Paul K. Manansala
kabalen at MAIL.JPS.NET
Mon May 11 00:26:54 UTC 1998
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv at WXS.NL>
> "Paul K. Manansala" <kabalen at MAIL.JPS.NET> wrote:
> >> Modern Turks of Turkey speak an Altaic language, yet "biologically"
> >> they are similar to ancient Anatolian populations speaking
> >> Indo-European (Anatolian, Phrygian, Greek) languages. I hear nobody
> >> claiming that the Hittites were Altaic...
> >But the ancient remains were not biologically similar to the stock
> >believed to be the original speakers of Indo-European languages.
> So what? If modern Central Asians look like ancient Central Asians,
> it's because biologically they are still largely Iranian.
Modern Central Asians come in all types. Most indigenous Central
Asians (non-Russians) like the Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Uighurs and
so are Altaic peoples.
> that have to do with the "original IE stock", whatever that means?
The idea that started this thread is that the IE stock was somehow
connected with a horse culture. Thus, horses = IE migration.
> What *do* you believe is the "stock believed to be the original
> speakers of Indo-European langugaes"?
It's not me. Just read any of numerous authors on the subject. Were
the original IE speakers similar to Mongols?
> >> >The fragmentary evidence of Iranian writings in the steppe mean
> >> >nothing. No more than early fragmentary Arabic writings in Indonesia or
> >> >China. There is evidence of Altaic archaeological culture
> >> >in the steppe and also linguistic evidence in local languages.
> >> The evidence is not fragmentary.
> >So what is the evidence then?
> Inscriptions, manuscripts, a body of literature...
Could you give a reference?
> >> What is an "Altaic archaeological culture"? What evidence in which
> >> local languages? Why are all the ancient loanwords in Finno-Ugrian
> >> from Iranian or Tocharian, not Altaic? How do you explain Tocharian
> >> in the Tarim basin?
> >The evidence of Tocharian in the Tarim basin is fragmentary.
> No it isn't. See: W. Krause/W. Thomas, "Tocharisches Elementarbuch",
> 2 volumes, Heidelberg 160, 1964.
Fully aware of this evidence and it is fragmentary. There is nothing
to suggest the local people spoke Tocharian.
> >Regarding the Altaic culture, the similarities between Hsiung-nu and
> >later Turko-Mongol culture with the culture ascribed to Scythians by
> >Herodotus and others is well-known. Here is a partial list:
> >1. The joint burial of humans with horses often oriented toward East.
> You are simply inverting the arguments of the outdated "Aryan
> invasion" theorists.
You tended to repeat this statement, although I don't know what you
> >9. Mourn dead by gashing face with knives so "blood flows with
> > tears."
> >10. Had flocks of sheep and herds of horses, camel and cattle.
> >11. Meat and milk diet.Rarely practiced regular agriculture.
> >12. Dressed in skins.
> >13. Wolf as totem guard and revival totem.
> >14. Used felt tents and brought women and children in wagons.
> >15. Practiced shamanism based on woship of Heaven and sacred
> > mountains.
> >16. Supreme leader summoned all tribes in the autumn for census of
> > humans and animals.
> >17. Used raiding and fleeing tactics.
> >18. Depended on mounted bowmen in battle.
> >19. Used same feigned retreat strategies.
> >20. Both were experts at firing bows to the rear while mounted.
> >21. Slept on furs.
> >22. Usually shaved head except small tuft on top.
> >23. Used similar small yet fierce pony.
> >24. Switched horses in battle.
> >25. Drank blood of horse during battle to prevent dehydration.
> >26. Usually no beard except tuft on chin.
> >27. Sheath of bow suspended from belt in front of left thigh.
> >28. Quiver attached to belt and suspended across back with arrows to
> > right.
> >29. Preferred mare's milk to other types of milk.
> >30. Similar burial in raised mounds.
> >31. Similar "plank and file" coffins
> >32. Similar bows
> All typical of *any* horse-based steppe pastoralist culture.
Please, you must be kidding.
> There is no such thing as a Ural-Altaic family, that's a 19th century
> construct that has been utterly disproved. There may not even be an
> Altaic family.
There may not be an Indo-European family.
Current consensus is that Mongol and Tungusic are
> related, and probably further linked to Korean and Japanese. The
> similarities between Turkic and Mongol-Tungus(-Korean-Japanese) are
> now thought to be due to areal diffusion. Turkic is best treated as
> an isolate for the time being.
Just are simply modifying old "Aryan" racial theories. Indo-European
is all this and that, but we don't know about the rest.
What about all these new theories connecting Altaic and Uralic, but
under the great white Nostratic/Proto-World banner?
Paul Kekai Manansala
More information about the INDOLOGY