Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 0:41:48 GMT -5
Newly Found Stakes Prompt Fresh Look At Vietnam's Defeat Of The Mongols, part 2  Commanded by the legendary General Tran Hung Dao (1226-1300), Vietnamese soldiers submerged the wooden poles in Bach Dang River prior to the fleet’s arrival, comprising 18,000 men and 400 vessels. Hidden during high tide, the stakes trapped the invaders when the tide receded, ensuring victory for Tran Hung Dao.
The landslide victory in Bach Dang River is considered the biggest naval battle in Vietnam's history and a representative triumph in Vietnam's fights against three invasions of the Mongolian empire.
Archeologists had to dig 2.5 meters deep in order to study the stakes which have different lengths and diameters. The longest one is nearly 5 meters, while the widest one has a diameter of 0.5 meters. They are placed four to five meters apart. The researchers have different theories about the threads found around the trunks. They were either attached to cattle that pulled the logs or used as link between logs. The stakes were planted in the river under the command of General Tran Hung Dao more than 700 years ago. The river body has reduced in size because of alluvial deposits and human activities, placing the stakes in a rice field that is Cao Quy today. The archeologists have not yet determined how the stakes were planted because the excavated ones show equal footing.  According to Complete Annals of Dai Viet (Dai Viet Su Ky), General Tran Hung Dao covered the stakes with grass prior to the fight and faked a retreat which drew the enemy’s fleet into the stakes. The invaders, unaware of the high tide and the hidden stakes, ended up getting trapped in them. The invaders drowned or were killed by the General’s army. The Annals says that the river turned red with blood.
At a conference on the new discovery on Saturday, many researchers proposed the area on the Cao Quy rice field, where the stakes used in the legendary ‘Battle of Bach Dang’ were found, is recognized as "a special national heritage site" and possibly "a world's heritage site"
Source: e.vnexpress.net/news/news/newly-found-stakes-prompt-fresh-look-at-vietnam-s-defeat-of-the-mongols-4031218.html
|
|
|
|
Post by trescuinge on Feb 5, 2020 19:44:32 GMT -5
How to make fermented mare's milk? First catch a mare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 2:16:56 GMT -5
How to make fermented mare's milk? First catch a mare. Thanks Trescuinge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 12:17:33 GMT -5
 David Sneath, The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia, Columbia University Press, 2007Description:
In this groundbreaking work, social anthropologist David Sneath aggressively dispels the myths surrounding the history of steppe societies and proposes a new understanding of the nature and formation of the state. Since the colonial era, representations of Inner Asia have been dominated by images of fierce nomads organized into clans and tribes—but as Sneath reveals, these representations have no sound basis in historical fact. Rather, they are the product of nineteenth-century evolutionist social theory, which saw kinship as the organizing principle in a nonstate society.
Sneath argues that aristocratic power and statelike processes of administration were the true organizers of life on the steppe. Rethinking the traditional dichotomy between state and nonstate societies, Sneath conceives of a "headless state" in which a configuration of statelike power was formed by the horizontal relations among power holders and was reproduced with or without an overarching ruler or central "head." In other words, almost all of the operations of state power existed at the local level, virtually independent of central bureaucratic authority.
Sneath's research gives rise to an alternative picture of steppe life in which aristocrats determined the size, scale, and degree of centralization of political power. His history of the region shows no clear distinction between a highly centralized, stratified "state" society and an egalitarian, kin-based "tribal" society. Drawing on his extensive anthropological fieldwork in the region, Sneath persuasively challenges the legitimacy of the tribal model, which continues to distort scholarship on the history of Inner Asia.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Sneath is director of the Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit at Cambridge University and a lecturer in social anthropology. He conducted doctoral research in Inner Mongolia in the 1980s and since then has carried out research in Mongolia and other parts of Inner Asia.Link: cup.columbia.edu/book/the-headless-state/9780231140546 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 2:02:19 GMT -5
An interesting video on the Altaic Theory:
Altaic: Rise and Fall of a Linguistic Hypothesis
Description:
Languages throughout Asia are startlingly similar, but are they all part of one huge family? Thus began the biggest fight in the history of historical linguistics.
Starting with my little quiz, see how languages from Turkey to Northern China have "embarrassing" parallels. Some linguists explained these similarities by linking the languages together into one large family. They called the family "Altaic", with a core containing Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic. Capitalizing on connections between Korean and Japanese, Altaic proponents added these two apparent isolates to form an even larger "macro" family. The result was a sweeping hypothesis: all Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Koreanic and Japonic languages are genetically related.
The idea at first seemed to take off, with Moscow at the helm of the research. However, linguists increasingly criticized results and the methods used by Altaicists. They were skeptical that the languages were convergent and shallowly similar rather than divergent and truly related. One notable supporter turned into its most vocal critic. We'll drop in on the spat between him and three foremost Altaicists to uncover the controversy and the controversy over the controversy.
We'll leave with a sense of how Altaic fell from linguistic grace, along with some of the main reasons why. While there are people who do Altaic, linguists tend to give me the impression that consensus is strongly on the side of areal explanations for the features we saw in my quiz (like the Mesoamerican Sprachbund) instead of genetic affiliation (like Indo-European or Austronesian).
Thank you for watching! This isn't about taking sides, but appreciating the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Feb 25, 2020 7:55:42 GMT -5
An interesting video on the Altaic Theory: Altaic: Rise and Fall of a Linguistic HypothesisDescription:
Languages throughout Asia are startlingly similar, but are they all part of one huge family? Thus began the biggest fight in the history of historical linguistics.
Starting with my little quiz, see how languages from Turkey to Northern China have "embarrassing" parallels. Some linguists explained these similarities by linking the languages together into one large family. They called the family "Altaic", with a core containing Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic. Capitalizing on connections between Korean and Japanese, Altaic proponents added these two apparent isolates to form an even larger "macro" family. The result was a sweeping hypothesis: all Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Koreanic and Japonic languages are genetically related.
The idea at first seemed to take off, with Moscow at the helm of the research. However, linguists increasingly criticized results and the methods used by Altaicists. They were skeptical that the languages were convergent and shallowly similar rather than divergent and truly related. One notable supporter turned into its most vocal critic. We'll drop in on the spat between him and three foremost Altaicists to uncover the controversy and the controversy over the controversy.
We'll leave with a sense of how Altaic fell from linguistic grace, along with some of the main reasons why. While there are people who do Altaic, linguists tend to give me the impression that consensus is strongly on the side of areal explanations for the features we saw in my quiz (like the Mesoamerican Sprachbund) instead of genetic affiliation (like Indo-European or Austronesian).
Thank you for watching! This isn't about taking sides, but appreciating the story.
Sergei Starostin had this notion that the Uralic and Altaic are descendant languages of a linguistic family that existed 9000 years ago, and also gave rise to paleo Siberian, Dravidian and Eskimo Aleut languages, which in itself branched off from an older Eurasiatic protolanguage family 12000 years ago, from which Indo European and Kartvelian families descended from. According to this largely unproven hypotheses, the Uralic, Indo European and Kartvelian languages belong to the Nostratic language macrofamily. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 12:47:06 GMT -5
An interesting video on the Altaic Theory: Altaic: Rise and Fall of a Linguistic HypothesisDescription:
Languages throughout Asia are startlingly similar, but are they all part of one huge family? Thus began the biggest fight in the history of historical linguistics.
Starting with my little quiz, see how languages from Turkey to Northern China have "embarrassing" parallels. Some linguists explained these similarities by linking the languages together into one large family. They called the family "Altaic", with a core containing Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic. Capitalizing on connections between Korean and Japanese, Altaic proponents added these two apparent isolates to form an even larger "macro" family. The result was a sweeping hypothesis: all Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Koreanic and Japonic languages are genetically related.
The idea at first seemed to take off, with Moscow at the helm of the research. However, linguists increasingly criticized results and the methods used by Altaicists. They were skeptical that the languages were convergent and shallowly similar rather than divergent and truly related. One notable supporter turned into its most vocal critic. We'll drop in on the spat between him and three foremost Altaicists to uncover the controversy and the controversy over the controversy.
We'll leave with a sense of how Altaic fell from linguistic grace, along with some of the main reasons why. While there are people who do Altaic, linguists tend to give me the impression that consensus is strongly on the side of areal explanations for the features we saw in my quiz (like the Mesoamerican Sprachbund) instead of genetic affiliation (like Indo-European or Austronesian).
Thank you for watching! This isn't about taking sides, but appreciating the story.
Sergei Starostin had this notion that the Uralic and Altaic are descendant languages of a linguistic family that existed 9000 years ago, and also gave rise to paleo Siberian, Dravidian and Eskimo Aleut languages, which in itself branched off from an older Eurasiatic protolanguage family 12000 years ago, from which Indo European and Kartvelian families descended from. According to this largely unproven hypotheses, the Uralic, Indo European and Kartvelian languages belong to the Nostratic language macrofamily. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languagesYeah, the work by Starostin is very interesting. The Altaic Etymological Dictionary is also available online, just in case you wanna brush-up on your Hyrkanian  starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Feb 26, 2020 7:45:09 GMT -5
Sergei Starostin had this notion that the Uralic and Altaic are descendant languages of a linguistic family that existed 9000 years ago, and also gave rise to paleo Siberian, Dravidian and Eskimo Aleut languages, which in itself branched off from an older Eurasiatic protolanguage family 12000 years ago, from which Indo European and Kartvelian families descended from. According to this largely unproven hypotheses, the Uralic, Indo European and Kartvelian languages belong to the Nostratic language macrofamily. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languagesYeah, the work by Starostin is very interesting. The Altaic Etymological Dictionary is also available online, just in case you wanna brush-up on your Hyrkanian starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Caltet Tried the link, busy server error, will try it again later. It is interesting though, and the Altaic language family covers a wide area of Eurasia, including a number of cultures and people. Reading the article, and the initial one you posted on the' Altaic: Rise and Fall of a Linguistic Hypothesis' I was surprised to find out that the Japanese and Korean languages belong to the wider Altaic group. The three branches of the Altaic group are the Turko-Mongolic, Mongol-Tungusic, and Korean-Japanese, branching off sometime prior to 5000 BC, perhaps from the original Hyrkanian  . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_Altaic_Languages |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2020 11:45:47 GMT -5
Tried the link, busy server error, will try it again later. It is interesting though, and the Altaic language family covers a wide area of Eurasia, including a number of cultures and people. Reading the article, and the initial one you posted on the' Altaic: Rise and Fall of a Linguistic Hypothesis' I was surprised to find out that the Japanese and Korean languages belong to the wider Altaic group. The three branches of the Altaic group are the Turko-Mongolic, Mongol-Tungusic, and Korean-Japanese, branching off sometime prior to 5000 BC, perhaps from the original Hyrkanian . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_Altaic_LanguagesThe Altaic Theory can be problematic. I think the main reason why linguists cannot agree is that unlike the Indo-European languages there is nothing substantial that is extant beyond the 6th century AD. Where as with the Indo-European languages there can be found plenty of examples in Sanskrit, Hittite, Greek and Latin languages to name a few, dating beyond 2 thousand years ago. The same cannot be said about the Altaic languages. The majority of personal and tribal names in the Hunnic era can be found in the Hellenic/Roman sources, the linguistic data rendered in Chinese characters prove even more difficult to decipher. This has been attempted several times over the last couple of centuries and each historian seems to champion a Turkic, Mongol, Yeniseian language or some other obscure linguistic origin for the ancient Hunnic tribes. It is very difficult to reconstruct the languages from these ancient sources. Previously the earliest extant written Mongolic dated from the era of the Great Genghis Khan in the 13th century. The recently deciphered Mongolic Huis Tolgoi inscriptions pre-date that considerably written during the Türk (Gök-Türk) Empire in the late 6th century.The earliest Turkic inscriptions also date from the Türk Empire in the early 8th century. The Turkic and Mongolic languages appear closer during the Türk Empire (but, I'm no linguist). My knowledge of the Tungusic languages is lacking to say the least so I cannot really comment on any similarities. I have even less knowledge concerning the Koreanic and Japonic languages. But I know there is nothing considerable extant during the Hunnic era (200BC). *I tried that link, it's no good I think. But, It seems to work if you google 'Altaic Etymological Dictionary' and select the same page: In can be found at: Altaic etymologystarling.rinet.ru › cgi-bin › query There's also a PDF of the 3 volume etymological dictionary: www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/etymological_dictionary_of_altaic_languages.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Feb 27, 2020 8:53:29 GMT -5
The Altaic Theory can be problematic. I think the main reason why linguists cannot agree is that unlike the Indo-European languages there is nothing substantial that is extant beyond the 6th century AD. Where as with the Indo-European languages there can be found plenty of examples in Sanskrit, Hittite, Greek and Latin languages to name a few, dating beyond 2 thousand years ago. The same cannot be said about the Altaic languages. The majority of personal and tribal names in the Hunnic era can be found in the Hellenic/Roman sources, the linguistic data rendered in Chinese characters prove even more difficult to decipher. This has been attempted several times over the last couple of centuries and each historian seems to champion a Turkic, Mongol, Yeniseian language or some other obscure linguistic origin for the ancient Hunnic tribes. It is very difficult to reconstruct the languages from these ancient sources. Previously the earliest extant written Mongolic dated from the era of the Great Genghis Khan in the 13th century. The recently deciphered Mongolic Huis Tolgoi inscriptions pre-date that considerably written during the Türk (Gök-Türk) Empire in the late 6th century.The earliest Turkic inscriptions also date from the Türk Empire in the early 8th century. The Turkic and Mongolic languages appear closer during the Türk Empire (but, I'm no linguist). My knowledge of the Tungusic languages is lacking to say the least so I cannot really comment on any similarities. I have even less knowledge concerning the Koreanic and Japonic languages. But I know there is nothing considerable extant during the Hunnic era (200BC). *I tried that link, it's no good I think. But, It seems to work if you google 'Altaic Etymological Dictionary' and select the same page: In can be found at: Altaic etymologystarling.rinet.ru › cgi-bin › query There's also a PDF of the 3 volume etymological dictionary: www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/etymological_dictionary_of_altaic_languages.pdfThe PDF was good. I agree, it is problematic getting a clear picture on the relationship between these languages, for instance there are pitch distinctions between Mongolian and Turkic that suggest e relationship, but also hint at an early separation of the supposed proto Tuko Mongolian language. As far as the far eastern languages are concerned, that is Japanese and Korean, it is probably better to state that the Korean -Japanese languages form part of the Nostratic macrofamily of languages, rather than being directly part of the large Altaic subfamily of Nostratic. Others will argue that Japanese belongs to a language family that is sometimes termed Austroasiatic, and has little or nothing in common with Altaic, some of the newer reconstructions show similarities with Southeast Asian Austronesian languages. Of course, old Japanese had an eight vowel system, thus resembling that of the Uralic and Altaic language families. I'm also no linguist, and in all honesty, it is doing my head in just thinking about the direct relationships between the Eurasian languages, and what may be in some cases influences over many centuries between neighbouring languages. There is obviously a clear Altaic family, beyond that I think things start to get a little murky, I know that the Iranian and eastern European languages have many Turkish word borrowings, in fact, even English has adopted some Turkish choice words, for example yoghurt and coffee to name but two popular examples. The Turkish words that entered the English language mostly came by way of the Russian language influences, Mammoth is from the Russian Siberian mamot, possibly from the Yakut mamma 'earth’ from the belief that the mammoths burrowed in the earth like moles when their bones were first discovered. ‘English words of Turkic origin’ www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary207.htm |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Feb 29, 2020 22:28:12 GMT -5
‘Ancient hunters killed woolly mammoths for their meat. Today in Russia’s Arctic the search is on for their valuable tusks.’  ‘The mammoths’ tusks, which could spiral to more than 13 feet, are reemerging from the permafrost—and fueling a trade that benefits the people of Arctic Siberia, including the native Yakuts, an Asiatic ethnic group that speaks a language of Turkic origin.’ www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/04/tracking-mammoths1/ |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Feb 29, 2020 22:30:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 2:09:06 GMT -5
Thanks Kemp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2020 13:53:52 GMT -5
"Deliler (Berserkers) or Mikhal Oglu Vs Vlad the Impaler" IMDB shows this is in Turkish. I did not find a DVD release on Amazon to see if it is available with subtitles. Has anyone seen it?  Finally found this movie with English subs. Pour yourself some fermented mare's milk and enjoy Deliler (Berserkers) or Mikhal Oglu Vs Vlad the Impaler |
|
|
|
Post by charleshelm on Mar 11, 2020 21:39:26 GMT -5
Thank you sir! Now where did I leave that mare?
|
|
. 
