← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 20013 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2005-09-05
2005-09-05 06:00 | User Profile
Russia's "Indians" causing trouble for archaeologist too.
The central Asian Turks are upset they are digging up Europeans on "their Land."
[QUOTE]NARRATOR: The people of the Altay who gather at this festival to celebrate their heritage have reason to identify with the ancient Pazyryk. Even into this century, they sacrificed horses when burying their dead. A culture kinship to the Pazyryk is beyond question. What isn't as clear is whether these modern people are biological descendants of the Ice Maiden's tribe.
Russian researchers tried to address the issue using a controversial technique. In this Moscow basement human faces are reconstructed. Tanya Balueva uses the skull as the starting point for each sculpture. She believes the shape of the eye sockets and flatness of face can determine racial type. From the study of living people she estimates the thickness of the skin. This is her image of the Ice Maiden.
BALUEVA: She is a clear-cut representative of the Caucasian race with no typically Mongolian features.
NARRATOR: But at the Altay Regional Museum, Director Rima Eriknova disagrees.
ERIKNOVA: They made the Ice Maiden completely European. But in fact she also has Mongolian features. They said, she does not belong to our culture.
NARRATOR: Many agree this face is too European. Comparing the Ice Maiden's skull to others, pathologist Rudolph Hauri drew another picture.
HAURI: It was not our first goal to determine race, but we saw that the orbits were much more like this. Also the nose. I think she has rather more hints of a Mongolic origin.
LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY: The study of race from skulls is obviously enormously complex and a very volatile issue. Today we have a whole battery of scientific approaches to study biological variation. RNA and DNA is perhaps the most precise. It's a new weapon in our artillery to try to determine degrees of biological variation.
NARRATOR: DNA is now being used to study the Pazyryk. At this lab, genes from ancient tissue are compared with genes from modern day groups. Research with tissue from a number of burials suggests that the Pazyryk were ethnically diverse. Within even one tribe, some individuals were more European, others more Mongolian. Regardless of the genetics, the people of the Altay identify themselves with the ancient Pazyryk. They are bound together by a homeland and a common culture. They will always see the Ice Maiden as their ancestor. And with political changes in this part of the world they now have the power to determine her fate.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2517siberian.html[/url][/QUOTE]
See also:
Pazyryk [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[/url]
2005-09-05 06:16 | User Profile
It's quite possible that the white man only reconquered in the last several hundred years what was his during prehistoric times and that the mongoloids and other darkies are squatters.
2005-09-05 07:28 | User Profile
The Scythians, the great horsemen of the Steppes were Caucasians. The Xiongnu ancestors of the Huns, adopted both the Scythian Akhal-Teke horse and the Scythian bow. The area where the Ice-maiden was found was ruled by the Scythians at the time she walked the earth. Even Yabusame, the Japanese form of archery on horseback, traces back to the Scythians and Parthians. Whites invent and forget - Asians borrow and don't forget.
[url="http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm"]http://parthia.com/parthia_horses_burris.htm[/url]
2005-09-05 19:14 | User Profile
madrussian,
Yes I think you are Right. Central Asia seems to have been white in prehistoric times.
[QUOTE=madrussian]It's quite possible that the white man only reconquered in the last several hundred years what was his during prehistoric times and that the mongoloids and other darkies are squatters.[/QUOTE]
Now Ossetians ancestors were Scythians. Even the Russains likely have more of a claim to the Scythians as ancestors than any Turk.
Scythian languages [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_language[/url]
See also:
Tarim Basin [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_Basin[/url]
Tocharian languages [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages[/url]
2005-09-05 20:02 | User Profile
Turks belong to Mongolia. It's great injustice that those subhumans occupy such beautiful land.
2005-09-05 23:08 | User Profile
Ancient Iranians in Europe
By Dr. Kaveh Farrokh
Greetings to All,
An excellent book has recently been published about a group of Iranian tribes who lived in Europe between 600 BC - 450 AD:
[size=2]======================================================
TITLE: The Saramtians 600 BC - 450 AD
AUTHORS: Richard Brzezinski & Mariuscz Mielczarek
PUBLISHER: England: Osprey Publishing
YEAR: 2002
ISBN: 1 84176 485 X
======================================================
[/size]
Very few individuals are even aware of the existence of these forgotten northern Iranians. In the west, the Saramatians are incorrectly assumed to be another group of "Eastern Germans" (Ostrogoths). Some western authors have recently attempted to avoid referring to the Saramatians Iranian origins. Nevertheless History cannot be changed and the descendents of the Saramatians now live in a region called Ossetia (between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Georgia). The Ossetians speak an Iranian language related to the Farsi of Iran. This book is of interest in the following areas:
(1) The role of women in ancient Iranian society. There are two color plates that show women in positions of authority. Plate A (p.25) shows an "Amazon" (Greek term for northern Iranian warrior women) capturing an enemy with a lasso. Plate C (p.27) illustrates a matriarch receiving prisoners.
(2) The influence of the Sarmatians on the British legend of King Arthur.
(3) Saramatian influences on Roman cavalry. Note that the Romans were already heavily influenced by the technology of the Iranians of Persia (especially the Parthians and the Sassanians).
This book mainly covers military affairs. It outlines the Iranian origins of the Saramatians and discusses each of the tribes (Iazyges, Alans, Roxolan, Siraces and Aorsi). It is important to note that the Saramatians also bought many facets of the culture and architecture of Persia into Europe. One example is the "Dutch" windmill which actually originated in Khorassan in the Sassanian era. The Saramatians also combined Persian and Greek architecture and helped form the basis of Gothic, Merovingian and Rennaissance architecture. Despite the scope of Iranian influence on European culture, their legacy is passed over in silence. Books such as these will help us remember the exploits of these forgotten Iranians.
Regards
Kaveh
===============================
Dr. Kaveh Farrokh (Ph.D.)
[email="manuvera@aol.com"]manuvera@aol.com[/email]
[url="http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/index.htm"]http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/index.htm[/url]
[url="http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/infopedia/a/alans.htm"]http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/infopedia/a/alans.htm[/url]
[url="http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/infopedia/a/alano-sarmation_hypothesis.htm"]http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/infopedia/a/alano-sarmation_hypothesis.htm[/url]
2005-09-05 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Turks belong to Mongolia. It's great injustice that those subhumans occupy such beautiful land.[/QUOTE] You're totally right on this one, the turks originated in mongolia.
2005-09-05 23:25 | User Profile
[size=6]Parthian is not Turkish [/size]By Dr. Kaveh Farrokh
[email="manuvera@aol.com"][color=#0000ff]manuvera@aol.com[/color][/email] Friday, January 10, 2003 1:34 PM
Greetings Professor Diker,
It has been bought to my attention that you describe Parthian as a Turkish language in your website (or a related website): [url="http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/crescent_starb.html"]http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/crescent_starb.html[/url]
This is linguistically incorrect. Parthian is not a Turkic language. It is an old western Iranian language that is also called "Parthian Pahlavi". It is a very close relative of "Middle Persian" or "Sassanian Pahlavi". The syntax and vocabulary of Parthian are recorded (e.g. Dinkard) and are of Iranian stock. The language of "Parthian" is actually called "Pahlavi" - deriving from "Partha" into "Pahla". It is evident that the individual who hosts this website does not speak Pahlavi. Allow me to demonstrate this language and its Iranian character by way of example:
"haft celan istaft polawad im pad dast grift" which means "the seven daggers of hard steel that I have grasped with my hand". Many of the words are common in modern Farsi (e.g dast - hand; Polawad (polad in Farsi) - steel; - grift (gerefet in Farsi) - grasped). "Haft" is the number seven; clearly Indo-European - the Turkish counting system is entirely different.
For an introduction to Pahlavi, you may wish to refer to the following works by Professor Mackenzie:
MacKenzie, D.N. (1967). Notes on the transcription of Pahlavi BSOAS, 30, 17-29
MacKenzie, D.N. (1971). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Routledge.
Variations of the language of "Pahalvi" are still spoken among Iranians. The Kurds of Iran as well as many Kurds of Turkey and Iraq speak variations of Pahlavi. Turks cannot understand Kurdish and require interpreters to communicate with Kurds who speak Sorani and/or Kurmanjii (variations of Pahalvi amongst Kurds). The people of northern Iran speak variations of Pahalvi as well - Mazandarani and Gilani for example. Baluchi in southeast Iran also has Pahlavi elements (e.g. Ahsen "Iron" or "Eisen" in English and Ahsan in Pahlavi - "Ahsen" is not "Iron" in Turkish).
You may wish to visit Iran and visit numerous Parthian sites or the victory inscriptions of Shapur I over the Romans and examine this language. The main academic reference used by Pan-Turanian nationalists to claim a Turkish identity for the Parthians is Rawlinson who wrote in the late 19th Century. Linguistic studies and primary historical and archeological sources have long since discredited Rawlinson's claim - especially since he (a) did not speak Parthian/Pahlavi and (b) mistakenly described Iranian names as Turkic. For example he argued that "dat" or "dad" (given or provided by in Iranian languages) is Turkish - there is not such root in Turkish linguistics with that meaning.
You also claim Soghdian as Turkish and reject Richard Nelson Frye's studies. Professor Frye is a well respected scholar with over 4 decades of international class research. He is well known for his studies of linguistics and is a world authority in the ancient languages of Iran and Central Asia. I suspect that you do not speak Soghdian or read Soghdian. If not, you may first wish to have an introduction to the linguistics of Soghdian and its east Iranian characteristics - kindly refer to A.J. Arberry's "Legacy of Persia" starting on page 187.
Arberry. A.J. (1953). The Legacy of Persia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Read Chapter 7 (pages 174-198). The linguistics of Parthian/Pahlavi are also described and how these are related to the modern Persian of today.
Soghdian, like other older East Iranian languages predate Turkic languages by at least a 1000 years in Central Asia. Professor Frye has recently published a book on the history of Central Asia and how Turkish expansion eventually displaced and/or absorbed Iranian peoples such as the Scyhtians (Saka), Alans, Sarmatians and Soghdians. Technically, I am not totally correct regarding the Soghdians being displaced since some of their descendants may still survive live in Tajikestan where the main spoken language is Tajiki (very close to Farsi) as well as a language named "Yaghnoubi" - which I have not studied, but which is (if I am not mistaken) Iranian. The book by Professor Frye is:
Frye, R.N. (1996). The Heritage of Central Asia: From Antiquity to the Turkish Expansion. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Older Iranian languages of Central Asia are commonly known to us as Saka (Scythian in western sources - especially Ukraine area) and later Sarmatian/Alan languages. Turks came in waves over the centuries into Central Asia as invaders, pushed out of the east Mongolian region by Chinese military activity. Turks may derive from a people known to us "Shaing-Nou"; although some Chinese sources mention the word "Tueh-Chi" (helmet) - which may have been one of the possible sources of the term "Turk".
The Turco-Hun presence was fully felt by the Sassanian Empire in the 5th Century AD - the Iranian peoples of Central Asia were simply driven out, eliminated or absorbed. As noted by Newark (p.65) "The Huns destroyed the realms of both the Alans and the Sarmatians". The Soghdians and some of the Saka survived by retreating in Nagoro-Bedakhshan, Western Afghanistan and Seistan (ancient Eastern Persia). The Ossetians of the Caucasus are direct descendants of the Alans and their language has no connection to Turkish. They retreated into the Caucasus mountains to safeguard their language and culture from being absorbed into later waves of Hunnic, Turkic and Mongolian invaders. In fact, despite over 1000 years of separation from Iran proper, many Ossetian words (as well as syntax) have cognates in both Farsi and Kurdish.
Not to be outdone, your website claims that the word "Saka" is Turkish. The term "Issyk" has no linguistic or historical link (that I know of) to the word "Saka" - which has existed since recorded history. Your reference has not scholastically demonstrated any Turkish link. One of the old meanings of "Saka" that I have found is "our friend" in old Achaemenid Persian, although other Iranian meanings have been found as well. The term "Issyk" has never been consistently used to refer to the Saka (or Scythians) by either Persians or non-Persians Greeks (see Herodotus). Allow me to demonstrate the Iranian linguistic character of the names of the Saka confederations during Achaemenid times:
Saka Haumavarga - The Saka bearinng the Hauma - Hauma is the sacred drink of the Zoroastrians and ancient Areyan Hindus of India.
Saka TigraKhauda - The Saka with the pointed hats. "Khauda" for example is middle Persian (Pahlavi) "Khaud" and present day "Khood" or "Kolah-Khood" in modern Farsi (Helmet).
Saka Paradraya - The Saka from beyond the sea. Para is Indo-European (and it's subset Iranian) for "beyond" (there in no such root in Turkish or indeed any Altaic languages that I know of). Certain dialects in Khorassan still seem to use the word "para" in that context. "Draya" is sea (Persian "Darya" - which is also a word loaned into modern Turkish as "Derya").
For further information I humbly suggest that you refer to:
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984). Iindo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture (Parts I and II). Tbilisi State University.
Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson. Read Chapter 2 and see 51-53 for a quick reference.
Newark, T. (1985). The Barbarians: Warriors and wars of the Dark Ages. Blandford: New York. See pages 65, 85, 87, 119-139.
Renfrew, C. (1988). Aecheology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge University Press.
I also seriously doubt the claim that Sumerian is a Turkish language since no Turkic speakers were remotely close to the later-Persian realm or let alone the Middle East at the time of the Sumerians. In addition, the time element is in error - Sumerians pre-date ancient Babylon - Turks appear in historical records thousands of years later. I am of course no expert in that area and will leave this in the hands of other scholars. In addition, I (along with many specialists and scholars) would seriously question your claims of Hittite and Cimmerian being Turkish.
You are citing your book TRK Dili'nin Bes Bin Yili ("Five Thousand Years of theTurkish Language") as your reference source. I fully respect your expertise in Geophysical Engineering (in which you have a Doctorate and are very well informed and experienced), however I am also humbly aware that you do not have any formal and/or academic training or expertise in ancient languages and/or archeology - nor (and correct me if I am wrong) have you visited and/or engaged in excavation/study of sites in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikestan or Nagorno-Bedakhshan.
Finally, Professor Diker, I may have read that portion of your website incorrectly, however it does seem that your book claims that it has "proven" that all languages have their roots in Turkish. I am certain that no serrious scholar will entertain the suggestion that the world's mother language is Turkish. Excellent research is already underway in this area and you may be interested in refering to the texts below as an introduction:
Ruhlen, M. (1994). The Origin of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Provides the linguistic and genetic bases of languages and how attempts are being made at "reconstruction". This book clearly distinguishes between Turkic and other Indo-European languages such as those of the Iranian family (e.g. Parthian/Pahalvi) - also read p.25 (Kurdish).
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. This text provides a good summary to the series of Italian studies (spanning, I believe, close to 2 decades) in which the relationships between genetics and languages have researched. Note that Cavalli-Sforza's works indicate an African (not Turkish) origin for modern humans as quite possibly languages as well.
If you have any questions regarding modern or classical Iranian languages, feel free to contact me. Note that many individuals on the forwarded list are themselves scholars who are well informed on Iranian studies and are aware of the Iranian basis of the Parthian language.
Regards
Dr. Kaveh Farrokh (PhD)
[email="manuvera@aol.com"][color=#0000ff]manuvera@aol.com[/color][/email]
2005-09-06 01:59 | User Profile
madrussian,
Too bad Russia did not take the Tarim Basin too. I am sure Russain archaeologist would have done some great work in the Tarim Basin.
See what Immigration will do:
[QUOTE]...(the) Tocharian(s) probably died out after 840, when the Uighurs(Turks) were expelled from Mongolia by the Kirghiz, retreating to the Tarim Basin. This theory is supported by the discovery of translations of Tocharian texts into Uighur. During Uighur rule, the peoples mixed with the Uighurs to produce much of the modern population of Xinjiang.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages[/url][/QUOTE]
I remember I once said on this forum Gautama was first white liberal, his sect likely wiped out the Tocharians. He was a Scythian too.
[QUOTE]The Shakya (or Sakya)(Scythians) were a (Group of people related by blood or marriage) clan of (A person who adheres to Hinduism) Hindu (A member of the royal or warrior Hindu caste) kshatriyas. The Shakyas lived near the foothills of the (A mountain range extending 1500 miles on the border between India and Tibet; this range contains the world's highest mountain) Himalayas. Many modern Indian ethnic groups such as Rajputs, Gujarathis and Marathas are of partly Shakya or Scythian descent.
[url]http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/sh/shakya.htm[/url]
The Buddha had an elongated, lengthy body with long appendices His hair was fine, dark and with soft, long curls. His eyes were wide, and strongly blue or bluish. His body was light-colored and golden, with a pinkish color under the nails.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha[/url][/QUOTE]