's Hungarian Muslims.
>
> The only Pan-Turanists would have been Muslims.

well, look, so far your posts have been very scholarly and I have
enjoyed reading them. so I can only conclude that your are just
kidding now and perhaps I should apologize for missing the joke and
lacking a sense of humor. but let us not let th ejoke get stale.

> Do you really think that Hungarians would want to claim kinship
> to people who devastated their country more than once ?
>
> >> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>
> > that's patriotism. nationalism is just feel-good superiority.
>
> Nope, that's not patriotism.
> Stephanskrone, again.
> Austria-Hungary was _one_ country before nationalism.

well your political views are your own.

>
> >>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> >>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> >>> the Russian imitation.
>
> >> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>
> > German supriority.
>
> What do have Germans to do with Austria ?

they have the same language for starters and read the same books. and
then there are Austrians that do regard themselves as German, like a
uh, that guy that had the funny moustache ...

> You really should read up on the events leading up to 1866 -
> you know, "Prussian" supremacy in the Deutscher Bund which later
> became "German" superiority in the _newly formed_ Germany, but never
> in Austria.

what about the guy with funny moustache?

>
> <snip>>> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>
> >>> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>
> >> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>
> > the idea is uniting them.
>
> Ah, yes, the Caliphate. Which Turkey still propagates.

again, I take this associating Islam and Hungarian Pan-Turanism a
joke.

> The old Ottoman empire under the rule of Turkey.Yes, we listen to the
> nonsense of your president ...

it's not "my" president since I don't regard him as representing my
interests. and it's not the president in Turkey that mainly directs
policy and is prominant in the public sphere, it's the prime minister.

>
> <snip>
>
> >>> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
> >>> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>
> >> Well, there you go.
> >> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
> >> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
> >> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>
> > I was talking about the early Middle Ages. here's more: certain areas
> > of Hungary got to be known as Turcia. later Mamluk Egypt was known by
> > that name, not surprising since the Mamluk Empire was known in Arabic,
> > at the time, as "The Turkish State", a name which the Ottoman Empire
> > did not use. only later was the Ottoman Empire or Anatolia called
> > that.
>
> Was known as "Turcia" in Turkish historiography ?

no. Constantine Porphyrogenitus called Hungary so.

> Like Curds are known as "Mountain-Turks" ?

it's spelled "Kurds". "curd" is a dairy product.

> <snort>
> So the Turkish state is Anatolia ?
>
>

I said the official Arabic name of Mamluk Egypt was al-dawlah al-
turkiyyah "The Turkish State" and so for a brief period was known as
Turcia in Europe as well.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

yeah, I looked at my sentence and it is missleading. I meant that Pan-
Slavism was inspired from German romantic ideas (the Germans just got
to formulating such a philosophy first), not Hungarian (or Turkish)
Pan-Turanism, and I agree with Wiki.

[Wolfger]

Michael Kuettner, 19:27, venerd� 17 maggio 2013:

> Contrary to the Hungarians, when they were allowed to govern
> Czechs and Slovaks. Those peoples really hated each other...

IIRC Bohemia and Moravia were under Austria not Hungary.


--
WMVAVMW

[Wolfger]

Michael Kuettner, 21:42, venerd� 17 maggio 2013:

>>> Turkish historiography under the current government has gone
>>> down the drain. Sometimes one wishes for the army to come to
>>> power again ...
>>>
>>
>> actually emphasis and exageration and crackpottery on Turkish
>> orgins and their external relations are the domain of
>> secularist ultrantionalists, many of whom identify as
>> Kemalists. these matters are of no or secondary concern to
>> Islamists who have their own myths.
>>
> Yep. And your government managed to marry those two extremist
> parties. Because your government is Islamic and
> ultra-nationalistic.

Well it seems that Hungarian government is trying to beat them
in nationalism...


--
WMVAVMW

[AlexMilman]

Only if you have no clue about the implications. XIII hypothesis makes
for a meaning totally different from the classic interpretation.
Instead of a rather incoherent report about totally insignificant
failed expedition against Polovtsy it becomes an allegory dedicated to
the Russian-Horde relations with a strong religious undertones.

>
> > > > > his last tenure was
> > > > > > at Harvard and he founded the Harvard Journal of Ukranian Studies.
>
> > > > I have profound absence of interest as far as 'Ukrainian Studies' are
> > > > involved.
>
> > > > > I
> > > > > > recommend you read his works and I am
>
> > > > > sure you will find them interesting,
>
> > > > After reading quite a few books by Gumilev, I think that I have enough
> > > > of the Asiatic theories.
>
> > > there are others who are more mainstream
>
> > Gumilev was quite prominent specialist in the nomadic cultures.
>
> but I gather he had an agenda.

Which historian did not?

[Michael Kuettner]

Which part of "Austria-Hungary" don't you understand ?
I'll try to explain it monosyllabic to you.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 17, 1:55 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>>
>>>>>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
>>>>>> would be more correct.
>>
>>>>> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
>>>>> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
>>>>> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>>
>>>> Of course it has to do with Islam.
>>
>>> please enumerate these 19th cent. / 1930's Hungarian Muslims.
>>
>> The only Pan-Turanists would have been Muslims.
>
> well, look, so far your posts have been very scholarly and I have
> enjoyed reading them. so I can only conclude that your are just
> kidding now and perhaps I should apologize for missing the joke and
> lacking a sense of humor. but let us not let th ejoke get stale.
>

It isn't a joke.
I'm just trying to gently correct your view of how things were
in the Danubian Monarchy.
Pan-Turanists weren't mainstream; they were a splinter-group
mostly associated with Islamic ethnicities.
Regardless of what Turkish historians claim.
We had Pan-Slavism in the Slavic parts, but Hungarians (who were and are
Christian), didn't have any use for Pan-Turanism.
Short proof : After WWI, Reichsverweser Horthy got his legitimation by
referring to the crown of Stephan (Stephanskrone).
No traces of embracing "Turkic" identity - it would would be contrary to
them - they hated the Turks after two bloody wars.

>> Do you really think that Hungarians would want to claim kinship
>> to people who devastated their country more than once ?
>>
>>>> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>>
>>> that's patriotism. nationalism is just feel-good superiority.
>>
>> Nope, that's not patriotism.
>> Stephanskrone, again.
>> Austria-Hungary was _one_ country before nationalism.
>
> well your political views are your own.
>

That's history, not politics.
I know that that's different in Turkey.

>>
>>>>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
>>>>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
>>>>> the Russian imitation.
>>
>>>> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>>
>>> German supriority.
>>
>> What do have Germans to do with Austria ?
>
> they have the same language for starters and read the same books. and
> then there are Austrians that do regard themselves as German, like a
> uh, that guy that had the funny moustache ...
>

The meaning of "German" changed rather rapidly after 1848 and especially
1866.
Re. funny moustache :
There's a funny moustache guy called Attat�rk who did a nice genocide on
Armenians. The genocide on Kurds (pardon - mountain Turks) is still
going strong, isn't it ?
And yes, for starters we ruled the Holy Roman Empire for half a
millenium; but the later Germany united under the Prussians is something
very different. Btw, the HRE was disbanded in 1806 by an Austrian
emperor; and no, Germany isn't the successor.

>> You really should read up on the events leading up to 1866 -
>> you know, "Prussian" supremacy in the Deutscher Bund which later
>> became "German" superiority in the _newly formed_ Germany, but never
>> in Austria.
>
> what about the guy with funny moustache?
>

Attat�rk ?

>>
>> <snip>>> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>>
>>>>> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>>
>>>> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>>
>>> the idea is uniting them.
>>
>> Ah, yes, the Caliphate. Which Turkey still propagates.
>
> again, I take this associating Islam and Hungarian Pan-Turanism a
> joke.
>

I've heard your head of state speaking.
You know, that radical Muslim. Yes, he used the term "resurrection
of the Caliphate" ...
Pan-Turanism played no role in Hungary (see above or read Alex's posts).

>> The old Ottoman empire under the rule of Turkey.Yes, we listen to the
>> nonsense of your president ...
>
> it's not "my" president since I don't regard him as representing my
> interests. and it's not the president in Turkey that mainly directs
> policy and is prominant in the public sphere, it's the prime minister.
>

Pardon, your prime-minister.
It's your government, it represents you.
Sorry.

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
>>>>> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>>
>>>> Well, there you go.
>>>> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
>>>> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
>>>> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>>
>>> I was talking about the early Middle Ages. here's more: certain areas
>>> of Hungary got to be known as Turcia. later Mamluk Egypt was known by
>>> that name, not surprising since the Mamluk Empire was known in Arabic,
>>> at the time, as "The Turkish State", a name which the Ottoman Empire
>>> did not use. only later was the Ottoman Empire or Anatolia called
>>> that.
>>
>> Was known as "Turcia" in Turkish historiography ?
>
> no. Constantine Porphyrogenitus called Hungary so.
>

When ? You're jumping through time again. Earlier Egypt was Byzantine,
e.g.. And even earlier Egypt was Egyptian.
We were talking about the time-frame of the Huns ...

>> Like Curds are known as "Mountain-Turks" ?
>
> it's spelled "Kurds". "curd" is a dairy product.
>

I thought it was spelled "mountain - Turks" ?
And that their provinces are still ruled by the military ?

>> <snort>
>> So the Turkish state is Anatolia ?
>>
>>
>
> I said the official Arabic name of Mamluk Egypt was al-dawlah al-
> turkiyyah "The Turkish State" and so for a brief period was known as
> Turcia in Europe as well.
>

Since there were no Mamluks at the time of the Huns, we can drop the
Turcia from much later.
Unless one wants to desperately claim older origins for the Turks ...


<snip>

Now, I've sent a nice link to a "Hunnic" excavation.
Elongated skulls, ostrogothic items.
And above all : No script from the "Huns".
So how can one claim that the "Hunnic language" is a precursor to Turk
languages unless one has an agenda ?

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Ah, a completely outdated theory.
And even if there were "Asiatic Huns", what does that have got to do
with Turks, who appeared about 1000 years later ?

> Danube Bulghar dulo, Hungarian (i.e. Volga Bulghar gyula). Old Turkic
> yula
>
> the sound changes are regular, Old Turkic reflecting the latest stage.
>
>> I'll start another Journal. "Studying early Ukrainian and Russian
>> history through European source".
>
> it's within the purvue of the journal I mentioned anyway.
>
>> Since there are no written documents before Old-High-Slavonian,
>> it's rather pointless to speculate about the history of those peoples
>> apart from Archaeology.
>
> well, historians would be out of bussiness if such a high a standard
> would always be held.
>

You see, that's what I'm trying to do here. Holding up a high standard.
Weeding out nonsensic, politic and out-of-date things like "Xiongnu" as
"Proto-Huns".
The points :
(a) We have no knowledge about the Huns - id est : We don't know whether
they were a tribe or a band of mercenaries. I've sent a link showing
"Hunnic" graves - elongated skulls and ostrogothic items. Nothing but
ostrogothic items or weapons.
So we're stumped here.
(b) We have no "Hunnic" script, no "Hunnic" alphabet, no "Hunnic"
inscriptions, no literal traces at all.
So how does one claim to kn ow their language ? Especially, since we
don't even know whether they were a people or just a confederation of
mercenaries ?
Don't forget that the "Huns" under Attila first worked _for_ the Roman
empire ...
Meaning what : As far as we know nowadays, we don't know what the Huns
were. We don't know anything of their language or history (except that
they liked deformed skulls). And that's it.
We have the same problem with "Celts" or "Germanic tribes".
Although "Celts" and "Germanic tribes" were at least written about by
their neighbours. Of course, mostly in the context of propaganda (like
Caesar's De bello Gallico or Tacitus' Germania); but here we also have
Poseidonius and a few others.
All that is missing for the "Huns".

>> I'll change "Turkish historian" to "Turkologist".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
>>>>>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
>>>>>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
>>>>>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>>
>>>>>>> And even "Attila" is a Gothic nickname ....
>>
>>>>>> Attila's sons and others later identified as Huns have names with
>>>>>> Turkic etymology.
>>
>>>>> see "The World of the Huns"
>>
>>>> The world of the Huns ?
>>>> By whom ? Anything worthwhile in there ?
>>
>>> by Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen. the work is better known as "Maenchen-
>>> Helfen". it's the classic introduction to things about the Huns.
>>
>>> I just downloaded it from Scribd, though I also have the book.
>>
>> And he's sadly out of date and mostly contradicted (re. Huns).
>>
>
> the etymologies given at the end mostly stand.
>

What etymologies ?
To get an etymology, you would need some trace of the Hunnic language.
Which we haven't.


Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[Michael Kuettner]

Sadly, yes.
Those buggers are jump-starting to run into a dictatorship.

[Michael Kuettner]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On May 17, 3:42 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> On May 16, 3:11 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> the legend of the
>>>>>>> association of the Arpad dynasty with Attila is medieval. it would not
>>>>>>> be surprising if there was a kernel of truth in it.
>>
>>>>> see the writings of Omeljan Pritsak.
>>
>>>> What about them ?
>>>> See the writings of Vergil for the Troian origins of the Romans.
>>>> Archaeology tells another tale ...
>>
>>> Omeljan Pritsak (passed away not too long ago) was a very respectable
>>> Harvard proffesor and was an academic in Germany before. an ethnic
>>> Ukranian from Gallicia, he had been educated in Poland before the war
>>
>> Yes. And he claimed that the origin of modern Russia lay in Ukraine.
>> Not Turks involved.
>>
>>
>
> well that claim was never disputed and is hardly unique to Pritsak.
> but Pritsak did have a lot to say about the relations of the Rus with
> the Khazars :)
>

Khazars ? Those were Jews ;-)
I'll let Alex handle that ...

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> It would be rather surprising.
>>>>>> The few archaeological findings of "Huns" show no relation to the (very
>>>>>> much later) Magyarian findings.
>>
>>>>> not all the "Hungarians" (On Oghurs) were Magyar. the ruling clan were
>>>>> Bulghar Turkic and that they had a seperate language is recorded in
>>>>> medieval sources. "turul" (Turkic tughrIl / tughrul) is a semi-
>>>>> legedary bird amongst Turkic people as well.
>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>> The archaeological findings also show no relation to the MUCH LATER TURKS..
>>
>>> I said Turkic, and Turkic of the Bulghar group. Turkic is a linguistic
>>> grouping.
>>
>> So why do you always switch between a linguistic grouping and modern Turks ?
>>
>
>
> I haven't. you brought in the modern Turks of Anatolia (Turkey) by
> claiming that the hypothesis was ideologically motivated. it is also

Well, it is. The only historians stating that "Huns" were precursors
of Turks are Turks.

> dififcult to discuss the history of Turkic people without using the
> term "Turk" since that term has been used for nearly all speakers of
> that family (and also for those dynastically or politically connected
> to them) for at least some 1500 years. for the state that originally
> gave that name I use the current English convention as calling it the

> T�rk Empire (wthh umlauts) and the idiom they used Old Turkic. it is

> only relatively recently that "Turk" designates the Turks of
> Anatolia / Turkey exclusively.
>

And switching and baiting again.
T�rks 1500 years ago ? LOL.
"Turko-Altaic language family" originated in the 19th century, right ?
And now you go and claim that this leads to T�rks being around from the
beginning ?
Hurray, by these standards us wily Austrians have been around for 8000
years at least.
Although we have �tzi to claim 5000 years ... ;-)

>>>> Or, just to state it again : Who the Huns were (a mixture of foreign
>>>> troops under a dux (Attila)) or a tribe can't be determined.
>>
>>> yes, those confederations were of varied ethnic composition and the
>>> Huns were willing to admit into their ranks whoever was willing to
>>> blend in (there is a report of a Roman among them who dressed like
>>> them and had adopted their customs).
>>
>> WHICH HUNS were willing, etc ?
>> As far as we can tell now, Huns were a group of auxilii.
>> Not a tribe.
>> Look at that :
>> <http://www.museum-globasnitz.at/51-0-Graeberfeld.html>
>> Deformed skulls, but the rest is Ostrogothic.
>> So what do we have from "Huns" ? Deformed skulls, which also
>> were detected in the Mayan culture. So the Huns were Mayan ?
>>
>
> that's a straw man argument.
>

No, that's what we have.
No traces of "Hunnic" culture, language, etc.
Except for some elongated skulls.

>>>>> the Danube Bulghars also claimed Attilid descent, the second king in
>>>>> the "King's List" is Ernak, as was Attila's son and the same Turkic
>>>>> original is probably behind Avitokhol (Iranian "son of a doe" cf. the
>>>>> ancestral doe in the legend of Chinggis's geneaology) as is Attila.
>>
>>>> I claim descent from Aeneas.
>>>> Has sweet fucking all to do with history.
>>
>>> common motifs in myths may be an indicator of a shared cultural
>>> complex.
>>

>> Let's get back to the basics. "Attila" means "V�terchen" and is Gothic,

>> not Turkish.
>
> I didn't dispute that. but that is not the only Hunnic name known to
> us and may just be a rendering by Goths of a native name. and the

Nope.
Atta = father. Attila = (diminuitive) little father.
No rendering of a native name.
You see, we know the Gothic language; we have even a Gothic bible.
But we have nothing from the Huns.

> language in question is not "Turkish" in the sense of Anatlolian
> Turkish but a language in the same family that diverged from the main
> body of that family some 2000 or so years ago.
>
>> This diminuitive stems from Indo-European of which Turkish was never a
>> part nor ever will be.
>
> I didn't dispute. that.
>

Oh, you did, above. You know, the "rendering".
That's called "clawing at straws".

>> What language the "Huns" spoke we also don't know. Unless you can point
>> to some script which is clearly "Hunnic". Which you won't be able to do.
>>
>
> you mean "inscription" - the script is irrelevant, and the more
> familiar the script is to us, the better the inscription can be read.
> a unique script is not a requirement.
>

Meaning : You can't point to anything "Hunnic".

> again, if such high a standard were always applied, historians would
> be out of bussiness and it would be a dull world. in the absence of
> direct evidence, one relies on reports from other sources, such as
> proper names.to form a working hypothesis subject to change if new
> data contradicts it. it's just that human curiosity compells us.
>

Meaning : To claim Huns as the precursors of T�rks, we have to let go of
scientific standards.
Isn't it strange that the rest of the world has just one thing to say
about the "Huns" : We don't know.
Which is the honest thing to do ...

<snip>

>> Yep. And your government managed to marry those two extremist parties.
>> Because your government is Islamic and ultra-nationalistic.
>>
>
> well, since I don't think this government represents my interests, I
> don't consider it "my" government.
>

Well, my government doesn't represent my interests, either.
But, as it is my government, I'm still associated with it in the rest of
the world.

> but admittedly it's not that "ultra-nationalistic" in the sense of
> perpetuating an ethnic myth and admittedly has taken a bold step on
> the Kurdish issue, whatever its motives may be.
>

I'm still awaiting that step ...

> the party that is both ideologically ultra-nationalistic and Islamist

> is the Grand Unity Party (B�y�k Birlik Partisi - BBP), and their

> members and leader have blood on their hands. fortunately it is a
> small party.
>

Look a little closer at your country ...
OTOH, don't. You might get badly hurt.


Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

[AlexMilman]

At least notion of this being in existence had been widely known in
the mid-XIX: Karl & Fritz were not very supportive of the Czech
national movement (whatever it was amounting to) because of the fear
that it may be used by Imperial Russia (to which both of them had
somewhat pathological attitude). During WWI Czech desertion to the
Russians became wide spread (or at least widely advertised) phenomena
with the following up Czech involvement into the RCW.

As for Pan-Turkism, IIRC, there were at least some non-Muslim
followers in A-H but, AFAIK, Vambery's theory regarding Turkish-
Hungarian linguistic relationship (personally, I don't see anything
strange in this theory - after centuries of the Ottoman occupation
there should be some trace, just as there was some trace of Turic/
Mongolian/<whatever> in the Russian language) was considered
controversial: "This theory was opposed by followers of the Finno-
Ugric theory of the origins of Hungarian, who gradually triumphed in
Hungary but not in Turkey. In Turkey, Hungarian and Turkish are still
considered as two branches of the same language family, the Ural–
Altaic." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/armin_Vambery) Differences
between Turkish and Hungarian points of view are not surprising. :-)

I would also not exclude non-linguistic motivations in Vambery's
theories. To start with, he was British spy and during this period the
Brits were trying to maintain as big anti-Russian coalition as
possible (to make easier their own penetration into the Central Asia)
with A-H and the Ottomans being important parts of it. Later on he was
acting as the Ottoman agent in another area: "In 1900-1901 he promised
Theodor Herzl to arrange an audience for him with Ottoman Sultan
Abdülhamit II, but his real goal was to obtain money from Herzl, and
he did not arrange the meeting. The Ottomans were merely using Herzl
as a playing card in their negotiations with Maurice Rouvier of France
on the consolidation of their debt."

>
> >>>>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> >>>>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> >>>>> the Russian imitation.
>
> >>>> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>
> >>> German supriority.
>
> >> What do have Germans to do with Austria ?
>
> > they have the same language for starters and read the same books. and
> > then there are Austrians that do regard themselves as German, like a
> > uh, that guy that had the funny moustache ...
>
> The meaning of "German" changed rather rapidly after 1848 and especially
> 1866.
> Re. funny moustache :

> There's a funny moustache guy called Attatürk who did a nice genocide on

> Armenians. The genocide on Kurds (pardon - mountain Turks) is still
> going strong, isn't it ?
> And yes, for starters we ruled the Holy Roman Empire for half a
> millenium; but the later Germany united under the Prussians is something
> very different. Btw, the HRE was disbanded in 1806 by an Austrian
> emperor; and no, Germany isn't the successor.

Well, give the Ottomans credit where it is due: they managed to keep
all these Arabs under control for centuries. Then, the Brits came,
screwed everything up (and what they somehow missed had been screwed
by us, aka "US") and we live with the consequences. Maybe the Ottoman
rule in these areas SHOULD be restored on condition that they'll re-
introduce beheading, impaling and other things which the Arabs seemed
to understand. :-)

[AlexMilman]

They start working for it well before Atilla. Aetius was sent to the
Hunnish court in 408, few kings prior to Atilla. Even after
unification they had been quite often serving as Roman mercenaries.

> Meaning what : As far as we know nowadays, we don't know what the Huns
> were. We don't know anything of their language or history (except that
> they liked deformed skulls).

Taking into an account where they did come from and how long it took
(and how many presumably started moving Westward) most probably people
who arrived into Europe were a conglomerate of various tribes (not
necessarily even ethnically related). "People of the Long Will", to
use Mongolian term. Their language would be a mixture of those used by
the members of this formation. Perhaps with a predominance of one that
belonged to the biggest or most influential group, whatever this group
was.

As far as the names are involved, the 1st leader of the united Hun
confederation was Otkar followed by Rugila followed by Bleda and
Atilla. Quite possible that we know only Germanic (or whatever)
versions of their names but who can tell for sure?

[Yusuf B Gursey]

the Xiongnu are a seperate controversy but whatever group they
represent there was some continuity with the subsequent steppe
confederations in terms of cultural items, religion, social
organization and at least certain lexica - whether or not the
languages are genetically related. Turks Mongols etc. didn't appear
out of nowhere but are the result of an evolution, and I happen to be
interested in the linguistic evolution. Italian evolved from Latin,
whether or not one regards modern Italians as "Romans" or not. that's
a different issue.

>
>
>
> > Danube Bulghar dulo, Hungarian (i.e. Volga Bulghar gyula). Old Turkic
> > yula
>
> > the sound changes are regular, Old Turkic reflecting the latest stage.
>
> >> I'll start another Journal. "Studying early Ukrainian and Russian
> >> history through European source".
>
> > it's within the purvue of the journal I mentioned anyway.
>
> >> Since there are no written documents before Old-High-Slavonian,
> >> it's rather pointless to speculate about the history of those peoples
> >> apart from Archaeology.
>
> > well, historians would be out of bussiness if such a high a standard
> > would always be held.
>
> You see, that's what I'm trying to do here. Holding up a high standard.

and just what qualifications do you have on the subject to trump what
experts subject have said. absolutely nothing and you don't know a
single word about the languages I am discussing. so I am singularly
unimpressed.

> Weeding out nonsensic, politic and out-of-date things like "Xiongnu" as

> "Proto-Huns".hat

whether or not they can be regarded 'Proto-Huns" as you put it is a
different issue. that still preclude a Xiongnu word from surviving.
and you are not doing a good job of weeding out politics either as all
you are doing is constantly *injecting* politics, based on what a
"good subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire" ought to behave and
think. and your a priori notions of historical evolution is making any
productive discussion impossible.

> The points :
> (a) We have no knowledge about the Huns - id est : We don't know whether
> they were a tribe or a band of mercenaries. I've sent a link showing
> "Hunnic" graves - elongated skulls and ostrogothic items. Nothing but
> ostrogothic items or weapons.

you keep repeating something completely irrelevant to a linguistic
discussion and never dealing with any of the linguistic evidence that
people competent in the subject have presented. and frankly it
involves languages that you know nothing about. so there is no more
reason to argue with you.

> So we're stumped here.
> (b) We have no "Hunnic" script, no "Hunnic" alphabet, no "Hunnic"
> inscriptions, no literal traces at all.
> So how does one claim to kn ow their language ? Especially, since we

as I said, some lexica and proper names have been recorded. we also
have a historical contuinity between the Bulghars and the Huns.

if more information turns up, then the current working hypothesis will
either be confirmed, modified or discarded. I know very well what is
certain and what the limitations are. if I have a question about Hun
skulls I'll ask you.

> don't even know whether they were a people or just a confederation of
> mercenaries ?
> Don't forget that the "Huns" under Attila first worked _for_ the Roman
> empire ...

that's utterly irrelevant to a linguistic discussion.

> Meaning what : As far as we know nowadays, we don't know what the Huns
> were. We don't know anything of their language or history (except that
> they liked deformed skulls). And that's it.
> We have the same problem with "Celts" or "Germanic tribes".
> Although "Celts" and "Germanic tribes" were at least written about by
> their neighbours. Of course, mostly in the context of propaganda (like
> Caesar's De bello Gallico or Tacitus' Germania); but here we also have
> Poseidonius and a few others.
> All that is missing for the "Huns".
>

I pointed out the sources from which the current working theory is
based. and you have not dealt with them, so you don't have to repeat
yourself.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism are not identical.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On May 18, 5:14 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On May 17, 1:55 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> On May 16, 3:01 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>>>> On May 15, 3:39 pm, Michael Kuettner <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> many Hungarians embraced a "Turkic" identity and invented pan-Turanism
>
> >>>>>> Some Islamic "Hungarians" left over from the Osmanic wars of aggression
> >>>>>> would be more correct.
>
> >>>>> this has nothing to do with Islam. it has to do with 19th century
> >>>>> nationalism. there were no Muslim Hungarians and the ideologues were
> >>>>> not Muslim. and pan-Turanism includes non-Muslim people.
>
> >>>> Of course it has to do with Islam.
>
> >>> please enumerate these 19th cent. / 1930's Hungarian Muslims.
>
> >> The only Pan-Turanists would have been Muslims.
>
> > well, look, so far your posts have been very scholarly and I have
> > enjoyed reading them. so I can only conclude that your are just
> > kidding now and perhaps I should apologize for missing the joke and
> > lacking a sense of humor. but let us not let th ejoke get stale.
>
> It isn't a joke.

I prefered you when I thought you were joking. if you think there was
a Muslim community behind Hungarian Pam-Turanism you are just plum
crazy or just a bigot.

> I'm just trying to gently correct your view of how things were
> in the Danubian Monarchy.

when I am interested I will ask a more scholarly person. evidently I
was mistaken.

> Pan-Turanists weren't mainstream; they were a splinter-group

I wasn't dealing with the question of whether they were mainstream or
not.

> mostly associated with Islamic ethnicities.

that's plum crazy.

> Regardless of what Turkish historians claim.
> We had Pan-Slavism in the Slavic parts, but Hungarians (who were and are
> Christian), didn't have any use for Pan-Turanism.
> Short proof : After WWI, Reichsverweser Horthy got his legitimation by
> referring to the crown of Stephan (Stephanskrone).
> No traces of embracing "Turkic" identity - it would would be contrary to
> them - they hated the Turks after two bloody wars.

of you find them irrational that's a different matter,. the indisputed
fact is that they existed and still exist.

well, I have met Hungarian Pan-Turanists, at least the moderate ones.

>
> >> Do you really think that Hungarians would want to claim kinship
> >> to people who devastated their country more than once ?
>
> >>>> Nationalism would be an "independent Hungary".
>
> >>> that's patriotism. nationalism is just feel-good superiority.
>
> >> Nope, that's not patriotism.
> >> Stephanskrone, again.
> >> Austria-Hungary was _one_ country before nationalism.
>
> > well your political views are your own.
>
> That's history, not politics.
> I know that that's different in Turkey.
>

you don't know a fucking thing about Turkey or Turkology.

>
>
> >>>>> German romantics (Herder, Fichte) invented an ideology based on
> >>>>> language. this was the Hungarian answer to it. Russian pan-Slavism was
> >>>>> the Russian imitation.
>
> >>>> The Hungarian answer to what ?
>
> >>> German supriority.
>
> >> What do have Germans to do with Austria ?
>
> > they have the same language for starters and read the same books. and
> > then there are Austrians that do regard themselves as German, like a
> > uh, that guy that had the funny moustache ...
>
> The meaning of "German" changed rather rapidly after 1848 and especially
> 1866.
> Re. funny moustache :

> There's a funny moustache guy called Attatürk who did a nice genocide on

I won't even comment on that.

> Armenians. The genocide on Kurds (pardon - mountain Turks) is still
> going strong, isn't it ?

I really don't care to discuss politics with you.

> And yes, for starters we ruled the Holy Roman Empire for half a

what "we"? are you a Hapsburg?

> millenium; but the later Germany united under the Prussians is something
> very different. Btw, the HRE was disbanded in 1806 by an Austrian
> emperor; and no, Germany isn't the successor.
>
> >> You really should read up on the events leading up to 1866 -
> >> you know, "Prussian" supremacy in the Deutscher Bund which later
> >> became "German" superiority in the _newly formed_ Germany, but never
> >> in Austria.
>
> > what about the guy with funny moustache?
>

> Attatürk ?
>

I was talking about an Austrian.

>
>
> >> <snip>>> Now what ? We'll call them Muslims, OK ?
>
> >>>>> again, this included many non-Muslim people
>
> >>>> Many non-Muslims to be ruled over ?
>
> >>> the idea is uniting them.
>
> >> Ah, yes, the Caliphate. Which Turkey still propagates.
>
> > again, I take this associating Islam and Hungarian Pan-Turanism a
> > joke.
>
> I've heard your head of state speaking.
> You know, that radical Muslim. Yes, he used the term "resurrection
> of the Caliphate" ...
> Pan-Turanism played no role in Hungary (see above or read Alex's posts).
>
> >> The old Ottoman empire under the rule of Turkey.Yes, we listen to the
> >> nonsense of your president ...
>
> > it's not "my" president since I don't regard him as representing my
> > interests. and it's not the president in Turkey that mainly directs
> > policy and is prominant in the public sphere, it's the prime minister.
>
> Pardon, your prime-minister.
> It's your government, it represents you.
> Sorry.
>
>
>

you don't know a fucking thing about me.

>
>
>
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>>> there were no Muslim Hungarians at the time. before the (Ottoman)
> >>>>> Turks, there were Muslim Bashgirds (Bashkirs) in Hungary BTW
>
> >>>> Well, there you go.
> >>>> You still don't get one thing : If one lived in the Hungarian part of
> >>>> the k.u.k. empire, he was regarded as a Hungarian.
> >>>> If the Bashkir lived in Czechia, he would be a Czech. And so on ...
>
> >>> I was talking about the early Middle Ages. here's more: certain areas
> >>> of Hungary got to be known as Turcia. later Mamluk Egypt was known by
> >>> that name, not surprising since the Mamluk Empire was known in Arabic,
> >>> at the time, as "The Turkish State", a name which the Ottoman Empire
> >>> did not use. only later was the Ottoman Empire or Anatolia called
> >>> that.
>
> >> Was known as "Turcia" in Turkish historiography ?
>
> > no.  Constantine Porphyrogenitus called Hungary so.
>
> When ? You're jumping through time again. Earlier Egypt was Byzantine,

well, that happens when you make comments about the evolution of a
term.

> e.g.. And even earlier Egypt was Egyptian.
> We were talking about the time-frame of the Huns ...
>
> >> Like Curds are known as "Mountain-Turks" ?
>
> > it's spelled "Kurds". "curd" is a dairy product.
>
> I thought it was spelled "mountain - Turks" ?
> And that their provinces are still ruled by the military ?
>

two wrongs don't make a right. there are Turkish bigots as there are
Austrian bigots.

> >> <snort>
> >> So the Turkish state is Anatolia ?
>
> > I said the official Arabic name of Mamluk Egypt was al-dawlah al-
> > turkiyyah "The Turkish State" and so for a brief period was known as
> > Turcia in Europe as well.
>
> Since there were no Mamluks at the time of the Huns, we can drop the
> Turcia from much later.

I was just lighteartedly givingyou some factoids. instead I see that
you are a bigot with no sense of humor.

> Unless one wants to desperately claim older origins for the Turks ...
>

Turks and Turkish came by spontaneous creation>

> <snip>
>
> Now, I've sent a nice link to a "Hunnic" excavation.
> Elongated skulls, ostrogothic items.

you keep repeating something that is completely irrelevant ro a
linguistic discussion and refuse to deal with the evidence on which
the scholarly discussion is based on. and you are incapable of it
since you don't know a word of the languages. so whatever you may say
is irrelevant. I can follow the pros and cons of what linguists are
saying so I am frankly not interested in your opinion on the matter.
if I have a question on the skulls of the Huns I may ask you.

> And above all : No script from the "Huns".

I enumerated on what the present working theory is based on. you
didn't even bother to address it. which is fine with me since I kow
the scholarly literature on the subject, so I really don't care what
you think.

> So how can one claim that the "Hunnic language" is a precursor to Turk
> languages unless one has an agenda ?
>

it can't be a precursor as it was located in a different geogrpahical
area.

you are the one with an agenda.

> Cheers,
>

evidently no cheers from you. you don't even know how to handle a few
lighthearted comments about some factoids and go ballistic instead.
pity.

> Michael Kuettner

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:27:47 +0200, Michael Kuettner
<Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:

>The only refreshing idea in the business of tracing lines came from the
>Merovingians - their kings descended from a maritime monster which raped
>their ur-mother while she took a bath.

Not that original - didn't Zeus found a nation by seducing the fair
young maiden by coming to her as a swan?

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts I suppose!

>Or, like Carolus, one gets legitimacy by the church.
>Descend from someone famous was out in this case; the Hausmeier disposed
>the rightful king who stemmed from a famous sea-monster ;-)

Weren't they the ones who claimed to be descended from Jesus Christ?

[AlexMilman]

On May 19, 12:55 pm, The Horny Goat <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:27:47 +0200, Michael Kuettner
>

Wasn't this Dan Brown's idea? :-)

[Yusuf B Gursey]

actually that of Michal Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln "Holy
Blood, Holy Grail" who unsuccesfully sued Dan Brown

[AlexMilman]

Who REALLY came with this crap is not as important comparing to who
DID make it popular. :-)

And Dan Brown made it popular to such a degree that the French (!!!)
had to place in St. Sulpice a notice in English (!!!!!) explaining
that X, Y and Z have meaning/purpose totally different from those
described 'in a certain popular book' and the tourists are visiting
this church to see line on the floor, not even noticing that it has
one of the best organs in Paris.

[Bill]

Doesn't all this stuff link back into Henry Lincoln's TV shows about
the mystery of Riennes-le-Chateau?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennes-le-Ch%C3%A2teau#Centre_of_conspiracy_theories