Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?

[ancalimon]

No. I am linking Attila with Spiderman. D'oh.

It's the language barrier I assume?

What did you mean by "Attila's spider senses are tingling" ?

 

[Bromden]

It was a friggin' joke, okay? Because what you think the sun around what you think Attila's head, totally looks like when Spiderman's spider sense is tingling, okay? Sheesh, don't be so thick.

 

[Ule]

maybe if you deny the excistance of spiderman, ancalimon will be able to know what you mean as he only belives in crazy jane theories

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

Rome was sacked several times, but that didn't do away the roman church at all. It's quite pointless to speculate if a sack in the time or at the hands of Attila could have been different.

The Church survived only because it was raided by Christian barbarians, who also had the intention of sparing all the Christian Romans lives and killing the pagans Romans.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Even though I agree with your view Danik, they were Arian Christians and didn't respect the Catholic church's authority (Cartman reference ).  The Visigoths were definitely Arian and the Vandals I believe were too at that point, though some might have been Catholic.  Who knows what would have happened if they were still worshiping Wotan, Donar, and Tiwaz!

 

[Rule zum Rabensang]

who also had the intention of sparing all the Christian Romans lives and killing the pagans Romans.

On the contrary, even the sacking of Rome by the Normans 1084 and the famous sacco of 1527 did anything but spare the "christian romans". Both were cases of christians killing christians, as with the germanic tribes earlier. The church could survive elsewhere anyway, as shown by a lot of schisms and antipopes. The world is often not as easy as: "I can take the 'capital', so I can undo everything the foe has had" (as shown time and again in history, not just in the asymmetrical warfare of today).

Besides, the main point of my post was to declare speculations about the most likely development of some fictional scenario rather meaningless.

 

[ancalimon]

Here I found the English translated article (sort of)  of this weird guy.

http://www.onaltiyildiz.com/haber.php?haber_id=1376

For example by saying Osman Pasha pleases Hungarian villager greatly,  (  ) he actually means he rewards him greatly. This happens when you translate Turkish words to English without taking the context into consideration.

 

[theelder]

it's the thread which out of topic or it's just me who missed something? 

 

[ancalimon]

it's the thread which out of topic or it's just me who missed something? 

People don't have anything to say about the topic so it works like this:

1-) I write something "unorthodox" and say that people were fooled.
2-) people write "you are wrong" and say that their ancestors were not fooled.

and here are some more words of Turkic origin.


swear (curse) < söver (he swears)
swear (promise) < sözver (give word)
saga <  sayga (it is so Turkic that I don't even want to mention how.)
count < okuonda (it means read in decimals)  (oku:read  on:ten  onda: belonging to tens; decimal system)
esoteric < özüdoğru (it explains everything.  It means the essence of truth )
Aristo < Ari Usta (Usta: master, expert)

iris < irisi (it means "the bigger part")
pupil < bebeyi (it means "his/her/its baby ~ "the smaller part")
touch <değ et (do touch)
attach < adak (originally meant to give up property or some other thing later gained the meaning to to attach something to another thing)

This is one of my favorite. A single word which tells a long story itself: attack

attack < at-tak (it means to move suddenly and bother someone.  It also means to move suddenly and attach to something.

at: throw, jump, fast movement, horse
tak: to attach, to bother, to cling to, to snag

 

[NikeBG]

People don't have anything to say about the topic so it works like this:

1-) I write something "unorthodox" and say that people were fooled.
2-) people write "you are wrong" and say that their ancestors were not fooled.

No, not exactly. Well, maybe only Ule tells you you're wrong. The rest of us don't really bother trying to change your mind - we're just having fun debating here.

Aristo < Ari Usta (Usta: master, expert)

And in Bulgarian "usta" means "mouth". Probably because the experts talk a lot?

 

[theelder]

yes,yes,debating is fun as long we're kind to each other aye? 

 

[ancalimon]

yes,yes,debating is fun as long we're kind to each other aye? 

Yes you are right... But I am so unOrthodox that that even atheists get exasperated.

 

[theelder]

yes,yes,debating is fun as long we're kind to each other aye? 

Yes you are right... But I am so unOrthodox that that even atheists get exasperated.

it doesn't matter,we're all friends in this forum,we discuss and have fun on something we like eh? 

 

[ancalimon]

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/MiddleAsianEthnogenesisEn.htm

Aryans

Spoiler

The Aryan problem: new approaches and views
...

It is known, that in the Soviet historical historiography it is considered to be, that Huns are Türkic-lingual tribes. A known Turkologist L.N.Gumilev in his monograph ”Hunnu (Huns)” writes that in the Chinese sources the Huns as an ethnos for the first time are mentioned in the 1,764 BC, then again in the 822 and 304 BC (Gumilev, 1960, p. 23). Prof. A.Hodjaev states that in the last years, the Chinese and Japanese scientists carried out a thorough joint research for the 24-volume history of China (”Ershi si shi”) (”History of twenty-four dynasties”, 20 volumes, Zhonghua shuju reprint version, 1997 ?) and established that the term ”Türk” in different variations is found in the Chinese sources from the 2,205 BC, i.e. more then 4 thousand years ago (Hodjaev, 2003, p. 17.

For example, the northern province detachments of the of kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766 BC) attacked a tribe ”Tufang, Guifang, Kuyung” that lived beyond the western and northwestern border of China (Duan Lianchin, vol. 1, p. 124). The tribe Guifang of the northern kingdoms ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766), ”Shong” (Shang Dynasty) (1766-1122) and ”Chjou” (Zhou Dynasty) (1122-771) is the people Dingling (Duan Lianchin, vol. 1, p. 115). A prominent Chinese historian Lui Simian (Tsen Chünmian ?) writes that ”the earlier name Dinlin or Dingling later was called Chile or Tele (Tiele). Now we call them ”Uigur”, and in the west they are called ”Türks”. Actually, the Türks and Uigurs were members of the ”Dingling” tribal union. The Chinese also called Chile (Tele) ”Gavche” (Gaoche) (Gaoche) (”љангли”) (Kangli). Though these names are also externally not similar, they are unitary in their origin. The reason for their monikers ”Tele” и ”Gavche” (Gaoche) (Gaoche) happened that (when the Chinese historians - ”shi” - encountered them - А.А.) a part of them that lived in the south of Great Sands were subordinated by the dynasty Wei ”(220-260 AD) and were called ”Gavche” (Gaoche); another part lived in the north of the same sands, and those who subordinated to Jujan tribe were called Tele (Tiele) (Lui Simian (Tsen Chünmian ?), 1987, p. 87). In accordance with the Chinese written sources, during the kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766) the tribes ”Tele” и ”Hunnu (Huns)” were part of the tribal union ”Shyungnu” (Hsiung-nu, Xsiung-nu, etc.) or ”Hu” (”Hun”).

The terms ”Tufang” and ”Di” were earliest ethnonyms in the Chinese sources (Hodjaev, 2003, p. 179). The ”Historical notes” of Sima Tsyan (Sima Qian), based on the information of the ancient Chinese sources written on stone, bone and Chinese reed, state that from 2,205BC on the western and northwestern border of the Northern kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) lived peoples ”Hu” or ”Hu-lu” (Bichurin, 1950, p. 40). The Sinolog professor A.Hodjaev states that the tribe ”Hu” geographically is divided onto the western and eastern ”Hu”. Later, the Chinese sources called the (eastern) ”Hu” with an ethnonym ”Dunghu” (Eastern Hu). Through the Russian literature, this term came to our language as an ethnonym ”Tungus”. The western wing of ”Hu” consists of two tribes, ”Rung” (Rong) and ”Di”. The ”Di”, in turn, consist of Red Di (”Chi Di”), Great Di (”Zhong Di”) and White Di (”Bai Di”) (Bei Di). The tribe ”Rung” (Rong) is divided into Western Rung (”Shi Rung ”) (Shi Rong), Mountain Rung (”Shan Rung”) (Shan Rong), and forest Rung (”Ling Rung”) (Ling Rong). The second part of the ”anthology of the Huns” in the Han dynasty history states that ”in the south is a great Han, in the north is a strong Hu” i.e. is ”Hunnu (Huns)”. The historian of the Eastern Han Chzheng Shuan (Zhang Shuang)) wrote, that ”Hu are the real Sunnu (Xsiung-nu)” i.e. ”Hunnu (Huns)” (Large Dictionary of the Chinese hieroglyphs, vol. 3, 1987, p. 2057).

Thus, from the analysis of the ancient Chinese written sources in the ”shi” notes of the Northern Chinese kingdom ”Shya” (Xia Dynasty) (2205-1766), ”Shong” (Shang Dynasty) (1766-1122) and ”Chjou” (Zhou Dynasty) (1122-771) along the northwestern border in the second half of the 3rd and during of the 2nd millennium BC, under the names ”Hu”, ”Di”, ”Hun” and ”Tiek” lived the Türkic-lingual cattle breeding tribes. Though in the Chinese hieroglyphs they were pronounced differently, their belonging to the Türkic ethnos is without doubt.

In those periods in the territory of the Southern Siberia were two archeological cultures: Glazkov culture in the eastern Southern Siberia, and Andronov culture in the west (Okladnikov, 1955, p. . The carriers of the Andronov culture were spread from the west of Kazakhstan to the north-eastern region of the Ural ridges. S.V.Kiselev especially emphasized that the monuments of the Andronov culture disPersed in the 18th century BC in Minusinsk depression and in the Yenisei basins in many respects were close to the Timber-Grave culture of the Lower Volga, Donets and Don steppes (Kiselyov, 1951, p. 100). The areas of their wide distribution reached from the steppes of the Lower Volga to Mongolia, from the northeast Ural ridges to the Middle Asia (Gryaznov, 1956; Krivtsova-Grakova, 1955; Formozov, 1951; Tchernikov, 1960; Moshkov, 1962; Sorokin, 1962; Fedorova-Davidova, 1964; Davidov, 1964; Gening, 1975; Stokolos, 1972; Salnikov, 1967; Margulan et al., 1966; Chernykh, 1970; Kuzmina, 1963; Itina, 1977; Zdanovich, 1984; Zdanovich, 1988, Avanesova, 1991, and others). Consequently, the mentioned in the ancient Chinese sources ethnonyms ”Hu”, ”Di”, ”Guifang”, ”Tufang”, ”Rung”, ”Hun” and ”Chile” were carriers of the Andronov cultures. From those Andronov communities in the 2nd millennium BC came the Arians. Hence, the Arians originated from the Türkic nomadic cattle husbandry tribes.

The concept about Andronov cultures belonging to the carriers of the Türkic-lingual ethnos were also postulated earlier (Tchernikov, 1957; Amanjolov, 1971, pp. 64-66; Amanjolov, 1975; Amanjolov, 1980). Now the numbers of scholars expressing this position gradually grows (Askarov, 1996, p. 71; Askarov, 2001, pp. 69-72; Askarov, 2002, p. 55; Askarov, 2004, p. 4-6; Hodjaev, 2003, pp. 176-184; Iskhakov, 2003, 7-12).

The archeological material confirms a penetration in two stages of the Arians (”barbaric occupation”) in the 2nd millennium BC deeply to the south. The first stage happened in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (Masson, 1959, pp. 116-118; Askarov, 1962, pp. 28-41), and the second stage happened in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BC (Askarov, 1989, pp. 160-166). The mass migration of the Arians to the Middle Asia, started in the Bronze Epoch, resulted in the Early Middle Age epoch with creation there Turko-Sogdian social and ethnocultural space, and in that space the Türkic-lingual ethnic layer gradually increased, which facilitated there a domination of the Türkic linguistic environment. However, in the territory of India and the Iranian highlands during the Bronze Epoch and even in the subsequent periods such social and ethnocultural process is not traced. Therefore it does not appear possible that the Arians, who during the Bronze Epoch expanded to India and Iran, with their lower cultural and economic level than the locals, could change the language of the autochthonous population. Actually, the hypothesis about Iranian-linguality of the Eurasian steppe cattlemen, built on the comparative analysis of linguists between the languages of ”Avesta” and modern European languages, is a fruit of the Eurocentrism theories. According to that theory the Türkic-lingual cattle breeding tribes of the Eurasian steppes were declared to be Iranian-lingual.

So Turks are attested before Huns. This would mean Turks are ancestors of Huns.

Spoiler

Thus, the term ”Arian” originally was used in a social aspect. Later, when it assimilated with the local population, it meant a new ethnic content, and under the influence of the prevailing local language the Arians gradually lost their native Türkic language and finally Iranized. Possibly, in the Middle East region in antiquity along with Hurrian and Elamite languages also existed side by side the ancient Persian language Dari. Most likely it developed in the south of Iran, in Persida, as a native language of the Iranian Parses. The Arians, who initially ensconced in Iran, established their political dominance over the Persian-speaking communities. This power, starting with a ruler Chishpish (Teispes), a descendant of the Arian military leader Ahaman (Ahamani, Ahaeman, Achaemenes), formed a ruling system not only for economy, but also in the political-administrative direction, i.e. within the limits of Southern Iran formed a possession Persida. During the kingdom of Kir II (Cyrus II, 600 or 576 BC–530 BC) and Doro I (Darius I, 550–486 BC) this possession reached a position of a world kingdom, and the sphere of influence the Dari language as a language of the state extended to a wide geographical zone.
Thus, the logical analysis of the historical processes happening in the second half of the 2nd millennium and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC led to a conclusion that the origin of the Ahaemenid dynasty is directly connected with the migration to the south from the Eurasian steppes of the Türkic-lingual Arians. Under a strong influence of the prevailing autochthonous language and cultural-economic potential of the ancient Persian communities, they  became Iranized. Therefore, the Ahaemenid kings Kir II (Cyrus II) and Doro I (Darius I), knowing well that by the origin they are Arians, in their rock inscriptions proudly declared that they are ”true Arians”. Not only they, but even the Kushan (ref. to the  Rabatak document) held themselves to be Arians, i.e. Türks by origin.

The Arians are a social phenomenon in the development of a nomadic stage in the life of the Eurasian steppes cattle husbandry tribes, they are an initiative and judicious layer of the society, an aristocratic layer of recently forming early class societies. Contrary to the historical linguistics, they were not the carriers of the Iranian languages; on the contrary, according to the comparative scientific analysis of the ancient Chinese sources, the Arian language belonged to the Türkic-lingual ethnos. Their migration to the south in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC is well traced on the archeological material.
They spread most widely across the territory of the Middle Asia, where during Early Middle Age epoch formed a Turko-Sogdian social and ethnocultural space, as a result of that within the limits of this ethnocultural space formed the Uzbek and Tadjik ethnoses. Though the archeological material do not allow to trace the material culture associated with the penetration of the Arians in the territory of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India, it is possible to evaluate the social and economic changes connected with the crisis of the Harappan civilization.
However, the Arians could not change the languages of the local population neither in India, nor in Iran. On the contrary, the languages of the newcomers were finally absorbed by the languages of the autochthonous tribes. At that time in Persida in the south of Iran functioned a local Farsi-Dari-Ancient Iranian language. Ensconcing their political rule over the Persida, the Arians facilitated the expansion of the distribution area of the Ancient Persian language as a language of the state under their rule. Consequently, for the territory of the Ariana, the Iranian language is not a foreign, but a local language. The language of the newcomerswas absorbed by the local languages.

Scythians are not Indo-European
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/ScythianWordListSourcesEn.htm

These are fake:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/ScythianWordListAbaev.htm

People who accept Scythians as Indo-Europeans are doing something like this:

Another dimention is the fact which all Ossetiono-Scythologists glide through. Imagine the headlines:
- Brits moved to Australia, and adopted the name "Aborigines", and started to call the aborigines "Brits", and started to call each other "Aborigine", and started to be called by the name "Aborigine" by their former aborigine neighbors. Wow!! And the aborigine neighbors started to call themselves and each other "Brit".
- Dutch moved to America, and adopted the name "Indians", and started to call the Indians "Dutch", and started to call each other "Indians", and started to be called by the name "Indian" by their former Indian neighbors. Wow!! And the Indian neighbors started to call themselves and each other "Dutch".
- Germans moved to Africa, and adopted the name "Zulu", and started to call the Зулу "Germans", and started to call each other "Zulu", and started to be called by the name "Zulu" by their former Zulu neighbors. Wow!! And the Zulu neighbors started to call themselves and each other "Germans".
-Balkarians and Karachais moved to Caucasus, and adopted the name "Alans and Ases", and started to call the Alans and Ases "Ossetians", and started to call themselves and each other "Alans and Ases", and started to be called by the name "Alans and Ases" by their neighbors. Wow!! And Alans and Ases started to call each other "Ossetian".
- Chinese moved to Malaysia, and adopted the name "Malaysians", and started to call the aborigines "Chinese", and started to call each other "Malaysian", and started to be called by the name "Malaysian" by their former Malaysian neighbors. Wow!! And the Malaysians started to call themselves and each other  "Chinese"
  - Indians moved to Ceilon, and adopted the name "Tamils", and started to call the Tamils "Indians", and started to call each other "Tamils", and started to be called by the name "Tamils" by their former Tamil neighbors. Wow!! And the Tamil neighbors started to call themselves and each other "Indian".
We can go on. We can take a World Atlas, and compose an example for every tribe listed there. Japanese and Russians moved to Sakhalin and adopted the name "Ainu", while Ainu adopted the names "Japanese" and "Russians" respectively. Wow!!
- Italians moved to Ethiopia, became Ethiopians, and Ethiopians became Italians. Romans moved to Judea, and became Jews, and Jews became Romans. Wow!! Russians moved to Tataria and adopted the name "Tatar", while Tatars adopted the name "Russian". Wow!! French moved to Canada, and became Eskimo, and Eskimo became French. Wow!! You move to a stable, and become a horse, and the horse becomes your older you. Wow!!
OK, these are just fake headlines, but in Scytho-Iranian hypothesis the Balkar-Karachai scenario is real and a major link in the chain of arguments. Balkar-Karachais do call themselves Alans and Ases, all their neighbors, including Ossetes,  call them Alans and Ases, and nobody calls Ossetes Alans and Ases, including the Ossetes themselves. Wow!! This unreal scenario is implicitly or explicitly accepted by all "mainstream" and august scholars. Anybody else is looking for a Brookline bridge to buy?

Aristo < Ari Usta (Usta: master, expert)

And in Bulgarian "usta" means "mouth". Probably because the experts talk a lot?

See here for words borrowed from Turkic in English
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/TurkicBorrowingsEn.htm

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/TurkicInEnglishEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/EnglishTurkicLexiconEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/TothGermanLexiconEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/Non-IE_GermanEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/AgglutinativeLanguages_TothEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/MAdjiEnglishKipchaksEn.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/StevensCraniologyAndHistoryEn.htm

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

I am not going to get into the debate of whether or not the Turks are attested before the Huns, but even if they are there is a huge gap in logical thinking between that piece of information and claiming that the Turks are their ancestors.  The Celts are attested to before the Germanics and lived in roughly the same regions, yet no one claims the Celts are the ancestors to the Germanics.  What might be the case is that both are descendants of an earlier peoples (Indo-European in that case).

So, there might have been a pre-Hun and pre-Turk people that different branches of which became those two peoples. That, ancalimon, is how a logical (and historically knowledged) mind works.

By the way, I find it interesting that the first article you supplied can't even spell "Aryan" right.  There is a difference between Aryans and Arians.

 

[NikeBG]

I think the Aryans must have been a bunch of German drunkards who spent too much time on the Bulgarian sea resorts, if they've named themselves after a Bulgarian brand of beer. (And, of course, they've surely invented ayran as a means to fight hangover)

By the way, I find it interesting that the first article you supplied can't even spell "Aryan" right.  There is a difference between Aryans and Arians.

What do you expect from a well-known pan-Turkic site (posted by a well-known pan-Turkic poster)?

 

[Merlkir]

OK, he finally went full retard. Good to know he WAS holding back.

 

[Bromden]

The first three words of the first quote show what your research is based on, ancalimon. "It is known".

 

[ancalimon]

Celtic and Türkic - King Arthur's Round Table

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/211Celts/KarashinBeketArthurEn.htm

The etymology of the names is always a contentious issue. Unless the meaning and the original language of a name are absolutely transparent (Brown means brown), the etymologies of the names are and should be questioned.  Unlike the infamous etymologies of the V.I. Abaev's Scytho-Iranian Theory, the author does not analyze Celtic names on purely random phonetical resemblance, but from a historically documented underlying concept that seeks to find corroborating affirmation. The author's analogies do not wonder across unrestricted width of the "IE" languages, but are specifically limited to the Türkic languages of the Eurasian steppes. Notably, numerous Celtic names do not have a credible IE etymology, while the Türkic etymology appears straight-forward, feasible, and credible. In places, the Türkic etymology is the only one suggested, with no alternatives. It should be clearly understood that the suggested Türkic etymologies are the suggested Türkic etymologies, and not a detailed linguistic analysis that considers all alternatives and possibly endorses one version against the others. The Türkic etymologies expand and complement the search field, and in places allow to derive the purportedly IE etymology from the Türkic substrate: land, man, son, alms, arch, and many more. In the paradigm of the IE pra-language, the Celtic languages as reconstruction models are prominently absent, for obvious historical reasons nobody tries to reach the PIE *proto-word from the Breton language, although the canonical PIE diagram squarely puts the Celtic languages equidistant with the popular among western linguists Romance and Germanic languages
(http://www.breizh.net/icdbl/saozg/Celtic_Languages.pdf, click to enlarge). More than that, a reconstruction of the PIE from the Celtic languages would give you a *language that has little in common with the accepted *reconstruction of the *PIE *language. A lamentable impression is that the Celtic history suffers the same disease that inflicted in particular Russian, and in general the Slavic history, a malady of falsification, when the present evidence is ignored, inconsistencies whitewashed, blind eye is turned, and history is written not by scholars, but by partisans impersonating scholars. So far, it appears that the Celtic history was robbed and deprived of its rich past, the Celtic people were mislead about their colorful genealogy, and the Celtic dynasts were denuded of their glorious ancestors. The genetic evidence might shed some light on the missing pages, but with the archeological, literary, and historical evidence in place, it have taken a collective blind eye and effort to keep these pages missing.

...

The Celtic ethnonyms are amazing. They are "Türkic-lingual": kelt - is an abbreviated form of the (Türkic) word keldi (even in the modern Kazakh language we say kelt instead of keldi), i.e. appeared, came, wondered over (OTD keldügi arrival, p. 296). That is a most precise definition of the historical destiny of this great nation!
Some parts of this mysterious ethnicity were forced to migrate to the islands of the Foggy Albion, the territory of the modern Great Britain. Not a small part of them remained on the continent. They became known as Gauls, Galatians (Kalds, Kalads). Again, that word is read only in Türkic: gald (kald, kaldi, kaladi) is stayed behind, left behind, would remain, remaining, settled down, settled in. Here again we have a name matching the destiny, history. It is this part of the Celts that remained in what is now northern Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and some parts of Germany. For example, the very same "Spanish" Basques are the descendants of the same Gauls. Again, the word bask (baska) is translated from the Türkic as "foreign", "alien", "aliens".
Another interesting word is constant (permanent value). From the Türkic (konstandi) it is translated as "remaining behind", "settled permanently". Hence the names of Constantine, Constantinople, etc. Without saying, the Celtic wandering singers and musicians (bards), this word (bard, bardi) also translates from the Türkic as "went", "wandered about", "traveled", "roamer", "tramp".
What is presented now is not a fruit of fantasy. It is corroborated with the examples of our history. The name of the Kazakh tribe Kete is "Departed" (they came out and departed from the Altai), the tribal name Kalmak (Kalmyk) means "left behind" (the Dzungars who settled in the southern Russian steppes). This means that specifically the nomads defined and used ethnic names on the distinction of migration and settling: departed -settled in, moved - remained, moved - settled down. So the momentous historical names were becoming ethnic names.
So, the Celts are not autochthons of the Europe, but the steppe people that migrated from the N.Pontic and the Caspian area, the same Scythians or Cimmerians (who, by the way, are the same Scythians), and not some mysterious people that fell from the sky on the heads of the Europeans. The descendants of the Celts still keep the legends of their Asian origins. These are ancestors of the Scots, Irish, Welsh (Walloons), and others that were nomads who conquered and populated the European continent. They were distinguished by such peculiar feature of the steppe people as a passion for travel, roaming, chivalrous adventures, exploits, campaigns, conquest of new lands and peoples. The Celts were the first knights of Europe that introduced into the European culture the code of steppe knightly honor, and their King Arthur is a typical hero of the steppe legends, a wandering knight who won the hearts by his nobility, and his ability to rule to such a degree that he was raised to the throne, most likely not by the right of his birth, but for his services to the motherland.
It is no accident that his genetic roots some Europeans are seeking in the steppe vastness. For example, Howard Reid in his book "Arthur the Dragon King" claimed that Arthur was ... a member of the nomadic Sarmatian tribes, who lived in the Steppes, and whom the Romans brought to Britain. This writer, analyzing the ancient legend according to which King Arthur would rise from the grave when enemies attack England, thought that the origin of this and other legends about Arthur and his knights are the legends of the Sarmatians.
Leaving aside for a moment this wonderful and even a stunning version, can be ascertained in what century lived this hero? The answer is in the historical retrospective. By the 1st c. BC the Britons fully settled the island, which became known as Britania, and then the Great Britain. By the 3rd century the island was partially conquered by the Romans, was established an imperial province with a mixed Briton-Roman population, which in the 3rd-4th centuries became Christian. But the Romans could not conquer the ancestors of the Irish and the Scots, so they fenced themselves off from their raids with a stone wall, the ruins of which still exist. In 407, because of the threat to Rome from the Goths, the Roman legions abandoned Britain, dooming it to an independent existence.
There began a brief Celtic revival and rejection of the Roman customs. But by the 450s the island was invaded from the sea by the pagan (here and later: "pagan" is anyone not of your religious denomination) Germanic tribes, Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, who have seized the beachhead lands. In early 500s the Britons and the descendants of the Romans joined and began fighting the invaders. By the mid-century, they were able to inflict a series of defeats on the invaders, but in the 560-570s the invasion continued, and by the 600 the conquest of the main part of the island was completed. But the Britons, not taking it, continued on with a guerrilla and national liberation war, one of the leaders of which was the famous Arthur, who can be considered not only a legendary, but a real person.

I also want to add this to this quote:

For example, the very same "Spanish" Basques are the descendants of the same Gauls. Again, the word bask (baska) is translated from the Türkic as "foreign", "alien", "aliens".

This explains why their language Euskara means one of the following:  "the black~dark speech~dialect" or "the mixed up~hybrid~disordered~hard to understand speech~dialect" in Turkic.

Read all of it for some fun time.

EDIT: Oh! This one's my favorite which you are going to learn for the first time here:

SHIRE comes from Turkic ÇAYIR.  ÇAYIR means place full of grass, relatively flat ground and it's also related with ÇAY meaning slow flowing water.

http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/%C3%A7ay%C4%B1r

Click the speaker on the left side to hear how the word really sounded like. I'm so happy for you guys for giving you a chance to know the truth.

EDIT2:  Tha author of the article claims Italy comes from Turkic "it ili" meaning "country of the dog". (and gives the Romus-Romulus example)

On the contrary, I highly suspect a relationship between the name of Attila and Italia (Ata İl Öyü)

Maybe the name of Attila is related with Idil River which was originally called Ata İl meaning something like "fathers country".

It's possible that Pope Leo told Attila the following sentence: "I am your father" and showed the name of the region as proof. Hearing this, Attila decided to not sack Rome afraid of going against the word of his pope (papa)

 

[Merlkir]

Good grief, here I was, thinking that the only nation in the world not Turkic were the cold hearted Celts, who don't ever have fun. As we learnt in Ancalimon's ravings in the past.

By the way, "shire" never meant "flat place full of grass and water"- the real world sadly isn't Middle Earth.

shire - O.E. scir "administrative office or district," from P.Gmc. *skizo (cf. O.H.G. scira "care, official charge"). Ousted since 14c. by Anglo-Fr. county (q.v.). The gentrified sense is from The Shires (1796), used by people in other parts of England of those counties that end in -shire; sense transferred to the hunting country of the Midlands (1860).