Do you understand now why I don't buy the Scytho-Irano hypothesis as the only truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
Do you understand now why I don't buy the Scytho-Irano hypothesis as the only truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
No I don't because it doesn't need the Scythians beeing Turkic just so that the Scythians play a role in the appearance of Turkic tribes. Proto_Indo Europeans and their language is also the result of proto agricultural people merging with H&G. Without these two elements Proto Indo European wouldn't exist. But saying any of these two elements is Indo European is incorrect like saying your father or mother is also the same person as you. Just because you came to existence out of the merge of your mother's and father's dna that doesn't make any of your parents to the same person like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Another example.
Just like it is an proto Mesopotamian/Southwest Iranian element( Elamites) what makes Persians what they are. Without this Elamite element (Even the traditional Persian long robe is adopted from Elamites) Persians wouldn't exist. But does that make Elamites, Persians?
So you would consider this man as mixture of Iranian and Mongol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...9&d=1421604524
___
If modern day Iranians are more Elamite than IE, why Iranians speak an IE language?
Not clear from that one sculpture, genetics is also very important when it comes to West and East Eurasian division. However lookwise he is more Caucasoid looking but with East Eurasian mixture. He looks archaic for an Eurasian anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Quote:
If modern day Iranians are more Elamite than IE, why Iranians speak an IE language?
Who wrote modern Persians are more Elamite than Proto Iranic? You are sometimes taking my statements out of context. I worte any group of Indo European people mixed with the local groups and created their own identity. Scandinavians are Proto_Germanic in connection with pre Indo European Nordic tribes.
Persians evolved out of Proto Indo_iranians merging with Elamites. This Elamite element might be around ~40% but it was significant in the forming of Persians and since the Persians speak an Indo Iranian language, they are regarded as Indo European. if some modern Turkic groups would have spoken the language of their Iranic ancestors instead the language of their Altaic, we would now call them Indo_Iranians with varying Altaic admixture. But they speak Turkic which in itself is Altaic but has heavy Iranic elements, therefore it is something new which evolved out of two other elements.
The Iranic people were widely spread around 500 BC:
Attachment 54420
Yuezhe(Kushans) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
That's a figure from relevant period, depicting Yuezhi
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/rogda...121477_600.jpg
that map is false. But, yes Iranic people were very widespread during that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
Maybe bad example. This was actually the reconstruction of Kennewick man, a standard native American by DNA, but looks very Eurasian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
The first part of your statement makes very much sense. Some posts before you wrote that without Iranic elements, there is no Turkic people, and that early Iranic element is what makes Turkic tribes what they are and sets them apart from Mongols. Do you have any anthropology or aDNA data backing up this suggestion? Maybe some genealogical data or any other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demhat
I have been in contact with established linguists and linguistic studying people for long time and what I hear dfrom all of them is, the Iranic element in Turkic languages is so strong, so heavy that there are even some grammatical charecteristics which are typical iranic rather than Altaic, and if some element in a language is so strong that it already reached the grammer, this must be very strong part o the ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
Additional to that, if an "foreign" element is found in all modern people of the same group, this elements must be a substantial part of their ethnogesis.
The Iranic element is not just present in some Turkic groups while absent in other, it is a substantial part in all Turkic groups, which speaks for this beeing a founding element among the emerging of Turkic tribes.
Or is there any Turkic group which does not show Iranic, ethno_cultural and at least some genetic signature? I don't know of any.
Than in the Turkic tongues there are strong Iranic charecteristics, which can't simply be explained with loans, but as part of the first proto Turks. For example there are linguists who are pretty convinced that words like "Aksham" for night are actually East Iranic derived.
The word for I, "ben" which is substantial part of the Turkish language derives from a proto form "men" which in itself is definitely Iranic and derives from the root "men" which originally means "me" and became "I" in some Iranic tongues such as Persian which lost the Casus Obliquus. Than there is the "me" put on words in form of denial. Which is also typical Middle iranic grammatically. I can give example from some Kurdish dialects, were "me" is used as denial. "mece" , what means don't go, Turkish gitme "don't go". Middle Persian and I think modern Persian does also have this characteristic.
There are far more examples. This is why I say Iranic is substantial part of the Turkic ethnogenesis, and without an Iranic element Turkic wouldn't be existing as it is. And thats the case for Proto Turkic which is basically something in between Iranic and Mongolian.