LAND OF TUR(K)S & TURANIANS

Turanian, adj. & n. [< Pers Turân, name used by Firdawsi in  The Shah Namah for a realm beyond the Oxus, as opposed to  Irân (Persia) < Tur, in Iranian mythology one of the three mythical brothers from which mankind is supposedly descended.

According to ancient History, the Turks of 10,000 BC lived around a great inland sea, which occupied all of Central Asia(Turkestan) between the Caspian, the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas. Here, they developed metalworking, domesticated animals and discovered the techniques of settled agriculture. At the end of the Ice Age, however, the land started to dry up; lakes and swamps replaced the sea, north winds brought masses of sand and conditions became intolerable for the settled millions. Fortunately, the change in climate opened up routes out of the homeland, and Turks emigrated in all directions. Those who remained behind became nomads adapting to the changing conditions (and disappearing from the narrative which, oddly enough, never returned to these aboriginal Turks).The first group settled in a familiar environment, North China around the Yellow River, where they brought the techniques of civilization and established themselves as a warrior aristocracy by 7000 BC. Others moved to India where they found a prehistoric tribal population of dark-skinned people who lived like troops of monkeys. The Turks pushed them south and established a civilization revealed by the excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley (the Thesis made extensive use of archaeology). India, in fact, long had a Turkish presence; the Turkish Ariler (Aryans; -ler or -lar is a plural suffix in Turkish) arrived from Central Asia around 1500 BC; they were followed by the Saka and Kushhan Turks; even Buddha was a Turk (his tribal name Sakya obviously derived from the Saka).Far more important for the future were developments in the Near East, which the migrating Turks entered by a route south of the Caspian. They brought irrigation and drainage to a land of swamps and established the first organized Turkish states and cities in Sumer and Elam. Turanic/Turkic Sumerians developed the world's first writing system (which they brought from Central Asia), using it to express their Turkish language. Archaeology reveals the grandeur of their civilization. From there, around 5000 BC, Turks entered their holy land of Anatolia and a millennium later had established the Turkish Hittite (Eti) civilization; all this confirmed by excavations in Asia Minor. The language of the Hittites was Turkish, not Semitic or Indo-European; the volume goes on to narrate Hittite history in some detail. Along with the Eti came the Traklar (Thracians) who founded Troy (archaeology again). Related Turkish tribes included the Litler (Lydians) of whom one branch moved to Italy where, as the Etruscans, they laid the foundations for Roman civilization.The origins of the Egyptians had been the subject of much debate. History concluded that the earliest settlers may have come from Central Asia, bringing civilization, agriculture and irrigation around 5000 BC and making the local population(semites) as workers. The Semites -- Babylonians, Assyrians, Arabs and Jews -- and for that matter the Armenians were mostly semitic but also mix of tribes came from ancient southern Iran.Ancient Greece was not totally greek at all, the real greeks(athica) came from sea from northern Africa and northeastern Africa, the Minoans of Crete  and the Pelasgians came from Anatolia which they later greekicized but still the Cretans don’t like when they had been called as Greeks today. Ancient Cretan tribes had leaders called ege (hence the Aegean sea) or aka. The Macedonians though, were a Turkish tribe who came down from the Danube region and Eurasian steppes.The Turks did not disappear from the scene: Later Kelteminar culture existed at Central Asia 1000-2000 B.C. The Keltler (Celts) also called Gollüler (Gauls) came from Central Asia via the route north of the Caspian and formed a warrior aristocratic class before the Romans conquered them, imposing their own language and culture. The Germenler (Germans) were related to them. But other tribes, the Iskitler (Scythians) and Kimriler (Cimmerians) had preceded them, bringing civilization to places like the Crimea and Denmark, rescuing Europeans from a cave existence and putting them on the road to scientific discoveries. H.G. Wells' The Outline of History (1920), a mammoth work, famous in its day for surveying the entire historic past. Wells maintained that there had been a great inland sea in Central Asia and that tribes spread out from there as the climate changed at the end of the Ice Age, 10-12,000 years ago. He saw much of Europe as originally occupied by 'dark people or neandearthals' who occupied Asia Minor, southern Europe and North Africa before eliminated in many areas by the white people came from eastern and north eastern lands. Arthur Gobineau, published in 1854, with a second edition thirty years later. Gobineau set out to explain why civilizations fall. His answer was that they succumbed to racial mixing. He maintained that all civilization came from the white race which spread out from Central Asia, dominating areas occupied by inferior black and yellow peoples. The whites had the advantage of a high civilization, fighting on chariots and domesticating animals. The great nationalist ideologue, Ziya Gökalp (1854-1925), wrote an immensely popular poem describing how the five sons of the ancestral Türk Han rode out from Central Asia to establish the Sumerian, Hittite, Chinese, Indian and Scythian civilizations. Schoolbooks presented the Turks (who included the Hittites) as one of the most ancient nations, originators of agriculture, textiles, and metal tools and weapons. Radiating from Central Asia, they founded states and supported the arts and sciences.Today the genetic researches done on world population verified that the origins of most of Europeans, Eurasians including today’s Turks inside and outside of Turkey, most Asians including Indians and partially Native American populations point the same origins at Central Asia.

 Here below is more of what is really known of these (TUR:  Tur-kic, Tur-anian, Tur-qut, Tur-ia) people from a time long ago, from Chinese history.  This is not from some silly, fictional story or from any mythology.  It's real history of a real people that don't deserve to be equated with silly things like fairies or dwarfs or things that go bump in the night. 

From Chinese History: (quoted)

Much is written about these things in China, these are the basics.  Therefore, the earliest records of these people would be from the Chinese history.

Today, the Khalka are the people that lived in Mongolia over 1000 years ago or more at ancient times. These are not the same people as were there in the past; these are not Turkic peoples that were the Khans of old at all. 

Therefore, naming the entire country "Mongolia" is a serious misnomer and very misleading.  It leads to anyone not familiar with these fact to think that the wrong people were the warlike Khans of old.  It also leads to the Khalka imagining themselves to be those same people when everything points to the fact that they are definitely not, despite adopting the horse techniques from them.  The people who were the Khans of old have either vanished into the European gene pool or, for the most part, live in what used to be called Turkestan before the Soviet days.  They are, in fact, the Turks. Some people think that the most Turkic people and the greatest number of them live in Turkey. Also some people think that the most Turkic people and the greatest number of them live in Central Asia(Turkestan).In the reality it's both; Turks migrated to west using Eurasian steppes over and under Caspian Sea to the Balkans, Caucauses, the lands today called India-Pakistan-Iran, Fertile Crescent and of course Turkey for thousands of years and settled in these regions during this largest migration of the world history. 

 

The Hsiung-nu, started to move slowly to the West and settled in East and Central Europe as wall as Caucauses. As  noted, these people and the rest of those invading China did not resemble the Chinese at all. In other words, on the street, no one would be confused about what kind of people they were as they are when they see Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Tibetan, modern-day Outer Mongol (Khalka) and so forth today.  There are many written, detailed descriptions of them in Chinese history.

 

At the same time, the Wei Dynasty of the Toba Turks ruled from 386-581 AD. These were a people quite distinct from the Han (Chinese).  They had writing that was runic and their runes have been found.  If you'd like to see the runes: 

 

They are very similar to "Scandinavian" runes, but much older.  I find it odd that some of these runes found in the Orkhon Valley are dated to 800 AD when the Toba Turks predate that time.

 

 

 

 

The people of Outer Mongolia today are Khalka.  The Kublaids, including the Khalka, are very much Chinese people with a Tibetan-Buddhist culture and an Altaic language. These are the people that by now were dealing with and mixing with the Chinese, both Han and Tungus in China, for centuries.  The rest had long left the area of Chinese influence.

 

You need to understand that these Turks in the Altai, a people already dealing with the Han (Chinese) for centuries, for thousands of years, even, and thoroughly mixed (unless they left forever for the West where other Turks were) took many wives among the Han and had many children.  While the Han might not have accepted them so readily, at least not the first half breeds, Turk nomads most definitely did accept them as "their own."  Understand that whenever the mothers of these children were Han, the children were thoroughly Chinese - their culture and language was Chinese and they were much more readily accepted as Chinese.  

The idea of "racial identity" didn't occur to Turkic people until very recently, the 1800s.  Prior to that, we see thousands of years of some Turks in the Far East blending in with Han, to rule parts of China or not, but then constantly setting anywhere to the north of China, sometimes outside of China.  Soon after they rule China, after generations of intermarriage with only Chinese, they become Chinese in culture, thinking, language and race.  Those people are in China today, part of the Chinese people. The same thing happened to the Manchus who conquered China. They became Chinese in all ways. Non-Chinese history shows that these Turkic Khans conquered and blended in with many other populations as well. If you are Khalka (so-called Mongolian due to a misnomer of a land region), you are using Cyrillic as your alphabet and that hardly originates with you.  The only reason Khalka people even know how to read or write is because the Soviets forced them to learn. The Khalka people never used the runic script of the Turks that previously lived in the Orkhon region, nor did they ever use the Uighur Turks' script.  Khalka is not even listed as one of the tribes of peoples living there during the time of Chingis Khan.  All of the Turkic tribes that were there are listed in Turkic language.  Many more tribes were throughout the Central Asian and Eastern European areas.

Photos of Khalka Mongols they look Chinese, not Turk -Tatar. To my eye, Turks look typically Eurasian as do most Turkic people that I've seen from outside of the country called Turkey (the people in the country Turkey has some Mediterranean-Middle East mixture).  Such people can very easily pass for a type of Hispanic, they can change their attire and pass as people from any of the Islamic nations, too.  They can change their hair and pass as anyone from Eastern Europe as well as passing for the Celts(Irish/Scottish/French/Spanish/Italian) as well. Chinese people can pass as Korean, Japanese, Khalka Mongolian, or any of the more northern Asian types you can see, even ones that tend to be tall. Some Han Chinese are quite tall. Neither a Khalka nor a Chinese can pass as Turk.

Smithsonian had an exhibit in a mall near Washington DC recently wherein they had real Turk-Tatar people dressed in authentic clothing.  These people controlled the entire silk route.  As I said, they were meticulously described.  They didn't look like the people you can see today in Mongolia at all.  The fact is, they never did and Chinese descriptions confirm this, they totally looked Euroasian. 

The Khalka of Mongolia are all basically Chinese except for their language and culture. Well, one might say that many Chinese Americans are not Chinese by culture or language either, not anymore; they are quite American.  But they are still Chinese.  For a while now, due to the 20th century and its rhetoric of "racial awareness," the Khalka people have tried to claim that they are the true blue Mongols.  But they are most definitely not. 

Full "mongoloids" are not Turks, obviously.  Turks are not part of the "Mongolian Race," to use the older three divisions of mankind. Turks are a part of white race with oldest original Central Asian and Turanian features.  The "Turkic" people do consider themselves a single group if they get politically nationalistic (racially aware), just as the African Americans consider themselves a group, despite much admixture with many other people including Europeans in America.  An African American may be 1/16 African and 15/16 Irish; he still identifies himself as black and the American society sees him as black.  The use of the word Turan or Turanian for an ethnicity signifies specifically that you or your ancestors are from a region that stretches from and around the Urals to and around the Altai; hence the expression "Ural-Altaic." 

As is described in Chinese history, the Turkic people were clearly a different people from the Khalka or known Tungus types, at least in appearance.   To address the point these differences are seen with the eyes and lumped into categories with the eyes.  They are obviously phenotypes that most people can see.  In terms of culture and society, these are what most people mean when they use the word "race."  Chinese historians would have based what they wrote about "distinct people" by using the same methods: what they see and can clearly distinguish immediately upon sight.

The Hsiung-nu, for instance, were absolutely not Chinese in appearance.  When those graves were discovered to have light-haired people, horse riding people that owned wolves/dogs, from that time period in China, I was not in the least surprised.  Our records have described and named these people.  They were Hsiung-nu, Yueh-chih, T'u-chueh, descendents of the Hsuing-nu (those were people with that wolf totem, as Tani mentioned), Juan-juan, and others, most of whom went west (west compared to China) in waves and never came back.

We here are speaking of eyewitness descriptions of these living people, not just bones, meticulous details written by chroniclers.  You can't tell a thing about fleshy parts from bones or even from genes, least of all coloration.  Many of these people had lighter hair.  They weren't black haired as are Chinese people.  In no way were they ever mistaken for Chinese.  Even the word T'u-chueh is a rendering of the word Turk. 

Where did they originally come from so long ago before they appeared in waves on the borders of China? Archaology may be able to tell us the answers to this, but they'd have to be able to recognize that they are finding Turkic people.  Some experts are positive that these people are the Saka Turks (Scythians), but even that is not far enough back in time to determine the origins of these people.

We also now know from excavations that these people north and northwest of China were non-Chinese type lighter-haired people.  I would say that the language people speak really means nothing and culture and religion can be adopted very easily.

Let me be clear.  The horse-riding warriors with greatly using arches and swords of ancient times were absolutely Turk or Turanian which they later migrated to different parts of the world from Central Asia showed theirselves at wars of ancient history at different parts of the world.  

These Turkic peoples, and due to their location or main territory one can see why they were named "Ural-Altaic," roamed from west to east, east to west, back and forth with the occasion "dip" into southern areas to raid or settle.  Some of them had nations, however.  These were still the same people. 

Pan-Turania, Pan-Turanism

Pan Turanism, a political movement before and during Lenin's time, was not created by the Ottoman Turks, but was felt and born by the Tatar peoples of Russia, most of whom are Islamic. Tatars, Khirgiz, Bashkir, people like this felt Pan-Turanism. During this time, the later 1800s, the Ottoman Turks, a long-time Islamic people, had started to turn their faces east toward the Altai Mountains whence they had come. Their Turanian heroes were Attila, Chingis, Alp Arslan, Timur-lenk (Tamerlane), and Oghuz Kagan and they considered the older, conquering deeds of their people. Turanists considered all of the Uralic and Altaic people, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Finns, etc. who lived once in Central Asia to be Turanians. They started having a racial-kinship feeling, not a nationalist or religious one. They also defended themselves against the attacks of Firdusi, the author of the epic poem "Shahname," who glorified a thousand year struggle of "wonderful" Iran against "evil" Turan. Pan-Islam and Pan-Turan are not compatible movements at all.

The temperment of the Turanian is not religious: "Turkmen zayif ul iman." (Turkman, weak in faith). For instance, the Seljuk Turks changed their religion three times in two centuries. History vouches for this: in all their wars, Turanians (Turks, Tatars) have never waged a religious war! The Turks themselves say that the psychologies of the two Islamic people differ; one is Semitic and the other is Turanian. The Iranian types of Islamic peoples are their ancient enemies. They also say that the Arab is ascetic, the Turk is epicurean. The God of the Arab is the God of Fear (mehafet ullah); while the God of the Turk is the God of Love (mehabet ullah). Some of the most passionate campaigns against the principles of "Islamic Ottomanism" were the uttering of these three words: Hurriyet, Adalet, Mussavvat, which mean Liberty, Justice, Equality!

Ancient Turanians at Scandinavia

Note that in one story of Odin, he came from the "Land of the Turks" and taught these Scandinavians the runes. That would definitely explain why their later runes are the same as the much older Turkic runes from Orkhon!

 

Last Scandinavian King Hakan Hakanson (Hakan-son means also the Last King in Turkish)

Some Germanic sources write about the old kings of Sweden and Norway as Turkic kings and the royal nobility of Scandinavia as being of Trojan origin [62, p.73, 182]. The northward migration of the Trojans also found its reflection in the «Saga about Nibelungs» where the Trojans are called albs(«heroes») and their king – Alberikh [139, 131-133].
Alb is derived from the old Turkic alp, alb («brave», «daring») [176,37]. As to
Alberikh, it consists of the same alb and old Turkic – erik («swift», «energetic») [176, 177]. The first element of erig (er«brave», «warrior») was used in combination with alb/alp
as a personal name:Alber, a Trojan personal name in the «Iliad», Alper – an Old Turkic personal name with the meaning «brave warrior», «brave man» and «daring man».

Onomasticon seems to reveal the Etruscans’ presence in the North: Tysk and Tyskland,
Swedish and Danish terms to denote «German» and «Germany» [183, p.619, 705], correspond to the word Tusk, denoting «Etruscan», which is still observed on the map of Italy. The province where the Etruscans were settled is nowadays called Tuscany. The toponym
Turya, a Finnish word to denote «Norway» is quite consonant with Troy and Turyana
, the land of the Turks in old sources. It should be noted that it is just Sweden and Norway, whose old kings are presented in old Germanic sources as being Turkic [62, p.73.180].

Turanians may have populated more southerly parts of Eurasia as research into Pelasgians and Sumerians, Etruscans and even Scythians (Saka Turks) seems to now show.  Etruscans called their love god as "Turan" and their first King was named as Tarkhon-Tarkhan like the Hunnic names as Tarkhan. Greeks called the Pelasgians as horsemen with arches. Mediterraneans and Northern Africans(Origins of most Greeks) are not Turanians. 

Evident Turkic elements in old Celtic languages are directly associated with the northward migration of the Trojans. Turkic elements might have been borrowed partially in the continental part of Northern Europe until the Celtic settlement in Britain and partially after they were settled:
Turu («fortress»), used in old Irish poetry [77, 98], is the same Turkic tura («fortress») [176, 587]. Of the same origin are the Gaelic turach («fortress») [191, 465] and Old Turkic
turagh («shelter») [176, 587]. They are all derived from the Turkic tur («to stand», «to leave», «to bear»).
Turanians in Ancient Europe

 

      See Polat Kaya's website regarding Ancient Turanians based on extensive history and language researches. Click on the link below.

http://www.polatkaya.net/

 

See also these informational links on other sites, one is Turkish, the other Hungarian:

Turkic History - http://www.turkicworld.org
Turanian Resource Center - http://www.hunmagyar.org/ -
http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/turemp.html -
http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan.html
Ural-Altaic languages - http://members.tripod.com/~Yukon_2/language2.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/259688988/The-Turkic-Civilization-lost-in-the-Mediterranean-basin-pdf#