|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 9, 2010 23:19:15 GMT 3
I agree. I mean, humankind have been migrating and mixing with each other since whoknowswhen, so what's the point really?
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 9, 2010 23:56:23 GMT 3
To learn where they migrated and how they mixed. *shrug* It is a different sort of history than socio-political or cultural history or linguistic history. There hasn't been very much work in synthesizing the different histories together, although there are people working on it.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 10, 2010 1:16:07 GMT 3
There are in fact works which combine genetic, linguistical and archeological studies. I, in fact, believe that DNA stuff is very interesting and useful.
But it isn't actully that hard to understand :-)
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 10, 2010 15:33:03 GMT 3
^ Neither genetics or physical anthrolopology studies have been declared factual yet mate. It's interesting, but there it stands. Nonetheless genetics merging with history tends to leave out evolution and genetic drift, while physical anthropology merging with history has only 3 main groups - colonial categories to describe the vast human race.
Heh steppe history always borders on politics. You know this. We currently already have nationalists either Turkic, Mongol, Iranic, European, Chinese, etc all wanting a slice of the pizza. I say the pizza is mine! -.-
But I'll share with you folks =)
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 10, 2010 22:14:39 GMT 3
^ Neither genetics or physical anthrolopology studies have been declared factual yet mate. It's interesting, but there it stands. What do you mean? It's pure raw material, physical objects and chemical components which you can observe, research and document. Those are facts in their purest form.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 11, 2010 7:48:44 GMT 3
I did not elaborate clearly I'm sorry, I'm refering to the use of genetics to define races/ethnics/people/etc. When it comes to politics, genetic studies, as well as historical research has a habit of getting involved with politics. None of which as such are declared facts, it is as 'factual' as any propaganda - as all seem to almost automatically wish to take it all out of context. Reminds me of Churchies in a way, using a piece of the scripture to justify a particular viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 11, 2010 21:02:17 GMT 3
To learn where they migrated and how they mixed. *shrug* but that would need the premise that there ever were "pure" (=inbred) people in the first place. there's no indication or logical evidence that all people with a certain haphlogroup spoke the same language. and language is more important than genetics because genes cannot be seen but language is an important tool that determines your standing within a certain culture.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 11, 2010 22:12:39 GMT 3
To learn where they migrated and how they mixed. *shrug* but that would need the premise that there ever were "pure" (=inbred) people in the first place. No, I don't think that premise is needed. A Russian (Slavic-Tatar-Finn) person having children with a Scottish (Celto-Pict-Viking) person doesn't require that the parents were "pure" to say that they're mixing. When we look at genetic haplogroups, it isn't to say that X years ago there was only one haplogroup from which all others developed. It only says that this one haplogroup from which all others developed is the only one amongst others that survived.
|
|
|
Post by draconist on Jul 29, 2010 15:11:22 GMT 3
Trog Pompei, writer of 1st century BC., citing in addition to Herodotus and other writers, says Scythian nation has always considered the most ancient, albeit a long time have been a dispute between the old tribal Scythians and Egyptians . Perhaps this has given rise to Herodotus told the legend he heard in Egypt that King Psametih attempt over two children, left without any language training, which result proved that the oldest people on earth are in Phrygia.
Interesting are biblical indicates that god himself Savaoth once used the Scythians as "scourge of God" against the sunk in sins Jews. Many verses and whole chapters in the book prophets in Old Testament are devoted to Scythians and especially Royal/High Scythians. Thus, in the book of the prophet Jeremiah (ch.V, verse 15) is said [91]: "Behold I will bring over you people from afar, O house of Israel, speak the LORD: A strong people, an ancient people, a people which you do not know nor his language, nor to understand what they say. They all are heroes. . . They will devastate with the sword your fortified cities, on which you hope. "
Ch. VI, verse 1: "Sons of Benjamin, flee from Jerusalem and trumpeted the trumpet in Tekoa and exalted place in Beth-Akerem because evil permeates from the north and great destruction."
Ch. VI, verse 22: "Behold, people coming from the north, great people are raised, they are cruel and relentless, bow and spear they hold, their voice fuss like a sea, and are mounted on horses."
Ch. VIII, verse 17-18: "snorting of theirs horses was heard by Dan, all the earth was shook by the sound of neigh of horses, because they came, and devastate the land and its fruits, the city and who live in it. For here, I send thee serpents Basilisk (Regal), which can not be charmed, but will bite you, said the Lord."
These prophecies of Jeremiah are purely historical in nature. In so inspired poetic forms of speech are seen clearly points the eastern Scythians of south Russia - nomads and Royal/High. In Ezekiel [92] (Chapter 38, p.1-8, and Ch. 39, p. 2) mentions:
"Gog, the leaders of Ross, Mosoch and Tubal, and the house of Togharm from the last Kingdoms in the north."
In the Iliad (Song XIII) Homer says: "Zeus, looking over the Thracian land, horse riders and Mizians, heroes-fighters, there contemplate the wondrous men of Hypermolgs, poor, feeding with milk, fairest of mortals."
Most of the ancient greeks and other writers, as we start from Hesiod, Dionysius (1-2 century AD) and finished with Ammianus Marcellinus have blind faith in authority of Homer, taken in his epithets characteristic of the Scythians as own names and long time doing their interpretations of some people based on these epithets. Here these people: 1. abii - which means poor, deprived of means of life, 2. agave - glorious 3. hypermolgi - milkers of mares, 4. galaktof*gi - feeding with milk, epithets which Strabo clearly shows that relate to the Scythians and Sarmatians. Only the poet Kalima (3 century AD) was more familiar with the Pontic steppes in the wandering tribes bearing the common name Scythians. But this confusion of ancient writers is relatively insignificant if compared with the wandering of some modern scholars on the issue of nationality of the Scythians. On this issue was formed one, because to call it "vicious circle" to second-guess the network of which got entangled great many "small" and "big" writers. Generally those who in our time dealing with Scythians matter as their views on the nationality, are divided into three major groups. Writers of the first group represented Mongolian or more clear Ural-Altai theory. These are Niebuhr, K. Neyman, Manera and others. The second group are supporters of the Aryan theory, which split into four parts: the first maintained Median origin of the Scythians (eg Zeist and Miller), the second identifies the Scythians with the Slavs (Hvoyko, Samokvasov, Ilovayski etc..), third defenders are for Germany's theory (Bergman, Fresno, etc.). and fourth considered Herodotus Scythians for Celts. Remains one - third major group, which some call neutral, as its agents seek to avoid dispute supporters of the Aryan and Mongolian theory and so they are completely refusing to allow ethnographic dispute, among them Ukert, Roulson, Bruno. Some understand the Scythians into a mixture of various peoples: these are Miller and Mishtenko. Similar in the works of Professor Dr. Shishmanov (bulgarist) in which the author examines current theories and views on the origin of the Bulgarians, a scientific work, although not as extensive form, the Russian scientist M. K. Fot "O skitskom vopros" (with the motto of Kuno) [93]. Firstly, the author brings critical review of Hansen, one of the most talented writers in Scythian question that 70 years ago wrote that the Scythians with the terminology, as far as preserved, scientists refer to as a "toy". No one tells us where are these names appeared from, were Scythians themselves called like that or their neighbors? As for the Mongolian theory Fot (p. 102) says: "Insufficient Herodotic prudent assessment notices and perhaps prestige of Niebuhr, who created this theory of Mongolian origin of the Scythians, and the reason was that in the first half of the 19th century this theory outweighs the Aryan. But by the time when appeared the article by Shifner (Bulletin de l'Academie Jmperiale de sciences de St. Pet., Vol. XIII, p. 193), it is increasingly losing ground beneath him. " And here's the conclusion of the Fot: "As confront all of the above , as with regret, we must recognize that now as before, we are not able with confidence to solve the problem of modern nations which is a descendant or at least the closest cognate of herodotic Scythians, although with full conviction, we can say that Scythians were not Mongols, and belonged to the Caucasian race. " Fortunately, the Fot has come to this sad thought not thread a comprehensive personal research. His disappointment he derives from that particular round of second-guess on the Scythian nation to which he devoted his report and we have called "vicious" because it lies all the "master gossip and paradoxes that arise from the endless litigation, as with Scythian so do with Bulgarian problem issue. Interestingly, all the writers on Scythian topic based on the same evidences from Greeks and Romans, but obtained totaly different results. According to the Fot, this disagreement depends not so on objective grounds, roots himself in studied material as a consequence of subjective factors such as inadequate training or previously formed opinions of the authors. Indeed, in the presence of so clear historical evidence of residence and lifestyle of Scytho-Sarmatians, on the one hand, the other for "substitute" new barbarians "- Bulgars, wonder is that so far found no actual, direct descendants Scytho-Sarmatians. The principle that all ancient civilizations and cultures are similar and any young people may by some features of morals and beliefs be assigned to any tribe he wishes, seems to be throwing dust in the eyes of the majority of writers to do not see clear and simple truth . Indeed, one can say that Aryan of the Scythian tribes is not disputable, but nobody indicated with sufficient clarity and satisfactory warranted the essence of the Bulgar tribes . Before the lights of modern archeology, however, the truth on this matter gradually penetrates into the dark labyrinth of thousands of views expressed so far, theories and hypotheses, and the image of Scytho-Sarmatian descendants seems more detailed and vivid. Here, on one hand the data of Herodotus and information by all ancient writers about ancient Scythians, for their physical and spiritual life, both in their religious ideas, and their family, social, political and economic life, and from the other the material memorials , the latest archaeological findings and studies that give us a clear idea of the gradual development of Neolithic culture in southern Russia and its move into the bronze, iron and a new era, on the basis of all these historical and archaeological data, by all these mutually confirming facts, we say, as meager as they may be in appearance, can be understood clearly as daylight that the father of history reveals the face of western Scythians - mostly farmers, in the face of the majestic eastern Scythians - as Bulgars themselves, mainly traders and cattlemen who thought the other Scythians as their servants, i.e. as a provincial residents. Settled agricultural life, armoury, all lifestyles, all events at all, of the ancient life we see literally in bits per west Scythian tribes. Research into linguistic paleontology clearly confirm this Scytho-Bulgarian identity [96]. A ceramic and bronze finds in the area from the Carpathians to Caspian Sea and northern borders of Herodotus' Scythia, the shores of the Black Sea, and in the Bulgarian lands in the Aegean Sea, the most reliable and definitely attest to all stages of gradual evolution, i.e. the continuing development of Bulgarian culture from the Paleolithic to modern times. Indeed, later writers - Tacitus, Jordan, Procopius and many others talked about the Slavs instead of Herodotus' western Scythians . In Jordan they are Ants and Sklavens under the generic title Venets. Sklavens occupy the land between the Dniester and Novidunum, while Ants, bravest among them, live on the coast of Ponta from Dniester to the Dnieper, further, mentioned Jordan, live Agathirs and even the east, over the Black Sea instead of the possessions Royal Scythians and Sarmatians, he now notes villages of Bulgars. According to him “terrible Bulgars that cruel punishing us for our sins. [97] As noted, the royal Scythians are very similar to their descendants - the Bulgars - mobile, fiery, belligerent horsemen, people with more sense of trade and industry rather than agriculture, and mainly majestic representatives of all tribes. Chronological cycle of Bulgarians found by Prof. Popov, dated 150 AD, most clearly confirms this ancient royalty. Bulgarians by their ancestral hereditary dynasty were formed feudal state where Slavic tribes, served as navvy. As previously mentioned, the Bulgarians themselves are divided into clans, each family had its own tribal chief, and stood some command of the Kanasubigi (High Lord) - the king of all Bulgarian tribes.....
to be continued... (I have to find time to translate the whole article)
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 30, 2010 12:01:58 GMT 3
Meh, just some funny Bulgarian propaganda. None of us would believe these.
|
|
|
Post by draconist on Jul 31, 2010 9:02:12 GMT 3
Why did you think it is Bulgarian propaganda? Propaganda for what? Because of a hundred years of Russian/Soviet manipulation of our history now we Bulgarians have to know who we are. We are not Turkic/Altaic/Mongols. We are not from Iran. We just have lived there centuries ago but not from there. Sorry for the offtopic! Where is the topic about Bulgars?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 31, 2010 16:47:26 GMT 3
What Russian/Soviet propaganda?
The fact, that you're trying to say the things above, proves only that it's you who are spreading the propaganda!
If Russian/Soviet propaganda was concerned about Bulgarians, it was the concern only to represent them as brother Slavic nation in lines with Pan-Slavism.
It doesn't make sense at all for the Russians historians to write that Bulgars are Turko-Altaics for propaganda purposes.
Also, never ever a Russian scientist wrote that Bulgarians are Tatars!
The conclusion that Bulgars were Turkic speakers at least their elite was comes from linguistic sources and analysis of historical sources by not only Russian but a number of European scientist who were also German, French and others.
The whole idea of denying the affinity of Bulgars and Proto-Turks comes from the idiotic nationalistic Bulgarian pseudohistorians-liars, who believe by default that everything "Turkic" is "Ottoman" and thus evil, savage and barbaric.
Turks were very diverse, developed and great people with fantastic history and ancient Bulgars have a very minimum if ever connection with Ottomans.
They were, in fact, much more related with ancient Scythians and Sarmatians (who you like so much because they are "Iranic") than with the Turks of the Ottoman Empire.
So, please, save your efforts for something else than dissiminating stupid unscentific delurium of "Bulgarian" dumbass "historians" who spread lies and thus spitting at the memory of their ancestors!
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 31, 2010 21:19:01 GMT 3
Well said dear Sarmat.
|
|
|
Post by draconist on Aug 2, 2010 10:03:44 GMT 3
What Russian/Soviet propaganda? As you maybe know Bulgaria was under communist Soviet influense during 1944-1989, In this period they have changed many things in our life in general and specially our history. Bulgarian Academic of Science was under pressure by Cominterna (Moscaw). They transmit a directives what and how we to learn. So Soviet version our history in short was that handful of Bulgars (around 10 000 turko-altaics with women, children and old men) led by khanasubigi (then "han") Asparuh, third son of "han" Kubrat arrived in Little Scythia. He has united with a sea-like slavic people, crushed the Bysanntine emperor's army, and established Bulgarian state in 681 AD. In spite of all historical sources today we are today considered as Slavo-Bulgars and Bulgars were melt down. It doesn't make sense at all for the Russians historians to write that Bulgars are Turko-Altaics for propaganda purposes.Also, never ever a Russian scientist wrote that Bulgarians are Tatars! Yes, it does, because of Volga Bulgars they called them Tatars The conclusion that Bulgars were Turkic speakers at least their elite was comes from linguistic sources and analysis of historical sources by not only Russian but a number of European scientist who were also German, French and others. Can you tell me exactly Who and Where was it said that Bulgars have spoken tukic? Turks were very diverse, developed and great people with fantastic history and ancient Bulgars have a very minimum if ever connection with Ottomans. Agree... They were, in fact, much more related with ancient Scythians and Sarmatians It is my contention too. Bulgarians are Scytho-Sarmatians. And I can prove that with facts and historical evidences and sources. Can you and the other who claiming that Bulgars are something different, indicate such a sources to prove it. P.S. I'm NOT a skinhead or something and DIDN'T hate Turks or Turkic people. I'm just trying to find the real history of my people, whoever they were. I meant no offence to anyone in this forum. Sorry if anyone was!
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Aug 2, 2010 19:24:13 GMT 3
Russian historians never called Volga Bulgars, Tatars. Volga Bulgars were crushed by the Mongols in the 13th century and it is commonly believed that most of the Volga Bulgars perished during that turbulent times. A new arrivals from Central Asia that came with Mongols, mostly Kypchak tribes melted with the remnants of Volga Bulgars and formed a new ethnicity which was called "Tatars" those Volga Tatars didn't even speak Volga Bulgar language they spoke a new language based mostly on Kypchak dialect.
Nevetheless, Volga Bulgars and their descendants called Tatars now have a very loose connection to modern Bulgarians now who are Slavic language speakers.
The version of the Bulgar migration to the West is a traditional version based on Byzantine sources. Or you're suggesting that there was a secret true version of the real history of Bulgars which was there before 1944? That's nonsense!
As I told you, Russian-Communist propaganda wasn't concerned with dissiminating "Altaico-Turkic" theories, if something would be good for the Russian-Soviet propaganda it would be to distance Bulgars from Turks as far as possible.
There was no any ideological reasons at all for promoting that! Anybody understands that!
It's just very conveniet for the new "history fantazy writers" to blame anything on the Soviet propaganda, because it's a very nice and silent scape goat!
I'll tell you the reason for all of that.
There is simply for whatever reasons a strong psychological complex of inferiority deep inside those new Bulgarian "historians." They just can't accept that some one might be more "ancient and great" that they are. That's why the invention of all those crazy theories comes, "yeah, I want to be as mighty and great as Ancient Egyptians, of course, Bulgarians were even more ancient that the Ancient Egyptians, etc." and similar crap.
The truth, however, is that every people's history and culture are great!
Just respect yourself as you are, don't try to find the evidence of the "great and greater" where there is none of such!
There are enough things to be proud about in Bulgarian history without inventing the fantazies about the comparison with Ancient Egyptians, just certain people aren't satisfied with that...
|
|