Topic: Are Kurds Descended From the Medes? Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 09:21
It is better to stick on the topic, talking about Turan, descendants of Turaj (Middle Persian Tuzh), Tur-ik (Turk) or Tuj-ik (Tajik), ... needs another thread.
What about alp er tunga (afrasiab) . Scytian and Turkic. National hero o Turks
Scytian iranian war call turk iran wars too. Turan aganist İran. ()
Cyrus your words write here nothing to me. and other ones who think like me. I put my sources here. You put your sources here. You cant change my idea, i cant change yours.
Iskit, it isn't important what other peoples say, Indians are Indian people and Europeans are European, you can't deny the existence of Iranian peoples because Iranian is also an Indo-European language, you know yourself that Turks didn't live in Turkey in the ancient times, it can be said about Iranians and Iran in an older time, we know in the ancient times some non-Iranian peoples, such as Elamites, Urartians, Lullubi, Mannaeans, ... lived in modern Iran, so Iranian-speaking peoples migrated from somewhere to this country.
You can't come here and say yesterday some Turkish scientists discovered that Scythians were a Turkic people, thousands Iranian sources from thousands years ago talk about Scythians as an Iranian people, Rostam, Iran's national hero, was a pure Scythian, not a Persian, in fact Ferdosi in Shahnameh talks about Scythia as the original land of Iranians, one of the highest titles in the Sassanid Persian empire was "Scythian King" (Sakan-Shah), ... the Iranian origin of Scythians is not a chemical element which can be discovred by scientists, this is a historical fact.
Sorry, I don’t have the time to read through all the cut and paste, but I think in general you tend to dismiss language as a mean to determine the identity of historical groups. Don’t forget that could cut both ways. The whole pan-turkic idea is based on language. Clearly today’s central Asian Turks and Anatolian Turks are not of the same ethnic group and you don’t need a DNA test to prove that. If you take language out on what basis can all these people be grouped as Turks. Does this mean that you also believe either Anatolians are not Turk or central Asians are not Turk
History needs reading. And to be be open minded. not have prejudgement.
İ will write them more open to understand what are try to say.
1) İe theory is not a fact. some people can beleive it. Other ones not. you cant dont belive people pan bla bla , or racist, or stupid etc. You have no right to do it.
2) liguistic cant not use alone to define a people. İt must be supported by other sources. İf its not. Linguistic is nothing.
3) İe theory use ligustic ony. Why because it havent got supportive sources to theory. Ad most of sources , (writings arcelogical materials , etc) destroyed by ie supporters becausese they see the theroy wrong.
4) Turk history not ony build on lingust only. İf you makes some writings taht ı give other post yuo will see. But yuor aim is not to support linguistic. your aim is slander to turks.
5) how yuo know anatolian turks and asian turks havent got same etcity. İ can show nomeraus of source (not linguistic only) from divan-uligat it Tur to modern writings, to show yuor opinion is totally wrong, ridiciolus and racist. Thats yuo. İf somebody show yuo ideas are wrong you always start to lie and to slande. YUo are one of this liers and to slandes. nothing no more.
6) i see all dna research for history (not only about Turks all of them) totally racist.
Sorry, I don’t have the time to read through all the cut and paste, but I think in general you tend to dismiss language as a mean to determine the identity of historical groups. Don’t forget that could cut both ways. The whole pan-turkic idea is based on language. Clearly today’s central Asian Turks and Anatolian Turks are not of the same ethnic group and you don’t need a DNA test to prove that. If you take language out on what basis can all these people be grouped as Turks. Does this mean that you also believe either Anatolians are not Turk or central Asians are not Turk
İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)
Most Kurds in North understand persian ?
I think you missed a class or something, all Kurds, in a certain degree, in East-Kurdistan understand Farsi. In North they speak mostly Kurdish, Kurmanji being the most spoken, and Turkish. I've been in Urmiye several times, were I had to go though North-Kurdistan first - and almost nobody, except those on the artificial boarders knew Farsi.
A.
İts ok. perhaps my freinds learn persian and know kurdish, so they understand each other. As ı said before ı dont know al the entire population.
İn Turkey in primary and high school books show Scythians as a Turk.
Now that explains alot of what we see over the internet.
Turkish gevernment has picked a dangerous path trying to create identity and pride
Saying them iranian is a very safe and holy path. What a dangerous way we are in.
İ think our schools better than yours one. writing history how politics want it is a job of europan historians not us.
The review of the politically
correct scientific half-truths and outright falsifications would not be
complete without addressing the treatment of the unsuitable facts.
Time to time the life brings to
light a fact that contradicts the official theory. In Russia, the facts can be
disposed of by explaining them away, silencing them, ignoring them, or
destroying them. One example of explaining away is the attribution of a fact to
an import, like the nomadic animal art copied from the advanced
Iranian/Greek/Mediterranean settled population. The silencing is best done by
hiding it, like the Scythian artifacts hidden in the storage of Hermitage, to
hide the splendor and skill of the population preceding the Slavic migrants.
The inscriptions can be ignored, to retain the concept of the illiteracy of the
nomadic population, invariably repeated in every publication. And the
destruction continues on an industrial scale, some by design, some by shear
negligence. Cities and kurgans are being ploughed over, records and bones
destroyed, samples not analyzed, results not published, the hand written
records and collections of the pre-Soviet time archeological societies lost and
destroyed. Whatever are the means, the official theory remains unscathed. The
former USSR and now the Russian Academy of Sciences has a long history of never
acknowledging the evidence that contradicts the official stance. Historically,
it was not an enviable preposition for a Russian scientist: either silence, or
else.
The dissenters, who exist in all
societies and in all times, had to either remain silent, or pay a heavy toll.
Here again existed a circus air, when even the loyal followers could be labeled
dissenters upon a turn in the official position. Like in the Imperial times, in
the Soviet time some dissent always survived in a camouflaged form, masked as
poetry, novels, anti anti-official assertions, and other innocently looking
works. Usually the camouflage was supported by a loyal lip service in the
beginning paragraphs. Not infrequently, both the august referent and the author
worked in tandem disguising the true substance of the work.
The Iranian/Ossetian Scythian
theory has all the traits of a politically correct theory. It is built on a
thinnest foundation of an obscure language, and is not supported by the
evidence and foresight connected with what is usually called a scientific
theory. The cultural heritage, traceable for millennia among other peoples of
the world, has not been shown to display links between the Ossetian, Pashtu, or
other Iranian speaking peoples, and the details of the Scythian life described
by the ancient writers. No traces, specific to the Scythian nomadism of the
historical period, found their parallels in the historically documented
Indo-European societies. It is well shown in the work of a prominent export on
nomadism A. Khazanov(6).
The extensive Indo-European
ethnology documents such cultural attributes as dress, food, drinks,
conservation of produce, family relationships, housing, sanitary traditions,
military traditions, societal organization, cosmological concepts, literary
traditions, mythological and folk tale traditions, art, and a myriad of other
traits. In many cases, the prominence of these traits far exceeds the
significance of the other characteristics. For example, the Scythian
mercenaries were a major, if not the only, force in the armies of a number of
the states, during almost a millennia period. The Scythian warriors in the
Scythian conical hats, Scythian boots, Scythian pants, on the Scythian horses
and with Scythian composite bows are shown innumerable times in the historical
records and became a staple image of the generic Scythian. The Ossetian
ethnography of the historical period would have to come up with at least a
remote echo of these mercenary military traditions wearing Ossetian conical
hats, Ossetian boots, Ossetian pants, riding the Ossetian horses and with
Ossetian composite bows. In the absence of such ethnological links, the
Indo-European theory would remain a murky propaganda myth. The so-called
universal acceptance can become a scientific concept only when the
multidisciplinary evidence converges to the same conclusion.
.İ will give you an answer conversation writed by me.
S: Supporter of İndio Europan theory M: Me
M: Why yuo indio- europize every people in the ancient world. S: WE dont do. they speak indio europan language. M: But your starting hypotesis anatolia or kurgan it starts them Bc. 5000 or 4000. Yuo got any linguistic source? S: they speak indio europan language M: At these hypotesis you made horse nomads, farmers, or hunter gatherers you make all of them İndio-euroapan; is it logic. S: they speak indio europan language M:
Your hypotesis says Europa, caucasia, north of black sea, anatolia,
middle asia, altai region, syberia all of there populated by
indio-europans from bc. 6000 to end of first age. there are huge
differces at this regions, cultural, religional, economic, at every
part of thier life. How yuo unite them İndio europanic. S: they speak indio europan language M: First writings found in the world, sumerian. But it isnt indio europan. How you examine this. S: İt must be indio europan. More serius reseach will show it. M: But most of research show its very similar to turkish. S:
No. No Turks at anatolia, midlle asia , todays east and west
turkestan, syberia no turks here to the huns. Ony iranians here. Ony
iranians. İ-ra-ni-ans. ONLY İRANİANS. NO TURKS. Only hint europans,
iranians. And Turks barbarian. They cant have civizilation like sümerians have. (This bold sentences said by most of indio-europan historians) M: Turks and mongolians are horse nomad too. How yuo prison them to todays mongolia only. Why they dont go euroasian steppes? S:
Onlyyyyyy İraniiiiiiaannnn Noooo Turk or mongol. İranians speak indio
europan. We indio europans at eveywhere. We create civizilation. M:
At 1000 Bc a viking from norseland, a horse nomad from scytia, a
people from india, how yuo unite them same. Yuo said laguage. When they
came togather they dont understand each others language. Their culture,
religion etc diffrent. S: They are indio europan. Europans eveywhere. M you call all white peoples indio-europan. Why?. İts totally ridiciolus and racial. S: We are aryaaaannnnnn!!! We made civizilation. M: but your theory isnt eurocentric. Right? S: yes we hate eurocentrisim. but love indio europans. Turks are barbarian.
Kurdish and Persian are like German and Dutch. They are independent languages, but the structure is very close. Many of the words have the same root but have evolved differently and the only one that could tell the similarity is a person who knows both languages
People speaking different dialect of the same language can rarely understand each other let alone two different languages.
İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)
Most Kurds in North understand persian ?
I think you missed a class or something, all Kurds, in a certain degree, in East-Kurdistan understand Farsi. In North they speak mostly Kurdish, Kurmanji being the most spoken, and Turkish. I've been in Urmiye several times, were I had to go though North-Kurdistan first - and almost nobody, except those on the artificial boarders knew Farsi.
It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!
Ofcourse , NO ! Kurds dont understand Persian. I am Member of Kurmanji ( Kur : Son, Manji : Magi ) from Turkey,Turks think kurds understand persian,because they are Persian :D
Perhaps Kurmanjis are descendents of Medes,they's dialect diffrent with other dialects.
It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
Some of them that ı talked face to face they understand persian some. But how many percent they understand ı dot know.
For example ı understand Azeri Turkish very well, but kazak or krgız Turkish much less understand.
And two type of kurds live in Turky not one. One type is kirmanji other ones are zaza.(some of zazas call themself Turk instead of kurd) . So asking mesopotamian bring us nothing.
İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!
Not a historical fact. You and others "believe" Scythians were an Iranian people. Me an other ones not believe.
İn Turkey in primary and high school books show Scythians as a Turk. Most of populatin support this idea. Serius historians from Turkey other Turk countries and around all the world (not propogandist ones) , like mirfatih zekiyev, orazak ismagulov,R. G. Kuzeyev etc shows real (not artifical or corrupt linguistic like İE historians show) historcal sources to support the idea. Not all the world accept İndia Europan theory as a fact. Because ıts not.
All the people who read here must read the book ;
About origins of Turkic peoples Laypanov K.T., Miziyev I.M. ; you will see what truth is.
More real sources and writings will come in 10-20 years. İE historians will see they were wrong.
İ hate to put large articles to forums. but sometimes ıt needs. Read this article carefully cyrus ;
Scythians Ethnic Affiliation
The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific
community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously
Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this
conclusion. It does not address the attribution of the Scythians to a
particular ethnic community. The acceptance of the Indo-European theory has a
long history, and its history in itself is an interesting subject of study. The
scholars of a number of nations were involved in the Scythian studies, because
geographically, the Scythian area covers an enormous territory. The Russian
politicians and scientists, who had a special interest in these studies, and
the German scholars, who made decisive contributions to the subject, led the
way in establishing the criteria, methods, and conclusions currently shared by
the scientific community at large. Since I am more familiar with the history
and attitudes in the Russian studies, I will mostly stay within the limits of
the Russian science.
In pre-1700’s, the Scythians were known in the Western Europe, and from there in Russia, from the
works of the ancient writers, principally Herodotus. At that time, the accepted
wisdom was that the Herodotus’ Scythians were the precursors of Türks,
with the Türks branching into Slavic, Mongol, Finnish, Baltic, Ugrian, and
unspecified other variations. There was a millennia-long string of historical
references linking Herodotus’ Scythians with the Türks, so there was no
need to question this postulate. That is, until the Northern Pontic area fell
into the lap of the Russian Empire, there was no archeology to contend with.
And only when the kurgans and their contents became known in the West, the
question of their attribution came to the attention of the Western scientists.
The archeological excavations in the 19th c. showed that Herodotus and other
historians faithfully recorded the specks of the history of the Eurasian
peoples. The archeological excavations created a tremendous opportunity to
analyze and absorb the newly found predecessors into the “We-world” of the
Western Europe.
A Polish aristocrat in the service of Russia, Jan Potocki at about 1805 gave
instruction to Heinrich Julius von Klaproth (1783-1835) for ethnographic journey
to the recently seized N. Caucasus, who published the work "Reise in den
Kaukasus und nach Georgien unternommen in den Jahren 1807 und 1808" (I-II,
Halle and Berlin 1812-14); in an appendix, entitled "Kaukasische Sprachen",
for the first time von Klaproth formulated a hypothesis of Scytho-Sarmatian
origin of Ossetic. In his later work, "Memoire dans lequel on prouve
1'identite des Ossetes, peuplade du Caucase, avec les Alains du moyen-age" (Nouvelles
annales des voyages 16, 1822, p. 243-56), von Klaproth completed the sequence
Scytho-Sarmatians > Alans > Ossetes. (9)
That hypothesis was furthered by K. Zeiss with a work
published in the 1837 in Munich, that suggested to identify Scythians with the
Iranian-lingual tribes based on the religion, territory of Iranians and the common Scythian and Persian words
(1). At that time, in the Western culture the contemporary concept of racism did not exist, it was
perfectly clear that the humans are divided into superiors and inferiors, and
that anything worth of attention was produced by the superior races. The
inferiors could at best only approach the superiors, and in the worst case were
savages. The superior art and skills of the kurgan burials, brought to the
attention of the Western European scientists, were undoubtedly civilized, i.e.
European. The extent of the classification was matching the erudition and mindset of the classifier
(2). This trend endured in the consecutive European research.
The 2000 monograph that compiles sources on the Alans, is outstanding in
bringing into the scientific fold a listing of 200 sources, but in a peculiar
tunnel vision it ignores obvious non-IE etymologies, while repeating the
improbable dainties of count Vs. Miller in service of Russia, and
V.I.Abaev in service of Russia
(9, a shy tiny footnote on page 2 is all it takes to
base a scientific analysis of a major work).
In the era when a peer review was not yet canonized, the flattering deductions of the urban dwelling
sedentary Indo-European cabinet scientists were received with enthusiasm
accorded to the reputation of the experts. There were alternate opinions, like those of K. Neumann, 1855
(3), who came to differing conclusions. The alternate opinions managed to introduce a factor of
inconclusiveness in the concept, but failed to impress the scientific community
into revising the upsurging concept. Some scholars hedged their opinions by
qualifiers. The others dropped the shades and selected sides, joining the
universal acceptance by the scientific community of the Indo-European concept.
One of the reasons that
unbalanced the scales was the geographical extent of the archeological
artifacts. In the 19-20 centuries, though the most prominent kurgans were
concentrated in the vicinity of the Northern Pontic, the European kurgan
burials were found in the area that extended from the southern desert to the
forest zone in the north, and from the German lands to Volga. The organized and
civilized societies they represented were not savages, i.e. could not be
Mongolian, Finnish, Ugrian, Türkic, Bask, Albanian etc., but definitely
the civilized Indo-European. Europe could not be inhabited by the non-
Indo-Europeans, not to that extent.
The “discovery” of kurgans coincided with the discoveries in the Russian historical studies of the times.
Early in the 18th century, ruler of the emerging Russian Empire, Peter I,
undertook to hire the best European historians to write a Russian history. At
the time, the budding Empire was a quilt of recently subjugated nations,
including Slavic and foreign. The need for a unifying ideology was urgent, and
so was the need for the ideological justifications of the future acquisitions.
The superiority of the Slavs was an axiom, but it needed a historical
validation. After a much reading into the Russian Primary Chronicles, it was
re-established that the Russian ruling class descended from the Scandinavians,
and the Slavic folks came from the Carpathians. V.Tatischev, M.Lomonosov, and
N.Karamzin suggested that the Slavs traced back to Scythians or Sarmatians. The
Scythians at that time were regarded as Turkic, and the Sarmatians as
multi-ethnic Indo-Europeans. Both classifications were mostly of a speculative
nature.
Today, the search for the Slavic roots has a 300 years history. Among the main autochthonous theories is the
Vistula basin, Dniepr, and Carpathians. The supposed historical predecessors
are Veneds and Balto-Slavs for the folks, and Scandinavians and Balto-Slavs for
the ruling class. Thousands of history books and encyclopedias were published
in the past 3 centuries. The fabled Solovyev history is contained in 50-some
volumes. To whatever detail went the search, it stopped down at the 9th
century, taking a super vague view to the time before that. Up until now, the
recorded facts related to the pre-9th century Slavic history do not exist as
far as the Russian historiography is concerned.
The Russian historiography cannot reconcile the record about Slavs, serving in the Atilla’s army
together with his German subjects, with the coming of Ruriks to govern the
Slavs. The Hunnish period lasted for 130 years, from c. 420 to c. 558,
impacting the Slavic tribes. The following 250-year period of life in the Avar
Kaganate from 558 to 805 also must have shaped and impacted the Slavic tribes.
In the Indo-European scheme of the Russian historiography this period does not
exist. Did Slavs come out more indigenous after 250 years of Avaric rule than,
say, Volga Bolgars after 250 years of the Slavic rule? There is no research on
the Avar period, moreover, neither the Avar nor Hunnish periods ever existed in
the Slavic history, as far as the Russian historiography is concerned. The
following period of the Khazarian rule, when the Eastern Slavs were members of
the Khazarian Kaganate, and their Scandinavian mercenary rulers were in the
service of the Khazarian state, also conveniently does not exist. Also does not
exist the Bolgar period, when the Eastern Slavs were members of the Bolgarian
Kaganate and its remnant Beilyks. In the Imperial period, that ended in 1917,
the history of the peoples did not exist, and the history of the territories
started from the time of their conquest. In the Soviet period, the contents of
the official Russian history remained about the same, with added spice of
civilization benefits, generosity, and friendship that the Russian conquerors
showered on the subjected peoples.
In the Soviet Russia the handling of the history
on a number of occasions led to a country-wide crises, when the old books had
to be expediently destroyed in all libraries, homes and schools in the country,
while the new versions were hurriedly written or approved or published. By the
time Orwell published his “1984”, it has already happened, and many times
after that. The earliest records of the historical manipulations trace back to
the 1500, when the emerging Moscow kingdom clamed the Lithuanian lands. In the
Imperial period, the re-creation of the history became a full-blown trade. In
the Soviet period, it reached a state of an art carried by industrial methods.
The re-invention of the history was always inspired by the ruling officialdom,
soon permeating the whole society, when the population was shaped mostly in the
primary and secondary school systems. In the later Imperial period, the local
historical and archeological societies had a chance to document facts
inconsistent with the official historiography. In the
Soviet period, any
remnants of the independent thought were eradicated, usually together with
their carriers. In these conditions, a concept of a peer review was distorted
to a caricature. The heavy jelly of the official historiography gripped both
the reviewed and the reviewer. In most cases, the rules of behavior were not
stated, they had to be understood with the guts.
In the upper echelons of the
scientific establishment, a heavy handed system of pre-qualifications, tests in
the politically correct subjects, and august referrals remains to ensure that
only conformist scholars had the opportunity for the scientific research. The
ability to research and publish is rigidly linked to the ability to conform to
the correct line. This is a backbone of the Russian historical science, and it
encompasses the contributory sciences of archeology, linguistics, numismatics,
anthropology, culture, literature etc. In the absence of a free research, the
science industry was flooded by quasi-scientific research, which became an
accepted norm for a scientific carrier. In the Scythian studies, the
politically correct line is the Indo-European attribution, and any personal
development is possible only toiling the correct path, facts or no facts
notwithstanding.
Generations of scientists of all
disciplines participated in the Russian Scythian studies. Initially, the
Indo-European classification of the Scythians had a weak justification, and it
had to develop against the accepted beliefs based on the evidence of the
contemporaries. At the same time, it was fitting well into the German and
Russian nationalist agenda, providing a pedigree of traceability extending
beyond the Bronze Age. In the last 160 years, which passed since 1837, was
developed the linguistical and anthropological evidence necessary to convert a
maverick idea into a postulate widely accepted by the scientific community.
The 1949 work of V. Abaev was a
cardinal contribution to the factual material(4). The
scientific value of the work is well defined by the words of the author
himself, that in Scythian language "all we cannot explain with the help of
Iranian, actually cannot be explained at all". Disavowing that work would
send much of the Indo-European theory crushing. On the other hand, linking the
glorious past of the ancient Great Power with a contemporary obscure ethnical
group within the Russian multiethnic powder keg was a significant achievement
by the ruling plutocracy. It was well timed with the politically correct task
of the day, that is to substantiate scientifically the deportation of the
number of ethnic, mostly Türkic, people from the territories conquered by
the Russian Empire in the previous century. V. Abaev’s work was a living
proof that from the ancient historical times the Indo-European population
inhabited the Northern Pontic and Caspian territories, and the deported nations
were late migrants who took possession of the territory belonging to the
autochthonous population. It was published 6 years after the Russian rulers
assigned to all Russian historians a task of re-writing the history, de-linking
the population of the Northern Caucasus, Kama and Volga region from the ancient
inhabitants, and re-associating with to the popularly hated Tatar-Mongol
invaders.
About the scientific validity of
the work not much can be said. Any notion of a peer review in Russia cannot be
taken seriously. The obscurity of the Ossetian language, and a vacuum in the
studies of its linguistic history, make it unlikely that peers will ever review
the Ossetian theory. The Iranians, found to be speaking the Scythian language,
are completely mum on the subject. The other significant Iranian speaking
groups, like Pashtuns, are also silent. So, it is left to those Indo-European
scholars of the Iranian languages to explain the etymology of the
Ossetian/Iranian Scythian vocabulary, and provide the incontestable proof to
the scientific community at large. And the mightily supported Indo-European
theory, untested, unchallenged and un-peer reviewed, for now stands. The
verdict reads "North-East Middle Iranian language". For a side observer, that
should mean that a random contemporary speaker of the "North-East Middle Iranian
language" should at least get a clue hearing another "North-East Middle Iranian
language" speaker. Ossetians would not manage to squeeze in this category, with
their 80% lexically non-IE language, and 100% phonetically, morphologically, and
sintaxically non-IE language. Finns have better chances understanding Greeks.
The flow of quasi-scientific
research papers linking the known Scythian vocabulary to this or that obscure
language, found in some mountain valley with few speakers, still proliferates,
without a chance for a second opinion due to the absence of experts in that
language, or the studies of the underlying language itself. Frequently, these
works tell more about the writer than about the subject of the work. I. Pyankov,
for example, attributes to the Irano-Scythians the plural suffix ty/ta,
evidently without having even a rudimentary acquaintance with the fact that
this suffix, for example, is also a Türkic suffix. Specifically, in modern
Turkish it is a place case suffix, denoting the case "where something
is/has been/will be' or 'where something occurs/has occurred/will occur",
and used after ch, f, h, k, p, s, sh, or t, as in 'kitapta' - in the book or 'jipte'
- in the jip. So, even without the well-known uncertainty caused by the
fluidity of the vowels, the linguistic argumentation is presumptuous. But I.
Pyankov proceeds to classify the Scythian language as the Iranian type based on
a presence in the contemporary group vocabulary of a single letter t(5).
This quasi-scientific process is mirrored in the science of physical
anthropology, in Russian called simply the anthropology
Scythian images are known from
the earliest historical times well into the first millennia A.D. Scythians
looked European. They looked enough European to qualify for the Indo-European
pedigree. And from here flows their ancestry. By a reverse projection, the
Afanasevo, 2500-1700 BC, and Andronovo, 1700-1200 BC, populations are swept
into the Indo-European fold, creating a cradle for all Indo-Europeans and
filling in the blanks for the Indo-European dissemination. True, the Scythians
did not look any more Indo-European than the European Finns, Basks, Albanians,
Etruscans and other patently non Indo-European inhabitants of Europe. Here the
historical linguistics comes to aid. The physical anthropology shows Scythians
as Caucasians, and the linguistics shows them as Indo-European Caucasians. In
other words, they are Iranian Ossetians. Iranian Ossetians from Sea to shining
Sea.
The archeological expeditions
uncovered sufficient remains to produce detailed anthropological studies. Some
remains were found frozen and in perfect condition for the scientific studies.
The Russian anthropology is built on the concepts of J. Blumenbach, 1752 -
1840, who proposed a system for classifying humans into five different races
based on the anatomy, and E. Hooton, 1887 – 1954, who framed it in a very
descriptive format with careful measurements and anatomical details. And the
super task of the Russian anthropological and archeological studies is to show
the autochthony of the Indo-European and, if a slightest hint can be found, of
the Slavic population in the region of the study. In the Scythian region, the
silent craniums are either Mongoloids and therefore Ural-Altaics, or Caucasoids
and therefore Indo-Europeans. They cannot be non-Indo-European Caucasoids. The
archeological dating and cultural classification make the Caucasoid finds to
speak Iranian or Slavic. Thus the anthropology supports the Indo-European
theory. Even in the cases when no faithfully described artifacts indicate an
Indo-Iranism, the title and preamble of the publication invariably attribute
the artifacts to the Indo-Iranism.
A crucial role in the
Indo-Iranian attribution is given to Veda. Everywhere, where the Caucasian
remains are found, works the irrefutable logical chain of the
site-artifact-Veda-Iranian language. The Caucasians are determined by their
noses. A flat face produces a Mongoloid, and a flaring nose produces a
Caucasian, invariably an Iranian/Ossetian speaking. An Iranian Caucasian,
taking a Mongoloid wife, produces a Caucasian Iranian/Ossetian speaking male
offspring, and a Mongoloid daughter of unattributable descent. The expeditions,
investigating the Scythian territories, like a lasting Khoresmian Expedition,
invariably discover a layer of the Caucasian Iranian speaking stock, proving
over again the Ossetian nature of the Scythians. Never mind that Ammianus called the Persians
subnigri. Never mind that the definitely Europoid Scythians were often depicted with thin
beards (H. Schoppa 1933, 21-22). In 443 AD the Alans of Sapaudia (Lyon) showed a
Mongoloid strain. Never mind individuals of the South Siberian type were among
the Sarmatians at Kalinovka in the Volga region. There must be Iranian black subnigri and white
subnigri, Iranian Mongoloids and Iranian South Siberians. They've got to fit the Iranian
doctrine. And like in the other
instances, most of the Slavic ends were frequently produced using non-Slavic
people in the service of the Slavic-dominated state.
The review of the politically
correct scientific half-truths and outright falsifications would not be
complete without addressing the treatment of the unsuitable facts.
Time to time the life brings to
light a fact that contradicts the official theory. In Russia, the facts can be
disposed of by explaining them away, silencing them, ignoring them, or
destroying them. One example of explaining away is the attribution of a fact to
an import, like the nomadic animal art copied from the advanced
Iranian/Greek/Mediterranean settled population. The silencing is best done by
hiding it, like the Scythian artifacts hidden in the storage of Hermitage, to
hide the splendor and skill of the population preceding the Slavic migrants.
The inscriptions can be ignored, to retain the concept of the illiteracy of the
nomadic population, invariably repeated in every publication. And the
destruction continues on an industrial scale, some by design, some by shear
negligence. Cities and kurgans are being ploughed over, records and bones
destroyed, samples not analyzed, results not published, the hand written
records and collections of the pre-Soviet time archeological societies lost and
destroyed. Whatever are the means, the official theory remains unscathed. The
former USSR and now the Russian Academy of Sciences has a long history of never
acknowledging the evidence that contradicts the official stance. Historically,
it was not an enviable preposition for a Russian scientist: either silence, or
else.
The dissenters, who exist in all
societies and in all times, had to either remain silent, or pay a heavy toll.
Here again existed a circus air, when even the loyal followers could be labeled
dissenters upon a turn in the official position. Like in the Imperial times, in
the Soviet time some dissent always survived in a camouflaged form, masked as
poetry, novels, anti anti-official assertions, and other innocently looking
works. Usually the camouflage was supported by a loyal lip service in the
beginning paragraphs. Not infrequently, both the august referent and the author
worked in tandem disguising the true substance of the work.
The Iranian/Ossetian Scythian
theory has all the traits of a politically correct theory. It is built on a
thinnest foundation of an obscure language, and is not supported by the
evidence and foresight connected with what is usually called a scientific
theory. The cultural heritage, traceable for millennia among other peoples of
the world, has not been shown to display links between the Ossetian, Pashtu, or
other Iranian speaking peoples, and the details of the Scythian life described
by the ancient writers. No traces, specific to the Scythian nomadism of the
historical period, found their parallels in the historically documented
Indo-European societies. It is well shown in the work of a prominent export on
nomadism A. Khazanov(6).
The extensive Indo-European
ethnology documents such cultural attributes as dress, food, drinks,
conservation of produce, family relationships, housing, sanitary traditions,
military traditions, societal organization, cosmological concepts, literary
traditions, mythological and folk tale traditions, art, and a myriad of other
traits. In many cases, the prominence of these traits far exceeds the
significance of the other characteristics. For example, the Scythian
mercenaries were a major, if not the only, force in the armies of a number of
the states, during almost a millennia period. The Scythian warriors in the
Scythian conical hats, Scythian boots, Scythian pants, on the Scythian horses
and with Scythian composite bows are shown innumerable times in the historical
records and became a staple image of the generic Scythian. The Ossetian
ethnography of the historical period would have to come up with at least a
remote echo of these mercenary military traditions wearing Ossetian conical
hats, Ossetian boots, Ossetian pants, riding the Ossetian horses and with
Ossetian composite bows. In the absence of such ethnological links, the
Indo-European theory would remain a murky propaganda myth. The so-called
universal acceptance can become a scientific concept only when the
multidisciplinary evidence converges to the same conclusion.
The anthropological studies of the ethnography should have traceable, statistically significant, links between
the Scythian and Indo-European populations. The genetic make-up of the
populations is a powerful tool that will be used for the
studies that are
practically non-existent now.(7). The
blood type,
predominating in the Indo-European people, should be visibly present in the
Scythian population(8). The absence of such studies in
Russia is explained by the insufficient funds and a shortage of specialists, to
the convenience of the supporters of the status quo. The anthropological aspect
of the archeological research should extend beyond the fossilized nose angle
criteria anthropology, to be complemented by the dental, skeletal, foramental
and other telltale traits of the physical anthropology. The absence of the
multidisciplinary studies, which, in the vision of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
would include the “paleoanthropology, archeology, ecology, history,
demography, sociology, cultural and physical anthropology, linguistics,
toponomastics and anthroponymy”, does not give much credence to the
“universal acceptance” by the scientific community of the preposition that
the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European.
The search for Indo-European
roots, whether explicit or implicit, is a substantial driving force subsidizing
the expensive archeological research. Without a doubt, the Sakian and Scythian
studies would have been on a much smaller scale if they did not have the
Indo-European connotations. The financial participation of the Western
scientific organizations in many cases was the major incentive in the planning
of the direction for the archeological research. It is possible that the
acceptance of the alternate concept would substantially dry up the research
funds available with the Indo-European preposition, depleting the field from
the specialists and damaging the progress in the field. In this regard, the
half-truths, misinformation, and twisted facts are a good tactic to maintain
the interest in the Scythian field. So far, not a single sentence had been
translated, etymologically meaningfully, using any reincarnation of the
Indo-European languages. If the search for the Indo-European roots results in a
conclusion truthfully proving the Indo-European theory, both the partisans of
the Indo-European theory, and its opponents will benefit. And if it results in
a conclusion inconsistent with the Indo-European theory, once again both the
partisans of the Indo-European theory, and its opponents will benefit.
It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!
İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)
What about siberia,altai region or dest-i kıpcak. Can you find İranians here? ( ı clearly know yuo will say ossetians, but their langugae is not persian)
İ said Turk lands as you now . İt means east and west turkestan for middle asia. Of course non turk nations always be in middle asia like tibetians. İn sogdinia Turks and persian lived togather most of times.
İ said; İf you want to see iranians look toward to india not turk lands. Todays pakistan belongs india in history as you know.
There is still a country named Tajikistan in Central and everyone knows that Iranian-speaking peoples like Sogdians lived in a large part of Central Asia from very ancient times, what do you want to deny?!!
Kurds are an Iranian-speaking people, there are certainly some differences between them and Persians, I myself as a Persian-speaking Iranian can't understand Kurdish language, Persian is similar to the languages of Afghans and Tajiks, of course there are a large number of similar words in Kurdish and Persian languages too.
Maada/Maadai were probably an Indo-European people who originally lived somewhere in the Central Asia or southern Siberia
They have never been iranians at Central asia or altai region or siberia, or dest-i kıpcak. İf you want to see iranians look toward to india not turk lands. This places homeland of Turks starting of the age. Not İranians.
And whats the diffrences of kurds and persians to acamenids to end of sasanids. How you define them.
As I had said before Kurds (Sumerian Karda, Akkadian Kurti, Greek Kurtioi) have certainly a longer history in this region than Medes (Old Persian Maada, Assyrian Maadai, Babylonian Maadaaya), they have been menioned from at least the 3rd millennium B.C, while you can never find any mention of Medes in the western Iran before the first millennium B.C.
Maada/Maadai were probably an Indo-European people who originally lived somewhere in the Central Asia or southern Siberia, it is possible that they had to migrate to Modern Iran after the invasion by Turkic people, there are some ancient stories among the Altai people about Maadai.
The beginning of Maadai-Kara is a typical description of the mythical time and golden age. The epic begins with familiar elements from the mythical landscape, including the holy poplar as a symbol of eternal life. Maadai-Kara is an old hero who has already lost his power. He sleeps for sixty days. When he finally wakes up, he notices that a hostile kaan (lord or ruler) is approaching in order to seize him and capture his livestock, people, and property. When his wife gives birth to a son, Kögüdei Mergen, Maadai- Kara hides the boy in the black mountain and leaves him under the protection of the birch trees of Altai. The hostile Kara-Kula Kaan arrives and enslaves the white-faced people of Maadai-Kara.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum