Talk:Turan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Iran Turan is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Central Asia Turan is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Archive
Archives

Quote: "Y-chromosome mtDNA" This seems like a typo. Either "Y-chromosome DNA" or "mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)" should be here. Since a "forefather" is mentioned, it probably is the first possibility, but let the others check it.

Contents

[edit] Turanian theory vs IE theory

The IE linguistic theory can be compared to the geocentric (Sun going around the Earth) flat Earth belief held during the Middle Ages. It's really a matter of perspective: of course, if one is standing anywhere on the Earth, it does seem like the Sun is going around the Earth, and the Earth does seem relatively flat. However, more thorough observations have revealed that in fact the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Earth is really a globe. So we see that depending on one's point of view, the interpretation of reality may be completely misleading with respect to the nature of reality. Similarly, although it appears that the IE linguistic theory is correct in some cases and under certain conditions, but if one expands the observation paramaters, we see that the IE theory or theories fail to provide rational explanations for certain phenomena, thereby generating nonsense like the unsubstantiated postulate that the Sumerians were an isolated group, and the illogical assumption that even a significantly high number of phonetically and semantically related lexical cognates between and among various IE and non-IE languages are merely the product of coincidence because they do not conform to the IE linguistic theory. In other words, if the facts don't fit the theory, throw out the facts.

If we are going to compare the Indo-European theory and Turanian theory with scientific paradigms, they are rather like evolutionism and creationism respectively. This comparison is not accidental and superficial since the Indo-European theory and the theory of evolution arose in the same intellectual environment and inspired one another (cf. August Schleicher). Both theories realised that the existing species evolved gradually from common ancestors that had a different appearance and specialisation in comparison with their descendants. Creationism and Turanism, on the other hand, project the species of today back on a distant past. Creationists promote their so-called theory as a change of paradigm, but it is in fact a regression to an earlier state in the history of science. Similarly, Turanism is not a renewal, but a regression to an early pre-19th-century state of scholarship characterised by unmethodological arbitrariness and a belief in long-range continuity. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The Turanist research I referred to clearly postulates the thesis of convergence and hybridization as the process by which all Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups evolved, with the Sumerian and related Near Eastern peoples playing a significant role: they were the catalysts which generated the process of ethnolinguistic convergence and hybridization which led to the formation of the IE, Uralic, and Altaic groups. This Turanian theory does go far back in time, much further that IE theory, and granted, it still requires a lot of research, but it is most certainly not a regression, in fact, it seeks to go beyond the constraints of IE theory. There isn't anything remotely like creationism involved in this Turanian theory --Hunmagyar 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
First, I do not understand why you need to use the word "Turan" for your purpose. It is so loaded by ethnocentrism and racist prejudices that it does not fit into a scholarly discourse. It is like saying "Aryan" instead of "Indo-European" (this comparison is not accidental either, since Turan and Aryan have been formed in reciprocal opposition both in Iranian and European ethnic ideology). I am confident that you do not share any such prejudices yourself, but the word presupposes a certain continuity between Proto-Turan and its alleged descendants, which is potentially racist.
I guess the use of the terms Turan and Turanian in the context of the research I am referring to is just a convenience, for lack of a better term. Of course, if a more suitable one is found, we could do away with these somewhat misinterpreted terms, although they don't carry the same racist connotation as the term Aryan. The term Ural-Altaic is another possibility, although this one is also questioned, however, the aim of Turanist research is to demonstrate the possible linkages between the Uralic and Altaic groups, as well as the possible relationship between the Ural-Altaic and Sumerian languages. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
However, what is really problematic about the Turanian theory is that it tries to explain too much with a too simple model. In that aspect it is similar to creationism, according to which one single force has made everything in one instance (overlooking the fact that it thereby reduces the infinite omnipotence of God). However, I think you are right in introducing the important concepts of convergence and hybridisation into the prehistory of the Indo-European and Ural language families and the Altaic sprachbund. Yet, I do not think that we can unearth one single, unilineary force behind all these various ethnolinguistic constructions. One shall not underestimate the linguistic multiplicity of the prehistoric era and the variety of situations in which the advance of the large language families may have taken place. Enkyklios 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The Turanian theory is still in an early stage of development (as I previously mentioned, it's more a case of scientific research being held back by ideological and political factors). It proposes a model of the ethnogenesis of the Eurasian language groups based on a multidisciplinary approach integrating comparative linguistics, archeology, anthropology, ethnology, and other fields which can shed light on the ancient history of the regions and peoples concerned. Based on the correlation of the various evidence obtained so far, the model postulates that the ancient Near Eastern ethnolinguistic group to which the Sumerians belonged, and which may have evolved at least in part through a process of convergence generated by Sumerian influence, has also exerted a significant influence on the development of the other Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups, over a period from approximately 5000 BC to about 2000 BC. In the opinion of many researchers, some of which I have referred to, there is sufficient evidence to justify further research in this direction. Of course, any scientific research can be misused for ideological or political purposes, but that is not a valid reason to dismiss such research. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence indicating that the Sumerians were not an isolated ethnolinguistic group and there are several reasons which explain their demographic expansion and migrations. The Sumerians were part of an ethnolinguistic group which included the Hatti of Eastern Anatolia, the Hurrians and Subareans of Northern Mesopotamia, and the Kassites and Elamites of Western Iran, among others (Götz, p. 881-2). The Sumerians themselves are thought to have come from Northern Mesopotamia (Götz, p. 701). The development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent led to an unprecedented demographic and economic growth which generated several migratory and colonizing waves originating from the Near Eastern, starting around 6000 BC and continuing for several millennia (Götz, p.815). Artifacts (3000 BC) with Sumerian pictographs were found in the Carpathian Basin (Götz, p.739), Sumerian groups also reached Turkmenistan by 5000 BC (Götz, p.819). After the Akkadian take-over of Mesopotamia in 2455 BC, many Sumerians were forced to flee to neighbouring regions (Götz, p.786).

I do not know if Sumerian is an isolated language or not. Given that logically the number of isolated languages was greater in the Neolithic before the great empires of both sedentary agriculturalists and mounted nomads led to a linguistic convergence ousting the languages of the subject ethnicities. In the Mesolithic era, man lived in small crowds communicating over short distances with a limited range of people; Europe may have had hundred language families at that time (now it has only four: Baskic, IE, Uralic and Turkic). Of course, one cannot exclude that Sumerian did in fact belong to a larger language family. It is simply outside the range of scholarship. At any rate, you cannot use material culture as a testimony of ethnic and linguistic identity. The possible presence of Mesopotamian artefacts in Europe and Central Asia (please cite another source than your idol Götz who seems to be very biased in favour of Turanism!) would not prove that Sumerian-speaking people migrated into those areas. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is therefore incorrect to assume that all the ancient peoples inhabiting Iran were Indo-European. Indo-Europeanists have a tendency to ignore that a large number of words claimed to be of IE origin are in fact of non-IE origin, and this has lead to the incorrect identification of ancient peoples as IE based on incorrect linguistic theory. One such example is the word meaning man or lord in various IE languages - vir (latin), wer (Anglo-Saxon), ir- (as in Iran), ar- (as in Aryan) which is itself of non-IE origin: its roots are in the Sumerian word ur meaning man (Götz, p.556) from which the Hungarian word ur (lord) is also derived. The example of the Medes is also noteworthy: according to the Wikipedia article on the Medes, "An Assyrian military report from 800 BC lists 28 names of Mede chiefs, but only one of these is positively identified as Iranian. A second report from c. 700 BC lists 26 names; of these, 5 seem to be Iranian, the others are not". Most of the claims regarding the IE identity of the Scythians and Parthians are also based on the supposed IE etymology of personal names. Based on such evidence, the claims that the Medes, Parthians, Sakas, Scythians and Sarmatians were originally IE are therefore highly questionable.

Webmaster - hunmagyar.org

I will not claim that all people inhabiting ancient Iran were necessarily Indo-European. They were probably not at first, but now most of them are, even though almost a third of the population speak a Turkic language (Azeri and Turkmen) if one is going to believe the figures given in the wikipedia article on Iran. As a matter of fact, I would say that the linguistic multiplicity of prehistoric Iran was the very reason of the success of Iranian in establishing itself as the natural means of communication in Iran, leading to an increasing Iranisation of the area between the Indus and the Tigris (which the figures given in the wikipedia article on the Medes would indicate very clearly, if one is allowed to infer that people carrying non-Iranian names spoke a non-Iranian language as well). A similar situation probably played a role in the Indo-Europeanisation of Bronze Age Europe.[1]
Götz's derivation of Latin vir / OEng. wer "man" and Indo-Iranian ārya- "noble, Aryan" from Sumerian ur "man" is a good example of the arbitrariness of the Turanic theory. Indo-Iranian has a noun which is more readily compared with vir, namely vīra- "hero". In other words, ur gives both vīra- and ārya- in Indo-Iranian. It is of course conceivable (Latin cadentia gives both cadence and chance in English), but makes the burden of proof even higher on behalf of Turanists. Why is u replaced by wi or wī in some IE languages? Why is it replaced by a or ā in other languages? Are these replacements conditioned or arbitrary? And if they are arbitrary, why not derive Greek anthrōpos or even English man from Sumerian ur? As soon as you give up the fundamental principles of comparative linguistics, anything goes and nothing matters. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Götz did follow the fundamental principles of phonetic and semantic correlation, so he did not try to derive Greek anthrōpos or even English man from Sumerian ur. He proposes several possible explanations for the linguistic phenomena which the rigidity of the IE sound-change theory cannot account for: since many words in IE languages are of non-IE origin, they may not necessarily follow the prescribed IE sound-change patterns. Also, phonetic variants from a common root may not only reflect variations in time, but be a result of the need to produce and differentiate nuanced meanings of a basic concept (man, lord, noble, etc). Therefore far from being unmethodological, Götz seeks to improve on the methodological shortcomings of the IE linguistic theory. --Hunmagyar 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My point is that if you want to compare two words from two different languages, you have to establish very carefully first that the sounds of the two do in fact correlate. Even if the two words are completely identical in form and meaning, it doesn't follow necessarily that they are also related genetically if the sounds in question do not correspond. I know it sounds rigid, but that's how scholarly linguistics works. Without this rigour, the risk of comparing superficially similar forms increases infinitely, and logically, the explanatory force of the comparison decreases not less infinitely.
You see, an r is not just an r even if it is pronounced more or less identically in two languages (which it is often not). It is part of a larger structure. It is the great achievement of 19th-century comparativ philology to realise this important fact, which made it possible to make solid comparison instead of intuitive and chaotic juxtapositions of similar words.
Exactly because the superficial similarity is insignificant and the structural identity is crucial, it is often so that related words are not similar at all. I know it may sound like an odd paradox for the layman. Eeven between closely languages like the Germanic languages, the relationship of which is readily felt by native speakers learning the different languages, cognates have often become very different indeed both in form and meaning: e.g. Dan. ['ønsg̊ə] "wish" = Eng. ['wɪʃ] or Dan. ['kʰø:ʊ] "buy" = Eng. ['tʃi:p] "cheap". Accordingly, the gap between English and Greek, which is something like 5,000 years deep, has made most cognates irrecognisable by most native speakers: e.g. Gk ['tɛsarɛs] "four" = Eng. ['fɔ:] or Gk ['çina] "goose" = Eng. ['gu:s]). One must admit that the unconcerned comparison of Ancient Sumerian and Modern Hungarian words, separated by four millennia, looks rather bold in that light. Enkyklios 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Studies of the Hungarian language have shown that it has changed relatively little over the past 1000 years in comparison to the IE languages. A Hungarian text from approx. 1000 AD written in latin characters shows an earlier form of the language which is still easily understandable today. Studies of the Sumerian language have also revealed that this language seemed to change relatively little over the millennia from which Sumerian cuneiform tablets have been deciphered. Therefore, it does not seem too bold or unconcerned to compare Sumerian and Hungarian, particularly if one takes into account their respective evolution. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, it doesn't seem impossible that vir and ur could have a common origin. According to a recent theory (I wish i could recall the reference) the IE urrheimat (or however you spell that anyway :) ) could have been in the Middle East, in the wider area of the Caucasus range. That article seemed fairly convincing too, especially in that it was very succesfull in explaining similarities between IE, Sumerian and FinoUgric languages. Early interaction could well explain that similarity as a loan from one language to the other. What I utterly fail to see is the link between Sumerian and Hungarian. If Hungarian ur is of the same origin as Sumerian ur, it is more likely than not that Hungarian acquired the word indirectly, through IE intervention. The fact is, that contact between proto-FinoUgric tribes and Sumerians, while possible, is not too likely. Even if it occured, however, it hardly means that there exists some sort of a continuum between Sumerian and Hungarian, as some would have us believe. Note, btw, two striking examples of utterly unrelated lexical similarities. English 'so', Japanese 'so'. Same form, exact same meaning. *gasp* The Japanese built the Stonehenge!! Or maybe Shogun Tokugawa was born in Derbyshire. Nahuatl 'teo', Greek 'theos'. Both mean 'god'. *gasp* The Greeks colonised all of America!! Note that the second view (Greeks colonising America) has been seriously proposed by some people. I can see, of course, that there are more similarities than that between Sumerian and Uralic languages. However, lexical similarities can be explained through indirect, or maybe even direct, borrowing, and systemic similarities need be nothing more than a coincidence. Not all aglutinating languages are related. Swahili is also aglutinating, for instance. 'Turanist' views are over-simplifications. It is fine and well to point out the shortcomings of IE theories. They are indeed numerous. But you cannot base assumptions involving languages spanning 7000 years of history and two continents worth of territory on simple observations like 'so' means the same thing in Japanese and English. (or 'ur' means *almost* the same thing in Hungarian and Sumerian) (and that is, of course, presuming that our assumptions about Sumerian pronunciation are correct). Lastly, please do note that Sumerian ur was used 7000 years ago, Hungarian ur is used today. It is quite possible that 7000 years ago, the notion of 'lord' was expressed quite differently by the speakers of what later became the Magyar tongue. And dont even think of claiming that Hungarian hasnt changed, because it has, and it has changed a lot. And I'm talking since 1000 AD, let alone 5000 BC. Druworos 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Druworos's comments are grossly misleading. This individual is falsifying and distorting my statements, and also attributes opinions to me which I have neither expressed nor do I have:

Example No. 1:
- Druworos states that I am attempting to claim that the Hungarian language hasn't changed at all during the past 1000 years: 'dont even think of claiming that Hungarian hasnt changed, because it has, and it has changed a lot.' This is false. I stated: 'Studies of the Hungarian language have shown that it has changed relatively little over the past 1000 years in comparison to the IE languages.' The two statements are different. If Druworos thinks that they mean the same thing, he is mistaken.

Example No. 2:
- Druworos claims that 'Hunmagyar would likely have us believe that Jesus was also a Parthian (which for him means Hungarian) Prince, and that Celts were a first wave of Hungarian colonists, as the name Celt is clearly, according to them, related to the Hungarian word Kelet (East).' I haven't made any such claims. Druworos has a vivid imagination.

Druworos also makes the mistake of lumping all Hungarian research which does not agree with his point of view under the same label of 'Hungarian extreme nationalism'. This is sheer nonsense because there is a wide range, from the lunatic fringe (origin theories involving lost continents) all the way to the most thorough objective and scientific research, such as that of Götz which I have referred to in earlier comments. I strongly urge him to read some of this more serious stuff before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

As I have stated previously, the Turanian theory is not merely based on a few linguistic parallels which might be due to chance, but on a correlation of a multitude of factors: thousands of potential lexical cognates, significant grammatical similarities, as well as on archeological, anthropological and ethnological evidence, and on historical written sources. Götz clearly explains this in his theory which is based on the facts established by hundreds of researchers he cites in his book. Götz's theory of the formation of the various Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups (Semitic, IE, Uralic, Altaic) through a process of convergence and hybridization in which the Sumerian group played a key role is certainly much more advanced, objective, comprehensive, and scientific than the dominant IE single origin and family-tree evolutionary theory, or the official Hungarian Finno-Ugrian origin theory which is based on the IE model. --Hunmagyar 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zaparojdik

This article is about the word Turan. The word is Persian, its not Turkish, its not Hungarina, nor is it whatever else. The word is not Turan, and it was not a word that described Turks. It was a Persian word used to describe the tribes of Central Asia. No one knows who the Turanians were exactly.Khosrow II 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont claim that It's Turkic, it's a Persian word of course and first used by Persians but the article about the ideology of Turan. The term Turan in Persian literature and mythology is exist in the article beacuse of origin of the word. I'm not removing something in Persian stuff, just about the ideolgy it will be correct to add in Turkic languages, Hungarian and Finnish... Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no relevance for the Turkish, Hungarian, or Finnish versions of the word. This is about the Persian word Turan. Turan is a Persian word, simple as that, its not Turkish nor Hungarian, nor Finnish. What you are trying to add is irrelevant. How about we add the Chinese, French, and Swahili versions too? This is ridiculous. Who cares if some pan Turkists or Turkish nationalists decided to use the word Turan for their means, that does not give them any rights to the word, not even ideologically. As far as anyone is concerned, the word Turan and the Turan that pan Turkists use are two different things. Turan is simple a word describing Central Asian nomads in the Shahnameh, what does that have to do with Turkish or Hungarian? Nothing.Khosrow II 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The ideology is about to uniting of Turanians. If you don't know learn that those peoples are Turks, Hungarians and Finns. Not Swahili or French and the article is not about just the word. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 22:03 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, this article is about the word Turan, NOT ANY TYPE OF IDEOLOGY. Also, the word Turan has nothing to do with Turks or Hungarians, or Finns, it is a term used to describe north eastern nomads in the Shahnameh, and was later adopted by the west to describe Central Asia. It has nothing to do with Turks, Hungarians, or Finns. I dont understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend. This article is about the WORD Turan, simple as that. Its funny, all this time you denied being a pan Turkists, but atleast now your coming out about it.Khosrow II 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The answer is so simple Khosrow; the nomadic tribes that you mentioned about in your explanation were Turkic nations. If you look at the era that Shahnameh was written you can easily see that it is the period when Turks were holding the control of Middle Asia stepps. And it is actually true that the word is originated from Persian, but is used in geographical and idelogical manner in recent Turkish; meaning the oldes Father Lands of Turks in Middle Asia and the term to unite all the Turkic tribes under one flag and provide the unity. I do not know much about Finnish language but do know that there are connections which are brought up by linguistics between Turkish and Hungarian and shows the Uro-Altaic language origins, also which is used to claim the ethnic origins of the Hungarians and Turks. Also in Turkish schools as the the branches of the Turkic tribes are told, it is being tought that Hungarians are the countinuation of Huns who were one of the biggest part of the Turkish tribes in the western part of Middle Asia; as the Chinese-Turkish wars took place and the Gokhturk Empire collapsed most of the western branches migrated to so far west, into the lands of Persia, Arabia, Anatolia, inner Russia, Caucasia, Crimea, east Europe ... and repelled the tribes as Germans, Franks into the inner sites of the Europe and the Roman Empire was broken down etc etc... If you are to look it up from the Turk or Turkic titles in Wiki you can also see the connection. Thanks for reading all.. Drsecancan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drsecancan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Ok, so I see the point for both sides. So why don't we put a direct link "Turanism" article in italics as the first sentence of the article. Thus disputes will be resolved and whoever typed in "Turan" the reach "Turanism" (Which was exactly what happened to me) can be directed right in the first sentence?Ombudsee 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually I will make a correcttion. Today it is clear that the Turanians were an Iranian nation. The only place that Turanians are mentioned is the Avesta everything else like shahnameh is derived from there. All the names of Turanians in Avesta are Iranian etymologically. Professor. Manfred Mayrhofer has etymologically analyzed all Turanian names of Avesta here [2]. He is the foremost prominent scholar on Sanskrit and Avesta and all the names of Turanians in Avesta are etymologically Iranian. If you need more scholarly references I can provide it.--alidoostzadeh 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I renew my offer since it remained ignored. We can make the first sentence of the article; "For other the idiology of uniting Turans, see Turanism", thus the both sides can be satisfied. Ombudsee 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose: "For the ideology of pan-turanism see pan-Turanism" --alidoostzadeh 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zaparojdik looks like an old Persian (Parsi) loan from Proto Finno Ugric

Haa, have someone ever here heard from word Saparo / Saparot which is also base word for Saparoiset = Zapadrojdik. Saparo (sa-pa-ro) means tied long hair to saparoiksi (saparos). Usual habit along the ancient men and women. Other word to describe the same in Finnish is Letti / Letit. This type of hair ties were also common among Tibetan nobility. Han people (Chinese) tied their long hair to palmikko (pal-mik-ko), not like their western neighbours to saparos. Here you have direct link to Finno Ugrian languages, including Proto Magyar of Ugric branch with Hanti Hui and Mansi. Alternative name for Turan in linguistical bases could be Turugsu (Turk-Ugri-Sum). In addition to the latest DNA researchs there is a direct link provided from Turkic language group, including Altaic languages, via Nenetsi (Samojeedi) branch and Ugrian branch to Sum (Finno) Ugrian language family including Permic, Volgaic, and Baltic branches in addition to Sam (Saame) language. The Estonian researchers Professors Ago Kunnap and Ott Kurs of University of Tartto have recently (2005) made a comprehensive research which directly links Turkic languages with Finno Ugrian languages showing how the languages are merged with each other. (Uraali - Altai Keelkond; Keskkörgaasia = Middle High Asia).

One must understand the real possibility that nowadays East Turkistan (Sinkiang) is the "alkukoto / alkukoti" (original home), Deutsche Urheimat, for the Finno Ugrians (appeared there accorcing to latest DNA researchs 15.000 years ago) and Turks, both who seems to have lived there side by side (when it was fertile country of maito and mesi = milk and honey) c. 8000-4000 BC with mild and nice annual rains providing good climate for ancient peoples. By the way, all Finno Ugrian names for different Sum Ugri peoples meant originally man. (Sum-imi, Komi-mort, Ud-murt, Mir-de, Mari-el, Madi-ar etc). Something to think for the people of Per-si-a or Par-si (Far-si) which spoked Ar-ja (also ancient Finnish woman fore name, still widely in use) languages. One (who believe on it) can read from Bible of Profet (Prophet) Magican = Saman Da-ni-el (Ta-ni-el) who was able to explaine "the writing on the wall", said to be Turanian language; Mene, mene, tekel(e) Peres uvarsi(i)n. In modern Finnish language I can read it "Go, go badly (man) made Peres (Marras = Death) to Uvarsi = Farsi (Parsi). Easier than transliteration the language of ancient Heettis (Hittite).

But when the climate become warmer and the ice begun to melt and withdraw back to the north the climate become drier and living conditions become harder in Turanian Plain (depression). This prosess eventually changed the ones fertile area to semi-desert (Gobi) and sand desert (Takla-Makan). Only some oasis (Turpan, Kaskar, Aksu etc. where ground water existed become populated centers which carried on the agriculture, but the rest of the Turanians had to change their life style to nomandic. The last attemp to preserve their old high culture was building the extensive under ground watering tunnel canal system ( total over 5.500 km) to bring water from the mountain chains were still rained annually enough. But the high culture of Turan stage by stage declined to the nomandic level.

Majority of Finno Ugrains moved northward of Altai (Alla taivaan = Under Sky) highlands to the forested zone toward Si-pe-ri taika (magic) forests and Ural and beyond c.4000-2600 BC, finally to settle on the areas where they live even today. They declined to hunters and fishermen in new living conditions in forest zone. Some peoples like Hanti Hui and Mansi did not in general pass Urals but settled along the Obi River. Their fate is a sad one. During the last 300 years Indo-European Slavs (Russians) decimated them with barter trade vodka against furs into most primitive level just as in the case of American native Indians with Whiskey against Furs policy by immigrated Anglo-Saxons. But with them they brought names which linked them in their ancient past. They named places as Turja, Turjanranta, T(o)urila, Tursas, Turjala, Tuuri, etc. Except Magyars who finally ended, after wandering here and there between Urals and northern slopes of Kaukas(us) = kaukaiset vuoret = far distant mountains, on the Great East European Plain, to Pannonian Plain in Central Europe only about 1.000 years ago (895-896). Among the seven tribes came also some Bö´s (Tibetans) with their (ancient) dogs. Also the Finns brought dogs with them and one race is of interest; The Karelian bear dog. Similar dog race appeared in Near East and become known as Philistean guard dog, later Palestinian shepard dog. Thus, either the Finno Ugrians (under name Sea People) which attacked to Egypt and Filistea (Kaanan) c. 2.600 BC, brought it there or the dog wandered with its masters from Near East (Sumeri) to the pohjolan perille (to the bottom of North). The ancient link to the sons of heaven which married the daughters of (low)earth ie. Bö (Tibetan) people whose habits also were shared remained in the burial way. Bö (Tibetan) Sky burial linked to nearly similar Finno Ugrian kalmisto (kalma / kolmo) burial, later changed to burning burial and earth (kumpu / kurgan) burial.

But some stubborn refused to move. Hakassis (later mixed with Turks), Sahas (Sakas), Komassis, Kets stayed at Altai-Sajan area. Sahas were mixed with Turks and Mongols and wandered to great Lena river.

The southern branch of Turan peoples crossed great mountain chain Hindikush (Hindu killer) and settled to Indus (In-tus) valley and built (Harappa) Ha-rap-pa and other settlements. The eastern branch of Turan peoples wandered to an peninsula on the shores of Val-ta-me-ri (Great / Power Ocean) and named it Ko-re-a (beautifully handsome). Some (Ai-nus) went to the nearby islands Hok-kai-to and Sa-ha-li(n).

In Finnish language Turkki (Turkey) means Fur. The people which used furs against cold climate. Thus, the name of Turkey could also be Furiland / Furlandia = Furistan (Turistan). Does this sound familiar name for great warriors in later Arja language version of Turks "furious warriors" (Finno Ugric; hurjat urhot).

It is interesting to note that the Finnish researchers Professors Sjögren, Castren, and Ramstedt, versions of linking Finno Ugric and Altaic languages were vigorously rejected (and still are) by the Indo-European scholars, because it did not suit for their purposes of the creation of high culture Indo-Iranian and Indo-European superior race which brought with them high civilization and high developed languages to the man kind which eventually led to herrakansat / herrenfolk (lordfolk) and ali-ihmiset / untermenchen (sub human) thinking which culminated in Imperialism (Lord has given us divine right to rule) and National Socialism race theories. The research of ancient Turanian civilizations have never been made but (I hope so) in the near future there will be some researches made to correct the too much weighted Indo-Iranian and Indo-European perspective in Eurasian history. Curiously, if the Indo-Iranian high culture existed all over the Eastern European Plain why did it not leave behind place names except than those in Caucasus area? But for strong contrast, there are thousands of Finno Ugrian and Turkic place, river, lake names still in use in the area now mainly populated by Indo-European Slavs.

I hope than Indo Iranians can provide similar explanation to the origins for name Turan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.81.159 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] References to Turks in Shahnameh

I added the reference to Shahnameh translation, which shows several references to Turanians as Turks. Particularly, in the story of Rustam and Sohrab:

  • From Rustam: "How can I stand against the Turks, and how can I traverse the desert alone?"
  • From Sohrab: "will go forth with an army of brave Turks and lead them unto Iran, I will cast Kai Kaous from off his throne, I will give to Rustem the crown of the Kaianides, and together we will subdue the land of Turan, and Afrasiyab shall be slain by my hands"

In the story of "Defeat of Afrasiyab" quote from Rehnam:

  • "My soul thirsteth after the combat, yet since my father hath commanded that the army advance not, it beseemeth me not to forget his behests. And remember, O valiant Turk, that he who ventureth first upon the battlefield hath no need to seek the pathway to return."

I added a short sentence to the page indicating that the association of Turan vs Turkic cultures is based on these Shahnameh accounts. Atabek 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true. Although the actual association probably dates to the later Sassanid era, but the Shahnameh was the one that popularized it the most. About the name Turan being popular name in Turkey, it is popular name in middle eastern countries including Iran. That is shahnameh names are popular. Although I think in terms of Turkey, the name became popular during the last century or so. I think that added information should be referenced somewhat more. (that is when it became popular in turkey? I do not think it is from the Ottoman era?). But I moved it to the name section which had turandokht (under trivia which I changed to names). It seems that lots of Shahnameh names became popular in the Islamic world. [3]. One of Salladin's family member was called "Turanshah" (King of Turan). [4]. --alidoostzadeh 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The rise of this name in Turkey probably happened in the late 19th and early 20th century, although we cannot totally exclude the existence of this name in Turkey before. The objective here is not to prove whether the name is Iranian, Turkish or Shahnameh-based, but to clarify the association and belonging of the title to Turks. Whether it came from Shahnameh or originated by itself, it's irrelevant at least from my perspective. Same as calling Germany in English or Alemagna in Spanish means the same object. Btw, about the same time, as early as 1900-1910s, prominent Azerbaijani satirist poet M. A. Sabir, wrote in one of his poems "Turanliyiz biz". Atabek 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Right I agree that it was a recent rise although here and there we do see such names pop out in the middle east (Salah-din). Lots of Seljuqs and Ilkhanid adopted Shanmahe names also and I would not be suprised if I see turaj (very popular name) or turan there. But I put it in the name section because it is more relavent to the article there, then the introduction. --alidoostzadeh 11:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Anon, I reinserted the sourced information you took out. Please do not remove sourced information again. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turanians are NOT Iranian

the menaing of Turaninan is an-Iranian, read the sources before change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.180.143 (talk • contribs)

If you read the article, you will see that the meaning of Turan changes over time. Originally, it designated a single tribe belonging to the vast Iranian continuum. Later, Turan was the infidele opposition to the Zoroastrian Iranians, and therefore, they would be called Aneran. Finally, the word was used as a collective name of all the different tribes in Central Asia.
Anyway, would you please stop vandalising the article. If you disagree with the content, please re-write the sections or add new information (as long as you give proper, written sources for your revisions). But your changes are pointless, since you delete references, whereas the argument for which the references are given remains unaltered. Enkyklios 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turan

Turan means Land of Tur.Hajji Piruz 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not advertise on Wikipedia. I am removing the link to the forum.Hajji Piruz 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some suggested that it's more like "outside Iran" - prop. t/d Iran. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I removed the section on Anthropology. "Modern DNA research has given a new insight into the concept of the Turan idea, at least insofar as it relates to Northern Eurasian populations, especially Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Altaic, and Northeast Siberian peoples. According to the DNA research of Tambets, Willems and Karaferet[1] at least 70% of Finnish, 49% of Sami, 53% of Udmurt, 35% of Latvian, 41% of Lithuanian, 20% of Eastern Evenk, 80% of Yakut, 47% of Buryat, 40% of Chukchi and some 60% of western Inuit a.k.a Eskimo males carry the so-called N3 haploid in their Y-chromosome DNA."

Reasoning: There is no such thing as DNA analysis on "Turanian people" since there is no Turanian people. Plus Latvian and Lithuanian and Baltic languages are IE languages. Thus the comment above does not hold any linguistic significance. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)