|
Post by aca on Nov 18, 2006 11:42:44 GMT 3
I said that in case of Serbs and Croats the term "White" means "not converted" (according to Porphyrogenitus )
This is true. But, according to J. Kovacevic, the latest Sarmatian tombs in these areas belong to The First Avar Wave (568-680), and are extremly rare. So if there was mixing between Sarmatians and Slavs, it is clear why the Slavic element is the only one that remained.
This is hard to tell, because our language has a strong and firm Slavic core, and is fully interegible whith the other Slavic languages which came here before us (modern Bulgarian and Macedonian), and more than 60% interlegible whith Russian, for example.
If we look at the racial features, modern Serbs and Croats are mostly Diranid type Caucasoids (which is the result of mixing whith earlier native population of this region)
Mythology or not - it is clear that Constantine did not mention the exact name of the river Morava. But the fact is that this river exists in both Czech republic and Serbia. Also the dates of Serbian move to the Balkans perfectly fit in to events in Avar khaganate (war between Avars and new-coming Bulgars, which is mentioned by other historians - not by Constantine) Also the names Serb and Sorb are simply too similar to each other to be just a pure Constantines imagination. And finaly, Serbo-Croatian language is a little bit different from Macedonian and Bulgarian (though interlegible) which confirms Constantine's story of The Second Slavic Wave (635), in which Serbs and Croats came to this area.
All other guesses about Sarmatian origins of Serbs and Croats can be only assumptions which are so hard to prove.
________
Maybe I should mention that the Sarmatian theory of Serbo-Croatian origin is supported by some nationalist groups in Serbia and Croatia. But the funniest thing is that those Serbs and Croats are supporting this theory from completly different reasons: Extreme Serbian nationalists would like to prove how the whole Indo-European civilization came from Serbs (which is terribly stupid and deserves no serious attention), and the Croatian nationalists would like to prove how they are in fact of different origin than Slavic Serbs (they also had theories about Illyric or Ghotic Croatian origin - just not to be Slavic like Serbs) ;D
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Nov 18, 2006 20:04:36 GMT 3
Those Ordos findings belong to the Xiongnu who were Turkic, not Mongolic. Prove it ;D Joking right?
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 18, 2006 21:55:57 GMT 3
Ok, however note that original Bulgars were of course Steppe people as well that blended with Slavs, which could be another reason why Bulgarian/Macedonian is different from Serbocroat. it would be interesting if we could find out were in europe the ancient Sarmatian tribes lived that had similar names to the Serbs & Croats, if they reached brandenburg, that could mean they also reached bohemia/moravia...maybe it would also reveal something if the languages of Sorbs and other western Slav languages are compared with southern Slav languagues and Serbo-croat.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 19, 2006 14:31:36 GMT 3
Of course. Bulgars were a Turkic tribe which later blended with Slavs which came to Balkans in the First Slavic migration (VI c.). Those Slavs were later pushed towards south by Serbs and Croats. Note that when Serbs first came to the Balkans, they were given a permition by Emperor Iraklios to settle in the region near Thessaloniki (Salonika), near the city which even today bears the name Servia. After this there goes the story about "changing their minds", movement towards north, and finally settling around Morava in Serbia.
This would be the most important thing if someone wishes to prove the Sarmatian origin theory. Remeber that when Serbs and Croats were mentioned for the first time in historical sources, they were Slavs.
It is already well known fact that the Serbo-Croatian language has its roots in western Slavic languages. Structuraly, our language is more similar to them than to eastern ones. However, our way of pronouncing words is closer to the eastern ones. I'll show you some examples:
Eng. "They have become significant agents of modernization"
Serbian: "Postali su važni nosioci modernizacije"
Polish: "Staly sie wažnymi nosnikami modernizacji"
Czech: "Stali se vyznamnymi nositeli modernizace"
Slovakian: "Stali sa vyznamnymi nositelmi modernizacie"
Russian: "Oni stali vazhnymi nositelyami modernizatsii"
(I don't have the exact western Slavic fonts, so I wrote it like this)
Now, let us go back to the main topic. Another thing that (though indirectly) may prove the Indo-European origin of Scythians is the word "elephant"!? How is this related to this topic, you may ask. Well, the word "elephant" is of Greek origin which later spread to almost every European language (because Europeans have never seen elephant before). But the most interesting thing is that only Slavs have their own word for "elephant" = "slon", and this word is common to every Slavic language. So, where did Slavs see elephants in Poland and Belarus??? The explanation can only be their Indo-Iranian origin, and cultural touch with Scythians and Sarmatians, who were of North-Iranian origin. Turkic peoples, on the other hand, don't have their own word for this animal (which is understandable) and they use foreign words, such as "fil" (persian).
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Nov 22, 2006 19:44:27 GMT 3
I know only about them that their leaders and most of the army were Turkic,normal people were Iranic nomads,can it be true?
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 22, 2006 20:02:57 GMT 3
This can be true, but only after Xiongnu expansion to the west... Not before that.
And don't forget that in nomadic societies "normal people" were in fact warriors.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 22, 2006 23:46:43 GMT 3
I know only about them that their leaders and most of the army were Turkic,normal people were Iranic nomads,can it be true? That is indeed the Turkic-origin theory. Turkic historians supporting the Turkic-theory claim that only the ruling elite were of Turkic origin whereas the ordinary people was very mixed, being mostly Iranic. The Iranic-theory claims that the Saka were almost purely Iranic with no Turkic elements (I have seen no Iranic-theory-supporters who think there was at least a small Turkic element among the Saka).
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Nov 23, 2006 20:39:23 GMT 3
Ok thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 23, 2006 23:52:14 GMT 3
a more logical assumption would be that the central asian Sakas ruled over Turkic subjects and not vice versa...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2006 14:40:14 GMT 3
Out of laziness I wont read the 3 pages of posts before so forgive me if I'm repeated what has already been said. I keep hearing that the Scythians are the ancestors of the Sakha Turks and that the Scythians were Persians. Where exactly were they located because the Sakha Turks are all the way up in north Siberia. I don't think Persians ever went that far north. So if this is true than the Sakha Turks of today are obviously Turkified Persians. Either way, today they're Turks.
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 24, 2006 15:53:15 GMT 3
Sakha people consider themselves to be of Uranghai origin, from northern parts of Mongolia and southern parts of Siberia (Tuvans also consider themselves to be of the same origin - and Sakha and Tuvan languages both belong to Northern Turkic group) Here is an example from a Yakut story in which Sakha reffer to them selves as people of Uranghai origin: English: "If you want to marry my doughter, than you must kill a boy born by me, Taas Ullunguh, who is covered with bone armour; if he grows up, he will destroy Yakuts and will sway the life of Uranghai"* ______ *Note that I have never learned Russian, so I made this translation basing it on Serbian and Russian similarities. Maybe our Qazaq speaking members can help in translating it more corectly. ______ So, Sakha people are not Turkified Persians, but were pure Turkic people which later had to move north (because of Buryat expansion in XIV c.). Their language has a firm North Turkic core, but with many loans from Tungus, Mongolian and Yukagir languages. Sakha and Saka are not the same.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 24, 2006 21:07:14 GMT 3
There are several theories on the origins of the Sakha (Yaqut) people; some believe that they were the descendents of the Qurïqan people mentioned in the Blue Turk inscriptions. feramez211, the Persians are just one of the many Iranic peoples; not all Iranics (Soghdians, Kurds, Lors, Balochs, Pashtuns, Ancient Khwârazmians, etc) are Persians. The relationship between Persians and Iranics are similar to the relationship of Oghuz and Turkics - that the Persians and Oghuz are branches of many Iranic and Turkic peoples
|
|
|
Post by aca on Nov 24, 2006 21:25:49 GMT 3
Yes, I also know about this Qurïqan origin theory, and I was also confused when I read this about Urangkhai. I remember reading something about that name in some Russian books, and if I remember corectly the name Urangkhai is related to groups of present day Tuva (they also reffer to themselves as Urangkhai). So I was just wandering if Qurïqan, Sakha, Tuva and other northern Turkic peoples could have the common origin in those Urangkhai? I must admit I don't know much about this term - Urangkhai.
Maybe you know something more about them?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 24, 2006 21:53:31 GMT 3
I also know next to nothing about them, sorry
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 24, 2006 22:36:38 GMT 3
I don't believe that Steppe tribes moved north to forrested regions like Siberia, in fact history has shown that it was rather vice versa, like Khirgiz displacign Uyghurs, comign from north or Manchus and Tungus in general...
|
|