Realizada por: Vazquez
Al Druida: galaica
Formulada el miércoles, 10 de mayo de 2006
Número de respuestas: 10
Categoría: Linguistica, onomástica y toponimia

Origen Altaico


Yo estoy viviendo cerca de la región del Altai, hoy en día hay una actividad arqueología muy grande en esta región. Existen algunos temas que siempre han sido motivo de discusión entre estudiosos, y que de alguna manera tiene relación con esta región, como el origen del hombre en América, se sabe que unas de las entradas proceden de Siberia (región asiática), esto se refuerza con la presencia de algunas partículas en las lenguas como ATA, ANA muy generalizad en las lenguas indígenas encontradas, partícula que también aparece en las lenguas de origen altaico. Se calcula que esta emigración se produjo aproximadamente hace unos 10 años, precisamente cuando se produce el deshielo del glacial que ocupaba toda la región norte de lo que es hoy América del Norte. Eran desplazamientos que bien se podrían localizar en épocas paleolíticas?. Hay elementales motivos para pensar que si se producen estos desplazamientos hacia el este por el estrecho de Bering, también se pudieron producir hacia el oeste. Se puede demostrar que existieron estos desplazamientos hacia el Oeste, se han encontrado relación lingüística. Pudieron estos desplazamientos ser origen de lo que después fue conocido como la cultura Sumeria, lengua desconocida o no relacionada con origen Altaico? He leído mucho en Celtiberia sobre los sumerios, etc, y ahora tus comentarios sobre los etrusco y su relación con los Hunos (Húngaros) pero lejos de aclararme estoy hasta mas confundido, quizás por mi pocos conocimientos en temas lingüístico, arqueológicos… pero muy interesado saber tus opiniones sobre el tema, y en concreto sobre la interrogante: ¿Se puede demostrar que existieron desplazamientos en el paleolítico hacia el Oeste de origen Altaico, se han encontrado relación lingüística. Pudieron estos desplazamientos ser origen de lo que después fue conocido como la cultura Sumeria, lengua desconocida o no relacionada con origen Altaico?

Respuestas

    Tijera Pulsa este icono si opinas que la información está fuera de lugar, no tiene rigor o es de nulo interés.
    Tu único clic no la borarrá, pero contribuirá a que la sabiduría del grupo pueda funcionar correctamente.

  1. #1 galaica miércoles, 24 de mayo de 2006 a las 23:07

    Te enviaré respuesta, acabo de de ver tu pregunta. Hasta pronto.


  2. #2 Vazquez jueves, 25 de mayo de 2006 a las 09:51

    Pues galaica, espero con ansiedad tus comentarios, sabes el tema me gusta, aunque te confieso no soy especialista… no se si has oído hablar de un lingüista kazako, Olzhas Suleimenov?, el, creo, esta también muy ocupado en el tema.


  3. #3 EBRO28 jueves, 25 de mayo de 2006 a las 11:05

    La pregunta que haces es algo dificil de responder y habría que hacer matizaciones según las épocas. Desgraciadamente el área de Siberia y Norte de Asia han resultado poco interesantes para los Europeos, salvo los rusos, y siempre se ha tratado con algo de simplificación, (como demuestra la categoría de "paleosiberianos", donde se metía a pueblos bastante diferentes, mientras que en otros continentes se hacían clasificaciones complejas con grupos nativos destacando la singularidad de algunos). En mi grupo msn tratamos el tema http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas Estos días estoy leyendo sobre los samoyedos y los pueblos turcos como los Tuva del área de los Montes Sayanes y Gorno-Altay. Hay muchas explicaciones sobre el origen de los distintos pueblos y sus migraciones, y muchas veces no se que pensar. Echa un vistazo a estos mensajes: http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas/pueblosturcos.msnw http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas/pueblosturcos.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=354&LastModified=4675573600075640718 http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas/pueblosurlicos.msnw


  4. #4 EBRO28 jueves, 25 de mayo de 2006 a las 17:26

    Echa un vistazo al siguiente mensaje http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas/prehistoria.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=46&LastModified=4675541146467603705 y a este otro sobre haplogrupos en pueblos turcos y urálicos, (finougrios y samoyedos): http://groups.msn.com/AsiayAfricablancas/genetica.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=44&LastModified=4675568296092966359 Según parece hubo una barrera geográfica entre Siberia y Europa oriental que se rompió durante la desglaciación. Es posible encontrar haplogrupos de ADN mitocondrial de origen asiático centro-oriental en el norte de Rusia, Carelia y Finlandia, y un haplogrupo de cromosoma Y de origen asiático siberiano occidental, (haplogrupo N), entre hablantes de lenguas urálicas y eslavas, (no con ello digo que esas lenguas sean de origen asiático).


  5. #5 Vazquez viernes, 26 de mayo de 2006 a las 18:09

    ebro28, agradecido y muy interesante el material que enlazas, que no es poco, pero estoy me tomara algunos dias poder comentar contigo sobre el.


  6. #6 galaica viernes, 26 de mayo de 2006 a las 22:40

    Estoy haciendo un amplio dossier sobre el tema Vázquez. Entre unas cosas y otras a penas consigo sacar tiempo. Lo cuelgo el lunes a la noche aquí. ¿Vale?


  7. #7 galaica lunes, 29 de mayo de 2006 a las 23:54

    Mejor que soltarte un rollo personal, te envío lo siguiente, te ayudará a formar una opinión al respecto de cimerios, tracios, dacios y escitas (lamento que esté en inglés, pero con paciencia...): Etruscan origin is a highly controversial subject, which often tends to repeat the old disproven ideas for the most part. The latest opinion is that they came to Italy after the Latins, who were already living there from about 1850 BC. Some classical writers such as Dionysus of Halicarnassus, argued that the Etruscans were the original people of the peninsula while others like the Greek Herodotus, claimed that they were colonists of the Lydians. However, since their language wasn’t like Lydian that cannot be true. Hellanicus of Lesbos however seems closest to finding the proper link, when he writes that Tyrrhenians, who were previously called Pelasgians, the pre Greek inhabitants of Greece and surroundings. The Etruscans received their present name after they had settled in Italy. These are his words in the Phoronis: "Phrastor was the son of Pelasgus, their king, and Menippe, the daughter of Peneus; his son was Amyntor, Amyntor's son was Tutamides, and the later's son was Nanas. In his reign the Pelasgians were driven out of their country by the Greeks, and after leaving their ships on the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they took Croton, an inland city and proceeding from there, they colonized the country called Tyrrhenia." Because their culture and their many innovations weren’t present in earlier times on the Italian peninsula, they probably weren't there yet. Their latter arrival brought their many new contributions. Some archeologists like Hugh Hencken claim they came from the area of Hungary. Barfield called this area of Europe the "heartland of technology of the Bronze Age". The American archeologist, Hugh Hencken has claimed their origin was from Hungary due also to the similar type of Urn burial customs and metallurgy, which was present there, and the bronze technology they brought from there, as well as their equestrian customs. The senior Italian linguist Mario Alinei has done extensive comparisons of the language of the Etruscans and has come to the conclusion that it was an archaic form of Hungarian and its predecessors the Ugrians. His theory of origin was that the ancestors of the Hungarians were living in Hungary at the end of the 3rd millenium BC, long before they were supposed to have arrived from the nearby Ukraine at 896AD. The main confusion factor in regards to Hungarians is that they had several fairly widely separated colonies in the Caucasus Mountains, in the Volga region and the supposed birthplace of the nation near the Sea of Azov (Meotis). Hencken also claims that the Etruscans were part of the people who attacked Egypt under the confederation known as the Sea People. Therefore they also had colonies on the island Lemnos in the Aegian Sea and Anatolia (Troy). The most recent linguistic origin theory, claimed by Mario Alinei, that ties Etruscan to Ugrian, had several previous champions, besides Alinei, but they were much less detailed than the new theory. This theory still has a lot of biases to overcome in the linguistic community, which is infamous for its extreme conservatism and reluctance to change as well as its willingness to persecute those who stray from the "established" facts without even checking it out. However there is no reason to think that the Etruscans didn’t have ties to several other places, such as Troy, the island of Lemnos, the Balkans as well as the Carpathian Basin in their early history. When we try to trace their origins through Europe back through their source nations, it becomes very likely that there was a link through different branches of these related people. Lets attempt to trace them backwards in time and see where that takes us. The Etruscans are generally associated with the Villanovan Culture of Italy. This culture entered Italy from the south, from the direction of the Balkans, where traces of the Etruscans were also found. One of the early Greek writers even stated that the Etruscans were related to the pre-Greek aboriginals of Greece, known as the Pelasgians. The archeologist Hencken has stated that the Italian Villanovan Culture that entered Italy is Balkan in origin. This area was for a long time inhabited by the people known as the Thracians, whose very name sounds much like "Tursci", which is the local Latin name of the Etruscans. Thrace had a very long history from about 1800BC to the start of the Christian Era. Later they also spread to the Eastern Carpahian Basin under the name of Dacian, a name which sounds a bit like the early ethnic designation for Turk or the Scythian tribe known in the east as Daha. The names Thraci-an and Troja-n are names that sound very similar, especially if we assume that the internal C was more like a ch, which is a distinct possibility after we compare the Etruscan words to its derivatives. Thrace and Troyas were in fact on the opposite sides of the Aegian Sea, before the entrance to the Sea of Marmara, and guarded the access to the Black Sea. The European side of this area was called Thrace while the Asian side was once Troyas. It seems that both sides were inhabited originally by the ancestors of the Etruscans since the Trojans were claimed to be the ancestors of the Etruscans. The Thracians came from the east and were part of a larger group of related people stretching from Central Europe to the edge of eastern Europe to the Ural Mountains and the Caspean Sea, who were once known by the ancient Greeks as the Kimmeroi (Cimmerians). This was before the coming of the Scythians in the 7th century BC, who pushed them out or took over as rulers of some of these groups of people. The royal clans of the Cimmerians originally lived in and near the Crimean Peninsula that juts into the Black Sea from it's northern shores. A lot of their royal tombs were found here and around the local Sea of Azov, which was a bay of the Black Sea. The following links to the Cimmerians of the people of the Thracians and Dacians is claimed by several historians, however the link to the Etruscans is my own association. The linguistic link between these people is impossible to prove however, due to the insufficient linguistic material that exists. A few names can never be sufficient to prove a language, especially if its after the Scythian conquest. There are also claims that the Cimmerians came from the Middle East based on the fact that the earliest records of their names is from Assyrian sources. This in itself doesn’t prove the case if there was no one around them to record it. So I think we need to trust in the early Greek historians as they were the first one to remember and record this nation. The Scythians coming from the east in the 7th century BC, conquered much of the eastern Cimmerians, who were pushed out from mainly their south-eastern territories, but many also remained around the Crimea and the area around the Sea of Azov under Scythian rule. They also remained in the northern forest zone as well as in the Balkans and Hungary even after the birth of Christ. Some of the Eastern Cimmerians escaped and crossed the Caucasus Mountains and established a large but short lived kingdom in Anatolia and destroyed the empire of the Hittites. A few of their leaders are recorded by documents from the Near East. They are remembered in the Bible as the sons of Gomer, whose sons were Askenaz, Riphat and Togarma. Assyrian records also called areas of the empire which were under the control of Cimmerian mercenaries, by the name Gamir. The name which thereafter became the name for all dreaded nomadic horsemen, including their enemy the Scythians. We can only assume that those who stayed behind thereafter came under Scythian domination and were called Scythian afterward, simply due to their rulers and the subsequent combining of the two cultures. The other languages in the area of the Northern Black Sea, known later as Scythian were not all related but required at least seven translators according to the early Greeks. Therefore the people named collectively Scythian, could not have been a single people, because their languages were not related. The real Scythians were called the Royal Scythians. So the question becomes, who were the Cimmerians and some of these pseudo Scythians? Where they always here or did they come from another place? Some claim them to be simply an early western branch of the Scythians and IndoEuropean in language, but without any proof whatsoever. This is one of many gross oversimplifications of modern and ancient historians. The following is my own idea about Cimmerian origins, which really are in the process of being developed. I warn the readers that there are currently three different ideas about Cimmerian linguistic origin, but none can be absolutely proven, only possibilities based on a few facts can be listed. My main reason to believe there is a link with FinnoUgrian and Cimmerian is that I believe that the Etruscans and Trojans are the same and that they originate from the Thracians. If that is the case then the Cimmerians who were related to them must have had a similar in language. The following associations could also be used as possible proofs that the idea is correct. Homer writes the following about the origin of the Cimmerians, in the Odyssey, XI, 14: "Ardys took Priene and attacked Miletus. Thus she brought us to the deep Rowing River of Ocean and the frontiers of the world, where the fog bound Cimmerians live in the City of Perpetual Mist. When the bright Sun climbs the sky and puts the stars to flight, no ray from him can penetrate to them, nor can he see them as he drops from heaven and sinks once more to the earth. For dreadful night has spread her mantle over the heads of those unhappy folk. " What did this mean? Perhaps the following information from other Greek references can explain this darkness. The Cimmerian name also sounds unusually similar to the FinnoUgrian term *kumer, which in the Züryen (Komi) daugter language is kimmer, Finnish kumuri (Sumerian ki+muru =foggy land) and means cloud, misty, shadowy. This sound unusually similar in pronunciation and in meaning, to the description of Homer, who wrote of the dark, shadowy Cimmerian lands. According to Plutarch, the Cimmerians were the first to be known to the Greeks, took flight and were driven from their land by the Scythians. The others lived at the ends of the earth, near the Hyperborean Ocean, (Arctic Sea) in a land covered in woods and dense shade, where the sun rarely penetrates the forests so huge that they spread into the Hercynian forest. They were situated under the part of the heavens where the slope of parallel circles makes the pole so high that it is virtually the zenith of these peoples and the year is divided exactly in half by days which are the same length as nights. While some of this may sound a bit strange and even exaggerated, a few things become quite obvious. They come from the far north toward the arctic where days and nights can last for days, in deep and impenetrable forests, where no Scythian would ever put his foot into, because they were plains dwelling people, whose main occupation was herding animals, on the grasslands. Yet the southern branches of these Cimmerians also did adopt the plains customs, long before the Scythians ever came, while some of them also practiced agriculture, which was less common among the Scythians. Archeologically speaking this culture was called the "Yamna Culture" in Russia, which first domesticated the horse. Their northern relatives also originated from the southern Ukraine, before the Ice Age according to the Uralic Continuity theory, then many went north following the herds, which was their chief livelihood. This region once was predominantly FinnoUgrian but many others later also came and went. The Cimmerians adapted their typical water nomadic life of the FinnoUgrian ancestors to horse nomadism and also seafaring, by building larger boats and eventually became quite familiar with the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. The Etruscans are known also from history to have participated in the attacks on Egypt under the collective designation of "the sea people", since they are named by the Egyptians by their actual later known name. Their name could not have been a later day invention or a name derived from an early leader as the Greeks have stated on more than one occasion. The Cimmerian name reminds me also of another famous people, who came from this area, on the north eastern side of the Black Sea or perhaps from the northern Caspean. These were the Sumerians, who later moved to southern Mesopotamia following the flooding of the Black Sea around 5000 BC. Today there is an ongoing underwater investigation looking for their remnants in the shallow areas of the Black Sea. Their language was also not IndoEuropean, but quite similar to an earlier form of FinnoUgrian and Turkic. The origin of the Sumerian Flood Story is being searched for in the area of the Black Sea, however the Caspean also experienced this major event and can be linked to it. Quite a few of the divinity names of Sumerian and Etruscan agree. Unfortunately we know next to nothing about Cimerian but rather could guess that some of the Scythian names were Cimmerian in origin. Indeed names like Artemis from Scythian Artimpaz, are the same as Etruscan Artume (night,death), possibly linked to Sumerian *Eret >> Eres (KiGal).(goddess of the underworld,death). The religious or cultic center of the Ob ugrians is tir, just as Sumerian tir-azag, and just as Etruscan tru-t =a sacred act, Hungarian tor=ceremony for the deceised. Similarly the Cimmerians buried their royal family along the river Tir(as) according to Herodotus. Similarly rites and ceremonies in proto FinnUgor is sar-ne, in Etruscan its zeri, in Sumerian its zur, in Hungarian its szer which got into Latin from Etruscan as ceremonia. A title of a Cimmerian king recorded in the Middle East was Lugdame (Dugdame according to other references), which if we take Sumerian equivalents of certain FinnoUgrian words as a guide j>g become Lugal=ruler,big man, thus Lugdame is but Ludjame, which is the same as Etruscan Lucumu meaning king or leader, since Etruscan intervocalic c can be a sibilant or ch but not a k. The Sumerian term gal is the same in meaning as mah, which is big. These have their Etruscan equivalents (m>n) nac=big. (Hungarian nagy), which is a fairly basic and acceptable sound change. The son of Lugdame was a war leader Sandak -satru in Lycian documents. The god Sandak only appears once in Lycian writing so it was probably also foreign and probably also Cimmerian. The god is associated with darkness and Hades. In FinnoUgrian languages, there is a similar word in the form of *čette= dark, early dawn, which becomes set-ét=dark in Hungarian, sitik in Estonian for "black"currant and becomes *šu-du > ud-šu =dark (metathesis) =become/time dark in Sumerian. To historian linguists such a miniscule list is useless in comparing language types, yet even less was accepted to link it to Scythian and IndoEuropean. So lets not quibble about double standards here. Another Cimmerian ruler's name was Teush-pa which sounded a bit like Hurrian Teshub, and thus was immediately explained by that since the meaning of the name isn't really known. Of course that kind of sound alike linguistics is open to a lot of diverse explanations but none can be really certain. To cut the field down to something closer in line to what we propose, lets assume that perhaps Etruscan is linked to Cimmerian as we maintain. In Etruscan TESH=to take care, to cure like a medicine man or shaman. PA=head, chief in a bunch of languages from FinnoUgrian, Altaic and although less common in Sumerian its also found there. Etruscan has the word in the form of PAPN, which is the reduplication of chief, meaning chief of chiefs, similar to Hungarian föfö (p>f). This "Teush" all goes back to a FinnoUgrian term for shaman, found in Hungarian as TAL-TOSH, for the chief shaman. Kimm-er is the name of the Cimmerians, where the ending er is the plural. Just as in Etruscan, modern Turkish ler, and I believe also found in several ethnic names, like Sum-er. Magy-ar, Kaz-ar, Sab-ir etc. The root word KIM is common in FinnoUgrian and Altaic for the name for man, male. Etruscan also has this in a title of the chief LU-CUM-U which is the "Lead Man". The Cimmerians appear to be tied to the Etruscan language, even though very little is known about the Cimmerian language, besides the previously mentioned few names. Similarly the Cimmerian royal tribe, the Tauri is much like Tursci name of the Etruscans, so that it can be traced from the royal Cimmerians, known much later as the "Tauri" Scythians, to the Balkans as Thracian and to eastern Hungary as Dacian, then to Troy as Trojan and are also known in Greek as the Tyrsenoi, then to Italy where the Latins called them Tursci while the area of their past homeland is remembered today as Tosc-an. There is strong evidence that the Etruscans were not Indo Europeans, however much less is known about the Thracians or Cimmerians. If they were all linked then the Scythians were probably from the east of the Caspean and were the Turks, because there are a lot of Turkic influences on the languages of the Southern Finno-Ugrian languages and also in some Eastern European languages, especially in a southern Finno-Ugrian nation like Hungarian. Similarly there are also Turkic links in Etruscan or at least words that only survived in Turkic today. Such words as mother "ati" which is much like Turkish "ede". A lot of their words can be described with Ugrian or Turkic. The Scythians or Turks were predominantly animal herders of the steppes that were nomadic. Their many tribes stretched from Europe to China over the grasslands. Their separation into various dialects however is not that long ago, indicating that their western branches were absorbed or barely survived in a few languages like Chuvash. The later Cimmerians, who are known by archeologists as the "timber grave culture" after the manner of their burials and the early Scythians "Kurgan Culture", had a long history of common development in this area, which is the reason that there is so many common terms in the FinnUgor and Turkic languages, from the most ancient times. Yet they weren't the same people, or at least they diverged a long time ago. Their languages were quite similar but also not necessarily the same. At least there were more pronounced differences between the eastern Turkic languages and the west. Most FinnoUgrians were forrest dwelers and hunters and fishers and water nomads, while most Turkic people were herdsmen of the plains. However there were some FinnoUgrians who like the Hungarians, adopted the herding and agricultural lifestyles quite early. The similarity of their languages was the reason for the idea that there once might have been a common Ural-Altaic language family. If that was true it must have been from a very early time, and must have been originally in Europe and not in Asia. Most of the common shared words are later borrowings back and forth between the two groups, but there are some words that are of common origin from very early times. The name Kimmer (Cimmerian) name as well as several so called Scythian names that were recorded by Herodotus, can be explained from FinnoUgrian as well as Altaic name for man "Kujme" in FinnUgor and "Kum" in Turkic just as the Tursci name can be explained in Hungarian to mean "tribe, society" as Törzs. The ending -"er" originally was probably a plural suffix, just as the Etruscan animate plural suffix is "r". The Hungarian ethnic designation also ends with "r", while only the early western Turkic groups have "r" instead of the "z" suffixes found in most Turkic ethnic designations. Some have claimed that Etruscan should also be linked to the name Turk. However that name wasn’t used yet by them at this early time. In Europe in recent times the Scythians were claimed to be IndoEuropeans , who supposedly overran the continent very quickly and changed the languages of the local population. This Indo-European invasion theory from the east, known as the "Kurgan Theory" of Marija Gimbutas cannot be supported, for it causes too many conflicts with the linguistic links of Finno-Ugrian, Altaic, Sumerian and Dravidian languages, which would have isolated them. There isn't a shred of trustworthy linguistic evidence that can stand up to scrutiny for the Iranian or Indo-European origin of early Scythian culture or language, even though the later Andronovo Culture complex, centered around the Urals and Caspean Sea had Fino-Ugrian, Turk and major Iranian elements in it. A culture complex however doesn’t have to have a common language! The Kurgan Theory would place the Indo-Europeans into central Europe much too late in time, not allowing enough time to develop the huge differentiation between languages, cultures and ethnic groups that are very self evident to the historic linguists or archeologist. To simply explain this diversity away with a small elite that settled over a much larger population throughout Europe at such a late time, with the coming of the Scythians and then leaving supposedly next to no trace of the local languages among entrenched farmers is totally unbelievable. Sure the "Kurgan" people made many inroads into Europe, but they didn’t give their language to it aside from some new culture words. They eventually melted in. I realize that I am oversimplifying the theory, but this whole idea was done at the expense of mislabeling the Cimmerians and Scythians also as "Indo-European", which they weren't. This fallacy has finally become very self evident to the leading historians and linguists, like Diakanov, Collin Renfrew, Mario Alinei and many others causing the radical revision of the origin of indo-European languages to a south central area, within Europe. The consequence of this is that the Scythians will no longer be the linchpin that ties together the whole theory of IndoEuropean origin. Hopefully this will end the random claims of origin from so many distant areas in Eurasia and totally maligning the history and cultural ties of the remnants of the non-Indo-European language groups of the continent who were treated as late immigrants to this land rather than the aboriginals who were here first. Unfortunately there are still others who are trying to salvage and accommodate the outdated "Kurgan Theory" in any way they can. They were only able to keep this theory in place by inventing a totally misleading and racist idea that most Uralic (FinnUgor) were originally mongoloid. A recent PBS television show in 2005 was researching the origin of the Scythian warrior women, known by the Greeks as the Amazons. To make the story short, genetic material was collected from the Kurgan burials of Amazon women in Russia and a search was made to find a close genetic link. A match was not found in Europe, but a perfect match was found among the Khazak Turks living in Mongolia. There have been a lot of misunderstanding and problems caused by the simple fact that Europeans have labeled all non Indo-Europeans to be originally non Caucasian, but Mongoloid, based on some fringe elements found among small eastern branches of the FinnoUgrians and the among eastern Turks, who settled in the far east for a time. Location is everything, and had changed the racial types of the Turks of the far East a lot, yet early references to the Khazakh Turks in these areas, have stated that they were originally red haired and blue eyed people, like the Scythians, and quite unlike today, but they weren't Indo-Europeans in language. These tidbits of information have been known for a long time but always swept under the rug and ignored and replaced by racist stereotypes. Such mislabeling and distorted information was also made concerning the so called "Uralic Type", which is ancestor to the FinnoUgrian language family, placing them into the far eastern racial types by the famous Carfali -Sforsa genetic research team, whereas most of them by far are classic European types and only a very insignificantly small eastern fringe element, living east of Europe have considerable Mongoloid elements due to their northern neighbors the Samoyeds. These people became orientalized when they moved east and intermarried with the northern reindeer people and had them also adopt the Finno Ugrian language. Yet this small group is claimed to be the original Uralic type. This assumption has now been proven totally wrong using genetic and archeological research, which shows their spreading from Europe toward the east. Yet some people are still using this outdated idea to misrepresent the whole group. This seemingly unrelated discourse into the history of Eastern Europe and Southern Russia was necessary to lay the foundation for the Etruscan origin from that region. We have all probably heard the story of the Trojan war and the supposed cause of it, however just as in most wars there had to be a more substantial reason then simply to recover Helen from Troy. Something so important that it temporarily united the eternally feuding Greek city-states for a common cause, booty and a lucrative trade area. The Cimmerians and some Scythians had a very egalitarian and respectful attitude towards women, who not only could have their own properties but could rule a nation or lead an army to war. This attitude was also common among the Etruscans and also reflected in their religion. These traits definitely did not endear them to the very staunchly patriarchal societies of the Romans, Greeks or most early Indo-European cultures, who originally before their separation did not worship feminine deities and only later adopted local goddesses to their pantheons, under local foreign influences. A few examples of Etruscan goddesses may be worth considering, which were adopted by the Greeks and Romans. The Roman goddess of wisdom, known as Min-erva, the goddess of wisdom, is from Etruscan and can be interpreted from Finno Ugrian and Hungarian to mean "young woman/wife of reason" as "menye-érv". The goddess Artemis, was also worshiped by the Etruscans as "Artuma", but Artemis originally was a Thracian and Scythian goddess that the Greeks adopted, from these people. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, her Scythian name was Artim-PAZ. However the term PAZ is Ob_Ugrian for god, divinity not Iranian and not Turk. The name Artem- however, has cognates in both Turkic and Hungarian, meaning virtuous "érdem". Others have claimed that PAZ does not refer to God, but to the head as in Turkish BAS or Finnugor PA, so that Artim-paz refers to the "head of righteousness". I leave it to the reader to pick what makes more sense, since both seem to be logical possibilities. By no means were these the only links to the names of the Etruscan gods and goddesses. The Etruscans were a highly religious and even superstitious people, according to the Romans, having different types of "shaman" like priests, who were famous for their fortune telling. According to their legends their sacred books, were given to them by the god Tages, who sprang forth from the plowed field. He conversed with the Etruscans and thought them various things from foretelling the future to the proper way of doing things. For even things like finding the best location and orientation of building they had specialists. This reminds me of similar customs in China, Korea and Japan rather than anything in early European Culture. Due to the many similarities in Etruscan and Sumerian, I have included a comparison column for Sumerian in the following list of Etruscan deities. While the names of some of the Etruscan gods and goddesses are at times similar sounding to some Greek ones, their function is far from identical and cannot be simply functionally linked to be the same, based solely on the sound of their name. At the same time the names of the major Sumerian divinities are very similar in name and function to the Etruscan ones. The Etruscans were greatly influenced in their beliefs by the Greeks but also had a very distinctive religion that was independent in most ways. Their religious beliefs remind me of the Sumerian ways and beliefs. Both believed that most of civilization was not man made but its knowledge was god given. Both were shamanistic in ideology and origin, often consulting with the spirits of the deceased. Both cultures strongly emphasized religion and lived under a theocracy, which in the end was their undoing. Since both Etruscans and Sumerians lived under a theocratic system with a polytheistic religion. They both lived in city states where the interpretation of the will of god was the main source of guidance in crucial decisions. The Etruscans even had books that codified the teaching of god and what to do in certain cases. Since each city would have its local god there was a tendency to not get along with other city states, with a lot of conflicting religious views that prevented them from uniting except in dire situations. With an enemy like the Romans, that knew them for a long time, they were probably very predictable. This identical problem was found with the Sumerians. Despite their very advanced civilization, they couldn’t unite and spread their culture, because of their disunity. If these nations were different and more practical minded, like the Romans, and the most advanced in their regions, most of Europe and the Near East would be speaking the same type of language today, one with an Etruscan dialect and the other in a Sumerian dialect. The custom of Gladiatorial "sports" was Etruscan in origin, however it was totally perverted by the Romans to be a public spectacle rather than a religious rite. It became more for the living than for the dead. To the Etruscans it was a ceremonial act to honor a prominent deceased leader. This was a way to help send the deceased to the afterlife, with a guardian and a servant. Such customs were very common among the Sumerians, Cimerians and Scythians who all buried servants and sometimes even family members with their rulers for the purpose of serving them in their afterlife. Even more than a millenium after this time it is echoed in the story from the early Hungarian Chronicles about the death of an important Hungarian tribal leader, LEHEL, who was captured following a major campaign in Germany. The story goes that, he was lead in front of the German Emperor and due to his prominent position was asked for his last wish, before dying. Lehel then requested his elephant tusk horn so he could blow it one last time, but when he received it, he jumped in front of the Emperor and dashed it on his head, killing him instantly. Then he said that now he has a servant in the afterlife. The custom more akin to the formal Etruscan gladiatorial fights is also recounted among the Cimmerians. The Greek version of this story about the Cimmerians is probably totally misrepresented, because it was claimed that the Cimmerian royal family was paired off and fought to the death, upon hearing that the Scythians had conquered their lands. This was so that they could be buried in their homeland, along the river Tyras along with their ancestors, rather than moving away. Certainly there is a bit of truth in this, but the reasons are very doubtful. Un beso.


  8. #8 celticvm miércoles, 31 de mayo de 2006 a las 01:48

    Tres observaciones: 1.-También hay quien ha llegado a la conclusión que los grupos de lenguajes Urálicos y Altáicos no son tácitamente vinculables; sino que forman dos familias lingüísticas completamente separadas. 2.- En cuanto al supuesto vínculo entre el Sumerio y el Finougrio (como se menciona en no puede ser fácilmente evaluado, debido principalmente a la brecha de más de 3.000 anos entre las formas conocidas de los dos. Ambos grupos son aglutinantes, pero la estructura gramatical del Sumerio también tiene prefijos verbales, a menudo con tono personal, desconocido para el moderno Finés o Ugrio. El Sumerio, al igual que el moderno Finés, Ugrio y Turco, parece tener armonía vocal. En vocabulario hay similitudes. En su totalidad, esta relación no puede de momento, ser aceptada o rechazada. 3.- También se debe incluir el Lidio con una más que probable derivación Etrusca.


  9. #9 Servan miércoles, 31 de mayo de 2006 a las 02:17

    Realmente no encuentro similitudes entre Eresh Ki Gal. con Artemisa, tampoco en su significacion religiosa, si la encuentro con arkt, la diosa tenia un cortejo de oseznas. Opino que la Osa de Homero era la catasterizacion de Artemisa. Me gustaria escuchar opiniones sobre la familia linguistica vasco dene.


  10. #10 EBRO28 sábado, 03 de junio de 2006 a las 18:40

    Podeis leer algo interesante sobre la familia altaica en este documento. http://es.msnusers.com/AsiayAfricablancas/Documentos/Lenguas%20siberianas%20y%20altaicas.doc Según esto el parecido entre las lenguas túrquicas, mongolas y tungusas puede deberse al contacto prolongado y a la dominación que ejercieron en la zona los hsiu nu.


  11. Hay 10 comentarios.
    1


Si te registras como Druida (y te identificas), podrás añadir tu respuesta a este Archivo de Conocimientos

Volver arriba

No uses esta información en otros sitios web ni publicaciones, sin el permiso del autor y de Celtiberia.net