|
Post by tadamson on May 17, 2006 19:04:14 GMT 3
Those Ordos findings belong to the Xiongnu who were Turkic, not Mongolic. Prove it ;D The finds date to the the Xiongnu period. What we know about their language makes it proto-turkic (though the confederation included Iranian tribes). The steppe based pastoral nomadic culture encompassed severalethnic groups.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 4, 2006 22:35:15 GMT 3
Prof. Dr. Özkan Ýzgi from the History Department of the Hacettepe University also thinks that the Saka were Iranic. However, he told me that he does not care much about their ethnicity and he says it would not be important whether they were Turkic, Iranic or Slavic. I think so too.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 10, 2006 19:34:28 GMT 3
Mongols & Scythians have same CULTURE! ha ha ha Compering Ordos(in inner Mongolia) & Near Bolga(=I guess) Its not "near Volga" - it is "verhnee priob'e" = "(region) of upper Ob"
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 15, 2006 13:34:57 GMT 3
Prof. Dr. Özkan Ýzgi from the History Department of the Hacettepe University also thinks that the Saka were Iranic. However, he told me that he does not care much about their ethnicity and he says it would not be important whether they were Turkic, Iranic or Slavic. I think so too. I agree. Scythians are only important because they were the first nomads who have developed a typical steppe art, which later expanded towards east. However, it is interesting that you have mentioned Slavs as one of their possible descendants. Even though, linguisticaly, Slavic peoples are closer to Indo-Iranian group than Indo-European, I think that peoples later-to-be-Slavs came to Europe just before Schytians, and were pushed by them towards forest areas of north-east. Btw, did you know that in our language the werb SKITATI means "to roam around; to wander around" / and the word SKITA means "(he) roams around; (he) wanders around" ;D
|
|
|
Post by tengrikut on Nov 15, 2006 20:11:09 GMT 3
i think in greek languge, it has a near meaning to your language too
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 16, 2006 1:44:33 GMT 3
But it is still hotly depated in Turkish universities Some Russian scholars used to claim that the Scythians were a Slavic people, just like how Turks claim them to be Turkic and Iranians (as well as Europeans and Americans) claim them to be Iranic. However, the Slavic theory did not become popular and it faded away later. Today, the debate wents around whether they were Turkic or Iranic (as the title of this thread shows). When someone goes to a Turkish university and claims that the Scythians were Iranians/Indo-Europeans, many people blame him of being a "Western-lover/worshipper". However, this is not the same in the Hacettepe University. Interesting information, thank you Scythian ( Skythoi in Greek, Scythii in Latin - both plural forms), Saka ( Sakae in Greek), Ashquzai (in Assyrian), Sai (in Chinese) and even Soghd all look related with each other (I am not very sure about the name Soghd but the similarity catched my interest yesterday).
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 16, 2006 14:16:47 GMT 3
Of course the Slavic theory faded away - simply it was not the true one. However, there is a missing link between Iranian and Slavic languages, and Scythian is belived to be an Iranian language that represented that link. You know, different types of words in one language are not changing at the same speed. Some words are changing faster than the others. For example, the most frequent words of any language are pronouns and numbers and because they are the most frequent ones, their shape change much slower: Persian: 1 - " yek" 2 - " dow" 4 - " chahar" 5 - " penj" 6 - " shesh" Serbian: 1 - " yedan"/ in rural "yen" 2 - " dva" 4 - " chetiri" 5 - " pet" 6 - " shest" PRONOUNS Persian Singular:__________Serbian singular: 1. men _________________1. ya 2. to ____________________2. ti 3. u _____________________3. on Persian plural:____________Serbian plural: 1. ma___________________1. mi 2. shoma ________________2. vi 3. anha _________________3. oni So if the Scythians were of Turkic origin - living between Iranians and Slavs - where did these similarities between Slavic and Iranian come from? have to go now... will continue later...
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 16, 2006 18:10:47 GMT 3
Now, an expedition led by Gryaznov, discovered famous tombs of Pazirik, on the northern side of Altay mountain (1929). According to Grousset those tombs belong to I century BC or older, and according to some Turkish books they belong to IV-III c. BC. In those tombs remains of many sacrifised horses were found, and those horses were masked like they were rain-deers. Those masks were ornamented whith animalistic motives in Scythian fasion.
Now, I hope we all agree that Pazirik tombs must be considered as protho-turkic ones. I also hope that you understand the enormous importance of the following fact - sacrifised horses were found, and those horses were masked like they were rain-deers This indicates that the people of Pazirik came to that area somewhere from north (Siberia), and that in their earlier rituals they used rain-deers instead if horses (like other Siberian peoples). There are no rain-deers on Altay, so they substituted it whith horses, dressing them in rain-deer masks. Scythian motives on those masks, as well as usage of horses, were propably addopted from the local population.
So.. 1. - If Pazirik findings belong to protho-turks, then Scythians from C. Asia cannot be of Turkic origin. 2. - If Scythians were of Turkic origin, then Pazirik findings don't belong to protho-turks
I think the first theory is more likely to be truth. This theory is also confirmed by some other facts:
On Euro-Asian continent, aglutinative languages are unique to Altaic and Uralic language groups. The Uralic language group, beside sufixes, contains much more prefixes than Altaic group, and this is the result of much longer cultural touch whith Indo-European groups (hungarian: TUDOM eng. "I understand" / hun. "NEMTUDOM" eng. "I don't understand"). So, this indicates that the aglutinative language type (Turko-Mongol, and to some degree Japanese and Korean etc.) has its origins in Eastern Siberia.
Having these facts in my mind, I must say that Hacettepe University seems to be the most serious one in Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 17, 2006 0:21:11 GMT 3
Polish aristocrats claimed to be descendants of Sarmatians, supporters of this theory regard the noblemens coat-of-arms as proof as they look similar to Tagmas. we also know of the famous theory that Croats/Serbs are descendants of Sarmatian tribes, as the mdoern Serbokroat language and the Iranain langauge share a lot of words and the names Croat and Serb soudn like Sarmatian triebnames... connected to the story about Poles being Sarmatians there is an interestign connection. one of the ancient Polish tribes living around the modern town of Cracow was called "White Croats", this is not only interesting because the prefix "white" was typical for Steppe tribes (such as White Huns, White Horde etc...), but not too far away from them, on the German side of the border in todays Saxony province lived and still live today the Slavic tribe of Sorbs who also speak a Slavic tongue similar to Polish... so maybe there is something about Slavs being related to Scythians, or more probable Sarmatians...
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 17, 2006 1:18:14 GMT 3
It is commonly thought in Turkey that the Pazïrïq findings belonged to the Xiongnu whereas American-Europeans claim them to be belonging to the Sakas (not the Scythians, beacuse the Scythians were a group of Saka living in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe). However, I believe that these findings belonged to none, as the Xiongnu did not live in that area whereas I also do not know whether the Saka went that far away or not.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 17, 2006 13:18:02 GMT 3
Polish aristocrats claimed to be descendants of Sarmatians, supporters of this theory regard the noblemens coat-of-arms as proof as they look similar to Tagmas. we also know of the famous theory that Croats/Serbs are descendants of Sarmatian tribes, as the mdoern Serbokroat language and the Iranain langauge share a lot of words and the names Croat and Serb soudn like Sarmatian triebnames... connected to the story about Poles being Sarmatians there is an interestign connection. one of the ancient Polish tribes living around the modern town of Cracow was called "White Croats", this is not only interesting because the prefix "white" was typical for Steppe tribes (such as White Huns, White Horde etc...), but not too far away from them, on the German side of the border in todays Saxony province lived and still live today the Slavic tribe of Sorbs who also speak a Slavic tongue similar to Polish... so maybe there is something about Slavs being related to Scythians, or more probable Sarmatians... It is true that the names Serb (Srbin) and Croat (Hrvat) don't have any meaning in Slavic languages; also there were White Croats and White Serbs in modern Poland and Moravia, but in this case the term "White" means "pagan" or "not converted". Constantine Porphyrogenitus, talking about Serbo-Croatian move to the Balkans, sais that Serbs have split into two groups. The larger one, taking advantage of war between Avars and Bulgars crossed Pannonia and entered Byzantine territory (635?), but later changed their minds and wanted to go back to their native land in the nort. However, around 637. the war between Avars and Bulgars was over, and Avars have manged to re-establish their power in Pannonia, so Serbs in the South could not pass, and they stayed in the land now called Serbia. Constantine Porphyrogenitus sais that those Serbs gave the name of the largest river in their land by the name of the largest river in their former country - Morava (today Morava in Czeck republic and in Serbia) The smaller group of Serbs - White Serbs (Modern Sorbs) - stayed in the north, and later moved further to the west (to Germany). So, when the name Serb and Croat emerged for the first time in historical sources, those peoples were Slavic speaking Slavs. What was earlier we can only guess. I still think that Slavs can only be linguisticaly related to Scythians*, but not their descendants. ______ * This means that both Slavs and Scythians belong to Indo-Iranian group - whith Slavs as the most distant branch of that group, and Scythians as one of Northern Iranian group
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 17, 2006 13:27:46 GMT 3
It is commonly thought in Turkey that the Pazïrïq findings belonged to the Xiongnu whereas American-Europeans claim them to be belonging to the Sakas (not the Scythians, beacuse the Scythians were a group of Saka living in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe). However, I believe that these findings belonged to none, as the Xiongnu did not live in that area whereas I also do not know whether the Saka went that far away or not. Xiongnu or not - the Pazirik must be protho-turkic (turko-mongol). Saka cultural elements are understandable. The rain-deer masks, in my oppinion, are something that is most important in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 17, 2006 20:31:33 GMT 3
Yes indeed, the Pazïrïq culture was surronded by other Turkic cultures like Qarasuq, Taghar, Tashtïq and the like.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 17, 2006 22:37:01 GMT 3
One more thing...
We should not be confused by the Caucasoid features of some skeletons from Altay region. Iranian Saka tribes really inhabited that area, but their number must have been small. So, if some of the earliest protho-turkic tombs in that area contain Caucasoid skeletons, this only indicates that there was a natural proces of mixing between native Iranians and new-coming protho-turks. As the time passed, the more numerous mongoloid population of protho-turks prevailed.
Similar thing also happened in the Qazaq steppe, where Caucasoid Iranian population was more numerous than in Altay region. Nevertheless, mongoloid protho-turks prevailed in that area too - so now we have a mixed type called Turanoid (you see how Qazaqs look a little bit different from Mongols)
I have mentioned earlier the book about Avars, written by J. Kovacevic. He had the oportunity to personaly examine almost every Avar tomb in Europe, and the most interesting thing he discovered is that Avar tombs of so called The First Avar Wave contained more Caucasoid skeletons than Mongoloid ones. However, Avar tombs of later period - The Second Avar Wave - contained more Mongoloid skeletons, and the most numerous ones were of Turanoid type.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 17, 2006 23:11:24 GMT 3
i forgot to mention, they also found a relic on the German-Polish border that they have classified as Scythian, the famous (more or less) Fish of Vettersfelde, and this is not the only find from Scythians (there were also numerous arrow-heads etc): ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~cmw/1995/VettersFish.htmlI have never heard that pagan tribes were called as "white", does that mean Belorussians have been pagans longer than the other Rus tribes? Roxolani, a Sarmatian tribe also translates as White Alans... BTW, i don't think that Croats & Serbs are Sarmatians but there is hard evidence that Sarmatians ruled over the territories now inhabited by Croats & Serbs and that the Sarmatian overlords eventually merged with their Slavic subjects. so i think Serbokroats are a blend of Slavs & Sarmatians. i'm not really familiar with early Slav history but that story by Constantine might be mythology, like that Lech, Czech etc story about the origin of western Slavs...
|
|