Talk:List of medieval Mongolian tribes and clans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have changed Haenisch's orthography a bit (ch->kh, dsch->j, tsch->ch, sch->sh etc.), still, if you think a name is misspelt, edit or discuss it. The list is by no menas complete yet, for example all the forest people are still missing. Another thing missing is the differentiation between clans and tribes. Yaan 10:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Genghis Khan's genealogy

I doubt that "genealogy" is the right word here, because it implies that Genghis descended from all those. I'm think the section should be titled "before Genghis Khan". --Latebird 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "Tribes and Clans mentioned in Genghis Khan's genealogy"?Yaan 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The point being? Most of them have nothing to do with his genealogy. Mention in the secret history seems a rather random sorting criteria anyway. Relations between clans and tribes (eg. subtribes or creation history) would be more interesting, especially once we find additional information in other sources. --Latebird
Actually, most of the clans mentioned in the first section are descendants of Genghis Khan's ancestors. I think the only ones who aren't are the Khoritumat, the Uriankhat (Uriankhai? ), the Tartar (plus the two Tartar clans), the Merkit and the Olkhonut. But the Uriankhai are still related as Bodonchar's robbed/stolen wife is Uriankhai. And the Tartar, Merkit and Olkhonut appear only after the whole more mythical stuff is over, at the time of Khabul Khan and Yesugei. I agree the sorting criteria might be improved (like sorting tribes, clans, subclans together - but how?), but calling the section "Before Genghis Khan" is really misleading, as the Kereit, Naiman, Oirat etc. all existed before him, and some of those tribes mentioned in the first section even exist today. Yaan 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Then it may be better not to sort them at all for the moment, and start grouping them as more information becomes available. --Latebird 14:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version should be quite exhaustive. The grouping isn't really clear yet for the last part (other small groups), so if anyone knows better than me, feel free to correct any mistakes (but please include a hint on sources). Yaan 17:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kereit

As far as I know, it's not that clear of which origin the Kereit were. In any case, they were defeated and dissolved. Yaan 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then, better tell that to whoever wrote Kerait... ;) --Latebird 19:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Or are you possibly confusing the Kerait with the Merkit? --Latebird 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm not interested in a discussion about Kazakh propaganda, so I'll leave that Kereit article alone. But that doesn't mean we'll have to take it into other articles. Both new (Weiers: Geschichte der Mongolen, 2004) and old (Grousset: Empire of the steppes, ~1939) sources I have looked into agree that it's not clear whether the Kereit were turcs or not. Yaan 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Let them just source their claim and see what happens... But I still think the "defeated and dissolved" part belongs to the Merkit. --Latebird 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
To correct myself, the full statement in Grousset's work (and it's 1970, not 1939) on p.191 is The Kerayit people are usually considered Turcs. "The legend of Mongol origins leaves no room for them, and it is hard to say whether the Kerayit were Mongols who had been strongly influenced by the turks, or turks who were becoming mongolized. In any event, many kerayit titles were turkic, and Togrul is a turkic rather than a mongol name.". The quote is from Pelliot, La Haute Asie. The Weiers quote is something like Inwieweit die Kereit Türken waren, ist noch nicht eindeutig geklärt. The Merkit were dissolved too, and probably treated much harsher than the Kereit, but the Kereit also were dissolved after their defeat (Ongkhan had taken part in conspiracy against Chinggis, but ultimately lost) Yaan 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiyad and Borjigin

There seems to be some confusion on whether Kiyad is a sub-entity of Borjigin or not. Grousset's Empire of the Steppes, NJ 1970, p.193 (approx.) calls Kiyad a subclan of the Borjigin, but the mongolian terms used are Yasun and Obog. In modern usage, Ovog would be a smaller group than a Yastan (not sure whether Yastan and Yasan are related or not, though). Does anyone know something about this? Yaan 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's indeed confusing. Some people claim that "yastan" is an artificial term brought by Communism. In fact Obogs are divided into Yasun. Thus Kiyad is a Yasun within Borjigin Obog. As you know, after each 9th generation, they needed to diversify the Obog, thus they created a new branch-yasun name. Thus people of different Yasun within the same obog were allowed to intermarry as 9 generations make their genes different enough. Also there's a term "elken" in the Oirat culture. All Genghisids should be Kiyad-Borjigin. But the Kiyad should also have been divided into sub-groups at the subsequent sets of 9 generations. Does anyone know whether this was the case and if so what those sub-families were? Gantuya eng (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another classification

The Mongolian tribes were classified into Nirun and Darligin. Also the vassal tribes of Borjigin were classified into Unagan Bogul and Ötele Bogul. This list should also reflect these classifications. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not find this in the Secret History. I suspect this is according to Rashid ad Din, whose works I have no access to. I don't even know if his clan structure is compatible with the one provided by the secret history. Yaan (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Nirun -- Хатагин, Салжиуд, Тайчууд, Хартахан, Сэжүүд, Чинус, Ноёхон, Урууд, Мангууд, Дөрвөд, Баарин, Барулас, Хадархан, Жадаран, Будаат, Дуклад, Бэсүд, Сухан, Кунгият
Darligin -- Урианхан, Хонгирад-Икирас, Олхунуд, Харануд, Кунгилиут нар салбарлан гарсан. Илжигин, Горлус, Уряут-Хонхтон, Тэлэнгүт, Арулад нар салбарлан гарсан. Үшин, Сүлдүсэн, Ильдуркин, Баяуд, Хингит, Кунжин
http://www.hss.edu.mn/history/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=37
I marked the Nirun tribes with (N) and Darligin tribes with (D). I couldn't find some of these in the list.
Gantuya eng (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should explain what the D and N mean somewhere within the article.Yaan (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torgut/Olhunoud confusion

It's said that the Torghuts, especially their aristocracy descended from the Kereits, offsprings of Tooril Khan. Genghis Khan organised a personal guard mainly composed of Kereit young people as they were tall and well-built and called them Torghut.
Why does this list claim that Olhunoud belonged to Torghut. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
it's all according to my copy of the Secret History. I am not at home over the weekend, but I can give you the quotes monday or tuesday. Yaan (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Bitte. Gantuya eng (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's on page 9 of Haenisch's 1948 edition, section 61. When Temujin is nine, Yesugei sets out to look for a wife for Temujin among the Olkhuno'ut of the Torgut tribe, the home of his (Temujin's) mother. (Temudschin zaehlte neun Jahre, da nahm Yesugai ba'atur ihn mit auf Reisen, um fuer ihn von seinen Oheimen bei den Olchuno'ut des Torgut-Stammes, der Heimat seiner Mutter, ein Maedchen zu werben). Yaan (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for citing that part. It sounds very rythmic. But I am surprised. The part of Altan Tobchi which I have now says simply Olhunoud, it doesn't mention Torgut. That part of Altan Tobchi before 1240 is said to be copy of SHM, just with some Buddhist additions. Unfortunately I haven't got any copy of SHM itself in hands at the moment. But as much as I remember the Ts. Damdinsuren edition, it doesn't mention the Torgut there too. Of course I'll look up when I find it. Does the Haenisch edition mention "Torgut" again before Genghis Khan organises the day-time guards "Torgut" and night-time guards "Hebtegul"? I'll cite the sentence from Altan Tobchi for you: Есүхэй баатар Тэмүжинийг есөн настай байхад Өэлүн үжиний төрхөм Олхуноуд иргэнээс охин гуйя хэмээж, Тэмүжинг аваад одов. While typing this, I came to guess that the translator might have confused "төрхөм" (the native kinsfolk or birth family of a married woman) with "Torgut", though who am I to doubt in the work of the scholars. The other sentence, reply of Yesuhei to Dei Secen's question: "энэ хөвүүндээ нагац нар (mother's relatives) Олхуноуд иргэнээс охин гуйя хэмээн ирлээ би". Again this sentence doesn't mention any Torgut. I'll delete the Torgut at the moment. Gantuya eng (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably know that Haenisch worked from a Chinese transscription - indeed, he was the person who first published a reconstruction of the Mongolian text! - and maybe he had no real access to the Altan Tobchi. I seem to remember he had, but maybe I am getting this wrong or confusing the two Altan Tobcis. In any case, i don't think an error is very unlikely or inexcusable. Maybe we should try to look to some other reconstructions/translations.
I guess төрхөм and Torgut are not that easy to confuse in the classical script, so maybe the reference to relatives instead of Torgut is rather obvious. On the other hand Haenisch mentions 'uncles' (Oheime), so maybe there is something missing in the Altan Tobci, or maybe Haenisch is just giving two possible interpretation of one word at the same time for the sake of readability. Yaan (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know that much details (shame). I think I've seen that name (Haenisch-Хэниш), probably in the introduction of the SHM edition, but wasn't careful enough to remember more. I also think an error is very unlikely, that's why I disclaimed "who am I to doubt in the work of the scholars". Sorry if I did something offensive. Gantuya eng (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well... I found SHM online. It says: "Есїхэй баатар, Тэмїжинийг есєн настай байхад Єэлїн эхийн тєрхєм олхуноуд иргэнд хєвїїний нагац нараас охин гуйяа гэж Тэмїжинийг аваад одов." Gantuya eng (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Then probably it's really an error by Haenisch. I was not offended at all, I was merely trying to point out why errors were not unlikely. An SHM translation into German is a lesser scientific achievement than a reconstruction of the Mongolian text anyway. I have not seen his reconstruction, so maybe he points out that there are two different interpretations possible (only one if you know the Altan Tobci) in that work. Yaan (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barkhujin

Is "Barkhujin" a name of tribe or name of a region/river/mountain? Gantuya eng (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Haensich says it is the nortwestern(?) shore of Lake Baikal. But in the translation, after the (implied) death of Hoelun some guy from the Jalair flees to the Barkhujin and joins them.Yaan (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Duplication

Aren't these Khorulas, Khorolas, and these Arula, Arulat the same units? Gantuya eng (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. We could treat them just the same way as Adargin/Adarkin. Could you please explain what D and N means, and where the info is from? See you, Yaan (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)