PDA

View Full Version : Priscus at the court of Attila the Huns


Onur
10-29-2010, 05:12 PM
Priscus was a late Roman diplomat, sophist and historian living in the Roman Empire during the 5th century. He accompanied Maximinus, the ambassador of Theodosius II to the court of Attila the Huns.

Priscus, born at Panium in Thrace, probably quite early in the fifth century, wrote a history in eight books, but of that total, only fragments survive. The fragment presented here details a visit in 448 by Priscus himself to the court of Attila and offers a picture of the Huns that differs markedly from other sources; it is therefore valuable for a number of different reasons. Fragment 8(in the numeration of Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV) is a long fragment, only partly translated by Bury;





Priscus Fragment 8; At the court of Attila

We set out with the barbarians, and arrived at Sardica(Sofia, Bulgaria), which is thirteen days for a fast traveller from Constantinople. Halting there we considered it advisable to invite Edecon and the barbarians with him to dinner. The inhabitants of the place sold us sheep and oxen, which we slaughtered, and we prepared a meal. In the course of the feast, as the barbarians lauded Attila and we lauded the Emperor, Bigilas remarked that it was not fair to compare a man and a god, meaning Attila by the man and Theodosius by the god. The Huns grew excited and hot at this remark. But we turned the conversation in another direction, and soothed their wounded feelings; and after dinner, when we separated, Maximin presented Edecon and Orestes with silk garments and Indian gems....

When we arrived at Naissus(Nis, Serbia) we found the city deserted, as though it had been sacked; only a few sick persons lay in the churches. We halted at a short distance from the river, in an open space, for all the ground adjacent to the bank was full of the bones of men slain in war. On the morrow we came to the station of Agintheus, the commander-in-chief of the Illyrian armies(magister militum per Illyricum), who was posted not far from Naissus, to announce to him the Imperial commands, and to receive five of those seventeen deserters, about whom Attila had written to the Emperor. We had an interview with him, and having treated the deserters with kindness, he committed them to us. The next day we proceeded from the district of Naissus towards the Danube; we entered a covered valley with many bends and windings and circuitous paths. We thought we were travelling due west, but when the day dawned the sun rose in front; and some of us unacquainted with the topography cried out that the sun was going the wrong way, and portending unusual events. The fact was that that part of the road faced the east, owing to the irregularity of the ground. Having passed these rough places we arrived at a plain which was also well wooded.

At the river we were received by barbarian ferrymen, who rowed us across the river in boats made by themselves out of single trees hewn and hollowed. These preparations had not been made for our sake, but to convey across a company of Huns; for Attila pretended that he wished to hunt in Roman territory, but his intent was really hostile, because all the deserters had not been given up to him.

Having crossed the Danube, and proceeded with the barbarians about seventy stadia, we were compelled to wait in a certain plain, that Edecon and his party might go on in front and inform Attila of our arrival. As we were dining in the evening we heard the sound of horses approaching, and two Scythians arrived with directions that we were to set out to Attila. We asked them first to partake of our meal, and they dismounted and made good cheer.

On the next day, under their guidance, we arrived at the tents of Attila, which were numerous, about three o'clock, and when we wished to pitch our tent on a hill the barbarians who met us prevented us, because the tent of Attila was on low ground, so we halted where the Scythians desired....

(Then a message is received from Attila, who was aware of the nature of their embassy, saying that if they had nothing further to communicate to him he would not receive them, so they reluctantly prepared to return.)

When the baggage had been packed on the beasts of burden, and we were perforce preparing to start in the night time, messengers came from Attila bidding us wait on account of the late hour. Then men arrived with an ox and river fish, sent to us by Attila, and when we had dined we retired to sleep. When it was day we expected a gentle and courteous message from the barbarian, but he again bade us depart if we had no further mandates beyond what he already knew. We made no reply, and prepared to set out, though Bigilas insisted that we should feign to have some other communication to make. When I saw that Maximin was very dejected, I went to Scottas (one of the Hun nobles, brother of Onegesius), taking with me Rusticius, who understood the Hun language. He had come with us to Scythia, not as a member of the embassy, but on business with Constantius, an Italian whom Aetius had sent to Attila to be that monarch's private secretary.

I informed Scottas, Rusticius acting as interpreter, that Maximin would give him many presents if he would procure him an interview with Attila; and, moreover, that the embassy would not only conduce to the public interests of the two powers, but to the private interest of Onegesius, for the Emperor desired that he should be sent as an ambassador to Byzantium, to arrange the disputes of the Huns and Romans, and that there he would receive splendid gifts. As Onegesius was not present, it was for Scottas, I said, to help us, or rather help his brother, and at the same time prove that the report was true which ascribed to him an influence with Attila equal to that possessed by his brother. Scottas mounted his horse and rode to Attila's tent, while I returned to Maximin and found him in a state of perplexity and anxiety, lying on the grass with Bigilas.

I described my interview with Scottas, and bade him make preparations for an audience of Attila. They both jumped up, approving of what I had done, and recalled the men who had started with the beasts of burden. As we were considering what to say to Attila, and how to present the Emperor's gifts, Scottas came to fetch us, and we entered Attila's tent, which was surrounded by a multitude of barbarians. We found Attila sitting on a wooden chair. We stood at a little distance and Maximin advanced and saluted the barbarian, to whom he gave the Emperor's letter, saying that the Emperor prayed for the safety of him and his. The king replied, "It shall be unto the Romans as they wish it to be unto me," and immediately addressed Bigilas, calling him a shameless beast, and asking him why he ventured to come when all the deserters had not been given up. . . .

After the departure of Bigilas, who returned to the Empire (nominally to find the deserters whose restoration Attila demanded, but really to get the money for his fellow-conspirator Edecon), we remained one day in that place and then set out with Attila for the northern parts of the country.

We accompanied the barbarian for a time, but when we reached a certain point took another route by the command of the Scythians who conducted us, as Attila was proceeding to a village where he intended to marry the daughter of Eskam, though he had many other wives, for the Scythians practise polygamy.

We proceeded along a level road in a plain and met with navigable rivers of which the greatest, next to the Danube, are the Drecon, Tigas, and Tiphesas which we crossed in the Monoxyles, boats made of one piece, used by the dwellers on the banks: the smaller rivers we traversed on rafts which the barbarians carry about with them on carts, for the purpose of crossing morasses. In the villages we were supplied with food--millet instead of corn, and mead, as the natives call it, instead of wine. The attendants who followed us received millet, and a drink made of barley, which the barbarians call kam.

Late in the evening, having travelled a long distance, we pitched our tents on the banks of a fresh-water lake, used for water by the inhabitants of the neighbouring village. But a wind and storm, accompanied by thunder and lightning and heavy rain, arose, and almost threw down our tents; all our utensils were rolled into the waters of the lake. Terrified by the mishap and the atmospherical disturbance, we left the place and lost one another in the dark and the rain, each following the road that seemed most easy. But we all reached the village by different ways, and raised an alarm to obtain what we lacked. The Scythians of the village sprang out of their huts at the noise, and, lighting the reeds which they use for kindling fires, asked what we wanted. Our conductors replied that the storm had alarmed us; so they invited us to their huts and provided warmth for us by lighting large fires of reeds.

The lady who governed the village- -she had been one of Bleda's wives--sent us provisions and good-looking girls to console us(this is a Scythian compliment). We treated the young women to a share in the eatables. but declined to take any further advantage of their presence.

We remained in the huts till day dawned and then went to look for our lost utensils, which we found partly in the place where we had pitched the tent, partly on the bank of the lake, and partly in the water. We spent that day in the village drying our things; for the storm had ceased and the sun was bright. Having looked after our horses and cattle, we directed our steps to the princess, to whom we paid our respects and presented gifts in return for her courtesy. The gifts consisted of things which are esteemed by the barbarians as not produced in the country--three silver phials, red skins, Indian pepper, palm fruit, and other delicacies.

Having advanced a distance of seven days farther, we halted at a village; for as the rest of the route was the same for us and Attila, it behoved us to wait, so that he might go in front. Here we met with some of the "western Romans," who had also come on an embassy to Attila--the count Romulus, Promotus governor of Noricum, and Romanus a military captain. With them was Constantius whom Aetius had sent to Attila to be his secretary, and Tatulus, the father of Orestes; these two were not connected with the embassy, but were friends of the ambassadors. Constantius had known them of old in the Italies, and Orestes had married the daughter of Romulus.

The object of the embassy, was to soften the soul of Attila, who demanded the surrender of one Silvanus, a dealer in silver plate in Rome, because he had received golden vessels from a certain Constantius. This Constantius, a native of Gaul, had preceded his namesake in the office of secretary to Attila. When Sirmium in Pannonia was besieged by the Scythians, the bishop of the place consigned the vessels to his(Constantius') care, that if the city were taken and he survived they might be used to ransom him; and in case he were slain, to ransom the citizens who were led into captivity. But when the city was enslaved, Constantius violated his engagement, and, as he happened to be at Rome on business, pawned the vessels to Silvanus for a sum of money, on condition that if he gave back the money within a prescribed period the dishes should be returned, but otherwise should become the property of Silvanus.

Constantius, suspected of treachery, was crucified by Attila and Bleda; and afterwards, when the affair of the vessels became known to Attila, he demanded the surrender of Silvanus on the ground that he had stolen his property. Accordingly Aetius and the Emperor of the Western Romans sent to explain that Silvanus was the creditor of Constantius, the vessels having been pawned and not stolen, and that he had sold them to priests and others for sacred purposes. If, however, Attila refused to desist from his demand, he, the Emperor, would send him the value of the vessels, but would not surrender the innocent Silvanus.

Having waited for some time until Attila advanced in front of us, we proceeded, and having crossed some rivers we arrived at a large village, where Attila's house was said to be more splendid than his residences in other places. It was made of polished boards, and surrounded with a wooden enclosure, designed, not for protection, but for appearance. The house of Onegesius was second to the king's in splendour, and was also encircled with a wooden enclosure, but it was not adorned with towers like that of the king. Not far from the enclosure was a large bath which Onegesius--who was the second in power among the Scythians-- built, having transported the stones from Pannonia; for the barbarians in this district had no stones or trees, but used imported material. The builder of the bath was a captive from Sirmium, who expected to win his freedom as payment for making the bath. But he was disappointed, and greater trouble befell him than mere captivity among the Scythians, for Onegesius appointed him bathman, and he used to minister to him and his family when they bathed.

When Attila entered the village he was met by girls advancing in rows, under thin white canopies of linen, which were held up by the outside women who stood under them, and were so large that seven or more girls walked beneath each. There were many lines of damsels thus canopied, and they sang Scythian songs. When he came near the house of Onegesius, which lay on his way, the wife of Onegesius issued from the door, with a number of servants, bearing meat and wine, and saluted him and begged him to partake of her hospitality. This is the highest honour that can be shown among the Scythians. To gratify the wife of his friend, he ate, just as he sat on his horse, his attendants raising the tray to his saddlebow; and having tasted the wine, he went on to the palace, which was higher than the other houses and built on an elevated site. But we remained in the house of Onegesius, at his invitation, for he had returned from his expedition with Attila's son. His wife and kinsfolk entertained us to dinner, for he had no leisure himself, as he had to relate to Attila the result of his expedition and explain the accident which had happened to the young prince, who had slipped and broken his right arm.

After dinner we left the house of Onegesius, and took up our quarters nearer the palace, so that Maximin might be at a convenient distance for visiting Attila or holding intercourse with his court.

The next morning, at dawn of day, Maximin sent me to Onegesius, with presents offered by himself as well as those which the Emperor had sent, and I was to find out whether he would have an interview with Maximin and at what time. When I arrived at the house, along with the attendants who carried the gifts, I found the doors closed, and had to wait until some one should come out and announce our arrival.

As I waited and walked up and down in front of the enclosure which surrounded the house, a man, whom from his Scythian dress I took for a barbarian, came up and addressed me in Greek, with the word Xaire, "Hail!" I was surprised at a Scythian speaking Greek. For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin; but none of them easily speak Greek, except captives from the Thracian or Illyrian sea-coast; and these last are easily known to any stranger by their torn garments and the squalor of their heads, as men who have met with a reverse. This man, on the contrary, resembled a well-to-do Scythian, being well dressed, and having his hair cut in a circle after Scythian fashion. Having returned his salutation, I asked him who he was and whence he had come into a foreign land and adopted Scythian life. When he asked me why I wanted to know, I told him that his Hellenic speech had prompted my curiosity. Then he smiled and said that he was born a Greek and had gone as a merchant to Viminacium, on the Danube, where he had stayed a long time, and married a very rich wife. But the city fell a prey to the barbarians, and he was stript of his prosperity, and on account of his riches was allotted to Onegesius in the division of the spoil, as it was the custom among the Scythians for the chiefs to reserve for themselves the rich prisoners. Having fought bravely against the Romans and the Acatiri, he had paid the spoils he won to his master, and so obtained freedom. He then married a barbarian wife and had children, and had the privilege of eating at the table of Onegesius.

He considered his new life among the Scythians better than his old life among the Romans, and the reasons he gave were as follows: "After war the Scythians live in inactivity, enjoying what they have got, and not at all, or very little, harassed. The Romans, on the other hand, are in the first place very liable to perish in war, as they have to rest their hopes of safety on others, and are not allowed, on account of their tyrants to use arms. And those who use them are injured by the cowardice of their generals who cannot support the conduct of war. But the condition of the subjects in time of peace is far more grievous than the evils of war, for the exaction of the taxes is very severe and unprincipled men inflict injuries on others, because the laws are practically not valid against all classes. A transgressor who belongs to the wealthy classes is not punished for his injustice, while a poor man, who does not understand business, undergoes the legal penalty, that is if he does not depart this life before the trial, so long is the course of lawsuits protracted, and so much money is expended on them. The climax of the misery is to have to pay in order to obtain justice. For no one will give a court to the injured man unless he pay a sum of money to the judge and the judge's clerks."

In reply to this attack on the Empire, I asked him to be good enough to listen with patience to the other side of the question. "The creators of the Roman republic," I said, "who were wise and good men, in order to prevent things from being done at haphazard made one class of men guardians of the laws, and appointed another class to the profession of arms, who were to have no other object than to be always ready for battle, and to go forth to war without dread, as though to their ordinary exercise having by practice exhausted all their fear beforehand. Others again were assigned to attend to the cultivation of the ground, to support both themselves and those who fight in their defence, by contributing the military corn-supply....

To those who protect the interests of the litigants a sum of money is paid by the latter, just as a payment is made by the farmers to the soldiers. Is it not fair to support him who assists and requite him for his kindness? The support of the horse benefits the horseman....

Those who spend money on a suit and lose it in the end cannot fairly put it down to anything but the injustice of their case. And as to the long time spent on lawsuits, that is due to concern for justice, that judges may not fail in passing correct judgments, by having to give sentence offhand; it is better that they should reflect, and conclude the case more tardily, than that by judging in a hurry they should both injure man and transgress against the Deity, the institutor of justice....

The Romans treat their servants better than the king of the Scythians treats his subjects. They deal with them as fathers or teachers, admonishing them to abstain from evil and follow the lines of conduct whey they have esteemed honourable; they reprove them for their errors like their own children. They are not allowed, like the Scythians, to inflict death on them. They have numerous ways of conferring freedom; they can manumit not only during life, but also by their wills, and the testamentary wishes of a Roman in regard to his property are law."

My interlocutor shed tears, and confessed that the laws and constitution of the Romans were fair, but deplored that the governors, not possessing the spirit of former generations, were ruining the State.

As we were engaged in this discussion a servant came out and opened the door of the enclosure. I hurried up, and inquired how Onegesius was engaged, for I desired to give him a message from the Roman ambassador. He replied that I should meet him if I waited a little, as he was about to go forth. And after a short time I saw him coming out, and addressed him, saying, "The Roman ambassador salutes you, and I have come with gifts from him, and with the gold which the Emperor sent you. The ambassador is anxious to meet you, and begs you to appoint a time and place." Onegesius bade his servants receive the gold and the gifts, and told me to announce to Maximin that he would go to him immediately.

I delivered the message, and Onegesius appeared in the tent without delay. He expressed his thanks to Maximin and the Emperor for the presents, and asked why he sent for him. Maximin said that the time had come for Onegesius to have greater renown among men, if he would go to the Emperor and by his wisdom arrange the objects of dispute between the Romans and Huns, and establish concord between them; thereby he will procure many advantages for his own family, as he all his children will always be friends of the Emperor and the Imperial family. Onegesius inquired what measures would gratify the Emperor and how he could arrange the disputes. Maximin replied: "If you cross into the lands of the Roman Empire you will lay the Emperor under an obligation, and you will arrange the matters at issue by investigating their causes and deciding them on the basis of the peace."

Onegesius said he would inform the Emperor and his ministers of Attila's wishes, but the Romans need not think they could ever prevail with him to betray his master or neglect his Scythian training and his wives and children, or to prefer wealth among the Romans to bondage with Attila. He added that he would be of more service to the Romans by remaining in his own land and softening the anger of his master, if he were indignant for aught with the Romans, than by visiting them and subjecting himself to blame if he made arrangements that Attila did not approve of. He then retired, having consented that I should act as an intermediary in conveying messages from Maximin to himself, for it would not have been consistent with Maximin's dignity as ambassador to visit him constantly.

The next day I entered the enclosure of Attila's palace, bearing gifts to his wife, whose name was Kreka. She had three sons, of whom the eldest governed the Acatiri and the other nations who dwell in Pontic Scythia. Within the enclosure were numerous buildings, some of carved boards beautifully fitted together, others of straight, fastened on round wooden blocks which rose to a moderate height from the ground. Attila's wife lived here, and, having been admitted by the barbarians at the door, I found her reclining on a soft couch. The floor of the room was covered with woollen mats for walking on. A number of servants stood round her, and maids sitting on the floor in front of her embroidered with colours linen cloths intended to be placed over the Scythian dress for ornament.

Having approached, saluted, and presented the gifts, I went out and walked to another house, where Attila was, and waited for Onegesius, who, as I knew, was with Attila. I stood in the middle of a great crowd, the guards of Attila and his attendants knew me, and so no one hindered me. I saw a number of people advancing, and a great commotion and noise, Attila's egress being expected. And he came forth from the house with a dignified gait, looking round on this side and on that. He was accompanied by Onegesius, and stood in front of the house; and many persons who had lawsuits with one another came up and received his judgment. Then he returned into the house, and received ambassadors of barbarous peoples.

As I was waiting for Onegesius, I was accosted by Romulus and Promotus and Romanus, the ambassadors who had come from Italy about the golden vessels; they were accompanied by Rusticius and by Constantiolus, a man from the Pannonian territory, which was subject to Attila. They asked me whether we had been dismissed or are constrained to remain, and I replied that it was just to learn this from Onegesius that I was waiting outside the palace. When I inquired in my turn whether Attila had vouchsafed them a kind reply, they told me that his decision could not be moved, and that he threatened war unless either Silvanus or the drinking-vessels were given up....

As we were talking about the state of the world, Onegesius came out; we went up to him and asked him about our concerns. Having first spoken with some barbarians, he bade me inquire of Maximin what consular the Romans are sending as an ambassador to Attila. When I came to our tent I delivered the message to Maximin, and deliberated with him what answer we should make to the question of the barbarian.

Returning to Onegesius, I said that the Romans desired him to come to them and adjust the matters of dispute, otherwise the Emperor will send whatever ambassador he chooses. He then bade me fetch Maximin, whom he conducted to the presence of Attila. Soon after Maximin came out, and told me that the barbarian wished Nomus or Anatolius or Senator to be the ambassador, and that he would not receive any other than one of these three; when he (Maximin) replied that it was not meet to mention men by name and so render them suspected in the eyes of the Emperor, Attila said that if they do not choose to comply with his wishes the differences will be adjusted by arms.

When we returned to our tent the father of Orestes came with an invitation from Attila for both of us to a banquet at three o'clock. When the hour arrived we went to the palace, along with the embassy from the western Romans, and stood on the threshold of the hall in the presence of Attila. The cup-bearers gave us a cup, according to the national custom, that we might pray before we sat down. Having tasted the cup, we proceeded to take our seats; all the chairs were ranged along the walls of the room on either side. Attila sat in the middle on a couch; a second couch was set behind him, and from it steps led up to his bed, which was covered with linen sheets and wrought coverlets for ornament, such as Greeks and Romans use to deck bridal beds. The places on the right of Attila were held chief in honour, those on the left, where we sat, were only second.

Berichus, a noble among the Scythians, sat on our side, but had the precedence of us. Onegesius sat on a chair on the right of Attila's couch, and over against Onegesius on a chair sat two of Attila's sons; his eldest son sat on his couch, not near him, but at the extreme end, with his eyes fixed on the ground, in shy respect for his father. When all were arranged, a cup-bearer came and handed Attila a wooden cup of wine. He took it, and saluted the first in precedence, who, honoured by the salutation, stood up and might not sit down until the king, having tasted or drained the wine, returned the cup to the attendant. All the guests then honoured Attila in the same way, saluting him, and then tasting the cups; but he did not stand up. Each of us had a special cupbearer, who would come forward in order to present the wine, when the cup-bearer of Attila retired.

When the second in precedence and those next to him had been honoured in like manner, Attila toasted us in the same way according to the order of the seats. When this ceremony was over the cup-bearers retired, and tables, large enough for three or four, or even more, to sit at, were placed next the table of Attila, so that each could take of the food on the dishes without leaving his seat. The attendant of Attila first entered with a dish full of meat, and behind him came the other attendants with bread and viands, which they laid on the tables.

A luxurious meal, served on silver plate, had been made ready for us and the barbarian guests, but Attila ate nothing but meat on a wooden trencher. In everything else, too, he showed himself temperate; his cup was of wood, while to the guests were given goblets of gold and silver. His dress, too, was quite simple, affecting only to be clean. The sword he carried at his side, the latchets of his Scythian shoes, the bridle of his horse were not adorned, like those of the other Scythians, with gold or gems or anything costly.

When the viands of the first course had been consumed we all stood up, and did not resume our seats until each one, in the order before observed, drank to the health of Attila in the goblet of wine presented to him. We then sat down, and a second dish was placed on each table with eatables of another kind. After this course the same ceremony was observed as after the first. When evening fell torches were lit, and two barbarians coming forward in front of Attila sang songs they had composed, celebrating his victories and deeds of valour in war.

And of the guests, as they looked at the singers, some were pleased with the verses, others reminded of wars were excited in their souls, while yet others, whose bodies were feeble with age and their spirits compelled to rest, shed tears.

After the songs a Scythian, whose mind was deranged, appeared, and by uttering outlandish and senseless words forced the company to laugh. After him Zerkon, the Moorish dwarf, entered. He had been sent by Attila as a gift to Aetius, and Edecon had persuaded him to come to Attila in order to recover his wife, whom he had left behind him in Scythia; the lady was a Scythian whom he had obtained in marriage through the influence of his patron Bleda. He did not succeed in recovering her, for Attila was angry with him for returning. On the occasion of the banquet he made his appearance, and threw all except Attila into fits of unquenchable laughter by his appearance, his dress, his voice, and his words, which were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic.

Attila, however, remained immovable and of unchanging countenance nor by word or act did he betray anything approaching to a smile of merriment except at the entry of Ernas, his youngest son, whom he pulled by the cheek, and gazed on with a calm look of satisfaction. I was surprised that he made so much of this son, and neglected his other children but a barbarian who sat beside me and knew Latin, bidding me not reveal what he told, gave me to understand that prophets had forewarned Attila that his race would fall, but would be restored by this boy. When the night had advanced we retired from the banquet, not wishing to assist further at the potations.


Translated by J.B. Bury

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/priscus.html

Onur
10-30-2010, 07:59 AM
Few facts about the Huns according to Priscus`s own observations;




Attila`s lands were called as Scythia and the people was Scythians according to the Romans. Already, in all Byzantine, western Roman and all other European records considered them as Scythians `till late 19th century but somehow(political reasons) after 19th century, all the Huns and then Turks became nothing but mongols and Scythians became indo-European people only, totally distinct from the Huns or Turks according to the European scholars.

According to this newly invented theory, there was only Scythians around 2-1th BC and somehow Turks(mongols) came from Mars and assimilated everyone in 2-3rd century in Eurasia. Ofc there is no proof for this but that`s what they say anyway.





The spoken languages in Attila`s empire was Hunnic and Gothic. Common agreement between all scholars is; what Priscus calls as Hunnic language was some kind of Turkic. An old form of Turkic and Hungarian language, close to today`s Volga Bulgar`s chuvash, Tatar dialects and Hungarian dialect of today`s Szekely people of Romania.

2nd language was Gothic because several Germanic tribes like Ostrogoths, Gepids etc were allies of the Huns. Before the Huns came to western Europe, Germanic tribes was always under pressure of Romans but then they united with the Huns with the exception of few tribes and only then they had upper hand vs. the Romans. Already western Roman Empire collapsed few years after Attila`s death. Other interesting thing is, before 19th century, Goths considered as the allies of Huns against Romans in the historical records but somehow after 19th century, Goths considered as vassals of Huns, a subject to send away to fight vs Romans. So when the Huns started to become mongols in the eyes of 19th century scholars, then Germanic tribes became slaves of the mongolic Huns, not allies.





It`s interesting that no one mentioned about Slavic tribes in the historical records about the Huns, despite the fact that these people were also part of the Huns. OR Slavic tribes was considered as Goths or maybe Huns(Scythians) at those times, not as a separate tribe???

Soldier of Macedon
10-30-2010, 08:56 AM
The Slavic name was not yet in use by the locals of that region, or it hadn't yet come to be recorded by writers in the Roman Empire. However, given the area that Attila ruled there is no doubt that the linguistic ancestors of the people who came to identify (and be identified) as Slavs were present among and within the Scythians, Goths and finally the Huns. Check the below:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=73
Not only, but when earlier historians, living in the centuries preceding the supposed arrival of the Slavs, write that the population of the Carpatian Basin offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medŭ ‘drink produced with honey”) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attila’s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual), only a biased reader can find evidence in this for the “first infiltrations” of Slavs in the Carpatian area, especially as they seem to have left not trace of their coming! (Neustupný-Neustupný 1963, 196).

Onur
11-07-2010, 11:03 AM
An interesting documentary about the Huns and other European Germanic tribes by Discovery Channel;




Secrets of the Dark Ages, Barbarians; History`s Hells Angels

YouTube - History's Hells Angels (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D6-4hrETno)

YouTube - History's Hell Angels (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBjhB433Uxw)

YouTube - History's Hell Angels (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwJNidfK8A)

YouTube - History's Hell Angels (Part 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2-Guvw0fMA)

YouTube - History's Hell Angels (Part 5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62U71K0R5sk)



The most interesting find in the documentary is, the Romans tried to erase everything about the so-called Barbarians from the history of the world, even if they became christian(the case with Theodoric the Great in 5th century, ruler of the Ostrogoths, Italy, and the Visigoths)

Ottoman
11-30-2010, 04:09 PM
Attila`s lands were called as Scythia and the people was Scythians according to the Romans. Already, in all Byzantine, western Roman and all other European records considered them as Scythians `till late 19th century but somehow(political reasons) after 19th century, all the Huns and then Turks became nothing but mongols and Scythians became indo-European people only, totally distinct from the Huns or Turks according to the European scholars.


You know that the Mongols of the 12th century were actually Turkic tribes? present day Mongols are not descendants of the 12th century Mongols.

Everyone knows that the Huns were Turkic, there is no need to hide this, Attila was Turkic and the greatest threat to the Roman Empire.

indigen
12-01-2010, 12:17 AM
"He was short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head: his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray: and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion showing the evidences of his origin..." - Jordanes, Getica

Look up on Google "Jordanes Attila flat nose and a swarthy complexion" and you shall be presented with a number of webpages with the quote!

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Jordanes+Attila+flat+nose+and+a+swarthy+complexi on

Secondly, YOU DO HAVE IN BULGARIA SKELETAL REMAINS FROM GRAVES belonging to original/early (Balkan) Bulgarian state period and THEY DO SHOW A SIGNIFICANT MONGOLOID ELEMENT - 30% + (as mentioned by Oxford historian Stefan Nikolov, amongst others).

indigen
12-01-2010, 12:20 AM
Jordanes' description of the Huns, Brothers of the Bulgars:

"...a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language
save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the
descent of the Huns...

...This cruel tribe, as Priscus the historian relates, settled on the
farther bank of the Maeotic swamp. They were fond of hunting and had
no skill in any other art. After they had grown to a nation, they disturbed
the peace of neighboring races by theft and rapine...

...Now in my opinion the evil spirits, from whom the Huns are descended...

...As many as they captured, when they thus entered Scythia for the first
time, they sacrificed to Victory. The remainder they conquered and made
subject to themselves. (126) Like a whirlwind of nations they swept across
the great swamp and at once fell upon the Alpidzuri, Alcildzuri, Itimari,
Tuncarsi and Boisci, who bordered on that part of Scythia. The Alani also,
who were their equals in battle, but unlike them in civilization, manners
and appearance, they exhausted by their incessant attacks and subdued. (127)
For by the terror of their features they inspired great fear in those whom
perhaps they did not really surpass in war...

THEIR FEATURES WERE:

"...They made their foes flee in horror because THEIR SWARTHY ASPECT WAS
FEARFUL, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a
head, with pin-holes rather than eyes. Their hardihood is evident in their
wild appearance, and they are beings who are cruel to their children on the
very day they are born. For they cut the cheeks of the males with a sword,
so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they must learn to
endure wounds. (128) Hence they grow old beardless and their young men are
without comeliness, because a face furrowed by the sword spoils by its scars
the natural beauty of a beard. They are short in stature, quick in bodily
movement, alert horsemen, broad shouldered, ready in the use of bow and
arrow, and have firm-set necks which are ever erect in pride. Though they
live in the form of men, they have the cruelty of wild beasts...."

----------------------------

Oxford Bulgar Historian Stefan Nikolov:
"...And the Avars WERE "Mongoloide" for sure, believe me...."

Bozhidar Dimitrov:
"...Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars,
the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow
into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries...."

Dimiter Markovski:
"Khan Asparouh's Bulgaro-Turks"

"The year 681 accepted as Year One of Bulgaria's history."

"...Banner of the Proto-Bulgarian troops consisted of horse's tail
attached to a spear..."

Jordanes description of Attila the Hun: "flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing evidence of his origin"

Ottoman
12-01-2010, 02:56 AM
You do know that there is a big difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians right? Bulgars were medieval Turkic peoples, while Bulgarians are now Slavs.

The Huns came from Central Asia to Europe, in Europe they got mixed with the population there so they were of different origins, but the first Huns who came to Europe were Turkic just like Attila himself.

There is no surviving first-person account of Attila's appearance. There is, however, a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who cites a description given by Priscus. It suggests a person of Asian features.

Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.

Onur
12-01-2010, 03:50 AM
"He was short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head: his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray: and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion showing the evidences of his origin..." - Jordanes, Getica


Jordanes wrote those about 100 years after Attilas death. He was a Visigoth and Visigoths was one of the Germanic tribes who didn't join the Huns but allied with Romans instead and because of this, Visigoths have been crushed by the Huns. So, Jordanes`s descriptions is highly biased and probably mostly fantasy unlike Priscus`s objective descriptions.

On the other hand, Priscus lived at the same time with Attila and he saw him personally.




"...Banner of the Proto-Bulgarian troops consisted of horse's tail
attached to a spear..."

That was also the symbol of the most steppe warriors in medieval age. Huns and early Hungarians used this too. Sometimes there was a horse skull attached to the spear.

You can see it on the dvd cover of the documentary i linked above here;
http://www.maxwells.com.au/assets/pix/PCD138lge.jpg

indigen
12-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Jordanes wrote those about 100 years after Attilas death. He was a Visigoth and Visigoths was one of the Germanic tribes who didn't join the Huns but allied with Romans instead and because of this, Visigoths have been crushed by the Huns. So, Jordanes`s descriptions is highly biased and probably mostly fantasy unlike Priscus`s objective descriptions.

On the other hand, Priscus lived at the same time with Attila and he saw him personally.

That was also the symbol of the most steppe warriors in medieval age. Huns and early Hungarians used this too. Sometimes there was a horse skull attached to the spear.

You can see it on the dvd cover of the documentary i linked above here;
http://www.maxwells.com.au/assets/pix/PCD138lge.jpg
You seem to have an easy way to dismiss everything and anything that does not fit your view or perception with any old excuse, IMO! :-))) Thus there is not much point in arguing with you, mate.

How much Macedonian blood and heritage do you think we can apportion to modern day Turks of Turkey? :-)

Onur
12-04-2010, 07:10 PM
How much Macedonian blood and heritage do you think we can apportion to modern day Turks of Turkey? :-)

Heritage yes, but blood, i don't know and i already don't care about this blood connection stuff like i indicated several times b4. Thats not my concern either but it`s apparently yours since you are the one who keep writing things like Turko-Mongol, Bulgaro-Tatar, Turko-Bulgar etc. in your messages.

So, i wish you very best of luck in your quest of guessing the nationality of blood in people`s veins since you`ll need that for sure.

indigen
12-05-2010, 12:21 AM
Heritage yes, but blood, i don't know and i already don't care about this blood connection stuff like i indicated several times b4.

So, i wish you very best of luck in your quest of guessing the nationality of blood in people`s veins since you`ll need that for sure.
Why not blood, Onur? Genetic studies, if if recollect rightly, identifies that Balkan (Macedonian Peninsula), especially Macedonians, and Anatolian populations do share a lot of DNA markers and tend to cluster together closely. Phrygians (Brigi), Paeonian, Thracians and other populations resided on both sides and Macedonians ruled the area for centuries. Then there is the case/possibility of lots of Macedonian muslim converts moving to Turkey at various times during Ottoman rule and most definitely masses of them post 1912-13 period. Lets leave it at that for a starting point.

Thats not my concern either but it`s apparently yours since you are the one who keep writing things like Turko-Mongol, Bulgaro-Tatar, Turko-Bulgar etc. in your messages.
Just because, for whatever reasons, you wish to deny that the original Turko-Mongol race was Asian, akin to Mongolians of today, does not mean we have to buy into your ambit theories (not officially sanctioned even in Turkey) and stop using the facts against Bulgar/Bulgaroman anti-Macedonian propaganda. The fact that the Turko-Mongol Bulgars ("Proto-Bulgars") are of Mongol(oid) (Asian) stock is a very strong ideological weapon to use against anti-Macedonian Bulgar/oman propaganda and your objections will not be countenanced at all because it will mean to disarm ourselves in the face of a fierce enemy of our very existence.

Ottoman
12-05-2010, 05:01 AM
Todays Mongols in Mongolia are called Khalkha-Mongols, they have no connection with Turks and cant speak Turkic language.

The country Mongolia is named after the Mongols of the 12th century, these Mongols were mostly Turkic tribes.

Onur
12-05-2010, 06:21 AM
Why not blood, Onur? Genetic studies, if if recollect rightly, identifies that Balkan (Macedonian Peninsula), especially Macedonians, and Anatolian populations do share a lot of DNA markers and tend to cluster together closely. Phrygians (Brigi), Paeonian, Thracians and other populations resided on both sides and Macedonians ruled the area for centuries. Then there is the case/possibility of lots of Macedonian muslim converts moving to Turkey at various times during Ottoman rule and most definitely masses of them post 1912-13 period. Lets leave it at that for a starting point.

I didn't say "not Blood". I said i don't know and it`s practically impossible to find out to what extent.

Yes, people moved between Anatolia and Balkans, i already know this since my family was one of them. I can ask same question to you then. Can you say how much Turkish blood your people have? Probably you will say zero since you think that all Turks are mongolic people and if you don't look like present day mongolians, then you are no Turk by blood, sigh... So, this "blood connection" argument with you becomes pointless.





Just because, for whatever reasons, you wish to deny that the original Turko-Mongol race was Asian, akin to Mongolians of today, does not mean we have to buy into your ambit theories (not officially sanctioned even in Turkey) and stop using the facts against Bulgar/Bulgaroman anti-Macedonian propaganda. The fact that the Turko-Mongol Bulgars ("Proto-Bulgars") are of Mongol(oid) (Asian) stock is a very strong ideological weapon to use against anti-Macedonian Bulgar/oman propaganda and your objections will not be countenanced at all because it will mean to disarm ourselves in the face of a fierce enemy of our very existence.


I don't deny that we were Asians. Yes we came from central Asia but i refuse that all the Turks was mongolic people. You should stop thinking that everyone who came from Asia was only mongols. This ideology of yours is plain stupid. Estonians, Hungarians are Asian latecomers like us too and most of Germanic people(Germans, Austrians, Dutch, Saxons etc.) migrated from Eurasia too in the era of Great migration. About 200-600 years b4 Hungarians, Turks came to Europe. So, why don't you apply same ideology for the Germanic people who came from northern side of Blacksea? According to you, they should be mongolic people too since they migrated from Asia again.

Dont you know that the white race are believed to be came from Caucasus? and thats why we call white people as Caucasian today. Indigen, you should consider(or learn) the fact that the mongolic people was a very small minority in central and Eurasia among some Germanic, Slavic and Turkic people about 1000+ years ago. These three tribes was already descendants of the tribal union called Scythians. Central Asia became mongoloid only after the Genghis Khan era and it`s not fully mongolic today either. For example, mongoloids among the people of Turkic states today are not more than 30-35%.

P. S: I think i`ve never said that here b4 but I believe the ancient Macedonians might be related with Scythians of Euroasia too. They maybe migrated to Balkans from the north of Blacksea like the other Scythian groups after them. So, maybe the ancient Macedonians was the first Scythian group to be called as "barbarians" by the Greeks and Romans. This is my own theory tough, not something i`ve read b4 and i don't think it`s something impossible since i don't think ancient Macedonians was mediterranean people like the Greeks and others. I believe, what Alexander did was something too ambitious for the mellow and sedentary people of mediterranean like the ancient Greeks. It was something can be done by Scythians like the Attila did the same 600 years after Alexander.

Sovius
12-05-2010, 10:16 AM
Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people

Christine Keyser, Caroline Bouakaze, Eric Crubézy, Valery G. Nikolaev, Daniel Montagnon, Tatiana Reis and Bertrand Ludes

Abstract

To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/?p=087abdf3edf548a4a719290f7fc84a62&pi=0

We now know exactly who the Scythians were and where they came from. Even during the Renaissance Period, the Cossacks still wore their hair rounded on their heads like horse tails. The figure that came to be known in the Western European historical narrative as Atilla the Hun was a Cossack. He rode his horse like a Cossack and kicked the living crap out of people like a Cossack. He was given a Cossack burial and his people held a big funeral feast known as a strava for him when he kicked the bucket.

People defined by R1a1 Y-DNA originally came from somewhere in and around Macedonia and other regions in Southeastern Europe where many people continue to be defined by R1a Y-DNA.

Assumptions and augmentations are the foundation of fiction, not historical scholarship. There appear to be at least two layers to all this Germanic revisionism that seem to keep “traditionalists” thinking along the path of a closed loop that never leads anyone anywhere.

Onur
12-05-2010, 04:36 PM
We now know exactly who the Scythians were and where they came from. Even during the Renaissance Period, the Cossacks still wore their hair rounded on their heads like horse tails. The figure that came to be known in the Western European historical narrative as Atilla the Hun was a Cossack.

You cannot define a single ethnicity for the Scythians especially not a small populated group like Cossacks. Scythians was a general term for all horse riding, semi-nomadic tribes of Eurasia who had a kurgan culture and used runic script `till they adopted Abrahamic religions. If you specifically look for who was Attila, watch the documentary in this thread by British scholar. It`s commonly agreed that Attila was speaking Turkic just like the most populated tribe among the Huns was Turkic people again(incl. Avars, Oghuz, Bulgars, Khazars etc). We know that from the names of the tribes of Hunnic Empire, written in a medieval codex named Isfahan. Most tribal names are in Turkic.

Btw, i gotta remind you that both the words "Kurgan" and "Cossacks" are old Turkic. Ask google if you don't believe me, you will find some books and sources for the etymologies and explanation of them .






Dimiter Markovski:
"Khan Asparouh's Bulgaro-Turks"

"The year 681 accepted as Year One of Bulgaria's history."

"...Banner of the Proto-Bulgarian troops consisted of horse's tail
attached to a spear..."

Here is more about that banner;

Turkic Flags and Other Identifiers


Tamga

A tamga, or tamgha (Modern Turkish: damga) is an abstract seal or device used by Eurasian nomadic peoples and by cultures influenced by them. The tamga was normally the emblem of a particular tribe, clan or family. They were common among the Scythians, Sarmatians, all Turkic peoples, including Khazars and Uigurs, and Alans. Neighboring sedentary people sometimes adopted tamga-like symbols; for example, the stylized trident tamga, or seal were used by various peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia: Kushans, Rus', Khazars, Kipchaks, Mongols, Tatars, Lithuanians and Poles.

"The complex system of Turkish tribal tamghas included animals, tridents and various other symbols, though it is possible that the trident itself was a very simplified bow and arrow. It certainly became a military symbol among the Mongols in the 13th and 14th centuries."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook*)


The Windsock Banner

"...The so-called 'dragon' form of wind-sock banner came into widespread use in 4th-century Roman armies. It was closely associated with achery, as it had been among the people of the steppes, and was used as late as the 12th century..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

The illustration below, shows Charlemagne's Windsock banner. The Franks were strongly influenced by, and even related to the Avars (Childeric's burial with his horses is one illustration of such early Steppes influence). Charlemagne's mother was an Avar princess and he eventually took control in Pannonia (later a major Bulgar and Magyar center). (Norman Finkelshteyn)
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4176/charlyai1.jpg


"...the so-called 'trousers'-shaped banner of Salah al-Din's nephew Taqi al-Din might have been a windsock banner used by archers of recent Central Asian origin."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)



Flags and Pennons

"In addition to their famous horse-tail standards, the Turks used tos (totemic ensigns) and batraq or beyraq (individual flags or pennons). The latter was originally attached to a spear shaft and would later be known in Othmanli (Ottoman) Turkish as a sanjaq.
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)


[In late Roman and early Romano-Byzantine armies, the earlier] "...vexullum form of banner which hung vertically... was gradually replaced by the bandon hung horizontally and may have reflected Germanic or Avar military influence..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

[In the Sassanian Empire] "the terms used for military units and their associated banners was often the same ...the large drafsh or dirafsh unit and its flag, and the small vasht unit and flag. Ordinary flags were shaped like streamers or banderoles whereas the great state banner of the Sassanian Empire ...Drafsh-i Kavyan 'Banner of Kavagh' ...consisted of a decorated leather sheet, seven metres long and five across, encrusted with precious stones, yellow, red and purple brocade, surmounted by a golden sphere or crescent and festooned with streamers."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook) (this banner was said to have been the Apron of the smith Kave - who led the ancient Iranians in establishing themselves)

"Byzantine, western European, native Slav and various steppe fashions contributed to the flags, banners and heraldic motifs of medieval Russia..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"...Christian Georgia ...basically Byzantine forms of flag and shield patterns were also amalgamated with powerful Islamic and Persian influence. For example the late 12th--early 13th-century Georgian alami was a large red-and-black royal banner, and the drosha was a long streamer-like flag sometimes used aboard ship."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

[In the Muslim world] "flags came back strongly under the Umayyads. By the 13th century manuscript illustrations showed various types, including a slender form possibly resulting from Turkish or Chinese influence..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)


Tugh - Animal Hair Banner

"...in Central Asia, the tug (horse-tail banner) also used yak and big-cat tails; five, seven or nine being reserved for a ruler or subordinate khan during the pre-Islamic period. Smaller tugs were also attached to war-drums."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"...the Central Asian tug or yak-tailed pennant entered the Middle East with various waves of Turkish nomads and soldiers. The number of tails indicated rank, and although this device had pagan origins it continued to be used by many Turco-Muslim armies such as that of the Ottoman Empire where... [it] was called tugh. Here six tails were reserved for the Sultan, lesser numbers being used by senior officers. Variations on the tugh were seen in post-Mongol Iran where it was sometimes combined with an ordinary flag, and also among various Anatolian dervish brotherhoods where very simple forms of tugh had tufts of wool instead of animals' tails..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)


Images of Animals

"...Animals and birds were important warrior motifs in the earlier centuries, often appearing on helmets in Central Asian wall-paintings; gilded wolf's head-shaped standards were reserved for the supreme khagan or khan of khans. Genghis Khan used a bird's head emblem, and Hulegu is said to have had an 'eagle banner'. There are also references to human as well as animal-shaped helmet crests in Mongol epics."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"...Surprisingly, perhaps, the double-headed eagle, which became the most important late Byzantine imperial device, was of ancient oriental origin rather than having much connection with the ancient Roman imperial eagle..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"The double-headed eagle had been a popular pattern on Islamic fabrics since the 10th century and was adopted as an identifying motif by the Turkish rulers of Anatolia and the Middle East from the late 11th century onwards..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"...lions and leopards are also mentioned as banner devices in late 10th-century Persian literature..."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)

"Chinese-looking dragons were introduced to the Middle East by the Turks."
(Nicolle, Sourcebook)


"Medieval warfare source book: Christian Europe and its neighbours" by David Nicolle, Brockhampton press,1998.

http://books.google.com/books?id=adoAAAAACAAJ






The illustration below, shows Charlemagne's Windsock banner. The Franks were strongly influenced by, and even related to the Avars (Childeric's burial with his horses is one illustration of such early Steppes influence). Charlemagne's mother was an Avar princess...

Ohhh, Franks used a similar banner too and apparently Charlemagne`s mother was a Turko-Mongol woman from Avars!!! Or maybe Franks was an Asian mongols too, indigen?

Serdarot
12-05-2010, 05:23 PM
An interesting documentary about the Huns and other European Germanic tribes by Discovery Channel;



wow...

how come the Asiatic Tribes (Huns) became Germanic?

wow...

after changing "indo-european" with "indo-germanic"...

and after the graeko-bulgarian myths

this is the most funny history re-re-re-visi-(goth)-ted :14:

i might understood it wrong, pls say i understood it wrong (i tooked some strong painkiller, might be i am understanding it wrong ^^ )

Sovius
12-06-2010, 12:01 AM
You cannot define a single ethnicity for the Scythians especially not a small populated group like Cossacks. Scythians was a general term for all horse riding, semi-nomadic tribes of Eurasia who had a kurgan culture and used runic script `till they adopted Abrahamic religions.

If this is the case then you should be able to provide evidence demonstrating your position. What anthropological evidence or historical passage demonstrates that the term Scythians was used for all Eurasian populations beyond the Roman frontier and not a specific population of people whose presence in this same region was observed since before the rise of the Macedonian Empire by Hellenic writers? Could it be your mistaking Altaic language speaking troops that may have possibly fought under Attila for actual Scythians?


If you specifically look for who was Attila, watch the documentary in this thread by British scholar.


I think I would much rather like to watch a documentary about Attila made by a Ukrainian or Russian scholar who actually knew what he or she was talking about.

It`s commonly agreed that Attila was speaking Turkic just like the most populated tribe among the Huns was Turkic people again(incl. Avars, Oghuz, Bulgars, Khazars etc). We know that from the names of the tribes of Hunnic Empire, written in a medieval codex named Isfahan. Most tribal names are in Turkic.


You mean it is commonly agreed among Western European historical revisionists that Attila was speaking Turkic. The names of many peoples and places have been Grecianized, Latinized and even Hungarianized throughout history. These intra-cultural adaptions do not equate to actual ethnic transformations in relation to the reality of the historical period in question.

Btw, i gotta remind you that both the words "Kurgan" and "Cossacks" are old Turkic. Ask google if you don't believe me, you will find some books and sources for the etymologies and explanation of them .

Please present evidence that demonstrates that the Scythians referred to what you call kurgans as kurgans. What ancient text contains a passage that states, “I’m a Scythian and we call our burial mounds kurgans”? This line of reasoning is an excellent example of the effects of anachronistic revisionism on scholarship. Its faulty logic. We know what they referred to Attila’s going away party as and it was recorded by an eyewitness. What is the quality of the evidence that you are basing your belief that Attila was Turkic on and what is the state of this supposed evidence?

Ottoman
12-06-2010, 09:00 AM
wow...

how come the Asiatic Tribes (Huns) became Germanic?

wow...

after changing "indo-european" with "indo-germanic"...

and after the graeko-bulgarian myths

this is the most funny history re-re-re-visi-(goth)-ted :14:

i might understood it wrong, pls say i understood it wrong (i tooked some strong painkiller, might be i am understanding it wrong ^^ )

The Huns were in Europe for almost a century, surely they do got mixed.

indigen
12-06-2010, 08:45 PM
The Huns were in Europe for almost a century, surely they do got mixed.

How about Kemal Attatur's bloodline, do you think it got mixed and to what extent if it did? :-)

Ottoman
12-07-2010, 08:30 AM
How about Kemal Attatur's bloodline, do you think it got mixed and to what extent if it did? :-)

You first need to research your family tree and history.

Kemals bloodline is Turkmen, there are even records that his ancestors moved from Central Anatolia to the Balkans and then to Selanik, you just dont need to forget that those places were all Ottoman territory.

I also dont know my own bloodline, maybe Im also from the Balkans who knows, I may have Macedonian blood.

I dont have any problems with the fact that you guys claim Ataturk as Macedonian but if you do so you also have to claim Jennifer Aniston as Greek.

Onur
12-07-2010, 11:03 AM
How about Kemal Attatur's bloodline, do you think it got mixed and to what extent if it did? :-)

Indigen, I think you ask or imply this same question to me for the 100th time this week and i am gonna answer to you with same respond again; Like i said BEFORE, blood doesn't mean shit to us, we don't fucking care about it. It`s the ideas which connects us to each other.

If you really wonder whats Turkish people`s racial connections, then come here and make a research but first you better tell us all about how much Bulgaro-Tatar, Greek or Turkish blood you have yourself??? OR do you think you are pure breed like pet animals?

Stop pestering me by repeating your idiotic argument about bloodline, will ya? Come up with better ones next time.

Ottoman
12-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Hayreddin Barbarossa and Turgut Reis were both of Greek origin but most Greeks dont even know these two because they were Ottoman Turkish sea heroes.

Hayreddin Barbarossa inspired Hollywood that much they created his character in the Pirates of the Caribbeans movie.

Both men were raised as Ottomans and they lived like Ottomans, they also spoke the Ottoman Turkish language.

None of them ever spoke of their Greek background or anything else relating to their "Greekness".

Like I said before, you can count Jennifer Aniston as a Greek too if you really care about bloodline that much.

indigen
12-09-2010, 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by Ottoman View Post
The Huns were in Europe for almost a century, surely they do got mixed.

Originally Posted by indigen View Post
How about Kemal Attatur's bloodline, do you think it got mixed and to what extent if it did? :-)


You first need to research your family tree and history.
Why and how is that related to the above question I posed to you?

Kemals bloodline is Turkmen, there are even records that his ancestors moved from Central Anatolia to the Balkans and then to Selanik, you just dont need to forget that those places were all Ottoman territory.
So you assume Huns had mixed ancestry (blood) after only 100 years but Kemal Attturk's family remained pure and unmixed after hundreds (you tell us when they first arrived to Macedonia!) of years of living as part of a ruling society which often practised polygamy and took wives from the "Raya" as converts?

I also don't know my own bloodline, maybe Im also from the Balkans who knows, I may have Macedonian blood.
No big issue for me, mate.

I don't have any problems with the fact that you guys claim Ataturk as Macedonian but if you do so you also have to claim Jennifer Aniston as Greek.
I am not one of those making big claims on him but just wanted to point out your double standards as it related to the Huns and your above assumptions.

indigen
12-09-2010, 07:36 PM
Barbarossa and Turgut Reis were both of Greek origin but most Greeks dont even know these two because they were Ottoman Turkish sea heroes.
This is a serious ideological flaw of yours in repeating INVENTED WESTERN political phraseology for there was NO "GREEKS" back then except some refugees in the West who followed in the footsteps of Western Helenophilia and its Renaissance/post-Renaissance era fascination with the "glories of ancient Greece" !

They were raised as Ottomans and they lived like Ottomans, they also spoke the Ottoman Turkish language.
Empires were mostly multi-ethnic in history and this should be no surprise.

None of them ever spoke of their Greek background or anything else relating to their "Greekness".

Maybe because there was NO SUCH CONCEPT back then!? :-)

indigen
12-09-2010, 08:12 PM
Indigen, I think you ask or imply this same question to me for the 100th time this week and i am gonna answer to you with same respond again;
I surely have not had more than 10 (20 maximum) forum posts in any discussion with you, don't exaggerate in order to make cheap shots against me!

If you really wonder whats Turkish people`s racial connections, then come here and make a research but first you better tell us all about how much Bulgaro-Tatar, Greek or Turkish blood you have yourself??? OR do you think you are pure breed like pet animals?
You are the one who does not accept the existing world views, based on scientific evidence for the origins of Turko-Mongols, and inadvertently tries to undermine our best ideological weaponry against certain anti-Macedonian enemies.

Secondly, nobody claims pure anything so stop your silly ranting on that issue! But whilst there might be tiny bits of Turko-Mongol genetic input, here and there, amongst Macedonians, it is very small and we are PREDOMINANTLY of INDIGENOUS STOCK - INDIGENOUS MACEDONIANS! This can NOT compare to Bulgaria where large numbers of Turko-Mongol peoples, including the Bulgars, settled (and mixed with locals) and established a state nor with Hungarians or Turks, where they retained the language.

Like i said BEFORE, blood doesn't mean shit to us, we don't fucking care about it. It`s the ideas which connects us to each other.
Turkey is NOT Macedonia and you can not appreciate how it feels to be on the verge of being politically exterminated (disfigured) as a people/nation and thus, IMO, you should put yourself in our shoes first before making any future dismissive claims on how and why Macedonians view certain matters, at least whilst your are on MTO or other Macedonian fora.

Stop pestering me by repeating your idiotic argument about bloodline, will ya? Come up with better ones next time.
Since you quote the above post, which was a reply to Ottoman, I wonder who is pestering whom and why and I think it is the case of the pot calling someone else black! :)

Ottoman
12-11-2010, 03:27 PM
Why and how is that related to the above question I posed to you?

It isnt related, I said it so you can maybe discover your own bloodline, not every Macedonian is pure you know, like Onur said, we Turks dont care about bloodline, we all consider ourselves as Turks just like everyone in the Ottoman Empire considered theirselves as Ottomans.


So you assume Huns had mixed ancestry (blood) after only 100 years but Kemal Attturk's family remained pure and unmixed after hundreds (you tell us when they first arrived to Macedonia!) of years of living as part of a ruling society which often practised polygamy and took wives from the "Raya" as converts?


Im just telling you facts, Kemals bloodline is Turkmen he is not mixed, the Huns who came to Europe do got mixed.
We are speaking about 1 man here not 10.000 people, for example Attila himself was a pure Turk while many of his Huns got mixed with the peoples in Europe, but still the first Huns who came to Europe were Turkic peoples from the east.

Serres Macedonia
12-11-2010, 06:20 PM
It isnt related, I said it so you can maybe discover your own bloodline, not every Macedonian is pure you know, like Onur said, we Turks dont care about bloodline, we all consider ourselves as Turks just like everyone in the Ottoman Empire considered theirselves as Ottomans.



Im just telling you facts, Kemals bloodline is Turkmen he is not mixed, the Huns who came to Europe do got mixed.
We are speaking about 1 man here not 10.000 people, for example Attila himself was a pure Turk while many of his Huns got mixed with the peoples in Europe, but still the first Huns who came to Europe were Turkic peoples from the east. Ottoman I think you contrudict yourself in relation to Kemals purity. Lets have a quick look at Kemal and Atila.
41

42

They look like they come from defferent tribes to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Serres Macedonia
12-11-2010, 06:21 PM
Ottoman I think you contrudict yourself in relation to Kemals purity. Lets have a quick look at Kemal and Atila.
41

42

They look like they come from defferent tribes to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry missed Attila.

43

gore na nitche
12-11-2010, 07:23 PM
Sorry missed Attila.

43Hey serres that avatar of yours looks alot like attila.

indigen
12-12-2010, 12:34 AM
It isnt related, I said it so you can maybe discover your own bloodline, not every Macedonian is pure you know, like Onur said, we Turks dont care about bloodline, we all consider ourselves as Turks just like everyone in the Ottoman Empire considered theirselves as Ottomans.

I can trace back 3 generations Macedonians both sides of my family (paternal and maternal) and don't need any "discovery" of my bloodline because I know who I am - Indigenous Macedonian! :) Who says Macedonians are "pure" anything? Please don't invent such nonsense and stick to facts here on MTO. We (some of us, IMO, the more enlightened ones!) say we are predominantly of indigenous stock and I have yet to see/hear anyone claim "pure" anything.


Im just telling you facts, Kemals bloodline is Turkmen he is not mixed, the Huns who came to Europe do got mixed.
Perhaps the people who claim Kemal as a Macedonian can challenge your claims but Kemall did not look like a typical "Turkmen" to me.

http://www.mrdowling.com/images/608ataturk1.jpg
Mustafa Kemal, the blue-eyed "pure Turkmen"? :)


http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0OkjIaCdR7k/SlTVbStI8iI/AAAAAAAAAfM/2XHIiCK3Dgc/A+Seljuk+Turk+Warrior.jpg
Seljuk Warrior

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_0OkjIaCdR7k/Shxzv219xOI/AAAAAAAAAOM/bNF9rmaZVFY/Seljuk01.jpg
Seljuk Warrior

http://www.ucalgary.ca/HIST/tutor/imageislam/seljuk1100Large.gif
Seljuk Turk Empire circa 1100 AD


for example Attila himself was a pure Turk
And what did the "pure" Turk like Attila look like back then?

but still the first Huns who came to Europe were Turkic peoples from the east.
And what did they look like, Caucasian or Mongoloid/Asian?

Onur
12-12-2010, 08:49 AM
You are polluting the thread with stupid stuff like linking cartoon like representative pictures of 11th century men and comparing those with a real picture of 20th century man in a tuxedo suit!!! Besides that, can you name a single society who looks exacts same as in 1000 years before now? maybe only Australian aborigines and some african tribes but not others.

Indegen, are you aware that you are acting like a 14 year old internet warrior? OR you are really one of them?




And what did the "pure" Turk like Attila look like back then?


And what did they look like, Caucasian or Mongoloid/Asian?

We know that how Khazar Turks, descendants of Huns looked like from Arab, Jewish, Chinese and Roman records of 8-9thh century;

...
This peculiar and obscure race inhabiting that land were described as blue-eyed and of very fair complexion. Commonly they had long reddish hair and were reported as very large of stature and fierce of countenance. [11] Other sources have added observations that there were "Black Khazars" and "White Khazars," noting that the latter were "light-skinned and handsome, while the former were dark-skinned." This has, however, been rather conclusively refuted by scholars who have established that the distinction was not racial but social. The "Black" or "Kara" Khazars constituted the lower strata or caste, while the "White" or "Ak" Khazars were of the noble or royal classes. This type of class distinction was fairly common in Eastern Europe as evidenced by the more commonly known terms "Black Russian" and "White Russian," denoting not skin color but class. 12

In his book An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Peter Golden claims that the Chinese T'and-shu chronicle describes the Khazars, generally, as "...tall, with red-hair, ruddy-faced and blue-eyed. Black hair is considered a bad omen." 13

11. Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, p. 3.
12. Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, p. 4.
13. Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1992.

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/library/khazars.html

So, if we look at the medieval sources rather than your cartoons, thats how they describe Khazars.

Also here is another interesting fact about Khazars;


...
Shortly after the death of Mohammed in AD 632, according to Columbia University Professor, D. M. Dunlop, Arab armies began a campaign northward, sweeping "through the wreckage of two empires and carrying all before them till they reached the great mountain barrier of the Caucasus. This barrier once passed," Dunlop observes, "the road lay open to the lands of eastern Europe." [2] Had the Caliphate (the armies of the Muslim Caliph) surmounted that immense geological deterrent unchallenged, the history of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the Judeo-Christian world would have been vastly different than it now is.

It was at the Caucasus, however, that the Arabs encountered the Khazars, initiating a war that lasted over a century and effectively prevented Europe from becoming Islamic. So powerful, socially and militarily, were the Khazars that, as Kevin Alan Brook relates in his work The Jews of Khazaria, "a 10th-century emperor of the Byzantines [Roman Empire], Constantine Porphyrogenitus, sent correspondence to the Khazars marked with a gold seal worth 3 solidi - more than the 2 solidi that always accompanied letters to the Pope of Rome, the Prince of the Rus, and the Prince of the Hungarians." [3]

Rutgers University Professor Peter Golden, referred to by Brook as "one of the principal authorities on the Khazars," wrote, "Every schoolchild in the West has been told that if not for Charles Martel and the battle of Poitiers there might be a mosque where Notre Dame now stands. What few schoolchildren are aware of," Golden emphasizes, "is that if not for the Khazars...Eastern Europe might well have become a province of Islam." [4]

The Khazarian mounted forces, with a soldiery of mainly Turkic and pagan origin, could at times and when accounted for, show a disastrous fierceness and cruelty to the enemies of Khazaria. They were also probably the most disciplined, as well as tactically and strategically the most potent, martial power at that time and in that region. Evidence that they were supremely calculating in their approach to international matters lay in the fact that, in contrast to their brutality, Khazar officials were often consulted as diplomatic emissaries and mediators by all the political powers surrounding Khazaria. The Khazars and their empire were at that time both highly respected and greatly feared -- with good reason. [5]
...

2. Dunlop, D. M., The History of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton University Press, 1954
3. Brook, Kevin Alan, The Jews of Khazaria, Jason Aronson, Inc. Northvale, NJ, Jerusalem, 1999.
4. Peter B. Golden, Khazar Studies, vol. 1 (Budapest: Akademiai, 1980), pp. 55-56.
5. Brook, The Jews of Khazaria

As you can see, it was the Khazar Turks who stopped Arabs and eventually prevented whole eastern Europe to become islamized by sword because as you can guess, there was no other obstacle for the Arabs who controlled Spain and whole middle-east at that era. Arabs conquered everywhere including Spain `till they encounter with the Turks in eastern Anatolia.





Also at later times in 12th century, the Cumans who were formerly a part of Khazar Empire exactly described as Khazars b4;


The Cumans (Greek: Κο(υ)μάνοι, Ko(u)manoi;[1] Hungarian: kun / plural kunok;[2] Turkic: kuman / plural kumanlar[3], Russian: Половцы - Polovtsi) were a Turkic[2][4] nomadic people who inhabited a shifting area north of the Black Sea known as Cumania along the Volga River.

A variety of sources from different countries (such as Germany, Hungary and Russia) explain that the different names for the Cumans may all refer to the meaning 'blond', 'sallow' and 'yellow' in reference to the color of the Kumans' hair. The Russian word 'Polovtsy'(Пóловцы) means "blond", since the old Russian word "polovo" means "straw". Another explanation was given by O. Suleymenov as "men of the field, steppe" from the Russian word "pole" - open ground, field, not to be confused with "polyane" (cf. Greek "polis" - city). A third explanation of the word was also made by O. Suleymenov which stated that the name "polovtsy" came from a word for "blue-eyed," since the Serbo-Croatian word "plav" literally means "blue"[10] The German word for Cumans was 'Folban' which also means blond.

The Cuman language is attested in some medieval documents and is the best-known of the early Turkic languages.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuman_people


Thats what medieval documents says but ofc not all Turks was blondish. There was brown haired and eyed ones too since Turks was never homogeneous throughout history but it was rather an unity of various people who speaks Uralic-Altaic languages.

And as you can read here, blond haired and blue/green eyed Cuman Turks left us one of the most important work of Turkic language in 12th century. A collection of Turkic riddles, sample sentences for conversation in Turkic and a dictionary with a total of 4500 Turkic words.



This is an excerpt from the book of blondish Cumans of 12th century;

Cuman Turkic;
Atamız kim köktesiń. Alğışlı bolsun seniń atıń, kelsin seniń xanlığıń, bolsun seniń tilemekiń – neçikkim kökte, alay [da] yerde. Kündeki ötmegimizni bizge bugün bergil. Dağı yazuqlarımıznı bizge boşatqıl – neçik biz boşatırbiz bizge yaman etkenlerge. Dağı yekniń sınamaqına bizni quurmağıl. Basa barça yamandan bizni qutxarğıl. Amen!

In modern Turkish, the text is:
Atamız sen göktesin. Alkışlı olsun senin adın, gelsin senin hanlığın, olsun senin dileğin– nasıl ki gökte, ve yerde. Gündelik ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver. Ve de yazıklarımızdan (suçlarımızdan) bizi bağışla– nasıl biz bağışlarız bize yaman (kötülük) edenleri. Ve de şeytanın sınamasından bizi koru. Tüm yamandan (kötülükten) bizi kurtar. Amin!

In English, the text is:
Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have done us evil. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Cumanicus


And this is from the Orkhon monuments of 8th century;

Now look at this;
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4334/2000pxgktrkorhunsvg.jpg
Turkic runic script on top and exact same sentence with Latin script at the bottom of the picture.


Modern Turkish version: Türk Oğuz beyleri, kavmi, işitin!; üstte gök(Tengri, Tanrı) bastırmazsa, altta yer delinmezse, Türk kavminin ilini, töresini kim bozabilir?

English Translation: Türk Oghuz chieftains, clans, listen!; If the sky(Sky is also God) above doesn't crush, if the ground below doesn't get punctured, who can ever destroy the land and law of the Turk(ic) people?


This sentence is just a small excerpt from Turkic Orkhon monuments written in 732 AD and even in this small sentence, not only they express their ethnicity, i can even sense nationalistic expression and thoughts, am i wrong?




I say again for the last time; I don't care what is the bloodline of Turks as long as they spoke my language and exhibit my culture. And who can dare to question the ethnicity of people who wrote this sentence 1300 years ago?;
Türk Oghuz chieftains, clans, listen!; If the sky(Sky is also God) above doesn't crush, if the ground below doesn't get punctured, who can ever destroy the land and law of the Turk(ic) people?

Same thing applies for questioning the bloodline of Atatürk.

julie
12-13-2010, 01:28 AM
Atatürk. The man that cried with the partitioning of Macedonia

blonde hair, bright blue eyes, fair skinned.
claims of pure Turk are unfounded.
Very Macedonian features as well, the evidence is in the photograph Indigen has posted.

indigen
12-13-2010, 09:07 PM
Atatürk. The man that cried with the partitioning of Macedonia

blonde hair, bright blue eyes, fair skinned.
claims of pure Turk are unfounded.
Very Macedonian features as well, the evidence is in the photograph Indigen has posted.

Those images of Seljuk Turks come from, IMO, quite reputable source books. The following are two books I owned but have no longer in my possession and they appeared to be a very good source for images (one of which is a reproduction from a fresco of Vasil II Makedonski - with his bright blue eyes - and casting into doubt his supposed "Armenian" bloodline!):

Byzantine Armies 886–1118
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/mainpageimages/9781855323476-th2.jpg
Men-at-Arms 287
Author: Ian Heath
Illustrator: Angus McBride
About this book
The Byzantine Empire's disastrous defeat by the Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071 effectively marked the end of what is often described as the 'middle' period of Byzantine history. Thereafter, surrounded on all sides by younger, more vigorous nations, the once all-powerful Empire slipped into a steady decline which, ultimately, was to prove terminal. However, the Empire's demise was anything but peaceful, and, one way or another, for much of the last four centuries of its existence it was to find itself in a state of virtually constant war. This book examines the fascinating history of the Byzantine Empire and its armies from 1118-1461 AD.
Contents
Introduction · Military Chronology · The Byzantine Armed Forces 1118-1453 · 'Soldiers Hired Amongst All Nations' · The End of the Empire · The Empire of Trebizond · The Plates
Paperback; November 1995; 48 pages; ISBN: 9781855323476
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Byzantine-Armies-AD-1118%E2%80%931461_9781855323476/

Byzantine Armies 886–1118
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/mainpageimages/9780850453065-th2.jpg

Men-at-Arms 89
Author: Ian Heath
Illustrator: Angus McBride
About this book
The Byzantines had a remarkably sophisticated approach to politics and military strategy. Unlike most of their contemporaries, they learnt very early in their history that winning a battle did not necessarily win a war, and they frequently bought off their enemies with treaties and bribes rather than squander men and matériel in potentially fruitless campaigns. The Byzantine army of the 10th and early 11th centuries, at the height of its power and efficiency, was the best-organised, best-trained, best-equipped and highest-paid in the known world. This splendid book by Ian Heath examines the Byzantine Armies from 886-1118, including the lusty, hard-fighting, hard-drinking 'barbarian' Varangian guard.
Contents
Introduction · Organization · The Tagmata · The Varangian Guard · The Theme System · The Terrible Day: Manzikert 1071 · The Post-Manzikurt Period · The Plates
Paperback; July 1979; 48 pages; ISBN: 9780850453065

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Byzantine-Armies-886%E2%80%931118_9780850453065/

indigen
12-13-2010, 09:21 PM
[FONT="Verdana"]You are polluting the thread with stupid stuff like linking cartoon like representative pictures of 11th century men and comparing those with a real picture of 20th century man in a tuxedo suit!!! Besides that, can you name a single society who looks exacts same as in 1000 years before now? maybe only Australian aborigines and some african tribes but not others.
Those images are from reputable sources very well respected for the images they produce, more so than their interpretations of the historical periods they cover, and your comments are like the pot calling someone else black. IMO, pollution on a Macedonian forum is when a Macedonian visits here and sees that a non Macedonian has posted in every (or nearly every) forum topic category at about the same time or that a non-Macedonian continually hogs the limelight of a forum category. But all that is just my opinion. :)

Indigen, are you aware that you are acting like a 14 year old internet warrior? OR you are really one of them?
Pot calling someone else black and especially when they are losing the plot! :)

So, if we look at the medieval sources rather than your cartoons, that's how they describe Khazars.
I told you before, you have a dismissive excuse for anything that does not fit your world-view of white Caucasian (and linguistically related to Sumerian) Turks and you are as stubborn as any Greek or Bulgarian nationalist. :)

---------

Jordanes' description of the Huns, Brothers of the Bulgars:

"...a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language
save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the
descent of the Huns...

...This cruel tribe, as Priscus the historian relates, settled on the
farther bank of the Maeotic swamp. They were fond of hunting and had
no skill in any other art. After they had grown to a nation, they disturbed
the peace of neighboring races by theft and rapine...

...Now in my opinion the evil spirits, from whom the Huns are descended...

...As many as they captured, when they thus entered Scythia for the first
time, they sacrificed to Victory. The remainder they conquered and made
subject to themselves. (126) Like a whirlwind of nations they swept across
the great swamp and at once fell upon the Alpidzuri, Alcildzuri, Itimari,
Tuncarsi and Boisci, who bordered on that part of Scythia. The Alani also,
who were their equals in battle, but unlike them in civilization, manners
and appearance, they exhausted by their incessant attacks and subdued. (127)
For by the terror of their features they inspired great fear in those whom
perhaps they did not really surpass in war...

THEIR FEATURES WERE:

"...They made their foes flee in horror because THEIR SWARTHY ASPECT WAS
FEARFUL, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a
head, with pin-holes rather than eyes. Their hardihood is evident in their
wild appearance, and they are beings who are cruel to their children on the
very day they are born. For they cut the cheeks of the males with a sword,
so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they must learn to
endure wounds. (128) Hence they grow old beardless and their young men are
without comeliness, because a face furrowed by the sword spoils by its scars
the natural beauty of a beard. They are short in stature, quick in bodily
movement, alert horsemen, broad shouldered, ready in the use of bow and
arrow, and have firm-set necks which are ever erect in pride. Though they
live in the form of men, they have the cruelty of wild beasts...."

----------------------------

Oxford Bulgar Historian Stefan Nikolov:
"...And the Avars WERE "Mongoloide" for sure, believe me...."

Bozhidar Dimitrov:
"...Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars,
the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow
into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries...."

Dimiter Markovski:
"Khan Asparouh's Bulgaro-Turks"

"The year 681 accepted as Year One of Bulgaria's history."

"...Banner of the Proto-Bulgarian troops consisted of horse's tail
attached to a spear..."

Jordanes description of Attila the Hun: "flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing evidence of his origin"

indigen
12-13-2010, 09:36 PM
Етимологија

Според легендата името на населбата потекнува од името на воинственото племе Кумани кои во 1094 год. навлегле во овој крај и извесно време се задржале на територијата на денешна Кумановска општина и пошироко.Други претпоставки за името не постојат.

Куманово во Cpeдeн Beк

Главен водич бил Александар Македонски заедно се неговиот татко Филип Македонски. Се претпоставува дека Куманово било основано во XII век во близина на селото Жеглигово, со цел да го чува преминот меѓу реките Вардар и јужна Морава. Во 1519, во турските документи се спомнува како село во состав на Нагоричка нахија со 52 семејства и околу 300 жители. Како градска населба (касаба) се споменува во втората половина на XVII век. Се претпоставува дека населбата во овој период има слабо развиено стопанство. Тоа го потврдуваат и патеписните забелешки на Евлија Челебија од 1660, според кои населбата имала околу 600 куќи, џамија, медреса, хан, хамам и одреден број на дуќани. Градската населба, административен центар на нахијата, Куманово станува при крајот на XVI или почетокот на XVII век. Првите изворни податоци за населбата Куманово се споменуваат во 1519 година, од патеписните дефтери во архивот на Република Турција во Истанбул со 52 семејства и околу 300 жители. Најопширни и најзначајни податоци дава Евлија Челебија во 1660 година кој напишал: „Населбата Куманово се наоѓа на територијата на Скопскиот санџак и претставува еден војводлак. Градот е украсен со многу реки, закитен со 600 куќи, покриени со керамиди.“

Raw Google translation:

Etymology

According to legend, the name of the settlement comes from the name of the warlike Kuman tribe, who in the year 1094 temporarily retreated to (entered in) this region and for some time sought refuge in what is now the municipality of Kumanovo and other areas (in the Balkans) There no other assumptions about the name there.

Kumanovo in the Middle Ages

The main guide was Alexander of Macedonia together with his father Philip of Macedon. It is assumed that Kumanovo was founded in XII century near the village Zhegligovo in order to keep the transition between the rivers Southern Morava and Vardar. In 1519, in Turkish documents mentioned as a village within the Nagorichka nahija with 52 families and 300 inhabitants. As urban settlement (Kasabov) are mentioned in the second half of XVII century. It is assumed that the settlement in this period is poorly developed economy. This is confirmed by observations of Evliya patepisnite Celebija of 1660, under which the settlement had about 600 houses, a mosque, madrassa, Khan, Ham, and a number of stores. City district, the administrative center of nahijata, Kumanovo it in the late XVI and early XVII century. The first data source for the settlement mentioned in Kumanovo in 1519, from patepisnite defters in the Archives of the Republic of Turkey in Istanbul with 52 families and 300 inhabitants. Najopshirni and most significant data gives Evliya Celebija in 1660 who wrote: "The settlement of Kumanovo is situated in the territory of Sandzak and Skopje is one vojvodlak. The city is decorated with many rivers, adorned with 600 houses, covered with tiles. "

Onur
12-14-2010, 09:17 AM
IMO, pollution on a Macedonian forum is when a Macedonian visits here and sees that a non Macedonian has posted in every (or nearly every) forum topic category at about the same time or that a non-Macedonian continually hogs the limelight of a forum category.

I only post a comment for the stuff that i have opinion on it unlike you, just like in this thread. You don't know shit about this issue yet you act like you know.


I already told you that only Priscus lived in the era of Attila and we can only trust his descriptions in my first post here. You don't know the situation of historiography after the fall of Roman Empire, you don't know how early christian Roman historians recorded the events, you have no idea about their intentions.... Yet you try to convince me with this;

...Now in my opinion the evil spirits, from whom the Huns are descended...(Jordanes)
What you want me to say? Hungarians, Bulgars, Turks are descended from evil spirits!!!, are you happy now?





Busting some myths about Kumans and Kumanovo

You didn't bust for shit. What you are trying to do here is like if i would deny the role of Alexander the Great for the city of Iskenderun in today`s Turkey or Iskenderiye in Egypt.

If Kumanovo in today`s Macedonia is not related with Cumans then explain to me why there are dozens of other cities, towns and villages with same name in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece(i guess they renamed all)??? And why there are many people with the word Kuman in their family name in Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, Romania and probably in Macedonia too. There should be in Greece too but probably they forced people to change their family names too!!!

Actually i am wasting time with you cuz obviously you are obsessive as well as ignorant but tell me why???

Ottoman
12-15-2010, 03:40 AM
Ottoman I think you contrudict yourself in relation to Kemals purity. Lets have a quick look at Kemal and Atila.
41

42

They look like they come from defferent tribes to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I never said they came from the same tribe.

But both men were Turkic, thats just a fact.

Ottoman
12-15-2010, 03:44 AM
Lol indigen you really think that a picture is proof for your claims?

Here is the real proof son.

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir "
M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia and they are Turkmen Yörük "
M.Kemal Atatürk

and according to Falih Rıfkı Atay, Ali Rıza's roots have come from Söke in Aydın Province. His mother Zübeyde is thought to be of Turkish and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, her roots have come from Turkoman (Türkmen) and in his family, there was roumor that they have come of Yörük.

indigen
12-15-2010, 05:48 AM
I only post a comment for the stuff that i have opinion on it unlike you, just like in this thread. You don't know shit about this issue yet you act like you know.
Your tone is arrogant and rude! I am a Macedonian on a Macedonian forum and I am being very reasonable with you despite your insults and nasty tone towards me and I don't know how long that is going to last if you keep going this way.


I already told you that only Priscus lived in the era of Attila
Are you saying that only Priscus matters in relation to Attila and the Huns? What about Alexander III of Macedon? What sources do we have from authors that lived in his time?

Is Jordanes not the only historical source that provides a physical description of Attila? Do YOU not discount the mainstream academia that says the Huns and related Turkic peoples were originally of Mognoloid/Asian racial type and accuse me of being ignorant? You also ignore the fact that there are physical skeletal remains that confirm the Mongoloid racial type found in burial sites in Bulgaria and other countries.


Racial type and descendants

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/07/2/5/8/32301793560978674.jpg
Victorious Bulgar warrior with captive, featured on a ewer from the Treasure of Nagyszentmiklos

Ascertaining the origin and the language of the Bulgars has been the subject of debate since the turn of the 20th century. The current leading theory[21] is that at least the Bulgar elite spoke a language that, alongside Khazar and Chuvash, was a member of the Oghuric branch of the Turkic language family.[22][23][24][25] This theory is supported, among other things, by the fact that some Bulgar words contained in the few surviving stone inscriptions[26] and in other documents (mainly military and hierarchical terms such as tarkan, bagatur, and probably khan and kanartikin - "prince", - appear to be of Turkic origin and written in Kuban alphabet of the Old Turkic script. Furthermore the Bulgar calendar had a 12 year cycle similar to the one adopted by Turkic and Mongolian peoples from the Chinese, with names and numbers that are deciphered as Turkic, and that the Bulgars' supreme god was apparently called Tangra, a deity widely known among the Turkic peoples under names such as Tengri, Tura etc.[27]

[….]

"Further evidence culturally linking the Danubian Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city."[29]

Culture and society
Archaeological finds from the Ukrainian steppe suggest that the early Bulgars had the typical culture of the nomadic equestrians of Central Asia, who migrated seasonally in pursuit of pastures. From the 7th century, however they became a settled culture, planting crops, and mastering the crafts of blacksmithing, masonry, and carpentry.


and we can only trust his descriptions in my first post here.
Because you can see what you want to see in it!? :)

You don't know the situation of historiography after the fall of Roman Empire, you don't know how early christian Roman historians recorded the events, you have no idea about their intentions.... Yet you try to convince me with this;
And you do understand and the rest of academia does not? Yeah.....right, ONUR the genius knows it all and we must now bow to his superior Ottoman wisdom!? Hahaha...:)


What you want me to say? Hungarians, Bulgars, Turks are descended from evil spirits!!!, are you happy now?
Don't pull bits of text out on their own and out of context in order to make silly conclusions or points. One could do the same with nearly all ancient sources.


You didn't bust for shit. What you are trying to do here is like if i would deny the role of Alexander the Great for the city of Iskenderun in today`s Turkey or Iskenderiye in Egypt.
Don't talk nonsense, you foolish Turk! There was a village in the 16th century which had a population of 300 residents. The Cumans did not build any town there.

If Kumanovo in today`s Macedonia is not related with Cumans then explain to me why there are dozens of other cities, towns and villages with same name in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece(i guess they renamed all)??? And why there are many people with the word Kuman in their family name in Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, Romania and probably in Macedonia too. There should be in Greece too but probably they forced people to change their family names too!!!
We are talking about Kumanovo and I posted how its name came about. For the other details on Cumans and what happened to them, you can do some of your own research for that. I do know that after their state collapsed a Cuman leader with a fairly large contingent (40k families or so) was invited by the King of Hungary to settle his people there.

Actually i am wasting time with you cuz obviously you are obsessive as well as ignorant but tell me why???
I think the pot is calling someone else black yet again! :)
This is the MTO and we need to look critically at claims of Caucasian (and Sumerian-speaking) Turko-Mongol Bulgars, Avars, Huns and other Turkic peoples for the reasons I have already pointed out previously.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9250/w2x9tbj5hn6.jpg

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8681/kumanwarriorhungary5nd.jpg

Cuman Warrior

Mitochondrial DNA of ancient Cumanians: culturally Asian steppe nomadic immigrants with substantially more western Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages.

Bogácsi-Szabó E, Kalmár T, Csányi B, Tömöry G, Czibula A, Priskin K, Horváth F, Downes CS, Raskó I.

Institute of Genetics, Biological Research Center of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, PO Box 521, H-6701 Szeged, Hungary.
Abstract

The Cumanians were originally Asian pastoral nomads who in the 13th century migrated to Hungary. We have examined mitochondrial DNA from members of the earliest Cumanian population in Hungary from two archeologically well-documented excavations and from 74 modern Hungarians from different rural locations in Hungary. Haplogroups were defined based on HVS I sequences and examinations of haplogroup-associated polymorphic sites of the protein coding region and of HVS II. To exclude contamination, some ancient DNA samples were cloned. A database was created from previously published mtDNA HVS I sequences (representing 2,615 individuals from different Asian and European populations) and 74 modem Hungarian sequences from the present study. This database was used to determine the relationships between the ancient Cumanians, modern Hungarians, and Eurasian populations and to estimate the genetic distances between these populations. We attempted to deduce the genetic trace of the migration of Cumanians. This study is the first ancient DNA characterization of an eastern pastoral nomad population that migrated into Europe. The results indicate that, while still possessing a Central Asian steppe culture, the Cumanians received a large admixture of maternal genes from more westerly populations before arriving in Hungary. A similar dilution of genetic, but not cultural, factors may have accompanied the settlement of other Asian nomads in Europe.

PMID: 16596944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Our results suggest that the Cumanians, as seen in the excavation at Csengele, were far from genetic homogeneity. Nevertheless, the grave artifacts are typical of the Cumanian steppe culture; and five of the six skeletons that were complete enough for anthropometric analysis appeared Asian rather than European (Horváth 1978, 2001), including two from the mitochondrial haplogroup H, which is typically European. It is interesting that the only skeleton for which anthropological examination indicated a partly European ancestry was that of the chieftain, whose haplotype is most frequently found in the Balkans.

Source Link (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/04/mtdna-of-ancient-cumanians.html)

Ottoman
12-16-2010, 03:28 AM
You are not very reasonable, you are writing bullshit the whole time, whats your age, 8?

I totally agree with Onur, you cannot have a discussion with someone who believes in fairy tales.

indigen
12-16-2010, 07:42 AM
It isnt related, I said it so you can maybe discover your own bloodline, not every Macedonian is pure you know, like Onur said, we Turks dont care about bloodline, we all consider ourselves as Turks just like everyone in the Ottoman Empire considered theirselves as Ottomans.

I can trace back 3 generations Macedonians both sides of my family (paternal and maternal) and don't need any "discovery" of my bloodline because I know who I am - Indigenous Macedonian! :) Who says Macedonians are "pure" anything? Please don't invent such nonsense and stick to facts here on MTO. We (some of us, IMO, the more enlightened ones!) say we are predominantly of indigenous stock and I have yet to see/hear anyone claim "pure" anything.


Im just telling you facts, Kemals bloodline is Turkmen he is not mixed, the Huns who came to Europe do got mixed.
Perhaps the people who claim Kemal as a Macedonian can challenge your claims but Kemall did not look like a typical "Turkmen" to me.

http://www.mrdowling.com/images/608ataturk1.jpg
Mustafa Kemal, the blue-eyed "pure Turkmen"? :)


http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0OkjIaCdR7k/SlTVbStI8iI/AAAAAAAAAfM/2XHIiCK3Dgc/A+Seljuk+Turk+Warrior.jpg
Seljuk Warrior

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_0OkjIaCdR7k/Shxzv219xOI/AAAAAAAAAOM/bNF9rmaZVFY/Seljuk01.jpg
Seljuk Warrior

http://www.ucalgary.ca/HIST/tutor/imageislam/seljuk1100Large.gif
Seljuk Turk Empire circa 1100 AD


for example Attila himself was a pure Turk
And what did the "pure" Turk like Attila look like back then?

but still the first Huns who came to Europe were Turkic peoples from the east.
And what did they look like, Caucasian or Mongoloid/Asian?

--------------

You are not very reasonable, you are writing bullshit the whole time, whats your age, 8?
Cheap belittling snide remarks of someone having no facts to argue with and hoping no one will notice once the thread turns over onto a new page.

I totally agree with Onur, you cannot have a discussion with someone who believes in fairy tales.

As above and the pot calling someone else black is the case again! I am beginning to think you are just an alternate login for the same person!?

http://www.allempires.com/empires/seljuk/seljuk_warriors_enh.jpg

I stated the following on another thread and stand by it!:

Onur, you don't have much to stand on in respect of official Turkish and MAINSTREAM view regards the original homeland (Altai region of Mongolia) of the Turko-Mongol language bearers, i.e they were an Asiatic race akin to Mongols.

Secondly, if I were to accept your view (of which we are not clear on what it is) that it was not minority Turko-Mongol state forming elites that introduced Turkic languages into Anatolia (and elsewhere in Europe and Central Asia) but that it was the result of some HYPOTHETICAL CAUCASIAN Turko-speaking MASS INVASIONS (e.g. from "Pamir", as Petar Dobrev and Co would have us believe), I would have to give credence to the MASS "SLAV" invasion THEORY (HYPOTHESIS) of the Macedonian Peninsula (Balkans) unless we could "prove" that the Macedonic ("Slavonic") languages were native to Macedonia and the surrounding area/s. This I am NOT prepared to accept as language is NOT always a determinant for national identity or for indigenity.

-------------

Indigen, are you aware that you are acting like a 14 year old internet warrior? OR you are really one of them?
Pot calling someone else black and especially when they are losing the plot! :)

So, if we look at the medieval sources rather than your cartoons, that's how they describe Khazars.
I told you before, you have a dismissive excuse for anything that does not fit your world-view of white Caucasian (and linguistically related to Sumerian) Turks and you are as stubborn as any Greek or Bulgarian nationalist. :)

---------

Jordanes' description of the Huns, Brothers of the Bulgars:

"...a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language
save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the
descent of the Huns...

...This cruel tribe, as Priscus the historian relates, settled on the
farther bank of the Maeotic swamp. They were fond of hunting and had
no skill in any other art. After they had grown to a nation, they disturbed
the peace of neighboring races by theft and rapine...

...Now in my opinion the evil spirits, from whom the Huns are descended...

...As many as they captured, when they thus entered Scythia for the first
time, they sacrificed to Victory. The remainder they conquered and made
subject to themselves. (126) Like a whirlwind of nations they swept across
the great swamp and at once fell upon the Alpidzuri, Alcildzuri, Itimari,
Tuncarsi and Boisci, who bordered on that part of Scythia. The Alani also,
who were their equals in battle, but unlike them in civilization, manners
and appearance, they exhausted by their incessant attacks and subdued. (127)
For by the terror of their features they inspired great fear in those whom
perhaps they did not really surpass in war...

THEIR FEATURES WERE:

"...They made their foes flee in horror because THEIR SWARTHY ASPECT WAS
FEARFUL, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a
head, with pin-holes rather than eyes. Their hardihood is evident in their
wild appearance, and they are beings who are cruel to their children on the
very day they are born. For they cut the cheeks of the males with a sword,
so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they must learn to
endure wounds. (128) Hence they grow old beardless and their young men are
without comeliness, because a face furrowed by the sword spoils by its scars
the natural beauty of a beard. They are short in stature, quick in bodily
movement, alert horsemen, broad shouldered, ready in the use of bow and
arrow, and have firm-set necks which are ever erect in pride. Though they
live in the form of men, they have the cruelty of wild beasts...."

----------------------------

Oxford Bulgar Historian Stefan Nikolov:
"...And the Avars WERE "Mongoloide" for sure, believe me...."

Bozhidar Dimitrov:
"...Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars,
the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow
into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries...."

Dimiter Markovski:
"Khan Asparouh's Bulgaro-Turks"

"The year 681 accepted as Year One of Bulgaria's history."

"...Banner of the Proto-Bulgarian troops consisted of horse's tail
attached to a spear..."

Jordanes description of Attila the Hun: "flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing evidence of his origin"

-------------

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/07/2/5/8/32301793560978674.jpg
Racial type and descendants
Victorious Bulgar warrior with captive, featured on a ewer from the Treasure of Nagyszentmiklos

Our results suggest that the Cumanians, as seen in the excavation at Csengele, were far from genetic homogeneity. Nevertheless, the grave artifacts are typical of the Cumanian steppe culture; and five of the six skeletons that were complete enough for anthropometric analysis appeared Asian rather than European (Horváth 1978, 2001), including two from the mitochondrial haplogroup H, which is typically European. It is interesting that the only skeleton for which anthropological examination indicated a partly European ancestry was that of the chieftain, whose haplotype is most frequently found in the Balkans.

Source Link (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/04/mtdna-of-ancient-cumanians.html)

Onur
12-16-2010, 12:18 PM
Indigen, i see that you started spamming the thread now, by repeatedly posting your crap over and over again with same cartoons by creating giant msg frame!!! good for you!!!

But i can guess that you are probably thinking like "i am macedonian on a macedonian forum, so i have a right to spam but you are just a turko-mongol, so stfu"!!!!
sigh...


I told you before, you have a dismissive excuse for anything that does not fit your world-view of white Caucasian (and linguistically related to Sumerian) Turks and you are as stubborn as any Greek or Bulgarian nationalist.

Indigen, you expect me to accept your cartoons and deny numerous 8-9-10th century Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Jewish records(i wrote some of them above). You also want me to accept Jordanes`s descriptions like "Huns, Turks descendant from evil spirits", which he wrote like 200 years after Attila`s death and deny Priscus`s eyewitness records from his meeting with Attila.

I said that you are obsessive and hopeless with a reason.






As above and the pot calling someone else black is the case again! I am beginning to think you are just an alternate login for the same person!?

Hah!! probably you do that yourself, so expect me to do the same? Ask admins about our IPs, as far as i remember Ottoman said he was living in outside Turkey while i am not. I am not a low life like you dude. Dont think that everyone is like yourself!


Now go ahead, write just one sentence and quote all your crap in a giant frame again.

astibo
12-17-2010, 09:04 PM
I find this subject quite interesting. I must admit that i dont know much about the origin of the turkish people.
As i understand Onur, he is saying that modern day turkish speaking peoples like Finlandians, Hungarians and Turks from Turkey are predominantly genetic descents from turkish colonists from the middle ages and not descending from autohtonous peoples in those regions who had accepted the turkish language. But if that is so, than those peoples should all resemble each other, finlandians should look like hungarians and turks. But i think that Finlandians are similar to sweeds and Norwegans, Hungarians are similar with Romanians and Serbs from northern serbia and Turks from Turkey share many comon features with Macedonians.
My opinion is that the population in modern Turkey is dominantly autohtonous, but also there is a large percent of turkish genes.
I must say again that i am not very familiar with this subject and i am just sharing my opinion.
And there is no need for arguing with such tone and hostility guys, we are not enemyes if we have diferent opinion on something,,,
:)

Soldier of Macedon
12-17-2010, 11:23 PM
Good post Astibo, one thing I would note is that the group of languages should be named under the umbrella term of Ural-Altaic, as not all of them are Turkic.

In my opinion, the proto-people of the Ural-Altaic group were no doubt 'eastern-oriental' looking, for want of a better word. However, it is clear that there was an increase of inter-racial mixing with 'western-caucasian' looking people the further west they travelled. Once they integrated with the larger local populations of their current destinations in Anatolia, central Europe and Scandinavia, many, if not most, came to resemble the locals themsleves, while retaining some elements of their ancestry. Those that live between the old and new homelands share features of both to varying degrees.
Thats what medieval documents says but ofc not all Turks was blondish. There was brown haired and eyed ones too since Turks was never homogeneous throughout history but it was rather an unity of various people who speaks Uralic-Altaic languages.

And as you can read here, blond haired and blue/green eyed Cuman Turks left us one of the most important work of Turkic language in 12th century. A collection of Turkic riddles, sample sentences for conversation in Turkic and a dictionary with a total of 4500 Turkic words.
Onur, do you find the reference to 'eastern-oriental' looking people incorrect as the description of the early ancestors of the Turks? Although I am not sure why there was a necessity to steer this topic on to a 'racial' analysis, surely you don't believe that the Turkic people that were kindred to the early Huns bordering Chinese territory in the 4th century were 'western-caucasian' looking? A century later, Attila was in the territory and company of people speaking Slavic languages, and he was most certainly of mixed breed himself, to what degree though is arguable.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html
Attila was lord over all the Huns and almost the sole earthly ruler of all the tribes of Scythia; a man marvellous for his glorious fame among all nations.
In the land of Scythia.....Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes.
When they had mourned him with such lamentations, a strava, as they call it, was celebrated over his tomb with great revelling.
Only a privileged group among the many nations over whom he ruled would be allowed to perform such an act. Who else then, would "they" be, and who else would "call it" like that? Perhaps the European element in the lineage of Attila was of people speaking a Slavic language afterall.

Soldier of Macedon
12-18-2010, 08:15 AM
"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir "
M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia and they are Turkmen Yörük "
M. Kemal Ataturk
I doubt very much that Kemal was fully Turkmen. His mother was Macedonian by origin, his father was probably Turkish, Albanian or a combination of both. See below:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=457&page=8
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=457&page=9
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860057-2,00.html
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/ww1/blythe.html

Ottoman
12-23-2010, 03:35 AM
You can doubt it all you want but he said those words.

George S.
12-23-2010, 08:11 AM
SOM you are absolutely right,That's another myth busted by TM.The Father of All the Turks (who left no legitimate heirs) was born in 1881 in Salonika, then part of the Ottoman Empire, of a mild Albanian father and a forceful Macedonian mother.


http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/ww1/blythe.html

He was of solid peasant stock of Albanian and Macedonian origins; he had pale blue eyes and light hair and coloring.

Just because he was the Father of the Turks does not mean he was ethnically Turkish. Another example of a "father figure" would be modern "greece's" own Rigas Velenstinlis who was a Vlach by ethnicity.

Ottoman
12-25-2010, 06:40 AM
Ataturk was NOT Macedonian or Albanian, that are claims without any evidence, these are words spoken from Ataturks own mouth, several people witnessed these words.




"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir "
M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia and they are Turkmen Yörük "
M.Kemal Atatürk

and according to Falih Rıfkı Atay, Ali Rıza's roots have come from Söke in Aydın Province. His mother Zübeyde is thought to be of Turkish and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, her roots have come from Turkoman (Türkmen) and in his family, there was roumor that they have come of Yörük.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26124 <<< read this link for more info.

YouTube - Proof: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was Yörük Turkmen! True Origins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOvaHyE4To&feature=player_embedded)

Even if Ataturk was an Macedonian Albanian I ask myself this question; what has he ever done for your people? just nothing.

Ataturk declared himself as a Turk and he gave us Turks the greatest gift.

But as I posted many times before he is Turkmen, its just end of discussion for me.

Onur
12-25-2010, 11:31 AM
It`s pointless to investigate Ataturk`s bloodline since he was born in a time and place where there was no difference between Macedonian, Albanian or Turkish muslims. This is even against Ataturk`s conception of patriotism and nationalism. He had never questioned people`s bloodline as long as they are Turkish in terms of ideas and this is still valid in today`s Turkey since there is no difference at all between myself and my Bosnian or Macedonian friends here in Izmir.

So, even if Ataturk would be Macedonian or Albanian, he served to Turkey in the end and he is more Turkish to me than someone with pure Turk blood from central Asia. There is no such a thing either since Turks never consisted of people with exact same bloodline even 1000+ years ago. Actually every society in the world is like that except some isolated tribes like Aborigines but they prefer to hide it unlike Turks. Turks doesn't hide cuz we are perfectly comfortable with it since big majority of Turkish people doesn't give any importance to bloodlines.

Racism never became an important factor among Turkish people throughout history and i believe this is the most advanced expression of nationalism unlike the primitive one with racism.

Soldier of Macedon
12-26-2010, 11:10 PM
It`s pointless to investigate Ataturk`s bloodline since he was born in a time and place where there was no difference between Macedonian, Albanian or Turkish muslims........even if Ataturk would be Macedonian or Albanian, he served to Turkey in the end and he is more Turkish to me than someone with pure Turk blood from central Asia.
Ataturk was NOT Macedonian or Albanian, that are claims without any evidence, these are words spoken from Ataturks own mouth, several people witnessed these words..............Even if Ataturk was an Macedonian Albanian I ask myself this question; what has he ever done for your people? just nothing. Ataturk declared himself as a Turk and he gave us Turks the greatest gift.
Ottoman, perhaps Onur can teach you a few lessons in manners, because your messages are similar, but the way they are conveyed differ markedly. You're unreasonable and confrontational, unnecessarily. Don't mistake the general collective of members here as an enemy, but at the same time, remember that you are at a forum where Macedonians are a majority, so a bit of diplomacy on your part wouldn't be harmful either.

Personally, I am only interested in the historical side of the matter. I am not going claim that Kemal was "a" Macedonian, but he does appear to have a Macedonian heritage from his mother's side (she may also have been mixed with Turkish or Albanian), and that I will claim. In the quote that is provided above he speaks of his ancestors, but he doesn't refer to all of his ancestry. Part of the heritage of his father, mother or grandparents may very well have been Turkmen, however, given his life and origins in Macedonia and the sources claiming so, to discount the likely possibility of Kemal being part Macedonian is ludicrous. Of course, his actions were for the betterment of the Turkish people, and despite the discussion about his background, nobody here is disputing that he identified and lived as a Turk (which may suggest that the his father was Turkish and not Albanian, or mixed). Here is what Andrew Mango writes, as quoted in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk#cite_note-4

Atatürk's parents and relatives all used Turkish as their mother tongue. This suggests that some at least of their ancestors had originally come from Turkey, since local Muslims of Albanian and Slav origin who had no ethnic connection with Turkey spoke Albanian, Serbo-Croat or Bulgarian* (or Macedonian: my note), at least so long as they remained in their native land., But in looks Ataturk resembled local Albanians and Slavs.[...] But there is no evidence that either Ali Riza or Zübeyde was descended from such Turkish nomads. page 28; It is much more likely that Atatürk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors.[...] But Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors.

Ottoman
07-07-2011, 03:19 AM
Just find me something where Ataturk clearly states he has Macedonian roots, he doesnt mention this once in his lifetime, he may have Slavic roots because of his hair and eye colour, Ataturk was only educated in Macedonia, there is nothing else bonding him to Macedonia.

By the way Ataturk was against the Ottoman imperial house, he exiled the last sultan.

Delodephius
07-07-2011, 04:42 AM
Good post Astibo, one thing I would note is that the group of languages should be named under the umbrella term of Ural-Altaic, as not all of them are Turkic.

In my opinion, the proto-people of the Ural-Altaic group were no doubt 'eastern-oriental' looking, for want of a better word. However, it is clear that there was an increase of inter-racial mixing with 'western-caucasian' looking people the further west they travelled. Once they integrated with the larger local populations of their current destinations in Anatolia, central Europe and Scandinavia, many, if not most, came to resemble the locals themsleves, while retaining some elements of their ancestry. Those that live between the old and new homelands share features of both to varying degrees.

Actually SoM, the presence of Uralic peoples in what is today Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia and almost entire European and part of Asian northern Russia precedes the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Europe. It is actually an established fact that Uralic people were the first people to settle these northern parts right after the Ice Age. There is no discontinuity in archaeological findings in Uralic speaking areas since at least the Mesolithic period. At the map I posted on the PBPBS threat the grey area above the coloured IE ones was inhabited by the Uralic peoples since the stone age. They were most likely the first settlers of Europe who moved north periodically as the glaciers retreated and the Indo-Europeans followed behind them from the south. The Proto-Uralic language can be reconstructed going back up to 7 millennium BC.

I was always curious why Uralic peoples are mostly blond or brown haired with blue eyes, but the stereotype of them being Asian looking came from biased sources linking them to the Turks. I would say that Uralic peoples are more European than the Indo-Europeans being here before them and all.

The Hungarians originally lived in the most southern part of the Uralic area and were the only Uralic people to adopt a nomadic life (well, except the northernmost Sami people who migrate with their reindeer), most likely under the influence of Iranic or Turkic peoples from the south. To my knowledge the Ural-Altaic theory has almost been completely rejected, and what remains of it is an idea in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic theories, but even there the Uralic and Altaic languages are not linked specifically just to one another but rather as a part of a macrofamily that includes other language families as well, like Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic and so on.

Soldier of Macedon
07-07-2011, 11:30 PM
Actually SoM, the presence of Uralic peoples in what is today Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia and almost entire European and part of Asian northern Russia precedes the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Europe. It is actually an established fact that Uralic people were the first people to settle these northern parts right after the Ice Age. There is no discontinuity in archaeological findings in Uralic speaking areas since at least the Mesolithic period. At the map I posted on the PBPBS threat the grey area above the coloured IE ones was inhabited by the Uralic peoples since the stone age. They were most likely the first settlers of Europe who moved north periodically as the glaciers retreated and the Indo-Europeans followed behind them from the south. The Proto-Uralic language can be reconstructed going back up to 7 millennium BC.
Ok Slovak, I am open to the above as I haven't researched it as much as you have.
I was always curious why Uralic peoples are mostly blond or brown haired with blue eyes, but the stereotype of them being Asian looking came from biased sources linking them to the Turks.
Why do you think they were linked to Turks in certain sources?
To my knowledge the Ural-Altaic theory has almost been completely rejected, and what remains of it is an idea in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic theories, but even there the Uralic and Altaic languages are not linked specifically just to one another but rather as a part of a macrofamily that includes other language families as well, like Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic and so on.
Aren't there some features that are only shared by languages in the suggested 'Ural-Altaic' theory, such as being agglutinative? Or do they not all share this feature? How would you explain the other similarities between Turkic and Hungarian, for example, in that comparative sentence that Onur has posted a few times?

Soldier of Macedon
07-07-2011, 11:34 PM
Just find me something where Ataturk clearly states he has Macedonian roots, he doesnt mention this once in his lifetime.......
He doesn't have to mention it. A logical interpretation of the facts and sources would lead to this conclusion, in spite of your personal views.
.........he may have Slavic roots because of his hair and eye colour
No such thing as 'Slavic' roots, it's a language, not an ethnicity. And the Slavic-speaking peoples in Macedonia are the Macedonians. So you've just contradicted yourself.
Ataturk was only educated in Macedonia, there is nothing else bonding him to Macedonia
Testament of your ignorance.

Delodephius
07-08-2011, 08:11 AM
Why do you think they were linked to Turks in certain sources?
Well the only Uralic people that have been linked or presented as Turks were the Hungarians, since like the Turkic peoples they were first nomads and had a somewhat similar culture and a sounding language like the Turkic peoples. But this only goes for the Hungarians. Other Uralic peoples, except maybe those who lived on the Turkic border have anything similar with the Turkic peoples.

Aren't there some features that are only shared by languages in the suggested 'Ural-Altaic' theory, such as being agglutinative? Or do they not all share this feature? How would you explain the other similarities between Turkic and Hungarian, for example, in that comparative sentence that Onur has posted a few times?
There are many agglutinative languages out there, like Dravidian languages, Sumerian, most Mesoamerican languages, etc. You'll need to read a comparative study of Uralic and Altaic languages. As for vocabulary, I've read that the only similarity that exists is with Hungarian and these are most likely borrowings. From the 200 or so reconstructed Proto-Uralic words that are common for all Uralic languages none of them have cognates in Turkic languages.

Which Onur's examples?

Onur
07-08-2011, 01:19 PM
Well the only Uralic people that have been linked or presented as Turks were the Hungarians, since like the Turkic peoples they were first nomads and had a somewhat similar culture and a sounding language like the Turkic peoples. But this only goes for the Hungarians. Other Uralic peoples, except maybe those who lived on the Turkic border have anything similar with the Turkic peoples.

The other so-called Uralic peoples like Finns, Estonians migrated from Eurasia too but they were living close to Siberia, kinda separated from other Eurasian people like Turks, Hungarians who lived in southern side, around today`s Ukraine, Kazakhstan. But ofc they use similar language as ours and Turkic have few 100 common words with Estonian&Finnish language. Our grammar rules are already mostly same.


Turks and Hungarians have more common things cuz when the ancestors of Hungarians seperated from Khazar empire and migrated in to the Panonia, they were consisted of 8-9 tribes. It`s known that 3-4 of these tribes was Turkic like Szekely and Csango. Also, they created Hungary on top of the ~400 year old Avar Turkic state. Then in 13th century, Turkic Cumans and Pechenegs seek refuge in Hungary because of Mongol advancements of Ghengis Khan. They consisted about 30% of Hungary`s total population and they had autonomy inside Hungary from 13th century to 18th century named Kunsag, Cumania and their autonomy abolished after they fully integrated into Hungarian people and lost their original Turkic language. Today, they only know few songs with Turkic lyrics remained from their medieval day.

In a documentary for Turkish tv, they have gone to the Hungarian villages and recorded one of their old songs Cuman Turkic. Here it is, red one is Cuman Turkic, blue is Turkish. I can easily understand his Turkic;
YouTube - &#x202a;Hun-Kuman Prayer from Hungary (with Lyrics)&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIgrzuJEjGQ)



Also, for about the first ~200 years of Hungary, these people was known as Turks and Panonia was named as Tourkia. Most lprobably, because their ruling core was Turkic while they were still Tengrist shamans. Only after most of them converted as christians, they started to be known as Magyars. If they wouldn't be Turkic speaking, why they would be crowned as "king of Turks and Tourkia"?? I`ve wrote a msg about this b4;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=100899&postcount=101





There are many agglutinative languages out there, like Dravidian languages, Sumerian, most Mesoamerican languages, etc. You'll need to read a comparative study of Uralic and Altaic languages. As for vocabulary, I've read that the only similarity that exists is with Hungarian and these are most likely borrowings. From the 200 or so reconstructed Proto-Uralic words that are common for all Uralic languages none of them have cognates in Turkic languages.

Which Onur's examples?

The similarities between Hungarian and Turkic is not only agglutinative suffixes. There are many more than that. Yes Hungarian has about ~4000 Turkic words today but these are not Ottoman era borrowings like in Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian. In Hungarian language, the words of some human body parts, organs, some animals, most of horse riding terminology, most of agriculture terms are Turkic. I mean, in Serbian language, there are borek, bahcha, musluk but in Hungarian language, words for vegetables like apple, barley, wheat are Turkic. You dont think like Hungarians learned the apple from 16th century Ottoman era, do you?

There are few 100 examples of common Turkic-Hungarian early medieval words here;

http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/turkic1.html



And this was my message here from last year, SOM was talking about this;
You took these words in Ottoman era like Serbs, Bosnians, Greeks did but there is one interesting fact about Hungarian language like this. There is a famous sentence to indicate similarity between Hungarian and Turkish;

English; I have a lot of small yellow apples in my pocket

Turkish; Cebimde cok kucuk sari elma var

Hungarian; Zsebemben sok kicsi sarga alma van


If you don't believe, copy&paste these and translate to English in google :)


It`s a striking example and ofc the word order is same in both languages. Hungarians didn't adopt these words from us in Ottoman era unlike you did. They adopted these words in era of the Hun Empire and/or Khazar Empire(4th to 9th century or earlier) because Ottoman Empire took control of Hungary at 16th century and it`s impossible that they learned these Turkish words for "apple, pocket" from us as late as 16th century. Also some grammatical suffixes and words like "who, whose, whom..." are similar too, so it cannot be 16th century borrowings. 16th century, Ottoman era adoptions in Hungarian language are quite same as yours like Boza, borek, charsi etc.

Also a lot of agriculture and horse riding terminology in current Hungarian language are Turkish words too.


English - Turkish - Hungarian
Whose book - Kimin kitabi - Kinek könyve
Who - Kim - Ki
Many - Cok - Sok
Little - kucuk - kicsi
With whom - Kiminle - Kivel

Apple - elma - alma
My apple - elma(m) - alma(m)
My apples - elma(larim) - alma(im)



http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/turkic1.html



If you read my message here. You can see same grammatical features as with Turkic-Hungarian in old Bulgarian language (NOT old church slavic but Bulgar Turkic);

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63393&postcount=15

Delodephius
07-08-2011, 05:52 PM
You dont think like Hungarians learned the apple from 16th century Ottoman era, do you?
Well, your entire article is following an underlying idea that I'm an ignorant pro-Westerner, so I'm just not going to answer.

Onur
07-08-2011, 06:42 PM
Well, your entire article is following an underlying idea that I'm an ignorant pro-Westerner, so I'm just not going to answer.

No, i didn't imply that. That was only a question to you cuz you said that Turkic words in Hungarian can only be Ottoman borrowings just as in other Balkan languages.

I think you are using that as an excuse and you prefer not to respond cuz what i wrote here contradicts your mostly imaginary thoughts and ideas. Just like the map you`ve posted in other thread with pretty absurd claims like Germanic languages existed in Europe for 3000-5000 years and it wasn't the aglo-saxons who bring it first in England.

It`s obvious that you have some interest to these issues but i see that you ignore some historical facts if it`s not suitable for your own ideology and you start to create your own imaginary thoughts in place of those, like your claims of "existence of Germanic languages in western Europe for 3000-5000 years"!!!

Delodephius
07-08-2011, 07:07 PM
No, i didn't imply that. That was only a question to you cuz you said that Turkic words in Hungarian can only be Ottoman borrowings just as in other Balkan languages.
Actually I didn't say that. I thought I was pretty clear saying Hungarian borrowings from Turkic languages were from before their arrival into the Pannonian plain.

I think you are using that as an excuse and you prefer not to respond cuz what i wrote here contradicts your mostly imaginary thoughts and ideas.
I prefer not to respond because I feel that it would be too exhaustive for me to debate something I'm only a bit interested in, and even less if the people who I'm responding to are someone I don't like.

"existence of Germanic languages in western Europe for 3000-5000 years"
I'm actually saying it's since the Mesolithic period, so about 10.000 years. You wouldn't understand why, since I already tested you on some of the key points you would need to know to understand it. You can however change that if you start with reading these in order:

http://www.continuitas.org
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com
http://www.proto-english.org

Call me arrogant, but I know from experience that one cannot debate with someone else if both don't understand the other's knowledge.

Onur
07-09-2011, 06:30 AM
I'm actually saying it's since the Mesolithic period, so about 10.000 years. You wouldn't understand why, since I already tested you on some of the key points you would need to know to understand it. You can however change that if you start with reading these in order:

http://www.continuitas.org
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com
http://www.proto-english.org

I`ve read few articles in these web sites. I already heard some of these theories b4 but the difference between me and you is;
You accept those claims as the truth and you reflect it in this way in your messages. You gotta know that there is no way to prove any of these claims and unless that happens, you gotta indicate that what you write here is just a theory.

For example, in one of the websites here (http://www.continuitas.org), there are articles of Mario Alinei. He is an Italian and known as one of the biggest linguists in the world and he is actually the one who invented your theory of Paleolithic Continuity.

BUT, he got some theories like Etruscan language was nothing more than a mix of Hungarian and Turkic and Etruscan script (later known as Latin) is similar with Turkic runic alphabet. He even says that Etruscans was being called by Egyptians and Greeks as "Turks". Do you accept this theory too?

I had this in my bookmarks;
Etrusco: Una Forma Arcaica di Ungherese (Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian)
In his new book Mario Alinei aims to prove the family relationship between Etruscan and Hungarian, on the basis of a "theory of continuity" developed during his studies on the origins of European languages. His conclusions are rooted in the extraordinary resemblance of Etruscan and ancient Magyar magistrature names and other, numerous similarities - concerning typologies, lexicon and historical grammar - between the two languages. Thanks to these analogies, the author confirms many Etruscology findings, improves the translation of previously translated texts, and translates formerly untranslatable "talking" texts or only partially translated "bilingual" texts. The final part of the volume is devoted to a review of findings of studies of Etruscan prehistory and the presentation of a new hypothesis relating to the hotly debated issue of when ancient Magyars "conquered" Hungary.

Etruscan words such as mi (I), eca/ita (this), maθ (honey), tin (day) and tur (give) have long persuaded many scholars that Etruscan is a Eurasiatic language, perhaps even an Anatolian language (Bomhard) that split from a common Indo-European stem at a very early stage. The precise nature of its affiliations nevertheless remain obscure. In what is probably the most interesting account of recent years, the Italian dialectologist, Mario Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of Hungarian with extensive Türkic borrowings.

This linguistic proposition rests on two historical/archaeological propositions – an uncontroversial one that the Etruscans came from the Carpathian basin, and a highly controversial one that identifies them as a proto-Hungarian/Uralic people.

The first of these had already been demonstrated by the late 1960s by archaeologists such as Hugh Hencken, who highlighted the cultural continuities between the Urnfeld cultures of Central Europe and the proto-Villanovan cultures of Northern and Central Italy, suggesting that the former culture had introduced a series of innovations to the latter, such as hydraulic engineering, the horse, the sword. Hencken also pointed out that the Urnfelders had probably left their signature among the Sea Peoples who attacked Mycenae and the Egypt of Ramesses III towards the end of the second millennium B.C., in the form of ships with prows in the form of horned birds’ heads, as well as a name cited by Egyptian sources, the Tursha which agrees with the Greek name for the Etruscans, the Tyrsenoi, and as Alinei tentatively suggests, with Türk.

Lawrence Barfield noted that Central Europe was the ‘industrial heartland’ of Bronze Age Europe, whose inhabitants developed their metalworking skills and by extension, the military technology that would have allowed them to become a colonial elite, capable of seeking mineral resources elsewhere and subjugating other less technologically advanced peoples. In this sense, their exploitation of Central Italy’s mineral wealth during the Bronze Age is hardly surprising. Alinei nevertheless believes that this process of gradual infiltration and scouring Europe for high quality mines may have begun as early as the middle of the 3rdmillennium, accelerating during the Polada culture. While the rule seems to have been peaceful coexistence between these Central Europeans and the Italic locals of the Palafitte/Terramare cultures, it appears that around 1250 B.C., migration from the Carpathian basin led to conflict and the overthrow of these local cultures, after which the proto-Etruscans moved into Central Italy and eventually carved out their own state that became the locus of the Villanovan culture.

While the above sequence of events does not necessarily place a Hungarian label on these Bronze Age Urnfeld peoples, it follows from Alinei’s continuity theory (see my review of Origini delle Lingue d’Europa) that Italic speakers are the original occupants of Italy and the Western Mediterranean. Hence, the Etruscans could only be an intrusive presence, despite the claims to the contrary by the classical historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

What has hidden the Uralic affiliations of Etruscan is its highly variable spelling, although Alinei assures us that its latitude is no worse than in Mediaeval Florentine or Venetian texts. If the Etruscans were a warrior aristocracy that was gradually absorbed by its subjects, then it presumably recruited its scribes from its Italic-speaking subjects, who wrote in a vowel-poor alphabet of Semitic origin, thus obscuring the open syllable, agglutinative nature of a Uralic language with extensive vowel harmony.

These links nevertheless become clear when we consider the Etruscan vocabulary for its offices of state. Writing in the 10th century, the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta, noted that Hungarian tribes split their leadership between a warlord wielding de facto executive power, the gyula, and a largely ceremonial but revered king, the kende. Alinei finds that the main offices of the Etruscan state included the ZILA/ZILAΘ/ZILCI/ZILI/ZILX, identifiedby Greek sources as the military commander, and the CANΘE/CAMΘI/CANΘCE, the princes civitatis or leader of the Etruscan community. Then there is the knight, LUCUMO (Hung. ló (horse) + Komi. kom (man)), the two-headed axe, PURΘ (Hung. balta (axe), Chuvash purte), and the land surveyor, MARUNU (Hung. mérő (measure)), to cite but a few examples.

Once one overcomes this hurdle, the relationships become much clearer, the main phonological differences being Etr. θ > Hung. t, Etr. c > Hung. k/h, Etr. z > Hung. gy/cs.

I have chosen the following examples from among the hundreds that Alinei provides togive a flavour of his proposed correspondences, which demonstrate the phonological conservatism of the Uralic languages. (NB Hung. = Hungarian, M. = Manty):

Etr. atranes > Hung. arany (gold) [Alinei points out that this was probably a general FUg borrowing tharana, from Iranian sarańa]; Etr. avil > Hung. év (year); Etr. calu > Hung. hal (die); Etr. caθ/cat/caθinum/caθna > M. kot (sun); Etr. elśsi > Hung. első (first); Etr. fulu (smith) > Hung. fűlő (stoker of fire); Etr. hus > Hung. hős (young); Etr. ilacve > Hung. elégvé/eléggé (sufficient); Etr. iθal > Hung. ital (beverage); Etr. laukh/lux > Hung. ló (horse); Etr. mar- (measure) > Hung. mér-(measure); Etr. nac/nacna > Hung. nagy (big); Etr. parliu (to cook) > Hung. párol (to boil/steam);Etr. rasna (territory, region, country) > Old Hung. resz (region, territory) [from FUg räc3(piece, part)]; Etr. tes/tez > Hung. tesz (do); Etr. uru (Sir, lord) > Hung. úr (landowner, lord); Etr.zilacal (stars) > Hung. csillag (star).

Indeed, with such a key, the Etruscan phrase zilaθ mexl rasnal/s can be read as ‘magistrateof the Etruscan country’. The word rasna which Dionysus of Halicarnassus misread as the Etruscans’ name for themselves is merely the word for country, while Alinei identifies mex as an archaic world for people, similar to magyar.

The origin of the Hungarian nation is traditionally dated to the conquest of its national territory in the Carpathian basin by Arpad in 895 A.D. This view evidently obliges the Hungarians to mill around on the steppes of Central Asia for millennia before they receive a European ‘visa’, and may at first sight be reinforced by the fact that within the Uralic family, Hungarian’s closest relatives are the Obugric languages, Mansi and Khanty, that occupy lands around the upper Ob and Irtush rivers in Western Siberia.

What is highly suspect about this ban is that it does not apply to other Uralic peoples, such as the Finns, Lapps, and Komi, who are thought to have spent the Ice Age in a watery refuge in the Ukraine and Southern Russia before moving North to exploit the new hunting opportunities provided by the retreating glaciers.

In addition, contemporary Arab sources from the 10thcentury onwards, most notably al-Garnarti, writing around 1080, speak of two groups of Hungarians, one living on the Danube and another 2000 km to the East in what is now the Bashkir republic, whose aristocracy was bilingual in Turkish and Hungarian, and which shared the gyula/kende model of kingship with the Khazars. Indeed, it is highly significant these words are of Turkic origin, with Hung. gyula reflecting Bashk. yulaj and kende Tatar [reverence, profound respect].

Archaeological evidence (e.g. from cemeteries) has confirmed the cultural continuities between the two groups. Furthermore, the Hungarian king, Géza I (1074-77) received a crown from the Byzantine emperor inscribed with the legend ‘to Geza, the faithful king of the Turks’. Indeed, the heavily Turkicized character of the Hungarians, as is apparent from their music and mythology, makes it most likely that less discerning classical sources would have labeled them with the hold-all description of Scythes.

On this point, the linguistic evidence is illuminating, in that Hungarian shares a vocabulary with Mansi and Khanty for horses and wagons that is borrowed from Turkic (e.g. Hung. ló, M. low [horse]; PUg. närk3, M. näwrä, Hung. nyerëg [saddle]); PUg. päkka, Kh. päk, Hung. fék ; PUg. säk3r3, Kh. iker, Hung. szekér [vehicle], but is unique among the Uralic languages in also borrowing its agricultural vocabulary from Turkic (e.g. Hung. eke [plough], Hung. árpa [barley], Hung. búza [wheat], Hung. sajt [cheese], Hung. tinó [ox]).

This suggests that the proto-Hungarians were still united with the Mansi and Khanty at a stage when they were pre-agricultural nomadic pastoralists involved with horse breeding, but that [B]the proto-Hungarians subsequently split away and were introduced to agriculture by another Turkic people. We may also conclude that the Hungarians were not present in Europe at the time they acquired their knowledge of agriculture, since if they had been, we would expect them to have borrowed an Indo-European agricultural vocabulary.

Assuming that by the Neolithic, they were more or less located in the Obugric region, a move South and West across the Urals would have brought them into contact with the Sredny Stog culture, well known as the precursor to the Kurgan culture, which intruded from the steppes into Europe, firstly into Eastern Hungary and Romania where its bearers encountered the Bodrogkeresztúr culture towards the end of the 4th millennium, and later, in greater numbers into the Carpathian basin itself, at the time of the Baden culture (around 2600 B.C.), which Alinei identifies as originally Slavic in origin, explaining the Slavic toponomy of the area. Hence, far from announcing the proto-Balts of Gimbutas’ theory, the Kurgans are actually a manifestation of a Hungarian invasion.

Alinei readily admits that there are areas of Etruscan that have not been explained by his theory, such as its words for numbers. His main point about the Turkic origins of Etruscan vocabulary for offices of state is nevertheless a powerful one. His theory also has the distinct virtue of generating testable hypotheses, most notably regarding the separation of the Hungarians from the Obugric group. If one accepts these, one is obliged to accept a causal chain of events that projects the Hungarians back to a Bronze Age presence in the Carpathian Basin, and by extension, to the Kurgan peoples. Alinei’s linguistic conclusions may thus be as important for Uralic studies as Ventris’ decipherment of Linear B was for Greek.

http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2009/09/etrusco-una-forma-arcaica-di-ungherese.html


So, do you accept that Etruscans, the forefathers of Latins was Turks??? You keep talking about Mario Alinei`s Paleolithic Continuity Theory. If you believe it that much, then how about this one? He wrote several books about this.

Delodephius
07-09-2011, 06:43 AM
I have no problem with that theory. It's quite reasonable. Except to me Turks and Hungarians mean something quite different than what you may think.

You assume to much about me and you have been doing that from the start. Your entire post is one big ruse, and I don't appreciate that. You are going on my ignore list. Good bye.

Onur
07-09-2011, 07:02 AM
Haha, you gave me web site links and after i`ve looked at those, i gave you an article and a book written by Mario Alinei, the inventor of your Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Now you say that this post is one big ruse!!!! If this is a ruse, then all your messages here are ruse too cuz it`s propagated by same person!!!


You are just a joke, dear Mr. Slovak. You just pick up what you like and ignore the rest. And yes, you better ignore me cuz it`s obvious that you cant even write a proper response to me. You better not to see it at all, rather than being overwhelmed with it.

Delodephius
07-10-2011, 05:46 PM
Meh, f*ck off. :001_tt2:

Moving on. Speaking of Germanic languages, I made this video some time ago. It's a reading of Beowulf in Old English/Anglo-Saxon, for those of you who were perhaps wondering how did this language in which we communicate on this forum sounded a thousand years ago. It clearly shows how different it is from modern English, after it went through a process of Normandization. Despite all that, more than 70% of modern English vocabulary is Germanic, yet see how different it is.

YouTube - &#x202a;Beowulf, #2, Old English&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYsD4DPg4ls)

I'm also planning to make a video of Old Saxon, the ancestral language of modern Plat Deutsche.

And here is an example of Gothic, reading of Lukas I from the the Gothic Bible of Wulfilas. The hymn in the back is actually in Old Slavonic/Old Macedonian.

YouTube - &#x202a;Gotische Lesungen -- Lukas I&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYJYrYFVz8)

And an example of Old Norse sang in the traditional verse.

YouTube - &#x202a;Hávamál, Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson - English subtitles&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY7dtuYH7B0)

Onur
07-10-2011, 07:27 PM
Meh, f*ck off. :001_tt2:

Hmm, so you didn't ignore me yet! I better push my luck even more!!!



It clearly shows how different it is from modern English, after it went through a process of Normandization.

That`s actually a French touch. It wasn't that peaceful either since it resulted the total massacre of non-christians in England, mostly Saxons.

Thats also an indication of how young the current Angles(English) language is while you prefer to claim 10.000 year old existence of it in England.




And here is an example of Gothic, reading of Lukas I from the the Gothic Bible of Wulfilas.

This is not the original gothic script. This is created by Wulfilas to ease the assimilation process of Germanic people into the Roman christian world. Wulfilas was a Roman and he created this script for this purpose, just like Cyril&Methodius did same thing in Balkans in 4-5 centuries after him.

These are the original Germanic Runic alphabets;
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/1770/clipboard02qc.jpg

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2032/clipboard03nj.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7516/clipboard04rq.jpg

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/runic.htm

Delodephius
07-10-2011, 07:36 PM
Thats also an indication of how young the current Angles(English) language is while you prefer to claim 10.000 year old existence of it in England.
Language is a process not a stage.

This is not the original gothic script.
Duh. :rolleyes1:

This is created by Wulfilas to ease the assimilation process of Germanic people into the Roman christian world.
Don't be silly. I think he created a script that looked less stereotypically barbaric to Romans than a runic script, nothing to do with difficulty of assimilation.

Oh, and this reminds me. I'll have to tell Simon to update that page on the Runes on Omniglot. Some of those tables could be done much better.

Ottoman
07-11-2011, 04:45 AM
He doesn't have to mention it. A logical interpretation of the facts and sources would lead to this conclusion, in spite of your personal views.

His family is from Karaman, so how on earth is Ataturk Macedonian?

No such thing as 'Slavic' roots, it's a language, not an ethnicity. And the Slavic-speaking peoples in Macedonia are the Macedonians. So you've just contradicted yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples

Testament of your ignorance.

Take a look in the mirror mate.

Soldier of Macedon
07-11-2011, 05:49 PM
His family is from Karaman, so how on earth is Ataturk Macedonian?
We've been through this before. I have never denied that part of his ancestry may be from somewhere outside of Macedonia. I don't ignore that fact the way you do with all other facts.
Take a look in the mirror mate.
You don't even know about Turkish history, and you're going to blabber on about Slavic history? Don't waste my time 'mate'. Few people in the Slavic-speaking world consider the nations that make up this group as kindred in the 'ethnic' sense. You have no idea, and the fact that you impulsively cited a wikipedia article further corroborates your ignorance.

Ottoman, you're quickly becoming that which everybody here thinks you are. Is this you or your multiple personality posting?

Onur
07-12-2011, 03:25 PM
Great article from a Dutch based journal of Eurasian studies. An analysis and some important findings for the language of the Huns and it`s influence in today`s Turkic, Hungarian, Mongolian, Chinese and in various slavic languages;



Hunnic Linguistic Issues
The research regarding the language of the Huns began in Europe after the French missionary Deguignes had translated in the 18th century Chinese sources which recorded the deeds of the Huns. The French scholar stated that Xiongnu in Far-Eastern sources is the same as Huns or Hunas in the European and Central Asian records. He also stated that the heritage of the Huns can be found in the living languages of their descendants: Turkic peoples, Hungarians and the Mongols. The Hungarian aspects were then elaborated by George Pray. During the same century, the research of the Hun tribes continued and several scholars investigated many ancient historical sources. Generally speaking until the mid 19th century, the above mentioned research was based solely on historical sources, and linguistic discussions followed that pattern.

The linguists of that time associated the language of the Huns not with a single ethnic group, but to those ones, who lived on the vast territories of the Eurasian steppe and who were traditionally related to Huns. At that time the artificial theory of language families had not been widespread, therefore the researchers believed that the root of the Turkic, Mongolian and the Hungarian languages was the language of the Scythians or Huns.

From the end of the 19th century onwards only a very few linguists thought in such a comprehensive way, the majority of the linguists accepted a linguistic concept, which was based on Darwinism and created so-called “family trees” with languages that had no real historical connections with each other.[1] Based on this new linguistic concept, they were busy reconstructing the proto-languages. According to Gábor Bálint this was completely unnecessary. Among the historians positivism became widespread, which rejected all the legends and stories of the steppe tribes; hence they did not accept their historical tradition.

During this period the previously admired Hun people became monsters and barbarians and scholars were obliged to write only in negative terms like barbarians or savages, etc. In publications on Huns they were described as not having permanent houses, or cities, that they could not write, and that they just learned everything from the "civilized" people, i.e. Indo-Europeans. The "new" historical approach and the linguistic theories completely clouded the results, and its negative impact, unfortunately, is still felt today, especially in the official Hungarian scientific circles, which is still dominated by these outdated theories.

While the Western European languages are not really affected by the new linguistic classification, those nations, which had Hun heritage, especially Hungarians, had been listed as Siberian clans with unknown roots.

At the turning of the century, the focus shifted temporarily towards the Turkic lineage. Some Hungarian scholars, chiefly János Fogarasi and Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna investigated the Mongolianand Manchu languages as well and they found, that the above mentioned languages are very close to Hungarian. They interpreted this fact as the common linguistic heritage from the Hun Empire. Unfortunately, this professional research method was abandoned by later scholars and Hungarian linguists spoke no more about the Hunnish heritage of the Hungarian language, Gyula Németh and Zoltán Gombocz being the only exceptions.

Nowadays, the research of the Hunnish languages is completely exiled from the official Hungarian linguistics; Mongolian or any other related Inner-Asian language does not get enough attention.[2]

When Doerfer has published a great essay about the Hun language, wherein he recorded that Barthold, Asmarin and Pritsak considered this language as a member of the Chuvas-Turkish group. This statement is very important for the origin of the Hungarian language, because most "Turkish loan-words" in Hungarian are of Chuvas type. It should be noted that Gábor Bálint[3] rejected the importance of the Chuvash language regarding Hungarian; according to him Hungarian and Mongolian are closer than Hungarian and Chuvas. Nicholas Poppe reiterated this point of view.[4] According to him these similarities are related to the common Hunnish ancestry.

Doerfer mentioned that two great linguists, Klaproth and Semenov identified the Hunnish language with Hungarian. It is curious that this point of view was not taken into account by the Hungarian linguists, though it significantly impacts the research of the origins of Hungarians.

Other researchers (Venelin, Velitman, Zabelin, etc) thought that the inheritors of the Hun language were the Slavs.[5] This is not accidental, because Slavic languages also preserved many Hun words and cultural elements.

Today it is unacceptable for many scholars that the language of the Huns is preserved only by one nation or group; moreover it is impossible to regard some small Siberian peoples as the sole descendants. This idea was raised by Pulleyblank, and Volvoni, and Lajos Ligeti also accepted it. But how can be this true? It is unlogical that an ancient, long-lived, large empire’s heritage remained only with a small group of peoples, whose area of living is situated rather far from the central areas of the Huns. Neither the Ostyaks nor Kets were able to establish an independent state; they lived in a clan type society, unlike the Huns, who created the ancient world's greatest empire.

As other researches also proved, the Hun language heritage is preserved by not one people, but lots of nations throughout the Eurasian steppe land.

Izabella Horváth published a study, wherein she provided a comprehensive overview of the theories on the origins of the Hunnish language. She listed those authors who thought Huns were Mongols, Turks, and Slavs, Finns, etc.

She was the first, who summarized the results of Chinese researchers. One of the most interesting
points of view is that of the Chinese Wu, who stated that during the Hun period the Altaic languages have not divided into parts, so Hunnish can be regarded as a proto-Altaic language.[6]

The above citied theories show that the Huns left deep trails in the languages of various people in Eurasia, and they had a great impact on world history. Moreover, it also indicates that the Huns did not disappear suddenly. Unfortunately, the research of ancient Central Asian peoples is not without difficulties. The greatest problem is that over the past half century linguists have boxed various peoples of ancient times to fictitious language families, such as Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians, etc.[7] Scythian people are still listed as Iranians, although there is no coherent linguistic record for that and the historical process shows that the Persians accepted lots of Scythian words and military equipments. Several Scythian words or cultural elements had spread throughout the Eurasian region, and they are not related to the above language only.

It would be much better to mention ancient peoples under their own names relating to the Scythian or Hun language-group as did Rasmus Rask, and other linguists of the 19th century. Schöning recently published a collection of essays on Mongolian languages and he has claimed that the Turkish and Mongolian languages’ high degree of similarity may indicate a common origin; this basis might be the Hun and/or Xianbei language.[8] Two Inner Mongolian scholars, Hugjiltu and Uchiraltu, arrived to the same conclusion, based on their historical linguistics researches. According to them there are in the Turkic and Mongolian languages more than a thousand words that may be similar, which probably refers to a common ancestor: the Hunnish language. Hugjiltu also claims that the common words may not be loanwords; they simply show that the Turkic and Mongolian peoples had close connection from ancient times until now. This truth is not only proved by linguistic correspondence, but also by the common way of life, and even political organization.[9] Some scholars think that the Turkic-Mongolian relations depend on areal relations only. According to Rassadin it happened only in Central Asia. However, this is not a correct theory, because the Mongols had appeared there only in the 13th century.

During the past decade lots of linguists[10] have questioned the legitimacy of the theories of language families, so it is highly expectable that in next decades new theories will arise in the international science, and the outdated methods of linguistics dating from the 19th century will slowly fade. One interesting initiative is a large international research program at Santa Fe University, which explores the possibility of monogenesis among languages of the world.

It is interesting that there is hardly any discussion on the Scythian language; the international literature clearly holds it as Indo-European or Iranian. The language of the Huns, however, was heavily disputed; the core issue was to which Turkic language it belonged: Chuvash type "r" Turkic or Common Turkic type "z" Turkic. Because in the name of Attila’s middle son Dengizik, one found the 'z' sound, the linguists held that the European Huns spoke such a Common Turkic language. In my view, in the heat of debate people forgot to clarify a few things: whether the "r" and "z" is really a significant difference to those special Turkic languages or merely dialect differences are involved. As Uchiraltu explained, the Hun tribes, as later other steppe peoples too, had no classified, official standard language; hence the language of the Huns varied by region. If one takes the vast territory ranging from the Great Wall in China to the Carpathian Basin, a vast number of types of dialects existed; it is highly possible that this issue is nothing more than a small difference in dialect.

Another unresolved issue is the etymology of the name Hun. It is interesting that those who accept that the Huns spoke a kind of Turkic language also accept that the name of the Empire, (“Hun”) is a Mongolian word. They deduct it from the word “hun” (or kümün) which means man, and this is in itself a major contradiction. If the Huns spoke Turkic, then why should they borrow their own name from a foreign language? The Huns, who were able to create such a developed civilization, did not have a word to designate themselves?

Returning to the question regarding the Huns, the focus of the current research is on creating new linguistic theories and on solving the issue of affiliation of the various steppe peoples. The ancient Chinese records, which preserved lots of Hunnish words, are of great help for the scholars. The Hun words found in these records can be found in the Turkic languages, in the Mongolian, the Manchu, or even in the Hungarian; this shows that several languages are linked to the language of the Huns, in line with the fact that the state and culture of the Huns had a decisive influence on the communities of the whole Eurasian steppe, and the above mentioned peoples are the descendants of the Huns.

The importance of the several hundreds Hunnish words, which were preserved in the Chinese sources, was highlighted by Otto Maenchen-Helfen. Indeed, the Chinese language also includes a relatively high number of foreign words whose origin is disputed. The well-known Hungarian expert of the Chinese language and civilization, Péter Polonyi recorded that Chinese words relating to the horse-breeding are very similar to the Hungarian words, which could suggest a common origin.[11] It is highly probable that both languages derived them from the Huns. Mang Muren from the University of Inner Mongolia, published an essay in 2004, and described an interesting theory, which is hotly debated among Chinese scholars.[12] He claims that in the Chinese language there are about four thousand words, which are similar to Mongolian. If we analyze this huge bulk of words, the result may lead us to the Huns. It is expected that in the coming years the international research results concerning the Scythians and the Huns will clarify a large number of linguistic and historical issue and this will affect the Hungarian prehistoric research, too.


Hun Linguistics
The Inner Mongolian scholar Uchiraltu has brought a new color in the international linguistics research. While the above mentioned scholars dealt with only some words and expressions, he created a system of reconstruction for those words, which survived in Chinese chronicles. He transcribed the words according to the old Chinese phonetics and looked at those ones in the early Turkic and Mongolian vocabularies and he tried to find the most suited word for that. With this method he tried to find out the earliest words and expressions in order to compare them with Hun words. According to the Wei-shu,[13] Turkic is rather a Hunnic language; the difference is less than a dialect difference, led Uchiraltu to the conclusion that the early Turkic and Mongolian languages well preserved the words of the Hunnic language. His main sources were the early Turkic runic inscriptions, glosses and the Secret History of the Mongols from the 13th century. The two empires were situated not so far from the Hun Empire; the Huns dominated much of Central Asian and European steppe region up until the 5th century A.D., after that they lost their dominating role. According to new historical results, Hun tribes existed on their own until
the 8th century A.D.[14] Uchiraltu’s linguistic work is not only sensational due to its topic, but also because of its strict linguistic aspects. Next to that he uses in his linguistic research the results of historical, religious and ethnographic studies; this method significantly improves the validity of his statements. He does not stop at the linguistics level; he records his opinion only if the result is supported by cultural and historical facts. This is a very important method in the linguistic research; the Hungarian examples below will prove that the match goes far beyond superficial form relationships of correlations.

His research contains several important elements which impact the Hungarian-Hun connections.
Uchiraltu’s studies show that the early Turkish and Mongolian words had existed in the Hunnic language and it is not correct if we speak about “loanwords”, but rather the Turkic, Mongolian, Hungarian and other related nations were closely related to the system consisting of the Scythian and Hun languages. His work will probably give an additional impetus to the research of the Hunnic language.


Some Hunnic expressions
Seal Uchiraltu’s study shows that the Huns used the "Keeper of the Seals” title as 'pichigechi', which appeared later in the Turkic, Mongolian, and even in the Sanskrit languages. The word, however, can be found in the Hungarian language as well, as ‘pecsét’. The Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary describes it as a Slavic loanword, but is not able to reveal the origin of the Slavic word itself.

The root ‘pichi-‘ does not only mean seal, but ‘letter’, too.[15] The ’bichi’ means ‘to write’ in Mongolian, the word ‘bichig’ means writing. In Clauson’s dictionary the root ‘bich-’ means ‘cut, engraving’, which refers to the ancient writing method of the runic script. The ancient peoples of the Eurasian steppe had their own writing system, or the runic writing. In some North-western Turkic dialects the 'pichu' form occurs. We need to mention the Hungarian word for one kind of knife — ‘bichka’ — it represents the object, with which the wood was carved. According to Clauson’s dictionary this word meant in the ancient Turkic languages: 'knife, sword'.[16] It is very likely that the writing (‘bich-‘) and the device of writing were related to each other. The word ‘pichik’ reconstructed by Uchiraltu indicates that the writing and the carving were closely related! The different signs throughout Central Asia (tree of life signs, swastika, etc.) can lead us to the steppe peoples. Moreover, the early Turkic word "irü" might be related to the above-mentioned word 'write' but Clauson linked it to the sign of ‘belgü’, or ‘stamp’.[17] It is worth noting that the word related to writing in Hungarian leads us to Central and Inner Asia. Though the Hungarian Etimological Dictionary states that the Hungarian ‘ír’ (‘write’) is 'yaz-' in the Chuvash-type Old Turkic language, the supposed original form could be *ir*. This word was also discovered in the Mongolian language, another link to the the Huns.[18] According to Szentkatolnai the Hungarian word ‘ír’ is related to the Mongolian ‘ira’, the latter having the meaning of ‘carve’.[19]

To the same conclusion arrived the authors of the Czuczor Fogarasi Dictionary,[20] which related it to ‘mark, symbol’. Recently, Katalin Csornai found that the Hungarian ‘ró’ (‘carve’) exists in the form of ‘lu’ in the Chinese chronicles[21] as a Hunnish word, whereby the runic symbols and and the act of engraving were considered holy.

The Hungarian etymological dictionary has no any idea regarding the origin of the word ‘ró’.[22] The fact that the above mentioned three words occur in such an early period, complemented by finds of runic monuments in Central Asia discovered during the last decades, are a clear proof that the steppe peoples had developed literacy which it existed later among Turkic, Avar, and Hungarian peoples, and others.


Kadar, the Chief Judge
According to Uchiraltu, the ‘godouhou’ was an important title of Huns as the Chinese sources recorded. The Mongolian linguist reconstructed it as ‘kutugu’. Among the ancient Turkic peoples the ‘kut’ or ‘gut’ can be found as a relevant title; among Uighurs, Turks, etc., the title ‘idikut’ was the rank of rulers of tribes whose origin is unclear according to Clauson.[23] Uchiraltu had studied the Chinese and Central Asian sources and he found, that the dignity of the chief judge was ‘kutugu’ among Huns. The Mongols preserved the word ‘kukuktu’, and they are still using it to identify Buddhist saints. In the old Turkic languages, the word ‘kut’ means grace of Heaven, but it also meant strength and majesty.[24]

The author, referring to Chinese linguists, explains that during the migration process of the western Huns some linguistic changes had happened: the sound 'u' rather than 'a' was used, so the original ‘kutugu’ became ‘katagu’ or ‘kadagu’.[25] The Chinese data proved the truthfullness of the ancient Hungarian chronicles, where ‘Kadar’ was the chief-judge of the Huns. We have additional data, e.g. Tarihi Üngürüs, which is an ancient Hungarian chronicle that was translated into Turkish and preserved in Turkey for a long period. In it the commander in chief of the Huns was ‘Kattar’, which may be a variant of the ‘kadar’.

Arnold Ipolyi, the renowned Hungarian scholar thought that the ‘kadar’ he was the representatives of the ancient judicial-priest system.[26] Podhracky explained it similarly; ‘kadar’ was originally monk or priest as the Parthian 'cat’, ‘kad' or ‘cat-ousi’, which is similar to the Turkish ‘kad’ and ‘kadi’.[27] There are some other variants as well, e.g. according to the historian György Győrffy ‘kadir’ was a Khazarian rank, and the same name can be found in the early Hungarian Kingdom in some personal names and toponims, and in the clan name of Kadarkaluz.[28] The Hungarian Historical Etimological Dictionary originates it from Bulgarian.[29] As we know from the ancient Bulgarian historical sources, or the list of the ancient kings, the leading clan originated from Attila.


Faith
According to Uchiraltu the word faith was a significant Hunnish title. The Mongolian scholar found closely linked to the Mongolian Mother Earth (Etügen) cult. This new data provides a new key to the understanding of the word faith, as the etymological dictionary considers it of unknown origin.[30] The goddess of the Central Asian steppe peoples is mostly known under the name Etügen (though several vartiations exist), in whom they revered Mother Earth. In the historical sources it is mentioned in different ways: in some places it is Etügen, a Turkic source calls her Ötüken, identifying the sacred mountain or forest. In Mongolia, the geographical names had often been called Eej, i.e. Mother; examples are: Mother Cliff, Mother Tree, or Pious Mother. The other names of the Mother are: Mother Earth, or World Mother. According to Zundui Altangerel, in the era of pre-Buddhist Mongolia, inside each yurt stood the altar of Mother Earth, the Etügen idol.[31]

The Etügen, Ötüken, Idugan forms can be found in the late Turkic and Mongolian sources, but its origin is less researched. When I investigated the Mother Earth cult, I realized that all of the above terms are related to the Hungarian word ‘hit’ (’faith’).[32] It came as a big surprise to me that Uchiraltu found it among the Hunnish words in the Chinese chronicles as ‘hitü’ or ‘hidü’, which was a title of that time.[33] In Turkic documents the word ‘iduq’[34] occurs, which means saint. It is possible that this may be a relative of the Hungarian word faith. Regarding the Hungarian word for faith Ármin Vámbéry, the famous Hungarian Turkologist found it in the Yakut language as ‘itegel’, and Gábor Bálint in the Mongolian ‘itegen’ or ‘sitügen’; but these interpretations have not been taken into account by the other Hungarian linguists, even though they may be of exact match.[35] There can be no better proof that this word is related to the Hunnisch language than the fact that next to the Turkic, Mongolian, Hungarian languages it can be found in the old Bulgarian as well, where in the form of ‘itzig’ it means ‘saint’.[36] In Sanskrit it means ‘good’, ‘well-doer’, ‘friendship’, ‘good action’, ‘good will’.[37]


Horde, the capital of the supreme king
In ancient times among the Central and Inner Asian people the word ‘horde’ was a very important term. In Clauson’s dictionary the word ‘ordu’ is a Mongolian loanword to the Turks with the meaning royal home and palace. The horde was a center for the tribal leader, and later for the khagans, or supreme kings. Uchiraltu thinks that the word can be found among Huns, as the Chinese recorded: ‘yu-tu’. For the early Turkic peoples 'orta' meant ‘medium’, ‘center’.[38] The Russians still use it as ‘gorod’.[39] The word for town is pronounced as ‘ghordas’, therefore it can be connected to the Horde. So it is doubtful that some Hungarian toponyms ending in ‘-grad’ would be of Slavic origin, but rather we should consider it as the heritage of the Huns. Uchiraltu connects the Horde with the ‘yurt’ (accommodation, a round tent), which meant the same center, but later became a name for family ‘house’.


Milk
Uchiraltu reconstructed the Hunnish word ‘dong / tong’, with the meaning of ‘milk’, and explained its relation to the Mongolian ‘sün’ or milk. He also noted that in the Eastern Mongolian gorlos dialect the word for milk is ‘tun’ or ‘tün’, because they used ‘t’ instead of ‘s’. This data may be important for the Hungarians as well. Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna guessed parallels between the Mongolian and Hungarian ‘milk’ but he could not find completely convincing explanation of how they relate to each other. Uchiraltu now provided the explanation. Indeed, the Hungarian Czuczor-Fogarasi etymological dictionary provided something valuable: ‘milk’ in the Szekler dialect is ‘té’. In the Central Asian Chagatai language we find the word ‘sai’ which has relationship to the above mentioned Hunnish expression.[40] The Chagatai language contains many words, which can be found in archaic Mongol. According to the etymological dictionary the word ‘milk’ in the Hungarian language is an Iranian loan-word, and comes from the ancient Iranic verb ‘dhayati’, which means ‘sucking’. It is also associated with the word for nurse, as the nurse and breast milk are closely linked. The Mongolian data also shows a similar agreement, as
the word ‘number’ means ‘milking’ and ‘full’ means ‘twice suckled lamb’. I am not a linguist, but because of the high degree of similarity, I believe that both the Iranian and Mongolian forms may be related to the Hungarian, which means that this word also goes back to a common source, i.e. the Huns. This is all the plausible, because all animal names, and milk-related terms are from the Eurasian steppe world, and are tightly connected to the Huns.


Buttermilk
The etymological dictionary considers the Hungraian word for ‘buttermilk’ as an ancient Chuvas loanword, in the form ‘*irago’ as the earliest variant. In Uchiraltu’s text we can find a form of Chinese dairy products as 'lao'. Katalin Csornai found that this word may be of Hunnish origin, too, because the Chinese people did not consume dairy products at that time; its spread has been observed only in the last few years and are mainly consumed as fermented milky products. In the past the milky products had been mainly consumed by the steppe peoples. We know from the ethnographic observations and the historical records regarding the steppe peoples that the sour milk products were very popular; nevertheless, fresh milk was only drunk by children, the elderly, and the spiritual leaders. Returning to the word for buttermilk, Gábor Bálint de Szentkatolna considered it related to the Mongolian ‘airag’[41], — which is a fermented milk churn — due to morphological and semantic reasons. Later, György Kara established a relation between the Hungarian word ‘író’ or buttermilk and the Mongolian ‘agurag’, ‘uurag’. In my view Szentkatolnai’s research is more accurate, because the word indicates a product that must be a fermented one.


Bű or magic
The words ‘bű’ (‘magic’) and ‘báj’ (‘charm’) indicate some ancient healing methods. Not only the word but the whole Eurasian healing process survived in the vast area that was once inhabited by the Huns; its variants can be still studied in the Central Asian and Hungarian intellectual culture, even in folk medicine. ‘Bű’ has parallels with the Turkic and Mongolian word ‘böge’, which means wizard, but it also designates the old natural religion, i.e. shamanism.[42] This ancient belief in Tibet is called ‘bön’ (‘bon’ in the Western literature). The most western member if this word group is the Hungarian ‘bű’, which according to the academician Arnold Ipolyi originally meant ‘spell’.[43] The Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary gives the following explanation: 'Such an enticement that enchants us in a secret, wonderous was. It is such an amiable quality of somebody or something, which induces affection, coupled with admiration and attracts to itself’.[44]

All this indicates that in the entire Eurasian region there was a natural ancient belief, which was the religion of the Scythians and the Huns, and this was called ‘spell’. Some researchers agree that the magic of faith also appeared in the ancient Chinese civilization; sources often refer to magical women, the ‘wu’. Maspero, Uchiraltu, MacKenzie and others claim based on ancient Chinese sources that not only the Chinese word ‘wu’, but the whole healing process is derived from the steppe peoples.[45] The word ‘bű’ is considered of Old Turkic origin with the meaning 'sorcery’, ‘witchcraft'. The Czuczor-Fogarasi dictionary defines ‘bű’ and ‘báj’ as two words originating from a common source, and the two academic linguists related these two words to the word ‘bölcs’ (‘wise’), meaning ‘adept at understanding mysterious, magical things’.[46] Regarding the word ‘báj’ the Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary defines it as of Old Turkic origin, meaning magic.[47]


LITERATURE
ALTAD, Damba: 2003 Hunud bolon mongol. (Huns and Hungarians) Höhhot: Belső-Mongóliai Népi Kiadó
BAJANBATU: 1985 Mongolin böögijn sasin. (The Mongolian Shamanism) Höhhot: Belső-Mongóliai Népi Kiadó
BÁLINT, Gábor: 1877 Párhuzam a mongol és magyar nyelv terén. (Parallels between the Mongols and Hungarians) Budapest: Hornyánszky
BANZAROV, Dordzs: 1980 The Black faith, or Shamanism among the Mongols. In: Mongolian Studies Vol. 6.
BARÁTHOSI, Balogh Benedek: 2001 A hunok három világbirodalma. (The Three Empires of the Huns.) Magyar Ház, Budapest
BATSZAJHAN, Zagd: 2002 Hunnu. (Huns) Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Állami Egyetem
BENKŐ, Lóránd: 1976 TESZ. Történeti Etimológiai Szótár. III. (Hungarian Historical Etymological Dictionary) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó
CZUCZOR, Gergely–FOGARASI, János (2003): A magyar nyelv szótára. (The Dictionary of the Hungarian language) CD kiadás, Arcanum kiadó, Budapest
CLAUSON, Gerald: 1972 An Etimological dictionary of Pre-thirteenth century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press
DE GROOT, J.J M.: 2006. Hunok és kínaiak. A hunok története a Kr.sz. előtti évszázadokban –
kínai források alapján. (Huns and Chinese. History of the Huns before Christ – ccording to the Chinese sources) Raspensa, Budapest.
DOBREV, Ivan: 2005 Zlatnoto sikrovise na bilgarskite hanove ot Atila do Simeon. Riva, Sofi
DOERFER, Gerard: 1973. Zur Sprache der Hunnen. In: CAJ. 1-50. DU, Yaxiong – HORVÁTH, Izabella: 2000 A hunok legkorábbi története. Shi Ji 110. könyvének fordítása. (The earliest history of the Huns, Translation of Shi Ji) Budapest: Magyar Ház
DULAM, Bum-Ocsir: 2002. Mongol bööni zan ujl. (The ceremony of the Mongolian Shamans) Ulaanbaatar: Mönhijn useg
FOGARASI, János: 1862. A székely népköltészetről. (Ont he Szekely folk poetry) In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények. Budapest
GYŐRFFY, György: 1986 A magyarok elődeiről és a honfoglalásról. (About the ancient Hungarians and the conquest) Budapest: Szépirodalmi Kiadó
GYŐRFFY, György: 1993. Krónikáink és magyar őstörténet. Régi kérdések, új válaszok. (Chronicles and ancient Hungarian history. Old questions and new answers.) Balassi Kiadó, Budapest
HORVÁTH, Izabella: 2007 Uygur Scholars’s significiant discovery. In: Eurasian Studies. 79. 59- 67.
IPOLYI, Arnold: 1854. Magyar Mythologia. Heckenast Gusztáv. Pest.
LIGETI, Lajos (ford): 1962 A mongolok titkos története. (The Secret History of the Mongols) Gondolat, Budapest.
LIGETI, Lajos (szerk.): 1986 A magyarság őstörténete. (The ancient History of the Hungarians) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
LOEVWE, Michael–TWITCHETT, Denis (eds.): 1986 The Cambridge History of China. Chin and Han Empires. Vol. I. Cambridge University Press, London, New York, Melbourne.
MARCANTONIO, Angela: 2006.Az uráli nyelvcsalád. (The Uralic Family Tree) Magyar Ház, Budapest
MASPERO, Henri: 1978 Az ókori Kína. (The ancient China) Gondolat, Budapest.
NÉMETH, Gyula (ed.): 1986 Attila és hunjai. (Attila and His Huns) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
NÉMETH, Gyula: 1991 A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. (Creation of the Hungarian tribes)
Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest.
POLONYI, Péter: 1986 Kína. (China) Panoráma útikönyvek sorozat. Budapest.
PUSZTAY, János: 1977 Az „ugor-török háború” után. Fejezetek a magyar nyelvhasonlítás történetéből. (After the Ugrian-Turkic war) Magvető Kiadó, Budapest.
PRITSAK, Omeljan: 1954. Kultur und Schrache der Hunnen. In: Festschrift Dmytro Chyzhewskiy zum 60. Geburstag. Berlin, Harrasowitz, 239-249.
PRUSEK: 1971 Chinese statelets and the Northern Barbarian in the Period 1400-300 BC. Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.
PULLEYBLANK: (1962): „The Hsiung-nu Language”. In: Asia Major, n.s. 9. 239–265.
SCHÖNIG, Claus: 2006 Turko-Mongolic relations. 403-420. In: The Mongolic languages. Edited by Juha Janhunen. Routledge, London and New York
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 1. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 52–66.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 2. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 101–109.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 3. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 53–67.
UCHIRALTU (1996): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 4. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 101–119.
UCHIRALTU (1997): Hunnu-jin keszeg üge-jin szojol szergügelde. (Néhány hun szó rekonstrukciója) 5. In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 104–120.
UCHIRALTU (2004): Hunnu kemekü üge-jin sergügelen. (A hun szó rekonstrukciója) In: Journal of Inner Mongolian University Philosophy & Social Sciences in Mongolian. Hohhot, China. 63–69.
YAMADA, Nobuo (1989): The formation of the Hsiung-nu nomadic state. The case of Hsiung- nu. In: Historical studies of nomadic peoples in North-Asia. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo. 295–304.
WU, Mu: 2005 Xiongnu shi yanjiu (The Study of Hun’s History). Beijing. Minority Press
VÁMBÉRY, Ármin: 1870 Magyar és török-tatár szóegyezések. (Hungarian and Turk-Tatar related words) In: Nyelvtudományi Közlemények. 8. 109-190.


by Borbála Obrusánszky

January-March 2011
JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES
Volume III., Issue 1.

http://www.federatio.org/joes.html

Ottoman
07-13-2011, 04:47 AM
We've been through this before. I have never denied that part of his ancestry may be from somewhere outside of Macedonia. I don't ignore that fact they way you do with all other facts.

You don't even know about Turkish history, and you're going to blabber on about Slavic history? Don't waste my time 'mate'. Few people in the Slavic-speaking world consider the nations that make up this group as kindred in the 'ethnic' sense. You have no idea, and the fact that you impulsively cited a wikipedia article further corroborates your ignorance.

Ottoman, you're quickly becoming that which everybody here thinks you are. Is this you or your multiple personality posting?

Slavic people are peoples who speak a Slavic language, why are you denying this?

The Slavic languages (also called Slavonic languages), a group of closely related languages of the Slavic peoples and a subgroup of Indo-European languages, have speakers in most of Eastern Europe, in much of the Balkans, in parts of Central Europe, and in the northern part of Asia.

Ottoman
07-13-2011, 04:55 AM
Im Turkic, you are Slavic and Voltron is Hellenic, the best way to describe ourselves, in any case you disagree you might have a ID crisis.

Delodephius
07-13-2011, 05:36 AM
Slavic is a linguistic term, not an ethnic or national one (there are no such ethnicities or nationalities, there are only Slavic languages). Furthermore, feeling of ethnic or national identity is not universal but only characteristic to certain personality types while it is irrelevant to other. To some people it is a key component of their individual identity, while to others, like myself, ethnic or national identity is a mere formality to suffer, more of a nuisance actually. An extroverted person identifies with the community he/she lives in, an introverted person with his/her own thoughts and experiences that formed him/her. Both types are equally present in the world, if you were thinking the later are only found in mental institutions, because that is the most common bias extroverts have mind you. Many great people in this world were introverts simply because they didn't care what the rest of the world thought, and they identified with themselves in privacy, while acting as extroverts while speaking to the masses. For example, I think that to Alexander the Great being a Macedonian was a nuisance, but he nonetheless used the power it gave him to control and order the Macedonian people to help him achieve his own introverted goals, i.e. to change the meaning of Macedonian into something more than "barbarian. Many introverts if they take on some wider and more abstract identity will usually try to either alienate themselves from it or try to change the definition of that identity, usually trying to eliminate the negative connotations that identity might carry, depending on their knowledge and skill, either through ignoring the negative or doing something positive to overshadow the negative. This later I think was what Alexander did.

Onur
07-13-2011, 06:58 AM
Delodephius, this is especially for you. Some facts, rather then your theories about how English people has been born, who were the first settlers in in there, what was their beliefs, their language and script and finally how they became christians in to the hands of Frankish Romans;



The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a consequence of the migration of Germanic peoples from continental Germania during the Early Middle Ages, after the demise of Roman rule in the 5th century. These peoples are traditionally divided into Angles, Saxons and Jutes, but historical and archaeological research conducted in the early 20th century suggests that a wide range of Germanic peoples from the North Sea coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, and Jutland may have moved to Britain in this era, including Frisians and Franks. In their new homeland, they consolidated into unified Germanic identities through war and other forms of social interaction.

In the late sixth century the king of Kent was a prominent lord in the south; in the seventh century the rulers of Northumbria and Wessex were powerful; for a brief period around the year 616, East Anglia was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, and its king Raedwald was Bretwalda (overlord of the Anglo-Saxons kingdoms). In the eighth century Mercia achieved hegemony over the other surviving kingdoms. Successive kings of Wessex (and especially Ćthelstan) progressively reinforced the English unitary state, until, with the simultaneous dissolution of Mercia and submission of Northumbria upon Edgar's succession in 959, the old constituent kingdoms in effect became consolidated into one.


YouTube - &#x202a;Secrets of the Dark Ages 1/3&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMElJv1fqdM)

YouTube - &#x202a;Secrets of the Dark Ages 2/3&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DVvhZbkzMs)

YouTube - &#x202a;Secrets of the Dark Ages 3/3&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjr8e-FG1Rw)

Delodephius
07-13-2011, 07:30 AM
Onur, why do you think I don't know all that? Yes those are facts. I am well aware of them. I don't deny or ignore them. They are all in place. But history is much complicated than that, little grasshopper. The theory is that a Germanic speaking-people lived in Britain before another Germanic people (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) came in the 5-6th century AD.

http://www.proto-english.org/a1.html

Estimation is that Britain had some 4 million inhabitants in AD 410. At least 2.7 million lived east of the Pennines. We know that Anglo-Saxons were invited in Britain as 'mercenaries' even before the fall of the Roman Empire. And that they were still coming 150 years later. In reality, the total migration represented probably no more than 35.000 up to 50.000 men, women and children, although the majority must have been young men. The Anglo-Saxons came over 4 or 5 generations.

Therefore, we must divide the total by 4 or 5 to have a more precise idea about the real percentage of the Anglo-Saxons part of the local population at any time during that period. The equation (50.000 / 4 = 12.500 Anglo-Saxons per generation. 2.700.000 locals / 12.500 A-S *100=0,46%) gives us a continuous max. between 0,25% up to 0,46%. This percentage can be compared with the 'classic' 0,5-1,5 % percentage for professional soldiers.

So, the Anglo-Saxons must have represented no more than half of the professional soldier quantity in Britain...

Onur
07-13-2011, 08:13 AM
Interesting documentary about the Huns, Vandals and their Arian church in northern Africa who has been falsely described as "the seeds of the devil" by the Romans.

YouTube - &#x202a;The End of the World 1/4&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejzaVuz_Lo)

YouTube - &#x202a;The End of the World 2/4&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE4u19_jMbA)

YouTube - &#x202a;The End of the World 3/4&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubW2TtvSid8)

YouTube - &#x202a;The End of the World 4/4&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHs1gMp9A7U)


This is actually a proof of how powerful the Roman propaganda was and how it effects us even today. The word "vandalism" exists in all languages in the world today but in fact, the Vandals themselves wasn't more "vandal" than Romans at all.

Delodephius
07-13-2011, 08:41 AM
Do you believe that when studying history one should take sides?

Soldier of Macedon
07-13-2011, 09:13 AM
Im Turkic, you are Slavic and Voltron is Hellenic, the best way to describe ourselves, in any case you disagree you might have a ID crisis.
Actually, you're banned, I am still here, and your multiple personality named Voltron is hanging on by a deluded thread. The only person that has/had an identity crisis here was yourself.

Onur
07-13-2011, 09:56 AM
Do you believe that when studying history one should take sides?

The thing here is; while you are reading or studying something, you are actually taking someone`s side even against your own desire. That`s why we have a method called comparative history.

Delodephius
07-13-2011, 10:57 AM
The thing here is; while you are reading or studying something, you are actually taking someone`s side even against your own desire. That`s why we have a method called comparative history.
Yes, that's basic. I was talking about something else, like why do you hate Romans and Westerners in general?

Soldier of Macedon
07-13-2011, 06:31 PM
Onur - Slovak does make a point here, as you often criticise western Europeans, irrespective of the period of time in question. Would be interested in your answer. You two are like complete opposites - have you discussed what Slovak's thoughts are with regard to Attila? Bound for more debate no doubt. My opinion probably rests somewehere in the middle (with regard to Attila).

Onur
07-14-2011, 07:36 AM
I don't hate western Europeans and i absolutely have no problem with ordinary western Europeans. I just don't like the classical western European dogmas and ideologies which was invented during Roman era with their church`s false propaganda and these dogmas are still represented today by Vatican, European Union, Bilderberg group (the inventors of today`s EU) and their eurocrats. I don't like their egoistic, imperialistic, ethnocentric ideologies either, which based on despise everything and everyone who doesn't belong them or who doesn't serve them within their ideological sphere. Btw, i am not alone on this or i am not like that just because i am Turkish. If you noticed, all the sources i wrote here are from western sources again. I am also ideologically closer to the eurosceptics and patriots in western Europe who are also against to the dogmas of Brussels. I am closer to them ideologically even tough they have some anti-Turkish thoughts. I am talking about reasonable patriots in western Europe like Madame Le Pen, not the fascist idiots like in Austria, Holland, Germany. I find them closer to the eurocrats of Brussels.


Yes, in that sense, me and Mr. Slovak can be considered as complete opposites. He considers himself European citizen, i believe nations and we have other contradictions like that. But this is not a problem for me, in fact, it`s useful to involve in an ideological clash with someone who are completely opposite to you.


I have no idea whats his opinion about Attila but i gotta remind you that Attila is an inspiring leader for several nations like Hungary and Turkey. He is also the biggest conqueror along with Alexander since he subjugated vast territories from the great wall of China to the Paris, France, Morea to the south, Siberia to the north. Also he was the one who defeated both eastern and western Romans.

Delodephius
07-14-2011, 11:18 AM
There is a difference between not liking something and investing emotions into that dislike.

What I hate is that I have drawn myself into a debate with Onur. Through my stupidity and negligence and most of all lack of patience and control I allowed myself to respond to Onur's posts, something I curse myself for. I have sunk so low I am ashamed of it and I see my actions here as a failure. I wish I have just kept my mouth shut the first time I found something in his posts that I disagree with and just walked away. Instead I have caused Onur to draw conclusions about me and what he thinks I believe in, which I know are untrue, yet I lack the skill to respond to that properly. So with what dignity I have left I will restrain myself the best I can to ever respond to one of his posts again, but lord knows I tried before. However, due to major changes going in my life right now I am not surprised I lost focus before, yet I have hopes that from what I have experienced in these last few weeks and what awaits me for the months to come, I'll have enough strength to restrain myself this time and thus keep the promise I made here.

Onur
07-14-2011, 11:45 AM
Ehmm, you confused me Mr. Slovak. I don't know what kind of conclusion i should draw from your response.

Maybe you think like you lack skills to respond properly to me but you make me kinda sad with your response above. Whats so bad about involving a discussion with me? Yes, i might be a pain in the ass sometimes if i debate something with someone but i am no evil!!!

Delodephius
07-14-2011, 12:12 PM
Discussing with you is just not a worthwhile investment of time and effort. There is nothing interesting that you offer. To me your posts are just things that need to be corrected, and doing that is not something I like doing. I hate pointing out people's mistakes, and I hate myself when I do it nonetheless.

"To be just an average historian one first has to be a brilliant philosopher." I coined that. To me philosophy, particularly ethics, are the most important thing in life. History comes after that, and after languages. Without having advanced knowledge of everything else one should study or teach history only as a hobby and only with great scepticism. I do not take my knowledge of history seriously enough to discuss it with someone who forces me to question the validity of that knowledge. It is just not worth the effort I am willing to invest.

Onur
07-14-2011, 01:17 PM
You make me feel same towards you too since you were never able to give me proper answer or never asked a proper question either. It`s clear that you are not in the forum to discuss your theories but you only interest to spread it.

So, we are back to square one. From now on, ignore me as you said b4. I already asked you to do that but you couldn't. For me, it`s just doesn't worth to speak with you either.

Soldier of Macedon
07-14-2011, 05:51 PM
Ok, so we're all friends again now? Lol.

Delodephius
07-14-2011, 06:32 PM
I learn things on my own, not through debates. And once I learn them I preach. That is how I do things. I don't have the talent to do it any other way.

I have no enemies, SoM. :-)

Delodephius
08-02-2011, 03:41 PM
I made a new video, this time a sample of Old Saxon (Old Low German) from mid 9th century AD.

&#x202a;Heliand, Lord's Prayer - Old Saxon&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8H9NIhd92Y)

Onur
08-13-2011, 05:47 PM
This is a documentary about pre-christianity beliefs of the Europeans, mainly Germanic people. Animism, shamanism and paganism in general;


Episode 1 | Sexy Beasts
Looks back to a time before sex was taboo, when humans saw themselves as an integral part of the natural world.

Through history and prehistory, the representations of the ancient gods and traditions followed by pagans have been marred by propaganda from other religious groups eager to rein in those they defined as 'wild barbarians'. In truth, the word pagan is a Roman term meaning 'country folk', and the general concept of paganism is of oneness with nature and a quest to fully understand the world around us.

Though historical accounts lead us to images of stone dildo-wielding women flashing their genitals at cattle, chieftains having sex with horses before slaughtering them and whipping sessions in mixed saunas, the underlying theme is of human similarity with animals and nature. Where modern religion aims to emphasise the difference between humans and the world around us, portraying sexuality as taboo, the ancient pagan perspective blurs these boundaries and explores all the elements of the world on equal terms.;
Pagans - Sexy Beasts 1/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Ebr1HGidY)
Pagans - Sexy Beasts 2/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9EYl7DCzpQ)
Pagans - Sexy Beasts 3/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4BwCQCdrZM)




Episode 2 | Magic Moments
Today magic is used as a form of entertainment. It still thrills us to see an apparently impossible phenomenon happen before our eyes. Reaching back through to prehistoric times, the pagan magicians, who could conjure material from nothing or predict the future, would almost certainly have been held in the highest regard.

They would not have been tricksters like the conjurers of today. In historic and prehistoric times, it would have taken great knowledge to understand the seasons, through their relationship to solstice. Predicting this yearly cycle would have been crucial to the agricultural societies of the time - a science to those who understood, but magic to those who didn't.

The fine art of producing the first bronze artefacts would also have been greatly respected. The ability to produce a knife from an ore is still magical, even though we now understand the chemistry. As for drug-induced shamans talking to the spirits, they must have appeared exceptionally powerful.;
Pagans - Magic Moments 1/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uW_14Z1IAU)
Pagans - Magic Moments 2/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EskZuz9auNQ)
Pagans - Magic Moments 3/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=powP_ybB8NY)




Episode 3 | Band of Brothers
According to Roman records, the Iron Age Celtic peoples of Britain consisted of war-like tribes - but this could well be propaganda of the age. In 43 AD, as now, invaders found ways of justifying their subjugation of the native people whose country they colonised and whose land they took. Whatever the reality, the image of rough, heavy-drinking hooligans and evil barbarians is what we have been left with.

Pagan society in the Iron Age was certainly based on a strong system of tribal groups controlling different parts of the country, each with its own warrior class. However the accusations of barbarism could equally be a stereotyped reaction against these 'uncivilised' cultures.

The truth is that, though bands of fighting men may well have dominated much of society, the basis of a proto-democracy was also in action. Community leaders had to demonstrate that they were worthy of the role, and some needed to canvass support from surrounding groups to hold power. The economy relied heavily on well-established trade routes and, for the pagan Britons of the time, the system worked fine before the Empire stepped in.;
Pagans - Band of Brothers 1/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bPt81xa-iI)
Pagans - Band of Brothers 2/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHHeVBBXWgk)
Pagans - Band of Brothers 3/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8gzwMH9i2w)




Episode 4 | Sacred Landscape
A strong pagan belief is that the natural world is embedded in all of us. One method of defining the landscape is by building monuments. The construction of tombs at the boundaries of territory illustrates to outsiders that the area is rightfully yours, since it belonged to your ancestors. A succession of ritual monuments known throughout prehistoric Europe, from wooden trackways to henges (stone or wooden circles), suggest the strong influence of altering the landscape as a way of defining territory within the pagan belief system.

So what happens when people cannot lay claim to their territory by marking it with the graves or other signs that their ancestors lived there? In 874 AD Viking leader Ingolfur Arnarson threw two lengths of timber into the sea and swore that he would settle where they came ashore. They landed at the site of present day Reykjavik in Iceland. At the time the island had virtually no links with any past society, but this last new pagan European society survived because its members lived with the natural world rather than fighting against the harsh terrain. By 940 Iceland witnessed the first parliament of leaders in a pagan general assembly at a time when the rest of Europe was gradually becoming Christian.;
Pagans - Sacred Landscape 1/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pm0ff0tIfg)
Pagans - Sacred Landscape 2/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oyGApV6bkI)
Pagans - Sacred Landscape 3/3 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9LSqjvYywA)

Onur
09-28-2011, 06:22 PM
Terry Jones' Barbarians, "The End of the World";
Around 400 AD, two Barbarian babies were born. One would grow up to become the most feared of all - Attila the Hun. The other, Geiseric, led the Vandals whom history has cast as destroyers. Jones claims that Roman civilization wasn't destroyed by the invasion of these tribes, but by the loss of the North African tax base. He sees the common view of Rome and "Barbarians" as a result of the Roman Catholic Church popularizing the Roman version of the truth.

The End of the World 1/4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZejzaVuz_Lo)

The End of the World 2/4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE4u19_jMbA)

The End of the World 3/4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubW2TtvSid8)

The End of the World 4/4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHs1gMp9A7U)