Who were Scythians?

Originally posted by Savdogar You are discussing about Scythians, Sakas. Do you know anything about Tumaris, Shiroq , Spitamen - national heros of Central Asia? Scythians are turkic or iranian!!! what a mess!!! They were Central Asian nomads, that is all. I am very unhappy of pan-turkists and pan-iranist who write all kind of mess about the history.   Why dont you come to Uzbekistan and learn the culture, myths of Uzbek and Tajik??? I am sure you will understand Central Asia is unique region where all those methodologies for historical analysis is useless for our culture, nation and land.   Please, note that Central Asia is such place where your arguments will not work.

First of all calling persian people turkic would be a pan-turkish thing. And if the subject doesnt interest you what are you doing here kardes.
And you saying schythians are turkic or iranian, thats what we are trying to find out. Add some useful post in the topic instead of insulting people.

Originally posted by Urungu Han Schytian people was iranian no one can change that but Their army and leader was Turk also no one can change that :D

The problem that is occuring here is that both Iranians and Turks are extremely proud, emotional and claim that everything is theirs not realising their both indirectly attacking each other.

Originally posted by Bulldog   The people called Scythians ruled such a vast terrortory that to claim they were all the same people would be absurd. What would be even more absurd is to claim that they were the same people and yet still somehow died out. Nations who are so large cannot just vanish into the thin air.   This leads to the point that they were not all the same, there were different Nomadic people's and confederates. Iranic and Turkic tribes controlled the Steppes, not just one of them. As is common with Nomadic way of life, they don't have a concept of "race" and mix aswell as accept people into their clan's.   What this means is that, Iranic and Turkic people were probobly mixing since ancient times both their ancestors didn't have issues about being Turkic or Iranic they were more interested in the power of the clan.   Confederate Clans are quite common in such societies. One that spings to mind is the "Khamse" Clan of Iran in the Fars province, they are Arab and Turk tribes who belong to the same clan. Now is this Turk or Arab? its no more Turk than it is Arab, its both of theirs but wait! race doesn't mean much to them, being part of the Khamse however does.   This is the point most are forgetting. They are applying modern terms of Nationhood to people's who didn't have such a concept and had different ideals. Its likely there were Turks and Iranians in the same tribes and clans and what meant most to them was actually their clan and not their ethnicities.

racist discussion is everywhere on this forum...

Looks like you will do anything to get back to AE though you've been banned numerous times already. Ain't that right Mr. Arashomid, karnagir, Banned One, Arash-e-Archer, etc., etc., etc.

Seko, you spell kamangir wrong...

In responce to your comment, "this says that they were iranic. i dont know why you posted it.". I guess you are referring to the part that claims that according to Greek sources some Scythian words have similarities to Iranic languages. But most of this text overwhelmingly leans toward the Turkic argument, so you are simply cherry-picking a small part of the it which you agree with and simply ignoring the rest which makes up the majority. Especially the DNA evidence, this is very strong evidence. If it is correct, which it looks to be, and the Kazakhs are the closest living relatives of the Sakas then you dont have much of an argument, and in fact you are knowingly denying it and stubbornly holding on to your nationalistic view on the matter

First of all I'd like to clarify that it is crystal clear that talking about the origins of a historical ethnic group, studying for example it's Iranian or turkic origin is not racialist at all as it is an historical discussion, as long as there hasn't been mentioned any racist superiority over another.

regarding Scythian and Saka history, there has been always this problem of lacking evidences of the Scythians themselves. So they are historically known through the references they neighbors over time made of them. But it's not the end of way, archaeologists, linguists etc. have been to some extent successful in gathering critical information regarding them so far.
For example our perspective of their language has become more clearer as the time passes.
some texts found in Khotan which were a translation of Buddhist works concluded in the fact that linguist start to call them as Khotanese-Scythian, though through comparative way they already had clue to what Scythian or saka language possibly looked like thus categorizing it in iranian languages branch. some people tend to deny this amount of work has done calling it western or russian references, though to my knowledge those are more scientific (if be compared).
About the genetical relations mentioned about kyrguz and Kazakh after testing of some genetical evidences like the mummies found in eastern Altai or the areas like Turkistan, some say it  is a testimony that the Scythuans were of Altaic origin, I think this to our knowledge of the history of the Central Asia can actually proves the vice versa, i.e. that Kyrgyz and Kazakh people are somehow descendancy of Scythians. But i'd like to bring into attention of those who insist on this claim to study and discuss these first:
- the tribes , ethnicities, groups who were first inhabited these areas of Central Asia and Altai, i.e. regarding what is our archaeological evidences.
- Studying of the first Indo-european and Altaic people interactions throughvarious sources
- Study of the first typical steppe culture which may consists of the study of the fisrt domestication and employment of the horses, origins of the steppe horsemanship, archery studying the variant sources and references as possible.

I saw that it is said that there are biased views of the turks in the west or non- turkic/altaic countries. Not knowing of the one's expriences concerning this but I should say that giving raccounts of for example Hunnic invasion of Europe despite many exaggerations which  have been normal during histrography during invasions by both conflicting nations, and  despite it shows cruelty and gives image of barbarism. as the same goes for the Mongol conquests. It doesnt ever mean that has to do something with todays nations. So in studying historical matter do not confuse it. Somehow it is not to my opinion nice and seems primitive and offensive to back the deeds of the military commanders of the past who took many lives and spilled  many bloods.  The case is clear if someone does so, the other may react not properly. But to inform you, those interested in historical researches will do continue using encyclopaedias and various first hand sources than sided ones.


  

Welcome Scythian.

I recommend: ''The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World''; David W. Anthony.

And

''Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe.''

Robert Drews.