Talk:Turan/Archive 1

message: The verifiability disclaimer displayed at the top of this article page is not justified: all the stated facts are based on documented research which has been cited (authors, titles, link). Those who demonstrate such overeagerness to question the evidence referred to here should also place similar disclaimers in those articles which claim that the Scythians were Indo-Europeans, and that the Uralic and Altaic groups have no connection to the Sumerians, otherwise the impartiality and objectivity of Wikipedia may be in question as well.
Webmaster - hunmagyar.org
=== History is clear ===
Please provide historical resources indicating the Turanians were the protogenerators of the Turks. There is only ONE primary source regarding the Turanians, and that is the Zoroastrian Gathas. All other sources are myths, written hundreds of years after the historical events described in the Gathas occurred. While the Gathas is a religious holy book it still holds valuable information on who the Turanians were. The Turanians are noted as being of Aryan (meaning Indo-Iranian, not the 19th century definition), meaning they spoke an Aryan language, and shared the same customs as the other Aryans. Until the prophet Zoroaster converted the Iranians the Gathas mentions the Iranians and Turanians had the SAME religious beliefs (probably closely related to Vedic Hinduism, as the Iranians and Indians shared the same ancient language). What does that tell us? The Turanians were an Indo-European ethnic group, like the Iranians. They were NOT a Ural-Altaic group. The Gathas also state the Turanians were converted to Zoroastrianism, and we never hear of them again as a distinct historicl group (only in myths).  Can anyone provide evidence that ANY of the Turko Mongol tribes were Zoroastrian? If anything, it would seem more advantageous to the Zoroastrians if the Turanians were non-iranic (just as it was advantageous for Ferdowsi to mention the Turanians as being Turkic). Clearly the ancient Iranians had NO KNOWLEDGE of the ancient Turks (who I seriously doubt were even an ethnic group at the time). All religious citations are provided below.
===Reply to "History is clear"===
 
How far back in time do the Zoroastrian Gathas go? Do they cover the period from 5000-3000 BC? Archeological and anthropological evidence from this period indicates that Sumerian cultural influence and ethnic presence spread to Iran and Central Asia (refer to sources mentioned in my other postings below). The cited evidence also indicates that the Scythians originated at least in part from these Sumerian-related settlers, and the Scythian-type cultures spread to Mongolia where they merged with proto-Altaic peoples. The conclusion is that non-Indo-Europeans inhabited Central Asia (including Turan) before the Indo-Europeans, and the Ural-Altaic peoples are related to Sumerians and Scythians.
Webmaster - hunmagyar.org
29-01-06
===Reply to hunmagyar.org===
The Avestan language spoken by the prophet Zoroaster is nearly identical to the Vedic Sanskrit spoken by the Indo Aryans in the Indian Subcontinent. That, coupled w/geographic descriptions provided in the Gathas, indicate that the Gathas were first written approx 3600-4000 years ago; well within you ascribed time frame. Regardless of what you say regarding Scythians, Sumerians, and proto-Altaic peoples, it doesn't change the fact that the only primary source regarding the Turanians describe them as being clearly Indo-Iranian. It also doesn't change the fact that the Turanians disappear from history due to being converted to Zoroastrianism and assimilating into Iranian culture; and only reappear as a mythos created by some Turks.
: 68.4.210.29 is basically right except that the Gathas were probably not written down but transmitted orally until they were submitted to writing in the Sassanid era; there is a Zoroastrian tradition about the existence of an original proto-text that disappeared in the destructions of Alexander the Great, but that is probably a myth invented in a period when writing was more respected than the spoken word.
: Furthermore, the date given by 68.4.210.29 is probably a little too high. Our only points of reference is the fact that the Avestan language is more archaic than Old Persian of the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid era (6th-4th cent. BC) and therefore probably also older; and the fact that Avestan is pretty much as archaic as the language of the oldest parts of the Rigveda (ca. 1,500-1,200 BC).  On that ground, most specialists assume that the Gathas were composed around the begining of the first millennium BC. Enkyklios 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: The Avestan language spoken by the prophet Zoroaster is nearly identical to the Vedic Sanskrit spoken by the Indo Aryans in the Indian Subcontinent. That, coupled w/geographic descriptions provided in the Gathas, indicate that the Gathas were first written approx 3600-4000 years ago; well within you ascribed time frame. Regardless of what you say regarding Scythians, Sumerians, and proto-Altaic peoples, it doesn't change the fact that the only primary source regarding the Turanians describe them as being clearly Indo-Iranian. It also doesn't change the fact that the Turanians disappear from history due to being converted to Zoroastrianism and assimilating into Iranian culture; and only reappear as a mythos created by some Turks.
: 68.4.210.29 is basically right except that the Gathas were probably not written down but transmitted orally until they were submitted to writing in the Sassanid era; there is a Zoroastrian tradition about the existence of an original proto-text that disappeared in the destructions of Alexander the Great, but that is probably a myth invented in a period when writing was more respected than the spoken word.
: Furthermore, the date given by 68.4.210.29 is probably a little too high. Our only points of reference is the fact that the Avestan language is more archaic than Old Persian of the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid era (6th-4th cent. BC) and therefore probably also older; and the fact that Avestan is pretty much as archaic as the language of the oldest parts of the Rigveda (ca. 1,500-1,200 BC).  On that ground, most specialists assume that the Gathas were composed around the begining of the first millennium BC. Enkyklios 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to hunmagyar.org

message: You people might not know this, but this article is not about Turanism (= nationalist Turkish blah blah), but about the region called Turan. This article should be about the name, history, peoples, and geography of Turan, which is more or less the southern parts of Central Asia. 
The name Turan is Old Persian and means land of darkness. It is taken from the word tur (sometimes târ) which means dark (compare to Persian: târik, Pashto:  tora, English:  dark). According to Zoroastrian mythology, Turan is the enemy of Irân (which means land of the light, land of the nobles). 
The original meaning of the word had nothing to do with Turks or Sumerians or whatever. It is clearly mentioned in the Avesta (Gathas: 11-12, Yasht XIII: 88, Vidêvdat III: 23;30-31) that "Turanians" were "Aryans", that they were from the same stock as Iranians, and they even had similar languages. The only difference was their religion: they were not followers of Zarathustra's good religion, and thus were called Tuiranians (people of the dark nation), unlike Iranians (noble peoples) who were followers of Zarathustra.
For those who know German: Iran and Turan
This article needs to be moved to the Pan-Turkist claims ... it has nothing to do with modern and serious science! And, most important, it has nothing to do with the region called Turan.
Besides that, most of the peoples claimed by this article to have been Turks were actually Indo-Europeans, mostly from the Indo-Iranian branch. Just check out the following articles: Scythians, Saka, Cimmerians, Parthians (who spoke a northwestern Iranian language, very similar to Proto-Kurdish), etc etc etc. Even the Chinese distinguished between Turks and Indo-Europeans:
:... There are numerous debates about Hephthalite language. Most scholars believe it is Iranian for the Pei Shih states that the
:language of the Hephthalites differs from those of the Juan-juan (Mongoloid) and of the "various Hu" (Turkic) ...
:http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/heph.shtml
More sources:
:... Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin ...
:[John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18]
:... Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians ...
:   [Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, p.6]
:... The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian ...
:   [Richard Mariusz & Richard Mielczarek, The Sarmatians: 600 BC-450 AD, 2002, p.3] 
:... of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to    the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta ...
:[Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]
:... The river names, “Don”, “Donets”, “Dnieper” and “Dniester” are all of Iranian origin ...
:   [P.J. Mallory, Mallory’s map on p. 78]
And Sumerians were deffinitly NOT Turks or Proto-Turks. The Turks were a Mongoloid people, related to Mongols and other smaller tribes of West Asia. This is even confirmed by Roman sources who discribed Attila the Hun (Huns were Proto-Turks) as Mongolid:
:... Atilla had a flat nose, swarthy dark complexion, broad chest, short stature and small eyes, but full of confidence ...
:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
:   ... incoming minorities (...) conquer other populations and (...) impose their languages on them. The Altaic family spread in this fashion ...
:   - [Colin Renfrew, World linguistic diversity, Scientific American, 270(1), 1994, p.118]
:   ... Around the third century B.C., groups speaking Turkish languages (...) threatened empires in China, Tibet, India,    Central Asia, before eventually arriving in Turkey ... genetic traces of their movement can sometimes be found, but they  are often diluted, since the numbers of conquerors were always much smaller than the populations they conquered (p.125) 
:   ... Turks ... conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453. ... Replacement of Greek with Turkish ... Genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers (...) invading Turkish populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had a long civilization and history ...  
:   - Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000). Genes, Peoples and Languages. New York: North Point Press. P.125, 152]
This article needs to be cleaned up by REAL experts. Right now, it is being messed up by some uneducated Pan-Turkist with EXTREME minority-complexes.
-Tajik 19:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG this article is so messed up! 

message: This article was almost completely filled with nonsense.  I tried to revise it to reflect more or less the scholarly consensus. AnonMoos 03:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic Surgery

message: 1) Please sign your comments by real name or Wikipedia User name, because "Webmaster - hunmagyar.org" serves no particular relevant identifying purpose, and does not give your remarks any greater authority. 
> I would suggest that you nag on those who don't even sign their comments. You don't think my signature is authoritative enough? Then how about Dr. Who (Webmaster - hunmagyar.org)? 
2) You didn't present any direct argument as such above -- instead you merely cut-and-pasted your whole pre-canned spiel boilerplate text. 
> As a matter of fact, I did present arguments with source references in my previous comments, including the text you cut out of the article. - Dr. Who
3) There's no particular accepted evidence connecting Sumerians with the Central Asia region in any direct or obvious way.  From the technical linguistic point of view, there's only a TYPOLOGICAL relationship between Sumerian and so-called "Altaic" languages, not a scientifically-ascertainable relationship of common linguistic origin.  (Of course, many would say that there's only a typological relationship within the "Altaic" languages, not a scientifically-ascertainable relationship of common linguistic origin.)
> There is evidence, and not only linguistic, but also archeological, anthropological, and ethnographic (see source references in my previous comments). - Dr. Who
4) We have a fair amount of surviving written text in the Sogdian language, and in the Saka language, and they're both revealed to be Iranian. 
> Source? How can I verify this? - Dr. Who
5) This article will not serve its purpose very well if it flagrantly condradicts all the other relevant articles on Wikipedia.  For example, the articles on Sumerian language and Scythians don't endorse any Altaic hypothesis.
> What purpose are you referring to? - Dr. Who
6) Your version of the article didn't even mention the Shah-nameh (the work which in some ways popularized the word "Turanian" in the post-Islamic period), and didn't mention that the word Turan is first attested as a Persian word, expressing geography as seen from a Persian point of view.
> The point is that non-Indo-European peoples inhabited Turan and parts of Iran long before any Aryan set foot there. The problem is that the various Indo-European theories fail to take this into consideration or to explain it satisfactorily, due to their inherent methodological shortcomings and ideological bias. - Dr. Who
AnonMoos 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: All evidence suggests that the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and Parthians were Iranian tribes. The Turkic hypothesis has no support in the authoritative scholarly milieu, but it is cultivated primarily by amateur historians with a clear nationalist agenda. Yet, if the war is going to be fought in wikipedia, we better not do it here also. It should be in the discussion pages of "Scythian language", "Parthian language", etc.
There is no evidence that the Turan of the Avesta were Turks. On the contrary, they seem to have been some kind of Iranians who stuck to the pre-Zoroastrian religion. Therefore, the article should not be about Turks (let alone Sumerians), but about Turan as the people and the area were described in the Avesta and in the Shahmaneh.
The modern ideological concept of Turan should be put in a separate article to avoid confusion. After all, Turan as a collective name of Turks, Mongols and Finno-Ugrians is no more satisfying than Aryan as a collective name of the Indo-European people. These words were constructed in opposition to each other, both in the Middle Iranian discourse and in the nationalist historical scholarship of the 19th century. Enkyklios 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus, please! 

message: The Turanian hypothesis
Thousands of years ago, peoples originating from the ancient Near-Eastern ethno-linguistic group consisting of the Mesopotamian Sumerians, the Hurrians, Subareans, Elamites, Kassites, among others, settled in the Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Central Asia. The pre-Indo-European populations of Europe, and the Scythian, Uralic and Altaic peoples and languages originate at least in part from the Sumerian-related group.  
Arguments supporting the Turanian hypothesis
Comparative linguistic analysis indicates the correspondence of hundreds of words (possibly more) with related phonetic structure and meaning between Sumerian and the Ural-Altaic languages, as well as similarities in grammatical structure (Érdy, Götz, Gosztony). In his Sumerian Etymological Dictionary and Comparative Grammar, Kálmán Gosztony, professor of Sumerian philology at the Sorbonne, demonstrated that the grammatical structure of the Hungarian language is the closest to that of the Sumerian language: out of the 53 characteristics of Sumerian grammar, there are 51 matching characteristics in the Hungarian language, 29 in the Turkic languages, 24 in the Caucasian languages, 21 in the Uralic languages, compared to only 5 in the Semitic languages, and 4 in the Indo-European languages.
Furthermore, the linguistic evidence is confirmed by archeological and anthropological evidence which traces the spread of culture across Eurasia back to its Mesopotamian origins (Götz).
So far, the opponents of the Turanian hypothesis have dismissed it in ignorance of the evidence presented by the sources mentioned above and in my previous postings. Dismissing evidence without proper analysis on the grounds that it contradicts certain IE theories or that the sources are not recognized in IE circles do not constitute rational arguments.
Webmaster - hunmagyar.org 7-02-06
(Would you please sign your contributions like anybody else in wikipedia, i.e. logging in with your username and signing your commentaries with 4x ~, thereby generating automatically the proper name and date. Anybody could sign a commentary with the name "Webmaster - hunmagyar.org" and claim anything in your "name". Furthermore, it is misleading to use "Webmaster" as part of one's name; it may give the impression that you speak in this room with some kind of authority, which you do not.)
: I am afraid, you cannot use Kálmán Gosztony = Colman-Gabriel Gostony's Dictionnaire d'étymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée (1975) as a reliable source. First, it is obviously biased by an ethnocentric approach which must make one sceptical and critical, and as I pointed out above, the reconstruction of "a large Turanic ethnos with a unified linguistic, material and racial character" is "improbable, unmethodological and potentially racist". Furthermore, typological similarity is not the same as genetic affinity (it is like sharks and dolphins or birds and bats). Even if Gosztony is right in drawing our attention to grammatical similarities between Sumerian and Hungarian and the Turk languages, it proves only little.
: Indo-Europeanists do not dismiss evidence without proper analysis. The problem is that so-called evidence presented by the Turanists is not evidence that can be analysed within the framework of linguistics because it is not collected systematically, but intuitively and arbitrarily. It remains a postulate. And you cannot expect Indo-Europeanists to do the work for the Turanists and collect the material in a proper scientific way. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who want to revise linguistics as it is taught in the universities all over the world. Enkyklios 10:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis for Turanian hypothesis 

message: I am an avid student of Ural-Altaic languages, and Indo-Iranian religious beliefs. I am not a native speaker however, of a language in the above mentioned family, nor a national of any country whose mother toungue is one.
 
I have the following points to make:
- Early and Proto-Altaic peoples (Xiong-nu, Xien-pe, Tü-qüe, early Mongols etc.) were not  Zoroastrians exactly, they were however followers of a Sun and Sky worshipping animistic religion that maintained a devotion to a deity similar to Ahura Mazda (who is often shown as or in a winged sun disk) and also showed an adoration for fire. These ancient Turco-Mongol beliefs can be seen as elements in common with Zoroastrianism. This is one fact in favor of the Magyar fellow's article.
- The language of the people of ancient Sumer is considered by many linguists to be a language isolate. It is also considered by some as a product of the Caucasus region. Caucasian languages are not considered to be of the Ural-Altaic family, but rather a distinct family divided into Southern, North-E astern, and North-Western branches. These languages are Agglutinative like Ural-Altaic languages, but possess a vastly different vocabulary with no visable relation to Ural-Altaic words. It has been ventured by some scholars that certain Proto-Altaic peoples in Ancient  Europe such as Huns and Avars, shared a common ancestry with Caucasian peoples (In particular the people of Daghestan who call themselves the Avars raise some questions.) but this is incredibly difficult to prove seeing as very few words remain of these languages exist, let alone traces grammar. Furthermore Sumerians were a totally sedentary race, whereas historically Altaic and Uralic peoples were largely nomadic. This argument favors the opinion that this article is faulty.
- It is largely believed that Schythians and/or Saka were Indo-Iranian or Indo-European. This too is difficult to say seeing as this language/s is also  quite dead. The basis for the belief that the Schythians were of Indo-European stock is purely baced on anthropological evidence, which abounds.
- Finally it must be said that there is some contemporary pollution to the Magyar's argument, by this I mean Pan-Turkist, Turanist, and Magyar nationalism. It is obvious that such an influence is present in the article. However, I believe that much of the argument against the article is also greatly unfounded. This subject is fundamentally and terminally obscured. No one may say weather such a link exists, nor may they say the opposite, it is simply something that either awaits more proof, or must simply be let go. I find that this article should be treated as fact because some believe it to be, I also believe that this article should feature certain aspects of the argument against it, so as to be well balaced.
 
The Information I used here is readily available to anyone, and commonly known to most linguists versed on the subject. Wikipedia itself feature most of this information within itself.
Please E-Mail me with any further questions or critcisms azjilk@yahoo.com, Thank You.
: I agree with most of your remarks. I shall only add that there are also important (if not 100% unequivocal) linguistic evidence for the belief that the Scythians were of Indo-European stock. The whole matter is discussed on Scythian languages, and it would be wise to keep it there. Enkyklios 11:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Opinion Of An Observer 

message: The article seems to have been corrected, thankfully, and the NPOV tag could be removed, I think. The links to Pan-Turanian sites should also be removed, however. As far as the views of master Hunmagyar above, being half-Magyar myself, I am aggrieved to see that such views have had even temporary representation here. I am in a position to be aware of Hungarian extreme nationalism. Hunmagyar would likely have us believe that Jesus was also a Parthian (which for him means Hungarian) Prince, and that Celts were a first wave of Hungarian colonists, as the name Celt is clearly, according to them, related to the Hungarian word Kelet (East). And yes, I have been presented with such books by my Hungarian relations, that also incidentally spoke of the Magyar-Sumerian link. Books that presented Sumerian as Proto-Magyar, and 'proved' how all languages were of Magyar origin. And incidentally read the Mycenian Linear B inscriptions as Magyar. The propagation of such views via respectable portals such as this one must necessarily be stoped. On a quite different note, as for the Huns' and/or Avars' relation to the Caucasian peoples, it seems quite probable at least as far as the Avars are concerned, but then, they would presumably be concidered Caucasian, not Altaic. Druworos 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the NPOV tag ought to be removed, since it is rather neutral in its present form. There should perhaps be an elaboration on the Turan concept and its development in the Avesta and the Shahnameh. Enkyklios 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The oppinion of another observer

message: I added the reference to Shahnameh translation, which shows several references to Turanians as Turks. Particularly, in the story of Rustam and Sohrab:
* From Rustam: "How can I stand against the Turks, and how can I traverse the desert alone?"
* From Sohrab: "will go forth with an army of brave Turks and lead them unto Iran, I will cast Kai Kaous from off his throne, I will give to Rustem the crown of the Kaianides, and together we will subdue the land of Turan, and Afrasiyab shall be slain by my hands"
In the story of "Defeat of Afrasiyab" quote from Rehnam:
* "My soul thirsteth after the combat, yet since my father hath commanded that the army advance not, it beseemeth me not to forget his behests. And remember, O valiant Turk, that he who ventureth first upon the battlefield hath no need to seek the pathway to return."
I added a short sentence to the page indicating that the association of Turan vs Turkic cultures is based on these Shahnameh accounts. Atabek 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true.  Although the actual association probably dates to the later Sassanid era, but the Shahnameh was the one that popularized it the most.  About the name Turan being popular name in Turkey, it is popular name in middle eastern countries including Iran.  That is shahnameh names are popular.  Although I think in terms of Turkey, the name became popular during the last century or so.  I think that added information should be referenced somewhat more.  (that is when it became popular in turkey?  I do not think it is from the Ottoman era?).  But I moved it to the name section which had turandokht (under trivia which I changed to names).  It seems that lots of Shahnameh names became popular in the Islamic world. .  One of Salladin's family member was called "Turanshah" (King of Turan).  .  --alidoostzadeh 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rise of this name in Turkey probably happened in the late 19th and early 20th century, although we cannot totally exclude the existence of this name in Turkey before. The objective here is not to prove whether the name is Iranian, Turkish or Shahnameh-based, but to clarify the association and belonging of the title to Turks. Whether it came from Shahnameh or originated by itself, it's irrelevant at least from my perspective. Same as calling Germany in English or Alemagna in Spanish means the same object. Btw, about the same time, as early as 1900-1910s, prominent Azerbaijani satirist poet M. A. Sabir, wrote in one of his poems "Turanliyiz biz". Atabek 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right I agree that it was a recent rise although here and there we do see such names pop out in the middle east (Salah-din).  Lots of Seljuqs and Ilkhanid adopted Shanmahe names also and I would not be suprised if I see turaj (very popular name) or turan there.  But I put it in the name section because it is more relavent to the article there, then the introduction.  --alidoostzadeh 11:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Turks in Shahnameh

message: Anon, I reinserted the sourced information you took out. Please do not remove sourced information again. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon

message: Haa, have someone ever here heard from word Saparo / Saparot which is also base word for Saparoiset = Zapadrojdik. Saparo (sa-pa-ro) means tied long hair to saparoiksi (saparos). Usual habit along the ancient men and women. Other word to describe the same in Finnish is Letti / Letit. This type of hair ties were also common among Tibetan nobility. Han people (Chinese) tied their long hair to palmikko (pal-mik-ko), not like their western neighbours to saparos. Here you have direct link to Finno Ugrian languages, including Proto Magyar of Ugric branch with Hanti Hui and Mansi. Alternative name for Turan in linguistical bases could be Turugsu (Turk-Ugri-Sum). In addition to the latest DNA researchs there is a direct link provided from Turkic language group, including Altaic languages, via Nenetsi (Samojeedi) branch and Ugrian branch to Sum (Finno) Ugrian language family including Permic, Volgaic, and Baltic branches in addition to Sam (Saame) language. The Estonian researchers Professors Ago Kunnap and Ott Kurs of University of Tartto have recently (2005) made a comprehensive research which directly links Turkic languages with Finno Ugrian languages showing how the languages are merged with each other. (Uraali - Altai Keelkond; Keskkörgaasia = Middle High Asia).
One must understand the real possibility that nowadays East Turkistan (Sinkiang) is the "alkukoto / alkukoti" (original home), Deutsche Urheimat, for the Finno Ugrians (appeared there accorcing to latest DNA researchs 15.000 years ago) and Turks, both who seems to have lived there side by side (when it was fertile country of maito and mesi = milk and honey) c. 8000-4000 BC with mild and nice annual rains providing good climate for ancient peoples. By the way, all Finno Ugrian names for different Sum Ugri peoples meant originally man. (Sum-imi, Komi-mort, Ud-murt, Mir-de, Mari-el, Madi-ar etc). Something to think for the people of Per-si-a or Par-si (Far-si) which spoked Ar-ja (also ancient Finnish woman fore name, still widely in use) languages. One (who believe on it) can read from Bible of Profet (Prophet) Magican = Saman Da-ni-el (Ta-ni-el) who was able to explaine "the writing on the wall", said to be Turanian language; Mene, mene, tekel(e) Peres uvarsi(i)n. In modern Finnish language I can read it "Go, go badly (man) made Peres (Marras = Death) to Uvarsi = Farsi (Parsi). Easier than transliteration the language of ancient Heettis (Hittite).
But when the climate become warmer and the ice begun to melt and withdraw back to the north the climate become drier and living conditions become harder in Turanian Plain (depression). This prosess eventually changed the ones fertile area to semi-desert (Gobi) and sand desert (Takla-Makan). Only some oasis (Turpan, Kaskar, Aksu etc. where ground water existed become populated centers which carried on the agriculture, but the rest of the Turanians had to change their life style to nomandic. The last attemp to preserve their old high culture was building the extensive under ground watering tunnel canal system ( total over 5.500 km) to bring water from the mountain chains were still rained annually enough. But the high culture of Turan stage by stage declined to the nomandic level. 
 
Majority of Finno Ugrains moved northward of Altai (Alla taivaan = Under Sky) highlands to the forested zone toward Si-pe-ri taika (magic) forests and Ural and beyond c.4000-2600 BC, finally to settle on the areas where they live even today. They declined to hunters and fishermen in new living conditions in forest zone. Some peoples like Hanti Hui and Mansi did not in general pass Urals but settled along the Obi River. Their fate is a sad one. During the last 300 years Indo-European Slavs (Russians) decimated them with barter trade vodka against furs into most primitive level just as in the case of American native Indians with Whiskey against Furs policy by immigrated Anglo-Saxons. But with them they brought names which linked them in their ancient past. They named places as Turja, Turjanranta, T(o)urila, Tursas, Turjala, Tuuri, etc. Except Magyars who finally ended, after wandering here and there between Urals and northern slopes of Kaukas(us) = kaukaiset vuoret = far distant mountains, on the Great East European Plain, to Pannonian Plain in Central Europe only about 1.000 years ago (895-896). Among the seven tribes came also some Bö´s (Tibetans) with their (ancient) dogs. Also the Finns brought dogs with them and one race is of interest; The Karelian bear dog. Similar dog race  appeared in Near East and become known as Philistean guard dog, later Palestinian shepard dog. Thus, either the Finno Ugrians (under name Sea People) which attacked to Egypt and Filistea (Kaanan) c. 2.600 BC, brought it there or the dog wandered with its masters from Near East (Sumeri) to the pohjolan perille (to the bottom of North). The ancient link to the sons of heaven which married the daughters of (low)earth ie. Bö (Tibetan) people whose habits also were shared remained in the burial way. Bö (Tibetan) Sky burial linked to nearly similar Finno Ugrian kalmisto (kalma / kolmo) burial, later changed to burning burial and earth (kumpu / kurgan) burial. 
But some stubborn refused to move. Hakassis (later mixed with Turks), Sahas (Sakas), Komassis, Kets stayed at Altai-Sajan area. Sahas were mixed with Turks and Mongols and wandered to great Lena river.
The southern branch of Turan peoples crossed great mountain chain Hindikush (Hindu killer) and settled to Indus (In-tus) valley and built (Harappa) Ha-rap-pa and other settlements. The eastern branch of Turan peoples wandered to an peninsula on the shores of Val-ta-me-ri (Great / Power Ocean) and named it Ko-re-a (beautifully handsome). Some (Ai-nus) went to the nearby islands Hok-kai-to and Sa-ha-li(n).  
In Finnish language Turkki (Turkey) means Fur. The people which used furs against cold climate. Thus, the name of Turkey could also be Furiland / Furlandia = Furistan (Turistan). Does this sound familiar name for great warriors in later Arja language version of Turks "furious warriors" (Finno Ugric; hurjat urhot).
It is interesting to note that the Finnish researchers Professors Sjögren, Castren, and Ramstedt, versions of linking Finno Ugric and Altaic languages were vigorously rejected (and still are) by the Indo-European scholars, because it did not suit for their purposes of the creation of high culture Indo-Iranian and Indo-European superior race which brought with them high civilization and high developed languages to the man kind which eventually led to herrakansat / herrenfolk (lordfolk) and ali-ihmiset / untermenchen (sub human) thinking which culminated in Imperialism (Lord has given us divine right to rule) and National Socialism race theories.  The research of ancient Turanian civilizations have never been made but (I hope so) in the near future there will be some researches made to correct the too much weighted Indo-Iranian and Indo-European perspective in Eurasian history. Curiously, if the Indo-Iranian high culture existed all over the Eastern European Plain why did it not leave behind place names except than those in Caucasus area? But for strong contrast, there are thousands of Finno Ugrian and Turkic place, river, lake names still in use in the area now mainly populated by Indo-European Slavs.
I hope than Indo Iranians can provide similar explanation to the origins for name Turan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.81.159 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaparojdik looks like an old Persian (Parsi) loan from Proto Finno Ugric 

message: Turan means Land of Tur.Hajji Piruz 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not advertise on Wikipedia. I am removing the link to the forum.Hajji Piruz 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turan

message: I removed the section on Anthropology.
"Modern DNA research has given a new insight into the concept of the Turan idea, at least insofar as it relates to Northern Eurasian populations, especially Finno-Ugric, Baltic, Altaic, and Northeast Siberian peoples. According to the DNA research of Tambets, Willems and KaraferetTambets et al. American Journal of Human Genetics, April 2004 at least 70% of Finnish, 49% of Sami, 53% of Udmurt, 35% of Latvian, 41% of Lithuanian, 20% of Eastern Evenk, 80% of Yakut, 47% of Buryat, 40% of Chukchi and some 60% of western Inuit a.k.a Eskimo males carry the so-called N3 haploid in their Y-chromosome DNA."
Reasoning:
There is no such thing as DNA analysis on "Turanian people" since there is no Turanian people.  Plus Latvian and Lithuanian and Baltic languages are IE languages.   Thus the comment above does not hold any linguistic significance. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Turanian people are based on ancestral lineage, not race since the descendants of Turanians like "Aryans" and "Africans" can be of any color, and it is not limited to language grouping. American Indians, Malayo-Polynesians (Malayans or Southeast Asians and Polynesians), Australoid peoples and even Caucasians are thought to have inherited a trace of "Turanian" ancestry when it comes to discoveries of similar languages (the Teutons' runes are closely identical to early Turkic tribal alphabets) and the hypothetical origins of Sami people of northern Scandinavia whom have a Finnic/Uralic (or proto-Altaic) language includes the reportedly few who have "African" ethnoracial traits. Are the Turanian people of an earlier but diminishing race of early humans to have mixed and evolved into/with other hypothetical modern races or ethnicities over eons of time? + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Quote: "Y-chromosome mtDNA"
This seems like a typo. Either "Y-chromosome DNA" or "mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)" should be here. Since a "forefather" is mentioned, it probably is the first possibility, but let the others check it.
Please, do not attempt to make Turan a Part of Iran. Turan is NOT Iran and it never was that is why it has a different name. Firdawsi's tale Shakhname is a myth only. Iran never ruled the World for 500 years and Turan was not named after that myth and that is very obvious. 
Please, do not use mythical desires to put step on Turan!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdilya (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Turan does mean - the land of the Tur. Attributing origins of the word "Tur" to a son of mythical king from Ferdowsi's Shakhname epic is not only provocative, it is outright incorrect. 
1. The Shakhname epic is a myth about Persian King that ruled the World for 500 years. Sounds like a fact? 
2. Even from the epic it is obvious that the Turan had its name before the king even gave it to his mythical son. The epic reads:
 
"Turan and Turkestan did he give unto Tur, and made him master of the Turks and of China, but unto Irij he gave Iran, with the throne of might and the crown of supremacy." 
Please, just read the above sentence again, even the Shakhnameh itself makes it clear that Turan was the land of Turks. Why do you have to stick up your Iranian map and flag over this page? Do you want to feel great about yourselves? You do not do it by stepping on your neighbors territory though. That does not make honor to Iran. 
Turan is just a Persian way of saying Turkestan.
Please, stay on your own territory guys.
:Turan means hostile and non-Iranian. This article is a typical Persian made Propaganda platform. --Greczia (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turanians are NOT Iranian 

message: Who cares the the word's origin. It is the unification of all Turkish lands. Turanism is the ideology of unification of the Turks. That is it. No need to blubber more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.139.77 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about what Turan originally means, not what Turks like to think. Hitler also abused the historical term "Aryan" but it does not mean that it is originally defined in the way Hitler liked it. Turan is an Iranian historical and mythological term and regardless of pan-turkist abuses, it's original meaning will never change. Anyway. if you can find any source which shows turks used the term Turan before iranians, then we can talk.213.233.170.106 (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: shahname isn't academic recurse.as you tell it is myth and can be not true.Iroony (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did write this article? Some idiot? or a hater? 

message: He says " turan" means "not-Iran" !!! actually turan means land of tur while "aniran" means not-Iran.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.197.66 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkestan is also a Persian word...Pouyakhani (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  turan vs aniran  

message: According to a discussion with some guys at the Persian Academy, it is better to write the word as "Tooran". When the word is written as Turan or Toran, a non-Persian speaker will pronounce it different from what it is pronounced in Persian. In Scandinavian countries, "Tor" is a well-known male name. However, they pronounce "o" as "oo". 
A university is called Tooran in Iran (tooran.ac.ir). 
Writing it as Tur would suggest an English speaker to pronounce it like turn, turban, turbid, turbine, turbo, turf, etc! Writing this word as "Tur" is definitely incorrect! 
Writing it as Tor is incorrect. Consider how English speakers pronounce the Tor project! 
Writing it as Tour is incorrect because "tour" is an English word and it is pronounced in a similar but in a different way for American English. 
The only spelling which is exactly according to the Persian pronunciation of this word is "Tooran". All the other spellings are incorrect. 
I strongly recommend that someone rephrases all the words "Tur" to "Toor", "Turan" to "Tooran", "Turani" to "Toorani". Tyu900 (talk)
:Do not change anything before you provide a reliable sources. Provide your sources here. Other editors should review them and decide about it. Also, we use common transliterations/words/names in English. Turan is the common word in English sources, not Tooran. --Zyma (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anecdotes about a discussion with some guys at the Persian Academy is not a reliable source. Provide some verifiable sources and perhaps there may be something to discuss or perhaps some edits to describe varieties of transliterations. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: First, DO NOT write trollish comments on my talk page again. If you repeat that, you'll be blocked. Write about your concerns on here, not on my talk page. Second, read my above comment again. You NEED to provide enough reliable sources for your claim. We can't change an article by personal opinions. And finally, any rename/move needs consensus. --Zyma (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Be careful about accusing other editors of vandalism. You might experience a boomerang effect. You have yet to provide any verifiable sources for your claims. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tooran, Toran, Touran or Turan?