Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

[Kaplony]

I think we should separate arguments about ethnicity/race and focus on culture. It's historical fact that the great steppe cultures were very adept at absorbing other steppe cultures as they expanded and swept across the steppe. So, it is very likely (and well-documented for steppe peoples from the huns onwards, that they included subgroups from diverse "racial" backgrounds, be they Turkic, Mongol, Iranian, Slavic, Finno-Ugrian, and so on.
Perhaps the ruling caste of the Cumans were made up of people of Slavic or Finno-ugrian background? It would explain the references to blonde... but this is purely speculation.

Hello there

As i know, the cumans came from East Turkestan. There was a separate tribe among them called sari uyghurs, polovec in slavic, what we hungarians adopted, and called them palóc. They had brighter, yellowish hair, because of the mixing with the indoeuropean tokhars, who lived in the Tarim Basin long ago. Saris, and other kumans settled in Hungary in the XIII. century, and they live in the regions Cumania and Palócland. They spoke a northwestern common turkish language (as the tatar, bashkir, kazakh, kyrgyz, nogaj), but it died out (in 1770 in Hungary). Kumans were (are) turkic type peoples, just as their nearest genetical and cultural relatives, the uyghurs. Turkic peoples are a transition from the mongolian to the pure turkish types, and all of them are turkic - for an example some uyghurs look like mongolians, others like turks from Samarqand or Anatolia..
In Hungary there is a huge mixture of asian steppe peoples such as the cumans, sari-uyghurs, pechenegs, avars, jazygs (which are indo-iranian), khazars, osman-turks, and of course hungarians, who are descendants of the black huns. For me, i have cuman, avaric and jazyg heritage too, with noble hunnic progeny dated from the VIII. century.

/Sorry for my bad english/

[Armatus]

How do you know your family traces back to the VIII century? That's quite a history.

[Kaplony]

How do you know your family traces back to the VIII century? That's quite a history.

I'm a member of a hungarian noble family (comes/graaf), which have a clear ancestry back to one of the leaders of the seven hungarian tribes of the onogurs. The name of the leader of the fifth tribe was Könd, his sons was Kücsid and Kaplon. My family come from them.

[tibu17]

so i have little cuman origin and my grandmother is son of cuman nobles, so the cumans is coming siberia in 1055.The pechenges is came from East Turkestan.

[Kaplony]

the cumans is coming siberia in 1055.The pechenges is came from East Turkestan.

The cuman is not the same as the kypchak. They were members of the kypchak confederacy, their language has near relations with the other kypchak languages (tatar, nogaj, etc), but they were a separate nation or tribe. Btw cumans came from the Amur region (modern days Russia and Northern-China).

[tibu17]

It's no true no confederacy so is khanate and cumans is modern tatar and kazah
West and east cuman or kipchak are one member of turk people

[Kaplony]

Tatar and kazakh peoples are kypchaks too, but not cuman - cuman was an independent kypchak folk.

[VINC.XXIII]

"for an example some uyghurs look like mongolians, others like turks from Samarqand or Anatolia",it's hard to see the "altaic" side on the iranised turks,because melting had start in 6 or 7 century. In France we a soccer player : Djorkaeff,his father is Kalmouk, his mother is armenian.He looks totally Iranian or some oriental people.

[tibu17]

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Armatus]

Best thing to do is go get a DNA test done.

[Kaplony]

Indoiranian jazygs (alans) were living separated from the cumans and other kypchak tribes. All of them came to Hungary not as a huge merged mass, but as unique nations. First the jazyg-alans, then the cumans and sari uyghurs. Since that time they've been living in different regions, so i know what i say when i'm talking about cumans. And for the sake of accuracy, cumans (qun) had lived in the Gobi-Amur region until kitays attacked the territory at c 986.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=88827&page=24

[tibu17]

Cumans also called Kipchaks are a confederation of pastoralists and warriors of Turkic origin, known in Ukrainian and Russian as Polovtsy, who live in yurts (movable tents) and came from the region of the River Irtysh. Some cuman tribes probably originated near the Chinese borders and, after having moved into western Siberia by the 9th century, migrated further west into the trans-Volga region (now western Kazakstan). They occupied a vast, sprawling territory in the Eurasian steppe, stretching from north of the Aral Sea westward to the region north of the Black Sea and founded a nomadic state (Desht-i Qipchaq). They invaded the territory of Moldavia, Wallachia and part of Transylvania in the 11th century, and from there they continuing their plundering of the Russian territories, the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary.

[Marcus Bestia]

Hello there

As i know, the cumans came from East Turkestan. There was a separate tribe among them called sari uyghurs, polovec in slavic, what we hungarians adopted, and called them palóc. They had brighter, yellowish hair, because of the mixing with the indoeuropean tokhars, who lived in the Tarim Basin long ago. Saris, and other kumans settled in Hungary in the XIII. century, and they live in the regions Cumania and Palócland. They spoke a northwestern common turkish language (as the tatar, bashkir, kazakh, kyrgyz, nogaj), but it died out (in 1770 in Hungary). Kumans were (are) turkic type peoples, just as their nearest genetical and cultural relatives, the uyghurs. Turkic peoples are a transition from the mongolian to the pure turkish types, and all of them are turkic - for an example some uyghurs look like mongolians, others like turks from Samarqand or Anatolia..
In Hungary there is a huge mixture of asian steppe peoples such as the cumans, sari-uyghurs, pechenegs, avars, jazygs (which are indo-iranian), khazars, osman-turks, and of course hungarians, who are descendants of the black huns. For me, i have cuman, avaric and jazyg heritage too, with noble hunnic progeny dated from the VIII. century.

/Sorry for my bad english/

interesting history. some thoughts from me:
are hungarians really descendant of black huns (if black huns are huns invading europe in 4th century AD)? huns probably had turkic origin, hungarians are ugric people, arent they? or there are some new evidence for predominantly hunnic blood in magyar veins?
"seven hungarian tribes of the onogurs" - onogurs were bulgarian not hungarian tribe

[Kaplony]

Cumans also called Kipchaks are a confederation of pastoralists and warriors of Turkic origin

Cuman word is not the same as kypchak. Different cultures named them in different names. Some called them cumans (from the name of the quns), others called them kypchaks, polovtsi, kun, kangli or kumanlar, but most of these were different folks who were relatives to others and spoke different turkic kypchak languages.
I dont want to argue on facts..

huns probably had turkic origin, hungarians are ugric people, arent they? or there are some new evidence for predominantly hunnic blood in magyar veins?
"seven hungarian tribes of the onogurs" - onogurs were bulgarian not hungarian tribe

The finno-ugrish theory is a speculation made by Albert Szenczi Molnár, Johann Eberhard Fischer, August Schlözer and János Sajnovics, all of them were Austro-Hungarian monarchists in the XVII-XVIII. century. That was a political, and not a scientific resolution forced by the Habsburg monarchy. The truth is that we never were finns or ugors - finnish peoples also know this.

Hungarians are turkic peoples with turkic culture (turkic rhune-scripting, music, clothing, religion) and lifestyle (horse archery tactics, jurts, the tradition of two sacral rulers - kündü, jula) although we speak a (not clear) mixture of the urali and altai languages.
Byzantines called them türks (turk, türkü) from Agathias to Maurikios, Teophanes to Menandros, Leo VI. the Philosopher, Arethas and Constantin just as muslim authors like ibn Hajjan, Al-Bakri or Terdzsuman Mahmud (in Tarih-i Üngürüsz).
Nikolaos Mystikos called them western turks, Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos titled them "sabartoi asphaloi" (heroic savards).
Nestor wrote about the carpathian avars that they are the "white hungarians" or white magyars.
The Annals of St. Bertin say magyars are huns and avars, just as the Annals of Fulda.

Etc, etc...

By the way there are "new" evidences about that the magyar and uyghur, yugur genetical markers are the same (Hideo Matsumoto).

Lastly, onogurs were a confederation of ten (on) great tribes. The hungarians were members of this alliance, like the bulgar and chuvash turks.

[Silesian_Noble]

The finno-ugrish theory is a speculation made by Albert Szenczi Molnár, Johann Eberhard Fischer, August Schlözer and János Sajnovics, all of them were Austro-Hungarian monarchists in the XVII-XVIII. century. That was a political, and not a scientific resolution forced by the Habsburg monarchy. The truth is that we never were finns or ugors - finnish peoples also know this.

Hungarians are finnish-ugrians and this is not theory or speculation as you said but a scientific fact accepted by most respected historians. Show me a reliable source that says it is other way.

Hungarians are turkic peoples with turkic culture (turkic rhune-scripting, music, clothing, religion) and lifestyle (horse archery tactics, jurts, the tradition of two sacral rulers - kündü, jula) although we speak a (not clear) mixture of the urali and altai languages.

Hungarians were at early stage under turkish influense and adopted from them nomadic lifestyle and horsearcher tactice. But this did not make them ethnic Turks.

Byzantines called them türks (turk, türkü) from Agathias to Maurikios, Teophanes to Menandros, Leo VI. the Philosopher, Arethas and Constantin just as muslim authors like ibn Hajjan, Al-Bakri or Terdzsuman Mahmud (in Tarih-i Üngürüsz).
Nikolaos Mystikos called them western turks, Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos titled them "sabartoi asphaloi" (heroic savards).
Nestor wrote about the carpathian avars that they are the "white hungarians" or white magyars.
The Annals of St. Bertin say magyars are huns and avars, just as the Annals of Fulda.

Man! Byzantines and other called all the nomadic tribes Turks! And this does not mean they were really Turks. Turks for Byzantines was a synonym for nomads.

Lastly, onogurs were a confederation of ten (on) great tribes. The hungarians were members of this alliance, like the bulgar and chuvash turks.

Both Hungarians, Bulgars and few other tribes were part of Chazarian empire. But part of them moved westwards and settled in Balkans and Panonian plain finally.

[tibu17]

ITS" TRUE!!!
Cumans also called Kipchaks are a confederation of pastoralists and warriors of Turkic origin, known in Ukrainian and Russian as Polovtsy, who live in yurts (movable tents) and came from the region of the River Irtysh. Some cuman tribes probably originated near the Chinese borders and, after having moved into western Siberia by the 9th century, migrated further west into the trans-Volga region (now western Kazakstan). They occupied a vast, sprawling territory in the Eurasian steppe, stretching from north of the Aral Sea westward to the region north of the Black Sea and founded a nomadic state (Desht-i Qipchaq). They invaded the territory of Moldavia, Wallachia and part of Transylvania in the 11th century, and from there they continuing their plundering of the Russian territories, the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary.

[Carajudo]

you should check "Cumans and Tatars - in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365" from Istvan Vasary

here you can download it...english version

http://rapidshare.com/files/99893552...and_Tatars.rar

and this one is also interesting "The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450)" from Florin Curta and Roman Kovalev

http://depositfiles.com/es/files/uw91fznss

hope you like it!

[VINC.XXIII]

"Hungarians are finnish-ugrians and this is not theory or speculation as you said but a scientific fact accepted by most respected historians. Show me a reliable source that says it is other way."

yes really, hungarian and turk linguages are totally different,save the agglutinent fashion.If they have a common looks, because they have the same environnement, the stepps.

"Man! Byzantines and other called all the nomadic tribes Turks! And this does not mean they were really Turks. Turks for Byzantines was a synonym for nomads."

no,Byzantine call the nomad peoples Skythikon,Scythians,in the remember of their way of life.On the byzantine books ,we see "the scythian deserts". (sorry I speak french,no english)

[Kaplony]

Some cuman tribes probably originated near the Chinese borders

I'm talking about them, they were the qun/kun tribes, who settled in Hungary with the sari uyghurs. That's all.

Hungarians are finnish-ugrians and this is not theory or speculation as you said but a scientific fact accepted by most respected historians. Show me a reliable source that says it is other way.

You are somewhat arrogant if you think you decide what a nation is from.
As you say, it was a "scientific" fact only in the XVIII-XIX. century assigned by austro-hungarian monarchists, and through them europeans. They analised the hungarian language exclusively, and not the hungarians antropology or our culture and they were forced by Austria to accept the finno-ugrish opinion. From the XIX. century there were many explorations which was revealed that we are turkic peoples as we were turkic peoples in all our written history (ex. Chronicon Pictum, Codex Beldi, Codex Teleki, Codex Csepreghy, Gesta Hungarorum, Codex of Kaprina, Codex of München, Codex of Pozsony, Codex Rimes, Chronicon Mügeln or Chronica Hungarorum). This is not chauvinism but simple fact what you dont accept by ignorance or conventions.

There are lot of scholars, orientalists and researchers (most of them are/were hungarians) investigated about the origin of magyars, like Elias Hungarus, Gregorius de Hungaria, Mateus Escandel, father Schall, Johann Grueber, Stephen Kakas, Georg Tectander, Samuel Hatvani Turkoli, John Orlay, Gregor Nagylaki Jakcsics, John Ógyallai Besse, John Márlaki Jerney, Eugen Zichy, Gabriel Szentkatolnai Bálint, Ludwig Szádeczky-Kardos, Moritz Wosinszky, Béla Pósta, John Jankó, Joseph Pápay, Alexander Kőrösi Csoma, Hermann Vámbéry, Leslie Berzenczey, Charles Mezőkövesdi Újfalvy, George Almásy, Comes Béla Széchenyi, Gustav Kreitner, Gabriel Szentkatolnai Bálint, Ludwig Lóczy, Aurél Stein, Victor Koepe, Stephen Kiszely, Peter Cey-Bert Gyula Molnár, Csang Rei, Ágnes Kovács, David Somfay, Leslie Bárdi, Du Yaxiong, Nicholas Érdy, Michael Benkő, Emmerich Kovács, Michael Opitz, Augusta Molnár, John T. Hitchcock, Gary Spehperd, David E. Watters, Alexius Wojnarovich, Francis Fekete, Francis Lovass, Sarolta Boda, Béla Kunckel, Leslie Koppány Csáji. I hope I provided for you enough source..

Hungarians were at early stage under turkish influense and adopted from them nomadic lifestyle and horsearcher tactice. But this did not make them ethnic Turks.

The new genetic marker analysis certified our marker character is the same as the populace of East Turkestan and South West Mongolia. Finnish and ugrian peoples have different genetic markers.
The ethnic distribution among modern day hungarians is turanid 35% (East Turkestan), pamir 15% (Pamir, Altai, Tien Shan), taurid 8% (Iranian plateau, Persia), east baltic-pontic 10% - some regions higher (Eurasia), ugor 0.6% (Ural, Sayan).

Byzantines and other called all the nomadic tribes Turks! And this does not mean they were really Turks. Turks for Byzantines was a synonym for nomads.

We have not only byzantine sources - as i wrote - but arab and persian: Ubaydallah ibn Hordad, the interpreter Sallam, Jakubi, Al-Hamadani, Al-Dajani, Ibn Rustah, Al-Farisi, Ibn Haukal, Gardizi, Mas'udi, Makdisi, Ibn Hayyan, Hudud al-'Alam, Biruni, Juzjani, Juvaini, Rashid ad-Din, etc and european, latin like Liutprand of Cremona, Widukind, Folcuin, Gerhard von Augsburg, Ekkehard, Adam von Bremen, Ademar, Albericus, Saint Bruno of Querfurt, Aventinus.

yes really, hungarian and turk linguages are totally different,save the agglutinent fashion.

Huge part of our words are turkic, as others are uralic and iranian, with few mongolid and with lots of unknown origin.

[Silesian_Noble]

You are somewhat arrogant if you think you decide what a nation is from.
As you say, it was a "scientific" fact only in the XVIII-XIX. century assigned by austro-hungarian monarchists, and through them europeans. They analised the hungarian language exclusively, and not the hungarians antropology or our culture and they were forced by Austria to accept the finno-ugrish opinion. From the XIX. century there were many explorations which was revealed that we are turkic peoples as we were turkic peoples in all our written history (ex. Chronicon Pictum, Codex Beldi, Codex Teleki, Codex Csepreghy, Gesta Hungarorum, Codex of Kaprina, Codex of München, Codex of Pozsony, Codex Rimes, Chronicon Mügeln or Chronica Hungarorum).

I absolutely don't decide what a factions is from. I read pretty much about Hungarians here and there and have naver meet an information that Hungarians are of Turkish origin or any other from finno-ugrian. And the books I read were pretty well received in the medievist world. So I don't create facts by myself, but present facts made by professionals and accepted by other professionals. This is reasonable behavior, isn't it?

This is not chauvinism but simple fact what you dont accept by ignorance or conventions.

I can understand that the latest achievements realised thanks to genetic for example (I'm educated biologist myself) revealed some new facts about Hungarian's origin. This is why I asked you for a scientific source presenting such a knowledge, as I always want to learn more.

And if you call me arrogant then I am judging you by your answer as rude.