History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedReplacement of Iranians by Turks in Central Asia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Replacement of Iranians by Turks in Central Asia
    Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 09:25

One of the most important, yet least documented phenomenons of Central Asian history was the "replacement" of Iranian-speaking peoples by Turks between the 4th and 5th centuries.

At least back in the 2nd century and before, most of what is now Turkestan, Sinkiang, and Western Mongolia were populated by Iranian-speaking nomads. By the 6th century, however, most of this region was dominated by Turkic-speaking peoples.

Has anyone made a study as to when and how this transformation took place?

Was it a result of the Xiong-nu's western migration or the expansion of the Gokturk empire?

Did the Iranian peoples simply become absorbed by turks, or were they pushed further westwards?

Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 1919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 09:56
^to awnser this verry simply

it was both
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 16:59
I suspect that you are right, that it was a process of both assimilation of the native Iranic Indoaryan population by the immigrating Turkics (Turanians), as well as pushing some of the Indoaryan population westward. Though some of them remain. The Tajiks are mostly of Indoaryan descent.
 
It would be interesting to see the results of a genetic analysis on the peoples of Turkestan. I think their would be a wide variety  of genetic types, including Turanian (Turkic) and Iranic (Indoaryan) as well as some Mongolic stranes. 
Windemere
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:06
Sorry mate, Turks were never the Turanians.  By Avesta accounts Turanians and Iranians spoke the same language and ancient Turan was in Afghanistan - Nuristanis are probably their most direct descendants.  The Turkish claims to being Turanian are no older than the late 19th century (1870s) when an Ottoman consort of Hungarian origin put 2 + 2 together and got 7.

Edited by Zagros - 11-Nov-2007 at 17:08
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 1919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:08
You can see it in In East Turkestan/xiang jiang the more south you go there more "caucasian" the population gets.

the mixture of sogadian & tocharian is more in the south in cities like Kasghar and mostly hotan.

people tend to be more darker and have more caucasian futures than Uygurs in Turpan or rmqi


Turanian is so widley and falsely used imo


I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 19:03
Quote Calvo
At least back in the 2nd century and before, most of what is now Turkestan, Sinkiang, and Western Mongolia were populated by Iranian-speaking nomads. By the 6th century, however, most of this region was dominated by Turkic-speaking peoples.
 
Eastern Turkistan and Western Mongolia was populated by Turkic speaking peoples way before the 2nd Century, the Xiongnu held sway in that region for centuries before and their ancestors before them.
 
There is no evidence of the whole of the steppe being inhabitted by only Iranic speakers.
 
Many Iranic speakers in Western and Southern Turkistan became assimilated into Turks or driven West. However, some retained their identity like the Tajiks.


Edited by Bulldog - 11-Nov-2007 at 19:03
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 19:31
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

One of the most important, yet least documented phenomenons of Central Asian history was the "replacement" of Iranian-speaking peoples by Turks between the 4th and 5th centuries.

At least back in the 2nd century and before, most of what is now Turkestan, Sinkiang, and Western Mongolia were populated by Iranian-speaking nomads. By the 6th century, however, most of this region was dominated by Turkic-speaking peoples.

Has anyone made a study as to when and how this transformation took place?

Was it a result of the Xiong-nu's western migration or the expansion of the Gokturk empire?

Did the Iranian peoples simply become absorbed by turks, or were they pushed further westwards?

 
Of course these studies have been made. And you are totally correct when you say that the process started with Xiongnu migration.
 
Basically some of the Iranics were pushed out like Alans or Hephtalites, but it's most likely that most of them just adopted Turkic languages and stayed where they were before. As about Nomadic customs and culture. it's really hard to identify nowdays whether their origins are Turkic or Iranic.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 19:36
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Sorry mate, Turks were never the Turanians.  By Avesta accounts Turanians and Iranians spoke the same language and ancient Turan was in Afghanistan - Nuristanis are probably their most direct descendants.  The Turkish claims to being Turanian are no older than the late 19th century (1870s) when an Ottoman consort of Hungarian origin put 2 + 2 together and got 7.
 
I actually thought that Turanians of Avesta and Shakh nama were Nomadic Sakas. However, the association of Turan and the realm of Turks started already in the Middle Ages. Many Turkic historians tried to attribute their origins to Turanians and particularly Afrosiab.
 
The theory which apperaed in the 19th century was so called "Panturkism," the associations of Turanians with Turks, however, had been made much earlier as I mentioned.
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 17:56
What most likely happenned is when the established civilizations in Southwest Asia fell, the predominant nomadic groups settled in.  This vacuum in the Steppes allowed other nomadic groups from the East to settle in their older territories where they amalgamated with the remnants of those nomadic Iranic tribes.  Which is why all the Genographic studies in Central Asia have shown Indo-European haplogroups prevalent among Turks in Central Asia.
 
Turkic and Iranic speakers can sometimes rarely be told apart.  Especially between Tajiks and Uzbeks and Chinese Tajiks with Qyrghiz and other Uighir Turkics in Xinjiang Province.
 
 
 


Edited by Afghanan - 18-Nov-2007 at 17:57
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
Aaqtaash View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2008
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aaqtaash Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 19:11
Uzbeks and Tajiks are the mixture of Turkic, Tokharian and probably Soghdian people with the difference Uzbeks speak a Turkic and Tajiks speak an Indo-european language.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2008 at 19:23
Yes, you're right Tajiks speak Persian, an Indo-European language and have the same national heroes and figures as Iranians such as Rudaki, Ferdowsi et al.

It's amazing because ancient (old Persian) was deciphered by examining the modern Persian language.  According to Arab historians there were 5 Iranic dialects in Iran upon its conquest and some of them seem to be more class based than regional.

There were three royal/noble languages: Dabarian (Dari), Pahlavi (probably Parthian Pahlavi) and Khuzi.  Dari was also spoken in Khorasan and Balkh. Parthian was spoken in Azarbaijan and what is today's Iranian Kurdistan and Khuzi was Khuzistani.
There was the priest language described as Farsi (like Sassanid Avesta Pahlavi), this was regional to Central and Southern Iran.
Regional was Soriani ancestor of Kermanji and Sorani Kurdish. Regional to NW Iran, outside of modern Iranian territory.

The differences were only accent/dialectal - For example Kalhori/Feyli and Sorani/Kermanji are both considered Kurdish today however, Sorani and Kermanji obviously descend from Soriani whereas Feyli was Parthian Pahlavi.


Edited by Zagros - 05-Feb-2008 at 19:44
Back to Top
Balkh-Aryan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Balkh-Aryan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 19:11
Hi, Zagros!
I'd like to discuss with You some problems about the ancient and early medieval history of Central Asia - "Turan", which is not a turkish toponim, of course. I am bulgarian and i researching the roots of my people more than 20 years. all the available sources lead me to the ancient Baktria and to referred in ancient indian sources (Mahabharata, the Vedas, Ramayana, the Puranas...) state Balhika/Bahlika/Balhara. It was between 13th and 8th century B.C. Because this country was a part of persian Achaemenid Empire for a 3 century You should know something about it. I have find a tocharo - english dictionary and i see a very big relations of tocharian language with the bulgarian one, even more than 1500 later. The tocharian language, as You probably know is an indo-european language, related with a lot of aryan languages, but not so much as with bulgarian. If You are intresting to discuss this You can write to me to this forum or to my e-mail: gomer_bg@yahoo.com
Of course, anyone can write to me. I expect that. Wish You well!
Todor Panayotov/Balkh-Aryan

UPDATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE
Back to Top
Conservative View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: Iran Inshalla
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conservative Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 16:18
Originally posted by Windemere Windemere wrote:

I suspect that you are right, that it was a process of both assimilation of the native Iranic Indoaryan population by the immigrating Turkics (Turanians), as well as pushing some of the Indoaryan population westward. Though some of them remain. The Tajiks are mostly of Indoaryan descent.
 
It would be interesting to see the results of a genetic analysis on the peoples of Turkestan. I think their would be a wide variety  of genetic types, including Turanian (Turkic) and Iranic (Indoaryan) as well as some Mongolic stranes. 
 
Just want to point out that the term "Indo-Aryan" is a linguistic term, not a category for ethnic/racial groups. The term "Indo-Aryan" also is not applicable to Iranic or Iranian peoples.
 
The invasions of Genghis Khan and perhaps to a lesser extent those of Tamerlane were also significant turning points in the demographic history of Central Asia during which the population of Iranic peoples was greatly reduced.
ایران‌ زمین
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 01:18
I've always considered "Indo-European" to be a linguistic term referring to the language family by that name, and "Indo-Aryan" to be a racial term referring to the original populations of south-central Asia. These terms are often used interchangeably though, and mean different things to different people. The term "Aryan" especially is controversial nowadays. Maybe "Indo-Iranic" would be a better alternative.
Windemere
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 20:59
actually none of those terms are used racially other than "Aryan", at least they are not meant to be.
Back to Top
Sukhbaatar View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 28-May-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sukhbaatar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 20:58
Quote
actually none of those terms are used racially other than "Aryan", at least they are not meant to be.
 
Thank Hitler for that, screwing the word up.
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 23:20

"Eastern Turkistan and Western Mongolia was populated by Turkic speaking peoples way before the 2nd Century, the Xiongnu held sway in that region for centuries before and their ancestors before them."

total fictional! as the the evidences available testimony that these areas was surely populated by the Iranics and the pan-turkists claim that there were yet altaic groups back in the days even before the indo-iranians inhabit the region, which is actually a theory lacking evidences.

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 23:26
Why do you think it's fictional? 
 
That's based on Chinese sources and accepted by the mainstream historical science. Have you heard the name Xiongnu for example?
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 00:01

"Eastern Turkistan and Western Mongolia was populated by Turkic speaking peoples way before the 2nd Century, the Xiongnu held sway in that region for centuries before and their ancestors before them."

Yes. I say again fictional. Before the second century BC even considering the obscurity in sources no evidence the land of ET and the whole Mongolia belonged to them and their ancestors.

The Xiongnu was mentioned in chinese sources somewhere north of the great wall and their first appearance was probably around 3rd century in these sources. And they migrated more westward likely pursuing the Yuezhi. that's not related I said the theory backed by Turkist scholars tries to expand it even before the 3rd century and alike before the indo-iranian recorded presence in eastern turkestan or some parts of mongolia, the area belonged to the proto-altaics, this lacking evidences to a great degree. 

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 00:21
Not at all. Their appearance according to the Chinese sources was somewhere around 10-8 BC. Both historical records of Zhou dynasty and Sima Qian's "Historical records" descibe Xiongnu.
 
And it also was pointed correctly that they lived in the Western Mongolia and Xinjiang (Eastern Turkestan), Eastern Mongolia was inhabited by Donghu-proto Mongols.
 
In fact, Chinese records describe the history of Xiongnu much more detailed than Greeks describe Scythians. And as I said, the location of Xiongnu and proto-Xiongnu tribes is accepted by the mainstream of historians.  If you're saying it's fictional, you actually are agitating against the facts that are more or less agreed upon.
 
Also Uezhi, were not Indo-Iranians, but Tocharians. Tocharian language although Indo-European was very different from Indo-Iranian languages.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.