Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 26th, 2012, 09:57 AM   #11
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

The first time the word Turk is undeniably attested is from Chinese sources in 2,205 BC.

The first time the word Hun is undeniable attested is from Chinese sources in 1,764 BC

Apart from these there are many other claims that are possibly true which we can not prove because of not enough evidence. (like the Trusc; Etruscans , the Tur; Trojans). We also can not claim that Proto-Tigris speaking people were Turks because it's not enough to claim a people as Turkic because their vocabulary consists of Turkic borrowings. If that were the case, we could have easily said that Scythians were Indo-Europeans. Or we could have easily said that Turks were Indo-European or Iranians were Semitic which would not have made any sense.

Apart from that, the ancestors of Turks are considered to be the Tur people who peopled the geography known as Turan or Eden in the past. This geography today is known as Central Asia as is much smaller than it used to be.

When we call someone a Turk, the defining factor is culture. First Turkic culture was formed when the alpines migrating from Alp Mountains mixed with the native population of Urals. The more those people migrated East, the more they mixed with the native populations there resulting in different genetic makeups.

I want to share with you this:

Quote:
Thus, the term ”Arian” originally was used in a social aspect. Later, when it assimilated with the local population, it meant a new ethnic content, and under the influence of the prevailing local language the Arians gradually lost their native Türkic language and finally Iranized. Possibly, in the Middle East region in antiquity along with Hurrian and Elamite languages also existed side by side the ancient Persian language Dari. Most likely it developed in the south of Iran, in Persida, as a native language of the Iranian Parses. The Arians, who initially ensconced in Iran, established their political dominance over the Persian-speaking communities. This power, starting with a ruler Chishpish (Teispes), a descendant of the Arian military leader Ahaman (Ahamani, Ahaeman, Achaemenes), formed a ruling system not only for economy, but also in the political-administrative direction, i.e. within the limits of Southern Iran formed a possession Persida. During the kingdom of Kir II (Cyrus II, 600 or 576 BC–530 BC) and Doro I (Darius I, 550–486 BC) this possession reached a position of a world kingdom, and the sphere of influence the Dari language as a language of the state extended to a wide geographical zone.
Thus, the logical analysis of the historical processes happening in the second half of the 2nd millennium and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC led to a conclusion that the origin of the Ahaemenid dynasty is directly connected with the migration to the south from the Eurasian steppes of the Türkic-lingual Arians. Under a strong influence of the prevailing autochthonous language and cultural-economic potential of the ancient Persian communities, they became Iranized. Therefore, the Ahaemenid kings Kir II (Cyrus II) and Doro I (Darius I), knowing well that by the origin they are Arians, in their rock inscriptions proudly declared that they are ”true Arians”. Not only they, but even the Kushan (ref. to the Rabatak document) held themselves to be Arians, i.e. Türks by origin.
PS: Arian : Aryan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayazid View Post
Some Turkic speakers did find their way into
There is nothing particularly more "chauvinist" about claims that ancient Anatolians were Iranians, than about those that they were Turks.
It's chauvinist because the foundation of this type of approach to history is because of Stalin's revising of history and the result of Christianity creating a foundation for new conquests and cultural assimilation (Christianization or better known as colonization)
ancalimon is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 26th, 2012, 11:44 AM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 717

Have there been genetic studies of the modern Turkish population? It seems likely from the discussion above, that the Turkic-speaking peoples entering Anatolia from Central Asia were outnumbered by the population they encountered. But there language prevailed. Could anyone address these issues?
Asher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2012, 01:04 PM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

The zaza, who live in anatolia, are an iranic people. The sumerians also did not live in anatolia so I don't know how your revisionist claims are helping you claimed that anatolia was always majority turkic. The sumerians were not turks.
deke is offline  
Old October 26th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #14
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Proto-Tigris people that lived in Eastern Anatolia were most probably Turkic since all of the vocabulary that they lent to Sumerians were Turkic in origin. Of course this does not prove that they were Turkic because it's not enough to call them Turkic. If there is one thing that's certain, Sumerians were influenced by Turkic speaking people directly or indirectly.

Also.. All of the Armenians do not belong to a single ethnic or genetic makeup. Armenia is a geographical name and many different people took the name Armenian after they settled in Armenia.

Last edited by ancalimon; October 26th, 2012 at 02:25 PM.
ancalimon is offline  
Old October 26th, 2012, 04:17 PM   #15

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher View Post
Have there been genetic studies of the modern Turkish population? It seems likely from the discussion above, that the Turkic-speaking peoples entering Anatolia from Central Asia were outnumbered by the population they encountered. But there language prevailed. Could anyone address these issues?
I made just a short look, here is something

Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people

The problem is, what is turk DNA? If we look to the Turk ethnogenesis, then they must have assimilated several Indo-iranian people and of course did the Seldschuks come via Iran. So there may have been many indo-iranian DNA among those Turk invaders. This makes it problematically. At least we should expect more than 60% of mediterranian, near east genes, perhaps up to 80%.
beorna is offline  
Old October 26th, 2012, 04:18 PM   #16

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,340

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancalimon View Post
Proto-Tigris people that lived in Eastern Anatolia were most probably Turkic since all of the vocabulary that they lent to Sumerians were Turkic in origin. Of course this does not prove that they were Turkic because it's not enough to call them Turkic. If there is one thing that's certain, Sumerians were influenced by Turkic speaking people directly or indirectly.
..........
This is far from any serious research.
beorna is offline  
Old October 27th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #17
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
This is far from any serious research.
It's as serious as one can get.

Osman Nedim Tuna - Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihi

Call University of Pennsylvania and ask it yourself.

What makes it "not serious" in your opinion? He used the only scientific tool available to test whether they were coincidences. How is your word more trustworthy than the word of those 21 experts?

...

Also, about your other post. Genetics is not the defining factor for ones Turkicness so that Wikipedia entry is a fallacy at its best.

Last edited by ancalimon; October 27th, 2012 at 08:19 AM.
ancalimon is offline  
Old October 27th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #18

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

This debate is pointless. The indigenous Anatolians were not Iranians (I am speaking on their behalf) and they were not Turks either. Like many other neolithic people they consisted of a large number of ethno-linguistically diverse people, most of which were early Indo-Europeans, Caucasians and other groups that have left no trace of themselves. That's if you are speaking about the Anatolians of some 4,000 years ago.
hazratemahmood is offline  
Old October 27th, 2012, 08:33 AM   #19

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 13,340

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancalimon View Post
It's as serious as one can get.

Osman Nedim Tuna - Sümer ve Türk Dillerinin Tarihi

Call University of Pennsylvania and ask it yourself.

What makes it "not serious" in your opinion? He used the only scientific tool available to test whether they were coincidences. How is your word more trustworthy than the word of those 21 experts?

...

Also, about your other post. Genetics is not the defining factor for ones Turkicness so that Wikipedia entry is a fallacy at its best.
even your turkish wiki says, that his "theories" are critisized. The claim that Turkic and Sumerian are related is not supported by any serious linguist, sumeriologist. BTW, the sumerian word for fireld is agar. In German this is "Acker". So I proved now Sumerians are germans!
Tunas thesis is connected on Atatürks Türk Tarih Tezi. But of course these thesis was replaced some times later by the Günes Dil Teorisi. Pseudo-science at it's best!
beorna is offline  
Old October 27th, 2012, 12:30 PM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
even your turkish wiki says, that his "theories" are critisized. The claim that Turkic and Sumerian are related is not supported by any serious linguist, sumeriologist. BTW, the sumerian word for fireld is agar. In German this is "Acker". So I proved now Sumerians are germans!
Tunas thesis is connected on Atatürks Türk Tarih Tezi. But of course these thesis was replaced some times later by the Günes Dil Teorisi. Pseudo-science at it's best!
Well... That wiki article probably was made by those that are not aware of what Tuna hase proven. Tuna was criticized because he determined the age of Turkic language depending on Turkic borrowings inside Sumerian... Not because he has proven that Sumerians had Turkic borrowings inside their vocabulary which is fact as of today with tools that are still valid and used to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European roots.

First of all Tuna's work did not prove (or even claim) that Sumerian was related with Turkic. If Tuna claimed such a thing, that would have been an evident lie and a fallacy because there is no tool available for proving that Turkic is related with Sumerian.

Second of all, you have said
Quote:
BTW, the sumerian word for fireld is agar. In German this is "Acker". So I proved now Sumerians are germans!
. This is not scientific. For all we know, that might be a coincidence. (or maybe not but this does not concern us)

That's why Tuna tested the words to determine whether they were coincidences and he did prove that they were not coincidences but facts. Tuna did not work on individual words; he worked with groups of pairings consisting of Sumerian words with similarities versus Turkic words with similarites and created laws like;
Sumerian g- < Turkic Ĝ- (meaning that the words that were borrowed into Sumerian from Proto-Tigris which started with "g" did not have a "g" when they were in Turkic)
Sumerian d-/t- < Turkic y- (meaning when Turkic words starting with "y" entered Sumerian through Proto-Tigris, the "y" was substituted for "d or t".)

Sun Language Theory (the way it was presented was not scientific at all and funny) has got nothing to do with this subject. I'm not talking about whether Turkic could have been the first language from which other languages derived from. I'm talking about the way they created the theory and presented it.

Last edited by ancalimon; October 27th, 2012 at 12:47 PM.
ancalimon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
anatolia, assimilation, migration


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black Turks / Afro-Turks Afrasiyab Middle Eastern and African History 62 October 28th, 2013 08:10 AM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 03:12 AM
Migrating in Mroto1017 New Users 16 July 10th, 2012 10:55 AM
Turanian people (turks) and ottomans turks illotempore2002 Medieval and Byzantine History 43 January 4th, 2011 10:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.