Pazaryk culture and Turco-Iranic relations
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22341
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 08:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pazaryk culture and Turco-Iranic relations
Posted By: Temujin
Subject: Pazaryk culture and Turco-Iranic relations
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 21:30
| speaking about Kurgans, they found one in the Altay mountains in summer 2006, in modern Mongolia. the mummy was frozen so was pretty much intact, only the face was smashed because the tomb collapsed there. but you could still see the blonde hair of the mummy clealry, as well as the typcial Saka costume. this prooves that Sakas lived even farther east than was previously thought. either way, the Iranian Sakas were definately the ruling elite, it is possible that proto-Turkic tribes were part of the Sakas. |
Replies:
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 22:04
|
Having blonde hair makes the person in the tomb "Iranic"? the tomb was found in the Altay region not a region foreign to Turks/proto-Turks. We don't know what language they spoke, seen as though Iranic and Turkic languages were spoken across the Steppe its likely that these languages were used. As it was a tribal confederacy this increases the amount of mixing going on.
Regarding the tombs of the Altay mountains they wern't Scythians, they belong to peoples of the "Pazyryk" culture, DNA samples of the findings in the Altay tombs don't differ much to the present indegenous inhabitants of the region today. It has been suggested although more studies need to be done that the peoples of the region are descendants of the Pazyryk culture.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 22:46
|
Blond hair doesn't make you Iranic. But Pazaryk culture is closely associated with Skythian and Tockharian culture. Tocharian language BTW is believed to be the somekind a intermediate chain between Slavic and Iranian languages groups both of which are Indoeuropean. The grave of "Ice princess" which they found in 1993 in Altai mountains is almost identical to Skythian graves in Southern Ukraine. Concerning Tocharian language, the inscruption were found which proves that that language was Indoeuropeans and closed to Iranian languages. Saka language which was spoken ins Eastern Turkistan (Xinjiang) was also Iranic.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 23:54
|
This isn't about "Tocharians" or "Scythians", its about Pazyryks who are the descendants of todays Altay natived. Regarding "Kurgans", it was a common burial technique of the steppe.
The Turks descendants were from the Pazyryk culture.
Regarding the physical appearence of the people found in the tombs, the notion of being a "clear-cut representative of the Caucasion race" is being heavily scrutunised.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 00:22
|
http://www.exn.ca/mummies/story.asp?id=1999041653 - http://www.exn.ca/mummies/story.asp?id=1999041653
The Pazyryks were a tribe related to the Scythians, an ancient horse-riding race of nomads who ruled the steppes of Central Asia between the 8th century BC until they disappeared around the 4th century BC, possibly victims of conquest and intermarriage.
http://www.geocities.com/mary_lynn_e_turner/Pazyryk-Kurgan-Woman-Research-Paper.htm - http://www.geocities.com/mary_lynn_e_turner/Pazyryk-Kurgan-Woman-Research-Paper.htm
The reconstruction of "Ice princess''" head.
 I don't see anything unusual in the fact that Turkic nomades could inherit a lot from Skytho-Iranian nomades and that Iranian speaking nomades were among the ancestors of Turkic nomades. It's nothing unusual in that.
Intermingling was common for Steppe civilizations.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:07
|
1. You don't know what Turkic or Iranic peoples looked like in that era and if they look like current Turkic or Iranic peoples, for example did Iranic tribes of the Scythians look like Tajiks or Persians?
2. That re-construction is heavily criticised, its not based upon scientific studies, there are DNA tests being conducted they will be of much more relevance than a statue.
3. Other studies conducted in the Altay region have shown the natives to be descendants of ancient cultures in the same region. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:28
|
Why should they look like Persians or Tajiks? Being Iranian speaker doesn't necessarily mean that you should have modern Persian or Tajik phenotype.
Skythians for example often had light skin with light and red hair and often with green and blue eyes as described by Ancient Greek historians
We have an idea how Skythians looked like, there graves were excavated and the reconstruction of their outlook was also performed.
The fact that the local natives can be the descendants of Pazaryk culture, doesn't mean that Pazaryk culture wasn't created by Iranic speakers. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:33
|
I'm opening this thread to discuss Pazaryk culture and related issues. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 02:38
The peoples living from the Altay to the Ukraine were collectively called "Scythians", its unlikely they all spoke one language, were one people or had one leader.
We have an idea of how people's in certain regions who have been named under the banner "Scythian" looked, not how everyone in that vast stretch of land looked.
The Altay region if referred to as the birthplace of Turkic peoples. The people found in various tombs have been identified with the natives there today. There are even cultural continuities from that era in the present day people and in Turkic mythology.
For example
Altay is a very old center of metalworking. Since ancient times the Northern Altaics are famous for their skills in mining and melting iron and fashioning harnesses, helmets, spears, hunting gear, sabers and many other things.
http://russia-ic.com/regions/?region=3469 - http://russia-ic.com/regions/?region=3469
Metalworking is of mythological importance, in Turkic legends alot of referrence is made to metalworking, working in metal mines, metling through moutains of metal to freedom and so on.
Its more likely people's of the Altay were Turkic speaking than Iranic. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 02:53
|
Dear Bulldog,
If I am correct, you are advocating the point that all the Turkic people from Altay to Anatolia are one nation.
So, why can't you accept the point that in antiquity huge steppe region from Altai to Black Sea was also inhabitted by people with at least very similar ethnic background i.e. Skythians?
There is indeed evidence that in the Eastern regions of the alleged realm of Skythians intermingles between Caucasian and Mognoloid elements happened.
Again, the fact that Altay is a cradle of Turkic people doesn't mean that Iranics didn't contribute to the ancestry of local people. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 07:32
But the fact is, the proto turks and mongols came from that ragion/possible lived in that region in the time of that mummy was living:-)
And it is sad that there is a "goldfever" in todays Germany and other countries how have enough money (and not else, like historical connections , correct knowlidge (f.e. "the schytians dissapeared in the 4 th century BC -and what about scyhtia minor in Dobrudja, the ir fortesses by the under-Dneper, wich were only taken by the sarmatians in the 1th century BC)etc) to make legal excavations in the terr. of BC asian nomadic cultures. Its almost like by Schliemann, or like in the time of the early 1900 in Egypt, but Prof. Parzinger has a good manager team to sell the "product". The russians have museums full with frozen BC nomad mummies, and full with archaeologists without money.
TSZ
And possibly a lot of newrich billioners with little personal museums full with nomadic gold:-/
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 08:59
It would be very strange to find a real blond among Iranians. Pazyryk doesn't have anything to do with Tocharians. Tocharian could not be placed between Slavic and Iranian languages. Tocharian is a Centum language, phonetically it was more close to, say, Latin. In fact it opposes Indo-Iranian group within big Indoeuropean family. Elsewhere I mentioned that Khotanese language is not and have never been Saka. It is East-Iranian medieval language attested some 15 hundred years after the historical Sakas in a region far away from the territory of the historical Sakas. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 09:28
The Hermitage and the Altai Local History museum have some mummies in their expositions. Those were pretty well published (Rudenko, etc) and I don't think they have any "hidden' mummies left. And from my humble observation the Russians spend much more money on archeology then Germany. They have continual excavations projects which last for some 50 years uninerrupted, like in the Golden Horde capital cities, Volga Bulgaria, Khazar khanate, Altai and Sayan ranges, Margiana in Turkmenistan, the Xiongnu cities in Transbaikal region, etc, etc. That of course only those I know. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 17:18
Yes, you are right. Tocharian language is not Iranic, yet it has many borrowings from Iranic languages and studies reveal its similarity with Slavic languages.
http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#indo - http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#indo
However, an alternative analysis by a Slavic linguist, who cites phonological, morphological, and lexical similarities between Tocharian and Balto-Slavic, is that "at some very remote time, the ancestors of the Germanic tribes, the Balto-Slavs, and the Tocharians formed a Northern IE dialect group which split from the common IE at a very early stage and later (probably during the 4th milleium B.C.) dissolved into Germanic-Balto-Slavic and Tocharian." http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#fn61 - 61
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:hoyAgtM_XYYJ:indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/balk/tocharic.html+tocharian+and+iranian+languages&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us - http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:hoyAgtM_XYYJ:indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/balk/tocharic.html+tocharian+and+iranian+languages&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us
The ways of Tocharic migrations from Middle East to East Asia are still unknown. The languages show many borrowings from early Iranian languages, archaic Finno-Ugric and even Tibetan-like forms, but the structure itself shows much similarity first of all with Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages.
Tocharian language also challenges the traditional classification of IE languages into centum-satem
http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#indo - http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#indo
An even more significant implication of the discovery of Tocharian was the effect it had on the centum-satem division that linguists had devised by observing the reflexes of the PIE velars. Before the evidence of Tocharian came to light, the IE languages could be neatly divided into two groups: those in the west which had velar reflexes (centum languages) and those in the east which had sibilant reflexes (satem languages). However, Tocharian threw that distinction out since, although it lay further to the east than any other IE language, it was centum, the word for 100 being känt in A and kante in B. http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#fn67 - 67 'Thus, the overall impact of Tocharian has been essentially negative in that it has provided evidence against hypotheses concerning Proto-Indo-European made before its discovery." http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#fn68 - 68 Lane points out that this has resulted in the need for "our 'late 19th century' conception of the IE parent language... to be radically changed in several aspects, and nowhere more radically than in the instance of the verb. For our conception of the verbal categories has been based entirely upon agreements between Greek and Indic." http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm#fn69 - 69 ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 17:31
An interesting observation concerning the blonds among Iranians, below is the picture of Kalasha girl. Kalash peopl live in Pakistan and speak an Indo-Iranian language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_language - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_language
 ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 18:17
Some interesting info about ancient Saka inscritptionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk_inscription - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk_inscription Issyk kurgan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Issyk_golden_man.jpg"> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Issyk_golden_man.jpg - - The Issyk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan - kurgan , in south-eastern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan - Kazakhstan , less than 20 km east from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgar_alluvial_fan - Talgar alluvial fan , near http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk - Issyk , is a burial mound discovered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969 - 1969 . It has a height of six meters and a circumference of sixty meters. It is dated to the 4th or 3rd century BC (Hall 1997). A notable item is a silver cup bearing an inscription. The finds are on display in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana - Astana . "Golden man"Situated in what was at the time eastern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia - Scythia , just north of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdiana - Sogdiana , the burial contained a skeleton of uncertain sex, in all probability an 18-year-old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka - Saka ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian - Scythian ) prince or princess, interred with warrior's equipment, variously dubbed "golden man" or "golden princess", and with rich funerary goods, including 4,000 gold ornaments. The "golden man" was adopted as one of the symbols of modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan - Kazakhstan . A likeness of the "golden man" crowns the Independence Monument on the central square of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaty - Almaty . Its depiction may be found on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Standard - Presidential Standard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursultan_Nazarbayev - Nursultan Nazarbayev . The Issyk inscription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Issyk_inscription.png - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Issyk_inscription.png - -
 The inscription is in a variant of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharo%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADh%C4%AB - Kharoṣṭhī script, and is probably in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_language - Scythian dialect, constituting one of very few http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthonous - autochthonous epigraphic traces of that language. Harmatta (1999) identifies the language as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khotanese_Saka - Khotanese Saka , tentatively translating "The vessel should hold wine of grapes, added cooked food, so much, to the mortal, then added cooked fresh butter on" (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestors_Cup - Nestor's Cup and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duenos_inscription - Duenos inscription for other ancient inscriptions on vessels that concern the vessel itself). ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 08:25
|
Samat12: 1. It's very difficult to place Tocharian within IE family. In fact, many believe that IE family consists of Tocharian and Indo-Hittite, i.g. Tocharian is as old as the rest IE languages and they split between 6 and 5 mil. BC. On the other hand, we don't know much about Finno-Ugric before 1 mil.BC and Indo-Iranian languages before 2 mil. BC (let alone Iranic which, of due course, is younger then Indo-Iranic). So we can't really talk about borrowings from these lingos to Tocharian. Chinese-Tocharian and Turkic-Tocharian exchages shows even more later dates: they began their contacts roughly around our era. And while Chinese does not really matters in this respect, Turks are important. Turks' ancestors without any doubt lived between Altai and Ordos since circa 5-4 mil. BC if not earlier, they show very early contacts with different IE groups, specifically Indo-Iranian and German-Balto-Slavic and absence of early Tocharic traces in Turkic means that Tocharians migrated from some distant place or were just a small insignificant culturally community. 2. It's a common knowledge and a visual fact that blondes are extremely rare among Iranian speaking peoples and their physical appearance haven't changed a lot for the last three or four millenia. There are blondes among Pashto or in distant mountain areas like Badakhshan but they are rare anyway. When somebody speaks of Caucasian appearance, it's usefull to remember that does not actually mean white hair and blue eyes routine, even in Scandinavia or Russia this is not very common. And "typical" Indo-Iranian is Mr. Ahmadinejad or Mrs. Bhutto. 3. The Issyk inscription is definitely not Kharosthi. There are literally dozens of such runic inscriptions in Central Asia and only one thing is for sure - we can not read them. The Issyk inscription shows some similarity with Saltovo-Mayak runics we find in Eastern Europe which is usually connected with Khazar and Bulgar states. But that is a long shot too for they are divided by centuries. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 18:37
I've quoted the same idea in my post
It's really hard to make such a judgement for me. Definetely, there are some borrowings, the question is their significance for the general stucture of Tocharian language
Interesting. Can you please kindly elaborate more on the early contacts between proto-Turks and German-Balto-Slavic group in the area between Altai and Ordos?
I didn't say that blondes are so common among Iranics. However, the picture I posted proves that yet they exist and secondly again we don't have 100% data about the outlook of ancient northern Iranics. Yuezhi for example who are considered Iranics are described in Chinese chronicles as blondes and red hair people with blue eyes.
Why? What makes the conclusion definite ?
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 19:18
sure, but on the otehr hand there are no blonde Turks, therefore it is not Turkic. so if its not Turkic, its more likely Iranian than anything. also, as i said it is still possible that there were predominantly Turks in Altay mountains at that time, just the ruling class was Saka (Iranian). this would also explain why later Turkic Nomads had the same Steppe culture than the previous Iranan and Tokharian Nomads. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 20:05
This is also, not complitely true
 Check the picture of this Tuvan girl. Tuvans, Kyrgyzs and Kazakhs not very often, but do have blondes and red hair people and also people with blue and green eyes.
Here comes into play the problem of Dinlings. Dinglings which were the original inhabitants of China are described as blondes with white skin and green eyes in Chinese chronicles. Particularly they were called as "red haired devils." Yet they were not Indoeuropeans.
It's very likely that they were pushed to the north and contributed to the formation of proto-turkic and proto-mongolian tribes.
Some historians believe that Ancient Kyrgyzs are the descendants of Dinglins.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 22:02
Nothing in the general structure. We have several glosses from Eastern Iranian, a lot of words from Sanscrit and Prakrits and some traces from unidentified Finno-Ugric. The latter was important though since it influenced not only vocabulary but morphology too. It was a real close contact, maybe a language union.
I didn't say contacts in the area between Altai and Ordos. I said a) Turks were living in that area since certain time and b) they have contacts with the said IE group and contact area was not defined by me. The first suggestion could be concluded from the most archaic level of Pre-Turkic lexemas, that is Chavash, Yakut and common Turkic. I.e. flora and fauna known to them was ingenious to these two regions. That's the first thing. The second is that their ancestors came to these places from the South. I.e. Pre-Turkic had some very specialised words for monkeys, elephant, lion, etc, creatures not to be found in either places. The second proposal can be derived from some well-known lemmas. Say, common germanic mare "battle horse" and its derivatives could be attested in any Altaic (Mong. morin "horse", Turk. bara "soul of a horse", etc). Since Altaic meaning is general and very old (attested in all languages of the very archaic family) and Germanic is comparatively new and specialised then it was borrowed from some Altaic. Since Turkic were and still are the most western Altaic lingos then it was Turkic-Germanic contacts. There were back borrowings of course, like Turkic alma "appla" from GBS *jablo-, etc. Quite many of them, to be exact.
Chinese never described the appearance of the Yuezhi, that's a mistake. Red hair people with deep (or green) eyes were 1. Wusun, 2. Xiajiasi (that is Yenisei Kyrgyzes) and 3. Jie. We don't know much about how the Wusun looked like but Chinese were saying that those of Yueban, the latest Xiongnu in the Southern Kazakhstan, who looked like apes with red hair and deep (or green) eyes were remnants of the Wusun population. Mind you, the Yueban were the Xiongnu. Xiajiasi... Well they were the Kyrgyz folks, we have their runic inscriptions and we know their language, it's called Khakassian now. Jie were part of the Southern Xiongnu group with high noses and deep eyes. Shi Le and all those funny people, part of Wuhu Shiliu Guo period. I'd be much obliged if you can point me at anything like that on the Yuezhi, be it translation or the original. And of course there is a very small percentage of blondes among Iranians, in the mountains or such high distant places with closed communities. That's genetics of cross-breeding. Hell, they even have albinos once in while. But that is really insignificant. Blond people live in the North. Like, there are great many blondes among Chuvash people, I think a good third of them are blonde and red-haired. Or Volga Tatars. Finland much more for sure, Sweden, Northern Russia, Baltic States, Scotland, the like. But definitely not in Iran, Afganistan or Tajik state.
That's easy - just take a look at any Kharosthi... We can read Kharosthi, they still teach that in some good schools. We can't read Issyk legend and we don't know its language despite great many attempts of the first-class students of the field. That's why. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 06:54
This is extremely interesting. Could you please point me on some sources on these special words.
Seems that I indeed counfused Yuezhi with Bai people. Yet some say that Bai people are in fact Yuezhi
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Yuezhi_-_Origins/id/602125 - http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Yuezhi_-_Origins/id/602125
The Yuezhi were apparently a Caucasoid people, as indicated by the portraits of their kings on the coins they struck following their exodus to Transoxiana (2nd-1st century BCE), and especially the coins they struck in India as Kushans (1st-3rd century CE). Ancient Chinese sources do describe the existence of "white people with long hair" (The Bai people of the Shanhai Jing) beyond their northwestern border, and the very well preserved Tarim mummies with Caucasian features, often with reddish or blond hair, today displayed at the Ürümqi Museum and dated to the 3rd century BCE, have been found in precisely the same area of the Tarim Basin. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 08:05
|
It is not true.
The Tuckarian language and alphabet is the mother (ancestor ) of current European languages (English german Yiddish etc) who all branched from the Gothic language which branched from the Tuckarian language)
There is no such thing as Indo European ( the theory that peoples came from India through Iran and Turkey into Europe in false!)
However ancient Iranian language bear similarity with the Tuckarian and European languages because the Goths stayed for two thousand years next to Perthia across the Caucasian mountains ( that is why Europeans call themselves the Caucasian Race because they came from there! North of Iran in Current day Ukraine, Dagestan, Volga, Turkmanestan and Kazakstan (all are Scythia the land between Mesek and Tubal (Mosko river and Tubal River in Kazakstan!) land of Gog and Magog in Ezekial 38!!
The People who spoke Tukharian language have long gone from there and now settled in Europe ( the White Europeans of the blue eyes and blond hair)) during the Wanderung ( the great Migration period in Europe 500 to 700 AD during the invasion of the Goths to the Roman Empire!!
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 08:08
|
The Great wall of China was especially built to repel those people with blue eyes and blond hair ( the Roma people of the Ancient, the Turks meaning roads or riding because they were always on the move riding on caravans of carriages just like the wild west in america) they did not houses because there were no building materials like stones and trees in central asia at the time, and because were always looking for people to plunder and eat! ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 13:57
You'd better start with Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages by Starostin, Dybo and Mudrak published by Brill coupke of years ago. A rather lengthy and detailed preface to EDAL by Starostin has a very good explanation and a good list of reference works. Also, if you can read Russian, there are series of books under a general title like, pretty roughly, Historical development of Turkic languages, there are several volumes on phonetics, grammar, dialects, etc. You need the last volume on Turkic historical lexicology which was published by Nauka last year. As for the Yuezhi, there are no archeological culture that can be tied with the Yuezhi with any degree of certainty. And though I also agree that the Yuezhi were Europoid, there is no direct proof to that for one. And that can also be said about many peoples there - the Wusun were Europoid, large parts of the Xiongnu, etc. We have direct craniological and DNA data to support that view. Moreover, significant part of Chinese population itself was Caucasian, like in the city Handan for one instance. The Yuezhi was a relatively small group of nomads that lived between Dunhuang and Qilianshan, that is in westernmost part of Gansu. There are simply not enough space for a big nation. The Yezhi in the course of their migration were mixed with the Sai and who knows with whom else. And last but not least, there is no proven connection between the Yuezhi and the Kushans, that's an opinion or a hypo, not a fact. And of course, the Kushan coins were just copies of Greek-Bactrian coins, not portraits. If you take a close lock at, for example, Pseudo-Eucratides mints or any early coins of the region, you can easily see that. So, a) there were lots of Europoids there and b) we don't know if the coins were cast by the Yuezhi and c) we don't know if those were portraits of real people and not just continuation of earlier Greek tradition. This is not a real argument, it is just an idea that you may or may not like. |
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 14:36
|
"Turks' ancestors without any doubt lived between Altai and Ordos since circa 5-4 mil. BC if not earlier" I just want to get to know the evidences we have for this claim, in fact I have heard this often, The question is what is our evidences for this, excavations? lingual developments, documents, chinese chronicles? |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 16:27
|
Basically, all of those. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 23:22
| Then I guess, we need some of those sources to be put in here, no? |
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 22:58
|
Let me clear up some misunderstandings here. Blonde hair in mummies arises from discoloration. If you have 'black' hair, look at it near a strong light, you will see that its actually brown. Now over time the melanin dries off from the hair and you get that very light colored hair. This is also seen in a mummy from Peru.  It would be foolish to attribute all of them to Nordics/Aryans/Tocharians/Iranics whatever, once you know this fact. Second, Tocharians are not the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi from Chinese history are an older people who spoke a Turkish language. And the "European" Tocharians, while the majority being brunette Caucasian/Mongoloid admixed people, are simply a variation of Caucasians who lived near the Urals and were mixed with Mongoloids prior to entering the Tarim basin. They did speak a language remotely related to PROTO-Indo-European, in other words the relation with IE stops even before the formation of a Indo-Aryan. This is why the Eurocentrists, etc. have tried so hard to fit the Yuezhi with the Tocharians and Indo-European but failed. Otherwise it would have been very easy to connect the Tocharians with their supposed neighbors to the west (Iranians). What's more, the Tocharians had more Turkish influence than anything else because the proto-Turks have lived in the Aral regions thousands of years before their arrival. |
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 00:30
|
"It would be foolish to attribute all of them to Nordics/Aryans/Tocharians/Iranics whatever, once you know this fact. " This is already taken as a probability along with the theory suggesting this as the mummy's feature. So even archaelogist take what you said as chances and they are at the same time not foolish. "The Yuezhi from Chinese history are an older people who spoke a Turkish language" Critical, your exact sources needed for this claim, which is not believed by the scholars. "while the majority being brunette Caucasian/Mongoloid admixed people, are simply a variation of Caucasians who lived near the Urals and were mixed with Mongoloids prior to entering the Tarim basin" Study of such matters are not as easy as you imply, actually the belief has been kind ofcontrary so far. "This is why the Eurocentrists, etc. have tried so hard to fit the Yuezhi with the Tocharians and Indo-European but failed. " how did it fail so inarguably by the way? ;) "What's more, the Tocharians had more Turkish influence than anything else because the proto-Turks have lived in the Aral regions thousands of years before their arrival." New professional claims! |
 "proto Turks have lived in the Aral regions before their arrival"?! the arrival of the who? the Yuezhi or Proto Indo-iranian? and according to who?Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 05:18
|
Mainstream "historians" have not made progress in many decades. Today there are many that still believe the myth that the precursors of Iranian people inhabited the regions of the Central Asian steppes and it was the Turks who invaded those lands from Mongolia. Their assertion relies on the incorrect belief that the Andronovo culture of 2000BC was Indo-Aryan; they couldn't be more far removed from the truth. Andronovo and its predecedors are wholly Turkic. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/345686 From http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000372.html Current Anthropology, Feb 2003 v44 i1 p109(2) More on archaeology and language. (Discussion). (response to C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Current Anthropology, vol. 43, p. 63) Mario Alinei; Richard N. Frye. A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic, and (2) a convergence between a hippocentric geo-cultural scenario, on the one hand, and the continuity of the archaeological record, on the other ("The steppe tribes of horse-breeders and mobile pastoralists had already begun, in the Copper Age, to play the role which they were to continue to play for the next 5,000 to 5,500 years of human history" [Chernykh 1992:42-3]), pace Anthony and other scholars who continue to cultivate the myth of the hippocentrism of the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians. The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion. We now get a clearer picture that the proto-Turks were a Caucasian (racially) group that transfered their culture and language to the Mogoloid people of Asia. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 14:05
|
Terms such a "wholly Turkish" or anything else when referring to 2000 BC is problematic. They may have included ancestors of Turkic peoples or proto-Turks but they could also be other nations ancestors aswell, boundries can become blurred the futher we go back in history.
This has not been proven, the area proto-Turks inhabitted had been a transition point between Caucosoid and Mongoloid features. Its likely that they had mixture from these features.
The topic is about Pazaryk culture lets stick to it. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 16:23
|
The problem has been the use of Scythian as a catch all description for people inhabiting a large area without critical analysis of who these people actually are. Too long have all Scythians being identified as being Indo-Aryans coming from an Indo-European homeland. The reality is that before any "Scythians" there were already well developed nomadic and sedentary Turkic and Altaic cultures in the eastern steppes. This is very important to the discussion of the Pazaryk. We identified the culture in the Aral region to be Turkic, and it expanded into western Mongolia and China, as seen from the materials found in sites at Xinjiang. One of these culture is represented by the Turkic Andronovo culture. The Pazaryk culture is a hybrid between Caucasian Turks and Mongoloids who adapted this culture. These Mongoloid people in turn developed the Altaic culture and languages. http://web.archive.org/web/20060208233118/http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/bgrs/thesis/99/ This study found the genetic Caucasian and Mongoloid contributions in the Pazaryk. To differentiate from East Eurasian people they call the westerners "Europoids", but they are not Europeans at all. Its only a label, just like we use Mongoloid to describe a general racial group but it does imply them being Mongolians. Later on, we see a partial displacement of these populations by the expansion of Indo-Europeans moving east, and Mongoloid groups moving west "Of special interest was to compare the results of molecular genetic studies to the modern paleoanthropological characteristics of Pazyryk population. Craniological studies of all presently available materials on burials of this culture have demonstrated both Mongoloid and Europoid components in the anthropological composition of Pazyrykians. Craniological variant occurring in the cattle-breeding tribes in the II millenium BC on the territories of the Southern Tadzhikistan, Southern and Southwestern Turkmenistan, and Northern Iran represents the Europoid component. In the epochs followed, this variant disappears from the territory of the Western and Middle Asia. It was suggested that the carriers of this morphological complex have been few and gradually assimilated into the mass of Eastern-Mediterranean Europoids. The Mongoloid component includes two anthropological types. One type, autochthonous, has been found on the Altai territory on the boundary of Neolithic and Eneolithic periods in the people buried in the Nizhnetitkeskenskaya and Kaminnaya caves and in the second half of the II millenium BC in Karakol Culture population. The typical combination of anthropological parameters characteristic of this type is similar to Southern-Siberian race complex, met currently in Kazakh, Kirgiz peoples, and certain groups of Khakas and Southern-Altaian peoples. The second type, Paleosiberian, dominated on the territory near Baikal during the Neolithic period. Currently, it occurs only in Evenki people in Northern Baikal region." This is gives the explanation of why the Mongols worshipped the sky god TENGRI, borrowed from the proto-Turkic TENGIR. It is the same diety as the Sumerian DINGIR, that also become a word meaning god (all originating from a south Caspian expansion). The Sumerians also called their sky god AN, who was called ANI by the Etruscans. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 19:16
The Pazaryk have been described as having a "culture" which resembles the Scythians. The Scythians and Pazaryk may have had contact and been part of confederations together. Scythian has been used broadly in the past to describe any Eurasian nomads so its not suprising if there were some Turkic elements among them.
There is no historical evidence to prove these claims, the time gap between the Sumerians and Etruscans is huge and neither were a Turkic peoples. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 20:25
|
Scythian is a modern description for a nomadic Aryan group. Dont confuse other non-Aryan groups with a nomadic lifestyle as being Scythian. That is a mistake seen over and over again when people in descriptions. The proper Scythians arrived much later, and infact have borrowed heavily from the Turkic population already living near the Aral region. This is also supported by linguistic evidence for the words horse, charriot, etc. that are not Indo-European but instead derive from Turkic. So this sort of definition for Scythian: "Scythian has been used broadly in the past to describe any Eurasian nomads so its not suprising if there were some Turkic elements among them." It should be stopped, its stalling any intelligent and cogent discussion on this topic. Next, there is already plenty of evidence for the connections between Sumerian, Elamic, Altaic, Turkish, Dravidian, Hungarian, Uralic, Etruscan languages available. The next step is describing how this came to be, I have another thread discussing this. All these groups share a common origin in the southern Caspian region. The migrations originating from that region occured approximately 8000BC when we started seeing evidence of cultures emerging along the way towards, one moving towards Mesopotamia and the other into the eastern steppes. This of course began before the formation of a Turkic identity. The Turkic culture emerged in the Aral region later and penetrated into the Mongolia and western China. Genetic evidence also supports this. Europeans and other groups closer to the homeland of the Indo-Europeans have a high concentration of the R1b male lineage (Y-Haplogroup). On the other hand, those who belong to Uralic, Altaic, Turkic groups, and other people who were influenced by them have a higher concentration of the R1a marker.  Red: R1b, Purple:R1a R1a is the group that expanded from the Caspian region. There is a high amount on Iran, but also in the Atalics, Kyrgyz, etc. This also tells us that what occured in Iran was a conversion of this early group adopted the Indo-Aryan culture, as opposed to complete replacement. http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8199/greatmapcp3.jpg |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2008 at 14:45
You missed the point, I didn't say it was correct to use these terms however, this is the common understanding or misconception of labelling everyone Scythians.
There is not plenty of evidence for the connections between Sumerian, Elamic, Dravidian and Altaic.
Recently there have been studies into the relation between Etrucscan and Ural/Altaic however, it is not yet conclusive.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 17:07
|
"Blonde hair in mummies arises from discoloration. If you have 'black' hair, look at it near a strong light, you will see that its actually brown. Now over time the melanin dries off from the hair and you get that very light colored hair. This is also seen in a mummy from Peru." This is not always the case, as the most of the mummies found, in the regions like Xinjiang or Eurasia are not marked with hblonde hair, morever that the discoloration is a probability taken for this matter. The other thing is that merely having blond hair is not anthropologically recognized as Caucasian, or Indo-European take the Mummies in Xinjiang for instance, they have long noses, long extent skulls too. The thing that only this brand new theory of yours Turks being Caucasians who migrated eastward and then dominated mongoloid people, would challenge it of course not even yet proven as a hypothesis. These mummies date back about 2000 BC and it is very probable that they weren't a ruling class just being commoners, contradicting theories which explain the presence of Indo-eropeans far east as ruling classes. "Second, Tocharians are not the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi from Chinese history are an older people who spoke a Turkish language" Nowhere mentioned that they spoke any kind of something proto-turkic or even similar to that of Hsiung-nu. "Mainstream "historians" have not made progress in many decades" I think that above couldn't be denied with just one phrase. "Today there are many that still believe the myth that the precursors of Iranian people inhabited the regions of the Central Asian steppes and it was the Turks who invaded those lands from Mongolia." Because the human archaelogical, linguistic, comparative study of sources so far has pointed out this belief. "Their assertion relies on the incorrect belief that the Andronovo culture of 2000BC was Indo-Aryan; they couldn't be more far removed from the truth." firstly I can not access to those links please insert the links again, It hasn't been this wholly denied so far and if it ever turns out to be not Indo-Iranian as you remarked, it wouldn't prove it Wholly Turkic. "A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic" How could the author just deny without just giving any proper reason?! Besides the thing that today justify the lingual borrowings of the e.g. Horsemanship in diverse languages in or on the fringes of the steppes, is that they may have borrowed from earlier languages in the region, in the same case many words are the same cognates in those languages regardless of Iranian, Altaic or Slavic. I for example refer to a Avesta which their recordings date back linguistically to 1000 BC and the language which probably was in use in the Area in Central Asia near Aral sea. It yields at least considerable amount of terms related to horsemanship and direct reference to a horse culture in large area encompassing much of steppes.  "The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion. " That is rather a hypothesis, there are many evidences which indicate the probability of earlier Iranian presence in Iranian plateau than presumed. Maybe the deciphering of the tablets found in Harirud may help some. But it wouldn't make impression of denying their long believed presence in steppe areas. "Scythian is a modern description for a nomadic Aryan group. Dont confuse other non-Aryan groups with a nomadic lifestyle as being Scythian. That is a mistake seen over and over again when people in descriptions." It's not modern. The term for only according only to Iranian narrations of the story included Sakas with man of the nomadic people of Iranian stock like Massagetae. "Scythian has been used broadly in the past to describe any Eurasian nomads so its not suprising if there were some Turkic elements among them." The Turkic element amongst them should be proven first. "Next, there is already plenty of evidence for the connections between Sumerian, Elamic, Altaic, Turkish, Dravidian, Hungarian, Uralic, Etruscan languages available." It is also another theory not accepted broadly. "The Turkic culture emerged in the Aral region later and penetrated into the Mongolia and western China" Well i don't see any sources back this theory.  "Genetic evidence also supports this. Europeans and other groups closer to the homeland of the Indo-Europeans have a high concentration of the R1b male lineage (Y-Haplogroup). On the other hand, those who belong to Uralic, Altaic, Turkic groups, and other people who were influenced by them have a higher concentration of the R1a marker." Yes, cause heavy amount of intermarriages occured in those regions. "R1a is the group that expanded from the Caspian region. There is a high amount on Iran, but also in the Atalics, Kyrgyz, etc. This also tells us that what occured in Iran was a conversion of this early group adopted the Indo-Aryan culture, as opposed to complete replacement." It's not a new founding its shows at the first hand the intermarriages, and reveals that for example Kyrgyz are to some extent descendants of the Iranian nomads lived already in that area who hadn't disappeared, but intermarriaged the newcomers. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 17:46
This is gravely incorrect and reaveals the lack of your familiarity with the Chinese sources on Yuezhi.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 21:47
|
The mainstream "historians" apply their own completely biased Indo-European centric point of view to the discussion of the Yuezhi and other tribes in the steppes. They discard certain evidence, and try to combine disconnected accounts to match their idealized notion of the Scythians as supreme masters of Central Asia. They themselves admit that evidence for the existence of "Scythians" as they describe it is razor thin. For such an inffluential group that spanned from Eastern Europe to Mogolia they left virtually zero trace of their existence as an Iranic group. Let me clear some misconceptions again. The term Tocharian is a modern and false creation based on the TURKISH term TWQRY. Now these so called scholars assume, on their minds that Indo-European is the center of the universe, therefore whoever lived in Tocharia or were called Thocharians must all be based on Indo-Europeans. False. Tocharia is based on the turkish words for mountain TAGH and Snow KAR, you get the Tukhari. Those who dwelled in the mountain regions as apposed to the lower regions to the west and east. This name stuck, and whoever happened to live in the area were given that description, including anyone belonging to Indo-Aryan intrussions that arrived from the south in much later dates. The ancient westerners who refered to this term didnt know virtually anything except the name, they couldnt tell you anything related to the composition or origin of these people. Now the Yuezhi name is incorrect because instead of Yue the pronounciation should be ROU. This is a known fact, but guess what? The establishment of western "historians" deem that its Yue. Its even in the Wiki page for Yuezhi. In other words their decision is what makes it true, nevermind the history of the Chinese who describe the names ROURUAN, RURU, RUIRUI, RUANRUAN to western and northern Altaic/Turkic tribes. So guess who are the RUOZHI? They are Turkic nomads from the west. Also forget the fact that the Rouzhi (Yuezhi) interacted for centuries with the Xiongnu. Instead western "historians" focus on the "history" of the Yuezhi not on Chinese accounts for that region and that timefreame, but on observers of the Indo-European world who were FAR removed from where the Ruozhi actually where. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 21:56
|
There is no evidence for Tocharians being Turkic unless you have uncovered new artifacts. Not everything is an Indo-European conspiracy, they could have claimed Xiongnu, Khazars and everyone else if that was the case.
The topic is about Pazaryk culture lets stick to it.
Theres a recent study which shows a continuation between the Pazaryk mumies and the people living in Altay today. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 22:23
Well, actually all the names which you listed are written in different Chinese characters. And havr complitely different meanings, even though they might sound similar for a profane.
Like for example the words, shu and shu both have similar sounds but have different tonality and are written with different characters. So, those shu could mean a book, a rat, a number etc... Character plays much more important role than the pronouncation.
So, even though Rouzhi sounds close to Rouran those to Rou are different characters and are used for the disegnation of different people. You hardly can prove the relation of the people just by the close phonetics with regard to Chinese language.
Rouran BTW are believed to be a Mongolic tribe, not Turkic.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 00:20
|
Sorry, but thats an incorrect assumption. The variety of Rou names were based on the pronounciation in names those tribes called themselves. To the Chinese it was how it sounded; it had nothing to do with the meaning of the characters. The reason there were several varieties of 'Rou,Rui,Ruan' names was because this grouping including many tribes and spanned for centuries. Second, the Rouruans were not Mongolians, this is a misunderstanding because the Ruru were active before and for much longer than the Donghu (ancestors of early Mongolian tribes). They were also located in the north and west of the Chinese, while the Donghu (Eastern Hu) occupied the eastern regions of Mongolia. By the fact that the Rou's were not called Hu implies that they belonged to a seperate ethnicity. The Rouruan's spoke a Turkic language and among there there might be other extinct languages that might have existed near the Altay regions but were replaced by the much later Mongolian expansion. This imformation is very important to the identity of the pazaryk because it shows the actual identity of the tribes that were living in these areas for centuries. This website explains the misunderstanding. And informs us that the only appearence of Indo-Aryans occured much later after the Rouruan's themselves were expanding out west. http://www.republicanchina.org/Turk_Uygur.html Alternatively speaking, it is no strange to see non-Chinese websites advocating a school of thought stating that Ruruan [Zhuzhan], like Toba, were people of Eastern Mongolia and Western Manchuria and that "from the IInd and up to the IVth centuries, Altai lived under the influence of Syanbiy tribes. From the end of the IVth century the Altaian tribes were subjugated by the Zhuzhans ... and were to pay tribute to them [by ironware]." Also see http://www.altai-republic.com/history/altai_history_eng.htm - http://www.altai-republic.com/history/altai_history_eng.htm for details.) But after the Ruruan founder fled to the Altai Mountains, he conquered and absorbed remnant Hunnic tribes and Gao-che people there. Ruruans and Gao-che people warred with each other as well as allied with each other. Hence, the Ruruans were more Hunnic than anyone else. History Of Toba Wei Dynasty further commented that "Ruruans, though the descendants of the Huns, could not have their exact ancestry traced." Western history books stated that "in c. 370, the so-called Huns were pressured by the Ruruans into invading Europe from the Central Asian steppe." We could say that the Ruruans were more Hunnic than the Western Huns they drove away towards the Europe, especially so after the Ruruans subjugated the remaining Hunnic tribes in the area. Western history recorded that the Attila Huns were so savage and barbaric that they ate raw meat. This life style was totally different from those eastern Huns who were semi-sinicized and civilized. A brief discussion of the relationship between the Ruruans and the remnant Hunnic statelets to the west and northwest is needed. To the west and northwest of Ruruans will be Hunnic tribes such as hsiongnu.htm#Yue-ban - Nie-ban [Nirvana], Jian-kun [Kirghisz] and Su-te [Sogdiana] etc. |
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 02:02
|
Now lets us go back to the identity of the Pazaryk. Rouzhi (Yuezhi) are of Turkic ethnicity. Nowhere do the Chinese accounts state the racial characteristic of the Rouzhi. But as described before, the Turkic culture is composed of several racial types because its an ancient culture. Proto-Turks were Caucasian and transfered to the Mongoloid people in Northeastern Asia their culture and language. This event predates any Aryan showing by at least 2000 years. This is evident in the Pakazryk site, where we find both Mongoloid and Caucasian racial types sharing only one form of culture. The next piece of information is most important. The Chinese accounts do infact describe the racial characteristics of the Turkic Wusun. And this occurs durring the time the Rouzhi were also being talked about. So we have a Mongoloid or mixed Mongoloid (since the Chinese did not find anything particular about their phenotype) Rouzhi/Yuezhi with a Turkic culture and language. Along with a Caucasian Wusun with a Turkic culture and language. Living right next to each other. Yet the establishment refuses to look at the obvious evidence and instead is perpetuating the myth of "Celtic Scythian Blonde Nordic Aryan Indo-Aryan Indo-European" BS. And yes, all of these are being talked about in "reputable" sources. The Celtic reference is the most laughable. Just like the Sumerians before, their existence was adamantly denied by archeologists and historians. Deeming their language as "priest code-words" and group as inferior compared to the superior Semites, in their point of view. We will be knowing more about the people who inhabited from the Caspian to the Aral since very ancient times more sooner than later. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 13:58
|
What evidence is there that proto-Turks were Caucasian? What is Caucasian anyway, is the distinction so clear between Caucasian and Mongoloid, can a person not have features of both. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: CiegaSordomud
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 19:35
|
That goes back to the question of lineage. Caucasian or westerners are seperated by Mongoloids based on the migration paths their ancestors took. Out of Africa, the lineage that led to the Mongoloids came to India, then S.E. Asia, and differentiated in East Asia. Ancestors of westerners including among them Caucasians did not follow this path. Instead they stayed in West Asia or migrating to Europe and Central Asia. This is supported by genetic and cranial evidence, there is nothing mystifying about it. Read up on it at any genetic anthropology site like Dienekes.
Like I mentioned before, the Chinese describe Caucasian people, who spoke a Turkic languae living to the west. Then there's also evidence from Andronovo and sites in Central Asia (thousands of years before any Indo-Europeans) that the people there are Caucasian and interacted with northern Mongoloid people. Giving them the Turkic/Altaic languages and the belief in a supreme diety TENGRI. Which is much different from native East Asian beliefs of naturism, shamism, and Sinic myths.
|
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2008 at 03:42
A new theory, I think you should introduce your exact sources here not us, and you can not support your theory like there is nothing mystifying about it. Cause primary sources at hand so far dont even support it. Â
As far as in chinese accounts there is no mention of their language being Turkic!Â
The Andronovo culture and other sites in central Asia have been up today believed contrary to your saying the earliest cultures related to Indo-Europeans not thosuands of years before them. |