Locality.—Forests of Nepaul,westof the Great Valley.Tribes.—Chépáng, Kusunda, and Haiyu.Vocabularies.—One only known,i.e.that of the Chépáng.Authority.—B. H. Hodgson,Journal of the Asiatic Society, Dec. 1848, No. CXCVIII.
Locality.—Forests of Nepaul,westof the Great Valley.
Tribes.—Chépáng, Kusunda, and Haiyu.
Vocabularies.—One only known,i.e.that of the Chépáng.
Authority.—B. H. Hodgson,Journal of the Asiatic Society, Dec. 1848, No. CXCVIII.
Respecting the, ethnology of these tribes (or rather of the Chépáng, the one best known), Mr. Hodgson's observations are as follows:—
1. That their form and colour is the form and colour of the aborigines of India.
2. That their language is closely allied to the language of Bhután.
The Garo, the Bodo, the Dhimál, and Chépáng, will come under consideration again; these being the tribes which will supply the chief facts connected with the question as to the affinity or non-affinity between the great Tibetan and Indian families. At present it is sufficient to draw attention to the state of opinion upon this point. With few exceptions amongst the English (Dr. Bird and Mr. Hodgson being the most decided), both philologists and physiologists consider the line of demarcation to be an exceedingly broad one.
Tribes supposed to be essentially monosyllabic, although speaking a language admitted to be Indian.—These are the Assamese of theLowerpart of the valley, and the Raibansi Kooch.
1.Assam.—That the languages ofUpperAssam are those of a variety of rude tribes, speaking a monosyllabic tongue, has already been seen. The Lower Assam language is Bengali. Were the Bengali the aborigines of Lower Assam? I believe that no one holds this doctrine. Is the present language that of Bengalis, who have displaced an aboriginal monosyllabic population? Perhaps. Or has an original monosyllabic population adopted the Bengali? No person is better capable of forming an opinion on this point than Mr. Hodgson; and his opinion is for the last of these views.
2.The converted Kooch.—Residents, in contact withthe Bodo and Dhimál, of the Sub-Himalayan range, between the north-west corner of Assam and Sikkim. The higher class of the converted Kooch are Brahminists: the lower Mahometans. Both call themselvesRaibansi. The notice of the Kooch kingdom of Hájo, explains this term.
Towards the close of the fifteenth century, Hájo founded a Kooch empire, which extended beyond the limits of the Assam valley, into Morung and Bengal. His daughter, for he left no sons, was married to a Bodo chief, the Bodos being Pagans. These two divisions of the aborigines held their own against the Moslem and Hindus equally; but only for a while. Visva Sinh, the conqueror's grandson, became a convert to Hinduism, the majority of his subjects to the religion of Mahomet; renouncing, at the same time, their original name. A portion, however, remained unconverted, and remain so; and these agree with the Bodo in appearance, manners, and customs, and are said to do so in language also.
If so, and if the Raibansi Kooch be so closely allied to them as they are described to be, they must, although speaking a dialect closely allied to the Assam Bengali, be monosyllabic in origin.
The whole details, however, of the Kooch may be found in Mr. Hodgson's Dissertation.
The Chinese civilization must be taken as the measure of the moral development of the monosyllabic nations; a form to which thenon-culture of the tribes represented by the Bodo and Garo, stands in prominent contrast. I do not think it necessary to tell the reader what Chinese civilizationis. It is sufficiently known in itself; its affinity with that of the Indo-Chinese nations is known also; andequally well-known is its distinct character, as compared with the other civilizations of the world—Asiatic as well as European.
A point of more ethnographical importance, is the question as to its antiquity; since this involves the higher question still—as to the extent to which it is a self-developed phenomenon, or one effected by influences from without. I am prepared to admit without much criticism, the statements of travellers as to the possession, on the part of the Chinese, of several of the most important arts and discoveries belonging to the civilization of Europe—of the art of printing, of paper-money, of a certain amount of astronomical knowledge, of the mariner's compass, and even of gunpowder. There is no reason why the Chinese,when once civilized, should not have worked out an average amount of discovery in the way of detail. The point upon which I doubt is theantiquityof that civilization, and still more the self-evolution of it; a necessary consequence of such antiquity.
Within the historical period, three civilizing influences have, at different times, been introduced into China, and each has had time to do its work in.
I begin with the latest, the European.
1.The Portuguese, Dutch, English, and American.—This may be disposed of briefly. It has not changed the Chinese cultivation in anything essential.
2.The Nestorian Christians.—Date between 600 and 1200A.D.Theextentof the influence of these early missionaries will be examined in the section upon the Syrians. It is the second of the great external civilizing influences that have acted upon China. Without carrying my scepticism so far as to limit the antiquity of the Chinese history to the epoch of the Nestorians, I cannotbut put a high importance on the introduction of Syrian literature, Syrian theology, and Syrian science.
3.The Buddhism of India.—This is generally believed to have been introduced into China in the first century after Christ. I have not seen the translation of the Annals of the Han Dynasty by the Archimandrite Hyacinth; so that I cannot say at what period they profess to represent cotemporary events. Whatever, however, that period may be, it is the extreme date of Chinese history: now this cannot be earlier thanB.C.200; that being the epoch when the Han dynasty began to reign.
Viewed in respect to our reasons for concluding that such or such a fact took place, there are five grounds of belief:—
1.Historical grounds.—Here the facts are believed ontestimony; the testimony of men who had means of knowing them. That such witnesses should have lived at the time when the facts in question took place, is the great and essential condition of their credibility.
2.The belief ex necessitate.—A fact which, at the time of its first announcement could only have been known from having been witnessed by a cotemporary, but which at some later period is shown from other facts to have been real, is to be admitted unreservedly; the evidence in its favour being of the highest kind. Of this sort are such astronomical facts as, in the present state of our knowledge, can be ascertained independently of experience, but which, when first notified, could only have been ascertainedbyexperience.
3.Traditional Grounds.—Here theimmediateauthority to the person who is informed of a real or supposed fact, is some one who had not the possibility of knowing the facts in question from being contemporary with them; but whoheard it from some one who was so contemporary—or else heard it from some one who heard it from some one, &c.,ad infinitum. Here the statements are possible or impossible, probable or improbable. If possible, theymaybe true; if probable, they are likely to be so. In neither case, however, are they historical facts; that is, there is notestimonyfounded upon a knowledge of the event.
4.The true elements in unreasonable traditions.—A series of necessary and connected antecedents to a given effect, inductively obtained is an ethnological ground of belief, or an ethnological fact; and it is based on inductive reasoning. A series of unnecessary and unconnected antecedents, derived from theimagination, is a false ground of belief, and in most cases this takes the form of mythological tradition. It does not, however, necessarily follow, that, because a body of tradition may, on the whole, be unreasonable, or even impossible, it is therefore wholly deficient in grounds of belief. The doctrineex nihilo nihilmay here apply. It may fairly be argued, that, absolute invention is so difficult, that in all error there is some truth. Granted. It may, then, be argued, that a criticism analytical enough to evolve the residuum is a scientific (or literary) possibility. Granted. But who is the critic? I fear that his appearance isoptandum magis quam sperandum.
5.The inductive method consists in the assumption of certain causes as the necessary antecedents of a known event; and they are good or bad according to their scientific or unscientific character. To take as the first fact in the history of Greece, the existence of a poem like the Iliad in the ninth centuryB.C., to ascertain the state of society that it implies, and to appreciate the civilization involved therein, is an ethnological argument; whilst, to assume a certain amount of time for such to have grown upin, is an argument from effect to cause, and is good or bad, according as it assumes no more than is absolutely necessary.
Now, if we ask upon which of these five principles we believe in the antiquity of the Chinese civilization, it will certainly not be the first.
I am not prepared to wholly exclude the second; indeed, I have not the means of forming an independent one on the subject. At the same time I know that, in respect to the Chinese astronomical calculations many good judges are incredulous, and many of those who are not so are at variance in their opinions.
The third is essentially admissible for a limited period only.
The fifth remains open for consideration.
In the application of what may be called thedoctrine of necessary antecedents, I believe, for my own part, that we must take the China as described by Marco Polo in the fifteenth century; and if we put the development there exhibited on a level with that of the China of the present century, we are giving to the advocate of antiquity full as much, perhaps more, than he can fairly demand. I submit that the time necessary for the growth of such a phenomenon need not exceed a few centuries.
The residuum, then, of truth that is capable of being evolved out of unreasonable tradition, is all that the present writer can leave to the advocates of a Chinese antiquity. He would willingly, however, find that their astronomy and history will bear a more severe criticism than he imagines they are likely to do.
At present, he believes that whatever is older than their religion, isreasonabletradition for a limited period (say a century), and unreasonable tradition beyond it.
In confining the growth of Chinese civilization to the last eighteen hundred years, and in expressing my dissent from the doctrine that it was an indigenous, self-developed phenomenon, I by no means underrate the import of certain undoubted facts. The archæology of their alphabet is too little known to enable us to connect it with any foreign one; as well as too scanty to exhibit its evolution as a home growth. Still it is a remarkable phenomenon. Still more so is the phenomenon of their government and political organization. To deny to China a great influence upon the history of the world, simply because its civilization has been confined to its own immediate sphere, and its movements have been limited to the pale of its own dominions, is erroneous. China alone is a great section of the world. Hence the circle, though limited, is large; and the simple, single fact of so much sameness over so large a country, is a great one. How is this to be accounted for? Was the original area occupied by the first possessors of China so great, whilst the changes that have set in since the time of possession have been so small? or has the uniformity been purchased by the assimilation of a multiplicity of small and distinct tribes? Or has it been by their annihilation?
Whatever may be the answer to these questions supplied by future researches, the Chinese are one of the great historical influences, and, if we contrast the peaceful habits of an agricultural population with the unsettled condition of a nation of nomads, and the security of a large consolidated government with the slave-dealing warfares that exist between thickly congregated petty tribes, we must allow that influence to have been a beneficial one.
Physical conformation.—Mongol.Languages.—Not monosyllabic.Distribution.—Continental.Area.—From Kamskatka to Norway, and from the Arctic Ocean to the frontiers of Tibet and Persia—nearly but not wholly continuous.Countries included.—The northern parts of the Chinese empire, greater part of Siberia, Mongolia, Tartary, Eastern Turkestan, Asia Minor, Turkey, Hungary, Finland, Esthonia, Lapland.
Physical conformation.—Mongol.
Languages.—Not monosyllabic.
Distribution.—Continental.
Area.—From Kamskatka to Norway, and from the Arctic Ocean to the frontiers of Tibet and Persia—nearly but not wholly continuous.
Countries included.—The northern parts of the Chinese empire, greater part of Siberia, Mongolia, Tartary, Eastern Turkestan, Asia Minor, Turkey, Hungary, Finland, Esthonia, Lapland.
The reader is now asked to prepare himself for the transition from languages of a monosyllabic type, to languages other than monosyllabic; and from aptotic tongues to tongues where the inflections are numerous.
He is also asked to prepare himself for a transition, in the way of physical conformation, from a structureapproachingthe Mongol type, to one essentially and typically Mongol.
In the former case the change is greater than in the latter.
Why is this? Why do not the changes gopari passu, so that the two tests should coincide, and so that it should be a matter of indifference which of the two we started with?
We get at the answer to this by remembering thatphysical changes and philological changes, may go on at different rates.
A thousand years may pass over two nations undoubtedly of the same origin; and which were, at the beginning of those thousand years, of the same complexion, form, and language.
At the end of those thousand years there shall be a difference. With one the language shall have changed rapidly, the physical structure slowly.
With the other the physical conformation shall have been modified by a quick succession of external influences, whilst the language shall have stayed as it was.
With an assumed or proved original identity on each side, the difference in the rate of action on the part of the different influences, is the key to all discrepancies between the two tests. The language may remainin statu quo,whilst the hair, complexion, and bones change; or the hair, complexion, and osteology may remainin statu quo,whilst the language changes.
Apparently this leaves matters in an unsatisfactory condition; in a way which allows the ethnologist any amount of assumption he chooses. Apparently it does so; but it does so in appearance only. In reality we have ways and means of determining which of the two changes is the likelier.
We know what modifiesform. Change of latitude, climate, sea-level, conditions of subsistence, conditions of clothing, &c., do this; all (or nearly all) such changes being physical.
We know, too, (though in a less degree) what modifieslanguage. New wants gratified by objects with new names, new ideas requiring new terms, increased intercourse between man and man, tribe and tribe, nation and nation, &c. do this; all (ornearlyall) such changes being of a moral nature.
Hence in some cases we can ascertain upon which of the two elements of our classification, the physical or the moral, the greatest amount of influences has been at work.
It is necessary to remark upon these points because it is onlyphysicallythat the tribes of the present division are nearest akin to those of the previous ones. Had similarity of language been the test, a different and a more distant class of nations would have formed the subject of the present section.
Distribution.—High Asia. East and West, from the Altai Mountains to the Wall of China; North and South, from the Tungús boundary to Tibet; conterminous with the Turks, southern Samöeids, Tungús, Chinese, and Tibetans.—The Volga, by migration.Political Relations.—Subject to,a.China;b.Russia.Religion.Chiefly Buddhism.Particular Divisions.Mongols Proper, Buriats, Olot of Dzungaria; the Kalmuks of Russia; the Eimak of Persia.
Distribution.—High Asia. East and West, from the Altai Mountains to the Wall of China; North and South, from the Tungús boundary to Tibet; conterminous with the Turks, southern Samöeids, Tungús, Chinese, and Tibetans.—The Volga, by migration.
Political Relations.—Subject to,a.China;b.Russia.
Religion.Chiefly Buddhism.
Particular Divisions.Mongols Proper, Buriats, Olot of Dzungaria; the Kalmuks of Russia; the Eimak of Persia.
Localities.—1. Buriats. Parts about the lake Baikal, chiefly in the Russian territory, conterminous with the Samöeids, and Manchus.2. Olot, Dzungarian, or Kalmuk Mongolians.a.The most western of the family, conterminous with the Turks of Yarkend, and Independent Tartary.b.Kalmuks of the tribes Dürbet and Torgod, who in 1662 crossed the Yaik, and settled on the Volga. The majority of them returned to Mongolia in 1770. These belonged to the Olots.3. Mongolians Proper, of the Desert of Shamo, and the Kalkas. Conterminous with China.4. Eimaks, Northern Persia; isolated tribes.
Localities.—1. Buriats. Parts about the lake Baikal, chiefly in the Russian territory, conterminous with the Samöeids, and Manchus.
2. Olot, Dzungarian, or Kalmuk Mongolians.a.The most western of the family, conterminous with the Turks of Yarkend, and Independent Tartary.b.Kalmuks of the tribes Dürbet and Torgod, who in 1662 crossed the Yaik, and settled on the Volga. The majority of them returned to Mongolia in 1770. These belonged to the Olots.
3. Mongolians Proper, of the Desert of Shamo, and the Kalkas. Conterminous with China.
4. Eimaks, Northern Persia; isolated tribes.
The extent to which the Mongolian physiognomy is the type and sample of one of the most remarkable divisions of the human race, is one of the facts which gives this division prominence.
The extent to which its tribes are the type and sample of a pastoral and nomadic race, is another.
Their part in the history of the world is a third. This alone will be enlarged upon. The two other points are merely indicated.
The great part played by the Mongolians, as devastating conquerors, begins and ends with Zingiz-Khan and his immediate successors. Itbeginswith him; because although fragmentary and obscure notices of their Mongolian neighbours are said to be found in the Chinese annals, it is only in the thirteenth century that we find definite and cotemporaneous historical evidence. Itendswith his successors in the fourth or fifth generation, notwithstanding the appearance which it takes of being continued further; inasmuch as the conquests of Tamerlane are Turk rather than Mongolian, and the Great Mogul empire of India was Turk rather than Mongolian also.
To this confusion between the share taken by the two great pastoral nations of Central Asia, in spilling the blood of their kind, and in devastating the world, the indefinite use of the termTartarhas done much to contribute. Few writers when they heard ofTartarvictories, asked whether the particular warriors were akin to the Mongolians who conquered China under Kublai-Khan, or to the Turks, who terrified Europe under Suliman. Yet such is the difference between these two divisions of the great Turanian stock. For the sake of avoiding any such further ambiguities, I have forbidden myself the use of the wordTartarfrom this time forwards, throughout the present work.
Other probable reasons for the confusion are of arealcharacter. I believe that, in some cases, the soldiers were Turk, whilst the captains were Mongolian; and that, sometimes, descent from the high blood of Zingiz-Khan was claimed by Turk chieftains of another stock and pedigree. At any rate, the careful examiner of any history of this people—excepting for the times of Zingiz-Khan, and his immediate successors—will find it very difficult to disengage the Mongolian exploits from the Turk; and will, probably after some trouble, come to the conclusion that the greater share belongs to the latter.
I shall let an eye-witness, Marco Polo, describe the Mongols of the fourteenth century, in the third generation from Zingiz-Khan, and before they had taken up the Buddhist religion of their conquered subjects.
1. Translation by Marsden,—ChaptersXLV-XLVIII.
"It has been an invariable custom, that all the grandkans, and chiefs of the race ofChingis-kan, should be carried for interment to a certain lofty mountain, namedAltai; and in whatever place they may happen to die, although it should be at the distance of a hundred days' journey, they are, nevertheless, conveyed thither. It is likewise the custom, during the progress of removing the bodies of these princes, for those who form the escort to sacrifice such persons as they chance to meet on the road, saying to them, 'Depart for the next world, and there attend upon your deceased master!' being impressed with the belief that all whom they thus slay do actually become his servants in the next life. They do the same also with respect to horses, killing the best of the stud, in order that he may have the use of them. When the corpse ofMongùwas transported to this mountain, the horsemen who accompanied it, having this blind and horrible persuasion, slew upwards of ten thousand persons who fell in their way.
"TheTartarsnever remain fixed, but, as the winterapproaches, remove to the plains of a warmer region, in order to find sufficient pasture for their cattle; and in summer they frequent cold situations in the mountains, where there is water and verdure, and their cattle are free from the annoyance of horse-flies and other biting insects. During two or three months they progressively ascend higher ground, and seek fresh pasture; the grass not being adequate in any one place to feed the multitudes of which their herds and flocks consist. Their huts or tents are formed of rods covered with felt, and being exactly round, and nicely put together, they can gather them into one bundle, and make them up as packages, which they carry along with them in their migrations, upon a sort of car with four wheels. When they have occasion to set them up again, they always make the entrance front to the south. Besides these cars, they have a superior kind of vehicle, upon two wheels, covered likewise with felt, and so effectually as to protect those within it from wet, during a whole day of rain. These are drawn by oxen and camels, and serve to convey their wives and children, their utensils, and such provisions as they require. The women it is who attend to their trading concerns, who buy and sell, and provide every thing necessary for their husbands and their families; the time of the men being entirely devoted to the employment of hunting and hawking, and matters that relate to the military life. They have the best falcons in the world, and also the best dogs. They subsist entirely upon flesh and milk, eating the produce of their sport, and a certain small animal, not unlike a rabbit, called by our peoplePharaoh's mice, which, during the summer season, are found in great abundance in the plains. But they likewise eat flesh of every description, horses, camels, and even dogs, providedthey are fat. They drink mares' milk, which they prepare in such a manner that it has the qualities and flavour of white wine. They term it in their languagekemurs.
"Their women are not excelled in the world for chastity and decency of conduct, nor for love and duty to their husbands. Infidelity to the marriage bed is regarded by them as a vice not merely dishonourable, but of the most infamous nature; whilst on the other hand it is admirable to observe the loyalty of the husbands towards their wives, amongst whom, although there are perhaps ten or twenty, there prevails a degree of quiet and union that is highly laudable. No offensive language is ever heard, their attention being fully occupied with their traffic (as already mentioned), and their several domestic employments, such as the provision of necessary food for the family, the management of the servants, and the care of the children, which are amongst them a common concern. And the more praiseworthy are the virtues of modesty and chastity in their wives, because the men are allowed the indulgence of taking as many as they choose. Their expense to the husband is not great, and on the other hand the benefit he derives from their trading, and from the occupations in which they are constantly engaged, is considerable; on which account it is, that when he receives a young woman in marriage, he pays a dower to her parent. The wife who is the first espoused has the privilege of superior attention, and is held to be the most legitimate, which extends also to the children borne by her. In consequence of this unlimited number of wives, the offspring is more numerous than amongst any other people. Upon the death of the father, the son may take to himself the wives he leaves behind, with the exception of his own mother. They cannot take their sisters to wife, but uponthe death of their brothers they can marry their sisters-in-law. Every marriage is solemnized with great ceremony.
"The doctrine and faith of the Tartars are these. They believe in a Deity whose nature is sublime and heavenly. To him they burn incense in censers, and offer up prayers for the enjoyment of intellectual and bodily health. They worship another likewise, namedNatigay, whose image, covered with felt or other cloth, every individual preserves in his house. To this deity they associate a wife and children, placing the former on his left side, and the latter before him, in a posture of reverential salutation. Him they consider as the divinity who presides over their terrestrial concerns, protects their children, and guards their cattle and their grain. They show him great respect, and at their meals they never omit to take a fat morsel of the flesh, and with it to grease the mouth of the idol, and at the same time the mouths of its wife and children. They then throw out of the door some of the liquor in which the meat has been dressed, as an offering to the other spirits. This being done, they consider that their deity and his family have had their proper share, and proceed to eat and drink without further ceremony. The rich amongst these people dress in cloth of gold and silks, with skins of the sable, the ermin, and other animals. All their accoutrements are of an expensive kind.
"Their arms are bows, iron maces, and in some instances spears; but the first is the weapon at which they are the most expert, being accustomed from children to employ it in their sports. They wear defensive armour made of the thick hides of buffaloes and other beasts, dried by the fire, and thus rendered extremely hard and strong. They are brave in battle, almost to desperation, setting little value upon their lives, and exposing themselves withouthesitation to all manner of danger. Their disposition is cruel. They are capable of supporting every kind of privation; and, when there is a necessity for it, can live for a month on the milk of their mares, and upon such wild animals as they may chance to catch. Their horses are fed upon grass alone, and do not require barley or other grain. The men are habituated to remain on horseback during two days and two nights without dismounting, sleeping in that situation whilst their horses graze. No people upon earth can surpass them in fortitude under difficulties, nor show greater patience under wants of every kind. They are perfectly obedient to their chiefs, and are maintained at small expense. From these qualities, so essential to the formation of soldiers, it is that they are fitted to subdue the world, as, in fact, they have done in regard to a considerable portion of it.
"When one of the great Tartar chiefs proceeds on an expedition, he puts himself at the head of an army of a hundred thousand horse, and organises them in the following manner:—He appoints an officer to the command of every ten men, and others to command a hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand men respectively. Thus, ten of the officers commanding ten men take their orders from him who commands a hundred; of these, each ten from him who commands a thousand; and each ten of these latter from him who commands ten thousand. By this arrangement, each officer has only to attend to the management of ten men, or ten bodies of men; and when the commander of these hundred thousand men has occasion to make a detachment for any particular service, he issues his orders to the commanders of ten thousand to furnish him with a thousand men each; and these, in like manner, to the commanders of a thousand, who give theirorders to those commanding a hundred, until the order reaches those commanding ten, by whom the number required is immediately supplied to their superior officers. A hundred men are in this manner delivered to every officer commanding a thousand, and a thousand men to every officer commanding ten thousand. The drafting takes place without delay, and all are implicitly obedient to their respective superiors. Every company of a hundred men is denominated atuc, and ten of these constitute atoman.
"When the army proceeds on service, a body of men is sent two days' march in advance, and parties are stationed upon each flank and in the rear, in order to prevent its being attacked by surprise. When the service is distant, they carry but little with them, and that, chiefly, what is requisite for their encampment, and utensils for cooking. They subsist for the most part upon milk, as has been said. Each man has, on an average, eighteen horses and mares, and when that which they ride is fatigued, they change it for another. They are provided with small tents made of felt, under which they shelter themselves against rain. Should circumstances render it necessary, in the execution of a duty that requires dispatch, they can march for ten days together without dressing victuals: during which time they subsist upon the blood drawn from their horses, each man opening a vein and drinking from his own cattle. They make provision also of milk, thickened and dried to the state of a hard paste (or curd), which is prepared in the following manner. They boil the milk, and skimming off the rich or creamy part, as it rises to the top, put it into a separate vessel, as butter; for so long as that remains in the milk, it will not become hard. The latter is then exposed to the sun until it dries. Upon going on service, they carrywith them about ten pounds for each man, and of this, half a pound is put, every morning, into a leathern bottle or smalloutre, with as much water as is thought necessary. By their motion in riding, the contents are violently shaken, and a thin porridge is produced, upon which they make their dinner.
"When these Tartars come to engage in battle, they never mix with the enemy, but keep hovering about him, discharging their arrows first from one side and then from the other, occasionally pretending to fly, and during their flight, shooting arrows backwards at their pursuers, killing men and horses, as if they were combating face to face. In this sort of warfare the adversary imagines he has gained a victory, when in fact he has lost the battle; for theTartars, observing the mischief they have done him, wheel about, and renewing the fight, overpower his remaining troops, and make them prisoners in spite of their utmost exertions.
"Their horses are so well broken-in to quick changes of movement, that upon the signal given they instantly turn in every direction; and by these rapid manœuvres many victories have been obtained. All that has been here related is spoken of the original manners of theTartarchiefs; but at the present day they are much corrupted. Those who dwell atUkaka, forsaking their own laws, have adopted the customs of the people who worship idols, and those who inhabit the eastern provinces have adopted the manners of theSaracens."
It may now be well to examine the termconquerors of the world, and to limit it. By following Gibbon,[21]we may ascertain what the true Mongoliansdidconquer, and what theydidnot.
Death of Zingiz-Khan,A.D.1227.—The work done by the great founder of the Mongolian empire, was, in the first instance, the consolidation of separate, and previously disunited, tribes. As a conqueror, he rather overran countries and showed the ease with which victories might be gained than established permanent empires. In this way he ravaged and subdued:—
1.Northern China.—Thesouthernempire was first subdued by his grandson.
2.Bokhara, Persia, Kharizmia (the parts between Balk and the Caspian).—I think it likely that, considering the great number of Turkish tribes that lay between Mongolia and Persia, the natural hostility they bore to the last-named country, and the easy terms on which they offered their swords and valour, there was a considerable Turk element in the Mongolian army of Persia. Still, I have nothing beyond the mere probability to allege.
The greatest and widest conquests were effected in the generation after Zingis: by the nephews of his sons,i.e., Zingis's grandsons.
Southern China.—Conquered, and permanently conquered, by Kublai-Khan. The effect of China upon its subjugators was that which the Romans attributed to the conquest of Greece upon themselves. The victors were moulded to the fashion of the vanquished. The religion, the dress, and the luxury of China, were adopted by the Mongolians even during the lifetime of Kublai-Khan; to whom Korea, Anam, Pegu, Tibet, and Bengal were tributary.
Persia.—By Persia, is meant the half-restored empire of the Kalifs, so that it includes the whole country from Bokhara to Arabia, from Samarcand to Bagdad. Holagou is the grandson identified with this series of conquests;which embrace Syria, Asia Minor, and Armenia, and donotembrace Ægypt. There the Mongolian was met and repulsed by the Mameluke.
Siberia.—Compared with the foregoing one, this was an ignoble conquest. Still it was made; and in 1242, the Samöeids were tributary to the Mongolians.
Tartary, Russia, Poland, Hungary.—The extreme point westward reached in this, the most distant of the invasions and conducted by Batoum, was Silesia. Here also I imagine that some portion of the interjacent Turks easily lent their help to the conqueror, and joined with him against such common enemies as the Slavonians. Still I have no historic evidence to this effect.
To conclude—one hundred and forty years after the death of Zingis, a revolt of the Chinese expelled the Mongolian dynasty. Previous to this, the conquerors of Tartary, Russia, Bokhara, and Persia had become Tartars, Russians, Bokharians, and Persians; in other words they had renounced or forgotten their original ancestors of Mongolia.
The Mongol religion is Buddhist; yet their alphabet is not of either Chinese or Indian origin. The earliest Mongol conquerors understood the value of literature, and soon after the death of Zingiz-Khan the language was reduced to writing; the alphabet, which was subsequently extended to the language of the Mantshu nation, having been adopted from that of the Uighur Turks. Amongst the Uighur Turks it was introduced by the Nestorian Christians, an influence of which the importance in these parts has yet to be duly appreciated. As such, its original source is the Syriac. Of the Syriac alphabets it is most like the Palmyrene.
Distribution.—East and west, from the sea of Okhotsk, and the peninsula of Kamskatka to the Yenisey. North and South (South-East), from the coast of the Icy Sea, between the Yenisey and Lena, to the Yellow Sea. Conterminous with the Samöeids, Ostiaks, Yakuts, Turks, Mongols, Chinese, Koreans, Aino, Koriaks, and Yukahiri.Political relations.—Subject toa, China,b, Russia.Religion.—Buddhism, Imperfect Christianity, Paganism.Particular divisions.—The Tshapojirs on the Lena, the Lamuts on the Sea of Okhotsk, the Mantshu rulers of China.Dialects known by vocabularies.—a, Western—Yeniseian, Tshapojirs, Mangaseiesk, Orotong;b, Southern—Nerchinsk, Barguzin, Upper Angara, Yakutsk;c, Eastern—Okhotsk, Lamut;d, The Mantshu. Add to these the Niuji, an ancient dialect known from a Chinese vocabulary, and closely allied to the Mantshu.Alphabet.—Mongolian; applied to the Mantshu dialect only.General name.—None. Some particular tribes call themselvesbeye=men; some,donki=people.Called by the Ostiaks, Kellem." " Chinese, Tung-chu." " Mantshu, Orotuhong." " Mongols, Kham-noyon.Authority.—Klaproth'sAsia PolyglottaandSprachatlas.
Distribution.—East and west, from the sea of Okhotsk, and the peninsula of Kamskatka to the Yenisey. North and South (South-East), from the coast of the Icy Sea, between the Yenisey and Lena, to the Yellow Sea. Conterminous with the Samöeids, Ostiaks, Yakuts, Turks, Mongols, Chinese, Koreans, Aino, Koriaks, and Yukahiri.
Political relations.—Subject toa, China,b, Russia.
Religion.—Buddhism, Imperfect Christianity, Paganism.
Particular divisions.—The Tshapojirs on the Lena, the Lamuts on the Sea of Okhotsk, the Mantshu rulers of China.
Dialects known by vocabularies.—a, Western—Yeniseian, Tshapojirs, Mangaseiesk, Orotong;b, Southern—Nerchinsk, Barguzin, Upper Angara, Yakutsk;c, Eastern—Okhotsk, Lamut;d, The Mantshu. Add to these the Niuji, an ancient dialect known from a Chinese vocabulary, and closely allied to the Mantshu.
Alphabet.—Mongolian; applied to the Mantshu dialect only.
General name.—None. Some particular tribes call themselvesbeye=men; some,donki=people.
Authority.—Klaproth'sAsia PolyglottaandSprachatlas.
A more northern position, a greater range of climate, an approach in some cases to the hunter and fisher, rather than to the pastoral states, a more partial abandonment of the original Shamanistic Paganism, and a later literature are the chief points which differentiate the Tungús tribes from the Mongol. Add to this, that the influence of the Tungús upon the history of the world is limited to the conquest of China by the present Mantshu dynasty. In other matters—indeed in these—the difference between the two branches is a difference ofdegreerather than ofkind. I limit my remarks upon the Tungús tribes—whose civilization is represented by that of the Mantshus—for the sake of leaving time and space for a more important branch of the Turanian stock—the Turk.
Some of the Tungús tribes—e.g.the Tshapojirs—tattoo their faces.
Distribution.—1. As acontinuouspopulation—East and west—from the neighbourhood of the lake Baikal, 110° E. L. to the eastern boundaries of the Greek and Slavonic countries of Europe, about 21° E. L. North and south; from the northern frontiers of Tibet, and Persia, about 34° N. L., to the country north of Tobolsk about 59° N. L.2. As anisolatedpopulation—Along the lower course of the Lena, and the shores of the White Sea, chiefly within the Arctic Circle. These are the Yakut Turks. They are wholly disconnected from the other Turkish tribes; and surrounded by Tungús and Yukahiri tribes.3. As portions of amixedpopulation—In China?, Tibet?, Mongolia?, Persia, Armenia, the Caucasian countries, Syria, Ægypt, Barbary, Greece, Albania, and the Slavonic portion of Turkey in Europe. Turk blood in most of the royal families of the East.Religion.—Preeminently, though not exclusively, Mahometan; generally of the Sunnite doctrine. Shamanism amongst the Yakuts. Buddhism amongst the Turks of the Chinese Empire, Christianity amongst those of Siberia.Language.—Spoken with remarkable uniformity over the whole area; so much so that the Yakut of the Icy Sea is said to be intelligible to the Turks of Central Asia, and even of Constantinople.Physical Conformation.—In some cases almost identical with that of the Mongolians, in others almost European. Generally speaking, it partakes of the character of the non-Turkish natives of the numerous countries with which the Turk area is in contact.In Turkey, Ægypt, and the Persian frontier much intermixture.As the Mongol character departs, the face becomes oval rather than square, the features prominent rather than flat, the beard develops itself, and the complexion becomes brunette rather than swarthy.Conterminous.—1. Beginning at the most north-eastern point, and going round from north to south—with the Tungús. 2. Mongols 3. Tibetans. 4. Iranians (i. e.Persian tribes, and tribes allied to them). 5. Armenians. 6. Dioscurians (i. e.the tribes of Caucasus). 7. Arabians. 8. Greeks. 9. Slavonians. 10. Finns. 11. Yeniseians. 12. Samöeids.Chief particular Divisions—taking the round as before—1.Uighurs.—-On the Mongol frontier. Belonging to China. The Uighurs were the first Turks that used an alphabet. Little known.2.Turks of the Sandy Desert.—Conterminous with Mongolia and Tibet.Do. Do.3.Turks of Khoten, Kashgar, and Yarkend. Do. Do.4.Kirghis.—Independent Tartary. The Kirghis form a portion of the population of the highest table-land in Asia—perhaps in the world—Pamer, and the source of the Oxus.5.Uzbeks.—The Turks of Bokhara.6.Turkomans.—The Persian frontier of Independent Tartary from Balk to the Caspian. Pastoral robbers.7.Ottoman or Osmanli.—The Turks of the Turkish Empire.8.Nogays.—The Turks of the parts between the Black Sea and the Caspian, north of Caucasus.9.Turks of the Russian Empire.—Bashkirs(?), Teptyars, Baraba, &c. With all these, although the language is Turk, there is good reason to believe that the original substratum is Finn. With the Bashkirs this is generally considered to be the case.10.The isolated Yakuts of the Lena.
Distribution.—1. As acontinuouspopulation—East and west—from the neighbourhood of the lake Baikal, 110° E. L. to the eastern boundaries of the Greek and Slavonic countries of Europe, about 21° E. L. North and south; from the northern frontiers of Tibet, and Persia, about 34° N. L., to the country north of Tobolsk about 59° N. L.
2. As anisolatedpopulation—Along the lower course of the Lena, and the shores of the White Sea, chiefly within the Arctic Circle. These are the Yakut Turks. They are wholly disconnected from the other Turkish tribes; and surrounded by Tungús and Yukahiri tribes.
3. As portions of amixedpopulation—In China?, Tibet?, Mongolia?, Persia, Armenia, the Caucasian countries, Syria, Ægypt, Barbary, Greece, Albania, and the Slavonic portion of Turkey in Europe. Turk blood in most of the royal families of the East.
Religion.—Preeminently, though not exclusively, Mahometan; generally of the Sunnite doctrine. Shamanism amongst the Yakuts. Buddhism amongst the Turks of the Chinese Empire, Christianity amongst those of Siberia.
Language.—Spoken with remarkable uniformity over the whole area; so much so that the Yakut of the Icy Sea is said to be intelligible to the Turks of Central Asia, and even of Constantinople.
Physical Conformation.—In some cases almost identical with that of the Mongolians, in others almost European. Generally speaking, it partakes of the character of the non-Turkish natives of the numerous countries with which the Turk area is in contact.
In Turkey, Ægypt, and the Persian frontier much intermixture.
As the Mongol character departs, the face becomes oval rather than square, the features prominent rather than flat, the beard develops itself, and the complexion becomes brunette rather than swarthy.
Conterminous.—1. Beginning at the most north-eastern point, and going round from north to south—with the Tungús. 2. Mongols 3. Tibetans. 4. Iranians (i. e.Persian tribes, and tribes allied to them). 5. Armenians. 6. Dioscurians (i. e.the tribes of Caucasus). 7. Arabians. 8. Greeks. 9. Slavonians. 10. Finns. 11. Yeniseians. 12. Samöeids.
Chief particular Divisions—taking the round as before—
1.Uighurs.—-On the Mongol frontier. Belonging to China. The Uighurs were the first Turks that used an alphabet. Little known.
2.Turks of the Sandy Desert.—Conterminous with Mongolia and Tibet.Do. Do.
3.Turks of Khoten, Kashgar, and Yarkend. Do. Do.
4.Kirghis.—Independent Tartary. The Kirghis form a portion of the population of the highest table-land in Asia—perhaps in the world—Pamer, and the source of the Oxus.
5.Uzbeks.—The Turks of Bokhara.
6.Turkomans.—The Persian frontier of Independent Tartary from Balk to the Caspian. Pastoral robbers.
7.Ottoman or Osmanli.—The Turks of the Turkish Empire.
8.Nogays.—The Turks of the parts between the Black Sea and the Caspian, north of Caucasus.
9.Turks of the Russian Empire.—Bashkirs(?), Teptyars, Baraba, &c. With all these, although the language is Turk, there is good reason to believe that the original substratum is Finn. With the Bashkirs this is generally considered to be the case.
10.The isolated Yakuts of the Lena.
Such is the great Turk area, the extent of which is, in itself, an ethnological study; equally remarkable for its positive and its negative peculiarities.
Laying aside the Yakuts as isolated, and the Turks of Asia-Minor and Thrace as recent settlers, we have in Turkish Asia an enormous steppe, mountains of all but first-rate magnitude, the head-waters of many rivers, but the embouchures of none, a salt-water lake but no communication with the ocean. Yet, given the central point of a large continent, this is what we expectà priori. If any influence that shall affect the fate of the world at large is to be developed in such an area, it must, surely, be an influence strongly and typically contrasted with the influence which such relations of land and water as the Mediterranean supplies to Greece, and in a less degree to every country that abuts on it, are calculated to develop. The dispersion of the Turkish race is essentially the dispersion of a race over acontinent. I do not know who first used the illustration, but the manner in which Othman's all-conquering host was arrested by the Hellespont, has been well compared to the check that a running brook puts to the Scotch witches and wizards. What Leander and Lord Byron swam across, the conqueror of Asia was checked by.
The relations to the pole on one side and the equator on the other, are remarkably parallel between the twogreat conquering nations of the world—the Turks of Asia, and the Goths of Europe. The latitudes 47—55 enclose, the nations who, on the one side, displaced the aborigines of Asia Minor and Thrace, on the other, those of Keltic Britain and of North America.
One condition necessary for a race that thus spread themselves abroad, occurs in a remarkable degree with the Turk. In the Yakut country we find the most intense cold known in Asia; in Pamer, the greatest elevation above the sea-level; in the south of Ægypt, an intertropical degree of heat. Yet, in all these countries we find the Turk. In their physiognomy the Turks have in many instances departed from the Mongol type; and, hence, the agreement between the two cognate families is less manifest in their physical conformation than in their languages. The nature and extent of this deviation is well worth more investigation than it has met with; and next in importance to the fact itself, is the reason that may be assigned for it.
Whether it may be from the Osmanli Turk of Constantinople, with his un-Mongolian length of beard, his regularly formed eye, and his other European points of physiognomy, being the standard by which we measure the other divisions of the family, or whether we have unnecessarily restricted the term Mongol to the inhabitants of Mongolia, it is certain that a great majority of travellers are in the habit of describing a Mongol cast of countenance when found in a Turk, as an exceptional phenomenon; just as if the Turk had one character and the Mongol another, and as if a deviation either way was an anomaly.
Now, the notice of all differences, however small, between the tribes of the Turk, and those of any other division of the human kind, is so far from being exceptionable, that it is particularly desirable.
Neither is the assumption of the Turk in his most European form as a standard of comparison, rather than that of the more Mongoliform Turks, objectionable. One writer is as fully at liberty to treat all deviations from the type of a Constantinopolitan Osmanli as anomalous, as another is to apply a Mongol standard. Provided that facts are accumulated, ethnology is the gainer.
It is only when the idea of the Turk type being one thing, and the Mongol another, has so far taken possession of a writer, as to make him overvalue the import of such differences, that evil arises. Then a fact which should even be expectedà priori, becomes an anomaly; and the assumption of some extraordinary cause—generally the mixture of race—isassumed. I sayassumed, because in many cases it is taken for granted, simply and solely because it will explain the phenomena. Where this is not the fact, where there areothergrounds for believing that intermixture has occurred, it is not only legitimate, but it is necessary to admit it.
Rule.—Intermixture of race solely for the sake of accounting for varieties of physical conformation is not to be assumed, except in extreme cases.
Practically I consider that the Mongoliform physiognomy is the rule with the Turk rather than the exception, and that the Turk of Turkey exhibits the exceptional character of his family. Both these facts are what we should expect. Ethnological affinity, as proved by language, exists in a very close degree between the Turks and the Mongolians. Common conditions of climate exist also. Either implies similarity of physical conformation. On the other hand, where the Turk isleastlike the Mongol,weknowthat intermixture has taken place; intermixture like that of the Circassian and Georgian blood in Europe, and that of the Persian in Asia. Hence, if I allowed myself to assume at all, I would assume an intermixture to account for thedifferencebetween the Turk and Mongol—not to account for the similarity.
Extract from Burnes's description of the Uzbek chief of Kunduz.—"Moorad Beg is about fifty years of age, his stature is tall, and his features are those of a genuine Uzbek; his eyes are small to a deformity; his forehead broad and frowning; and his whole cast of countenance most repulsive."—Vol. ii. 358.
Extract from Khamikoff respecting the Uzbeks of Bokhara.—"The exterior of the Uzbeks reminds us strongly of the Moghul race, except that they have larger eyes and are somewhat handsomer; they are generally middle-sized men; the colour of their beards varies between a shade of red and dark auburn, whilst few are found with black hair."—Translation by the Baron de Bode.
Statements of this kind might be multiplied, particularly in respect to the Uzbeks.
Descent of certain portions of the Turk Branch—Epoch of its present extension.—The Turk Branch of the Turanian stock introduces a series of ethnological questions, which have, as yet, presented themselves only in a rudimentary form. Few of the tribes hitherto described, were known to the ancients sufficiently to make the questionof descentbetween the present nations and their real or supposed representatives in classical antiquity, a matter ofmuch—although, of course, it is always ofsome—importance. With the Turk nations it is otherwise: a large, perhaps averylarge, portion of the ancient Scythia must have been Turk; and, if so, it is amongst the Turks that we mustlook for some of the widest and fiercest of ancient conquerors.
At what time did the present enormous diffusion of Turk tribes take place? The answer to this question is the answer to many others. By knowing this we know also the probable ethnological position of such famous peoples as the Kimmerii, Sakæ, Massagetæ, Alans, Avars, Huns, Nephthalites, Bulgarians, and others—peoples whereof the records are written in the annals not only of Rome and Greece, but of Lydia, Media, and Assyria.
At what epoch did the diffusion of the Turk tribes take place? If at a period anterior to history, their frontier must have been the same in the time of Herodotus as at present; and, consequently, their geographical relations to Persia and Europe, the same.
At what time, then, did it take place? For two areas the question is answered at once; for European Turkey and for Asia Minor it has certainly taken place within the historical period. With these two exceptions, I believe, that, at the beginning of the historical period, the great Turk area was much the same as at present; less, perhaps, by a degree or two, on this frontier or that; but still essentially the same inkind. Byin kindI meanethnographically,i. e.that (subject to the aforesaid exceptions) the Turk tribes were conterminous withthe same non-Turk tribes as at present. Let us apply this view in detail.
Siberian Frontier.—From Kasan to the Lake Baikal, the frontier is Finnish, Yeniseian, and Samöeid. I admit that the southern limits of all these families are likely to have been curtailed;—indeed I would argue that such has been the case. This, however, is a mere difference ofdegree.
There is no proof of any nations other than thosebelonging to the Finn, Yeniseian, and Samöeid divisions having ever been in contact with the Northern Turks, andvice versâ.
Mongolian and Tibetan frontier.—There is not the shadow of historical evidence, nor even a tradition, which should induce us to believe that these two nations were ever less conterminous with each other, and with the Turk, than they are at present.
Persian frontier.—Reasons for supposing that tribes other than those of the Turk division ravaged Persia as early as the time of Cyrus, would lie in the incompatibility of any accounts of such invaders with the known facts concerning the Turks. I am not aware, however, that any such incompatibility exists. The names are different. No Sakæ or Massagetæ are known, under such denominations, as Turk tribes. Yet this scarcely constitutes even the shadow of an objection; since native names, and names by which tribes are known to nations other than their own, oftener differ than coincide.
The Caucasian frontier—the frontier of the Don.—Here the reasoning becomes more difficult. An invasion of Persia along the frontier from Bokhara to the Caspian, is an invasion which no existing nation could claim, except the Turk; since it is a rule in ethnological reasoningto consider every nation as indigenous to the country where it is first found, unless reason be shown to the contrary.
For the parts, however, between the Volga, Caucasus, and the Don (or even Dnieper), there is no such present unity of nation as between the Caspian and Bokhara; and an invasion that burst upon Persia from the north-west, or upon Greece from the north-east, might well be claimed for no less than four great ethnological sections.—1. The Turk. 2. The Slavonic. 3. The Circassian. 4. The Hungarian.
I will apply general principles to get at the different probabilities here involved.
1. The nation that invadesbothPersia and Europe is most probably the nation most intermediate to the two. This is in favour of the Cimmerians having come from the present country of the Nogays, rather than from the Ukraine, or from the Bashkir country,i.e., in favour of their being Turk rather than Slavonic or Hungarian.
2. A nation that, within the historical period, has always encroached upon others is more likely to be the invader, in a given instance, than a nation which has not been known so to be in the habit of extending itself. This is in favour of the Cimmerians having been Turks from the Nogay country, rather than Circassians.
This is the geographical view. Another method is to take the names of certain invading tribes mentioned in history, and to consider how far they belong to the Turk division, or are to be distributed elsewhere. Here the ethnological method is to begin with the most recent:—
Uzi, Petchenekhi, and Komani of the later Byzantine Empire, Turk.—FromA.D.1050 to about 1500.—It is believed that the termCumaniis only a fresh name for the Uzi (Οὐζοι), who disappear from history as the Cumani appear. There is the special evidence of the Empress Anna Comnena that the Cumani and the Petchenekhi spoke the same language. Their first attack upon the Slavonian tribes wasA.D.1058; and the name by which the Slavonians speak of them isPolowci=inhabitants of the plains. This the Germans, in speaking of them,translate; so that they call the CumaniFalawa,Valui,Valwen. Hence comes the present name of one of the Cumanian European localities—Volhynia.
There are three districts in Europe where the descent is, in part, Cumanian but the language not Cumanian.
1. Volhynia.
2. Between the Dnieper and Volga.—Here Cumani were found by Carpin and Rubriquis.
3. Hungary.—The proof of the Cumanian habitation of part of Hungary, is a matter of some literary interest. The last Cumanian[22]who knew even a few words of his original tongue, was an old man of Karczag, named Varro, who diedA.D.1770; and an incompletePaternoster, preserved by Dugorics and Thunmann, is all that remains ofthisdialect. Of the Cumanian of Asia, we have a remarkable vocabulary, from a MS. belonging to the library of the celebrated Petrarch. This is the Turk of the parts between the Caspian and Aral.
The Avars.—A.D.465 to about 900. InA.D.465, the Saraguri,[23]the Onoguri, and the Urugi sent an embassy to Constantinople, to complain of the inroads of the Avars. We may guess beforehand the locality, and we may guess beforehand the cause. In the countries between the Mæotis and the Caspian, the Sabiri are pressed upon by the Abares, the Abares being pressed upon by some tribe from behind, and theprimum mobilebeing probably in the centre of Asia. Such is the general history of these movements. We then learn from Gibbon,[24]how, inA.D.558, these Avars themselves appear as suppliants to the Alani, requesting their good services at the Byzantine Court; and we learn, also, how they afterwards appeared before Justinian, more as sturdy beggars than as suppliants, requesting aid against the Turks; and how that monarch played fast and loose between the runaway slavesand the indignant masters. He turned them upon his enemies in the west; the Slavonians, and the Germans. And these they overran until checked on the Elbe, by a bloody victory gained over them by Sigisbert. The next victory, however, was the Avars', and peace followed. But the Avars remained like locusts in the land. This they had exhausted, or helped to exhaust; when either the intrigues of the King of the Lombards, or the pressure of famine, induced them to agree with Sigisbert upon the terms of their departure. These were a supply of meal and meat for their expedition. To the King of the Lombards, Alboin, whom they then turned eastwards to join, they proffered their assistance against the Gepidæ, on condition of Pannonia, if evacuated, being ceded to them. The destruction of the Gepidæ of Pannonia was followed by the bright period of Avar history, the reign of Baian. The pride of this barbarian inflamed the anger of the Emperor Maurice, who broke his power by the arms of his general Priscus,—broke, but not annihilated. On the 29th of June,A.D.626, thirty thousand of the vanguard of the Avars insulted the patricians of Constantinople under their own walls, strong in their own barbarian valour, and strong in an even-handed alliance, against the common enemy, with the great king, Chosroes, then at war with Heraclius. "You see," was his answer to thestandingpatricians, "the proofs of my perfect union with the great king; and his lieutenant is ready to send into my camp a select band of three thousand warriors. Presume no longer to tempt your master with a partial and inadequate ransom; your wealth and your city are the only presents worthy of my acceptance. For yourself, I shall permit you to depart, each with an under-garment, and a shirt, and, at my entreaty, my friend Sarbar will not refuse apassage through his lines. Your absent prince, even now a captive or a fugitive, has left Constantinople to its fate; nor can you escape the arms of the Avars and Persians, unless you could soar into air like birds, or unless like fishes you could dive into the waves."
Fortunately for the empire of the east the crown was worn by Heraclius; and in the eleventh hour, the Avars and the Persians were repulsed. The next century was a century of internal quarrels, whilst their enemies—and this means every tribe of European origin—became stronger. The baptism of one of the Avar kings, took place inA.D.795; the conquest of Hungary by Charlemagne the year following. What the great German left half done, the Slavonians of the parts around consummated,—and when the first Russian historian composed the annals of his nation, the expression,they have been cut off, son and father, like the Avars, was the bye-word most expressive of utter annihilation.
Now the whole history of the Avars, as well as their locality and alliances, is Turk; and their ruler is regularly spoken of as theKhaghan, orKhan, of the Avars.
The Turk affinity of the Avars has never been doubted.
The Alani.—The locality, the history, and allà priorievidence make the Alans Turkish;—two facts only, that I know of, militate, even in the smallest way, against their being so.
1. The well-known alliance between the Alani and Vandals; a fact of value only in the eyes of him who believes that none but ethnologically related tribes enter into offensive and defensive alliances.
2. The accredited identity between the Alani and the Oseti of Caucasus; a tribe undoubtedlynotTurkish. Let us analyze the grounds of this belief. The Oseti namethemselvesIrôn, but are named by the Turks and Georgians,Osi; by the Russians,Yassy; by the Arabians,As. This is the first fact.
The second is a pair of quotations from Carpin and Barbaro:—
a.Alains ou Asses.—Carpin.
b.LaAlaniaè derivata da populo delliAlani, liquali nella lor lingua si chiamanoAs.—Barbaro.
Now the most that this proves is, that the same name which the Alans gave to themselves, the Georgians, &c. gave to theIrôn; a fact which is by no means conclusive. On the other hand, it shows that the two indigenous names,AsandIrôn, were different. This subject will be noticed again when speaking of the Oseti. At present it is not unnecessary to add, that the nameUz(Οὐζ) has already been mentioned as a name of a tribe in this locality; and that, possibly, it may=As. If so, theAlans,Uzi, andCumani, are the same people at different times. Nothing is more likely than this, especially as we know thatAlaniwas not a native name, and have good reasons for thinking the same of the termCumani.
Again, the Oseti, a limited mountain tribe of the Middle Caucasus, with all its supposed affinities in Media and Persia—since the same writers who identify the Alans with Oseti, identify the Oseti with the Medes—could never have passed as Scythians. Now the Alans did so pass, as is shown by a remarkable passage in Lucian:—"so said Makentæs, being the same in dress and the same in language as the Alani (ὁμόσκευος καὶ ὁμόγλωττος τοῖς Ἀλανοῖς ὤν); since these things are common to the Alani and the Skythæ; except that the Alani are not altogether so long-haired as the Skythæ. In this respect, however, Makentæs was like a Skythian, inasmuch as hehad shaved himself to the extent to which an Alan head of hair falls short of a Skythian one."[25]
The Khazars and Huns.—The evidence derived from the use of the termKhaghan, orKhan, so diagnostic of the Turk and Mongol families, is wanting in respect to the Huns of Attila. Neither he nor his brother is anywhere so designated.
On the other hand, it is erroneous to suppose that the Huns of Attila are the only Huns of history. The Byzantine historians—even writers who say little or nothing about Attila,—deal with the name Hun, as a well-known and recognised geographical or ethnological term, applied to the tribes between the Don and Volga. Hence they speak of sections of the Hun nation.
The most satisfactory of these is the identification of theAkatirwith the Huns—Ἀκατίροις Οὔννοις—Priscus.
Now theAkatirare, undoubtedly, theKhazars, since the intermediate form Ἀκαζίροι occurs; the Greek form ofKhazarsbeing Χάζαροι.
Hence, the reasoning runs thus—that the Huns of Attila were what the Huns of Priscus were;—that one of these Hun tribes was the Khazar tribe. What were the Khazars? The Khazars wereTurks from the East. Τούρκοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἑώας, οὓς Χαζάρας ὀνομάζουσι, Theophanes, the first author who names them, denoting them thus. In respect to their history, the Khazars appear as the Avars wane in importance. It was by an alliance with the Khazars, indeed, that Heraclius, as stated above, freed himself from those formidable enemies. FromA.D.626, until the tenth century, the Khazars and Petchinakhi (Πατζινακῖται) are the most formidable enemies to the Goths of the Crimea, and to the Russians of the Dnieper.
If these affiliations be correct, the Turks are one of the oldest material influences that have acted on the history of the world, as well as one of the greatest; the Turk division being the probable ethnological position for the Massagetæ, Sakæ, Cimmerii, Alani, Huns, and Avars, and other less important conquerors. To distribute the still older tribes of Scythia is a matter ofminuteethnology, for which the present work will not allow room. The usual notices, however, of the Turk nations, taken from the Chinese records, should not be omitted.
The Hiong-nou.—Under this name a conquering nation, conterminous with China, and against which the Chinese wall had been built, appears in the annals of the dynasty of Han; betweenB.C.163 andA.D.196. These are the Hiong-nou of De Guignes and Gibbon.
The Hiun-yu.—Under the dynasty of Shang, which is supposed to have reigned fromB.C.1766 toB.C.1234, Klaproth finds notice of a people thus denominated. He considers that they were ancestors of the Hiong-nou.
I give these two names for what they have been believed by better judges than myself to denote—not for what I believe myself. The only fact which to me seems incontestible is that, at an early period in the Chinese history, a non-Chinese nation was known under the name ofHiong-nu.
If these be the Huns of the Classics, the evidence as to their being Turk rather than Hungarian, is nearly conclusive; the Turk division being the only one which is, at one and the same time, conterminous with Europe, and almost conterminous with China.
Moreover, if the Hiong-nou be the Huns, we may infer that the nameHunwas a native name, in the way thatDeutscheis the native name of what we call theGermans; since it is not likely that the Greeks and Chinese would use the same appellation, unless it were also the indigenous appellation of the people to which it was applied.[26]
The Thú-kiú.—These are the proper Turks of the Altai mountains under a Chinese name. They are mentioned as being powerful aboutA.D.545.
1. If the wordThú-kiúbe the Chinese form ofTurk, we learn that the name was native.
2. If the Hiong-nu and Thú-kiú be the same people, we fix the former as Turk rather than aught else.
Now, both these suppositions are highly probable. Several Thú-kiú glosses have been collected by Klaproth from Chinese writings, and they are all Turk, more especially the Turk of Central Asia; whilst, on the other hand, the Chinese writer, Ma-túan-in, derives the Thiú-kiú from the Hiong-nou.
Such of my readers as know that Niebuhr consideredthe Huns to be Mongols, and that Humboldt insists upon their Finnic origin will excuse the length to which these remarks on their ethnographical position have been extended.
Additions to the Turk area made within the historical period.—This means Asia Minor (Anatolia), and Turkey in Europe; additions of a true ethnological character; additions whereby the Turk division came in contact with other divisions of our species wholly new,e.g., the Greek, the Arabian, and the Armenian. The points to be considered are—the direction, the date, the rate, the completeness or incompleteness of the ethnological change effected.
a.The direction.—From south-east toward north-west;i.e., from Persia; and the parts south of the Caspian and Caucasus, rather than from the parts between the northern Caspian and the Black Sea; so as to be a prolongation of the Turcoman and Uzbek frontier, rather than of the Nogay.
b.Date.—FromA.D.1038 toA.D.1063, the reign of Togrul Beg, grandson of Seljuk; a Turk of either Turcomania or Bokhara—The Arabian kingdom of Persia is now disorganized; chiefly by Turks, who have raised themselves from the governors of provinces to the founders of empires,e.g., Mahmúd of Ghizni. The power of the Kalif of Bagdad, at best but nominal, is reduced still more by Togrul. The Seljukian Turks (or rather Turkomans), are the sultans of Persia, now become a consolidated empire.
Togrul's successor conquers Armenia and Georgia. Here, however, the ethnological effects of the Turk were, and have continued to be, limited.
About the same time theArabianprinces of Aleppoand Damascus are expelled. Here, also, the ethnological effects were, and have been, limited.
A.D. 1074. Now began the conquest of Asia Minor by Seljukian Turks, a conquest by which one ethnological division of the human species has been replaced by another. It ended in the establishment of the kingdom ofRoum; won from the degenerate Romans of Constantinople.
In its due turn the kingdom of Roum breaks up; partly from internal disorganization, partly from attacks from without, the chief of these being those under the leaders of the house of Zingiz. There was also a partial re-conquest by the Romans. Hence inA.D.1229 there is room for the ambition of Othman. Othman and his successors reconsolidate the kingdom of Roum, Anatolia, or Asia Minor, now Turk.
InA.D.1360 the Turks of Asia begin to become the Turks of Europe under Amurath I.; during whose reign Anatolia was a great centre of conquest, of which the Asiatic extension was limited by the parallel centre of conquest—Bokhara under Tamerlane. On the side of Europe, however, all was free. A.D. 1453, is the date of the taking of Constantinople. Since then the Turk area in Europe has been formed.
Rate, completeness or incompleteness of the ethnological change effected.—These two questions are connected. We can scarcely tell how long it took to transform the non-Turk countries like Asia Minor and Thrace, into the Turk countries of Roum, unless we also know how far the transformation is real or apparent. Now upon this point we want information. No man can say how many ethnological elements other than Turk may be present amongst the Anatolian and Rumelian speakers of the Ottoman language. Still the conquest of the two areas is spread over a periodof not less than three hundred and seventy nine years; beginning with the invasion of Asia Minor, by Togrul's successor, and ending with the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet II.