Talk:Yenisei Kyrgyz

Ethno-genetic connections

Relationship to the modern Kyrgyz

Term "Ethnicity"

"Culturally and linguistically, the Yenisei Kirghiz were Turkic. But ethnically they may be a mixture of different people."
This passage needs some clarification. It shows the American usage of the word "ethnic". For Americans, "ethnic" has a racial meaning, i.e., physical features. For the rest of the World, "ethnic" means cultural features, including language. 85.138.82.190 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion - Great Soviet Encyclopedia as a source

There should be discussion of their relationship to the modern Kyrgyz people. Modern Kyrgyz scholarship claims the Yenisei Kyrgyz as their predecessors, while the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia finds it rather unlikely and pinpoints possible connections between the Yenisei Kyrgyz and the modern Khakas people. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopaedia? You cannot be serious about that, aren't you? Turkology#Persecution_in_Soviet_Russia. First you kill all Turkologists of the time and then you underhandedly emphasize the claim of modern Kyrgyz scholarship? Think twice before you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas Kairatbaj (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I would asked you to refer English source on this issue over your so-called sieviot enclcylepecedia. Eiorgiomugini 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I ask a question not make an assertion. That makes a difference. Since when are we obliged to source our questions? The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia was translated in English, by the way. Generally, English-language sources are not superior to Russian-language sources, especially on such obscure topics as the origin of the Khakas people, where there is no research in English at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than your political sentiment, I see no reason for you to said something like that. In an English wikipedia we would prefered English encyclopaedia over the Russian ones. Do me a favor, check out both links[1], [2], there are two articles on the Turkic Khaganate in the Chinese encyclopaedia, and each of them have a longer length than your soiviet enecyeyedia [3], who is gonna said which is superior? Maybe is better for you to place soiviet enecyeyedia under the cold-war article for a soiviet-pov research. Eiorgiomugini 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you know about my "political sentiment"? A number of words in the article is not a valid criterion for assessing scholarship involved into its composition. The major Gokturk sites were excavated primarily by Russian/Soviet archaeologists, not by the English or Chinese. Therefore, English scholarship (if it exists), or the Chinese compilations are derivative by nature. Your comment about "cold-war" and "soiviet-pov-research" betrays risible ignorance of the scale and level of scholarship involved into that project. Finally, the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia was translated in English, so it's an English-language source too (as if it really did matter). --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about your political sentiment, I was addressing a point, did I said anything about I care. Leaving this apart, in your first addressing you're actually talking about the lack of Khakas research under the English sources, which is totally wrong and subjective. My comments are "betrays risible ignorance"? Infact, you should be the one addressing that to yourself by making claims for your argument. So finally, if there is an English translated version for the old soiviet encyclopaedia why not try and used it on the first hand. But anyway, I would still think it would be far better to use a new available russian encyclopaedia on the other hand, if that really matter. Eiorgiomugini 06:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"A number of words in the article is not a valid criterion for assessing scholarship involved into its composition" What is? Like in this derivative article [4] here? All I see is a number of sources about history and dates that can be found in almost elsewhere, nothing with regard to the archaeologists researchs. Indeed I believe your assessing of scholarship involved in its composition are clear enough, although it had just shown that those are ludicrous in everyway for your claims. Eiorgiomugini 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to the Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun in the earliest historical Chinese sources

Just a few questions: since the Yenisei Kirghiz’ name’s Chinese transcriptions – in all its variations – clearly don’t correlate with its Turkic “equivalent” and the physical descriptions of “Kirghiz” people or let’s say Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun in different historical sources including the earliest in Chinese lead many scholars to believe they initially were not Turkic, how can we say they are the (main) progenitors of the Kyrgyz at all? Red hair and fair to reddish faces, blue-green eye colour, and then high body stature and even deep-set eyes characterised their physical appearances according to those. Then again though e.g. Genghis Khan and his family line was said to have had the very same pigmentation and was portrayed with those features (together with distinct typical ‘Mongoloid’ or East Asian traits!) this made people never speculate about a possible ‘Caucasian’ background. Early Sacae presence in the Altai region is something that is attested, and over time intermingling with indigenous populations had happened; smaller tribal groups of them might have assimilated to Turkic, Mongolic or other tribes. Conversely hostile tribal relations do not really account for a non-common ethnic origin between two peoples.

Where do those Kyrgyz as the Turkic speaking people firstly appear? In Kashgari’s dictionary? How can we say they were the same as the Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun? Nowadays’ Kyrgyz looks resemble quite strongly the descriptions of the ancient (Kök)Turks etc. Could it be that the Kyrgyz/Kirghiz as denoted with that name were through and through a Turkic people with a Turkic tribal self-designation but were not identical with the Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun who vanished from history or got assimilated to Khakass, Kyrgyz and whoever happened to dwell in proximity? Well, that’s just my guess. 134.100.32.213 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pulleyblank's objection makes no sense. He totally misunderstands the correct observation that language and race are independent of each other. It should be obvious that language is not tied to race or genes, as an ethnic group can exchange their language for a totally unrelated one while their gene pool remains essentially the same (despite perhaps minor admixture; in fact, this was already recognised in the 19th century). However, that does not eliminate the problem. The speakers of Turkic must have been either of an East Asian or an European type originally and cannot have been both. The usual assumption is that they were East Asian like the Mongols, so if the Yenisei Kirghiz were blond, they cannot originally have been Turkic speakers. As per the Tarim mummies, the Pazyryk mummies and Ancient DNA research, the original speakers of Indo-Iranian and Tocharian languages in the Bronze Age had light hair and eyes, and looked European, so the obvious explanation is that the Yenisei Kirghiz mainly descended from speakers of Indo-European languages closely related to Iranian/Scythian or Tocharian, although intermediate periods of speaking Samoyedic, Ugric or Yeniseian languages are a possibility that is worth keeping in mind. The only other possibility is that the blond Yenisei Kirghiz represent the original type of the speakers of Turkic, which then spread to groups of an East Asian type. Compare, for example, page 69 for the same problem in Uralic, where it seems impossible to decide in favour of either position – although the assumption of a Uralic homeland in Europe suggests a European type, while an Asian homeland would make an East Asian type more attractive (even if a European type would not be ruled out completely). You cannot just use the independence observation to declare the issue moot. It's not, as Janhunen observes. If we had no pre-modern records of European history, we could not ignore the problem that Romance languages are now spoken by ethnic groups of all sorts of Asian and African types and conclude that the ancient Romans must have been phenotypically so diverse that there were and have always been Asian- and African-looking Romans, too, even prior to the spread of the Romans out of the Italian Peninsula. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting to sources is not our job in WP. As I'am always say, wikipedia is not care personel believes, concerns, assumptions etc. Beside, modern serious scholars -include pulleyblank- do not base to physical features for define to ethnic identity any more. This method is extremely unreliable. So, your "theory" about "language shifting" without any evidence is totally senseless.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

lol, but why is in the article there no reference to to nor on one source that would confirm the identity of the subject matter and "Xiajiasi / Gekun/Jiankun"? o_O 5.18.167.105 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Controlled territories

Kyrgyz historians support view that Yenisei Kirghizs controlled large area (3,000,000-5,000,000 km2) after the fall of the Uyghur Khaganate and they lost their domain to the Khitan Empire in 924. But some historians, including B.Ushnitsky, P.Azbelev and Yu.Drobyshev support view that Yenisei Kirghizs never established large state and they controlled much smaller territories at their height: the western and eastern bank of the Yenisei River -Minusinsk Hollow and western Tuva. There is no clear information in Chinese books. Also there is no such called "Kirghiz empire" in List of largest empires. File:Asia 900ad.jpg and File:East-Hem 900ad.jpg clearly show that Kirghizs didn't control large area at that time. Sources in Russian language: В.Ушницкий: Кыргызский каганат - кочевая империя или раннее государство?, Дробышев Ю.И. "Политика киданей в Центральной Азии" П.П. Азбелев. Древние кыргызы. Очерки истории и археологии: Глава V. Эпоха, которой не было:енисейские кыргызы на рубеже тысячелетий. V.2. Кыргызы и Китай: о пределе доверия к летописям., П.П. Азбелев. Древние кыргызы. Очерки истории и археологии: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gecary (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Alliance with China

Chinese and Yenisei Kirghiz alliance against the Uyghurs

https://books.google.com/books?id=NB6DEdAxLOsC&pg=PA114&dq=kill+the+foreigners+mountain&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIp7WLxqHoxwIVx4yQCh1fwQnK#v=onepage&q=kill%20the%20foreigners%20mountain&f=false

09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So its decided already that Xiajiasi/Gekun/Jiankun is read as khirghiz? It seems just another folk etomolgy published by psudeo scholars, but since turkish scholars have published work starting to that degree i guess it has to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.54.195 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Predecessor

How is their predecessor the Liao while they did not exist in 1219? 5.197.218.86 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Askizi culture bearers. Yenisei Kyrgyz?

As per Prof. Belorybkin re excavations in Zolotaryovskoye gorodische Askizi merchants seem to have trading interest and long stay in the city. They all were slain in battle when Mongols seized the city in 1242. Any comments, opinions will be welcome. Thank you in advance.--Numulunj pilgae 09:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)