Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Abramelin

Ancient mysteries revealed in Turkmen desert

103 posts in this topic

Please correct to "Have Originated from the Proto language"

Unless you have solid proof that these languages originated from "Asian" Languages, dont state it as a fact.

Thats why we have lingusits studying the origin of languages earnestly and have come up with the Proto Indo European. Your current Indo -Iranian stance negates your out of India theory,.

Unless you have a Urheimat in in India, dont state it.

Indo Iranian stance doesn't negate Out of India theory which states that there where people migrating out of India towards the west and not the other way round.Though i am still open to change my stance based on more evidence. Recently Abramelin has started a very informative thread on an ancient civilization in Turkmenistan.

You don't need the linguists alone,there are also archaeologists who are trying to figure out where these languages originated based on physical evidence,which in my opinion has a higher pedestal. Linguistic interpretations should be subject to archaeological and cultural evidence and not the other way round.

Either ways Linguists need a pre decided frame of historical population migrations and interactions to interpret their linguistic data,hence i don't consider their interpretation to be intellectually honest.

Again which language originated from which will be subject to which language you consider to be older,without determining which is the oldest it will be impossible for the linguists to give accurate interpretations.

As long as the Linguists insist on the Aryan Migration/Invasion theory, their credibility will remain disconnected from reality and poor in my eyes. Proto Indo Europran, a language without any physical evidence,or peoples is a prime example of their disconnect with reality.

There is no PIE script,there is no evidence that it was ever spoken,there is no historically or culturally known people it is attributed to.

When i stated that European languages have originated from Asian Languages,it is based on Archaeological evidence and not on Linguistic evidence. The Parent languages have been spoken in Asia before they were spoken in Europe and are attached to peoples and civilizations which are attested Archaeologically,India is a very interesting example as there is cultural continuity which is observed in India from ancient times which is not the case for most of the other ancient civilizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About who influenced whom, look at this artifact:

gonur-nnnn-tn_aid9379_20081016184807_733.jpeg

Skarb Kręgu Gonur – Bogtoharskie złoto z Tillya Tepe – pierwowzór Zaratusztriańskiego symbolu Ognia i Koła Życia (6.000 p.n.e.)

Gonur Circle treasure - gold Bogtoharskie of Tillya Tepe - original Zoroastrian symbol kiego Fire and the Wheel of Life (6000 BC)

http://slowianin.wor...tag/bronze-age/

Look at the age of the thing: 6000 BC !!

Did I get fooled by Google Translator??

Anybody speak Polish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, cultural cross reference is not proof that it was the same culture. It just shows there was contact, no more no less. Also there are indications that there was trading yes. "Heavely engaged in trading" is something you assume.

Also you're again taking assumptions for certainties. Reread the article : "Bronze Age Zoroastrians did not construct temples. This does not mean that the residents of the town did not include Zoroastrians, for it is quite conceivable that Zoroastrians and non-Zoroastrians lived side-by-side." It's conceivable, nothing else.

As to geographical proximity, well that makes the trading more plausible, however it is also not proof that it was the same culture.

So yes, I need a lot more proof that the circumstantial evidence given here.

That is because you assume that different cultures,lifestyles and religions couldn't have existed within a civilization, which is fallacious. India again is a prime example, there is no one God that the ancients Indians prayed to,there is no singular way of life they lived by,still they were the same people,this is still the case today.

Your interpretations are based on a more monotheistic perspective where for a people to be considered to be part of a civilization,they have to be culturally similar in all aspects.

If you acknowledge diversity within a civilisation,you will have no issues in accepting that they were a part of the same civilization. Hindus have promoted the concept of 'Vasudev Kutumbh' since time immemorial i,e the entire world is a part of the same family.

There are ancient texts that talk about Kingdoms within a civilization continuously at war and having trade and cultural exchanges as well.Now there is archaeological evidence also surfacing. This is more then circumstantial evidence, maybe the problem is the concept of civilization,and what would you consider as a civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being chauvinistic, it doesn't credit you. What would you say if I began insisting the Sino-Tibetan languages were really Vietnam-Tibetan?

Am only returning a favour to the linguists,who have long distorted the History and Culture of my Country by being chauvinists.By still propagating foolish theories like the Aryan migration/invasion theories which go against all archaeological and cultural evidences.

It was linguists who gave credence to the lunatic ramblings of Hitler and his Aryan supremacy by randomly attributing the caucasus as the origin of the Aryans,and their superiority as a conquering race instead of a culture i.e 'Arya'. They ignored all the evidence of the Aryans from where they originated and where they are still present i.e India and when to hypothesize imaginary migrations.invasions from Europe to India.

Actually the mainstream linguists are not only chauvinistic but also foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there are always people who have to insist that their culture is the center and all derives from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because you assume that different cultures,lifestyles and religions couldn't have existed within a civilization, which is fallacious. India again is a prime example, there is no one God that the ancients Indians prayed to,there is no singular way of life they lived by,still they were the same people,this is still the case today.

Your interpretations are based on a more monotheistic perspective where for a people to be considered to be part of a civilization,they have to be culturally similar in all aspects.

If you acknowledge diversity within a civilisation,you will have no issues in accepting that they were a part of the same civilization. Hindus have promoted the concept of 'Vasudev Kutumbh' since time immemorial i,e the entire world is a part of the same family.

There are ancient texts that talk about Kingdoms within a civilization continuously at war and having trade and cultural exchanges as well.Now there is archaeological evidence also surfacing. This is more then circumstantial evidence, maybe the problem is the concept of civilization,and what would you consider as a civilization.

Maybe I'm just not an india-centrist........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just not an india-centrist........

If you are a Euro-centrist, there's the Oera Linda Book thread. It all started in Europe/Frisia....lol.

According to many Turks it all started in Turkey. Same with people in the Balkans, same with the Magyar/Hungarians, same with the Chinese, same with the Tamil, and so on, and so on.

And they all have irrefutable proof.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a Euro-centrist, there's the Oera Linda Book thread. It all started in Europe/Frisia....lol.

According to many Turks it all started in Turkey. Same with people in the Balkans, same with the Magyar/Hungarians, same with the Chinese, same with the Tamil, and so on, and so on.

And they all have irrefutable proof.....

And that is the gist of it. I'm not a euro-centrist, far from it. However, I just need more than just cultural similarities, geographic proximity and "heavy trade relations" as proof. Sorry these are just assumptions. Its not because something happens in a certain way in India that it per definition has to be the same way everywhere else.

I do certainly not assume that different cultures,lifestyles and religions couldn't have existed within a civilization, this is indeed fallacious. But assuming that this has been the truth for all civilisations is as fallacious. Trying to tie anything and everything to the IVC is fallacious as well. And trying to pose assumptions as facts is just plain wrong.

I try to stick to the facts and take it from there. Is it possible that they were part of the same civilisation or culture? Yes, it's certainly possible. Is it proven? Most certainly not. Maybe the problem is that certain people try so hard to see a connection that in fact they are blinded to the fact that there might not be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there are always people who have to insist that their culture is the center and all derives from it.

Maybe they are right,maybe all the cultures are related and have originated from a common source in some point of time. A global civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just not an india-centrist........

So what do you consider as a civilization? can civilizations have different kingdoms with peoples having different religions and ways of life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe they are right,maybe all the cultures are related and have originated from a common source in some point of time. A global civilization.

I hope this thread is not going to be about Atlantis or Ancient Aliens..... again.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hope this thread is not going to be about Atlantis or Ancient Aliens..... again.

.

Why does it have to be Atlantis or Ancient Aliens to explain a global civilization in antiquity?

Though i take the indication, you have a good thread going out here,will not divert the topic.Looking forward to more information.

Meanwhile here is a list of Janapadas(tribes/kingdoms) mentioned in Hindu literature:

Ancient Sanskrit texts like Ashtadhyayi (IV.4.168-175), Ramayana (IV/41-43), Mahabharata (VII/11/16-17; VIII/8/18-20)) and numerous Puranas (Bhuvanakosa list of countries) refer to many Janapadas of ancient times.

Pāṇini's Ashtadhyayi furnishes a list of fifteen Kshatriya monarchical Janapadas, viz., Salveya, Gandhari, Magadha, Kalinga, Surasena, Kosala, Ajada, Kuru, Salva, Pratyagratha, Kalakuta, Ashmaka, Kamboja,Avanti and Kunti. Besides, there were those following the republican constitutions.

In context of Krsna digvijay, the Mahabharata furnishes a key list of twenty-five ancient Janapadas, viz., Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Magadha, Kasi, Kosala, Vatsa, Garga, Karusha, Pundra, Avanti, Dakshinatya, Parvartaka, Dasherka, Kashmira, Ursa, Pishacha, Mudgala, Kamboja, Vatadhana, Chola, Pandya, Trigarta, Malava, and Darada (MBH 7/11/15-17). Besides, there were the Janapadas of Kurus and Panchalasalso.

Ramayana (an earlier list) includes Janapadas of Andhras, Pundras, Cholas, Pandyas, Keralas, Mekhalas, Utkalas, Dasharnas, Abravantis, Avantis, Vidarbhas, Mlecchas, Pulindas, Surasenas, Prasthalas, Bharatas, Kurus, Madrakas, Kambojas, Daradas, Kiratas, Tangana, Yavanas, Sakas (from Saka-dvipa) Chinas, Maha-Chinas, Niharas etc.

The Bhuvanakosa Section of numerous Puranas divides the ancient Indian subcontinent into (1) the Dakshinapatha (Southern India), (2) the Madhyadesa (Mid India), (3) the Prachya (Eastern India), (4) theAparanta (Western India), (5) the Udichya or north/north-west division, (6) the Vindyavasins, and (7) the Parvatashrayins, and in the detailed list of countries, it refers to many Janapadas of ancient times (See:Kirfel's list of the countries of Bhuvanakosha)

By about the sixth century BCE, many of these Janapadas further evolved into larger political entities by the process of merger and land grabbing which eventually led to the formation of bigger kingdoms known in Buddhist texts as the Mahajanapadas or the great nations (a karmadharaya of maha "great" and janapada "country").

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janapada

Maybe these people are mentioned here.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it have to be Atlantis or Ancient Aliens to explain a global civilization in antiquity?

It doesn't, but it eventually always happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't, but it eventually always happens.

I have not once referred to any ancient aliens or Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not once referred to any ancient aliens or Atlantis.

I didn't say you would come up with it, but as soon as someone says "global civilization", then the ball starts rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say you would come up with it, but as soon as someone says "global civilization", then the ball starts rolling.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EpicIndia.jpg

This detailed map shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics.

So, from this map, Turkumenistan would correspond to the Tushara Kingdom.

The wiki on Tusharas also call them as Tukharas, Tócharoi.

The Tocharians and these Tocharoi /Tushara/Tukhara are two different people.

Tusharas (alias Tukharas, Tócharoi) were a Mleccha tribe, with their kingdom located in the north west of India as per the epic Mahabharata. An account in Mahabharata (Mbh 1:85) depicts Mlechchas as the descendants of Anu, one of the cursed sons of king Yayati. Yayati's eldest son Yadu, gave rise to the Yadavas and youngest son Puru to the Pauravas that includes the Kurus and Panchalas. Only the fifth son of Puru's line was considered to be the successors of Yayati's throne, as he cursed the other four sons and denied them kingship. Pauravas inherited the Yayati's original empire and stayed in the Gangatic plain who later created the Kuru and Panchala Kingdoms. They were the followers of proper Vedic culture. Yadavas made central and western India their stronghold. The descendants of Anu, also called Anavas migrated to Iran, of which the Tusharas settled in Turkmenistan, Turkistan (in Afghanistan) and Turkey. The Tushara country mentioned in the epic could be Turkmenistan, a Central Asian Republic or the Turkistan of Afghanistan.

The Atharavaveda-Parishishta[1] associates the Tusharas (Tócharoi) with the Sakas (Scyths), Yavanas/Yonas (Indo-Greeks) and the Bahlikas (Bactrians) (Saka.Yavana.Tushara.Bahlikashcha). It also juxtaposes the Kambojas with the Bahlikas (Kamboja-Bahlika...).[2]

This shows that the Tusharas were probably neighbours to these peoples, possibly in Transoxiana.

Link

and Transoxiana is also corresponding to the area under reference.

Transoxiana (also spelled Transoxania) is the ancient name used for the portion of Central Asia corresponding approximately with modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan and southwest Kazakhstan. Geographically, it is the region between the Amu Darya (Greek: Ώξος Ōxos) and Syr Darya rivers.[1] When used in the present, it usually implies that one is talking about that region in the time prior to about the 8th century, although the term continued to remain in use among western historians for several centuries after. In the Persian epic Shahnameh, written by the poet Ferdowsi, Transoxiana is the homeland of the Iranian nomadic tribes and the Oxus river is the border between Iran and Turan.

The region was one of the satrapies of the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia under the name Sogdiana. Transoxiana, however, is Latin, and literally means "across the Oxus River", the Greek name for the Amu Darya, which describes the region perfectly from the viewpoint of the Greeks and Romans. The area was called prdry and Faraa-rood in Middle Persian,[2] the latter means "that which is beyond the river". After invasion of Arabs they called it mā warā' an-nāhr which is a translation of the Mid. Persian name and has the same meaning, and is an alternative name for the country, and is also rendered Mawarannahr.

Link

Karte_Map_Chorasan-Transoxanien-Choresmien.png

So good to learn something new.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This detailed map shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics.

So, from this map, Turkumenistan would correspond to the Tushara Kingdom.

The wiki on Tusharas also call them as Tukharas, Tócharoi.

The Tocharians and these Tocharoi /Tushara/Tukhara are two different people.

Link

and Transoxiana is also corresponding to the area under reference.

Link

So good to learn something new.

But in your first map I also see "Tushara" far to the east (orange fonts) of the Turkmenian Tushara. And that is where the Tocharians lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This map shows the regions of the world where Tocharian was commonly spoken (red circle). The Tocharian language is something of a mystery. Our only evidence of it includes some fragmentary texts found in the early twentieth-century in Chinese Turkestan (central Asia). This language appears in two forms, which linguists unimaginatively call "Tocharian A" and "Tocharian B," which split from each other about 700 CE. The Tocharians lived in the region until about 950 CE, and their writing makes reference to Chinese rulers. What makes them so mysterious is that they appear to be a people of European descent in an area of non Indo-European races. Their language is clearly most similar to those of the Centum branch of Indo-European, but from their geographic position we would expect the language to be most similar to that of the Satem branch of Indo-European. Somewhere in the Tocharians' lost past, this people must have engaged in a race-wide exodus to the far east. The reasons for this herculean migration are unknown.

tocharian.jpg

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/IE_Centum_Tocharian.html

Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500–2500 BC), the Tarim mummies (c. 1800 BC) and the Yuezhi of Chinese records, most of whom migrated from southern Gansu to Bactria in the 2nd century BC and then later to northwest India where they founded the Kushan Empire.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tocharians or Tokharians (/təˈkɛəriənz/ or /təˈkɑriənz/) were inhabitants of medieval oasis city-states on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin (modern Xinjiang, China). Their Tocharian languages (a branch of the Indo-European family) are known from manuscripts from the 6th to 8th centuries AD, after which they were supplanted by the Turkic languages of the Uyghur tribes.

Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500–2500 BC), the Tarim mummies (c. 1800 BC) and the Yuezhi of Chinese records, most of whom migrated from southern Gansu to Bactria in the 2nd century BC and then later to northwest India where they founded the Kushan Empire.

Link

TurkmenistanandTarimbasin_zps63761223.jpg

The Tarim Basin is towards the right of Tajikistan and Turkemenistan is far away towards the left of Tajikistan & Uzbekistan.

The Tushara Kingdom and The Tocharians of the Tarim Basin are different entities. I suppose and as far i can gather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why did the Indians give two different peoples the same name?

Tusharas (alias Tukharas, Tócharoi) were a Mleccha tribe, with their kingdom located in the north west of India as per the epic Mahabharata. An account in Mahabharata (Mbh 1:85) depicts Mlechchas as the descendants of Anu, one of the cursed sons of king Yayati. Yayati's eldest son Yadu, gave rise to the Yadavas and youngest son Puru to the Pauravas that includes the Kurus and Panchalas. Only the fifth son of Puru's line was considered to be the successors of Yayati's throne, as he cursed the other four sons and denied them kingship. Pauravas inherited the Yayati's original empire and stayed in the Gangatic plain who later created the Kuru and Panchala Kingdoms. They were the followers of proper Vedic culture. Yadavas made central and western India their stronghold. The descendants of Anu, also called Anavas migrated to Iran, of which the Tusharas settled in Turkmenistan, Turkistan (in Afghanistan) and Turkey. The Tushara country mentioned in the epic could be Turkmenistan, a Central Asian Republic or the Turkistan of Afghanistan.

The Atharavaveda-Parishishta[1] associates the Tusharas (Tócharoi) with the Sakas (Scyths), Yavanas/Yonas (Indo-Greeks) and the Bahlikas (Bactrians) (Saka.Yavana.Tushara.Bahlikashcha). It also juxtaposes the Kambojas with the Bahlikas (Kamboja-Bahlika...).

This shows that the Tusharas were probably neighbours to these peoples, possibly in Transoxiana.

(,,,)

P. C. Bagchi holds that the Yuezhi, Tocharioi and Tushara were identical. If he is correct, the Rishikas, Tusharas/Tukharas (Tokharoi/Tokaroi), the Kushanas and the Yuezhi, were probably either a single people, or members of a confederacy.

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

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the name "Tócharoi" was not given by Indians . It was the greeks.

Now i get the pic.

The name Tushara for the Kingdom was given in the Epics, by Indians.

The name Tocharoi was the name given by the greeks for the people.

My mistake. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is now: were these Tushara (or Greek Tocharoi) the people who(se ancestors) built Gonur Tepe and lived in that area.

If so, then we know their name, and what language they spoke (IE).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During 4300–3200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilization area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc. document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.

Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilization artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Since the Tocharoi/Tushara lived in the same area - Turkmenistan, there is a reasonable probability that they could have created the Gonur Tepe.

As per Hindu Mythology, The Tushara Kingdom was established by the descendants of Anu, one of the son's of Yayati, the ancestor of the Yadavas (tribe of Sri krishna), the Purus - the royal lineage that included the pandavas and the Kauravas, of the epic Mahabharata.

The concept of Mleccha of Hindu Religion is simply put "Barbarians".

The IVC would have very well be barbarians to the Aryans and could have been termed Mleccha.

So, things do line up.

Edited by The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.