Turkic replacement of IE languages in Central Asia

LeBrok said:
You would be right if there was always status quo. Real life is not that pretty. Every 50 years or so there were great disasters, failed crops, starvation. Guess who dies first from hunger master, or slaves and their family?
Surely submission is vital in surviving too, but victory increases survival of your tribe and allows you to feed more kids than submissive people.
One can also claim that nothing really vanishes in nature. Even though Neanderthals were wiped out, some old haplogroups, Huns in europe, Illyrians, Prussians, Veneti, etc, there are some of their gens living still in us. So maybe it's all statistical after all. Few gens are left but their language, culture, believes, distinctive look, etc gone for ever.
Click to expand...

A slave owner rarely had hunger...Lots of slaves lived better than many roman citizens. Humans are useful for humans, we don't (use to) kill the golden eggs hen without a serious reason. You take care of your production instruments -servi aka instrumenta vocalis-.

All those groups you have quoted were integrated in other societies. Their gens survived, their culture -or part of it- didn't to. I'm a spaniard and you are possibly a canadian of french origin, we don't speak gaulish, iberian, aquitanian or celtiberian, we speak romance. The romans had a hard work conquering our lands, but finally the survivors -masters and slaves- were latinized. The succesful warriors -romans in this case- settled here, but I bet you don't think you descend mainly from them even despite the high number of casualties among the gaulish warrior class.
 
Yes Segia, I don't argue that these elements of survival you describing don't have an effect on population. In future, it will be fairly quickly proved by comparing DNA of recent and ancient inhabitants of these areas. We need another 10 years and will know the truth, or be closer to it.
What I see now, judging by men's infatuations with certain sports, games (first shooter and other war games are in first place), how easy it is to get young men to war and kill enemy, seeing constant wars in history of man kind, etc, it tells me that we are descendants of successful warriors. I don't need to wait for genetic tests to see it and know it's true. I don't have an agenda, I don't care if it's good or bad, right or wrong, just it is what it is, that's all.
Once again I'm not saying that there is no truth in your version of events, there is, but not to the effect you're expecting. I'm a little bit surprised that it comes from you living in country which is 90% R1b dominant. You don't expect it came from peaceful, submissive, slaves do you?
So Romans conquered you, you lost few battles. It doesn't mean you guys weren't great warriors, it doesn't negate 2 thousand years of success. Later there were hard times with Moors too, but afterwords you conquered most of the new world and more, spreading the successful warrior genes.

PS I'm polish.
 
LeBrok said:
Yes Segia, I don't argue that these elements of survival you describing don't have an effect on population. In future, it will be fairly quickly proved by comparing DNA of recent and ancient inhabitants of these areas. We need another 10 years and will know the truth, or be closer to it.
What I see now, judging by men's infatuations with certain sports, games (first shooter and other war games are in first place), how easy it is to get young men to war and kill enemy, seeing constant wars in history of man kind, etc, it tells me that we are descendants of successful warriors. I don't need to wait for genetic tests to see it and know it's true. I don't have an agenda, I don't care if it's good or bad, right or wrong, just it is what it is, that's all.
Once again I'm not saying that there is no truth in your version of events, there is, but not to the effect you're expecting. I'm a little bit surprised that it comes from you living in country which is 90% R1b dominant. You don't expect it came from peaceful, submissive, slaves do you?
So Romans conquered you, you lost few battles. It doesn't mean you guys weren't great warriors, it doesn't negate 2 thousand years of success. Later there were hard times with Moors too, but afterwords you conquered most of the new world and more, spreading the successful warrior genes.

PS I'm polish.
Click to expand...

Well, it's 90% R1b in some places, in others is around 50% and so on...We also sholud study subclades and all that stuff related. But I can tell you how the roman conquest went -it's written-. The guys defeated by the romans -it's true that it took two centuries- were the warrior class. Not all ancient spaniards were warriors and not all the spanish tribes fought against the invaders at the same level. Some cities were completely destroyed -Numantia- while others allied to the romans. And yes, we come from warriors, slaves....all of them.

By 89 b.C -more than one century since the beggining of the roman conquest- most of the anthroponymia is indigenous, but we can observe a few latin names (these horsemen were recruited in my city from near places):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7135125m2r26h46/

Only one century after lots of "spaniards" have roman names. But society is still slavist, it's the kind of society that existed before the romans' arrival. I'd bet slaves' hg's were not very different from their masters' ones. And, as you know, a military defeat could lead a master or free man to become a slave. Very quickly. One of the roman strategies was to enslave the whole population of a city (you surrend or you become a slave)

30% of the inhabitans of the empire were slaves, hereditary or not. Most of the numantines prefered to die than to be enslaved. Heroic. But don't look for their offspring...We descend from both dominant and submissive people, it's a matter of circumstances. It doesn't sound heroic or romantic, but we can experience both sides of human behaviour in our current lives.
 
Every single key position, be it linguistically, archaeologically or genetically, which European scholars need to defend their narrow-minded IE worldview, is completely occupied by Turkic characteristics. By following the current western mainstream logic: either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.
 
Alpakut said:
Every single key position, be it linguistically, archaeologically or genetically, which European scholars need to defend their narrow-minded IE worldview, is completely occupied by Turkic characteristics. By following the current western mainstream logic: either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something: if the Scythians-as-Indo-Europeans is supposedly the product of European scholarship (which in itself amounts to some kind of conspiracy theory in academia, which I find just silly...), you could tell us why exactly the ancient Chinese and ancient Persian sources _also_ record Indo-Iranic names with the Scythians, and not Turkic ones? Evidently, Achaemenid Persia and Han China were also part of the conspiracy of the European academia...
 
Taranis said:
Let me ask you something: if the Scythians-as-Indo-Europeans is supposedly the product of European scholarship (which in itself amounts to some kind of conspiracy theory in academia, which I find just silly...), you could tell us why exactly the ancient Chinese and ancient Persian sources _also_ record Indo-Iranic names with the Scythians, and not Turkic ones? Evidently, Achaemenid Persia and Han China were also part of the conspiracy of the European academia...
Click to expand...
I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..." ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.
 
Alpakut said:
I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..." ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.
Click to expand...

No, you don't seem to understand. You're talking about reinterpreting the material. But you should ask yourself the question first if the Turkic languages could be even that old in the first place, which they obviously couldn't. All the Turkic languages are very similar to another (if I compare Kazakh and Turkish words, they're kind of comparable to each other like Spanish and Italian), do you think that, had Turkic languages expanded into the Pontic-Caspian steppe already in the early 400s BC (I'm picking that date because that's the time when Herodotus recorded Scythian names), do you think that they could have kept up the level of similarity and unity for such a long time? Why is the Turkic names for Central Asian rivers (like the name "Atil" for the Volga) only start to show up in medieval Muslim sources?
 
Taranis said:
No, you don't seem to understand. You're talking about reinterpreting the material. But you should ask yourself the question first if the Turkic languages could be even that old in the first place, which they obviously couldn't. All the Turkic languages are very similar to another (if I compare Kazakh and Turkish words, they're kind of comparable to each other like Spanish and Italian), do you think that, had Turkic languages expanded into the Pontic-Caspian steppe already in the early 400s BC (I'm picking that date because that's the time when Herodotus recorded Scythian names), do you think that they could have kept up the level of similarity and unity for such a long time? Why is the Turkic names for Central Asian rivers (like the name "Atil" for the Volga) only start to show up in medieval Muslim sources?
Click to expand...
Step by step. First the so called Indo-Iranic names in ancient Chinese and Persian sources, then eastern European river names. I want to give you accurate answers.
 
Alpakut said:
I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..." ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.
Click to expand...

Aren't Alans haplogroup G? Or are they R1a?
 
 
Alpakut said:
either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.
Click to expand...
Turks are not Indo-European speakers and NEVER have been. And there's no such thing as 'Indo-Europeans' or 1 IEan race. There are only 'Indo-European' speakers.

'Indo European' speakers do not belong only to 1 race. Spanish Indo-European speakers are genetically totally different than Indo-European speakers in India. Indo-European speakers belong to many 'races'.


Are Turks the same as people in Mumbai or Delhi, India? People who live in Mumbai speak an Indo-European language. Even East Iranians are not the same as West Iranians, or East Slavs are not the same as SouthWest Slavic nations.


Turkic is an 'Altaic' language, related to Finno Ugric and Sino-Tibetan (Chinese languages), but do all those people belong to the same race? I don't think so. Turks are not even 'pure Mongoloid' people.


Turks are Eurasian Steppe people and are a product of many races. They do belong to own, unique 'NEW' race. Turks are NOT ancient people at all, but very recent 'new world' people compared to others, like Chinese or West-Iranians.
 
 
Turks are still babies compared to the ancient Chinese people/race
 
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2015/02/turkic-language-family-time-depth-204bc.html

From the paper:
The regular-sound-change tree estimates a mean divergence time between the outgroup Chuvash and other Turkic languages of 204 BCE, with a 95% credible interval of 605 BCE to 81 CE. This compares to proposals from glottochronological analyses that suggest dates of 30 BCE to 0 CE [21] and 500 BCE to 50 CE from historical data [18, 21 and 22]. The sporadic-sound-change model estimates the mean age of the tree to be more than two millennia older (2408 BCE, 95% CI = 3994–1279 BCE), because it wrongly assumes that the many occurrences of regular sound change along the outgroup Chuvash branch are multiple instances of independent phonological change.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 55222 times.

Back
Top