Huns, were they turkic, asian or indo european ?

[Kardu]

They were Siberian tribes mixed with Central Asians who were Iranic like the Thracians.

Thracians were not Iranic. Not even close..

 

[albanopolis]

oh really?
what minor Asia, Egypt Syria after Alexander's campaign? were Greeks majority?
what about Ottomans? were Turks majority?
and what about Albania? Greece? etc? why still Turkish words are spoken?

are you tired of stupid, sterile propaganda?

I see you are under the influence of some substance. Nevevertheless what Turkish did, you budalla? In 400 years of ruling they interchanged from Greek language the word "malaka" with their own. But that does not mean they changed the language. Even though some turkish words were borrowed in greek, the grammer used to make this words understadable were still indoeuropean greek. So there was not a language change. Talking about Greek conquest of antiquity of the region. The only impact the greecs left on the subdued people was the word "Aleksander". The rest are eather Greek lies or fantasy. Its the age of internet and fantasy does not sell anymore. And one word is not language change. In relation to the influence of Greek culture to albanians: Its overall impact is minimal, even though we have a documented 4000 yrs of being neighbours. One of the strongest arguments the Albanian haters have to disprove the existence of Albanians in their current territories is: If Albanians had been living in this territories their language would have been influenced by greek. So its not. The argument that a minority can impose their language in a majority, for a relatively short time is bolloni. It could happen in long periods of time as it is the case of Romanians. Our friends Hungarians have a clear asiatic origin and we have to live with that. A lot of them show their asiatic origin in their faces.

 

[Alan]

Thracians were not Iranic. Not even close..

Thracians were not Iranic yes, but "not even close" is too far fetched. There is no doubt that Thracians were closest you could get to Iranians without being Iranian themselves.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

Thracians were not Iranic yes, but "not even close" is too far stretched. There is no doubt that Thracians were closest to Iranians (even closer as modern Slavs).

How so, Are you talking about it in cultural, linguistic or genetic terms. How are Thracians closest to the indo iranians, can you elaborate.

 

[Yetos]

I see you are under the influence of some substance. Nevevertheless what Turkish did, you budalla? In 400 years of ruling they interchanged from Greek language the word "malaka" with their own. But that does not mean they changed the language. Even though some turkish words were borrowed in greek, the grammer used to make this words understadable were still indoeuropean greek. So there was not a language change. Talking about Greek conquest of antiquity of the region. The only impact the greecs left on the subdued people was the word "Aleksander". The rest are eather Greek lies or fantasy. Its the age of internet and fantasy does not sell anymore. And one word is not language change. In relation to the influence of Greek culture to albanians: Its overall impact is minimal, even though we have a documented 4000 yrs of being neighbours. One of the strongest arguments the Albanian haters have to disprove the existence of Albanians in their current territories is: If Albanians had been living in this territories their language would have been influenced by greek. So its not. The argument that a minority can impose their language in a majority, for a relatively short time is bolloni. It could happen in long periods of time as it is the case of Romanians. Our friends Hungarians have a clear asiatic origin and we have to live with that. A lot of them show their asiatic origin in their faces.

you are good in words,
I guess you are a captain or a major in propaganda,

no need to take you serious,
just read about Galates (Γαλατας) since you are a Catholic you know.
and Mayer and modern linguists about Albanian language,
and it will be good for you to search Kallasha language.
if the Greek lied or lived in Fantasy better ask ancient writers far away from Balkans, such as Λουκιανος, etc.
and if you are Catholic, (you are not I am sure) then read your bible.

It Is very clear that a minority even lower than <10% can change language.
your arguement is just to create impressions

 

[Yetos]

about Thracians

at least in Linguistic, even Duridanov did not manage to avoi minor Asian influence, no matter he tried to stick them to Baltic,

theoritically the Armenian Hypothesis explains well the Thracian,
were Armenian and Thracian share common ancestor, away from Indo-Iranian,
in Greco-Aryan theory we have Brygian as the link among Greek and rest Thracian, which were considered close to Aryan.
yet we see Thracian North IE connection from Duridanov, especially in Getae with Baltic.

From the Brygian vocabulary remains (Brygian is the limit among dialect and language among Thracian, like Scandinavic with Deutsch in Germanic) we know that were isotones with Greek

for example
ΤΙΟΣ ΒΑΚΧΟΣ (Διονυσσος)
Τιος cognates with Greek Διος/Θεος
Βακχος (Bakhos) cognates with Slavic Bog(God)

so I believe that Thracians is in the middle among Aryan and North IE, but I do not know how close to Indo-Iranian,
cause I think termination Aryan-Iranian and Indo-Iranian have relativity, but is not the same.

 

[Alan]

How so, Are you talking about it in cultural, linguistic or genetic terms. How are Thracians closest to the indo iranians, can you elaborate.

Without a doubt the Thracians had cultural, linguistic and geographic closeness to Indo_Iranians. This relation was even so close that groups existed which are still on debate whether they were Indo-Iranian or Thracians, often even considered as connection between both (Cimmerians as an example though they most likely originated somewhere in Southern Caucasus, Northwestern Iran).

 

[MOESAN]

hungarian language and genetics is a valuable challenge, true!
without going into details as some rare cognates or some isolated loan-words which can prove nothing, I think we can figure out some slow proceeding of acculturation: I don't agree totally with YETOS when he affirms that language could be passed easily by a minority to a majority (it requires a strong military power AND a good administrative organisation, allied with a somewhat cultural or trading superioriy) - so if I think (I can be wrong, I admit) that a 10% of conquerant tribes cannot pass their languages to others by simple brutal and immediate conquest, but a language could have been passed progressively to other subjugued tribes one by one, on the route to Europe: everytime the proportion of hungarian language speakers could have kept the majority, the new incorporated ones becaming "Hungarians" at every step of progression in the Russian Steppes..; this could explain the european aspect of Hungarians (but I already posted that the very first Finno-Ungrians were europids (caucasian) before mixing with mongolid Siberians in Ourals) an their genes seemingly close enough to Slavs majority (even if not identical)
so a language not too changed but for phenotypes a curious evolution from europid to euro-mongolid before a come back to more and more europid traits by time - sorry for my self cooked english -

 

[MOESAN]

before going to bed I add that this "demonstration" does not mean that nobody remains of the previous inhabitants of Pre-Hungary!

 

[Anthro-inclined]

Without a doubt the Thracians had cultural, linguistic and geographic closeness to Indo_Iranians. This relation was even so close that groups existed which are still on debate whether they were Indo-Iranian or Thracians, often even considered as connection between both (Cimmerians as an example though they most likely originated somewhere in Southern Caucasus, Northwestern Iran).

I have personally not seen a widely accepted theory showing a closer relation between Thracian and Iranian, than between other non slavic Balkanic indo european languages, can you provide us with a theory or some source to validate the claim. I thought the only linguistic inter family connection made for Thracian, was a connection between Dacian and Illyrian. This was the only hypothesis I found that is widely accepted.

 

[Alan]

I have personally not seen a widely accepted theory showing a closer relation between Thracian and Iranian, than between other non slavic Balkanic indo european languages, can you provide us with a theory or some source to validate the claim. I thought the only linguistic inter family connection made for Thracian, was a connection between Dacian and Illyrian. This was the only hypothesis I found that is widely accepted.

The connection between Thracian and Dacian is obvious since both share common geographic territory and at the same time belong to the same linguistic family. No one was comparing the closeness of Thracian with Iranian to that of Dacian. The thing is that there aren't much linguistic remands of Thracians but considering the geographic closeness as well that I once red the Thracians share many cultural similarities to Iranians, and the fact that there are still some groups which can't be clustered for 100% in any of the both groups and are often considered as a transition between both, should show us clearly that there was stronger connection between Iranic and Thracian. Or how are we going to explain the Cimmerian (a very old Indo European group) position in between Iranic and Thracian?

 

[Anthro-inclined]

The connection between Thracian and Dacian is obvious since both share common geographic territory and at the same time belong to the same linguistic family. No one was comparing the closeness of Thracian with Iranian to that of Dacian. The thing is that there aren't much linguistic remands of Thracians but considering the geographic closeness as well that I once red the Thracians share many cultural similarities to Iranians, and the fact that there are still some groups which can't be clustered for 100% in any of the both groups and are often considered as a transition between both, should show us clearly that there was stronger connection between Iranic and Thracian. Or how are we going to explain the Cimmerian (a very old Indo European group) position in between Iranic and Thracian?

Back to your original point, there isnt much to prove that Thracians are closest to Iranians, at least with the information available now. You may feel an inclination to connect them , but without any evidence I cant see much validity in your claim. I dont accept that because they dont share geographical proximity that the scientific community wont compare them, I mean there was a viable theory trying to connect it to the Balto-Slavic language branch, so im pretty sure if there was a viable connection somebody would have made it by now.

 

[Nobody1]

the Thracians share many cultural similarities to Iranians,

I assume you are referring to the Indo-European Indo-Iranians like Persians (Iran / Afghanistan / Tajikistan), Sarmatians, Scythians, Cimmerians etc.
Modern day Iranians are also largely Turkic (Azeris) in the North.

Or how are we going to explain the Cimmerian (a very old Indo European group) position in between Iranic and Thracian?

Correct, the Cimmerians are key

Kristian Kristiansen - Europe before History (1999)
"Classical sources mention between fifty and one hundred Thracian tribes,"
"Thracian culture was heavily influenced by the Pontic cultural koine around the Black Sea, by Macedonia, and by the neighbouring states on the coast of Asia Minor. This takes us back to the 9th and 8th centuries"
"In a survey of Macedonian and Thracian bronzes Jan Bouzek (1973;1974) demonstrated the emergence of a circum-Pontic or Thraco-Cimmerian cultural koine from 800 BC. Here old Urnfield traditions in metalwork mixed with new Cimmerian influences originating in the Caucasian region,"

According to Strabo, the early Phrygians came from the Balkans (after Hittite empire collapse) and that the Treres were a Thraco-Cimmerian mix. This whole area of Indo-Europeans (Anatolia-Pontic steppe-Caucasus) is vey informative in understanding the entire complex of Europe and the Iranian plateau, as well as the later Turkic invasions and rift.

 

[kamani]

Thracian and Illyrian are considered related. Cimmerian probably borrowed from the native anatolian thracians, when cimmerians were driven into Anatolia by the Skythians. The old substratum of cimmerian was probably iranic. If this is true, there is no connection between thracian and iranian, they just influenced the late cimmerian indipendently.

 

[Alan]

I dont accept that because they dont share geographical proximity that the scientific community wont compare them,

Either I misunderstood your post or you seem to have missed out a large part of the history. When I say Iranic/Iranian, I am not referring to people of modern day Iran exclusively but iranic tribes, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians etc. . And there is no doubt of Thracian proximity to the groups listed above.

 

[Alan]

Thracian and Illyrian are considered related. Cimmerian probably borrowed from the native anatolian thracians, when cimmerians were driven into Anatolia by the Skythians. The old substratum of cimmerian was probably iranic. If this is true, there is no connection between thracian and iranian, they just influenced the late cimmerian indipendently.

The thing is that Cimmerians originated somewhere in the Caucasus or Northwest Iran most likely, since the very first mentioning of anything Cimmerian dates back to Assyrian scripts and they place their homeland somewhere in between the Caucasus and North/Northwestern Iran.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

Either I misunderstood your post or you seem to have missed out a large part of the history. When I say Iranic/Iranian, I am not referring to people of modern day Iran exclusively but iranic tribes, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians etc. . And there is no doubt of Thracian proximity to the groups listed above.

I to was refering to the historical indo Iranian tribes, I was using the word Iranian for convienence, as constantly adding indo gets monotonus .So again how are they the closest to Thracians. What large part of their history am I missing, can you post a link that explains your claim. They are both indo european languages, but what makes Thracian a branch of indo iranian. Are you talking about it in cultural terms, because even then the Illyrians and Dacians have more affinites than the Iranic peoples.

 

[Nobody1]

The thing is that Cimmerians originated somewhere in the Caucasus or Northwest Iran most likely, since the very first mentioning of anything Cimmerian dates back to Assyrian scripts and they place their homeland somewhere in between the Caucasus and North/Northwestern Iran.

The Cimmerians were def. of the same Indo-European branch (linguistics) as the Persians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alani and Indo-Aryans but i wouldnt go as far as to place the Cimmerian origins in the Caucasus or Northern Iranian plateau. We are informed by Herodutus that the Scythian and Cimmerian invasions (Invasion of Assyria/Conquest of Sardis/Invasion of Phrygia/Siege of Nineveh/raids of Anatolia) all took place during the 7th cen. BC.

Ilya Gershevitch - The Cambridge History of Iran: Vol.II
"According to Herodotus' account uncontradicted by archaeological data the Scythians, after the Massagetae pushed them out of the trans-Volgan steppes to the west, penetrated into the territory of the Cimmerians and finally appeared in the Near East by moving along the Caspian shore - "having on their right side the Caucasian mountain"

Clearly indicating a North to South invasion.
The homeland of the Indo-European steppe peoples [Cimmerians/Scythians/Sarmatians/Alani] was, still the Indo-European Urheimat, the Pontic-Caspian steppes.

 

[albanopolis]

you are good in words,
I guess you are a captain or a major in propaganda,

no need to take you serious,
just read about Galates (Γαλατας) since you are a Catholic you know.
and Mayer and modern linguists about Albanian language,
and it will be good for you to search Kallasha language.
if the Greek lied or lived in Fantasy better ask ancient writers far away from Balkans, such as Λουκιανος, etc.
and if you are Catholic, (you are not I am sure) then read your bible.

It Is very clear that a minority even lower than <10% can change language.
your arguement is just to create impressions

What is your position? Do you beleive that Hungarians were an indoeuropean people and a few Majars among them are responsable for today's Hungarian language?

 

[Kardu]

The thing is that Cimmerians originated somewhere in the Caucasus or Northwest Iran most likely, since the very first mentioning of anything Cimmerian dates back to Assyrian scripts and they place their homeland somewhere in between the Caucasus and North/Northwestern Iran.

Cimmerians didn't originate in the Caucasus. They invaded what is now Georgia and Armenia from the north. They were formidable warriors. In Georgian and Armenian still exists a word Gmiri/Gimir denoting a hero.