Are Cumans Mongol or Turkic orgin

[TheBlindKing]

i wonder who are these step warriors ?

who do you know about them

[sumskilz]

They spoke a Turkic language, but keep in mind that the Turkic and Mongolian languages are both in the Altaic language family.

[TheBlindKing]

oh Thx So they Turkic Origin they maybe similar language but diff tribes i heard somewhere(that said by a Russian prf) Turks more complex and deeper runic culture so Chinese build great wall against ancient Turks ( Xiongnu=Huns=Later West huns (Attila the Hun)

EDIT:i Googled and found that they are also Cumans=Kipchaks

[Russian_Knight]

They were Turkic people..not Mongol..

[The Noble Lord]

Cumans were not entirely of Turkic origin, they were more of Mongol-Altaic origin, but that does not make it that they did not have traces of Turkic identity.

[sumskilz]

The Noble Lord has reminded me of something I should have put in my first answer. So Cumans=Kypchaks as you've discovered. The word Kypchaks can be used to describe the pre-Mongol Turkic group that is depicted in the mod, but also the mixed Mongol/Turkic descendents of the Golden Horde. The Kypchaks were absorbed into the Mongol Empire. Then the descendents of Batu, who ruled the Golden Horde in modern Russa, split off from the Great Khanate. Another term for the Golden Horde that is used is the Kypchak Khanate because the people were of mixed Turkic and Mongol heritage but eventually a Turkic dialect became the dominate language. So your question, has a slightly more complex answer depending on the time period.

[NikeBG]

Though you should define what it means to be Turkic - speaking a Turkic language (as the Cumans did) or having genes mostly descended from the original Gok-Turks (which most Cumans hadn't, considering their phenotype is mostly described as having blond hair and pale skin, which is why they're called Polovtsi ("pale people") on Russian). In any case, they're definitely not Mongol.

[sumskilz]

NikeBG,

You're certainly right about the mixed nature of the Cumans, but I want to bring up that the blonde thing is highly disputed. I don't read any of the languages the relevant primary sources are in so I'm only going off what I've read various historians argue. Evidently, the root of Polovsti has at times also been associated with straw, basically the color of dried grass. So some historians have argued that Politvtsi meant in this case "people from the grasslands". I've also read, and I wish I could remember the source, that in one of the primary sources described them as being blonde with dark hair. Raising the possibly that blonde referred to their skin color and not hair color as is generally assumed.

Though they could have had blonde hair from mixing with more local populations (I don't know). The fact that the German word for them also means blonde makes me wonder. There is a lot of blonde hair among both Germans and Russians, so why would they use that term to differentiate foreigners from themselves?

[Illidan]

well i know turkish language i can speak turkish and azery(=caucasian)but i cannot understand what mongols and turkmens say..well i can understand that they are talking some kind of turkic langauge but i cannot understand a single word from it..therfore i think that mongolian language is a completely different language and they don`t even share a same language family... .

[VINC.XXIII]

The cumans with the longs hairs like in Rusichi are the most simple turks,be Turk is a cultural fact,no genetic fact.Like ancient Kirghizs are blonde-haired,red-haired and blue-eyed(Chineses,greeks and iranians said that),or our Rusichi cumans with the mongoloide face,all are turks.And for information Turks come from the Altai,they was masters of the Otuken forest,a longtime ago...

[Deadly Rabbit]

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.
We do know that the Cumans/Kypchaks were at least Turkic in language and culture, and that they were probably quite diverse in ethnic origin, as the earlier Khazars, Avars, Bulgars and Huns, and the Later Mongols would be.

[Illidan]

this turkish language you say...we have so many different turkish pronunciation and there is a huge difference between them as i said a current azery man cannot understand what a turkmen says and a turkmen cannot understand what a mongol says and i think the mongolian language is the nearest match with the original turkish langauge and the azery or turkish are so much different than the original one...so the question is:wich grade of turkish language were these kypchaks or cumans talking with?and about the topic`s title i don`t think that there is any difference between turks and mongols as the turks themselves were mongolians who migrated from mongolia to the other parts of the world and later by merging with different races theyre pronunciation and apearence changed so about the question in the title i say they are both mongolian and turk as they are same.

[schehzade]

they are altic orgin like mongols, oghuzs, uzbeks, uyghurs, kyrgyzs, chuvashs, bashkirs, yakuts, tatars, huns, bulgars, avars, maygars ... We say mostly Turkic and we are classing them to turkic and mongolic, but that's false. I think they all are different. there is no turkic nation, only oghuzs are turkish. This means that cumans are only cumans.

[sumskilz]

Turk is a cultural fact,no genetic fact.

Very true. Different Turkic goups probably share some genetic heritage but this might be very insignificant.

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.

Absolutely, people tend to confuse ethnicity/race and culture. But even what race a person is perceived to be is something that is somewhat culturally determined which I suspect you may understand judging by your use of quotation marks around "racial".

i don`t think that there is any difference between turks and mongols as the turks themselves were mongolians who migrated from mongolia to the other parts of the world and later by merging with different races theyre pronunciation and apearence changed so about the question in the title i say they are both mongolian and turk as they are same.

Semantics really, the diffferent cultural and linguistic branches are separated into subgroups for intellectual convenience. The term Altaic is usual used for the broader grouping.

they are altic orgin like mongols, oghuzs, uzbeks, uyghurs, kyrgyzs, chuvashs, bashkirs, yakuts, tatars, huns, bulgars, avars, maygars ... We say mostly Turkic and we are classing them to turkic and mongolic, but that's false. I think they all are different. there is no turkic nation, only oghuzs are turkish. This means that cumans are only cumans.

The Chuvash and Bulgars were probably of Iranic cultural/linguistic origin with heavy Turkic influence, though your point remains valid.

[schehzade]

The Chuvash and Bulgars were probably of Iranic cultural/linguistic origin with heavy Turkic influence, though your point remains valid.

There are a lot of theory about bulgars. Our education system accepts this theory, but the other theory is possible too.

[sumskilz]

There are a lot of theory about bulgars. Our education system accepts this theory, but the other theory is possible too.

Yeah I know and the Turkic origin for the Bulgars was very popular for awhile. The Iranic origin appears to be most popular among the experts these days, but it is by no means a decided issue. NikeBG posted a study recently on another sub-forum that looked at the DNA of the Chuvash people which found almost no evidence of East Asian origin. This discounts the Turkic origin to some degree because most Turkic speaking populations carry at least a little bit of East Asian genetics, but we know how culture, linguistics, and genetics do not always match. Plus, it seems likely that the Bulgars did have a least some Turkic ancestry even if their extinct language was of Iranic origin. This may not be easily apparent in a genetics study that only looks at specific markers. I think this discussion shows how complicated (and perhaps pointless) the answer to the OP's question is

[schehzade]

Yeah I know and the Turkic origin for the Bulgars was very popular for awhile. The Iranic origin appears to be most popular among the experts these days, but it is by no means a decided issue. NikeBG posted a study recently on another sub-forum that looked at the DNA of the Chuvash people which found almost no evidence of East Asian origin. This discounts the Turkic origin to some degree because most Turkic speaking populations carry at least a little bit of East Asian genetics, but we know how culture, linguistics, and genetics do not always match. Plus, it seems likely that the Bulgars did have a least some Turkic ancestry even if their extinct language was of Iranic origin. This may not be easily apparent in a genetics study that only looks at specific markers. I think this discussion shows how complicated (and perhaps pointless) the answer to the OP's question is

Thanks for your good explanation

[tibu17]

Please see wikipedia the cumans are turk origin and laungage is altai.Any turks is tell the cumans in the turk group.(Tatar's=kipchak's)Cumans are kipchak's and the cumans are living in Hungary.

[Petar]

An interesting discussion you've got here.. I'd like to add just two simple facts:

1. There's not a single "pure" nation in the world - what makes each nation unique is their culture and above all - language. DNA researching is not the most trustworthy way of proving theories. Which leads me to..
2. Wikipedia is not the best source for proving your ideas as there are A LOT of people messing up with it all the time.

As for the real Cuman discussion, I've grown with the thought that they're indeed blonde. What their ancestry was I have no idea, what they've left to the historians is just motes.. but even if they were not of turkic blood, I think it's certain to say their culture was turkic. If I can rephrase the saying "You become what your friends are" - on a larger scale, neighbouring countries always are similar to each other and the longer they've been in contact with each other, the less distinctive they become. So, to say there were blonde people among the sea of turkic steppe nations is not that hard, I guess... :]

Oh, and regarding the Bulgarian turkick origin theory... I think it's mostly inaccurate but I don't say there was no turkic influence. The Iranian origin seems to make a lot more sence.. guess time will tell.

[Boztorgai_Khan]

Cumans are Mongol-Turkic origin people Why ?

There was 39 Clans in

30 was Mongol origin
9 was Turkic origin