Re: [tied] Re: Oguzname

--- g <george.st@...> wrote:

>
> >It is actually very tempting to see this as
> referring
> >to the arrival of the Tatar-Mongols in Eastern
> Europe.
> >Here "Oguz Khan" would stand for the Grand Khan of
> >Qaraqorum, "Qiptchaq" for what subsequently became
> the
> >Golden Horde with its capital at Sarai, "Urus" for
> the
> >Rus' states, "Magar" for Hungary (occupied by Batu
> for
> >a few years), "Bashqurd" for territories east of
> the
> >Volga, and "Ulak" for an early Vlach presence north
> of
> >the Danube. Things don't have to fit precisely in
> >epics, but the thing hangs together well enough.
> >Still, it's obviously a take it or leave it
> >interpretation.******
>
> Yes, but in this interpretation I'd miss something
> ... sine qua non: the supreme "layer", the
> Mongolians
> themselves. Why would the narrator avoid mentioning
> the ethnonym Mongol, and, instead, prize only the
> T�rklar, namely the Oguz branch? Esp. those Oguzes
> were thoroughly beaten by the Mongol army (and
> deemed as... defectors by the supreme khan who
> wrote the Hungarian king he shouldn't grant them
> asylum. :-)
>
> (the KaraUlaq) George

*****GK: That's the problem with "epics", where you
can get strange role reversals and/or confusions.
That's why I use this kind of "evidence" with
extremest caution, and only as possible confirmation
of something known otherwise from more secure sources.
After all the "Tatars", nearly annihilated and
"enslaved" in the East, show up in the West as
unbeatable conquerors (or their name at least). I
haven't read this Oguzname, but I don't see much of a
problem in the substitutions. Interestingly, some of
today's Crimean Tatar intellectuals consider
themselves the descendants of Cumans-Qipchaks, present
the history of historical Cumania as early "Crimean
Tatar" history, view individuals such as Tugorkan (fl.
late 11th c.) as "Crimean Khans" etc. Your point above
about the Ghuzz is historically quite correct, but
"irrelevant" to epic constructions. It's irrefutable,
and yet "unimportant". BTW the Mongols aren't
mentioned at all in our Chronicle: the enemy which
appears in 1223 is immediately labeled "Tatars".
Genghis-Khan is a "Tatar" khan...******

>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com