|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Mar 23, 2008 12:06:19 GMT 3
-Where is the realm of Turan?
- How each ethnicity in CA recognize it? through their historical memory, their fables?
- I'd like to know, what is the definition of the people out here about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 23, 2008 19:20:21 GMT 3
The earliest meantion of Tûrân is found in the Avesta around 500 BC as the Tuirya, a nomadic Iranic people living near the Aral Sea. During the Sâsânian and Islamic periods, due to a resemblence in the name, Tûrân became associated with the Turkic peoples. Firdavsî uses the name Tûrân for the Turkic, Chinese and other non-Iranian Asians, but the Turks being mentioned the most common. Thus, Tûrân was anti-Îrân - nomads vs sedentary peoples. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European scholars used the term Turan for all the non-Semitic and non-IE people of Eurasia, including the Ural-Altaics as well as native Caucasians, Tibetans, Sumerians, Elamites, Chinese and many others. It was the Hungarians who shranked the meaning for the Ural-Altaic peoples (Finns, Ugrians, Turks, Mongols, Tungus and presumably Koreans and Chinese). The earliest Turkic Turanists like Yusuf Akçura and Ziya Gökalp used the term Turan only for the Turkic peoples, excluding the others. Today, some people use it only for the Turkic peoples, whereas some others use it for all the Ural-Altaics in Eurasia. I personally do not use the term and prefer "Ural-Altaic", since the very name Turan was originially the name of a nomadic Iranian people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Mar 24, 2008 0:58:58 GMT 3
Thanks for your information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Mar 24, 2008 5:52:02 GMT 3
Well, has anyone ever claimed chinese to Turanians?
I have not ever heard that.
|
|
|
|
Post by nanman on Mar 24, 2008 14:05:16 GMT 3
Well, has anyone ever claimed chinese to Turanians? I have not ever heard that. Apparently at some point in time Turan was considered to include the so called chinese in Asia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuranIt was a term that admin has rightly point out to be all the non IE, non Semitic peoples of Asia. This would have included the chinese and se asians and the south asian dravidians ie tamils. Of course the term has now some what been changed. Genetically speaking the chinese are part turanid because of centuries of assimilation but its prodominant sedentary rice growing culture and non-Altaic langauge set it apart from Turan. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 26, 2008 2:17:41 GMT 3
Well, has anyone ever claimed chinese to Turanians? I have not ever heard that. Yes, in the Shahnâme as well as by some 19th century scholars if I am not wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Mar 26, 2008 3:11:38 GMT 3
Well, has anyone ever claimed chinese to Turanians? I have not ever heard that. Yes, in the Shahnâme as well as by some 19th century scholars if I am not wrong. Well, I dunno about Shahname, but I believe you in that case. You certainly know more than me about that.  But in 19th century I have not heard that theory that chinese would be included amongst Turanians. That term meaned just Ural-Altaic peoples, and it was known that chinese are not in that group. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 27, 2008 14:44:51 GMT 3
Well, I dunno about Shahname, but I believe you in that case. You certainly know more than me about that. Thanks  But in 19th century I have not heard that theory that chinese would be included amongst Turanians. That term meaned just Ural-Altaic peoples, and it was known that chinese are not in that group. Hmm, here is what it says in the Turan page of Wiki: It quotes from George "van" Driem, Handbuch Der Orientalistik, Brill Academic Publishers, 2001., pp 335-336. |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Mar 27, 2008 15:00:25 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 28, 2008 16:55:56 GMT 3
Thank you for the information |
|
|
|
Post by ceonni on Mar 28, 2008 23:44:19 GMT 3
The modern Koreans and Japanese, often in their popular historical dramas, portray the Chinese as more "Tatarish", and thus, more "Turanian", complete with Manchu or Mongol costumes, where as the Japanese and Koreans stick to the orthodox sinitic dresses.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 29, 2008 21:06:24 GMT 3
That is very normal, because especially Japan never got under the rule of Mongols or Manchus (Korea was under Mongol rule for some time). Korea got under Chinese influence during the Hàn (Han) 漢 Dynasty while Japan got under Chinese influence roughly around the Táng (T'ang) 唐 Dynasty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 7, 2008 21:33:58 GMT 3
The word itself as it appeared in "Gathaha" like Ihsan said was referring to a distinct nomadic or a confederation of Iranic tribes, while there are immediately references to other Iranics like land of "Dahae" and "Saeyreim" (which could be matched with the realm of Sarmatians) speaking of goodness of their people.
|
|
