6 Ocak 2017 Cuma

Troya, Kazakistan ve Kurgan

Kazakistan- Aşiret Damgası төре (Tore) ile 
Truva-Tunç Mühür (MÖ 12.yy)
Truva I (y.MÖ.2920-2350; Güney Ana Kapı/M.Korfmann) ile 
Kazakistan Taşbaba

"Mühür, 1995 yılında Troia VII tabakasında (M.Ö. 12. yy) bulunmuştur. Çapı 2,3 cm'dir. Ön yüzde, Luvi dilindeki Hieroglif yazıtta bir katibin ismi, arka yüzde de karısının ismi yer almaktadır. Bu buluntu, Troia'daki en eski yazılı belgedir ve Troia'nın Hititlerle olan ilişkilerine işaret etmektedir." (Troiavakfı)

"Troyalı Dolon’un ismini Kırgız ve Kazak Türkçelerinde de görürüz. Mesela; 16.yüzyıldaki araştırmalarda, Kırgız atalarında bir BOY adı Dolon-biy olarak görülür." Prof.Dr.Cingiz Garaşarlı-Bakü

* Kazak Boyları: link / link

..and found nothing but pebbles and some large bones identified by Professor Virchow as horsebones..
Schliemann - ILIOS kitabından syf 653

Troya - (Sözde) "Ajax Tümülüsü" olarak adlandırılan kurgandan AT kemikleri çıkmıştır. Yani Atlı Kurgan. Kurganın Ajax'a ait olması mümkün değildir. O kurgan bir Troyalıya aittir. Ajax aynı zamanda Yeğen Tecuer'ın babadan kardeşidir. Teucer'ın annesi Priam'ın kızkardeşidir. O bir Asyalı anneden doğmuştur, değişik bir şiveyle konuşur bu yüzden küçümsenir ve aşağılanır.

Türk geleneklerindeki at kurbanına en güzel örnek Pazırık Kurganlarıdır. 
At gömüleri birçok makalede ele alınmamıştır!
Etrüskler'de, İskandinav (Upsala,Osseberg)'da, Anadolu'da (MÖ.7.yy Norşuntepe, Kimmer-Gordion) Atlı kurganlar vardır.
Ayrıca Batılılar Kurganlara "Kurgan" yerine "Tümülüs" der,
sırf Türklerin izini silmek için....

"Data on horse burials are more scanty, because their remains were not always collected. And sometimes were not even mentioned in the record of excavations!" - Augusto Azzaroli [An Early History of Horsemanship, 1985]


Indo-Europeanization of Europe is a misnomer, too frequently used in this work to keep emending it to “Kurganization of Europe”. That “Kurganization” had nothing to do with “Indo-Europeanization” is supported by a huge number of concurring evidence, among them the main points are:

1. “Kurganization” happened not only in Europe, but in the Middle East, in Central Asia, in S.Siberia, in China, and in Far East. Of all the places, only Europe is alleged to undergo “Indo-Europeanization”. In Central Asia, in S.Siberia, in China, and in far East, it was determined to be Turkification. In the Middle East the “-ization” is being disputed, but Turkification (Hungarization) is a leading candidate. For China, see P.N.Stearns Zhou (Chou) Culture sqq.

2. Alleged support “by comparative Indo-European linguistics” does not exist. Quite the opposite, the terms for mounted riding are absent from the Pra-Indo-European languages. The environment of Pra-Indo-European location is connected with agriculture, not with the agriculture-inhospitable Eurasian steppes. The Pra-Altaian has both elements, terminology for mounted riding and steppe environment. Indo-European does not have a shared pra-word for kurgans, Türkic does. See A. Dybo Pra-Altaian World

3. None of the Indo-European, Chinese,  Middle Eastern, or Far Eastern people retained the Kurgan burial tradition into the historical period. The traces of the Kurgan burial tradition only exist in accidental cultural borrowings, predominantly among the royalty, be it Greece, Middle East, or China. Only the ethnoses of the Türkic linguistic group, and the groups with considerable admixture of Türkic people (like Mongolians) preserved the Kurgan burial tradition into the historical period and in some cases into the modern times.

4. Genetically, the timing and direction of migrations are traceable and demonstrate that the migrational flows crossed the same territories at different times and in opposing directions. The Indo-Europeans migrated west-to-east, one millennium later than Türkic people, who a millennium earlier were moving east-to-west and brought “Kurganization” to Europe from two directions, one from N.Pontic via Caucasus, Middle East, N.Africa to Spain and beyond, and the other from N.Pontic to Central Europe and beyond. This information was not available during Marija Gimbutas' lifetime. The Indo-Europeanization of Europe in the 4400-3000 BC did not happen, it was “Kurganization” or Turkification of Europe. The Indo-Europeanization of Europe happened 2 millenniums later, in the 1st millennium BC, in a process of de-Türkification of Europe. See A.A.Klyosov Türkic DNA genealogy.

5. Of necessity, Kurgan people lived on meat and milk. By natural selection, Kurganians were lactose tolerant. In Eurasia, only the Türkic people and their historical neighbors with considerable admixture of Türkic people have lactose tolerance genes (C/T13910 at 2q21). Among human populations, the lactose tolerance is a weird deviation from normal. The genetical lactose intolerance is peculiar for the Indo-Iranian, Oriental, and most Semitic people. The clines of lactose tolerance provide a bird-eye picture of the events described by Marija Gimbutas, the advent and settlement of Kurganians in Old Europe. See the lactose tolerance maps

6. The territory delineated by  M.Gimbutas as Kurgan territory abounds with “unexplained” toponyms etymologized to “undefined” languages of the Old Europe. Many of them Turkological philologists explain as transparently Türkic names, and some, like the Caucasus, were even translated from the native Türkic into the languages of the Classical authors.

Except for the misguided attribution, Marija Gimbutas' work is superb in providing a panoramic view on cultures and archeology, and it affords a heretofore non-existing synthetic description of the Türkic Kurgan people in Europe. It also allows a better understanding of the Scythian westward migration, they were returning to the steppes retained in their national memory, and like the later generations of the Kurgan people, they readily buried their departed in their old kurgans.

Prof. Marija Gimbutas very precisely and pungently described the ethereal foundation of her theory. For Indo-European Urheimat studies: the archeological sources are not adequate, they do not have sufficient materials for ethnographic interpretation. So, given the absence of reasons for Indo-European Urheimat constructions, Prof. Marija Gimbutas proceeds with construct and advocacy of the Kurgan Culture as Indo-European Urheimat erzats. Like for the millennia-sturdy Ptolemaic geocentric system, it is obvious that neither people can walk upside down, nor the wild hordes of Türkic or Hunnic nomadic cattlemen could be seriously viewed as European Kurgan people. The integrity level of the theory is illustrated by the fact that not even a single reference in this chapter on Kurgan people directly mentions the real historical bearers of the Kurgan tradition. In contrast, Ptolemy honestly discussed alternatives to earn acceptance of his views. The difference between science and politics is that facing divergent opposition, the science grows, the politics wanes.

In science, except the politicized history and philology, terminology is paramount. If we used euphemisms in physics, we would still be living in the 18th century. The term “Kurgan Culture” is one of the terminological victims, it is not a culture, it a “Kurgan tradition”, and in Soviet/Russian tradition it is defined not by its constituent cultures, but by the periods. We do not have “Samara Culture”, we have “Samara period”, not “Khvalynsk Culture”, but “Khvalynsk period”. Period of what? Even the term “Kurgan tradition” did not exist, it was introduced by Prof. Marija Gimbutas to describe the expansion of the eastern Kurgan Culture into Europe to postulate a renewed Indo-European Urheimat theory. We see the terms “Kurgan Culture”, “Samara Culture”, “Khvalynsk Culture” only as slips of the tong, because the descriptions are of the cultures according to the archeological cannons, but in the euphemistic system of doubletalk they are “periods” of unnamed “What Culture?”

The conflicts between the Russian historiography and Western scholars are profound, from details and methods to assessments of reality. The Russian officialdom science is still following the infamous 1944 prescript of the USSR Communist Party against “ancientization” of the Türkic history. The temporary demise of the FSU brought about a bifurcation of the science in Russia into two unequal parts, with the mass of state-controlled science following the 1944 prescripts, and a dissident science that spends most of its efforts on confronting the officialdom's enforcement, and consequently lesser efforts on scientific work. The non-conforming generals of science are still being replaced like lieutenant colonels in the armed forces. The Western scholars have to face the predominant euphemistic science, and wade thru the spin ambiguities to operate with the underlying facts. For the Eurocentric-oriented scientists, the situation is generally favorable, both sides focus on advancement of the same concept. On elements of conflict between Western scholars and Russian historiography see C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky  Case of the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians, D.Anthony Bronze Age Herders of the Eurasian Steppes.

On the etymology of the word “kurgan”, M.Alinei observed: “the Russian word kurgan itself is not of Russian, or Slavic, or IE origin, but is a Turkic loanword, with a very wide diffusion area in Southern Europe, which corresponds to the spread of the kurgan culture” (M.Alinei Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, 2000, 2003)

N.Kisamov - link to read

"The people with the kurgan culture were Altaic-speaking (and partly turcica) and not Indo-European as so far recorded 
(ex. from Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas Baltic nationalist ideology-soaked)."