|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 11, 2008 21:51:01 GMT 3
Yeah I am quite aware of what your logic is, as I told you before I have heard many of these claims not only from Turkmens but also from Azeri Turks in Iran but when you ask about sources it's only recently made-up extreme pan-turanist books which deny the majority of works in this field concerning Iranics by various historians which actually sounds so logical to them, and so illogical and biased after all. And guess what your claims are rejected.I don't even think I put that on you?!! can you read correctly? BTW your immature way of talking just shows you have a lot on your mind, don't you? no one will ever try to change your mind keep it on. But to change the truth you have to be more hard-working. The Turkicization of the Sakas has a long tradition. For example Rostam Dastân who is mythical Iranian hero with the major reference in Shahname, is believed if real ,to be a figure descended amongst the Sakas of Sakistan. guess what some guys wrote articles tried to claim him to be Turkish as he was Saka and citing that in "Bandahash" a book written in Pahlavi language he's believed to be descended from a guy name of " "Tourk" or something, while if you go and search the book there's no evidence and it turned out to be a falsification. hehe For the most pan- turanists the main source of claiming Sakas to be Turkic - thus guaranteeing the presence of Altaics in the CA region and some other places dating back to thousands years ago, (which is actually necessary for their so called Pan- policies)) - is the writings of the other pan authors who for their own, unable of proving Turkic origin of Sakas, have mostly focused on denying the other actual sources in this field stating defective theories. Todays there's highly believed that Sakas, Scythians were members of Iranic stock, it is understood through studying of the onomastic and the languages like Sogdian or Khotanese which are believed to be close relatives. besides many of these Iranics of Steppes and CA called themselves Aryan as a common name of referring to their roots and this reflected also to the name of their dwelling places. But according to Diakanov there is no evidence of ethnicities belonging to such lingual or ethnic bonds while not calling themselves Aryo, or Aryas. As I before said one of the main reasons resulted in the Iranic classification of the Sakas is the affinity of their language structure and word, Saka names and their myths as well as traditions, costumes and anthropology to the contemporaneous definite Iranian ethnicities with the contrast that Zoroastrianism never found a place amongst them. The name of the most notable of Saka tribes like: "Saka haumvarga" ( Greek Amyrgian Scythians meaning Haum worshiper Sakas ) "Saka paradraya" (Sakas beyond the sea) and "Saka Tigrakhauda" ( meaning Sakas with pointed helmet note; /Khod/ means helmet in Parsi) "Apa Saka" ( Water Sakas Greek: Abian Scythians and Apa was the same in Pahlavi and Avestan today equivalent in Parsi is Ab and "Masaka" (for Greek Massageths, meaning Great Sakas note the prefix Mas /mas/ meaining both great and cooper and Masâ means greatness in old Persian and Pahlavi) plus the relatives or possibly survivors of Saka languages i.e. Khotanese or Ossettic are classified linguistically into Iranian group. [ All according to Cambridge history of Iran band 3 - chapter 2 ] ) shows etymological closeness either. In todays Iran there are clear evidences of Saka presence some in Lurestaneven before the emergence of Median state . Moreover there are names like "Sakes" in Kurdestan province and "Sagvand"(name of a possble Lurish ethnicity and now a surname) consisted of Sag "Sak" plus "vand"(a suffix showing descent in Parsi). "Thanks to Herdotus we know some names of Scythian divinities whose iranian etymology of the most is discovered like ; "Papaios" (deity of Sky) "Tabiti" (godess of fire) "Api" ( god of earth) "Goitosyros" (god of sun) "Artimpasa" (god of fertility) and "Thagimasadas" (god of rivers)" [ Widengern "Iranian religions"] there are some useful links I already put in our new website, now again here: www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scyth1.htmwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/indoiranianscythianelements.pdfwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scythioric.htmwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/indoiranianscythianelements.pdfwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/fouroldiranianethnicnames.pdfherodot.georgehinge.com/arimasp.html
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 11, 2008 22:20:07 GMT 3
It seems our dear members Kirischi and Azadan Januspar don't know how to discuss a matter without taking it personal. I invite you to check "The Bulgars" thread to see how a matter can be discussed without fighting.
Kirischi, the Turks were not the only people with a horse culture. The early Iranic and Tokharian nomads like Persians (those before becoming sedentary in Southern Iran), Medes, Parthians, Sarmatians and Yuèzhì (Yüeh-chih) 月氏, plus the Thracian horse-nomads of the Getae people and the Germanic Ostrogoths of the Pontic Steppe (not counting the Greek Bosporan Kingdom of Crimea) had nothing to do with the Turks. Horseback riding nomadism is not a strong evidence to proove that a people are Turkic. You also have to present lingual and if possible, anthropological evidences. It doesn't matter if modern Qazaqs have similar DNA with the ancient Saka, because the Qazaqs were a group of people formed in the 15th century - they are nothing but a union of Qïpčaq (Cuman) and Mongol tribes (mostly Qïpčaq though). It is also very possible that the Qïpčaqs integrated many Turkified Iranic nomads, because even the Qïpčaqs did not appear before the early 11th century, when they broke from the Kimäk people.
And I tell you guys again: either discuss without taking it personally and started insulting each other, or don't discuss at all.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 11, 2008 22:27:57 GMT 3
I see your point but having read my posts, you could see I didn't use such words and this guys showed up and apart from misleading the discussion openly tried to make it personal using those words. Even now I'm not sure what he is trying to say, something related to Scythians, Persians or Turkmen horsemanship, God knows!
|
|
|
Post by kirischi on Jul 12, 2008 2:39:27 GMT 3
Yeah I am quite aware of what your logic is, as I told you before I have heard many of these claims not only from Turkmens but also from Azeri Turks in Iran but when you ask about sources it's only recently made-up extreme pan-turanist books which deny the majority of works in this field concerning Iranics by various historians which actually sounds so logical to them, and so illogical and biased after all. And guess what your claims are rejected.I don't even think I put that on you?!! can you read correctly? BTW your immature way of talking just shows you have a lot on your mind, don't you? no one will ever try to change your mind keep it on. But to change the truth you have to be more hard-working. The Turkicization of the Sakas has a long tradition. For example Rostam Dastân who is mythical Iranian hero with the major reference in Shahname, is believed if real ,to be a figure descended amongst the Sakas of Sakistan. guess what some guys wrote articles tried to claim him to be Turkish as he was Saka and citing that in "Bandahash" a book written in Pahlavi language he's believed to be descended from a guy name of " "Tourk" or something, while if you go and search the book there's no evidence and it turned out to be a falsification. hehe For the most pan- turanists the main source of claiming Sakas to be Turkic - thus guaranteeing the presence of Altaics in the CA region and some other places dating back to thousands years ago, (which is actually necessary for their so called Pan- policies)) - is the writings of the other pan authors who for their own, unable of proving Turkic origin of Sakas, have mostly focused on denying the other actual sources in this field stating defective theories. Todays there's highly believed that Sakas, Scythians were members of Iranic stock, it is understood through studying of the onomastic and the languages like Sogdian or Khotanese which are believed to be close relatives. besides many of these Iranics of Steppes and CA called themselves Aryan as a common name of referring to their roots and this reflected also to the name of their dwelling places. But according to Diakanov there is no evidence of ethnicities belonging to such lingual or ethnic bonds while not calling themselves Aryo, or Aryas. As I before said one of the main reasons resulted in the Iranic classification of the Sakas is the affinity of their language structure and word, Saka names and their myths as well as traditions, costumes and anthropology to the contemporaneous definite Iranian ethnicities with the contrast that Zoroastrianism never found a place amongst them. The name of the most notable of Saka tribes like: "Saka haumvarga" ( Greek Amyrgian Scythians meaning Haum worshiper Sakas ) "Saka paradraya" (Sakas beyond the sea) and "Saka Tigrakhauda" ( meaning Sakas with pointed helmet note; /Khod/ means helmet in Parsi) "Apa Saka" ( Water Sakas Greek: Abian Scythians and Apa was the same in Pahlavi and Avestan today equivalent in Parsi is Ab and "Masaka" (for Greek Massageths, meaning Great Sakas note the prefix Mas /mas/ meaining both great and cooper and Masâ means greatness in old Persian and Pahlavi) plus the relatives or possibly survivors of Saka languages i.e. Khotanese or Ossettic are classified linguistically into Iranian group. [ All according to Cambridge history of Iran band 3 - chapter 2 ] ) shows etymological closeness either. In todays Iran there are clear evidences of Saka presence some in Lurestaneven before the emergence of Median state . Moreover there are names like "Sakes" in Kurdestan province and "Sagvand"(name of a possble Lurish ethnicity and now a surname) consisted of Sag "Sak" plus "vand"(a suffix showing descent in Parsi). "Thanks to Herdotus we know some names of Scythian divinities whose iranian etymology of the most is discovered like ; "Papaios" (deity of Sky) "Tabiti" (godess of fire) "Api" ( god of earth) "Goitosyros" (god of sun) "Artimpasa" (god of fertility) and "Thagimasadas" (god of rivers)" [ Widengern "Iranian religions"] there are some useful links I already put in our new website, now again here: www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scyth1.htmwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/indoiranianscythianelements.pdfwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scythioric.htmwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/indoiranianscythianelements.pdfwww.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/fouroldiranianethnicnames.pdfherodot.georgehinge.com/arimasp.htmlThe main problem is that the people u mentioned BELIEVE, not can prove these theories, and they certainly have u believing them. Western mainstream historians are only too anxious to catogarize the Scythians as Indo-Iranic. This is much like a repeat of the same pattern, the Huns and Bulgars were not considered Turkic until the 1960's when evidence became overwhelming. For some reason, western researchers decided to use an Iranic language to translate the Issyk Kurgan scripts, here it is, "The vessel should hold wine of grapes, added cooked food, so much, to the mortal, then added cooked fresh butter on" Here is translation of the same script using old Turkish, "Prince died at his 23. Farewell Esik people". I ask u which is more appropriate for a burial site? Furthermore, here is a little comment I got form another thread on this forum, the threads name is "who were the first Turks" , "Dr Spencer Wells, the head of the world's most advanced scientific genetic research " Genographic Project" stated that a man named Niyazov who is a Kazak Turk lives at Kazakhstan by Kirgyzistan border, carries the same gene(M9, K haplogroup) which was not mutated and the same as the person from 40000 years ago from the same region. Today he is accepted to be the Eurasia's regional adam and fathers of most Europeans, all Eurasians, most Asians and Indians. He carries all the features of an Euroasian person which gives us a very good idea that how ancient or Proto-Turk looked like. The Asian and European race splitted from him and he also contributed to most of the Indian's look today. 90% of the world's population except Africans descended from the man who carried the same gene 40000 years ago from Central Asia or the area called Turkestan. Most of the Turkish people in Turkey are descended from M9 haplogroup as well. It shouldn't be surprising to anybody as ancient or today's Turks, in Central Asia or Turkestan, looked some like more European, some more Asian, some more Indian/Pakistani, or both, or all." Well it seems that the Turkics have been in this region for a very very very long time, and I am not saying that the Turkics were the only people there, the comment itself and the research itself eludes to C. Asia being a starting point, or at least the second starting point after Africa, for the genetic variations we have today. This basically annuls your idea that C. Asia was Iranic at the time of the Scythians, and was later settled by Turkics. The horse culture and the silver and gold-smith cultures are simply supporting ideas, for once a person accepts the overall theory, then the continuity becomes self-appearant.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 12, 2008 6:37:38 GMT 3
Yeah new theories, denying all the scientific works done. We again need your sources here. Obviously it is not only guys like you expressing such theories. Some Turks like Qashqais have gone further and placed themselves in their works (again with no sources, denying the other sources) amongst the first to inhabit Iranian plateau.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 12, 2008 11:35:56 GMT 3
I personally do not take Turkic and Iranian works into account because they are both biased most of the time. I would prefer trusting a more neutral/objective work, maybe those made by the Japanese.
That is interesting indeed.
Well, the Iranians were not the first natives of Turkistan and Central Asia. They only came there during the 2nd millenium BC. Before that, the region was most probably non-IE.
|
|
|
Post by kirischi on Jul 12, 2008 17:27:48 GMT 3
I personally do not take Turkic and Iranian works into account because they are both biased most of the time. I would prefer trusting a more neutral/objective work, maybe those made by the Japanese. That is interesting indeed. Well, the Iranians were not the first natives of Turkistan and Central Asia. They only came there during the 2nd millenium BC. Before that, the region was most probably non-IE. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 12, 2008 19:58:01 GMT 3
Very interesting I already read this on this site but I don't think Dr.Spencer marked the ethnicity the ancestor as proto -Turkic (Ur ur Vater) of this man in Kazakhstan, does he? it's a bare fact about that mans genes but that doesn't prove anything about specific ethnic groups of 40.000 years ago in CA whereby the author of that post added: I think it doesn't make sense if this person carry those genes, it means that the progenitor was Proto-Turkic. Besides it was said that most of the Turkish people living in Turkey are descended from M9 haplogroup,I think if you track down the route of the the Turkish Oghuz people till they arrive and settle in middle east western Iran and Anatolia, on a map you can definitely see the areas they passed, then you learn from the possible intermarriages. yeah right I have never seen that in any article stating IE the first to inhabit that region but the are the first known people to have done so. but note finding of variety of mummies like this red-headed mummy I found the link in a forum related in CA forum: web.archive.org/web/20030628015124/http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-ChineseMummies-Ayre.htmI think although there still remains strong theories, not yet denied, One may accept that IE much earlier presence in CA is more acceptable. Most fo the works done in this field weren't apparently from Iranian authors, I thought you already knew that over the ninety percent of what you may call pro-iranic are done by international, European and especially Russians comparing (But over past 50 years comprehensive works in this field without any tendencies(you may see in pan-turkic works) published using extensive references by Iranians, a potent start indeed ) here is a nice paper about Hephtalites by a Japanese professor emeritus at Tokyo university: www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Hephtalites/enokihephtalites.pdf
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Jul 12, 2008 20:20:21 GMT 3
I also dont take serious both Iranian, Russian sources. Both of them were tried to impose the ancient nomads couldnot be racially Turk or Turanian. It s natural because all of these were mostly depended to the chavaunnist Iran Shah Regime and Red Soviet politics. They all were the enemies of Turk Nations so that they want to destroy their history, culture etc.
I put a DNA Test record to another forum last year. Unluckily, my posts were gone or deleted. In these tests Saka peoples DNA was similar with Kazaksh, Kyrgyz, Turkman, Uzbek and other Turk Nomads(%50-54 high percentage than Iranians). It was an objective and scientific work by somne of western universities.
My own point of view and opinion about Sakas are that they had a high Turanian percentage(Not only Turk, Finn Uggrics mixture too). However this cannot prove that all Sakas are Turklic or Turanian. Because in the ancient persian records, all nomads were names ad Sakas. For insatance the nomads in the Afghanistan border who were strongly ancestors of Pashtuns were also called as Saka, and their lands was nmamed Sakas(then Segestan, Sikestan, today Sistan a mojor state in Iran Islamic Republic).
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 12, 2008 21:32:30 GMT 3
Hmm I thought the Russians were supporters of the Slavic Origin Theory of the Scythians.
Yes, ALTAR has a point. The name Saka seems to have been more like a common name (like "Turk", "Tatar", etc) used for many diffent peoples. If you look at the geograph of once the so-called Saka people lived, it covers a wide area stretching from Eastern Europe to Southern Siberia to China to India. I am very sure the peoples called Saka included people of many different origins. Though it is very clear that at least some of the Saka were Iranic - especially those in Khotan (their Iranic language was used until the 11th century AD), Sîstân, India, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 12, 2008 21:54:48 GMT 3
I also dont take serious both Iranian, Russian sources. Both of them were tried to impose the ancient nomads couldnot be racially Turk or Turanian. It s natural because all of these were mostly depended to the chavaunnist Iran Shah Regime and Red Soviet politics. They all were the enemies of Turk Nations so that they want to destroy their history, culture etc. Well, I have to say that this is not true at least with regard to the Russian historical sources. On the contrary, in the traditional Russian historiorgaphy of the 18th and 19th century Tatars were always called the descendants of Scythians Also, later Soviet/Russian scientists and historians made enormous contribution to the Turkic/Nomadic studies. I very often encounter strange statements from Turks that Russia wanted to destroy Turkic people, that it invented different names for Turks and other Turkic people etc. Unfortunately, it just represents a part of the truth in the wrong light. Of course the Russians and even more the Soviets were eager to impose maximum control on the Turkic people in Central Asia. But it didn't go that far they wanted to destroy "the history and culture of Turk nations." Don't forget that one of the fathers of Pan-Turkism i.e. Ismail Gaspirali had quite a positive view of Russia and Russian culture in general. He lamented though the traditional Russian policy of the confrontation with Turkey, which in fact made Russia only weaker in the end, with which I agree. Some of the Russian scientists like Vernadsky and Gumilev spent all the lifes trying to refute stupid Western myths about the extreme barbarism and lack of "civilization" among the nomadic Turks and Mongols. Gumilev called that the struggle against the "Black legend." Russian historiogrpaphy however has a unique position due to the fact that the only "direct" ancestors of Iranic nomadic ancestors are believed to live in Russia i.e. Ossetians. So, most of the works and analysis perpetrating to the Iranic language and culture of Skythians, Saka and Sarmatians come from Ossetian scholars. Most famous of them is for example is Professor Abaev, perhaps the biggest modern authority in the Scytho-Sarmatian linguistics. IMO, however, the works of Mr. Abaev still remain open for criticism, since all his works on the reconstrucion of Scytho-Sarmatian linguistics are exclusively based on Ossetian language, which makes them quite biased. I put a DNA Test record to another forum last year. Unluckily, my posts were gone or deleted. In these tests Saka peoples DNA was similar with Kazaksh, Kyrgyz, Turkman, Uzbek and other Turk Nomads(%50-54 high percentage than Iranians). It was an objective and scientific work by somne of western universities. Concerning DNA test there is a certian view: www.ethnoancestry.com/R1a.htmlHaplogroup R1a Haplogroup R1a is found today across a large swathe of Asia and Europe and may have originated in South or Central Asia. R1a is most common among Pakistanis, Northern Indians, Russians, Ukrainians and the Kyrgyz and Altai peoples of Central Asia. In Europe R1a is the most common group in Slavic peoples and is also very common in Scandinavia. The presence of R1a in the British Isles is in the main due to Norse Viking ancestry, although Anglo-Saxons and Danes will have carried a smaller proportion there and there is a rare English-specific subgroup. It has been hypothesised that haplogroup R1a was carried to Europe by the Kurgan culture, who domesticated the horse. R1a1 is believed to be the genetic marker of Indo-Europeans. How to explain that data except that this is the direct evidence of the mixture between Cenral Asian Indoeuropeans i.e. Saka and Turks?
|
|
|
Post by kirischi on Jul 12, 2008 21:58:06 GMT 3
Well then I would say it is high time for history to distinguish into appropriate groups.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 12, 2008 22:03:23 GMT 3
Hmm I thought the Russians were supporters of the Slavic Origin Theory of the Scythians. In fact there is no theory like this. However, there is a theory that "Scythians plowmen" as described by Herodotus were in fact Slavs. This is advocated by the Russian Academician Rybakov. However, he also believes that the nomadic Scythians were Iranics. Nevertheless, there is indication that some Scythians and Sarmatians were absorbed by the Eastern Slavs. And there are even some unique Scythian words which survived in Russian language up to this day. Also, from the "cultural cliche" point of view Europeans liked to compare Russians, especially starting from the 17th, 18th century with Scythians in the meaning that both were Barbarians. This was due to the fact, that very few information was available at that time about the Russian history, except vague antique sources which talked about Scythians as inhabitans of the region. But in Russia itself the early historical works called Scythians the ancestors of Tatars.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 12, 2008 23:17:24 GMT 3
I think history itself attests who is the enemy of who during and now even in modern times ( if you like) Could you give us some sources which are not one-sided then?! according to those propagandas I was talking about earlier, every source rather than pan-turkist can not be relied upon for some people. And a chauvinist regime huh? cause it didn't let some pan- guys seize parts of our fatherland?! heh and some other countries you know best weren't openly chauvinist no? as I look around I just see who's trying to destroy the whose culture and history(in fact it is not limited to CA history). I think it is easily distinguishable for anyone. but do not forget we want sources here for the claims. What does it prove intermarriages or Scythian being Turks? high percentage of Turkic and Altaics even Unghrics, that won't come without direct influences in linguistics and onomastics to name a few . And your theory about "Sakestan" is not right. And nor the did the Achaemnid kings taking their surviving inscriptions seemed to confuse then name all nomdas as Sakas. wrong It is not yet sure that Saka called themselves with these names. yeah their presence in those regions marked with some leftovers. but it is again noticeable that Persian of Achaemenid era didn't bring all the nomads of the steppes under the Saka category. So is in Gathaha.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 13, 2008 15:28:47 GMT 3
Concerning DNA test there is a certian view: www.ethnoancestry.com/R1a.htmlHaplogroup R1a Haplogroup R1a is found today across a large swathe of Asia and Europe and may have originated in South or Central Asia. R1a is most common among Pakistanis, Northern Indians, Russians, Ukrainians and the Kyrgyz and Altai peoples of Central Asia. In Europe R1a is the most common group in Slavic peoples and is also very common in Scandinavia. The presence of R1a in the British Isles is in the main due to Norse Viking ancestry, although Anglo-Saxons and Danes will have carried a smaller proportion there and there is a rare English-specific subgroup. It has been hypothesised that haplogroup R1a was carried to Europe by the Kurgan culture, who domesticated the horse. R1a1 is believed to be the genetic marker of Indo-Europeans. How to explain that data except that this is the direct evidence of the mixture between Cenral Asian Indoeuropeans i.e. Saka and Turks? well i can't believe people seriously use genetic "evidence" whatsoever as proove for anything. Ok, some guy now has the same genes as 20.000 years ago living in the same region[/u]. wow, big deal... now people ASSUME just because that modern people speak a certain language, people back then must have spoken exactly the same langauge. who, other than me, agrees on how retarded this assumption is? apparently this means, for example, that Mandchu are just Han and Mandchus and their invasion of China was just a myth invented by those usual evil western authors... the most funny part is that Indians now apparently descend from Turks. do you really think Indians and Turks look alike? well i can find you a whole load of weirdos that will claim with "evidence" that Turks are in fact Gurjjars. ;D
|
|