Huns, were they turkic, asian or indo european ?

[Yetos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wasnt Conan the Barbarian a Cimmerian?:wary2:

 

[kamani]

Wasnt Conan the Barbarian a Cimmerian?:wary2:

that's right. They all looked like Arnold.

 

[Nobody1]

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]

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]

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!!!