|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 29, 2008 22:12:47 GMT 3
Surely But quite distant ones
|
|
|
Post by arnewise12 on Oct 29, 2008 23:58:14 GMT 3
I can agree , only in very distant ways, or well 4000 years back to be more accurate,
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Nov 19, 2008 22:05:16 GMT 3
And that's as close to an answer that you're going to get Nah, much longer then that. We're very distant cousins. Both with our own bloodforged identities now.
|
|
|
Post by allan on Mar 15, 2009 20:13:05 GMT 3
Do the Alans play any part? What do we know of Alan Goa, where she came from and the origin of her name?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Mar 16, 2009 1:24:42 GMT 3
Greetings Allan, welcome aboard The Alans were not related with the Huns, they were a branch of the Sarmatians. Alan Qoa was a Mongol, it is not very possible that she was an Alan. I am sure our Mongolian members know what "Alan" means in Mongolian.
|
|
|
Post by scourge on Apr 16, 2010 10:25:01 GMT 3
Hun/Hiongnu are mongols, by culture,language, gene.1st turkic state's Gokturk.
|
|
|
Post by salaheddin on Apr 16, 2010 20:00:34 GMT 3
Hun/Hiongnu are mongols, by culture,language, gene.1st turkic state's Gokturk. I believe that the Xiongnu, or at least their ruling clans, had a Turkic identity. Also, we mustn't forget that the earliest clearly Turkic peoples appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu Empire. So, if one day it is proven without doubt that they were not their ethnic progenitors (I doubt this), then, what is certain is that the Xiongnu had manifold ties to the later Turks.
|
|
|
Post by scourge on Apr 17, 2010 11:29:38 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by scourge on Apr 17, 2010 11:33:33 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by scourge on Apr 17, 2010 11:35:19 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by scourge on Apr 17, 2010 12:03:18 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by salaheddin on Apr 17, 2010 13:12:01 GMT 3
I must say that I, as an archaeologist and a historian was never very fond of genetic research. People tend to believe them unconditionally.
|
|
|
Post by salaheddin on Apr 17, 2010 13:19:36 GMT 3
I mean, how relevant are these genetic projects when applied to steppe history. We all know that in steppe history not everything is in DNA.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 17, 2010 13:29:00 GMT 3
Greetings Salaheddin, welcome aboard No they were not, you don't have any evidence to proove that. No, they had. A large group of Turkic tribes in the 4th-5th centuries were named by the Chinese as "Gao-che 高車" meaning "High Carts". Various Russian, Hungarian, German, etc sources give us detailed descriptions of carts used by Cuman-Qypchaq Turks. And the Gokturks were the first Turkic state with the name "Turk". There was no "Mongol" name before the 8th century, but can you say that Mongols did not exist before that time? Sure they did, but they were not called "Mongol". Same case with the Turks.
|
|
|
Post by salaheddin on Apr 17, 2010 14:38:01 GMT 3
Greetings Salaheddin, welcome aboard No they were not, you don't have any evidence to proove that. No, they had. A large group of Turkic tribes in the 4th-5th centuries were named by the Chinese as "Gao-che 高車" meaning "High Carts". Various Russian, Hungarian, German, etc sources give us detailed descriptions of carts used by Cuman-Qypchaq Turks. And the Gokturks were the first Turkic state with the name "Turk". There was no "Mongol" name before the 8th century, but can you say that Mongols did not exist before that time? Sure they did, but they were not called "Mongol". Same case with the Turks. Yes, the first state to bear the name Türk was founded in 552 C.E., but that doesn't mean that it was the first turkic state. What about those whose large-wheeled wagons led the Chinese to dub them the “High Carts”? There were probabely many turkic entities even before that. Is it logical to claim otherwise?
|
|