nomadsoul
Är
bearer of the Afanasevo culture
Posts: 27
|
Post by nomadsoul on May 1, 2016 0:27:52 GMT 3
Those Ordos findings belong to the Xiongnu who were Turkic, not Mongolic. Ordos culture were Scythian-Sacae tribes, not Turkic Gokturks descent from Hujie (呼揭) NW of Usun (乌孙)
|
|
nomadsoul
Är
bearer of the Afanasevo culture
Posts: 27
|
Post by nomadsoul on May 1, 2016 0:31:36 GMT 3
The Slavic origin theory for the Scythians is outdated and no one today supports this theory. Turks descent from Tocharian, not from Scythian-Sacae Turk=Tukri=Tocri/Tokhar=Tocharian
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 2, 2016 10:50:01 GMT 3
No, you are totally wrong. The Ordos Culture was Turkic Xiongnu. The Gokturks did not descent from the Hujie. Turkic peoples did not also descent from the Tocharians. No way.
|
|
nomadsoul
Är
bearer of the Afanasevo culture
Posts: 27
|
Post by nomadsoul on May 2, 2016 17:46:18 GMT 3
No, you are totally wrong. The Ordos Culture was Turkic Xiongnu. The Gokturks did not descent from the Hujie. Turkic peoples did not also descent from the Tocharians. No way. Ordos culture were Hunnic Bulgars, not Turkic
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 3, 2016 10:50:28 GMT 3
Nonsense. It has got nothing to do with the Bulgars.
|
|
|
Post by hellene on May 16, 2016 1:58:28 GMT 3
I am Greek and I can read Herodotus from the prototype. I don't want to offend anyone but my opinion is that the Scythians (at least those mentioned by Herodotus) were Turkic-speaking. Many modern-day Slavs are descendants of them but they were just Slavicized. I am also open to the possibility that there were both Turkic-speaking nomads and Iranian-speaking ones, but look at the following example.
Herodotus said that the Scythians called the Amazons 'Oiorpata' and explains the name as a compound of oior, meaning "man", and pata, meaning "to kill" (Hist. 4,110).
"Most scholars associate oior "man" with Avestan vīra- "man, hero", Sanskrit vīra-, Latin vir (gen. virī) "man, hero, husband",[13][14] PIE *u̯iHro-. Various explanations account for pata "kill": Avestan paiti- "lord", Sanskrit pati-, PIE *poti-, cf. Lat. potestate (i.e. "man-ruler");[15] Ossetian maryn "kill", Pashto mrəl, Sanskrit mārayati, PIE *mer- "die" (confusion of Greek Μ and Π);[16] Ossetian fædyn "cleave", Sanskrit pātayati "fell", PIE *peth₂- "fall".[17]"
^^^ This is far-fetched. Firstly, how do they explain the fact that the latin word "vir" was closer to Avestan and Sanskrit ones than the word used by these, supposedly, Eastern Iranians?
I just used Google Translate and I saw that in many Turkic languages man = 'adam', while kill = өлтіру (öltirw) in Kazakh, өлтүрүү (öltürüü) in Kyrgyz and even in Hungarian (a language which is supposedly Uralic but with many Turkic words at least) "öl" means kill. So what if Herodotus was wrong and the two components of the word were 'oiorp' (=kill) and 'ata' (=man). The word 'oiorpata' could have been like (with too much specualtion) ölwadam...
I don't know if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 16, 2016 10:28:38 GMT 3
Hi hellene, welcome aboard.
Interesting approach indeed. A genetic study conducted several years ago by the University of Barcelona on the skeletons found in Scythian graves has revealed that the Scythians were 70% West Eurasian and 30% East Eurasian. This prooves that even though the Scythians were dominantly Iranic, they had mixed with the Turkic peoples for a significant amount. This also helps us explain the fact that while most of the Scythian vocabulary recorded by the historical sources can be explained by Iranic etymologies, some words are doubtful, some can be explained by both Turkic and Iranic etymologies and a few are almost clearly Turkic.
However, I have some objections for your proposal. Turkic adam meaning "man" is a loanword from Arabic ādam, which is also the Arabic version of Adam's name. The word was initially âdem in Turkish and the name of Adam is still written Adem and pronounced with a long a, but its meaning of "man" is now written as adam and pronounced with short a's. Yet, there is also the word ata in the Turkic languages meaning "father" (today in Turkish it has the meaning of "ancestor"). "Kill" is öltir/öldür in the Turkic languages, deriving from öl meaning "die".
Even though Scythian oior has been explained by an Indo-European etymology, one can also think that it might be related with Turkic är (Modern Turkish er) meaning "man" (today in Turkish er means "private" in military while erkek means "male/man"). Of course I am far from certain regarding this, but it can be thought as well I think.
|
|
|
Post by hellene on May 17, 2016 18:21:06 GMT 3
Thank you for your answer. It seems using google-translate isn't a very good method The labels 'East Eurasian', 'West Eurasian' aren't very useful because they use modern populations, right? Herodotus believed that the Scythians came from the East. What place is supposed to be the Proto-Turkic homeland? In the Middle Ages we have in Eastern Europe Pechenegs, Khazars, Bulgars, Cumans etc. When did they got there? And where did they go? Some Eastern European Slavs descend from them, at least.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 18, 2016 13:49:13 GMT 3
Thank you for your answer. It seems using google-translate isn't a very good method You're welcome Yes, one should use a better proper dictionary in such cases. I would recommend Redhouse, which also shows from which languages the loanwords in Turkish came from. The labels 'East Eurasian', 'West Eurasian' aren't very useful because they use modern populations, right? I don't remember exactly, I saw that publication some years ago. Herodotus believed that the Scythians came from the East. What place is supposed to be the Proto-Turkic homeland? The steppes of Kazakhstan seems to be the originating place of the Scythians. Those that migrated westwards towards the Pontic-Caspian steppes became known as the Scythians ( Skythai in Greek) in Europe, while those that remained in their original homeland and migrated to the other parts of Central Asia such as the Tarim Basin, Mongolia and southern Siberia were known as the Saka by their sedentary neighbors. There are several different theories regarding the homeland of the Turkic (or Proto-Turkic) peoples, but the most widely accepted theory is that they originated in southern Siberia (modern republics of Altai, Khakassia and Tuva) and later expanded towards Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan. In the Middle Ages we have in Eastern Europe Pechenegs, Khazars, Bulgars, Cumans etc. When did they got there? And where did they go? Some Eastern European Slavs descend from them, at least. They all came from Central Asia, mostly from Kazakhstan. Unfortunately the historical sources do not contained detailed information about the origins of these peoples, but what we know that all these peoples came to the Pontic-Caspian steppes from Central Asia. The Oghurs-Bulghars, Sabars and Khazars seem to be the first comers following the Huns in the 5th century. The Pechenegs and Cumans came later in the following centuries. The Bulgars in the Balkans all assimiliated into their Slavic subjects, giving their name to the modern Bulgarians. Volga Bulgars, on the other hand, remained Turkic; most of them became linguistically Qypchaq-speakers after the 13th century, but the Chuvash still retain their original Oghuric Turkic. The Sabars most probably merged with the Khazars; we don't know what exactly happened to them. Same case with the Khazars; the historical sources are mute regarding their fate after the fall of their empire. They most probably merged into the Cuman-Qypchaqs. Some of the Pechenegs and Cumans settled in the Balkans, Aegean Islands and Anatolia for their service to the Byzantine Empire. Most of these became either Slavised or Hellenised eventually, and some of them merged with the Oghuz-Turkmens during the Turkish conquest of Anatolia (some of the Pechenegs had already joined the Oghuz in Central Asia during the 11th century before the migrations of Oghuz into the Middle East). A group of Cumans settled in Hungary and they still exist as a separate ethnic group, but they have lost their language and they are now Hungarian-speaking, yet retaining their Cuman identity. They are an interesting case indeed. Another group of Cumans settled in Georgia as mercenaries, and they got all assimiliated eventually. Yet, most of the Cuman-Qypchaqs retained their identity and received the name Tatar after becoming the subjects of the Mongol Empire (and its spin-off the Golden Horde). Mixing to some degree with the Oghurs and some other Central Asian Turko-Mongol tribes, the Cuman-Qypchaqs today form the bulk of many Turkic peoples such as the Crimean Tatars, Kazan Tatars, Siberian Tatars, Noghais, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Nomadic Uzbeks (which are different from the Sedentary Uzbeks or Sarts of Transoxiana).
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jan 28, 2017 2:03:28 GMT 3
No, you are totally wrong. The Ordos Culture was Turkic Xiongnu. The Gokturks did not descent from the Hujie. Turkic peoples did not also descent from the Tocharians. No way. Is there such a scholarly consensus about the Xiong-Nu, nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 28, 2017 14:18:31 GMT 3
Not among everyone, as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 28, 2017 20:17:33 GMT 3
IMO the 'scholarly census' now is that XiongNu/Hun was a political term for a very heterogenous group consisting of many ethnicities and languages, including Turkic.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 29, 2017 11:38:03 GMT 3
Well every steppe empire is like that too. The names "Turk", "Uyghur" and "Mongol" were adopted by their subjugated tribes as a political term. The problem here is about the ethnicity of the ruling dynasty and core tribes of the Xiongnu/Huns.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 2, 2017 2:53:48 GMT 3
Hellene, that was an interesting point of view, yet it can be subjective. As far as semantics concerned, The word " *atta, atos" has also a place in Proto-Indo-European vocabulary, so the possibilities are multiple.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 2, 2017 22:20:30 GMT 3
the name Attila is clearly gothic. 'atta' in the Gothic language also had the meaning of father, which is however not present in other Germanic languages. the real question is, what are the implications of that? anyways, does anyone actually know which languages have the word at(t)a for father?
|
|