Talk:Tamgan

Deleting a paragraph

I have no idea why Benjamin Trovato condenses two paragraphs into one by deleting 612 bytes.The original text has been reverted twice without any explanation and the funny thing is that Benjamin asks me why. Just the reverse I now kindly ask Benjamin why deleting apart of the text is so important ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

1. was considered {by whom?} a dependancy: The claim that Istami was a /kind of viceroy/ yabghu/ under his elder brother Bumin and Bumin's heirs is supported by Grousset, 1970 (pp 82,88, definite); Sinor, 1990 (pp 289,308 ' however important Ishtami.. supreme power rested with Muhan'); Christian, 1998 (p 250 'Bumin ruled senior wing. Ishtami accepted Muhan's authority, apparently without question); Bregel, 2004 (map 7 text 'nominal co-ruler in the junior line'). Since the standard (?) English sources agree, no need for a citation, but any source that contradicts this should be noted. 2. 603: I can't find a definite date, probably gradual. 3. Ishtami followed by Tangan and Tardu: implies they had the same rank. No(?) evidence that Tardu was not ruler. 4. Brother: Sinor's doubt should probably be noted. 5. Shorter: I like fewer words. Maybe someone else can do better.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source says that Ishtemi is not known to have a 2nd son and overall disagrees

One of the cited sources, Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, seems to actively disagree with certain things it is being cited in support of this this article; particularly the identification of Tamgan/Turkshad/Turxanthos as a son of Isthemi.

In addition, the source, Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, also says that Ishtemi should not be identified with Sizabolous, the father of Tamgan.

"The matter is of some importance because if Turxath and Tardu had been brothers, Ishtemi would have to be identified with Silziboulos. I have already given some reasons why such an identification should be rejected. There is of course first of all the unbridgeable phonetic difference between the two names, and we have also seen that there was a perfectly good transcription into Greek letters of Ishtemi's name. There are other reasons for rejecting the equation of the two individuals. Chinese sources do not indicate that Ishtemi had, besides Tardu, another son. If Silziboulos had really been Ishtemi, one of the two founding fathers of the empire, whose name was still revered some two centuries later, his son Tardu would have certainly come to the obsequies. Chinese sources are mute on the dates of Ishtemi's death and Tardu's accession to power. In 576 when Valentine visited Turxath, Tardu was already kaghan of the Western Frontier Region, but there are no data on how and when he acceded to this position. It would then appear wise not to identify Ishtemi with Silziboulos. The latter must have been a minor potentate, one of the eight Turk chiefs, a dignity which his son Turxath inherited." pg. 305

Silziboulos in this case being the father of Tamgan/Turxanthos/Turkshad. Also the following quote from the same source;

"This name, however, points to a curious problem. In the Turk inscriptions of the Orkhon the name is spelt either with or without the initial thus istmi or stmi, and Byzantine sources give it in the form Stembis (lT€fiPiaxayav). There is no reason for the Romans to drop an initial /-, while there are good reasons why the Turks should put a prosthetic vowel before a consonant cluster such as st-, with which no Turkic or Altaic word can begin. We thus are bound to conclude that one of the founding fathers of the Turk empire had a non-Turkic name. The name of Bumin - Ishtemi's coruler - is not Turkic either, and it remains unexplained why the Chinese transcribe his name with an initial t-\ T'u-men. Of the fifty odd names given to Turk rulers in Chinese sources, only a handful have Turkic equivalents and even fewer are genuinely Turkic. The same can be said of the Turk personal names appearing in Byzantine sources. Few of them are identifiably Turkic and in two cases (one of them being that of Stembis) a Turkic origin cannot even be envisaged. Yet it is certain that at least the Turk ruling class in the mideighth century (to which the Orkhon inscriptions belong) was Turkicspeaking. Since, as we shall see, the Turk state replaced that of the Juan-juan, it would be tempting - and probably correct - to assume that the Juan-juan language continued in use among the subjects of the newly formed Turk empire." pg. 290 Guile's Theme (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)