|
Post by sarmat on May 10, 2010 20:18:37 GMT 3
I'll agree with some of that. Most Iranians are dark, but not all. As for Roxanne, yes she was either Bactrian or Sogdian. But she was not dark. Her actual name was Rokhshan-- and "rokhs" means "light." We see this also with the tribe Roxolani, the original name being Rokhsalani, the "light Alans." Here is about the name of Roxana: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoshanakYeah, it's a traditional Iranian name with the root "light," "luminous" but it doesn't imply that every person named with this name should have fair skin or face... I just don't rememeber any descriptions of Roxana, if she was described as fair skinned lady with light hair, I don't mind that at all. But absent the actual description of her, I don't think it's anything wrong in guessing her outlook based on the phenotype predominant in the modern lands which used to be called Bactria in the times of Alexander, and which is as a rule dark skinned brunnete with dark eyes... BTW, Scythians and Sakas should have been looked different from the people in Bactria. We know from the Greek chronists descriptions that many scythians were blond with pale skin, but that wouldn't apply to Bactrians or Sogdians by default.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 10, 2010 20:42:22 GMT 3
Perhaps. But it would be extremely odd for the Roxolani-- unless the whole tribe was a bunch of tippering mystics-- to have the same root as Roxanne and not have it mean "light" as opposed to "luminous." The "luminous Alani"? (nuk-nuk-nuk) My guess is the Wicki article got it wrong, and the etymoligical root was the same as that for the tribe-- "Rokhs"-- whether it was a woman or a group of people. Light.
|
|
|
Post by jamyangnorbu on May 10, 2010 21:54:02 GMT 3
Luminous is derived from the french and ultimately the Latin term for Light and one of its historical meanings is a light complexion.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 10, 2010 22:40:18 GMT 3
Perhaps. But it would be extremely odd for the Roxolani-- unless the whole tribe was a bunch of tippering mystics-- to have the same root as Roxanne and not have it mean "light" as opposed to "luminous." The "luminous Alani"? (nuk-nuk-nuk) My guess is the Wicki article got it wrong, and the etymoligical root was the same as that for the tribe-- "Rokhs"-- whether it was a woman or a group of people. Light. Roxolani doesn't mean that they all had fair complexions, it's meaning is more like "White Alans", as colour designations are horribly common in Steppe culture. or do you think Kökturks had blue hair and skin?
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 12, 2010 7:50:36 GMT 3
Roxolani doesn't mean that they all had fair complexions, it's meaning is more like "White Alans", as colour designations are horribly common in Steppe culture. or do you think Kökturks had blue hair and skin? It's a given that they all didn't have fair complexions, just like any tribe, clan or family. From Brzezinski and Mielczarek, "Of the many postulated meanings of the name Roxolani (Greek 'Rhoxolanoi'), the most convincing derives from Iranian raokshna-- 'light' or 'white' in the language of the nomads 'white' often means western-- giving 'Western Alans.'I don't think that the name 'Rokhshan' meant she was 'western' any more than you do. That brings us back to light or white, but not some kind of shimmering essence. In that sense, it has little to do with Kokturks or descendants of the Blue Wolf or whomever. It was just a personal name like Smith or Caesar, describing attributes of the individual.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 12, 2010 13:15:08 GMT 3
Well regarding the Gokturks, their name wasn't a name of an individual, but Kök Türük or simply Türük was the way how they described themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 12, 2010 19:52:04 GMT 3
Well regarding the Gokturks, their name wasn't a name of an individual, but Kök Türük or simply Türük was the way how they described themselves. Yes, I see your point and did not want to infer that "Gokturk" referred to an individual. The color-- in this case blue, I think-- was probably cultivated from something like their clothing. We see this in the "Blackmantes" of Herodotus, a people who wore black sagums. I was simply pointing out that in the case of Roxanne it was a personal name that described her features, not "western" which is silly in this case, but most likely "white" or "light" as in her complexion-- even "shimmering-luminous." And sorry, but I'll never believe in a million years that she looked like the non-shimmering-luminous Afro-Latina in the movie. Are we diverging from the main subject? Oops, I think so.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 12, 2010 21:12:49 GMT 3
I'm not getting it at all. Do you believe that all the Persian women named Roxanne should be blond ?
Based on your logic all of them should be blond.
Or may by the same token all the men with the last name "Coward" should be weaklings or all Smiths should be proficient with the hammers...
The name of Roxanne doesn't has relation to what she really looked like...
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 12, 2010 22:56:37 GMT 3
According to my name, I should rise from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 16, 2010 21:31:02 GMT 3
I'm not getting it at all. Do you believe that all the Persian women named Roxanne should be blond ? Based on your logic all of them should be blond. Or may by the same token all the men with the last name "Coward" should be weaklings or all Smiths should be proficient with the hammers... The name of Roxanne doesn't has relation to what she really looked like... Within the timeframe when Roxanne lived, people's names DID refer to some individual characteristic, just as Native American and European names did. You must certainly be aware that the names Coward and Smith are from a far later medieval era. It would be to your advantage to conduct further study on the origin of ancient names and civilized etiquette before hammering someone in a rude manner. And I never said that Roxanne was a blonde in any of the posts above. So there is nothing to "get." I stated that her name indicated a person of "light" physical characteristics. There is a difference, so please do not misrepresent my statement. Thank you,
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 17, 2010 11:20:42 GMT 3
Within the timeframe when Roxanne lived, people's names DID refer to some individual characteristic, just as Native American and European names did. Based on what do you come to this conclusion? Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong. But could you give some support for this statement from some historical narrative ? You must certainly be aware that the names Coward and Smith are from a far later medieval era. It would be to your advantage to conduct further study on the origin of ancient names and civilized etiquette before hammering someone in a rude manner. I just don't see any fundamental differences between the use English last names mentioned above and name Roxanne. Moreover, just exactly from Alexander's time, there is a story how all Jewish children of both sexes were named "Alexander" after he visited Jerusalem. Apparently, people who used that name for their children didn't use it to describe some "distinctive features" of their offsprings. And I didn't want to hammer you or disrespect your opinion in any way. Sorry, if my post looked rude. Honestly, I didn't mean it at all. In any case, I apologize for any possible misunderstandings caused by my posts. And I never said that Roxanne was a blonde in any of the posts above. So there is nothing to "get." I stated that her name indicated a person of "light" physical characteristics. There is a difference, so please do not misrepresent my statement. Well. That still doesn't make much difference. So, you didn't imply that she was blond. But you imply that all the Roxannes contemporaries of Alexander's Roxanne were persons of "light physical characteristics," do you?
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 18, 2010 0:20:03 GMT 3
Ssshhhh, you're not helping me achieve my quest of rising from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on May 18, 2010 1:00:06 GMT 3
Raoxshana or raoxchana in old Iranian and raoxshna in old Persian meant "light" or sometimes "star"later resulted in forms of substantives and attributes; raochna, raoshna (light) and roch/ruch laters roĵ/ruz/rōz (day, daylight) in Iranian languages including Persian and raushan, raoshan, rōshn laters rōshan, roshna (bright). it is also worthy to say that the r to l consonant change in IE shows itself here see. Armenian luyis and Latin lux. Although I haven't read any historian's decription of physical aspects of Roaxshana rather than she being the most beautiful woman in Asia, It is very probable that her fair appearnce was a a reason of such naming as it already is proper with the old Iranian naming system. There is also other meaning suggested like "little star" in scattered mentions of her in history books. The thing certain is that she never looked like the one depicted in Alexander movie. Bactrians, Sogdians their kin and their nomad neighbors at the time of Achaemenids high probably shared many similarities as for example (even up to the time of turkic domination of Central Asia) Sogdian merchants were depicted with fair features. However the phenotype of modern inhabitants for instance around areas encompassing ancient Bactria has changed to a high degree so far after various migration of member of Turkic and Mongolian stock and obviously it is not standing for the ancient demographic of the region, yet some traces are distinguishable among some of the region population like Tajiks. Don't forget that in anceint times being fair was not a feature only confined to the europeans as much as nowadays so one could see how it had been reflected as expected and not surprising eversince the Greek and Roman historiography learned more about such people in that far east. I don't think that Alanus was even trying to say that after the case of Roaxshana who was a eastern Iranian and of course not Persian, the conclusion is that all the Persian women with that name were or are all blondes!. Weird you know. It is very obvious in history, and it was not only left to the people of certain culture, there are hundreds of examples of such names, titles and designations given due to the physical appearance or certain proper characterstic. I don't think that citing that story has been a good match for what you're trying to say or what we were discussing. This was a way of naming withing every naming system in many languages but it doesnt mean that every single name was given that way. Again for the Aryans being blond or having physical features today considered allegedly europoid, if we take the meaning of Aryan as the ancient inhabitants of vast regions extended in vast areas of western Asia, southeastern europe as well as Iranian plateau covering terms like proto Indo-Iranic, old Iranians and old Indians, the anthropoligical findings doesn't say that they all were but blond yet they attest that in ancient times the amount of fair people were much bigger than what we see nowadays in the same lands. After series of invasive migrations in those lands during centuries demographics changed many times dramatically, particularly in many major cities of western Asia. But the scattered presence of some populations with majority of fair people still in many little towns or distinct regions like in Iran, Af*ganistan or Central Asia, gives us an approximate image of the old people how they looked like as well as their old cultures and customs.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on May 18, 2010 23:24:56 GMT 3
Although I haven't read any historian's decription of physical aspects of Roaxshana rather than she being the most beautiful woman in Asia, It is very probable that her fair appearnce was a a reason of such naming as it already is proper with the old Iranian naming system. There is also other meaning suggested like "little star" in scattered mentions of her in history books. The thing certain is that she never looked like the one depicted in Alexander movie. Yeah, it's certain, but based on the fact that we don't know how she looked like. All of those are just guesses... Bactrians, Sogdians their kin and their nomad neighbors at the time of Achaemenids high probably shared many similarities as for example (even up to the time of turkic domination of Central Asia) Sogdian merchants were depicted with fair features. However the phenotype of modern inhabitants for instance around areas encompassing ancient Bactria has changed to a high degree so far after various migration of member of Turkic and Mongolian stock and obviously it is not standing for the ancient demographic of the region, yet some traces are distinguishable among some of the region population like Tajiks. I don't think that for example Afghans who are believed to be the descendants of Bactrians have such a large pool of Turko-Mongolic ancestry... Yet, most of them possess dark features right now... Don't forget that in anceint times being fair was not a feature only confined to the europeans as much as nowadays so one could see how it had been reflected as expected and not surprising eversince the Greek and Roman historiography learned more about such people in that far east. I'm not really sure about that as with regard to the issue we are discussing here. The images of the Persians we see on the survived Akhemenid period artwork aren't different from the outlook of the modern Iranians at all.. I don't think that Alanus was even trying to say that after the case of Roaxshana who was a eastern Iranian and of course not Persian, the conclusion is that all the Persian women with that name were or are all blondes!. Weird you know. "Of course, not Persian" is a very disputable statement. She lived in the Akhemenid empire dominated by Persians in all the aspects of life. And, most likely, had "Persian" blood herself. And I said, what Alanus implies is that "Roxannes" at that time were supposed to have "fair features." I just don't think it make much sense. Yet, I don't deny that this possibiliy might have some logic behind it, yet it's just a theory and Roxanne may very well be dark... All we can do is just hypothesize... It is very obvious in history, and it was not only left to the people of certain culture, there are hundreds of examples of such names, titles and designations given due to the physical appearance or certain proper characterstic. Hundreds examples... Yeah, in history in general. But I wanted a specific example from the discussed historical location and period. I don't think that citing that story has been a good match for what you're trying to say or what we were discussing. I think it's a good example, because it showed how the other inhabitants of the Persian empire i.e. Jews named their children. So, far I haven't seen any specific examples of the system that Bactrians used to name their children except some vague generalizations that Roxanne's name might "imply" that she had fair feautures. Yes, it might imply that, and might not... May be her parents just thought that the name was cute... Again for the Aryans being blond or having physical features today considered allegedly europoid, if we take the meaning of Aryan as the ancient inhabitants of vast regions extended in vast areas of western Asia, southeastern europe as well as Iranian plateau covering terms like proto Indo-Iranic, old Iranians and old Indians, the anthropoligical findings doesn't say that they all were but blond yet they attest that in ancient times the amount of fair people were much bigger than what we see nowadays in the same lands. Hmmm... "Aryans" it's just a name of a linguistic proto-family. I don't understand why do we have to apply racial and anthropological characteristics to that group of ancient people. Most likely Aryans were very diverse among themselves as well. Yes, I agree that certain group of Nomades that are believed to be Iranic by a conventional historical science had fair features, yet, I think that it's totally normal that other Aryans like those residing in modern Afghanistan had "dark" features. I think this diversity is very well explained by geographical differences. Let's say just look at Slavs like Poles or Belorussians. They are very fair, yet other Slavs like Southern Slavs, Bulgarian and Macedonians have mostly "dark" features. Nevertheless all of them belong to the same linguistic group... I don't think "Aryans" were somehow different... After series of invasive migrations in those lands during centuries demographics changed many times dramatically, particularly in many major cities of western Asia. But the scattered presence of some populations with majority of fair people still in many little towns or distinct regions like in Iran, Af*ganistan or Central Asia, gives us an approximate image of the old people how they looked like as well as their old cultures and customs. I understand what you're saying, but I do believe that as a general matter the outlook of the modern inhabitants of the ancient region of Bactria hasn't changed that much...
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on May 26, 2010 23:55:33 GMT 3
Well you gave yourself the answer: you just think not bothering go to Afganistan or testing the gene pool they are hardly descendants of ancient Bactrians. you managed to see them with colors. No my Russian friend there's no color for you to distingusih again the hair or eye color of the Achaemenids through bas reliefs very surprising how you did it though, besides it was done by the Assyrian and Babylonian artists I wonder how you can compare them so precisely with the modern looks of all Iranians?! How come disputable?! any way again I think what you perceive of the Achaemnid empire is somehow vague and generic. The Bactrians subdued to Achaemenid rule but in fact they were like an ally and their aspects of life never got dominated by Persians, they were just people of the same background and shared some similarities yet had their differences. I think it is high probable again for her to have had such fair features and as Alanus said, the naming could also had been a reason why for doing so that's all. No implication, just probability. For many reasons parents give name to their children but among which is also included that they just think that its cute. Daylight clear!. But how you are comapring the Bactrian traditions of the time with Jews just because they were living in parts of Persian empire is not usual for me. No Aryan wasn't and is not just name of linguistic family. many proto eastern Indo- europeans tended to use the ethnonym "Aryan" to describe themselves and people which is reflected in their ancient cultural legacy. The Indo-Iranian is the lingual branch you were talking about. And again and again fair and blond people among Aryans - though Aryans underwent many contacts and intermarriages through their migrations- weren't confined just to northern branches like nomads of the steppes moreover the complexion and the skull along other anthropological traits were marker of Indo-Iranian culture in the regions they migrated. I suppose to understand why you say why "conventional historical science", yet that's mostly archaelogical and its not conventional, and many findings accidentally done mostly by the Russian achaeologists. So Sarmatians aren't just believed to be Iranian merely after analyzing sources like Herodotus' but archaeologically they belonged to the IE people. About Bulgars and Macedonians their different stories comparing to Poles or Czechs I think you might have your own hypothesis but as for Aryans it is certain they were diverse due to migrations but they still owned to some extent their previous aspects. You have your own respectable views, maybe all you may need is to go and visit Afganistan for the second time.
|
|