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
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 11:45

Cite the chinese sources you mean (10-8 BC?! it's a new on my sundae). in most of the books refering to the chinese documents including Xiongu's it was as early as about 3rd century BC. Ok can't wait to see the  so-called AGREED UPON sources.

The Yuezhi settled, after their migration in Tocharia nut yeah the language is believed to be a Centum rather than Satem.

Back to Top
Ardashir View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2005
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 162
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ardashir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 12:31
i don't think iranic tribes might have penetrated further than current kyrqizistan
http://khakokhoon.blogfa.com
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 12:53
it is kind of disputed that it was a penetration. although both theories of iranian or altaic early homeland is surrounded by obscurities but the evidence so far found are leaning more than the first. and it is etimated that it was altaic penetration in Iranian lands, which though vague in those years is well recored by the presence of the Huns.
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 16:26
Originally posted by Asawar Hazaraspa Asawar Hazaraspa wrote:

Cite the chinese sources you mean (10-8 BC?! it's a new on my sundae). in most of the books refering to the chinese documents including Xiongu's it was as early as about 3rd century BC. Ok can't wait to see the  so-called AGREED UPON sources.

 
Well, the earliest Chinese chronicles are "Annals of history" (Shujing) and Annals of Spring and Autumn. Which are centuries earlier than 3BC and for sure predate any account by Herodotus.
 
Also, according to traditional Chinese historiography as expressed by Sima Qian, Xiongnu originate from Chun Wei the son of the last empreror of Xia dynasty, Jie. And if it's true, it actually places the origins of Xiongnu history in the second millenium BC.
 
As about the fact that are agreed, it's that the ancestors of Xiongnu and Xiongnu proper, call them Proto-Turks if you will, definitely inhabited the lands of Modern Western Mongolia and Xinjiang before 2 century BC.
 
 
Originally posted by Asawar Hazaraspa Asawar Hazaraspa wrote:

The Yuezhi settled, after their migration in Tocharia nut yeah the language is believed to be a Centum rather than Satem.
 
I actually don't understand what you want to say here. Tocharian language actually poses a challenge for Satem/Centum theory but it was not Iranic.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 13-Sep-2008 at 16:29
Σαυρομάτης
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: 13-Sep-2008 at 19:37
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

In fact, Chinese records describe the history of Xiongnu much more detailed than Greeks describe Scythians.


like what? Herodotus actually lived together with Scythians (European Sakas), no Chinese scholar ever did live with Nomads and told about that.
 
Quote Also Uezhi, were not Indo-Iranians, but Tocharians. Tocharian language although Indo-European was very different from Indo-Iranian languages.


irregardless if they were not Iranic, they weren't turkic either but they were the inhabitants of the Tarim Bassin before the XiongNu. also they found a Saka lord's Kurgan in Eastern Altai (Western Mongolia) so whether or not that region was Iranic, it was at least ruled by a Saka elite.
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: 13-Sep-2008 at 20:32
Herodotus's Scythians referred to most Nomads from the East, it was a collective name.
 
The tombs in Altai belong to the Pazyryk culture, there culture appears to have been similar to the Scythians. Recent studies have raised the possibility that the inhabitants of Altai region are descendants of the Pazyryk culture. There is no evidence of them being ruled by a Scythian elite, our knowledge of the Scythians themselves are limited.
 
      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: 13-Sep-2008 at 21:49
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

In fact, Chinese records describe the history of Xiongnu much more detailed than Greeks describe Scythians.


like what? Herodotus actually lived together with Scythians (European Sakas), no Chinese scholar ever did live with Nomads and told about that.

 
Chinese have regular communications with Xiongnu. A lot of Xiongnu actually lived in China as well as there were many Chinese traders living on the territories controled by Xiongnu.
 
Some Chinese, like Ban Chao, for example, spent decades among Xiongnu and later his notes were used by the Chinese historians.
 
Chinese historians definitely have first hand experience while writing about them.
 
In any case, Chinese history accounts about Nomades are much more volumenous, detailed and informative than Greek ones.
 
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

 
Quote Also Uezhi, were not Indo-Iranians, but Tocharians. Tocharian language although Indo-European was very different from Indo-Iranian languages.


irregardless if they were not Iranic, they weren't turkic either but they were the inhabitants of the Tarim Bassin before the XiongNu. also they found a Saka lord's Kurgan in Eastern Altai (Western Mongolia) so whether or not that region was Iranic, it was at least ruled by a Saka elite.
 
Hmmm... Did I say they were Turkic?
 
The whole argument is about whether Proto-Turks lived in Eastern Turkestan and Western Mongolia before 2 BC. For sure they lived there and it doesn't relate to the language which was spoken by Yuezhi. And how can you prove that there were no Xiongnu in Eastern Turkestan at the same time when there were Yuezhi?  They simply lived there next to each other. Xiongnu were in the Eastern part, Yuezhi and some Saka in the Western.
 
Also about Saka lord found in Altai. It's really wery hard to make the definite conclusion that he really was an Iranian speaking Saka. The main argument which supports the idea that he was the one is that the artefacts found in the kurgan resemble the Scythian "beast style."
The "beast style" art however was spread among Turkic and Mongolic nomades as well. It's really hard to make such conclusions based on this argument only.
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: 01-Oct-2008 at 13:28

That would be intersting 10- 8 Centuries BC. I know that they were described Xiongnu. but they most of the times mentioned north of the Great wall! And the time they mentioned in xinjiang and Eastern Turkestan is about 3rd century BC. 


"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."

Of course no denying of it also chinese gave account of Iranics and Yuechi probably well enough comparing to Greeks.

The Yuechi not being Iranic at all show the Indo-european presence in north of Great Wall (where today is considered eastern Mongolia) as well.

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: 01-Oct-2008 at 17:19
Xinjiang is actually a very huge place.
 
Check the map it's highlighted in red. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China_Xinjiang.svg
 
So, what I'm saying is that Xiongnu were in the Eastern part of Xinjiang and Indoeuropean nomades were in the Western. There is nothing strange in it.
 
In fact, Xiongnu expanded to the territory north to the main body Great Wall by the end of the second half of first millenium BC. Before those lands were mainly occupied by Donghu (Proto-Mongols).
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: 02-Oct-2008 at 10:31

That's correct, but in which period if it's a discussion about who were the earliest to Inhabit the lands even further east than Xinjiang. 

You were telling me about the 10-9 centuries BC records of the Xiong Nu, I'd like to know the exact source of that in chinese annals or records?! 

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: 02-Oct-2008 at 16:25

I think the whole argument started because you didn't agree that Proto-Turks were in Xinjiang before 2d century BC, while they definitely already were there at that time.

 I also have already provided  the Chinese sources above.
 
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: 02-Oct-2008 at 19:08
The accounts of the history of the Zhou gives scattered mention of them and it may not go furthre than 5th century BC. But the claim still remains that the Xiongnu ( I think Xiongnu as a major proto-Turkic confederation is undisputed) or other Turkics were really the first inhabitants, is challenged mostly by archaelogical excavations like Tarim mummies, Bronze age skulls found in Mongolia and also the frozen mummy which according to evidences so far is believed to be Scythian iMonglia dating back to about 5th century BC.
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: 02-Oct-2008 at 19:13
Well,
 
Firstly, the argument is not about who "was the first" in Xinjiang, but whether Turks were there before 2 century BC. I simply was just saying that yes, they were there at that time.
 
Secondly, I was never denying that Indoeuropeans were present there as well.
 
Thridly, the real identity of "Mongolian mummues" is really still open for a debate.
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: 02-Oct-2008 at 19:27
I was not talking about Mongolian mummies rather than the one found years ago. I don't think the debate is about whether proto-turkic or not, besides such debates can reach as far as Tashtyk culture territory. 
Back to Top
Aryan de Pakhtra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 27-Jan-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aryan de Pakhtra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 16:15

In ancient times, Saka (East Iranian) languages were spoken in Afghanistan, Sistan and Central Asia. Now Pashto and Pamiri languages are still spoken.

Vanji language became extinct in the 19th century when Tajik Persian replaced it. Several other Saka languages were also replaced by Persian in the past, and Persian is still the biggest threat. In Kyrgyzstan Saka languages are replaced by Kyrgyz. In Xinjiang, Uyghur has replaced Saka Khotanese and Tumshuqese, which were spoken in the Kingdom of Khotan along the southern edge of the Taklamakan Desert (across the desert and in Takhar, Indo-European non-Aryan Tocharian was spoken which are also now extinct). In the Caucasus, Ossetic is still spoken. In Eastern Europe, Saka language is extinct because of Slavic invasions, but is still used in some place and river names eg. the Don River (Pashto: dand, central Pashto dialect: dun, Ossetic: don, Avestan: dānu-, meaning "water, river").


Edited by Aryan de Pakhtra - 02-Feb-2009 at 16:35
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: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:30
I'm going to disagree, the expansion of modern Persian wasn't violent and I don't think it meant to remove other Iranian dialects. As you may see in the ages before arabian conquest of Iranian lands, despite partial Persian supermacies they never practised imposing their state tongue to their neighnouring Iranian relatives. The spread of Persian during the times of Samanids was one of the last remedies to maintain the remanat Iranian culture in their kingdom. 
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 0.078 seconds.