PDA

View Full Version : Huns, were they turkic, asian or indo european ?



Robert22
10-12-12, 21:10
there are serveral theories regarding the hunnic language. what were they really?
also what did they look like ? i tend to imagine them as peoples similar to mongolians.

LeBrok
10-12-12, 21:32
Judging by their descriptions in ancient texts, the safest explanation would place their origin in Central Asia, and made them a hybrid of Mongoloid-Caucasoid mixture. I imagine them as Tatars. Possibly related to Bulgars or Turks, and possibly part of Scytian empire/conglomerate of tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Bronson_1973.jpg/160px-Bronson_1973.jpg
Charles Bronson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars

dodona
10-12-12, 22:34
there are serveral theories regarding the hunnic language. what were they really? also what did they look like ? i tend to imagine them as peoples similar to mongolians. do you mean the asian Xiongnu or the so calles 'Huns' of Europe?

ElHorsto
10-12-12, 23:38
Judging by their descriptions in ancient texts, the safest explanation would place their origin in Central Asia, and made them a hybrid of Mongoloid-Caucasoid mixture. I imagine them as Tatars. Possibly related to Bulgars or Turks, and possibly part of Scytian empire/conglomerate of tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Bronson_1973.jpg/160px-Bronson_1973.jpg
Charles Bronson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars

Hmmm...
57815782

Its interesting that he was half Tatar. I didn't know that.

oriental
11-12-12, 01:21
I remember watching House of Wax and his name was then Buchinski. Then in the Magnificent Seven he became a star. I watched all his violent after he married Jill Ireland.

LeBrok
11-12-12, 01:58
I remember watching House of Wax and his name was then Buchinski. Then in the Magnificent Seven he became a star. I watched all his violent after he married Jill Ireland.
Changing names to english is sadly still ongoing process in Hollywood, though not that much as before. English names to cater english audience, for marketing reason.

oriental
11-12-12, 02:19
I like his movies. I'd say Jill Ireland is very beautiful.

kamani
11-12-12, 05:23
around 2000-3000 BC the asian steppe tribes had blonde hair and blue eyes and were genetically close to eastern europeans (lookup Afanasievo culture). Now granted that the huns appeared in europe around 400 AD, I still picture them looking like russians. dna was probably mostly R1a. And charles bronson is not mongoloid, lol.

oriental
11-12-12, 23:10
Yul Brynner is part Mongolian and Tatar. He admitted he was Mongolian. He is famous for portraying Ramses II in the Ten Commandmants with Charlton heston as Moses and Yvonne DeCarlo whose real name was Middleton born in British Columbia, as Zephora. He was the star in the Magnificent Seven that made Charles Bronson and others movie stars - Steve McQueen, Horst Buchholz, James Coburn, and "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." Robert Vaughn whose partner David McCallum was married to Jill Ireland. It is a small world.

Of course he was the King in "The King and I" a role only he could play so well. "Shall we dance?"

oriental
11-12-12, 23:12
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000989/

dodona
12-12-12, 19:24
around 2000-3000 BC the asian steppe tribes had blonde hair and blue eyes and were genetically close to eastern europeans (lookup Afanasievo culture). Now granted that the huns appeared in europe around 400 AD, I still picture them looking like russians. dna was probably mostly R1a. And charles bronson is not mongoloid, lol. we are talking about much later periods, and not the 2000-3000 BC.. 'European' Huns of Pannonia were at least 25% Asian. Before they absorbed Iranian Alan's and German Goth's the Asian component was larger. It was even larger before the Xiongnu retreat to lake Aral region or wherever. The Asian Xiongnu were mostly Asian. The West-Eurasian component was around 10%., basically assimilated IE relics of western Mongolia and those of the Yuehzi, who were forced to became Xiongnu.

Robert22
20-12-12, 05:23
when i am lookign at this picture, they look totally different than any other human group. they have asian influences, but i dont see them as turkic or indo european. but somehow they look different from other human groups more like asian neanderthals.
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/6098/hunnishfemalewr6.jpg

Or is that reconstruction outdated ?

personally i always imagined huns being like this:
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/122/cache/western-mongolian-man_12253_990x742.jpg

oriental
20-12-12, 22:52
Those are Mongolians. The Huns were a mix but mostly European looking. It was Genghis Khan that changed the complexion of Central Asia. You need to study more history. What Romans who wrote were biased against Huns so they wrote all the bad things against Huns and Scythians. They looked more like Vladimir Putin

http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/museums/shm/shmpazyryk.html

oriental
20-12-12, 23:03
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/news/documents/news-433-1.pdf

Yetos
21-12-12, 02:14
Huns were considered as Ogurs, mostly Turkic Tatar semi-mongolian culture, non Uraloid population,

it was a hunic tradition to save and adopt small kids, and raise them with their culture. so when they enter Europe they were changed a lot due to that custom.

Coriolan
21-12-12, 10:21
I think that the Huns were not an ethnic group, but a confederation. A bit like the Swiss in fact. :wary2: Based on what I read the Huns originated somewhere around Mongolia. They assimilated all kinds of people on the way to Europe, including Germanic tribes in Eastern Europe. By the time they invaded the Roman Empire who knows how much Mongolian blood was left in them ?

oriental
21-12-12, 23:24
Mongolians are Hg C a very old ancient group and small and to tar Asia as mongol is racist as most are Hg O completely far from Hg C in terms of mutations. Hg C were violent Hg O were not.

MOESAN
22-12-12, 23:40
I 'll not do remarks about the "violent C" versus peaceful "O" ...
I think as some others that when entering eastern Europe after having passed through the steppes, Huns was a "medley" of tribes where mongoloid people had seen their importance decrease progressively, but sureley some tribes had better kept their ancestral features (a composite mongoloid mix yet) -
if I rely on the studies about the Hungarians of the Avar period in Hungaria (as the problem of mixing and elites are the same) they show the all mongoloid component was only 19-20% of the total, as a MEAN; but scientists say the elite (based upon the tombs) was more mongoloid, which could prove the earlier purer tribes was rather on the mongoloid side, even if not 100% pure... about language I 'm aware of nothing: turkic? perhaps somebody could help me on this side?
the mongol type of central Asia is large faced, long enough spite broad and projecting cheekbones , and short and high enough skull, very diffrent from more rounded or squared broad and short faces of other mongoloid strains - I have the impression the 'hunnic deformation of crania could be an effort to magnifiy this central mongoloid morphology as it was becoming rarer, but i'm not sure -

MOESAN
22-12-12, 23:41
when I spoke of language, I was speaking about the Huns language. Sorry

oriental
24-12-12, 21:53
The use of mongol and its adjectival forms is racist as it implies violence while mongols are a minority its use is to classify a large part of the continent as violent. The early racial theorists were racists anyway and to use their language only creates racists thoughts and unnecessary conflict. Their theories led to eugenics and Hitler's killing of "sub-humans" such as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Russians and others. Hitler wanted to wipe out the Slavs as he considered them impure and to take over their land for an expanded Germany. Wow, this coming from Hg E Hitler.

LeBrok
24-12-12, 22:24
The use of mongol and its adjectival forms is racist as it implies violence while mongols are a minority its use is to classify a large part of the continent as violent. The early racial theorists were racists anyway and to use their language only creates racists thoughts and unnecessary conflict. Their theories led to eugenics and Hitler's killing of "sub-humans" such as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Russians and others. Hitler wanted to wipe out the Slavs as he considered them impure and to take over their land for an expanded Germany. Wow, this coming from Hg E Hitler.

Aren't you going too far condemning whole Hg E because of one or few bad apples? By this token we should be able to condemn them all once we have Hg list of all big murderers and psychopathic killers in recent history.

Kardu
24-12-12, 22:45
What does YDNA have to do with violence or any other psychological trait?

kamani
24-12-12, 23:46
Mongolians are Hg C a very old ancient group and small and to tar Asia as mongol is racist as most are Hg O completely far from Hg C in terms of mutations. Hg C were violent Hg O were not.

you complain of racism when somebody uses the word mongoloid but then you label the whole hg C as violent !! You seem openly racist yourself.

MOESAN
26-12-12, 15:39
The use of mongol and its adjectival forms is racist as it implies violence while mongols are a minority its use is to classify a large part of the continent as violent. The early racial theorists were racists anyway and to use their language only creates racists thoughts and unnecessary conflict. Their theories led to eugenics and Hitler's killing of "sub-humans" such as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Russians and others. Hitler wanted to wipe out the Slavs as he considered them impure and to take over their land for an expanded Germany. Wow, this coming from Hg E Hitler.

where have you picked these thoughts up?
words are words and only words - 'mongol' is an ethnic term, 'monogoloid' is a physical anthropological term , more or less vauable (it is a scientific debate, not a political or religious one) - the interest for "races" is not by need linked to 'racism' and 'racism' can have a lot of distinct definitions...with or without effective acts, with or without meaning of value levels.
..please do not mix everything - for I know, Hitler was not an anthropologist...
who is racist here? the one who links 'mongol' to violence??? was there a complete peaceful tribe at these times?
No offense.

LeBrok
26-12-12, 20:51
Here is a nice compilation of Hunic history.

http://chronica.freebase.hu/huns/histwhitehuns.htm

More and more I can see that Huns were the continuation of Scythians Empire. It makes sense to assume that East Scythians looked more Mongoloid and West more Caucasoid.
They were all called Huns because they called their leaders Khan.
We could describe Huns, Khans, Khanats (kingdoms) as all people under Scythian cultural influence. All these people dressed the same, ride horses and shoot same bows, eat raw horse meet, etc, etc.
The Turks, Mongols, Bulgars, Magiars, Tatars, Khitai, Khazar, they were all Huns and most likely, at one point, belonging to Scythian Empire, till about 300 AD when global cooling (cooling after warm Roman period) dried the steppes and pushed them out in all directions (well, except North).
We can see similar situation in 12 hundreds BC, beginning of little ice age (after medieval warm period), when the rest of Huns, Mongols and Tatars where pushed out into China, Middle East and Europe, again.


These are Scythians of 4th century BC. The clothes and bows are exactly same used by Mongols 1,600 years later.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg/220px-Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg

Templar
26-12-12, 21:17
Here is a nice compilation of Hunic history.

http://chronica.freebase.hu/huns/histwhitehuns.htm

More and more I can see that Huns were the continuation of Scythians Empire. It makes sense to assume that East Scythians looked more Mongoloid and West more Caucasoid.
They were all called Huns because they called their leaders Khan.
We could describe Huns, Khans, Khanats (kingdoms) as all people under Scythian cultural influence. All these people dressed the same, ride horses and shoot same bows, eat raw horse meet, etc, etc.
The Turks, Mongols, Bulgars, Magiars, Tatars, Khitai, Khazar, they were all Huns and most likely, at one point, belonging to Scythian Empire, till about 300 AD when global cooling (cooling after warm Roman period) dried the steppes and pushed them out in all directions (well, except North).
We can see similar situation in 12 hundreds BC, beginning of little ice age (after medieval warm period), when the rest of Huns, Mongols and Tatars where pushed out into China, Middle East and Europe, again.


These are Scythians of 4th century BC. The clothes and bows are exactly same used by Mongols 1,600 years later.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg/220px-Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg

This makes sense considering that Indo-Europeans were the first ones to live in the Eurasian steppes and the first to massively use horses for warfare. From their central location, they could have easily spread their technology, culture, dress, etc into all surrounding areas.

MOESAN
27-12-12, 13:53
Even if it could seam simple to someones I agree with you for the whole -
I have poor knowledge about these periods in Asia but I think first Huns elite was of very eastern stock, partially accultured by Scythian Empire, a cultural melting pot?

Diurpaneus
27-12-12, 20:44
Here is a nice compilation of Hunic history.

http://chronica.freebase.hu/huns/histwhitehuns.htm

More and more I can see that Huns were the continuation of Scythians Empire. It makes sense to assume that East Scythians looked more Mongoloid and West more Caucasoid.
They were all called Huns because they called their leaders Khan.
We could describe Huns, Khans, Khanats (kingdoms) as all people under Scythian cultural influence. All these people dressed the same, ride horses and shoot same bows, eat raw horse meet, etc, etc.
The Turks, Mongols, Bulgars, Magiars, Tatars, Khitai, Khazar, they were all Huns and most likely, at one point, belonging to Scythian Empire, till about 300 AD when global cooling (cooling after warm Roman period) dried the steppes and pushed them out in all directions (well, except North).
We can see similar situation in 12 hundreds BC, beginning of little ice age (after medieval warm period), when the rest of Huns, Mongols and Tatars where pushed out into China, Middle East and Europe, again.


These are Scythians of 4th century BC. The clothes and bows are exactly same used by Mongols 1,600 years later.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg/220px-Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Scythians_shooting_with_bows_Kertch_antique_Pantic apeum_Ukrainia_4th_century_BCE.jpg

Scythians were,for sure, Iranian speakers.It is not questionable.
Due to their enormous territory, they could have some differences,linguistically and anthropological.
But they would remain Iranian speakers.
Scythian-Hun similarities involves :
-Eastern Scythian intrusive groups in the proto-Turkic territory
-Eastern Scythian trading routes/influence

As they expanded westward, the Huns might have absorbed some Scythian groups.
But that's a whole different thing.
This "hun=magyar=..." thing has an obvious purpose:continuity.
But the Turkic tribes history it's far more complex,with many historical gaps, a huge area,and distinct clans/elites always reconfigurating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Asia_323bc.jpg



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazyryk_burials

The "Mongoloid" traits aren't exclusively Turkic/Mongolian.
Here is a couple of Dacians:


http://statuidedaci.ro/images/statui/atena/atena3.jpg


5789

LeBrok
28-12-12, 10:40
Scythians were,for sure, Iranian speakers.It is not questionable.
Due to their enormous territory, they could have some differences,linguistically and anthropological.
But they would remain Iranian speakers.
Scythian-Hun similarities involves :
-Eastern Scythian intrusive groups in the proto-Turkic territory
-Eastern Scythian trading routes/influence

As they expanded westward, the Huns might have absorbed some Scythian groups.
But that's a whole different thing.
This "hun=magyar=..." thing has an obvious purpose:continuity.
But the Turkic tribes history it's far more complex,with many historical gaps, a huge area,and distinct clans/elites always reconfigurating.



The "Mongoloid" traits aren't exclusively Turkic/Mongolian.
Here is a couple of Dacians:

http://statuidedaci.ro/images/statui/newyork/ny3.jpg

http://statuidedaci.ro/images/statui/atena/atena3.jpg

I think Hun (han, chan) is more of kultural/way of life construct than just the language. The similarity of all the hunic tribes is that they all lived in steppe area from East Ukraine to Mongolia. They all dressed same, were pastorialists/nomads, rode horses and used same weapons. This is what works the best in steppe environment and was widely adopted by all ethnic groups.
I'm assuming that till 0 AD the Scathians were the dominant group in steppes for thousand of years or two, most likely leading prim and spreading their cultural advances to all steppe tribes. Later it obviously changed and more central and east Asiatic peoples exerted influence and pushed west, reaching Europe, like Turks, Tatars and finally Mongols.
Because of these huge cultural similarities of all steppe peoples, it is so hard to say who exactly where the Huns or Avars at the end of Roman Empire times.

albanopolis
13-03-13, 22:49
Even if it could seam simple to someones I agree with you for the whole -
I have poor knowledge about these periods in Asia but I think first Huns elite was of very eastern stock, partially accultured by Scythian Empire, a cultural melting pot?It seams to me that their past Budda religion, Turkic related language and Indian related R1a haplogroup ,en masse in Hungarian individuals ,strongly places them at the geographic location where Afganistan is today. So they are originally Asian stock now mixed with slavic and germanic blood.

albanopolis
13-03-13, 22:57
Even if it could seam simple to someones I agree with you for the whole -
I have poor knowledge about these periods in Asia but I think first Huns elite was of very eastern stock, partially accultured by Scythian Empire, a cultural melting pot?
Remember! Some of the greatest Budda sculptures, now destroyed by Taliban are in Afganistan, So it seems that at some point in time they were there or in their vicinities. Keeping in mind that Afgans are not linguistically unified country, huns were one portion of this small nation. There is not another explanation for their Ugralic language which are located there, or for their Budda past. There were two cities Budda and Pest that when united formed todays Budapest. Budda was a commemaration of their religious hero. So any efort to portray todays Hungarians as indoeuropean is brutality against reality.

MOESAN
15-03-13, 00:18
It seams to me that their past Budda religion, Turkic related language and Indian related R1a haplogroup ,en masse in Hungarian individuals ,strongly places them at the geographic location where Afganistan is today. So they are originally Asian stock now mixed with slavic and germanic blood.

sorry i suppose I was not precise enough in my post: when I say "east asian", I mean for an anthropological point of vew, a mongoloid type, not the types that domines today in N-India or N-Pakistan: Avar elite too was of at least 2 TWO mongolid subtypes! the far origin for Huns, according to what I red from scholars, was farther in East, closer to Mongoly and NC China

and do not confuse 'asian' (geographical or geographical described anthropological type) with ethnic terms as 'slavic' or 'germanic' or 'hunnic' - ethnically speaking, 'asian' covers a lot of diverse populations

albanopolis
16-03-13, 00:15
sorry i suppose I was not precise enough in my post: when I say "east asian", I mean for an anthropological point of vew, a mongoloid type, not the types that domines today in N-India or N-Pakistan: Avar elite too was of at least 2 TWO mongolid subtypes! the far origin for Huns, according to what I red from scholars, was farther in East, closer to Mongoly and NC China

and do not confuse 'asian' (geographical or geographical described anthropological type) with ethnic terms as 'slavic' or 'germanic' or 'hunnic' - ethnically speaking, 'asian' covers a lot of diverse populationsIf they were resembling todays Mongols, today's Hungarians would have looked partly the same since they have a Hun-ic past. So my view is that their look was mixed caucasian and mongolic, the same way Yzbekistan people look today They formed the core of Huns. As they moved through slavic territories they absorbed slavs which learned their language and the group become bigger. The haplogroup R1a in Hungarians is only for minor part Slav, the rest is their own.

MOESAN
23-03-13, 23:19
If they were resembling todays Mongols, today's Hungarians would have looked partly the same since they have a Hun-ic past. So my view is that their look was mixed caucasian and mongolic, the same way Yzbekistan people look today They formed the core of Huns. As they moved through slavic territories they absorbed slavs which learned their language and the group become bigger. The haplogroup R1a in Hungarians is only for minor part Slav, the rest is their own.

I think you go very far when you affirm today Hungarians are a mix of Huns with other ethnies: their are the result of mixings bewteen diferent ehtnies, sure, but the Huns in their make-up represent a very very tiny part; th e magyaric language was send there long anough time after Huns times - nevertheless I agree with you that when arriving in Europe Huns were already a mix before the Hungarians rising in History -
and yes, R1a is maybe not only slavic (but I ignore the detailed R1a composition of Hungarians of today)

zanipolo
24-03-13, 00:15
I think you go very far when you affirm today Hungarians are a mix of Huns with other ethnies: their are the result of mixings bewteen diferent ehtnies, sure, but the Huns in their make-up represent a very very tiny part; th e magyaric language was send there long anough time after Huns times - nevertheless I agree with you that when arriving in Europe Huns were already a mix before the Hungarians rising in History -
and yes, R1a is maybe not only slavic (but I ignore the detailed R1a composition of Hungarians of today)

I believe the more the huns advanced westward, the less asiatic % was in their contingent

Alan
26-03-13, 02:30
The remands of Scythians and Sogdians which mixed and allied themselves with Mongols, and time after time absorbed more and more Mongols and their descends evolving to the first Turkic tribes.

So they were at the beginning mostly Scythian (Iranic) + Mongols and with time passing more and more shifting towards Mongol+Scythian hybrids.

oriental
26-03-13, 22:06
Mongols appeared in Central Asia after Genghis Khan's conquest in about 1200 A.D. nearly a thousand years after the Huns appeared in Europe. Recent events always colour our views. The Huns were not Mongols. They were Siberian tribes mixed with Central Asians who were Iranic like the Thracians. Time scale is all wrong by 1,000 years or so in this discussion. The biased views of Romans or Byzantiums always protrayed the invaders in the worst possible light. Romans were no angels they enslaved everybody they conquered.

albanopolis
31-03-13, 04:01
My view is that minority can not impose its language on majority. So in any country the language spoken is that of majority. Why should it be different with Hungarians? Its not that Hungarians had some kind of culture that others had to learn, and in doing so ,the others had to learn their language. Having said that, it means that the majority of Hungarians came from Asia which is the place where their language develeped. But coming from Asia it does'not mean that they were all Mongolians. They could have been looked like some other caucasian race( Pakistanis look caucasian for most part) with Mongolian intermixture. The fact that many hungarians today have generally european look it is from the germanic intermixture. Whoever understand genetics ( I don't myself) can tell us about the composition of their R1a haplogroup in Hungarians. Being R1a its not necessary slavic. Indians too are R1a. Its not the same case like Turkey where a mongolic language is spoken. A large part of Turkey's population are ballkan emigrants that came to Turkey after Mongolic otomans had conquered Anatolia, and forcefully imposing their language on indigenes populations. Bottom line, I can't see the indoeuropean side of Hungarians other than the asimilated Germans. How could be justified that a few Huns were the cause of today's Hungarian language? Hungarian has never been, it is not, and I don't see it for at least the next 5 million years as being a language of culture (the way greek or latin has been, or english is today). So why on earth an entire section of Europeans had to learn this language? The only explanation that makes sense is that the majority of todays Hungarians originate from Huns, that spoke Majarsky, and heavily mixed with germans, slavs and romanians.

Anthro-inclined
31-03-13, 07:00
My view is that minority can not impose its language on majority. So in any country the language spoken is that of majority. Why should it be different with Hungarians? Its not that Hungarians had some kind of culture that others had to learn, and in doing so ,the others had to learn their language. Having said that, it means that the majority of Hungarians came from Asia which is the place where their language develeped. But coming from Asia it does'not mean that they were all Mongolians. They could have been looked like some other caucasian race( Pakistanis look caucasian for most part) with Mongolian intermixture. The fact that many hungarians today have generally european look it is from the germanic intermixture. Whoever understand genetics ( I don't myself) can tell us about the composition of their R1a haplogroup in Hungarians. Being R1a its not necessary slavic. Indians too are R1a. Its not the same case like Turkey where a mongolic language is spoken. A large part of Turkey's population are ballkan emigrants that came to Turkey after Mongolic otomans had conquered Anatolia, and forcefully imposing their language on indigenes populations. Bottom line, I can't see the indoeuropean side of Hungarians other than the asimilated Germans. How could be justified that a few Huns were the cause of today's Hungarian language? Hungarian has never been, it is not, and I don't see it for at least the next 5 million years as being a language of culture (the way greek or latin has been, or english is today). So why on earth an entire section of Europeans had to learn this language? The only explanation that makes sense is that the majority of todays Hungarians originate from Huns, that spoke Majarsky, and heavily mixed with germans, slavs and romanians.
A couple points here id like to contest. Minority settlers can impose their cultural, linguistic and genetic traits upon majorities, even to the point that these new settlers, new culture overtakes the old majority culture. This can happen because of several factors, technology being the biggest reason for a cultural take over. This take over by small cultural minorities has happened countless times throughout history. Also, you seem to think that the Magyars and Huns are interchangable, this is not true, these are two different peoples and settled in Hungary at different points in time. The Magyars left the biggest impact on modern day Hungary, and most likley arrived circa 1000 YBP, their biggest impact on modern Hungary was their language, which is related to Finnish and is part of the Uralic language family. The Huns were a completely different people, although the term Hun is thought to be of other origins, ill call these Central Asian invaders Huns for convienence. These people invaded the hungarian plain at the fall of the Roman Empire, and their language is unknown to us, it was most likley a member of the Turkic language family. The largest impact of the Huns would have been leaving some minor cultural practices, but probably nothing of which sustained itself to our present day. But what you must understand is that only non Hungarians know it as Hungary, the citizens of Hungary call it Magyarorszag, after the Magyars. the reason we know it as Hungary is because this is what it was called after a medieval aliiance was formed, or this is what is thought.

Yetos
31-03-13, 09:25
My view is that minority can not impose its language on majority. So in any country the language spoken is that of majority. Why should it be different with Hungarians? Its not that Hungarians had some kind of culture that others had to learn, and in doing so ,the others had to learn their language. Having said that, it means that the majority of Hungarians came from Asia which is the place where their language develeped. But coming from Asia it does'not mean that they were all Mongolians. They could have been looked like some other caucasian race( Pakistanis look caucasian for most part) with Mongolian intermixture. The fact that many hungarians today have generally european look it is from the germanic intermixture. Whoever understand genetics ( I don't myself) can tell us about the composition of their R1a haplogroup in Hungarians. Being R1a its not necessary slavic. Indians too are R1a. Its not the same case like Turkey where a mongolic language is spoken. A large part of Turkey's population are ballkan emigrants that came to Turkey after Mongolic otomans had conquered Anatolia, and forcefully imposing their language on indigenes populations. Bottom line, I can't see the indoeuropean side of Hungarians other than the asimilated Germans. How could be justified that a few Huns were the cause of today's Hungarian language? Hungarian has never been, it is not, and I don't see it for at least the next 5 million years as being a language of culture (the way greek or latin has been, or english is today). So why on earth an entire section of Europeans had to learn this language? The only explanation that makes sense is that the majority of todays Hungarians originate from Huns, that spoke Majarsky, and heavily mixed with germans, slavs and romanians.

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?

Kardu
31-03-13, 16:16
They were Siberian tribes mixed with Central Asians who were Iranic like the Thracians.

Thracians were not Iranic. Not even close..

albanopolis
31-03-13, 18:07
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
31-03-13, 20:55
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
31-03-13, 21:02
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
31-03-13, 22:58
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
31-03-13, 23:07
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
31-03-13, 23:40
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
31-03-13, 23:42
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
31-03-13, 23:44
before going to bed I add that this "demonstration" does not mean that nobody remains of the previous inhabitants of Pre-Hungary!

Anthro-inclined
01-04-13, 00:04
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
01-04-13, 00:14
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
01-04-13, 00:45
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
01-04-13, 03:09
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
01-04-13, 03:12
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
01-04-13, 04:09
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
01-04-13, 04:12
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
01-04-13, 05:38
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
01-04-13, 07:51
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
01-04-13, 22:06
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
01-04-13, 22:55
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.

Yetos
02-04-13, 02:33
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?

the word Hungary reminds me the word 'gur' a classical word which means tribe/nation
2 countries have that component Hungaria and Bulgaria.
in case of Bulgaria we know that Severi and Balgurs cooperate, Severi were Slavic Speaking and Balgur language is lost, probably Turkic or Ugric,
in case of Hungary yes the genetical data are little bit strange. but the language is determinating.
an isolated language among Slavic/Germanic and next to Latin/Roman European languages is something.
so I believe, that Huns as 'steppenwolf roaming' in their road to Central Europe, they assimilated enough DNA that was not same when they started roaming, we know that such warrior tribes adopt the orphans after their raid, so after few generations genetical data can change a lot,
Yes I believe that there minority change the language, but minority was not a small number, since already had assimilated enough Central European DNA with the above method.
I mean that Huns Dna change a lot through time and area, since they absorve local DNA from where they pass adopting kids to their tribal way of life, so a mark of today 5% for example in the begining should be 15-25%. which drop to 5% due to adoptation, and assimilation of previous local population,in
Hungary we have the same result with Romania, but with different method,
in Romania Latinization came after many centuries of Roman language as rulling class, education and strong military,
in Hungary that became fast, by 'kidnaping'/adopting local DNA for the demands of the tribe warriors.

to bring subject more South in Balkans,
Yenissaries, were educated by Ottomans sometimes better than other Turks, spoke turkish, but was their DNA Turkish?

albanopolis
02-04-13, 05:09
the word Hungary reminds me the word 'gur' a classical word which means tribe/nation
2 countries have that component Hungaria and Bulgaria.
in case of Bulgaria we know that Severi and Balgurs cooperate, Severi were Slavic Speaking and Balgur language is lost, probably Turkic or Ugric,
in case of Hungary yes the genetical data are little bit strange. but the language is determinating.
an isolated language among Slavic/Germanic and next to Latin/Roman European languages is something.
so I believe, that Huns as 'steppenwolf roaming' in their road to Central Europe, they assimilated enough DNA that was not same when they started roaming, we know that such warrior tribes adopt the orphans after their raid, so after few generations genetical data can change a lot,
Yes I believe that there minority change the language, but minority was not a small number, since already had assimilated enough Central European DNA with the above method.
I mean that Huns Dna change a lot through time and area, since they absorve local DNA from where they pass adopting kids to their tribal way of life, so a mark of today 5% for example in the begining should be 15-25%. which drop to 5% due to adoptation, and assimilation of previous local population,in
Hungary we have the same result with Romania, but with different method,
in Romania Latinization came after many centuries of Roman language as rulling class, education and strong military,
in Hungary that became fast, by 'kidnaping'/adopting local DNA for the demands of the tribe warriors.

to bring subject more South in Balkans,
Yenissaries, were educated by Ottomans sometimes better than other Turks, spoke turkish, but was their DNA Turkish?In case of Romanians I know another version of how they got the language. It may sound offensive but I have heard that in numerous conversations in Albania. The story goes that around 3d centuary a.d a roman emperor ( I don't know whom, I have not read it myself) deported to present day Romania all Roman prostitutes. Since there was a shortage of men in Rome (most of them were serving in Empires frontiers) prostitution was rampant in Rome. Teams of women would steal any available man and use him. Many soldiers returning to Rome for vacation were refusing to go back to the frontiers, because life in Rome had a lot of spice from the prostitutes. To make the life boring the Emperor deported them. This is a recorded historical fact. So there was a settlment of real Romans there ( in this case prostitutes) that made possible language change, it was't few elite Romans.

LeBrok
02-04-13, 07:45
In case of Romanians I know another version of how they got the language. It may sound offensive but I have heard that in numerous conversations in Albania. The story goes that around 3d centuary a.d a roman emperor ( I don't know whom, I have not read it myself) deported to present day Romania all Roman prostitutes. To make the life boring the Emperor deported them. This is a recorded historical fact.
Could you do an effort and find this historical fact for us, or emphasise the fact that it is only a folk story from Albania.
Regardless, you are claiming that minority cannot change language of a country. How come you claim here that few thousands prostitutes (unless Rome expelled few millions of them!?) could impose Roman language over other population? Just make your mind, and be consistent in your views.

Alan
05-04-13, 18:13
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.


the Thracians bordered the Iranic Sarmatians just Northeast of their territory. And I was obviously talking about close geographic proximity which at the same time should indicate cultural closeness too( while they even speak languages of the same family and most probably both are of the Satem group). And even after I clearly said that I was not claiming the Thracians being closest to Iranians why are you again asking what makes them closest to Iranians? I said Thracian is in my opinion closer to Iranian as Slavic is.

Please read my post before asking question about things which I never claimed. When did I claim that Thracian is part of the Indo-Iranian language family. I clearly stated that Thracian would be closest to come to Iranian without being part of the Iranian family itself. This shouldn't indicate that Iranian is the closest to Thracian that but according to me Thracian would be the nearest to come to Iranian from another language family.

Alan
05-04-13, 18:17
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.



The only source which we have which claims that Cimmerians invaded from North to South, is Heredotus yet even this is just about an ancient event which took place but it does not answer the question of their origin. The fact is the first ever mentioning of anything Cimmerian is from Assyrian sources which call them Gamiri and place their home somewhere between the Southern Caucasus and the Black Sea, to be exactly bordering Mannae, somewhere between Mannae and Urartu. This name is also still in use for some Kurdish territories in Western Ira, Gawiri(Is a typical Kurdish loudshift of M=W) And its also located in a area attest to be inhabited by Gimris. They were often in conflict with Urartu. There is a possibility that they left their original home for north of the Black sea and after they were driven out again (this time the Scythians) they raid back to South.


I usually intend to not quote much from Wikipedia but this is underlined by sources.


Read.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, of the 5th century BC, the Cimmerians inhabited the region north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, in what is now Ukraine and Russia. The archeologist Renate Rolle and others have argued that no one has demonstrated with archeological evidence the presence of Cimmerians in the southern parts of Russia or elsewhere.[4]

Although the 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica reflects Herodotus, stating, "They [the Cimmerians] probably did live in the area north of the Black Sea, but attempts to define their original homeland more precisely by archaeological means, or even to fix the date of their expulsion from their country by the Scythians, have not so far been completely successful,"[2] in recent research academic scholars have made use of documents dating to centuries earlier than Herodotus, such as intelligence reports to Sargon, and note that these identify the Cimmerians as living south rather than north of the Black Sea.[5][6]

Alan
05-04-13, 19:09
And another thing which indicates that Heredotus just mistook South with the North Black Sea is his own explanation of Cimmerian origin!


Cimmerians were said to have originated from the Matiani by Herodotus, moving west into Anatolia along the south shore of the Black Sea. Herodotus also said that later, in Median times, there was a second site called Matiene, along the eastern shore of the Halys river in northwestern Cappadocia across the river from the Phrygians.


Matiene was a Kingdom in Northwestern iran which bordered the Mannaen territories just like Sargons reports. Matiani is often connected witht he remands of the Mitanni and related to the Mada and was later absorbed iinto Media.

oriental
05-04-13, 21:15
Queen Tomyris Of region east of the Caspian Sea, dipped Emperor Cyrus head in blood. The Massagetae were of Iranian origin. My previous Iranian boss' wife was a red head. Her Iranian name Tahm Rayis. Herodotus was Greek so he recorded her name in the Greek fashion. It is like how Canada was named. I don't if it is true but a French Canadian told me how Canada was named.

The French explorer asks the native Indian:"What country is this?" The native answers "Ca-na-da! (Meaning - I don't know what you are saying)". Thus Canada was named.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris

Nobody1
06-04-13, 06:31
at Alan

Since the Cimmerians were Indo-Europeans, they originated (like all other Indo-Europeans) in the Pontic-Caspian steppe; Kurgan I - Kurgan II.
So the question is not where did the Cimmerians originate but when did they spread to the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iranian Plateau.

The first wave of Indo-Europeans into this area were: Hittites ~1800 BC / Aryans (Indus Valley via Iranian Plateau) ~1500 BC
The Cimmerians and Scythians def. belonged to the second wave of Indo-Europeans since (as you have also mentioned) the first mentioning of Cimmerians was by the Assyrians [Sennacherib letter] ~714 BC, the letter mentions Scythian and Cimmerian present in Urartu during Sargon II reign 722-705.
This is no contradiction to Herodotus, since Herodotus also clearly mentions the Cimmerians and Scythians in this region during the 7th cen. BC. The only mistake by Herodotus is that he asserts the migration into this region also within the 7th cen. BC. While the Assyrian inscriptions clearly mention Cimmerians and Scythians presence (for the first time) already in 714 BC (Sargon II).

Unfortunately Homer's (Odyssey) description of the Cimmerians and their homeland (prob. the first ever) is too crypted and mysterious.

Alan
06-04-13, 15:36
@Nobody


The Problem is that you take the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory into conception as if it is a proven established fact, but as we all know this theory is more and more questioned.

And lets say the Pontic-Caspian theory is right, still what forces us to believe that all Indo-European groups had to formed there? So according to this logic "the Germanics already existed in the Pontic Caspian steppes and did not evolve later in Central-North Europe".

There is no doubt that all known reliable sources attest Cimmerian presence in Western Asia but not the steppes.


Another interesting fact is, that Medes were a general ethnic term also often used by Cimmerians and even Scythians

Carola Metzner-Nebelsick: Kimmerier In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Band. 16 (2000), S. 505–507.



which again indicates that the Cimmerians must have been a part of the Medes or at least lived in close connection to them. Since even the Cappadocian part of the Cimmerians used to call some regions Matiene, just like their original(?) homeland in west of Manna.


If we take all the sources and facts together there are heavy pro's for an origin rather South than North. I absolutely can't find any source which could indicate a Northern origin of them.

If someone knows any archeologic or historic sources which could indicate an origin North of the Black Sea please share it with us, since even Heredotus seems to slightly contradict himself. On one hand he attests a Cimmerian rade from North of the BlackSea into Asia Minor but than he attests the Cimmerian origin in Matiene(Northwestern Iran) and says that the Cimmerian raid startet from there.

Kardu
06-04-13, 16:09
If someone knows any archeologic or historic sources which could indicate an origin North of the Black Sea please share it with us, since even Heredotus seems to slightly contradict himself. On one hand he attests a Cimmerian rade from North of the BlackSea into Asia Minor but than he attests the Cimmerian origin in Matiene(Northwestern Iran) and says that the Cimmerian raid startet from there.
Several scientists associate Cimmerians with Srubna Culture. Can you yourself quote any scientific theory indicating southern origins of Cimmerians?

Alan
06-04-13, 18:27
Several scientists associate Cimmerians with Srubna Culture. Can you yourself quote any scientific theory indicating southern origins of Cimmerians?


Kardu, a theory is "only" a theory but the important part is on what archeologic or historic facts is it based on?

And if you red my previous post you have seen that several scientists confirm no archeological findings North of the Black sea which could be linked to Cimmerians. So many scientist have started to consider a southern origin of Cimmerians.

The theory is based on historical records.

Nobody1
06-04-13, 19:22
The Problem is that you take the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory into conception as if it is a proven established fact, but as we all know this theory is more and more questioned.

Well, It is NOT a 100% proven established fact, but the evidence (Archaeology/Anthropology/Linguistics) that supports this theory is overwhelming and clearly establishes an East-West migration in Europe and a North-South (via Caucasus/via Central Asia) migration into Anatolia and Iranian Plateau; and of course Indus-Valley.


And lets say the Pontic-Caspian theory is right, still what forces us to believe that all Indo-European groups had to formed there? So according to this logic "the Germanics already existed in the Pontic Caspian steppes and did not evolve later in Central-North Europe".

No, thats exactly what it doesnt suggest, and thats the actual Problem here, you do not acknowledge the Time-line.
When we talk about Germanic people we talk about a first wave of Indo-Europeans [Kurgan III] of the Corded Ware Culture, and subsequent waves of Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age [Unetice/Urnfield]; with a Germanic consciousness [Germani] only being established during Roman times.


There is no doubt that all known reliable sources attest Cimmerian presence in Western Asia but not the steppes. If someone knows any archeologic or historic sources which could indicate an origin North of the Black Sea please share it with us,

Again, you are not acknowledging the time-line;

Cimmerians and Scythians are mentioned in Urartu during Sargon II [722-705 BC], not earlier
And Scythians are mentioned in Medes during the Siege of Nineveh [Cyaxares] 616 BC, not earlier.
Homer and Herodotus are the first to extensively mention them, and both link the Cimmerians to the North Black sea.

Archaeology: as Kardu pointed out, there is the Srubna Culture [North Black sea] concerning the Cimmerians,
and as i quoted in posts before:

Kristian Kristiansen - Europe before History (1999)
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,

So the Thraco-Cimmerian culture complex is not earlier than ~800 BC, so from an Historical and Archaeological point of view, we are clearly talking about a later [second wave] Indo-European migration/invasion into the regions of Caucasus-Anatolia-Iranian Plataeu. The Hittites (1800-1100 BC) do not mention the Cimmerians and the Assyrians only mention them (first time ever) in ~714 BC.

zanipolo
06-04-13, 20:08
interesting on the cimmerians

I have recently read that they ( cimmeranians) owned all lands from Ukraine ( bordering the baltic and fenni people ) to the terek river in the caucasus. The sarmatians moving from east to west destroyed the cimmerians kingdom

Goga
07-04-13, 13:52
No, thats exactly what it doesnt suggest, and thats the actual Problem here, you do not acknowledge the Time-line.
When we talk about Germanic people we talk about a first wave of Indo-Europeans [Kurgan III] of the Corded Ware Culture, and subsequent waves of Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age [Unetice/Urnfield]; with a Germanic consciousness [Germani] only being established during Roman times.No, you're wrong. Proto-Germanic peoples were hybrids between y-DNA hg. R1b Bell-Beakers +natives of Germanic lands y-DNA hg. I1 + y-DNA hg. R1a folks. With other words Germanic tribes were NOT from the east but were native to their homeland!



Again, you are not acknowledging the time-line;

Cimmerians and Scythians are mentioned in Urartu during Sargon II [722-705 BC], not earlier
And Scythians are mentioned in Medes during the Siege of Nineveh [Cyaxares] 616 BC, not earlier.
Homer and Herodotus are the first to extensively mention them, and both link the Cimmerians to the North Black sea.Also WRONG. The Medes destroyed the Assyrians (Akkadians) from the south from Arabia in 612 BC. The Medes were natives of Kurdish Zagros mountains. The Medes were mentioned by the Assyrians already in 9th century BCE. At that time Assyrians already occupied some land of Medes (Media/Mitanni/Matiene). "Media was located in the area south of the Caspian Sea and east of the Zagros Mountains, its original domain stretched for 600 miles north and south, and 250 miles east to west. The nation first came into prominence in the ninth century b.c. and is mentioned in inscriptions concerning Shalmaneser III (about 836 b.c. )". http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-vi-medes-and-persians

Goga
07-04-13, 14:10
interesting on the cimmerians

I have recently read that they ( cimmeranians) owned all lands from Ukraine ( bordering the baltic and fenni people ) to the terek river in the caucasus. The sarmatians moving from east to west destroyed the cimmerians kingdom
Oh, which language did they speak then, since Iranic was not evolved in and is NOT from Ukraine, lol. It's possible that Cimmerians were not Iranic at all, but were dominated by Iranic nomadic elite from the southeast. And later Iranic nomads backmigrated into Kurdistan again and bringing I2a folks with them. That's why they were called NOMANDS at the first place. There's lots of hg. J2 in Ukraine that indicates that. Proto-Slavic peoples were = hg. I2 + R1a +later N1c1. There's I2 & R1a in Kurdistan but no N1c1. So it's possible that Cimmerians were I2a + R1a or even R1b before they later mixed with N1c1 folks.

Anthro-inclined
07-04-13, 15:32
Wasnt Conan the Barbarian a Cimmerian?:wary2:

kamani
07-04-13, 16:26
Wasnt Conan the Barbarian a Cimmerian?:wary2:
that's right. They all looked like Arnold.

Nobody1
07-04-13, 18:38
No, you're wrong. Proto-Germanic peoples were hybrids between y-DNA hg. R1b Bell-Beakers +natives of Germanic lands y-DNA hg. I1 + y-DNA hg. R1a folks. With other words Germanic tribes were NOT from the east but were native to their homeland!

So you claim that the Indo-European migration never happened, cultures like Corded Ware and Unetice and Urnfield [all East to West] never existed and that the "Proto-Germanic" people were NOT Indo-Europeans (from the East). Despite Archaeology/Anthropology/Linguistics. Super.
[for your info: Bell Beaker was west to east culture spread migration]


Also WRONG.

Just read my post:
Cimmerians and Scythians are mentioned in Urartu during Sargon II [722-705 BC], not earlier
And Scythians are mentioned in Medes during the Siege of Nineveh [Cyaxares] 616 BC, not earlier.

So, the Netherlands found new inscriptions that confirm an earlier presence of Scythians and Cimmerians in the Near East. You sure proved me wrong with all those new overwhelming facts of yours


The Medes destroyed the Assyrians (Akkadians) from the south from Arabia in 612 BC.

LOL


The Medes were natives of Kurdish Zagros mountains. The Medes were mentioned by the Assyrians already in 9th century BCE. At that time Assyrians already occupied some land of Medes (Media/Mitanni/Matiene). "Media was located in the area south of the Caspian Sea and east of the Zagros Mountains, its original domain stretched for 600 miles north and south, and 250 miles east to west. The nation first came into prominence in the ninth century b.c. and is mentioned in inscriptions concerning Shalmaneser III (about 836 b.c. )". http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-vi-medes-and-persians

Absolutely correct, now you just have to be capable in understanding the given TIME-LINE.

Don Peretz - The Middle East Today (1994)
"ancient Aryans gave Iran its name (meaning land of the Aryans). They include the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Scythians, and the Achaemenid clan, closely related to and vassals of the Medes."

Yup, that sure sounds like semitic Arabs from the south.

Goga
07-04-13, 19:33
LOL



Absolutely correct, now you just have to be capable in understanding the given TIME-LINE.

Don Peretz - The Middle East Today (1994)
"ancient Aryans gave Iran its name (meaning land of the Aryans). They include the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Scythians, and the Achaemenid clan, closely related to and vassals of the Medes."

Yup, that sure sounds like semitic Arabs from the south.
Huh? You didn't understand me. Assyrians were Semitic Akkadian/Arabic tribes from Arabia (from south) that tried to occupy Kurdistan (in north). The Medes were Iranic peoples native to Kurdistan (Kurdish Zagros Mountains). The Medes started their resistance against Assyrians somewhere not far from Urmia (Kurdish lake).

Goga
07-04-13, 19:37
So you claim that the Indo-European migration never happened, cultures like Corded Ware and Unetice and Urnfield [all East to West] never existed and that the "Proto-Germanic" people were NOT Indo-Europeans (from the East). Despite Archaeology/Anthropology/Linguistics. Super.
[for your info: Bell Beaker was west to east culture spread migration]You're in denial. R1b is for 45% in Germany, hg. 'I' for more than 20% and there's only 16% of R1a. There's more hg. 'I' than 'R1a'.With other words 45% R1b + 20% hg. 'I' = 65%. The majority of Gemans are just native to their homeland! Germans are hybrids between R1b, R1a and I, whether you like it or not. Germanic language was created in Germany and NOT in the east!!!

Goga
07-04-13, 19:48
Cimmerians and Scythians are mentioned in Urartu during Sargon II [722-705 BC], not earlier
And Scythians are mentioned in Medes during the Siege of Nineveh [Cyaxares] 616 BC, not earlier.

So, the Netherlands found new inscriptions that confirm an earlier presence of Scythians and Cimmerians in the Near East. You sure proved me wrong with all those new overwhelming facts of yours
Cimmerians, Scythians and the Medes were all mentioned almost at the same time. And the region where Cimmerians, Scythians and the Medes existed was south of the Caspian Sea. The Medes were Iranic speakers. I'm not sure about Cimmerians. And Iranic language is NOT from Ukraine. In that region native folks spoke/speak SLAVIC not IRANIC!!!!

Goga
07-04-13, 19:56
"Umman Manda. Homeland of Ummanda seems to be somewhere from Central Anatolia to north or northeastern Babylonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia) in what later came to be known as Mitanni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni), Mannae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannae) and Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes), respectively. Zaluti, a leader of Ummanda Manda is mentioned, whose name seems to have an Indo-Iranian etymology. In the first millennium BC, the term denoted Cimmerians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians) and/or Medes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umman_Manda

Nobody1
07-04-13, 20:46
at Gaga

Im not really sure what you are trying to convince me of, but inform yourself of: Indo-Europeans , [I]Urheimat- Pontic-Caspian steppes/Kurgan I-II-III/and most of all, of a certain time-line.

Genetics

Im aware of what the current Y-DNA make up of modern-day Germany is.
Maybe you should inform yurself abut Spread of R1b [poss. Neolithic/spread: Bell Beaker Chalcolithic] and R1a [Corded ware/poss. also Neolithic]
R1a - Eulau: Haak 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
R1b - Busby 2011
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full
(any questions, just ask)

It is therefor poss. that R1b and R1a are both Pre-Indo-European as well as Indo-European since both Haplogroups are present in the complete range from Europe to Asia via Iranian Plateau. Hg I is present in 3 distinct european pockest: Sardinia / NW Balkans / Scandinavia. Seemingly def. Pre-Indo-European, but Archaeology and Anthropology confirm that the [B]Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-European (both of the Caucasoid sub-races) MIXED in Europe (as well as Iranian Plateau/Anatolia and Indus Valley with the pre-existing (Elamites/Pelasgians/Dravidians) populations there).

Gaga's excurse into ancient History

what exactly is it that you are trying to convince me of? Is this another trip down your personal la la land of semitic Medes and proto-slavic Ukrainians of the 8th cen. BC?
In posts before i wrote [Historically/Archaeologically/Anthropologically attested] of a FIRST wave of Indo-European migration/Invasion [Hittites (1800 BC) & Indo-Aryans] via caucasus - via Central Asia and Iranian Plateau (Indus Valley 1500 BC). And a SECOND wave Indo-European migration Cimmerians, Scythians etc. in the 8th cen. BC [Sennacherib letter / Homer / Herodotus]
Your quotes all confirm this. Just make an effort and try to understand them.

Goga
07-04-13, 21:10
Don’t act like you don’t understand me. If you think that I don’t understand history just look at the mirror. The only fella that doesn’t understand history or lives in a fabricated history is not me but you.
What I’m trying to say is that it’s actually very much possible that original proto-Iranic tribes were actually form the Iranian Plateau and NOT from the steppes.
URHEIMAT of the proto-IRANIC peoples was the Iranian Plateau! The Iranic Medes were NOT from the steppes but simply a continuation of natives of Kurdistan.
In the European part of the Steppes native people NEVER spoke Germanic nor Iranic!

Nobody1
07-04-13, 21:58
Don’t act like you don’t understand me. If you think that I don’t understand history just look at the mirror. The only fella that doesn’t understand history or lives in a fabricated history is not me but you.
sure


What I’m trying to say is that it’s actually very much possible that original proto-Iranic tribes were actually form the Iranian Plateau and NOT from the steppes.
No, thats false (Archaeology/Anthropology/Linguistics/Historical documents) are a clear contra to your assumptions and since your assumptions are based on your on wishful thinking and destorted interpretations, not much of a surprise.


In the European part of the Steppes native people NEVER spoke Germanic nor Iranic
Wow, no kidding; who would have thought; guess thats why everybody except Gaga from the Netherlands is talking about the Proto-Indo-European concept (Linguistic/Archaeology) of the Kurgan complex Pontic-Caspian Steppes.

doubt you'll get it now, but I can only re-post from before
When we talk about Germanic people we talk about a first wave of Indo-Europeans [Kurgan III] of the Corded Ware Culture, and subsequent waves of Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age [Unetice/Urnfield]; with a Germanic consciousness [Germani] only being established during Roman times.

In terms of linguistics (Germanic proper), look up Grimm's law.

Goga
07-04-13, 22:47
Dude, what the hell are you talking about???

During the Roman times there was already a split between Celtic and Germanic groups.
The Romans spoke Vulgar Latin a language already evolved from Celto-Germanic group of Indo-European language family. The Romans didn’t invent the Germanic tribes, lol.

Before the so called Kurgan culture there was Maykop culture that heavily influenced the Yamna culture. And in turn Yamna culture influenced the cultures in the Eurasian steppes.

Also the oldest Kurgans are in Göbekli Tepe thousands of years older than Kurgans in the Steppes.

Kardu
07-04-13, 22:47
Wow, no kidding; who would have thought; guess thats why everybody except Gaga from the Netherlands is talking about the Proto-Indo-European concept (Linguistic/Archaeology) of the Kurgan complex Pontic-Caspian Steppes.



Goga usually tries to link ancient Aryans to Medes (the latter for him are supposedly ancestors of Kurds) and claim that modern Kurds are true descendants of Aryans. That's why he always vehemently opposes the Kurgan Theory etc.

Goga
07-04-13, 22:51
Goga usually tries to link ancient Aryans to Medes (the latter for him are supposedly ancestors of Kurds) and claim that modern Kurds are true descendants of Aryans. That's why he always vehemently opposes the Kurgan Theory etc.Nonsense... Proto-Indo-Europeans have nothing to do with Aryan groups which appeared thousands years later. Proto-Indo-Europeans didn’t speak Iranic, lol!

Kardu
07-04-13, 23:24
Nonsense... Proto-Indo-Europeans have nothing to do with Aryan groups which appeared thousands years later. Proto-Indo-Europeans didn’t speak Iranic, lol!
Nothing to do? :) Who said Aryans/PIE spoke Iranic?

Goga
07-04-13, 23:38
Nothing to do? :) Who said Aryans/PIE spoke Iranic?
Are you serious??

‘Iranian’ is a different term for ‘Aryan’.

There is a gap of thousands of years between folks that spoke a proto-Indo-Euroepan language and the folks that wrote the Gathas (in Iranic Avetsan) and Rigveda (in Vedic Sanscrit). Iranic Avestan and Vedic Sanscrit are practically the same.

PIE mixed with lots of other races for many thousands of years before they became Iranic/Aryan. Aryans evolved differently from other proto-Indo-Europeans. So PIEans have nothing to do with later Aryans ....

Goga
07-04-13, 23:49
Also, Aryans were those who wrote Zoroastrian Gathas and Rigveda. And NOT savage proto-Slavic hunter-gatherers in Eastern Europe or something.

Yetos
08-04-13, 01:20
at Gaga

Im not really sure what you are trying to convince me of, but inform yourself of: Indo-Europeans , [I]Urheimat- Pontic-Caspian steppes/Kurgan I-II-III/and most of all, of a certain time-line.

Genetics

Im aware of what the current Y-DNA make up of modern-day Germany is.
Maybe you should inform yurself abut Spread of R1b [poss. Neolithic/spread: Bell Beaker Chalcolithic] and R1a [Corded ware/poss. also Neolithic]
R1a - Eulau: Haak 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
R1b - Busby 2011
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.full
(any questions, just ask)

It is therefor poss. that R1b and R1a are both Pre-Indo-European as well as Indo-European since both Haplogroups are present in the complete range from Europe to Asia via Iranian Plateau. Hg I is present in 3 distinct european pockest: Sardinia / NW Balkans / Scandinavia. Seemingly def. Pre-Indo-European, but Archaeology and Anthropology confirm that the [B]Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-European (both of the Caucasoid sub-races) MIXED in Europe (as well as Iranian Plateau/Anatolia and Indus Valley with the pre-existing (Elamites/Pelasgians/Dravidians) populations there).

Gaga's excurse into ancient History

what exactly is it that you are trying to convince me of? Is this another trip down your personal la la land of semitic Medes and proto-slavic Ukrainians of the 8th cen. BC?
In posts before i wrote [Historically/Archaeologically/Anthropologically attested] of a FIRST wave of Indo-European migration/Invasion [Hittites (1800 BC) & Indo-Aryans] via caucasus - via Central Asia and Iranian Plateau (Indus Valley 1500 BC). And a SECOND wave Indo-European migration Cimmerians, Scythians etc. in the 8th cen. BC [Sennacherib letter / Homer / Herodotus]
Your quotes all confirm this. Just make an effort and try to understand them.

I agree to most,
but we miss 4 major things, except the linguistic theories

1) Varna culture
2) Gedrosian component
3) Leyla teppe archaiological founds
4) Tocharian are minor Asian IE language

can you explain the above 3?
or you just exclude them from your theories?

Yetos
08-04-13, 01:35
Are you serious??

‘Iranian’ is a different term for ‘Aryan’.

There is a gap of thousands of years between folks that spoke a proto-Indo-Euroepan language and the folks that wrote the Gathas (in Iranic Avetsan) and Rigveda (in Vedic Sanscrit). Iranic Avestan and Vedic Sanscrit are practically the same.

PIE mixed with lots of other races for many thousands of years before they became Iranic/Aryan. Aryans evolved differently from other proto-Indo-Europeans. So PIEans have nothing to do with later Aryans ....


Goga Understand it,

I am not going to repat it

Aryan is not Iranian

there many theoriesm but in all Aryan is not Indian

Indo-Hettit
Armenian
Greco-Aryan
etc

don't mess Indo-Iranian with Aryan,
in Aryan the king is Anaha (anahitta the queen)
in Indo-Iranian is Sach
etc etc.

Nobody1
08-04-13, 01:44
Before the so called Kurgan culture there was Maykop culture that heavily influenced the Yamna culture. And in turn Yamna culture influenced the cultures in the Eurasian steppes. Also the oldest Kurgans are in Göbekli Tepe thousands of years older than Kurgans in the Steppes.

I think that you are now reaching spheres that are beyond - good and evil.
Seriously, inform yourself about The Kurgan Culture Complex [Kurgan I - Kurgan II - Kurgan III -(Kurgan IV)]
(ps. Maikop is Kurgan II-III and Yamna Kurgan IV).
Göbekli Tepe has nothing to do with the Kurgan Cult. Com., i have already wrote in a diff. thread about it,

I consider Gobekli Tepe to be just as interesting and mysterious as most other sites of the Fertile Crescent,
Interesting of course, because it was a Pre-Neolithic (hunter gatherer) religious site/settlement (transitioning to Neolithic agriculture) and mysterious in terms that it was, like Catal Huyuk or the Mureybet settlements simply abandoned.
Also the fact that Gobekli Tepe was Pre-Semitic as well as Pre-Indo-European, makes it interesting in connection with the the equally Non Semitic Sumerians and the Non Semitic (Pre-Indo-European) Hatti.


During the Roman times there was already a split between Celtic and Germanic groups.
The Romans spoke Vulgar Latin a language already evolved from Celto-Germanic group of Indo-European language family. The Romans didn’t invent the Germanic tribes, lol.

I never claimed that but thanks for sharing your pathetic conclusions.
Since you have no clue about the Indo-European complex (Proto-Urheimat-Kurgan-Migrations-Cultures-Linguistics-Anthropology) its nothing but a waste of time to talk about "tribal/social" consciousness within the Indo-Europeans of Europe.
PS: do you even know what Germani means?

Nobody1
08-04-13, 02:11
I agree to most,
but we miss 4 major things, except the linguistic theories

1) Varna culture
2) Gedrosian component
3) Leyla teppe archaiological founds
4) Tocharian are minor Asian IE language

can you explain the above 3?
or you just exclude them from your theories?

1) Varna (Karanovo VI) is Pre-Indo-European with extensive contacts to Kurgan I. Look it up.
2) dont get your problem concerning the Gedrosian component. It actually links Europe and Asia via Iranian Plateau just like the Indo-European migration and Hg R1a, R1b. Thats not a theory thats an observation.
3) Leyla-Teepe are you referring to the Maikop link? Again Maikop is Kurgan II-III, and in case you didnt notice im the dude that is in favour of the Continual Migrations/Waves.
4) Tocharian, i think you can figure that out on your own.

Dont really understand you problems, or why you think these prove a contradiction to the Urheimat-Kurgan complex. But than im not sure what your Historical understanding is.

And thanks for calling it my theory, i would love to have all the recognition and awards that went along to all the Scientists (Linguists/Anthropologists/Archaeologists/Historians) that established this complex.

nordicwarrior
08-04-13, 04:20
Goga, I've been shouting about the importance of Gobekli Tepe probably louder than anyone else on this site, and I have no idea how you can link it to GT to Kurgan. Can you site your proof? I don't think ANYONE knows enough about Gobekli Tepe to start attaching specific tribes or y-haplogroups to it.

I have my own bizarre theories on what group (actually groups) built it and why they buried it a few thousand years later... but I'm not foolish to try and pass my personal thoughts off as fact.

Anthro-inclined
08-04-13, 05:12
Goga, I've been shouting about the importance of Gobekli Tepe probably louder than anyone else on this site, and I have no idea how you can link it to GT to Kurgan. Can you site your proof? I don't think ANYONE knows enough about Gobekli Tepe to start attaching specific tribes or y-haplogroups to it.

I have my own bizarre theories on what group (actually groups) built it and why they buried it a few thousand years later... but I'm not foolish to try and pass my personal thoughts off as fact.
I dont think they buried it, overtime buildings and structures erode and sink into the ground, same thing happened with Babylon, the Sphinx, Skara Brae, and many other Neolithic ruins. Same goes for remains, this is just part of a natural process. Regarding Gobekli Tepe itself, I propose you start a thread on the topic NW, and propose a question about its significance, and your own thoughts on it, definetly be an interesting discussion.

EDIT: It appears I was to quick to correct you in my first statement, you are right NW, it was buried on purpose. This is extremely interesting, this adds a whole neww perspective on the site FOR ME. Thanks for the info NW. Now I think its even more important that you start a thread on this.

nordicwarrior
08-04-13, 11:19
Yes it was buried on purpose.

I'm going to hold off on my full theories on this subject. They will led to discussions that are rather charged to say the least.

Plus Gobekli Tepe has already flustered the camp that says Sumer was the first settled, organized culture, so this ancient site has already caused a stir in certain circles.

albanopolis
11-04-13, 01:51
Could you do an effort and find this historical fact for us, or emphasise the fact that it is only a folk story from Albania.
Regardless, you are claiming that minority cannot change language of a country. How come you claim here that few thousands prostitutes (unless Rome expelled few millions of them!?) could impose Roman language over other population? Just make your mind, and be consistent in your views.

If you know any historian of antiquity you may ask them about the truth of historical fact I just mentioned. I have heard the story, I found it funny and it stuck in my mind. We Albanians do not harbour hard feelings about Romanians, since we have not had any unpleasant history with them, so I could make up the story. But keep in mind Romania of antiquity was not 20 mil people as it is today. It could have been Half a milion in total. So 50 000 deported women are a big deal. So they formed the core of that group that gradually grew in number to present day population. Because if you beleive that few elite people could change the language, the question come why Britain did not change it, why not Greece, Albania that were even close than Romania, why not Egypt, Algeria etc,, that also were part of the Empire. I am not saying that minority can not influence it, I am sayng is it could not comlitely change it.

LeBrok
11-04-13, 03:41
I am not saying that minority can not influence it, I am sayng is it could not comlitely change it.
Yes you are.

It could have been Half a milion in total. So 50 000 deported women are a big deal.

Yetos
11-04-13, 07:16
1) Varna (Karanovo VI) is Pre-Indo-European with extensive contacts to Kurgan I. Look it up.
2) dont get your problem concerning the Gedrosian component. It actually links Europe and Asia via Iranian Plateau just like the Indo-European migration and Hg R1a, R1b. Thats not a theory thats an observation.
3) Leyla-Teepe are you referring to the Maikop link? Again Maikop is Kurgan II-III, and in case you didnt notice im the dude that is in favour of the Continual Migrations/Waves.
4) Tocharian, i think you can figure that out on your own.

Dont really understand you problems, or why you think these prove a contradiction to the Urheimat-Kurgan complex. But than im not sure what your Historical understanding is.

And thanks for calling it my theory, i would love to have all the recognition and awards that went along to all the Scientists (Linguists/Anthropologists/Archaeologists/Historians) that established this complex.


main reasons
1) combination of Gedrosian with kurgans Maykop may give us a road that is conected with Indo-Hetit linguistic Theory,
2) Varna culture is important cause we find another road,
your theory uses the arsenic bronze road from maykop to Balkans (Georgia to Serbia/croatia) North black sea road,
but we also have another road, the road of Gold and burying ritual position of Varna, just add the the time of megalithic structures in Europe which are far ancient, so the knowledge enter Europe or exported Europe?
combining Varna with Rudna Glava we have a good explanation of Armenian theory, that brings IE to Balkans where diversities of R1 are good enough, (maybe due to sink phenomenon, but what if not?)
3) the Tocharian migration is mention in Ptolemy as the dream of Alexander, the campaign of Dionysus to far East. concerning that the first male-ruling society is Varna (all neolithic were matriarchical ruling) connected with Greco-Aryan theory can give explanations to many.

why?
cause road of Gold starts from Varna and we know that reach steppe before arsenic bronze,
cause the burial ritual of Varna is found millenium after when kurgans start.
cause Tocharians are the ones who made the Kurgans in Asia
cause the migration Gedrosian component pass from Leyla teppe, which is mother civilisation to Maykop

Maybe I am wrong, or misunderstand many, but my observations I believe have a point,
so the arsenic bronze steppe tribes, how sure you are expand IE language, or learn it before they spread it,
besides glottochronology gives either far old neolithic (maybe only G2a) origin of IE
either closer than arsenic bronze (after entrance in Europe.

so I agree with the times of migrations you gave,
as observations that can be used as basis/thesis to create a theory,
but i do not agree in the usage as determinate axioma,
cause as I wrote some other observations in the future maybe will have heavier influence.
Just imagine to find R1a in Varna necropolis simmilar to Tocharian,
or Gedrosian component before the arrival of the so called IEans.

Nobody1
12-04-13, 09:13
I understand (i think) what you are saying but i dont really get the point/message.

All the Indo-European have a common root [Linguistics] and a common homeland [Archaeology/(Anthropology)].
This Homeland [[I]Urheimat] has been identified as the Caspian-Pontic steppes, based on the grounds of Archaeology of the Kurgan Culture Complex [ Kurgan I - Kurgan II - Kurgan III - Kurgan IV]. The exact expansions (Migrations-Invasions) of the Kurgan Indo-Europeans into Europe/Anatolia/Caucasus/Central Asia/Iranian Plateau/Indus valley has also been determined on the grounds of Archaeology-(Anthropology)/Linguistics and Historical Documentations.

Archeology

1.) Varna Culture

John Boardman - The Cambridge Ancient History - Vol.3 (1982)
Karanovo VI, which corresponds with the Romanian Gumelnita group, Karanovo VI has four phases. Phases I-II correspond with Gumelnija A1-A2 (including what is now called A3) according to the Romanian archaeologists. Phases III-IV correspond with Gumelnita B. In north-eastern Bulgaria this culture is known also as the Kodza Dermen group, and the culture of phase III along the Black Sea is classified as the Varna culture.
On the coast of the Black Sea the Varna group corresponds to Phase III of the Gumelnija-Kodza Dermen group; it is in fact the richest variant of the Gumelnita group.

David W. Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2010) [Princeton Uni.]
Between about 4200 and 3900 BCE more than six hundred tell settlements of the Gumelnita, Karanovo VI and varna cultures were burned and abandoned in the lower danube valley and eastern Bulgaria. Some of their residents dispersed temporarily into smaller villages like the Gumelnita B1 hamlet of Jilava, southwest of Bucharest, with just five to six houses and a single-level cultural deposit.
"We are faced with the complete replacement of a culture" the foremost expert on Eneolithic metallurgy E. N. Chernykh said. It was "a catastrophe of colossal scope...a complete cultural caesura" according to the Bulgarian archaeologist H. Todorova

British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara - Ancient Anatolia (1998)
increasing evidence for disastrous happenings in Romania and Bulgaria as barbarous, almost certainly Indo-European, peoples moved west massacring and causing panic. The Gumelnitsa-Karanovo VI culture was destroyed.

Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States - The 15th LACUS Forum (1989)
The technology used by the early Indo-Europeans in the construction of fences, walls, or even dwellings must have been rooted in the Paleolithic. Indeed, the destruction of phase VI of the Karanovo site in Bulgaria by the first wave of the Eurasian steppe pastoralists reveals mud walled houses with a wattle core (Piggott 1965:46).

So, the Varna culture [Karanovo VI complex] was a Pre-Indo-European culture with extensive contact to the Kurgan steppe-complex, and with the first Kurgan expansion/migration/invasion completely destroyed.

2.) Metallurgy - Im not sure what Gold road from Varna into the Steppes, you mean.

Gold

Philip L. Kohl - The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (2009)
The wealth of the metals – arsenical copper/bronzes and silver and gold artifacts - found in the maikop "royal" kurgans is truly extraordinary, leading Chernykh (1992: 142-144) to reflect on the "problem of Gold" at this time. Indeed, if we trace the occurence of gold in the area of our concern, we see a conspicious shift from north to south that continues through Middle Bronze times: the early Chalcolithic floresence of gold consumption in the balkans, paricularly in the varna cemetery; the abundance of gold (and silver) objects in the maikop kurgans of the northwestern Caucasus during the Early Bronze period; and the spectacular discoveries of precious gold and, to a lesser extent silver objects in the monumental early kurgans of Transcaucasia and the famous hoards of Anatolia during the late Early and Middle Bronze periods.

The emergence of Gold within the Kurgan steppe cultures only accured during the [Maikop Kurgan II-III] Bronze age (~300 years after Varna was overrun by Indo-Europeans from the steppes).

Copper

David W. Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel, and Language(2010) [Princeton Uni.]
Its beginning is set at about 5200-5000 BCE in Bulgaria, which was in many ways the heart and center of Old Europe. Pontic-Caspian steppe societies were pulled into the Old European copper-trade network at least as early as 4600 BCE.

3.) Leyla-Teppe

Leyla-Teppe [south caucasus] is just a pre-Indo-European culture, like Varna [europe]. The significance of Leyla-Teppe is the contact with the first wave of Indo-European into the Caucasus, which resulted into the Maikop culture. Thats prob. what you meant by Leyla-Teppe being the mother of Maikop and what i meant by Maikop link.

4.) Tocharians

The Tocharians were an Indo-European people.

E. Elena Efimovna Kuzmina - The Prehistory of the Silk Road (2008)
Research into Steppe contacts is also important for solving the question of the origin of the Tocharians. Linguists who have studied the Tocharian language and the Indo-European issue proved that the two varieties known as A and B belonged to the Indo-European family and established the early separation of the Proto-Tocharian language

Tocharians are mentioned by Apollodorus [100 BC] - Tocharians are Nomads and Invade Bactria
Tocharians are mentioned by Ptolemy [2nd cen AD] - Tocharian living in Bactria
Tocharians are mentioned by Justinus [3rd cen AD] - war with Parthians and killing King Artabanus II of Parthia [124 BC]

The Tocharian scripts of Turkestan are written in Indic script

Robert Stephen Paul Beekes - Comparative Indo-European Linguistics (2011)
Tocharian was only discovered in 1900 in the Chinese province of Xinjiang (formerly written Sinkiang). It largely consists of manuscripts written in an Indic script, with Buddhist texts translated from Sanskrit (Ill. 5).

How and when the Tocharians made it to Turkestan is not known.

In Total, i still dont get your view as to how Varna [pre-indo-european] leyla-teppe [pre-indo-european] and Gedrosian component [Europe-Asia via Iranian plateau] are supposed to contradict the well attested [Archaeology/Anthropology/Linguistic/History] Indo-European Kurgan Urheimat complex.

al-kochol
25-04-13, 01:28
They assimilated all kinds of people on the way to Europe, including Germanic tribes in Eastern Europe.

Germanic tribes in Eastern Europe? In the centre of Scythia? When will you abort this German propaganda? Ostrogoths were not Germanic. They were even not Goths!

uguner
27-07-13, 07:44
There are people in Afganistan blonde hair light color and tall seem like today`s Slavic or Finnish people.

Mikewww
29-07-13, 20:43
... PIE mixed with lots of other races for many thousands of years before they became Iranic/Aryan. Aryans evolved differently from other proto-Indo-Europeans. So PIEans have nothing to do with later Aryans ....

Perhaps I'm just off on your semantics but what you said in quotes above seems like a bit of an oxymoron. I added the emphasis and underlining.

We might want to be a little more specific on the linguistics versus the people. Indo-Iranian languages are derived from the Proto-Indo-European base language. That is no guarantee that Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers have genes descended from elements of the earlier Proto-Indo-European speaking peoples. However, it would seem likely that since people are needed to pass the languages on there would be some remnants from the PIE speaking peoples found among the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers.

I agree with you that certainly the gene pool was different in the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers, but to say they have "nothing to do" with prior PIE peoples is something else.