Printable View
What is not real, since we have lot of Greek and Roman sources about this language. Names or words for example! Lot of words and these language remains are clearly Indo-Iranians. So the Altay Scythians who were the direct ancestors of the European Scythian were Indo-Iranian speakers, no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahli
Some of those names sound Hellenized, would be nice to know the original Indo-Iranian nameQuote:
Originally Posted by blogen
Greek Byzantine chronicler princess Anna Comnena (11th century AD) describes both Pechenegs and Cumans, indicates close linguistic affinities and calls them Scythians.
There is no IE reference.
Rules and Violence / Regeln und Gewalt: On the Cultural History of Collective violence
edited by Cora Dietl, Titus Knäpper
page 92
https://i.hizliresim.com/rOm80V.jpg
I quote just to show Greek sources were always contradicting each other.
Now if we look from objective viewpoint, Scythians were diverse already by 6th century BC. There were different ethnos.
Scythians became synonym for steppe herding nomads; that means not an ethnic reference but a reference to people having a certain form of lifestyle.
Now but who were first Scyths: Turkic, Indo-European or Uralic? That can be discussed.
Pazyryk samples (2) with N y-dna and strongly Siberian autosomal strengthens the Turkic theory.
Beside let's not forget that Scythian religion and burial rites were Turkic-like. Like burrying horses with dead humans, you don't see that in Iranic paganism.
At this time, the scythian was synonym for the steppic. Even the Hungarians were scythians in some sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Böri
Scythians were referred to as "Saka" in Iranian sources, the Turks were not, for a good reason.
Scythians had certainly some Iranic elements.
But were they all Iranic? Were they mainly Iranic?
Doubtful.
If it was such, there wouldn't be Iran-Scythian wars like that famous with Massagatea (Cyrhus).
Scythians and Iranians were enemies. To the level 2 related nations couldn't be. Scythian religion was different from the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. That's also a strong point for difference.
Iranians (Medes and Acheamenid later) were given civilization by Semitic Assyrians.
The source of the Iranian Aryan civilization of Medes and Acheamenid is Semitic agriculturalism.
Not steppe pastoralism like were Scythians.
You cannot use this as an argument, even Turkic tribes fought each other lol, does that mean they weren't Turkic? Ethnicity and linguistics doesn't mean you won't fight each other. The Scythians were still employed as mercenaries by Persians and they were even allied with the Medes to take down the Assyrians. Scythian paganism is strongly connected to Iranic paganism with some differences, they are not the same but similar, obviously since they are nomads they tend to have some cultural differences. It still doesn't make them Turkic like you try to argue for here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Böri
Also neither the Medes or Achaemenids were "Semitic" agriculture empires, are you high or what? xD
The first recorded Iranic proto-level state was Media/Meds.
They started as vassals of Assyrians, later became independent. And later, they were replaced by Acheamenids.
This is why the Iranian civilzation borrowed from Semites.
It's not self-developed civilization.
It was built on Semitic agriculturalism, the legacy of neolithic farmers.
Scythian religion showed similarity with Tengrism more than with Mithraism or Zoroastrianism.
Greeks and Persians had temples and images/icons of their gods. Fire, sun worship etc.Quote:
Although Scythian religious beliefs do not specifically express the values of a nomadic people, such values are manifested distinctly in the forms of Scythian cultic life. For example, according to Herodotus—and this has been confirmed archaeologically—the Scythians had neither temples nor monumental images of their gods, a fact connected, apparently, with the mobility of their way of life.
Elements not existing among Scythians.
That makes them closer to Turkic (and also to Uralics).
Your opinion doesn't matter for the experts, they are not closer to Turkic or Uralic people but the modern Eastern Iranian peoples of Central Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Böri
Yes, clearly Iranic, without any other ethnic elements. The different substrate is missing from their language residues. Iranic names, iranic words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Böri
For example the Finno-Ugric and Turkic language elements are in the sources of the Hungarian language. Because the Magyars were Finno-Ugric speaker, heavily Turkic influenced peoples at this time.
So this defiency of the non-Iranian elements in the sources about the European Scythians language is not a random thing.
And?Quote:
If it was such, there wouldn't be Iran-Scythian wars like that famous with Massagatea (Cyrhus).
Scythians and Iranians were enemies.
So, the Chuvash or the Yakut peoples are not Turks!Quote:
To the level 2 related nations couldn't be. Scythian religion was different from the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrianism or Mithraism. That's also a strong point for difference.
Their common ancestors were those steppic peoples, whom lived in the Andronovo cultural complex. Anywas, the Turks in the modern Turkey are not Turks, because they are not nomads anymore as some Kyrgyz until today!Quote:
Iranians (Medes and Acheamenid later) were given civilization by Semitic Assyrians.
The source of the Iranian Aryan civilization of Medes and Acheamenid is Semitic agriculturalism.
Not steppe pastoralism like were Scythians.