|
Post by massaget on Apr 15, 2012 12:50:31 GMT 3
Phanagoria is much earlier than the first mention of Onogurs in the region. There is much against this theory. Phanagoria was an ancient greek city, while the Onogurs are twent dwellers according to sources. Even if they settled later on in Phanagoria, originally it couldnt be be their foundation.
Onogurs lived in meotis lakes along the don river originally, among the massagetas on a huge territory. (Isidore of Seville, 7th century)
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Apr 16, 2012 4:36:14 GMT 3
Phanagoria is much earlier than the first mention of Onogurs in the region. There is much against this theory. Phanagoria was an ancient greek city, while the Onogurs are twent dwellers according to sources. Even if they settled later on in Phanagoria, originally it couldnt be be their foundation. Onogurs lived in meotis lakes along the don river originally, among the massagetas on a huge territory. (Isidore of Seville, 7th century) There is at least one thing common between Ogurs and Phanagoria and that is: These are from BC 1500s found in Hakkari Turkey. The same art is found among Southern Russia, Scythian stelles from Ukraine, Azerbaijan... Starting from 6th century, the same tradition is continued by Göktürks. The extraordinary common thing about these is the art style and the fact that the people are holding a cup. There is a very old relationship between Southern Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, Azerbaijan and Hakkari-Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 17, 2012 0:59:47 GMT 3
Of course, many modern Turkic ethnicities have Scythians among their ancestors, which is totally normal and natural. Since the Nomads didn't really care that much about ethnicity. And nomadic culture was more or less similar everywhere from Mongolia to Hungary.
However, for some dumb people that is not enough. They want to be either 100% pure perfect splendid Turks or 100% pure-blood Iranians, Mongolians or whatever... That approach hardly corresponds to the realities and history of the great Steppe.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Apr 17, 2012 1:58:31 GMT 3
Of course, many modern Turkic ethnicities have Scythians among their ancestors, which is totally normal and natural. Since the Nomads didn't really care that much about ethnicity. And nomadic culture was more or less similar everywhere from Mongolia to Hungary. However, for some dumb people that is not enough. They want to be either 100% pure perfect splendid Turks or 100% pure-blood Iranians, Mongolians or whatever... That approach hardly corresponds to the realities and history of the great Steppe. Of course there is no "Turkic gene". It's simply a social class or a given or taken title in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Apr 18, 2012 2:02:51 GMT 3
It is just a speculation of course and quite dubious considering that ph is rare if not absent in the Turkic languages.
Still, the form "Pangur" (for "Onogur") seems rather interesting. This reminds me the hypothesis of Omeljan Pritsak that the Norse epic about the war and the following peace between Æsir and Vanir maybe represents the wars between As and Onoghurs (ōn is attested as vān in Volga Bulgarian) which he interprets as Khazars and Bulghars ("The Origin of Rus'", p. 242-245). Since it is generally thought that the Oghuric languages have retained some more archaic features (including common Altaic words) than the z-Turkic, maybe "Pan" or "Van" could be also possible at least as some dialectal forms. Then "gur" has equivalent in Mongolian meaning "people". It could be the same as oghur/oghuz or at least identified with it by the native speakers. Thus "Phanagoria" could have been related to the Pangurs/Onogurs secondarily even if it hasn't received its name from them originally.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Apr 19, 2012 11:28:27 GMT 3
Pangurs was mentioned by Bar Habreus.
here is what he wrote about them :
"At this time there went forth from Inner SCYTHIA three brothers with thirty thousand SCYTHIANS. [91] And they came a journey of two months in the time of winter, for the discovery of water, that is to say [water ] from the fords of MOUNT AMON; and they arrived at the river TANIS (DONA?), which goeth out from the lake of MIANTIS and mingleth in the SEA OF PONTOS. And when they arrived at the frontier of the RHOMAYE, one of them whose name was BULGARIS took ten ships and crossed the river TANIS and pitched his camp between the rivers TANIS and DUNBIR (DON and DNIEPER?), which also mingles (i.e. flows into) the SEA OF PONTOS. And he sent to MAURICIUS [asking] him to give him land to dwell in, and [said that] he would become an ally of the RHOMAYE. And MAURICIUS gave him Upper and Lower MYSIA, and they dwelt there, and they became a guard (i.e. a buffer garrison) for the RHOMAYE. Now, though they were SCYTHIANS the RHOMAYE call them 'BULGARIANS'. Then these two other brothers came to the country of 'ALAN, which is BAR SALIA, that is to say to the towns of the CASPIAN, which the BULGARIANS and the PANGURIANS call the 'Gate of the Turks'; they were once Christians and are now called 'KAZARAYE' after the name of the eldest brother."
Mauricius was Byzantine emperor from 582-602 AD, thats when the Pangurs with the other 2 tribe arrived to the region. I still dont think Phanagoria has anything to do with them.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Apr 20, 2012 0:09:29 GMT 3
This is interesting! I haven't thought about that - I mean the Pangurs being the third tribe. The two others are Bulghars and Khazars, but the third one is not explicitly stated. From the context it isn't clear whether it could be the Pangurs/Onogurs, but I think it's possible!
They may not be related directly to Phanagoria which has existed there before that migration, but what I meant was that the two names could have been associated by the native tribes because of the their similar pronunciation.
I think I've written already somewhere that this legend reminds that from the Bulgarian apocryphon "Vision of Isaiah the Prophet" where it is told that Bulgarians were "the third part of the Kumans". The Syrian chronicles designates them as "Scythians". Now in our modern notions the Kumans are Kipchaks and not Oghurs (as linguistic affiliations), but it seems that in the late medieval sources both "Kumans" and "Scythians" were used as common designations of the Steppe people, just as the name "Huns" was used earlier.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Apr 20, 2012 12:59:03 GMT 3
As I checked the sources, I think the pangurs will be the kangars and not the onogurs.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Apr 21, 2012 1:10:36 GMT 3
Well, it is a plausible suggestion for them to be the third tribe too, since there are some indications that the Pechenegs (or at least some of them) have spoken a language akin to the Bulghar-Khazarian, i.e. Oghuric group. However I don't see how "Kangar" could be transformed in "Pangur".
Omeljan Pritsak believed that "Kangar" comes from Tokharian word kang - "stone" alluding that they originally inhabited the region of Tashkent - the "Stone City" (Avestan Kangha?). In Orhon inscriptions they are called "Kangaras" which may suggest some relation to the As. Pritsak actually compares this with the ethnonym Burtas, the first part of which he explains with the Alanic furd - "big river, sea", thus having Kangaras ("Stone As") and Burtas ("River As") where "As" should mean "people". I don't know whence he took the latter (maybe from "az" being some z-form of ar, but I very much doubt this). About "Burtas" I've came across another explanation too - this time with Alanic fyrt - "son", thus: "son of As", but this also seems dubious.
The topic here is that report of Ibn Rusta about Volga Bulgarians being divided in three parts: Esegels, Bulghars and Burtas. The Balkarian scholar Soslanbek Baichorov identifies Esegel with As, but I don't think this is correct - the Esegels were most likely related to the Székelys and we know that Székely are different from Jász (Yasy/As). There were also similar Az and Izgil people from the Orhon inscriptions. As I wrote before, I suppose that "As" was actually the original name of the Bulghars. Thus we again have union of three tribes as in the Bulgarian and the Syrian legends, but here the Khazars are missing (unless they were not somehow related to the Burtas). Of course, maybe this is just archetype and those cases are not related at all. But still the similarity seems interesting. It is not clear whether in those cases the three tribes were different ethnicities or this was just the traditional tripartite division of the Steppe empires.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Apr 21, 2012 12:22:43 GMT 3
Asi is the name of kangars originally. They are mentioned in this name as early as 1st century BC. In 128 BC The Tokhars occupies the lands of the Sogds, while the Asis who inhabits Kangkü occupies the lands of the Tokhars. Both Strabon and Pompeius Mela mentions these moves of Asis and Sakaraukas. Comparing the chinese and the european sources about the early Asis, its clear from them they cant be else then the Kangar tribe.
From other chinese sources we know that these Kangars have occupies the Alans. 2 of the leading tribe of the Alans picked the name Asi as early as 1st century AD. (Duhs-As, Tuval-As) This kangar rule on the Alans lasted 2 centuries.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Apr 21, 2012 16:40:11 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Apr 22, 2012 1:43:42 GMT 3
Asi is the name of kangars originally. They are mentioned in this name as early as 1st century BC. In 128 BC The Tokhars occupies the lands of the Sogds, while the Asis who inhabits Kangkü occupies the lands of the Tokhars. Both Strabon and Pompeius Mela mentions these moves of Asis and Sakaraukas. Comparing the chinese and the european sources about the early Asis, its clear from them they cant be else then the Kangar tribe. From other chinese sources we know that these Kangars have occupies the Alans. 2 of the leading tribe of the Alans picked the name Asi as early as 1st century AD. (Duhs-As, Tuval-As) This kangar rule on the Alans lasted 2 centuries. I am not sure about that . Those sources mention four tribes which later formed the Kushan empire: Asoi/Asians, Pasians (Parthians?), Tokhars and Sakarauls/Sacarauces. But there is an even earlier mentioning of the tribe Aseni by Megasthenes (quoted by Pliny) in 4th century B.C.E. He puts them in Penjab with their capital being Bucephalia (where the horse of Alexander was buried). There is also the problem with the Wu-Suns from the Chinese sources. Were they related too? Yuri Zuev believed that their original name was *Asman (Iranian "celestial", cf. later Kök Türk), while the Asi in his opinion were actually the Yueh-chih (also Uti > Utigurs?; cf. the Uighur tribe Utiger - another similarity between Oghurs and Uighurs). The problem with the "Kang complex" (Chinese Kang-yu, Avestan Kangha, Turkic Kanglï etc.) is that there were several places and people with this name in Central Asia - see Zuev: s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly3En.htm (BTW I am not sure if the English translation and transliteration of the names is always correct here). This is a misconception due to the similarity of the names. The native name of Sumer was Ki.en.gir ( ki means "earth", en - "lord" and gir - "enclosure, city", thus - "land of the civilized lords") which accidentally resembles "Kangar", but the timespan is too big to consider any plausible relation. However there is an interesting analogy of the world models in mythology between Steppe people and Sumerians maybe suggesting some common proto-culture. Thus the Sumerians had seven major deities personifying the elements of the cosmos: the celestial god An and the earth goddess Ninhursag ("Mistress of the Mountain"), their son - "lord of the air" Enlil, the ocean god of wisdom Enki, then the moon god Nanna and his children - the sungod Utu and the goddess of love Inanna (= Venus) who Babylonians called Ishtar (= Kanaanite Astarta - whence the Indo-European word for "star" - actually a Semitic loanword first meaning "the morning star", i.e. Venus, then "star in general"). Later the god Enlil was replaced in this hebdomad by whatever supreme deity stood in head of the pantheon in different Middle Eastern mythologies: Babylonian Marduk, Assyrian Assur, Hurrite Tessup, Hittite Tarhunt, Urartian Haldi etc. All those were usually storm-gods with bull as their attribute (the name "Marduk" derives from Sumerian Amar.utukku - "solar bull"). Now compare this with the Turkic epic of Oghuz Khan and his sons. Although their relations are different, their names designate the same basic elements (in the henotheistic paradigm the main deity usually becomes "the father" and the hierarchy is expressed via metaphoric family relations). The name "Oghuz" is sometimes interpreted as " bull" (cf. Oghur and Mong. üker - "bull") as the attribute of the storm god. Then his sons are Kün ("Sun"), Ai ("Moon"), Yulduz ("Star"), Kök ("Sky"), Tag ("Mountain") and Tengiz ("Sea"). Even though it is not a direct relationship, we have the same basic model of the world as in Sumerian and Middle Eastern mythologies involving seven basic elements: sky, earth/mountain, air/stormgod/bull, ocean/sea, moon, sun and star/Venus. We have a similar divine hebdomad in the Scythian mythology, only there the moon is replaced by the fire goddess Tabiti.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Apr 22, 2012 3:23:48 GMT 3
Ishtar sounds really like Iþýdýr (it is something which is light) or Iþýtýr (it gives out light, it shines) (IÞI<YAÞU). Of course things like these are certainly Pseudo-Etymology since Oghuz or Ogur are not supposed to exist as a people back then or at least they should be a small tribe living in Urals or Altai. They should not be ancient as a rule of thumb.
Of course we can not actually be really sure about the vowels in Sumerian language.
Also about "Asuman".. That should really really come from Turkic. It should mean hanged (as in attached via an invisible string or a path) to upper-lower worlds. (connection to the other world if we have to think simple). The word should be "Astan" "or in my opinion "Asta" originally and it mainly means holy city - capital. (in my opinion it might mean something like "real existence ~ existing in life and death at the same time ~~". from Proto-Turkic *jAsa- meaning govern - create - determine) Turks gave the title "Astana" if there was holy person (for them) buried in that city.
So it shouldn't mean something like "Celestial" in my opinion.
I think the word has Turkic roots and not Persian roots.
In Sundanese language, Astana means a grave or a tomb so it might have been a Turkic borrowing and it could have gotten its meaning from "a pathway to the other word, a nexus to the other world"
Also in Malay/Indonesian language, "Istana" means "palace".
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Apr 23, 2012 0:50:10 GMT 3
It is "asmān", not "astan". Originally it meant "stone" and later - "sky" from the ancient notion about the "firmament" (in Iranian mythology the sky was thought to be stone and the gems to be pieces of it). I haven't thought about this before, but this could have some relation to the "stone people" (Kangars) indeed, if seen from this perspective.
However, I am not sure that "asmān" was the original pronunciation of the Chinese Wu-Sun - it is just Zuev's hypothesis. I think it is quite possible for it to be something like As or Os (cf. Bulgarian and Kuman clan and personal names Asen/var. Asan and Osen).
I am not sure also that Uti and Asi could be regarded as different variants of the same name as Zuev thought identifying them with Yueh-chih (otherwise interpreted as Tokhars, Sogdians or Scythians). Buth there is another interesting thing - he relates them also to the Ottorokora mentioned by Ptolemy. What he probably haven't realized is that there is a similar name in the Indian sources - Uttarakuru (meaning "northern" or "high Kuru"). This is both a mythical people (much like the Greek Hyperboreans) and some real tribe living somewhere in Central Asia. In the myths Uttarakurus live in a square continent to the north of the world mountain Sumeru identified with the Himalaya Mountains, thus it may indicate Chinese Turkestan indeed. The square form of the land is obviously a common Steppe notion just as the Scythians according to Herodotus thought their country to be a square between Danube, Don and Black Sea. It is told that Uttarakurus have had square faces too which may suggest a Mongoloid or at least Turanoid racial type (it is all relative of course - if the Indo-Aryans have been dolihocephalic then Turanians may have seemed square-faced to them). This is described in the Indian and Buddhist sources as some utopian society of long life and happiness. The Greek Hyperboreans have also been thought to live beyond the range of the mythical Phipean mountains identified sometimes with Ural. Although said to inhabit the farthest North, the migration of the tribes described in the lost poem "Arimaspeia" by Aristeas (as reported by Herodotus) seem to be westward and not southward - it most likely refers to the coming of Scythians in Eastern Europe from Central Asia. Thus the Greek Hyperboreans and the Indian Uttarakurus seem to be related to the roughly same region - somewhere between Western Siberia and Chinese Turkestan. Could they have been Yueh-chih indeed? (I've came across an early Byzantine theological work which indeed has identified the Hyperboreans with Huns and mythical Gogs and Magogs but this couldn't be taken too seriously). Still, if "Yueh-chih" has sounded something like "Uti" once and if "Utigur" was not just political name of a tribal union from 6th century, then maybe the Ptolemy's Ottorokora and the Indian Uttarakuru can be regarded as one of the earliest mentions of the Oghuric peoples.
|
|
|
Post by massaget on Apr 23, 2012 10:52:41 GMT 3
There is a greek myth about the hyperboreans, Apollo visited them and arrived back to greece on swans. I found only one archeological finding where an emperor's yurt had the swan symbol on it, and its the scythian type pazyrik kurgan.
|
|