These were the Scythians the topic discussion was referring to, AFAIK.  Not the 'Asiatic Scythians'.

The Saka were a group of many Iranic (not Persian) peoples/tribes, but it doesn't really matter whether they were Turkic or Iranic because they shared the nomadic lifestyle, they were just another of those horse-riding steppe nomads.

All Scythians were Saka but not all Saka were Scythians. Appearently, "Skythoi" (Scyth) was the Greek name for the people called "Saka Pradraya" (Saka Across The Sea) by the Persians.

I've noticed that, for some reason, a lot of you are determined to draw an imaginary dividing line between Europe and Asia, especially when it comes to the Scythians and their time period.  The Scythians themselves did not recognize any such dividing line, as they claimed the entire steppe zone which spanned both continents.  It is a well-documented fact that a great caravan route existed between the Black Sea region and Bactria during the time of the Scythians.  Inhabitants of one area of the steppe zone where by no means isolated from inhabitants of another area.

Afrasyab was king of H'yaona and fought against some other iranian tribes because of their conversion to Zaratushtra reform. From this fact one may conclude that the H'yaonians shared the same pre-Zaratushtrian religion and therefore belonged to the same "world". Turan don't have to describe geograficaly or socially Turkic tribes whose at these times dwelled much further north. In fact Turks had different religious complex and therefore were not motivated to start religious war. 

You cannot come up nothing by only looking at religion in this subject. There is not a necessity that Turks can only belong to "this specific relegion".  They can believe in many different religions as history shows us.

The resemblence between  H'yaona and Hun is worth to make attention on it.

Yes. I am completely agreed with you.........

Hi Bektemir - welcome to All Empires

I was thinking that this thread sounded a bit familiar - went looking and found the old thread in the Iranian Hisotry forum:  http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=918&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=918& PN=2

There are some links in that thread to a few Scythian artifacts web sites showing the level of workmanship and creativity - spectacular stuff!

 It is known that, though of Iranic (I think that's the correct word!) origin, there where some mixing between Sakae/Scytians and other "asian-looking" races.

It is quite possible that, among the leading classes, political marriages would make ethnic mixing more common than among the common people.

At the Pazyryk kurgan, for instance, the man burried there is of "asian" stock (though I don't if it's turkic or mongol, or something else). Interestingly enoght, he had a fake beard. One can suppose that the beard was a symbol of masculinity and, due to his "asian" race, this chief had to wear a fake beard because he would lack a proper one (asians have much less beard that europeans).

In a recently discovered tomb in the Afghan border, the chief burried there is mixed "iranic-asian" as well, even if he is surrounded by Sakae items.

But anyway, and has far as I know, both from the Greek authors and for the remainning sources, the is no evidence whatsoever attesting the Scytians as nothing else but of Iranic stock. Where they of hunnic stock and I'm sure that the european authors would have written about it, namely by saying that the Scytians were ugly, bad looking fellows, etc., etc., etc., just like they did when regarding the Hunns (and unlike what they did regarding the Ephtalites, who looked similar to the persians, at least accordingly to chinese sources, and "didn't had ugly features" accordingly to Procopius).

(BTW, what's the difference between iranic, arian and persian?)

Best

Sikander

There are acutally hundreds of Kurgans in the vicinity of Pazyryk. Some of them entomb asiatic scythian cheiftans whereas at others iranian scyths are buried. There is definatly enough archealogical evidence to support that there was significant intermarrage and cross-cultural polination that far east. I would also tend to agree with earlier posts about the fact that many scholars have some urge to to classify scythians and sacas as though they were entirly different peoples when in actuality the cultures of the stepe all had a shared cultural heritage.

As far as I know, aryan is just the old fashioned term for the indo-european race. It became unpopular after WWII. 

By "enzyme" I assume you mean lactase (which "breaks down" lactose--milk sugar).

This enzyme is produced by various beneficial bacteria, like lactobacillus acidophilus, used in making yogurt, kefir, etc.

The specific bacteria strains and fermentation recipe used for making koumiss (fermented mare's milk) was taken by the Russians, and used with cow's milk to make kefir.

The term Iranic is ethno-linguistic.  It is used of peoples speaking languages related to Persian, the primary language of Iran, and so hence "Iranic". 

Aryan was originally a cultural designation.  It described those Iranic-speaking groups which adopted a sedentary livelihood as opposed to a nomadic way of living.  In the Zend Avesta, Airyas were one group and Tiuryas, Sairimas, Dahis, and Sainus were other groups.  The latter groups were nomadic in nature.  The earliest representation of the term as a place-name, Airyanem Vaejah, "home of the Aryans" was to the south of the Aral Sea watered by the Vanguhi Daitya or the Oxus and perhaps located in the region of Chorasmia which was the outpost of agricultural society. 

Of specific groups which used the term to describe themselves, were the Medians, whom Herodotus stated were originally called "Arians", the Persians which described their rulers as being of "Aryan seed" and their language as "Aryan", and the Bactrians whose language was described by the Kushan king Kanishka I, as being called "Aryan".  The implication is that all these sedentary groups had a common name to describe their culture and language.

In the meantime, after Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, the Greeks were referring to Iran as Ariana.  Although we don't have a surviving Persian equivalent, the implication is that the native Iranian peoples were already referring to Iran in some form of the ancient expression Airyanem Vaejah.  From the Parthian Period we have a development of the Avestan term in the form Eran Wej, and perhaps Iran was already known as "Eran", which was in use during Sassanid times to describe Iran and immediate western and eastern adjacent lands.  The "migration" of the name for Iran, originally only designating the land about the Oxus, south of the Aral Sea (in present-day Uzbekistan), into the present-day Iran was now complete.

The term "Persian" originally designated those Iranians or "Aryans" which settled the region of "Parsa" (the "borderland"), the modern southwestern Iranian province of Fars.  Since it was the Persians who unified Iran, and whose language became the predominant language, in the west, at least, "Persia" was equivalent to "Iran", and for a time, Iran was officially known as Persia until modern times.

me neither but were the sarmatians and scythians the same people but with different name?

Okay, I don't know if anybody has already posted this, but anyways:

Iranian Peoples

THE SAKAS

AN INTRODUCTION

CAIS

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Saka/Scythia.jpg">

Scythia

Introduction

	http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/introduction.htm#Scythians - Scythians
	http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/introduction.htm#Scythian successes - Scythian Successes
	http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/introduction.htm#Scythian Jewelry - Scythian
	http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/introduction.htm#Scythian Art: - Scythian Art (An Overview)

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/introduction.htm - http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/introduc tion.htm

-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great

for more visit these:

Sakas (Scythians)

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/saka_ethnic.htm - Ethnic of Sakas (Sythians) , by: I. P'iankov http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/interpretation_scyth-art.htm - Interpretation of Scythian, Sarmatian & Meotian-Sarmatian Motifs & Records (the) http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/introduction.htm - Sakas (the), An Introduction The Saka Nomenclature, A Persian appraisal, by Guive Mirfendreski http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Mythology/scythian_rustamiada.htm - , by: Igor V. Pyankov http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Scythian/scyth_sarmat_culture.htm - Scythians, Sarmatians, Meotians: Interpretation of the Ancient Cultures (The) http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/wave.htm - Scythian Wave ; Theories on the Scythian invasion of India and their relation to the Yu-chi advance into Bactria, by Robert Bracey

Here's a scythian harp:

http://www.soundtransformations.btinternet.co.uk/arcmain.htm - http://www.soundtransformations.btinternet.co.uk/arcmain.htm

A reconstructed harp also at:

www-ic.dcn-asu.ru/projects/ grant/korotkov/en/exps/exp5_b.html

I am sorry I know too few about musical instruments. However is there any special about that scythian harp? What does make it different from other ones of similar kind? It seems to be very little visual difference between the so-called "scythian harp" and an Ossetian one. See pictures:

Look at guy playing regular (arc) fandur and guy playing "kessun fandur" on left. This is Tuganov's artwork related to Nart Sagas.

This is also Tuganov's artwork "Searching avalanche victims" (1933). There is a man playing "kessun fandur".  The "kessun fandur" was popular instrument once, but was replaced by accordion recently.

Looks like a kamancheh

This is from Alan tomb (v. Zmejskaya), North Ossetia, Russia. This looks like related to Iranian Simurg story (The bird carrying branch of Tree of Life).

haha, another thing the damn christians copied from iran.

What is your view kobalt-r u claiming that turks r scyths? 

AMMIANI MARCELLINI

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ammianus31.html - http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ammianus31.html

[ Hoc expeditum indomitumque hominum genus, externa praedandi aviditate flagrans inmani, per rapinas, finitimorum grassatum et caedes ad usque Halanos pervenit, veteres Massagetas, qui unde sint vel quas incolant terras - quoniam huc res prolapsa est - consentaneum est demonstrare, geographica perplexitate monstrata, quae diu multa indagans acute et varia, tandem repperit veritatis interna.....]

[ omnis igitur aetas et sexus inbellis circa vehicula ipsa versatur, muniisque distringitur mollibus: iuventus vero equitandi usu a prima pueritia coalescens, incedere pedibus existimat vile, et omnes multiplici disciplina prudentes sunt bellatores. unde etiam Persae, qui sunt originitus Scythae, pugnandi sunt peritissimi.] 

[ Abundans Hister advenarum magnitudine fluenti Sauromatas praetermeat ad usque amnem Tanaim pertinentes, qui Asiam terminat ab Europa. hoc transito in inmensum extentas Scythiae solitudines Halani inhabitant, ex montium appellatione cognominati, paulatimque nationes conterminas crebritate victoriarum adtritas ad gentilitatem sui vocabuli traxerunt, ut Persae.]

ISIDORI HISPALENSIS
[ http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/isidore9.html - http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/isidore9.html ]
[ Sale filius Iectam, a quo Bactriani, licet eos alii Scytharum exules suspicantur. ]
[ Bactriani Scythae fuerunt, qui suorum factione a sedibus suis pulsi iuxta Bactron Orientis fluvium consederunt, ex cuius vocabulo et nomen sortiti. Huius gentis rex fuit Zoroastres, inventor magicae artis.Parthi quoque et ipsi ab Scythis originem trahunt. Fuerunt enim eorum exules, quod etiam eorum vocabulo manifestatur. Nam Scythico sernione exules 'parthi' dic**tur. Hi, similiter ut Bactriani, domesticis seditionibus Scythia pulsi solitudines iuxta Hircaniam primum furtim occupaverunt, deinde pleraque finium etiam virtute obtinuerunt. ]
[ Limes est Persicus, qui Scythas ab eis dividit, Scytha cognominatus, a quo limite Scythae a quibusdam perhibentur vocati, gens antiquissima semper habita.]
[ Amazones dictae sunt, seu quod simul viverent sine viris, quasi AMA ZON, sive quod adustis dexterioribus mammis essent, ne sagittarum iactus inpediretur, quasi ANEU MAZON. Nudabant enim quam adusserant mammam. Has Titianus Vnimammas dicit. Nam hoc est Amazon, quasi ANEU MAZOU, id est sine mamma. ]
 
CAII JULII SOLINI DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/latinlibrary/solinus4a.html - http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/latinlibrary/solinus4a.h tml

//quos Scythas Persae lingua sua Sacas dic**t et invicem Scythae Persas//

Who can read Latin? About Amazons it seems to be close to Ossetic too "A-madon" (not able to be mother)

Except maybe the Ural mountain

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1938&PN=1&TPN=18 - First check the photo of a Scynthian tomb at Pazyryk kurgan

please notice the stones around it.For sure the stones piled up over the tomb.who can explain this?

In fact ,there are lots of similar tombs in Altay and Ili region.As I have seen before,at the north side of http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150339/khan-tengri-tengi-tag.html - khan tengri ,there is an old city ruin called Shat,it was the palace (orda) of Istemi khaghan( a turkish king).At the south corner of this city ,there are lots of mounded tombs which considered kings�ttombs.these tombs are also piled up with stones( spherical or elliptical stones with smooth surface).Based on Turkish tradition,people were used to visit the tombs of heros and kings every year,every time they took a stone with themselves and placed the stone on the top of the tomb.Meaning of this behavior is to show your respect to the sprits of those great people.Year by year,stones piled up over the tomb.Thats the reason why all historical tombs in Altay and Tengri tagh(tian shan in chinese) mountains region are mounds.

Now my quastion,Does Iranian people have same tradition like this,I hope i could have a reasonable answer without any bias!

Thanks

One more thing,from that photo,one can see how Scythians made up their horses,this shows how much mean a horse to them.And its well known fact that they have splendid art of riding.So its reasonable to say that they are originally steppe people.At the same place there are Huns,Mongolians and nomadic Turks.

I have never been Iran,Afganistan before,so I am gonna ask you is there a suitable place for feeding horses as in steppe? or does Iranian people have specific Horse culture in both nowadays and back to history ?  of course except cavalry.

Thank you very much in advance.

Iran is very suitable for breeding and rearing horses, but forget that for an instant.  The Persians, Medeans and Parthians originally came to Iran FROM the steppes of Central Asia they were nomads and some very rural tribes still are.

Second regarding Iran and breeding horses, Iran had whole armies of cavalry during the Parthian and Sassanid era, ever heard of the Parthian shot? The horseman below in Parthian shot stance.

The above is what Herdotus said about the Persian upbringing, so you can see horses and tir kamans (bows) are very important in the culture.  And it is the reason Iran, pre Islam did not fall prey to any steppe invaders, because they knew the steppe tactics and used it themselves.

Second regarding Iran and breeding horses, Iran had whole armies of cavalry during the Parthian and Sassanid era, ever heard of the Parthian shot? The horseman below in Parthian shot stance.

The above is what Herdotus said about the Persian upbringing, so you can see horses and tir kamans (bows) are very important in the culture.  And it is the reason Iran, pre Islam did not fall prey to any steppe invaders, because they knew the steppe tactics and used it themselves.

You are welcome and I am very glad to see that you are open minded on the subject.  Well it is a very interesting topic, because iranians 3000 years ago would have been very similar to Turks of 1500 years ago.  When teh Iranian tribes moved to Iran, they assimilated the local agricultural populations and changed their culture and made it their own (again, like Turks in Iran and Turkey).

The question of the origin of Turks is very interesting and it needs objective and non-political research BY historians, archaeologists and other scientists.

Zagros: Dont get defensiv now. U can insult me its ok, but dont get defensive now.

I am just curious. When u say iranian tribes, exactly what do u mean? Iran as is today is filled with baluchis, gilakis, kurds, fars, afghans, arabs, azeri, turks, etc. Did they exist 3000 years ago in the area? Or?

I am curious, explain pls. Because i get confused, once the term persian is used for all the iranians and then plain iranians. Pls explain the distinctive differences between iranina and persian. Coz i have might missuunderstood u.

Herodutus about scythians: (Book 4)

"The Scythian soldier drinks the blood of the first man he overthrows in battle. Whatever number he slays, he cuts off all their heads, and carries them to the king; since he is thus entitled to a share of the booty, whereto he forfeits all claim if he does not produce a head. In order to strip the skull of its covering, he makes a cut round the head above the ears, and, laying hold of the scalp, shakes the skull out; then with the rib of an ox he scrapes the scalp clean of flesh, and softening it by rubbing between the hands, uses it thenceforth as a napkin. The Scyth is proud of these scalps, and hangs them from his bridle-rein; the greater the number of such napkins that a man can show, the more highly is he esteemed among them. Many make themselves cloaks, like the capotes of our peasants, by sewing a quantity of these scalps together. Others flay the right arms of their dead enemies, and make of the skin, which stripped off with the nails hanging to it, a covering for their quivers. Now the skin of a man is thick and glossy, and would in whiteness surpass almost all other hides. Some even flay the entire body of their enemy, and stretching it upon a frame carry it about with them wherever they ride. Such are the Scythian customs with respect to scalps and skins. "

ok, you are confusing yourself. you are assuming that we are still nomads

no, just like how turks in turkey dont run around with horses anymore, and have now settled down into cities and villages and agriculture, iran did the same. 

the first iranian tribes to settle down (infact, the first civilisations in central asia, before the achaemenids) were the sogdians and the bactrians. these iranian peoples made the first central asian empires (i think in 2000 BCE (?) which was a long long long time ago).

ok, calm down, your getting you dates confused.  Iranian tribes came into Iran from central asia and the steppe region many thousands of years ago. by the time the sumerians and elamites had set up their empires, iranian peoples were now in the region, and would eventually conquer all of them.

what??????

you are saying it as if turks created the standard for some one to be a nomad. why dont you think of it this way, instead of scythians being similar to turks, what if its turks that are similar to scythians?

and the scythians did speak and indo iranian language.

Prsn, seriously, STOP wording your posts so offensively, you cintinuously post in an ad hominem manner, this is totally unhealthy for debate and is one of the reasons why so many threads turn to the brown stuff.  You make valid points, but there is absolutely NO NEED for your tone.

Why would I get defensive?

There are/were many Iranian tribes: These were the Parthians, Medes, Scythians, Alans/Ossets and others.  when I refer to Iranian tribes I refer to these people among others, it would thus be inaccurate to call them Persians since they are but ONE of the tribes. 

You can look up any academic source and it will tell you the same thing, that all of these tribes were related and the name used for the relation is Iranian - again, not tied to the polity of Iran.

Persian was the name given to all people of Iran by Westerners (from Greek sources) before 1936 when Reza Shah demanded that the country be referred to as Iran to reflect its many ethnicities, he himself was Gilaki.

what tone are you talking about?? im totally confused right now. what offensive comments?

i said that he is confusing his dates, which he was, and that he was thinking about a vast time in history to quickly, and that he needed to calm down.

if thats offensive, im sorry, but i dont think that he would take comments like that offensive. its not like i called him stupid or anything.

Condescending tone, you may not think much of it yourself, but it is the kickstart.  make your point without such expressions in a neutral tone.

again, i said calm down because he was thinking about a vast time in history as if it was just a few years. 

i said what??? because i didnt understand that statement.

its not offensive. like if i am getting myself confused or something, i would like someone to tell me that i am confused, so that i know whats wrong, and then tell me why im confused.

how do teachers teach you at school? when your confused about something, they tell you to calm down, relax, and then they teach it to you.

the guy was asking us questions, and i tried to answer those questions as simple as i could so that he wouldnt have to feel confused anymore.

he said he was confused man.

zagros, your jumping to conclusions to quickly.

ok, you are confusing yourself. you are assuming that we are still nomads

Thats why I asked that.

Another confusing stuff is that you say Iran has so long history,as far as I have understood,its related ancient Babilons,Summerians so to say,now you are saying Iranians from steppe.I was wandering the possibilty of movment here.I mean the agricultural or handicraft people do not tend to move around,you see china,Indea,egypt and Greece,they were there and still there.[/quote]

ok, calm down, your getting you dates confused.  Iranian tribes came into Iran from central asia and the steppe region many thousands of years ago. by the time the sumerians and elamites had set up their empires, iranian peoples were now in the region, and would eventually conquer all of them.

I agree but thats also my point here about the dates.We are talking Scythians,as facts show they lived steppe around 5 century B.C.and you are saying Iranians came Iran thousands of years ago ,please When? I would say nowadays history is also a science,please show your facts or reasons.

what??????

I mean here consistancy,please notice I am saying Altaic language,not simply Turks.For sure it is true that nowadays almost all nomads over steepe are Altay language system people,are not they?

you are saying it as if turks created the standard for some one to be a nomad. why dont you think of it this way, instead of scythians being similar to turks, what if its turks that are similar to scythians?

yep,I agree,turks are similar to scythians,and it still counts for something,at least there is similerity between Scythians and Turkish nomads!just by the facts I mentioned above.

and the scythians did speak and indo iranian language.

I will agree if you have facts! By the way,we are talking history that is  so long time ago,we dont have any vidios like "assassination of Kennedy",so we have to left some possibilities.Of course we can reference somthing like what Herodoutes wrote,but we cannot deduce simply from that,may be he himself wrote something that he heard which is not the case.at that time,no tell,no internet,people spend several weeks for traviling thousand kilometers.What I am gonna say is before having a reasonable conclusion,we have to refer at least Folklores,Archaeological facts,Languages(i.e.etymology,phonetics,grammer and so  on),Genetics(DNA stuff I mean) and historical documents.

so please calm down, I am pretty much eager to learn something reasonable.

second millenium BC.

well, central asia and the steppe doesnt have much of a population compared to other parts of asia. but yes, now the majority are altaic, however iranic tribes and other tribes still live and roam the region.

all nomads are similar in the basics. i dont know why you limit it only to turks and iranic tribes. iranic tribes and turkic tribes were not the only nomadic tribes.

Unfortunately I did not find any evidence(facts) there that shows they are indo-europian.Well may be they are,but are there any written documents from Scynthian themselvs? then its easy to accept.

indo iranian = indo european. they mean the same thing.

Herodutus about scythians: (Book 4)

"The Scythian soldier drinks the blood of the first man he overthrows in battle. Whatever number he slays, he cuts off all their heads, and carries them to the king; since he is thus entitled to a share of the booty, whereto he forfeits all claim if he does not produce a head. In order to strip the skull of its covering, he makes a cut round the head above the ears, and, laying hold of the scalp, shakes the skull out; then with the rib of an ox he scrapes the scalp clean of flesh, and softening it by rubbing between the hands, uses it thenceforth as a napkin. The Scyth is proud of these scalps, and hangs them from his bridle-rein; the greater the number of such napkins that a man can show, the more highly is he esteemed among them. Many make themselves cloaks, like the capotes of our peasants, by sewing a quantity of these scalps together. Others flay the right arms of their dead enemies, and make of the skin, which stripped off with the nails hanging to it, a covering for their quivers. Now the skin of a man is thick and glossy, and would in whiteness surpass almost all other hides. Some even flay the entire body of their enemy, and stretching it upon a frame carry it about with them wherever they ride. Such are the Scythian customs with respect to scalps and skins. "

[/QUOTE]

I think this is somehow exaggerated.If this is true then there must have been that kinda scalp stuff in Scythian tombs,but in fact there is not,at least 5th century B.C.

ok,you are right.but thats not the point.

then what is the point, i dont understand what your asking?

Oh dear,this is what I have asked:

Unfortunately I did not find any evidence(facts) there that shows they are indo-europian.Well may be they are,but are there any written documents from Scynthian themselvs? then its easy to accept.

Originally posted by oslonor Nuristanis in Afghanistan are direct descendants of Scythians. Afghan Nuristani Girl http://imageshack.us">

Not sure why you stuck on Nuristanis either, though you could be right.

Linguistically there's a connection between the neighbouring Pashto speakers and Eastern Scythian according to the following Ossetic language resource.

Not true.Indo-Iranian is a subgroup of IE, just like celtic,slavic,germanic...

But we have inscriptions on stones written by nomads,like below(from google).So I think there may be some similar stuff. Russians have lots of archaeological stuff about Scythians ,I only have seen few of them,pitty!

Interesting stone men/women (on some stones is deer�s face) ,considered made by Scynthians or Sakas.there are hunderds of stone sculptures between Altay and Tengri tagh(tian shan) mountains.Some of them are 3 meters high.One found in Tikes valley is 230cm high,face wide is 35cm,body wide is 50cm.All stone men/women faced east direction (looking on the sunrise) since ancient nomads regard sun as a universe ruler.Some stone women even have very long plaits(braids) which reached to their heels.

These are found in Tikes valley in Tengri tagh and Jiminey in Altay.

here is your mistake, which i tried to point out earlier.

you are thinking as if turkic tribes set such standards for nomads, therefor everyone resembling those standards has to be turkic.

that is wrong because turkic tribes did not set those standards!

for example, the bull is sacred in iberian, persian, egyptians, and minoan cultures, but that doesnt mean that they are all related.

another example is that jesus is considered a phrophet in armenia, france, germany, USA, russia, etc...

but that does not mean that these people are related.

you cannot assume that just because somethings the scythians did resembled turkish things, that they are turkish.

infact, how do you know that all these things that you say are turkish are actually turkic? isnt it possible that turks picked these things up from scythians or from someone else.

what your saying resembles ataturks sun language theory, that said all languages are turkic.

Do you have a bad english or do you have reading problem,I am not gonna irritate you but please,read carefully what I have wrote there,I did not say that Scythians are Turkish,I even did not come out that kinda conclusion.I did write some facts, some similerities what I have found,I am not creating history but searching traces what human left behind!

Now a quastion for you,you seem quite sure that Scythians are Iranians,of course I wont deny the possibilities.But how can you so sure to say they are iranians without enough facts,did not you see what we are discussing here is far before Jesus born, we even dont have any inscriptions from themselves about their identity yet.So I will still leave my quastions until got a firm evidence,at least this is my own right .You are from so called" freedom country" are not you? so dont treat me as you are a dictator.

This is sure a nice topic,we have to discuss it due to its uncertainty.But I am afraid we will screw it up if we go on like this way! Be respectful,I have never heard sun language theory before,now I checked it, and I am not gonna accept it.I dont know why you mixed my word with that,I wrote real facts there,if dont believe just go to East Turkistan and check it,my people will sure welcome you in most friendly way!...

im not a historian nor an archeaologist, and neither are you.

you are asking us to show you scythian writing, or some piece of physical evidence which is impossible because we dont have access to these and nor do we know where to get them from.

i know they are iranian for one simple fact:

the fact is that all historians agree they are historians (atleast most). all reputable encyclopaedia's say they are iranic, every source i have ever read say they are iranic.

since i am not a historian myself, i have to rely on these people, and since you are also not a historian, you also have to rely on these people.

i posted you the link the thread about the scythians, but you refused the facts posted there because you want to see physical evidence.

that is impossible, i suggest you build a time machine, go back into the past, and ask the scythians themselves because it seems that that is the only thing you will accept.

im sorry i dont have an ancient scythian artifact in my house to show you, and im sorry that i havent seen any scythian writing, but im sure that all the historians and archeologiest who say that scythians are iranic obviously did so for a reason.

let me ask you this, show me evidence that prooves scythians are not iranic....

this can go both ways, we just have to accept what historians write because they are the experts.

if historians say that scythians are not iranic then who am i to argue with them.  most say that they are iranic, and that is good enough for me.

you should ask zagros or someone who knows more about the iranian language.

the same reasons why the turkic tribes moved. 

nomads, as im sure you already know, move around all the time, they dont have a single place where they live. that is how these tribes got to west asia.

good thing,you are admitting that we dont have scythian writing and physical evidence,see ,this is exactly my basis why there is an uncertainty.

I checked some encyclopeadia and historical papers,and sure there are lot of people claiming that their language is eastern Iranian.Their idea depends on greek sources as below:

Some scholars ascribe certain "Runic" inscriptions found in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to the Scythians, but apart from that there are no extant texts in Scythian; however, the personal names found in the contemporary Greek literary and epigraphic texts suggest that the language of the Scythians and the Sarmatians (who spoke a dialect of Scythian according to Herodotus, Hist. 4.117) has strong similarities to well-attested Eastern Iranian dialects such as Sogdian and Modern Ossetic.

Traditions of the Turkic Kazakhs and Yakuts (who call themselves "Sakha"); the Marathas of India; the Picts; the Gaels; the Hungarians; Serbs and Croats; also include mention of Scythian origins, among others.

It cannot be said with certainty that all of those variously referred to as Scythians or Saka spoke Iranian languages, or that they were genetically related to the stock of Iranian's original speakers. They may have only had an Iranian speaking elite, and the mother tongues of the peoples they dominated might have been Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, Indo-Aryan, and/or even Tocharian (this could explain the presence of Tocharian in the east). See Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages and Mathematical approaches to comparative linguistics.

• FOX, Robin Lane, 1973. Alexander the Great. ISBN 0-14-008878-4.

Scythian elite were buried in kurgans, high barrows heaped over chamber-tombs of larch-wood �� a deciduous conifer that may have had special significance as a tree of life-renewal, for it stands bare in winter. Burials at Pazyryk in the Altai Mountains have included some spectacularly preserved Scythians of the "Pazyryk culture" �� including the "Ice Maiden" of the 5th century BC.

Saka is the usual Persian term, while Scythian is a Greek term.  Their language is poorly known, but seems to have originally been a member of the Iranian family (though some question whether this applied to all stratas of their society, or only the ruling class at various times).

Among others, modern Kazakhs (especially the branch known as "Saks") claim descent from the Sakas. The Sakha people of Siberia (see Yakuts) also claim descent from a remnant of the earlier Saka people. Additionally, although the evidence is dated and the technology utilized still in its infancy, DNA analysis conducted at the Novosibirsk Institute of Cytology and Genetics has found Kazakhs and Altai people to be the nearest relatives among competing Mongol-Turkic clans of a Scythian from the Pazyryk burial in Siberia.

Archeological evidence and histographies shows a worldview of Sakas, similar to that of ancient German and Scandinavian traditions and closely related to that of present-day Kazakhs and Mongols. It is theorized that they believed Man was a part of the Universe, Cosmos, Heaven, Sun, mountains, river, in total nature, and shows close affinities with Shamanism and Tengriism which are still practiced today, from Kazakhstan to Siberia which conceive of God as related to Cosmic laws and forces. However, modern Kazakhs are Muslim, most modern Mongols are Buddhists, and Siberian shamanism is not known to be directly connected to Indo-European religion.

Rudenko initially assigned the neutral label Pazyryk culture for these nomadic pasturalists of horses and dated them to the 5th century BC. The Pazyryk culture has since been connected with the Scythians, one of the earliest known Altaic people described by the ancient Greeks, whose very similar tombs are found across the steppes. It has been suggested that Pazyryk was a homeland for these tribes before they migrated west. There is also the possibility that the current inhabitants of the Altai region are descendants of the Pazyryk culture, a continuity that would accord with current ethnic politics: DNA is now being used to study the Pazyryk mummies

To date, no widely accepted explanation exists for the origin of the Scythians, nor how they migrated to the Caucasus and Ukraine; but many scholars conjecture that they migrated westward from Central Asia between 800 BC and 600 BC------  From wikipedia

i am not saying that there is no evidence, im saying that i dont posses physical evidence! archeologists and historians have this evidence, not me.

lol

this says that they were iranic. i dont know why you posted it.

but if you go far back enough, the origions of every ethnicity can be disputed.

where did turks originate from? who were their ancestors, were they origionally "turkic"? see, there is always the possibility of something, there is also the possibility that dragons existed, but it hasnt been proven so far has it?

the same with ethnicities, it is possible that scythians could have been some other people, but most of the evidence, and historians from the time period of the scythians give us clues to them being iranic.

again, you are thinking that turks starting everything.

look at the middle east region, sumerians, assyrians, babylonians, etc... also all origionated in the same place, but that doesnt mean they are the same poeple.

your thinking is wrong, this is the last time im going to explain why your logic is wrong, get that type of thinking out of your head.

my friend, you are confusing yourself even more.

scythians never came down into the middle east. persians, medes, parthians, etc... and other iranic tribes did, but not scythians. scythians, along with ossetians, and some other iranic tribes went to russia and eastern europe.

you are confusing scythians with the other iranic tribes that migrated south.

i suggest you calm down, relax, think slowly, because you are really confused right now.

Name them.

Aryan does not refer to Meds, Aplines or Nordics; it specifically refers to the Indo-Iranian branch of the IE tree.  Now, using that as an ethno-racial label in a modern context is ridiculous, maybe if referring to proto Indo-Iranians it is acceptable, just like Germanic is for the ancestors of Danes, Dutch et al.

There is no such thing as an "Aryan" skull measurement in anthrpological science.

Yes they did.

Persians, Medes, parthians and other related groups were originally from the steppes, where they cohabited or competed with each other, including the Scythians.  It was perhaps this competition that forced the migration of some groups into Iran and other Westward.

The Scythians most certainly came to Northern Iran and usurped the Medes for a while.

Read carefully please again, if you still have same idea after wards ,then I would say your mind totally occupied with Iranian stuff. I have read it very clearly, langugae of saka seems iranian. Here "it seems " means it is probabley like,not mean it is! you are saying that they are iranian,and your evidence is only language,but see,this evidece is also uncertain.

So,according to your idea ,Turks originated from somewhere middle of the nowhere,right? I think you went too far,this is kinda racist idea.

I am not saying turkish start everything,read carefully again please,I am saying scythians started something,but not all!!!

Here ,finally agree with you.So this means eastern Scythians,some Iranic tribes and Turks originated from Altay region,but this does not mean they are the same people.

well if you apply that logic to everything, then what kind of a world is this?

is there even a world? just because it seems there is a world does it really exist?

do humans really exist? are turks really chinese? are chinese reall german?

wow, you dont understand sarcasm or reverse psychology.

and you obviously dont know what racism means. wow, who am i debating with?

yes, the turkic people and the iranic people are not related for that exact reason.

therefore, all the iranic tribes, such as the scythians, are seperate from the turkic tribes, such as the huns.

so they went through northern iran? i didnt know that, thanks for the heads up.

oghuzkb, i see you seem to be interested in Scythians, can you post a scythian crone and a Sakha/yakut one?

I had seen a "similarity" between them, dont ask me where i saw that

Ok,you try to skip something ,before say that they are iranic,please explain this:

Among others, modern Kazakhs (especially the branch known as "Saks") claim descent from the Sakas. The Sakha people of Siberia (see Yakuts) also claim descent from a remnant of the earlier Saka people. Additionally, although the evidence is dated and the technology utilized still in its infancy, DNA analysis conducted at the Novosibirsk Institute of Cytology and Genetics has found Kazakhs and Altai people to be the nearest relatives among competing Mongol-Turkic clans of a Scythian from the Pazyryk burial in Siberia.

Archeological evidence and histographies shows a worldview of Sakas,  closely related to that of present-day Kazakhs and Mongols. It is theorized that they believed Man was a part of the Universe, Cosmos, Heaven, Sun, mountains, river, in total nature, and shows close affinities with Shamanism and Tengriism which are still practiced today, from Kazakhstan to Siberia which conceive of God as related to Cosmic laws and forces.  Siberian shamanism is not known to be directly connected to Indo-European religion.

your agenda is getting clearer and clearer.

turkic people also claim avicenna, and rumi, and khwarizmi, but that doesnt change the fact that everyone knows they are iranic.

so what if turkic people claim something, it doesnt make it true.

if i claim that turkoman's are really iranic does it suddenly become true? no.

are you going to claim norouz also, just because it is teh number one celebration in almost all turkic nations?