Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2020 11:15:04 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 15:22:02 GMT -5
 St. Petersburg State Hermitage Museum's Golden Hun Treasures and Blessed Meanings
Edited by Irina ZASETSKAYA, Gözde SAZAK, Istanbul University Press, 2020
 Wanna see more Hunnic art? Check out the link below for a free PDF of the whole book: iupresswork.com/data/kitaplar/GHTBM.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2020 0:22:55 GMT -5
A couple of videos from the Kipchak speaking Tatars and Bashkir of the Volga, in Russia. Game of Thrones Bashkir style with the Kurai flute..and the second video is from the good old Tatars. Flute - Beautiful Tatar music
Pour yourself some fermented mare's milk or whiskey or even a cup of tea and enjoy  Quray/Kurai wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quray |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 4:17:14 GMT -5
Interesting study on the possible connections between the Indo-European and Uralic Languages.  The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European
The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses
Series:
Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 21
Editors: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen PronkDescription:
In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European some of the world’s leading experts in historical linguistics shed new light on two hypotheses about the prehistory of the Indo-European language family, the so-called Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis states that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European family should be viewed as a sister language of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the other, non-Anatolian branches. The common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, including Anatolian, can then be called Proto-Indo-Anatolian. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis states that the closest genetic relative of Indo-European is the Uralic language family, and that both derive from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-Uralic. The book unravels the history of these hypotheses and scrutinizes the evidence for and against them.
Contributors are Stefan H. Bauhaus, Rasmus G. Bjørn, Dag Haug, Petri Kallio, Simona Klemenčič, Alwin Kloekhorst, Frederik Kortlandt, Guus Kroonen, Martin J. Kümmel, Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Alexander Lubotsky, Rosemarie Lühr, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, Andrei Sideltsev, Michiel de Vaan, Mikhail Zhivlov. See Less
Publisher: Brill | Rodopi Pages: viii, 235 pp. ISBN: 978-90-04-40934-7 Publication Date: 17 Oct 2019 Contents:
Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic
By: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk
Pages: 1–14
The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited
By: Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus
Pages: 15–29
Pronouns and Particles: Indo-Uralic Heritage and Convergence
By: Rasmus Gudmundsen Bjørn
Pages: 30–49
Indo-Anatolian Syntax?
By: Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev
Pages: 50–73
Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic
By: Petri Kallio
Pages: 74–87
Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility
By: Simona Klemenčič
Pages: 88–101
Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation
By: Frederik Kortlandt
Pages: 102–110
The Proto-Indo-European Mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective
By: Guus Kroonen
Pages: 111–114
Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems
By: Martin Joachim Kümmel
Pages: 115–130
The Anatolian “Ergative”
By: Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg
Pages: 131–150
The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin
By: Alexander Lubotsky
Pages: 151–162
Headedness in Indo-Uralic
By: Rosemarie Lühr
Pages: 163–185
Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian
By: Michaël Peyrot
Pages: 186–202
Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’
By: Michiel de Vaan
Pages: 203–218
Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut
By: Mikhail Zhivlov
Pages: 219–235
Amazon Link: www.amazon.co.uk/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/www.amazon.com/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/ |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on May 26, 2020 7:22:02 GMT -5
Mongol was certainly a lot better than the earlier hollywood movies with John Wayne The Conqueror (1956) as Genghis Khan. Then in 1965 they released Genghis Khan with Omar Sharif as Genghis - terrible movie that one. Nevertheless, Stephen Boyd was a pretty good villain as Jamukha. Talk of a Mongol sequel has been ongoing since the initial release in 2007. Will it happen? it's a bit like waiting for The Legend of Conan. In the good old days I think Jack Palance would have been perfect as Genghis ... or even, dare I say it CONAN!! Here's Jack Palance as Ögedei Khan, son of Genghis! I think Jack Palance would make a good Olgerd Vladislav. In all this time I still haven't gotten around to watching The Mongols with Jack Palance, although I have seen him in the one where he played Attila. Sign of the Pagan My all time favourite when it comes to the Huns. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 3:17:53 GMT -5
Mongol was certainly a lot better than the earlier hollywood movies with John Wayne The Conqueror (1956) as Genghis Khan. Then in 1965 they released Genghis Khan with Omar Sharif as Genghis - terrible movie that one. Nevertheless, Stephen Boyd was a pretty good villain as Jamukha. Talk of a Mongol sequel has been ongoing since the initial release in 2007. Will it happen? it's a bit like waiting for The Legend of Conan. In the good old days I think Jack Palance would have been perfect as Genghis ... or even, dare I say it CONAN!! Here's Jack Palance as Ögedei Khan, son of Genghis! I think Jack Palance would make a good Olgerd Vladislav. In all this time I still haven't gotten around to watching The Mongols with Jack Palance, although I have seen him in the one where he played Attila. Sign of the Pagan My all time favourite when it comes to the Huns. Yeah, easily the best movie on the Attila and the Huns, thanks to some great overacting by Jack Palance. I'm not impressed with the Anthony Quinn or the Gerard Butler version. Still waiting for a really great movie based on Attila, Genghis or Tamerlane. The Mongols movie really sucks, then again, probably not as much as the Turkish version of Star Wars |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on May 27, 2020 4:15:55 GMT -5
Yeah, easily the best movie on the Attila and the Huns, thanks to some great overacting by Jack Palance. I'm not impressed with the Anthony Quinn version or the Gerard Butler version. Still waiting for a really great movie based on Attila, Genghis or Tamerlane. The Mongols movie really sucks, then again, probably not as much as the Turkish version of Star Wars Right, so I didn't miss out on anything not watching The Mongols with Jack Palance, but did you have to mention the Turkish Star Wars |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on May 29, 2020 9:43:42 GMT -5
Interesting study on the possible connections between the Indo-European and Uralic Languages. The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European
The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses
Series:
Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 21
Editors: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen PronkDescription:
In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European some of the world’s leading experts in historical linguistics shed new light on two hypotheses about the prehistory of the Indo-European language family, the so-called Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis states that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European family should be viewed as a sister language of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the other, non-Anatolian branches. The common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, including Anatolian, can then be called Proto-Indo-Anatolian. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis states that the closest genetic relative of Indo-European is the Uralic language family, and that both derive from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-Uralic. The book unravels the history of these hypotheses and scrutinizes the evidence for and against them.
Contributors are Stefan H. Bauhaus, Rasmus G. Bjørn, Dag Haug, Petri Kallio, Simona Klemenčič, Alwin Kloekhorst, Frederik Kortlandt, Guus Kroonen, Martin J. Kümmel, Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Alexander Lubotsky, Rosemarie Lühr, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, Andrei Sideltsev, Michiel de Vaan, Mikhail Zhivlov. See Less
Publisher: Brill | Rodopi Pages: viii, 235 pp. ISBN: 978-90-04-40934-7 Publication Date: 17 Oct 2019 Contents:
Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic
By: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk
Pages: 1–14
The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited
By: Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus
Pages: 15–29
Pronouns and Particles: Indo-Uralic Heritage and Convergence
By: Rasmus Gudmundsen Bjørn
Pages: 30–49
Indo-Anatolian Syntax?
By: Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev
Pages: 50–73
Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic
By: Petri Kallio
Pages: 74–87
Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility
By: Simona Klemenčič
Pages: 88–101
Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation
By: Frederik Kortlandt
Pages: 102–110
The Proto-Indo-European Mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective
By: Guus Kroonen
Pages: 111–114
Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems
By: Martin Joachim Kümmel
Pages: 115–130
The Anatolian “Ergative”
By: Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg
Pages: 131–150
The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin
By: Alexander Lubotsky
Pages: 151–162
Headedness in Indo-Uralic
By: Rosemarie Lühr
Pages: 163–185
Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian
By: Michaël Peyrot
Pages: 186–202
Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’
By: Michiel de Vaan
Pages: 203–218
Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut
By: Mikhail Zhivlov
Pages: 219–235
Amazon Link: www.amazon.co.uk/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/www.amazon.com/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/The Finno Ugric Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian languages probably have a common linguistic ancestor with the Altaic Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolian variants. It becomes even more confusing when you consider that Japonic and Koreanic languages may have some relationship with Altaic. |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on May 29, 2020 9:45:44 GMT -5
Finno Ugric languages  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 10:45:46 GMT -5
Interesting study on the possible connections between the Indo-European and Uralic Languages. The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European
The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses
Series:
Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 21
Editors: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen PronkDescription:
In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European some of the world’s leading experts in historical linguistics shed new light on two hypotheses about the prehistory of the Indo-European language family, the so-called Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. The Indo-Anatolian hypothesis states that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European family should be viewed as a sister language of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the other, non-Anatolian branches. The common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, including Anatolian, can then be called Proto-Indo-Anatolian. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis states that the closest genetic relative of Indo-European is the Uralic language family, and that both derive from a common ancestor called Proto-Indo-Uralic. The book unravels the history of these hypotheses and scrutinizes the evidence for and against them.
Contributors are Stefan H. Bauhaus, Rasmus G. Bjørn, Dag Haug, Petri Kallio, Simona Klemenčič, Alwin Kloekhorst, Frederik Kortlandt, Guus Kroonen, Martin J. Kümmel, Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Alexander Lubotsky, Rosemarie Lühr, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, Andrei Sideltsev, Michiel de Vaan, Mikhail Zhivlov. See Less
Publisher: Brill | Rodopi Pages: viii, 235 pp. ISBN: 978-90-04-40934-7 Publication Date: 17 Oct 2019 Contents:
Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic
By: Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk
Pages: 1–14
The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited
By: Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus
Pages: 15–29
Pronouns and Particles: Indo-Uralic Heritage and Convergence
By: Rasmus Gudmundsen Bjørn
Pages: 30–49
Indo-Anatolian Syntax?
By: Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev
Pages: 50–73
Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic
By: Petri Kallio
Pages: 74–87
Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility
By: Simona Klemenčič
Pages: 88–101
Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation
By: Frederik Kortlandt
Pages: 102–110
The Proto-Indo-European Mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective
By: Guus Kroonen
Pages: 111–114
Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems
By: Martin Joachim Kümmel
Pages: 115–130
The Anatolian “Ergative”
By: Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg
Pages: 131–150
The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin
By: Alexander Lubotsky
Pages: 151–162
Headedness in Indo-Uralic
By: Rosemarie Lühr
Pages: 163–185
Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian
By: Michaël Peyrot
Pages: 186–202
Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’
By: Michiel de Vaan
Pages: 203–218
Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut
By: Mikhail Zhivlov
Pages: 219–235
Amazon Link: www.amazon.co.uk/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/www.amazon.com/Precursors-Proto-Indo-European-Leiden-Studies-Indo-European/dp/9004409343/The Finno Ugric Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian languages probably have a common linguistic ancestor with the Altaic Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolian variants. It becomes even more confusing when you consider that Japonic and Koreanic languages may have some relationship with Altaic. Yeah, the Uralic and Altaic languages probably do share a common ancestor. They share certain commonalities such as 1. subject-object-verb sentence structure 2. They are agglutinative languages with suffixes applied to root words that can end up becoming extremely long. 3. Vowel Harmony: When a suffix is applied to a root word, the vowel in the suffix remains in harmony with the root word. If such a group did exist I think it was rudely interrupted by the rise of the Proto-Indo-Europeans leading to centuries of separation until the Altaic expansion with the rise of the Eastern Huns (Xiongnu). |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on May 30, 2020 19:20:19 GMT -5
Yeah, the Uralic and Altaic languages probably do share a common ancestor. They share certain commonalities such as 1. subject-object-verb sentence structure 2. They are agglutinative languages with suffixes applied to root words that can end up becoming extremely long. 3. Vowel Harmony: When a suffix is applied to a root word, the vowel in the suffix remains in harmony with the root word. If such a group did exist I think it was rudely interrupted by the rise of the Proto-Indo-Europeans leading to centuries of separation until the Altaic expansion with the rise of the Eastern Huns (Xiongnu). Those proto Indo Europeans always ruined things didn't they I used to think that both the Uralic and Altaic languages belonged to the one bigger all encompassing linguistic family, and the points you noted above highlight that commonality between the two families.  Yeah, I know, I love maps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 16:02:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I like the good ol' maps too. Here's one with the linguistic groups found in the Caucasian Mountains.  |
|
|
|
Post by kemp on Jun 1, 2020 23:56:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I like the good ol' maps too. Here's one with the linguistic groups found in the Caucasian Mountains. Interesting, never knew that Kurdish was part of the Iranian branch of the Indo European languages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 2:34:44 GMT -5
Remains of a Bronze Age settlement dating back 3,500 years are unearthed on the ancient Silk Road by Chinese archaeologists
Ruins of two large buildings and three smaller buildings were discovered Experts also excavated a large number of ceramic pieces and animal bones Traces of Bronze Age living were found under a group of 2,000-year-old tombs The site is situated in modern-day China where the ancient Silk Road passed By BILLIE THOMSON FOR MAILONLINE Archaeologists have discovered the remains of an extremely rare settlement thought to date back 3,500 years to the Late Bronze Age on the ancient Silk Road.
Experts found the remnants of five buildings, ceramic pieces as well as animal bones on the site in modern-day western China, reported state media.
The findings will provide valuable information for historians to understand the lifestyle as well as the migration pattern of those living on the vast grassland between Europe and Asia at the time, according to one researcher.![]()  The findings will provide valuable information for historians to understand the lifestyle as well as the migration pattern of those living on the grassland between Europe and Asia at the time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 2:40:02 GMT -5
Remains of a Bronze Age settlement dating back 3,500 years are unearthed on the ancient Silk Road by Chinese archaeologists, part 2
A team of experts recently found traces of the ancient community underneath a group of ancient tombs east of the Ili River Valley in present-day Xinjiang.
The cluster of graves is thought to have belonged to nomadic people and contains around 30 rectangular-shaped, single-chamber tombs.
Researchers believe the tombs date back around 2,000 years to an era equivalent to the Han Dynasty of China (206BC-220AD). That was also when trading activities on the Silk Road started to flourish.
The older, Bronze Age site was located about 50 centimetres (1.64 feet) underneath the burial site.
Experts discovered it by accident after noticing the earth around one of the nomadic tombs was different from that of the others, according to a media outlet affiliated to the local Xinyuan government.
Members of the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology excavated a large number of fragments of ceramic as well as bones belonging to cows, sheep, horses and antelopes from three and a half millennia ago.
Ruins of two large buildings, measuring nearly 200 square metres (2,150 square feet), and three smaller buildings of around 50 square metres (538 square feet) were found.
There was also evidence of the use of fire and coal. Experts from the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology found traces of Bronze Age living underneath a group of ancient tombs (pictured) east of the Ili River Valley Researchers excavated a large number of fragments of ceramic (pictured) as well as bones belonging to cows, sheep, horses and antelopes from three and a half millennia ago The Bronze Age site had been lying underneath a group of ancient tombs thought to belong to nomadic people. The burial site has around 30 rectangular-shaped, single-chamber tombs
|
|
