QuoteReplyTopic: Iranians root in Central asia Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 03:21
This i s what i found about you. You believe in Sakas as an some kind of Race or a seperat group coming from Europe or god knows where. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SAKA AS BEING AN ETHNIC A RACE, THEY were just a small tribe and the name was given to them.
Wrong!!! I've never said that they were a Race. On the other hand I did say that they were NOT just a small tribe. The term Saka was used by the Persians to describe MANY tribes, just as the Greeks used the term Scythians to describe MANY tribes as well as the group which inhabited the Ukraine.
We know that the Persians used the term Saka to describe at least three distinct groups which inhabited Eurasia. It was therefore a generic term used to describe nomadic groups which possessed the Eurasian steppes.
You believe that Saka's were in eastern Iran during 100BCE but the Bishtun talks about them and their origional home.
I had already shown that the Saka mentioned in the Bisutun inscription did not inhabit eastern Iran, but the region to the north of Hyrcania (i.e. east of the Caspian Sea). Those particular Saka became part of the satrapy of Media.
Unless you present evidence to suggest that the term SAKA was even used at the time to represent eastern Iranian peoples, then the point is rather moot.
Why should be counted as a seperate if there is no evidence of Saka's being different from old Iranian people. What they are not sure about is their religion, other then that Saka (scythians were not differernt from other Aryans. In fact they have found both reg vada (Frist one) and Avestian influnce. Either they havn't lift enough evidance of their religion or they just gave up after 100 years being away from homeland.
Again, unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian peoples at that time, the point is moot.
Hence, during the Median Period, the Bactrians were independent and powerful.
yes but later they became an empire.
Not in the period after the Median Empire.
Its very known that Bactria had the first empire to date but their isn't enough prove.
No it didn't.
In fact a new discovery of BMAC, Which includes Merv and kyber area, as the home of Aryans. which goes against Aryans theory of them being White/European frim siberia or northern central Asia.
1. BMAC is not evidence of an empire.
2. BMAC is the name of a culture, not a state.
3. BMAC dates from about 2200-1700 BC - Akkadian empire is older by 100 years.
4. We do not know what people the BMAC culture represented. They could have been anybody. Nothing conclusive can be said as to their identity.
I want to know why the name of this goddess is considered Scythian according to the article?Why is it even considered Scythian?This article does not answer questions.Please reread your sources to give more source material.Thanks.
be espesific they talk about so many stuff, i have many problem with this article, they have some facts which was discovered in 1970s. which somehow crashed the European believe of Scythians being native european etc etc. The eurpeans always give the impression that every invasion that was made has to be white ect the early scythain history books mentioned the preserved name of Scythai as the "Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples" and called them the "proto-Indo-European." LOL even its used up to this date, which supports your point of views.
You still have not provided the proof of the Scythian origin of the goddess. Please answer the question.
You were trying to show with the mention of the Bisutun inscription, that the Sakas were already present in eastern Iran, which was wrong, they were located to the north of Iran.
You mean the North-western Iran. Well that's what europeans want to hear close to europe.
Wrong!!! I meant northeastern Iran (see above)
Nope its East and later north-east then by 700 BCE north east which resulted in conflict with Medes who were fighting with Assyrians.
Those "Saka" were located in northern Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, according to the Bisutun inscription. Nothing suggests that they were located "east" then "north east".
Control over northern Europe still by 250 BC?There is no such record.The archaeological evidence only suggests a military presence in the greater part of eastern Europe dating from between 500 and 400 BC, but thats it.By 400 BC the Celts were on the move even reaching eastern Europe by 350 BC.Alexander the Great met up with them in the northern Balkans.
Have you forgotten the Romans??? AND that's the time i am talking about. Many think romans made mistake by refering Iranian Hephatalites to Scythains. But they were same can you blame them.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe. They date from between about AD 400 to 550, far too late to even be considered.
The greater part of the Pamirs was located outside of Bactria, anyway.How about Sacian itself?It was spoken in the westernmost part of Sinkiang China (i.e. the region of Kashgaria).
It depands on time. There was no such evidance of any language as sacian or scythian. Please provide with some sort of evidance.
According to Chinese sources, the population east of Ferghana was Sacian. This parallels Persian and Greek sources which also describe the population as being Saka. When texts were discovered in the ancient cities of the region, they were in an Iranian language we now call either "Sacian" or "Khotanese".
I am telling 100% the scythain langauge is linked with Avestain/pashtu.
Which is 100% disputable...
The scythains of europe may have called themselves after their father or their tribal name but not their language.
It is assumed that they spoke an eastern Iranian language, based on the Iranic toponyms known in the Ukraine, such as the names of rivers with the Iranic term danu-, in such Ukrainian rivers as the Dnieper, Dniester, Donets, and Don. Herodotus describes the language of the Scythians as similar to the language of the Sarmatians. Since we know that the Ossetians were a Sarmatian tribe, their eastern Iranian language would have been near Scythian.
The Persians called those European Scythians, Saka Paradraya (Saka across the Sea), because they were north of the Black Sea. Now, you attempted to make the suggestion that those European Scyths originated in Bactria. Are you changing your mind now?
Sacian was spoken in the greater part of central Asia.In Europe, the most widespread language was Celtic.
There was no such thing as scythain langauge, as i said before its close to Pakhtrian or avestian, but its not a seperate/different language. Maybe over time it have been changed in Europe since connects were made with lacal Germanics. http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/iran/scythian.html
Of course there were separate Scythian languages, just as there were separate Scythian peoples. Herodotus described trade in Eurasia using seven such languages (Book 4.24)
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
I guess you have not heard of "Sacian" or "Khotanese". We know a great deal about it.
The grammatical structure has not been researched enough, but its descent from Iranian is evident. Some traits of phonetics are also known, as well as syntactic features. All, to repeat, have an Iranian genesis"
There is no dispute that what we know about Scythian languages show an Iranic root. The question is how did Scythian languages relate to other Iranian languages? It is generally agreed that the origin of Iranian languages (and eastern Iranian languages, specifically) was central Asia. Groups of speakers of eastern Iranian languages migrated into eastern Iran, mixed with the local population and gave birth to such languages as Chorasmian, Sogdian, Avestan, and Bactrian. Those which remained in central Asia developed Saco-Scythian languages. It was one of these groups which is talked about in the Bisutun inscription, which had migrated to the east of the Caspian.
Now, as for your estimate as to the relationship of the eastern Iranian languages, there is no room to exclude Sogdian as a Sacian language because of its approximate distance from Afghanistan.If distance is no factor, (and you have stated that there was no difference between the speaker of Yagnobi and Afghans) as well as language similiarity, then Yagnobi was also Sacian.Either Yagnobi was Sacian, or you will need to revise your theory
My friend you are trying to make connections here, and giving me more headache, the fact remains the same that there was no such language as Sacian or Scythains maybe something new to Europeans or to people of northern Iran (Georgia etc) but not to Eastern Iranians.
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
If Yagnobi is Sogdian, then according to your definition, Sogdian was a Sacian language!!!
No that's not the case sogdians never called themselves Saka's and no-one from that region ever did, even that native of Sakastan. They were refered as Saka's so you can blame them since they are located near the homeland of Sakas.
Bactrians never called themselves Saka either, and no one from that region ever did.
And the name Saka only occurs after the Sacian invasions of about 140 BC.
Your source uses old information.Not only has the date moved downward for the entrance of the Aryan tribes but Avestan is no longer called old Bactrian.
For the first time you pointed some that i really agree yes i agree that its old since Aryans were just natives but i had to used as a source, offcourse nothing is right unless you're aware of the facts.
Second yes i agree, Avesta should not of been called old Pakhtrian because it wasn't just spoken in Bactria(Balkh) but greater eastern Iran, so it still proves my point i have been saying this from the start althought over time different dialects were noticed but still not different. (read your and my previous posts). However that name was given by europeans. AND its still used.
"Avestan" is the recognized name for the old eastern Iranian language. But, given its uniqueness, we still don't know where it developed, much less, where and how widespread was its use. Bactrian is still not considered a descendant of Avestan, hence Avestan may have developed someplace near. We still don't have a specimen of Drangian, for instance, and it may well be that Drangian may have descended from Avestan. All we know is that according to the Avesta, the kingship of the Aryas was reestablished in Drangiana "by the Helmand" after the demise of the northern "Chorasmian" empire.
According to I.M. Diakonoff of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad:
In as much as a legendary Iranian tradition saw in Kavi Vishtaspa, patron of Zarathushtra, the king of Balkh, some 19th-century scholars thought that the culture of the Avesta, the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, belonged to Bactria.This view is finally disproved by recently discovered inscriptions in bactria of the 2nd century AD, which show that the Bactrian language was quite distinct from Avestan.The data contained in the preserved parts of the Avesta itself, also in no way support the localization of Kavi Vishtaspas kingdom in Bactria.
The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, page 130-131).
More info please cause the Cambridge history of Iran was published in 1985 and that I.M. Diakonoff is famous but was not an arthur of the book. BTW he's known to be an Assyriologist and linguist. So something is fishy. I am sure you made some sort of mistake.
Diakonoff was the author of the entire Cambridge History of Iran chapter on "Media". And what is so "fishy" about him being a linguist, and not just any linguist, but a world renown linguist? That makes him completely qualified to make those judgements. What is "fishy" is your estimate for the man.
This i s what i found about you. You believe in Sakas as an some kind of Race or a seperat group coming from Europe or god knows where. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SAKA AS BEING AN ETHNIC A RACE, THEY were just a small tribe and the name was given to them.
Wrong!!! I've never said that they were a Race. On the other hand I did say that they were NOT just a small tribe. The term Saka was used by the Persians to describe MANY tribes, just as the Greeks used the term Scythians to describe MANY tribes as well as the group which inhabited the Ukraine.
We know that the Persians used the term Saka to describe at least three distinct groups which inhabited Eurasia. It was therefore a generic term used to describe nomadic groups which possessed the Eurasian steppes.
You believe that Saka's were in eastern Iran during 100BCE but the Bishtun talks about them and their origional home.
I had already shown that the Saka mentioned in the Bisutun inscription did not inhabit eastern Iran, but the region to the north of Hyrcania (i.e. east of the Caspian Sea). Those particular Saka became part of the satrapy of Media.
Unless you present evidence to suggest that the term SAKA was even used at the time to represent eastern Iranian peoples, then the point is rather moot.
Why should be counted as a seperate if there is no evidence of Saka's being different from old Iranian people. What they are not sure about is their religion, other then that Saka (scythians were not differernt from other Aryans. In fact they have found both reg vada (Frist one) and Avestian influnce. Either they havn't lift enough evidance of their religion or they just gave up after 100 years being away from homeland.
Again, unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian peoples at that time, the point is moot.
Hence, during the Median Period, the Bactrians were independent and powerful.
yes but later they became an empire.
Not in the period after the Median Empire.
Its very known that Bactria had the first empire to date but their isn't enough prove.
No it didn't.
In fact a new discovery of BMAC, Which includes Merv and kyber area, as the home of Aryans. which goes against Aryans theory of them being White/European frim siberia or northern central Asia.
1. BMAC is not evidence of an empire.
2. BMAC is the name of a culture, not a state.
3. BMAC dates from about 2200-1700 BC - Akkadian empire is older by 100 years.
4. We do not know what people the BMAC culture represented. They could have been anybody. Nothing conclusive can be said as to their identity.
I want to know why the name of this goddess is considered Scythian according to the article?Why is it even considered Scythian?This article does not answer questions.Please reread your sources to give more source material.Thanks.
be espesific they talk about so many stuff, i have many problem with this article, they have some facts which was discovered in 1970s. which somehow crashed the European believe of Scythians being native european etc etc. The eurpeans always give the impression that every invasion that was made has to be white ect the early scythain history books mentioned the preserved name of Scythai as the "Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples" and called them the "proto-Indo-European." LOL even its used up to this date, which supports your point of views.
You still have not provided the proof of the Scythian origin of the goddess. Please answer the question.
You were trying to show with the mention of the Bisutun inscription, that the Sakas were already present in eastern Iran, which was wrong, they were located to the north of Iran.
You mean the North-western Iran. Well that's what europeans want to hear close to europe.
Wrong!!! I meant northeastern Iran (see above)
Nope its East and later north-east then by 700 BCE north east which resulted in conflict with Medes who were fighting with Assyrians.
Those "Saka" were located in northern Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, according to the Bisutun inscription. Nothing suggests that they were located "east" then "north east".
Control over northern Europe still by 250 BC?There is no such record.The archaeological evidence only suggests a military presence in the greater part of eastern Europe dating from between 500 and 400 BC, but thats it.By 400 BC the Celts were on the move even reaching eastern Europe by 350 BC.Alexander the Great met up with them in the northern Balkans.
Have you forgotten the Romans??? AND that's the time i am talking about. Many think romans made mistake by refering Iranian Hephatalites to Scythains. But they were same can you blame them.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe. They date from between about AD 400 to 550, far too late to even be considered.
The greater part of the Pamirs was located outside of Bactria, anyway.How about Sacian itself?It was spoken in the westernmost part of Sinkiang China (i.e. the region of Kashgaria).
It depands on time. There was no such evidance of any language as sacian or scythian. Please provide with some sort of evidance.
According to Chinese sources, the population east of Ferghana was Sacian. This parallels Persian and Greek sources which also describe the population as being Saka. When texts were discovered in the ancient cities of the region, they were in an Iranian language we now call either "Sacian" or "Khotanese".
I am telling 100% the scythain langauge is linked with Avestain/pashtu.
Which is 100% disputable...
The scythains of europe may have called themselves after their father or their tribal name but not their language.
It is assumed that they spoke an eastern Iranian language, based on the Iranic toponyms known in the Ukraine, such as the names of rivers with the Iranic term danu-, in such Ukrainian rivers as the Dnieper, Dniester, Donets, and Don. Herodotus describes the language of the Scythians as similar to the language of the Sarmatians. Since we know that the Ossetians were a Sarmatian tribe, their eastern Iranian language would have been near Scythian.
The Persians called those European Scythians, Saka Paradraya (Saka across the Sea), because they were north of the Black Sea. Now, you attempted to make the suggestion that those European Scyths originated in Bactria. Are you changing your mind now?
Sacian was spoken in the greater part of central Asia.In Europe, the most widespread language was Celtic.
There was no such thing as scythain langauge, as i said before its close to Pakhtrian or avestian, but its not a seperate/different language. Maybe over time it have been changed in Europe since connects were made with lacal Germanics. http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/iran/scythian.html
Of course there were separate Scythian languages, just as there were separate Scythian peoples. Herodotus described trade in Eurasia using seven such languages (Book 4.24)
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
I guess you have not heard of "Sacian" or "Khotanese". We know a great deal about it.
The grammatical structure has not been researched enough, but its descent from Iranian is evident. Some traits of phonetics are also known, as well as syntactic features. All, to repeat, have an Iranian genesis"
There is no dispute that what we know about Scythian languages show an Iranic root. The question is how did Scythian languages relate to other Iranian languages? It is generally agreed that the origin of Iranian languages (and eastern Iranian languages, specifically) was central Asia. Groups of speakers of eastern Iranian languages migrated into eastern Iran, mixed with the local population and gave birth to such languages as Chorasmian, Sogdian, Avestan, and Bactrian. Those which remained in central Asia developed Saco-Scythian languages. It was one of these groups which is talked about in the Bisutun inscription, which had migrated to the east of the Caspian.
Now, as for your estimate as to the relationship of the eastern Iranian languages, there is no room to exclude Sogdian as a Sacian language because of its approximate distance from Afghanistan.If distance is no factor, (and you have stated that there was no difference between the speaker of Yagnobi and Afghans) as well as language similiarity, then Yagnobi was also Sacian.Either Yagnobi was Sacian, or you will need to revise your theory
My friend you are trying to make connections here, and giving me more headache, the fact remains the same that there was no such language as Sacian or Scythains maybe something new to Europeans or to people of northern Iran (Georgia etc) but not to Eastern Iranians.
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
If Yagnobi is Sogdian, then according to your definition, Sogdian was a Sacian language!!!
No that's not the case sogdians never called themselves Saka's and no-one from that region ever did, even that native of Sakastan. They were refered as Saka's so you can blame them since they are located near the homeland of Sakas.
Bactrians never called themselves Saka either, and no one from that region ever did.
And the name Saka only occurs after the Sacian invasions of about 140 BC.
Your source uses old information.Not only has the date moved downward for the entrance of the Aryan tribes but Avestan is no longer called old Bactrian.
For the first time you pointed some that i really agree yes i agree that its old since Aryans were just natives but i had to used as a source, offcourse nothing is right unless you're aware of the facts.
Second yes i agree, Avesta should not of been called old Pakhtrian because it wasn't just spoken in Bactria(Balkh) but greater eastern Iran, so it still proves my point i have been saying this from the start althought over time different dialects were noticed but still not different. (read your and my previous posts). However that name was given by europeans. AND its still used.
"Avestan" is the recognized name for the old eastern Iranian language. But, given its uniqueness, we still don't know where it developed, much less, where and how widespread was its use. Bactrian is still not considered a descendant of Avestan, hence Avestan may have developed someplace near. We still don't have a specimen of Drangian, for instance, and it may well be that Drangian may have descended from Avestan. All we know is that according to the Avesta, the kingship of the Aryas was reestablished in Drangiana "by the Helmand" after the demise of the northern "Chorasmian" empire.
According to I.M. Diakonoff of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad:
In as much as a legendary Iranian tradition saw in Kavi Vishtaspa, patron of Zarathushtra, the king of Balkh, some 19th-century scholars thought that the culture of the Avesta, the sacred books of the Zoroastrians, belonged to Bactria.This view is finally disproved by recently discovered inscriptions in bactria of the 2nd century AD, which show that the Bactrian language was quite distinct from Avestan.The data contained in the preserved parts of the Avesta itself, also in no way support the localization of Kavi Vishtaspas kingdom in Bactria.
The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, page 130-131).
More info please cause the Cambridge history of Iran was published in 1985 and that I.M. Diakonoff is famous but was not an arthur of the book. BTW he's known to be an Assyriologist and linguist. So something is fishy. I am sure you made some sort of mistake.
Diakonoff was the author of the entire Cambridge History of Iran chapter on "Media". And what is so "fishy" about him being a linguist, and not just any linguist, but a world renown linguist? That makes him completely qualified to make those judgements. What is "fishy" is your estimate for the man.
Again, unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian peoples at that time, the point is moot.
What do you mean by mood its a fact the region of so called Afghanistan and eastern day of modern Iran was the region where Saka were born, went west and into Europe, it can't get simple then this.
" unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian " The modern Day Iranians naver considered themselves to be Persian but yet the popped from no-where and by 1000 AD it was refered the whole region of Afghanistan and Iran and central Asia.
SO what ? word are just given to sakas but that doesn't mean they really were different from other iranians. Look at the word Pathan it refers to Afghan people by the Indics of south Asia, yet Afghans doesn't even what that means.
Not in the period after the Median Empire.
So your Point is.....
BMAC dates from about 2200-1700 BC - Akkadian empire is older by 100 years
No its a civilization which means they had cities government and laws, the reason its complex because it has not been complated YET, it was found in Afghanistan by Russians 1970s and when they found the border area of Turkmenistan (The region of Parthains) in the city of Merv, then it became BM. Again there is no-one working on this right now but as soon as they get some peace in Afghanistan this problem of yours would be solved. BTW its older then 2200 BCE where did you get this from Wikipedia? body no trust in that its over 3500 BCE so its enough to cover AKKadians.
You still have not provided the proof of the Scythian origin of the goddess. Please answer the question.
That's up to you to discover read the articles i provided, this is all part of scythian mythology of Gods and goddess interpreted by Greek/ and other Europeans, have a look at the Horned God, the bull tormented by lion, and Indra, Which is traced to Sanskirt. http://www.anthroglobe.ca/docs/Sergei/scythian-sarmatian-meotian-beliefs.htm
Maybe you can explan why did those Saka's had the same believe (Gods/Godesses) as Afghans did at one time (Rig-vada was created in Afg and not far from helmand/hri rude river with connects with where some belived Avesta was composed )
Those "Saka" were located in northern Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, according to the Bisutun inscription. Nothing suggests that they were located "east" then "north east".
If you look at where MEDEs were PARS Province located you would know why i say North East, respectively Tehran/Caspian sea is located right in the north of Pars. But hitorically Saka's were not in the north maybe duing 650 BCE since some were going back to their homeland, but from the start to the End the north was under mede control. And that the regions of North East was were Saka lived.
According to Chinese sources, the population east of Ferghana was Sacian.
Chinese sources are often mis-understood, and almost no facts. The Chinese started recording in the late Hunic times. And much of the time they considered everyone as an enemy, even their own Altics.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe.
yes they did.
Of course there were separate Scythian languages, just as there were separate Scythian peoples. Herodotus described trade in Eurasia using seven such languages (Book 4.24)
Again dear Herodotus knew nothing everything was new to him, and later the greeks noticed there language was not different from Iranian language of Palavi (MEDES)
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
I guess you have not heard of "Sacian" or "Khotanese". We know a great deal about it.
That's what historians are saying, You want to make your own book go ahead. Make your history of Scythians with no-fact to back yourself that's what most Europeans did in old time. All they cared about it written thing nothing more. Again NO there was no just a language as Scythain or Sacian etc.
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
Yoghnobi is an Avestain langauge came from the South, and the mother langauge of Yoghnoubi is Sogdian. And if you think Sogdian was the langauge of Scythians then be it. then be it i agree with you. From the start to now i am saying Scythian was not a langauge and they spoke Pashtu/Avestian kind of langauge. ANd no i never said Sacian is Bactrian but a branch of bacrtian or a sub-group of Avesta. As simple as that.
"Avestan" is the recognized name for the old eastern Iranian language. But, given its uniqueness, we still don't know where it developed, much less,
Are you going to be happy if i say Avesta was created in Altic or Ukrian or maybe india. The fact remains the same Avesta was created in Eastern Iran simple and clear. Don't talk about what we don't know talk about what we do know. And that's how historians but it so that in the future we can go even more far and build our knowledge.
Diakonoff was the author of the entire Cambridge History of Iran chapter on "Media". And what is so "fishy" about him being a linguist, and not just any linguist, but a world renown linguist? That makes him completely qualified to make those judgements. What is "fishy" is your estimate for the man.
how come he's not listed as an contributor or an author?? please i need full inforamtion on that, and if he's famous then there must be a book of him in the internet so please provide me with cover-picture, or a braif information on how i can get his books.
Again, unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian peoples at that time, the point is moot.
What do you mean by mood its a fact the region of so called Afghanistan and eastern day of modern Iran was the region where Saka were born, went west and into Europe, it can't get simple then this.
That's just it:
1. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that the Saka originated in Afghanistan. You have not provided any source, either ancient or linguistic to show that.
2. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that these supposed Afghani Sakas went west into Europe.
The point is moot.
" unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian "
The modern Day Iranians naver considered themselves to be Persian but yet the popped from no-where and by 1000 AD it was refered the whole region of Afghanistan and Iran and central Asia.
SO what ? word are just given to sakas but that doesn't mean they really were different from other iranians. Look at the word Pathan it refers to Afghan people by the Indics of south Asia, yet Afghans doesn't even what that means.
Okay, so if ancient Afghanis were Sakas, it was because????
Not in the period after the Median Empire.
So your Point is.....
The point, is that in your effort to reconstruct ancient Afghani history, your inattention to when Bactria was independent, shows the flaw or carelessness in which you express your "facts". Bactria was not independent for at least 300 years (c. 535-250 BC) "after the Median Empire".
BMAC dates from about 2200-1700 BC - Akkadian empire is older by 100 years
No its a civilization which means they had cities government and laws, the reason its complex because it has not been complated YET, it was found in Afghanistan by Russians 1970s and when they found the border area of Turkmenistan (The region of Parthains) in the city of Merv, then it became BM. Again there is no-one working on this right now but as soon as they get some peace in Afghanistan this problem of yours would be solved.
Let's not mince words. It can be thought of as a civilization, but that is different than saying that it was an "empire".
BTW its older then 2200 BCE where did you get this from Wikipedia? body no trust in that its over 3500 BCE so its enough to cover AKKadians.
"Scientists analyzing charcoal found with the artifacts dated thematerial at 2300 B.C., before the larger settlements were built.American radiocarbon dates have established that the BMAC culturewas present in Central Asia from 2200 B.C. to 1800 or 1700 B.C.".
Even if it can be proven that the civilization is older than 2200 BC, your statement that it is the oldest empire would still be false. A civilization is not an empire. Otherwise, we can speak of Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations as "empires", but that would not be true. Let's keep our facts straight, shall we?
You still have not provided the proof of the Scythian origin of the goddess. Please answer the question.
That's up to you to discover read the articles i provided, this is all part of scythian mythology of Gods and goddess interpreted by Greek/ and other Europeans, have a look at the Horned God, the bull tormented by lion, and Indra, Which is traced to Sanskirt. http://www.anthroglobe.ca/docs/Sergei/scythian-sarmatian-meotian-beliefs.htm
Maybe you can explan why did those Saka's had the same believe (Gods/Godesses) as Afghans did at one time (Rig-vada was created in Afg and not far from helmand/hri rude river with connects with where some belived Avesta was composed )[/quote]
Simple. There was a time when all Indo-Iranian speakers inhabited the same region, in central Asia. At that time not only did they speak common dialects, but they also had a common religion. As they separated, the first being the Indo-Aryans which eventually migrated into India, their religion became varied as well. While still in central Asia, the western Iranians separated from the eastern Iranians. Those western and eastern Iranians which migrated into Iran became the Iranians. Those eastern Iranians which remained in central Asia became the Sacians.
All the article attempts to explain is the relationship of Scythian religion with old Slavonic and Vedic religion, without giving any theory as to how that relationship transpired. It therefore gives no proof that the religion of Bactria was "Sacian". It only shows that it was "Indo-Iranian".
Those "Saka" were located in northern Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, according to the Bisutun inscription. Nothing suggests that they were located "east" then "north east".
If you look at where MEDEs were PARS Province located you would know why i say North East, respectively Tehran/Caspian sea is located right in the north of Pars.
Still, nothing indicates that they were located "east" and then "northeast". All the Bisutun does is locate the Saka "northeast" of Media (on the east of the Caspian Sea).
But hitorically Saka's were not in the north maybe duing 650 BCE since some were going back to their homeland, but from the start to the End the north was under mede control. And that the regions of North East was were Saka lived.
The Assyrians had noted a Saka (i.e. Scythian) presence in northern Media as confederates of the Mannai (located in northern Media, south of Lake Urmia), from about 680 BC. They noted two Scythian leaders, Ishpaka and Bartatua. Nothing indicates that they came from anywhere else except from the north. Hence we can document two Saka groups according to the Persian inscriptions (the Saka Paradraya, or the Ishkuzai, as documented by the Assyrians, or the "Scythians of Europe"; and the Saka Tigrahauda, or one of the "Scythians of Asia"). No source relates the two as the same people.
According to Chinese sources, the population east of Ferghana was Sacian.
Chinese sources are often mis-understood, and almost no facts. The Chinese started recording in the late Hunic times. And much of the time they considered everyone as an enemy, even their own Altics.
It was these Sakas (Chinese, Sai) which were pushed into eastern Iran by the Tocharians (Ta-Yuezhi) and eventually settled Drangiana which then became Sakastan. These were probably the descendants of the third Saka group noted in Old Persian inscriptions, notably the Saka Haumavarga.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe.
yes they did.
Prove it.
Of course there were separate Scythian languages, just as there were separate Scythian peoples. Herodotus described trade in Eurasia using seven such languages (Book 4.24)
Again dear Herodotus knew nothing everything was new to him, and later the greeks noticed there language was not different from Iranian language of Palavi (MEDES)
Much research has verified Herodotus. It simply takes a closed mind to ignore him. Herodotus was quite specific as to where he got his information:
"for some of the Scythians make their way to them, from whom it is easy to get knowledge, and from some of the Greeks, too, from the Borysthenes port and the other ports of Pontus" (Book 4.24)
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
I guess you have not heard of "Sacian" or "Khotanese". We know a great deal about it.
That's what historians are saying, You want to make your own book go ahead. Make your history of Scythians with no-fact to back yourself that's what most Europeans did in old time. All they cared about it written thing nothing more. Again NO there was no just a language as Scythain or Sacian etc.
I would suggest that you do research using the terms "Saka language", "Khotanese", "Khotanese Saka", etc.
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
Yoghnobi is an Avestain langauge came from the South, and the mother langauge of Yoghnoubi is Sogdian. And if you think Sogdian was the langauge of Scythians then be it. then be it i agree with you. From the start to now i am saying Scythian was not a langauge and they spoke Pashtu/Avestian kind of langauge. ANd no i never said Sacian is Bactrian but a branch of bacrtian or a sub-group of Avesta. As simple as that.
If, according to you, Bactria (or Afghanistan) was the original home of the Sakas, then "Sacian" originated there. There is simply no way around your original logic. If Avestan was the original language which Yagnobi was derived, which came from Sogdian, then Sogdian came from Avestan. Since, for you Avestan was the original Sacian language, Sogdian was a Sacian language. If Sogdian was thus a Sacian language, than all eastern Iranian languages were Sacian languages.....so, this is where your logic leads.
"Avestan" is the recognized name for the old eastern Iranian language. But, given its uniqueness, we still don't know where it developed, much less,
Are you going to be happy if i say Avesta was created in Altic or Ukrian or maybe india. The fact remains the same Avesta was created in Eastern Iran simple and clear. Don't talk about what we don't know talk about what we do know. And that's how historians but it so that in the future we can go even more far and build our knowledge.
All I said is that we don't know specifically where Avestan originated. All we can say is that it developed in eastern Iranian lands (somewhere between the Aral Sea to the north to the region of Seistan in the south). That is far too much area to pinpoint where it originated.
Diakonoff was the author of the entire Cambridge History of Iran chapter on "Media". And what is so "fishy" about him being a linguist, and not just any linguist, but a world renown linguist? That makes him completely qualified to make those judgements. What is "fishy" is your estimate for the man.
how come he's not listed as an contributor or an author?? please i need full inforamtion on that, and if he's famous then there must be a book of him in the internet so please provide me with cover-picture, or a braif information on how i can get his books.
He is listed as the author of the entire chapter on "Media" in the Table of Contents. Please go see.
Igor Diakonoff has written many books and contributed articles to many journals and other scholarly works. I would suggest that you google him to get an idea as to what he has written.
Again, unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian peoples at that time, the point is moot.
What do you mean by mood its a fact the region of so called Afghanistan and eastern day of modern Iran was the region where Saka were born, went west and into Europe, it can't get simple then this.
That's just it:
1. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that the Saka originated in Afghanistan. You have not provided any source, either ancient or linguistic to show that.
2. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that these supposed Afghani Sakas went west into Europe.
The point is moot.
" unless you can prove that the term Saka was used to describe eastern Iranian "
The modern Day Iranians naver considered themselves to be Persian but yet the popped from no-where and by 1000 AD it was refered the whole region of Afghanistan and Iran and central Asia.
SO what ? word are just given to sakas but that doesn't mean they really were different from other iranians. Look at the word Pathan it refers to Afghan people by the Indics of south Asia, yet Afghans doesn't even what that means.
Okay, so if ancient Afghanis were Sakas, it was because????
Not in the period after the Median Empire.
So your Point is.....
The point, is that in your effort to reconstruct ancient Afghani history, your inattention to when Bactria was independent, shows the flaw or carelessness in which you express your "facts". Bactria was not independent for at least 300 years (c. 535-250 BC) "after the Median Empire".
BMAC dates from about 2200-1700 BC - Akkadian empire is older by 100 years
No its a civilization which means they had cities government and laws, the reason its complex because it has not been complated YET, it was found in Afghanistan by Russians 1970s and when they found the border area of Turkmenistan (The region of Parthains) in the city of Merv, then it became BM. Again there is no-one working on this right now but as soon as they get some peace in Afghanistan this problem of yours would be solved.
Let's not mince words. It can be thought of as a civilization, but that is different than saying that it was an "empire".
BTW its older then 2200 BCE where did you get this from Wikipedia? body no trust in that its over 3500 BCE so its enough to cover AKKadians.
"Scientists analyzing charcoal found with the artifacts dated thematerial at 2300 B.C., before the larger settlements were built.American radiocarbon dates have established that the BMAC culturewas present in Central Asia from 2200 B.C. to 1800 or 1700 B.C.".
Even if it can be proven that the civilization is older than 2200 BC, your statement that it is the oldest empire would still be false. A civilization is not an empire. Otherwise, we can speak of Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations as "empires", but that would not be true. Let's keep our facts straight, shall we?
You still have not provided the proof of the Scythian origin of the goddess. Please answer the question.
That's up to you to discover read the articles i provided, this is all part of scythian mythology of Gods and goddess interpreted by Greek/ and other Europeans, have a look at the Horned God, the bull tormented by lion, and Indra, Which is traced to Sanskirt. http://www.anthroglobe.ca/docs/Sergei/scythian-sarmatian-meotian-beliefs.htm
Maybe you can explan why did those Saka's had the same believe (Gods/Godesses) as Afghans did at one time (Rig-vada was created in Afg and not far from helmand/hri rude river with connects with where some belived Avesta was composed )
Simple. There was a time when all Indo-Iranian speakers inhabited the same region, in central Asia. At that time not only did they speak common dialects, but they also had a common religion. As they separated, the first being the Indo-Aryans which eventually migrated into India, their religion became varied as well. While still in central Asia, the western Iranians separated from the eastern Iranians. Those western and eastern Iranians which migrated into Iran became the Iranians. Those eastern Iranians which remained in central Asia became the Sacians.
All the article attempts to explain is the relationship of Scythian religion with old Slavonic and Vedic religion, without giving any theory as to how that relationship transpired. It therefore gives no proof that the religion of Bactria was "Sacian". It only shows that it was "Indo-Iranian".
Those "Saka" were located in northern Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, according to the Bisutun inscription. Nothing suggests that they were located "east" then "north east".
If you look at where MEDEs were PARS Province located you would know why i say North East, respectively Tehran/Caspian sea is located right in the north of Pars.
Still, nothing indicates that they were located "east" and then "northeast". All the Bisutun does is locate the Saka "northeast" of Media (on the east of the Caspian Sea).
But hitorically Saka's were not in the north maybe duing 650 BCE since some were going back to their homeland, but from the start to the End the north was under mede control. And that the regions of North East was were Saka lived.
The Assyrians had noted a Saka (i.e. Scythian) presence in northern Media as confederates of the Mannai (located in northern Media, south of Lake Urmia), from about 680 BC. They noted two Scythian leaders, Ishpaka and Bartatua. Nothing indicates that they came from anywhere else except from the north. Hence we can document two Saka groups according to the Persian inscriptions (the Saka Paradraya, or the Ishkuzai, as documented by the Assyrians, or the "Scythians of Europe"; and the Saka Tigrahauda, or one of the "Scythians of Asia"). No source relates the two as the same people.
According to Chinese sources, the population east of Ferghana was Sacian.
Chinese sources are often mis-understood, and almost no facts. The Chinese started recording in the late Hunic times. And much of the time they considered everyone as an enemy, even their own Altics.
It was these Sakas (Chinese, Sai) which were pushed into eastern Iran by the Tocharians (Ta-Yuezhi) and eventually settled Drangiana which then became Sakastan. These were probably the descendants of the third Saka group noted in Old Persian inscriptions, notably the Saka Haumavarga.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe.
yes they did.
Prove it.
Of course there were separate Scythian languages, just as there were separate Scythian peoples. Herodotus described trade in Eurasia using seven such languages (Book 4.24)
Again dear Herodotus knew nothing everything was new to him, and later the greeks noticed there language was not different from Iranian language of Palavi (MEDES)
Much research has verified Herodotus. It simply takes a closed mind to ignore him. Herodotus was quite specific as to where he got his information:
"for some of the Scythians make their way to them, from whom it is easy to get knowledge, and from some of the Greeks, too, from the Borysthenes port and the other ports of Pontus" (Book 4.24)
There are no written texts in any variant. The only materials are toponimic names, tribal and personal names found on Greek inscriptions in the ruins of ancient Black Sea colonies (Panticapeus, Olvia, etc.) We know about 200 word stems in Scythian, and that, certainly, has to be deemed paltry. A key for analysis of them is found in material from the Ossetic language.
I guess you have not heard of "Sacian" or "Khotanese". We know a great deal about it.
That's what historians are saying, You want to make your own book go ahead. Make your history of Scythians with no-fact to back yourself that's what most Europeans did in old time. All they cared about it written thing nothing more. Again NO there was no just a language as Scythain or Sacian etc.
I would suggest that you do research using the terms "Saka language", "Khotanese", "Khotanese Saka", etc.
Buddhist
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
Yoghnobi is an Avestain langauge came from the South, and the mother langauge of Yoghnoubi is Sogdian. And if you think Sogdian was the langauge of Scythians then be it. then be it i agree with you. From the start to now i am saying Scythian was not a langauge and they spoke Pashtu/Avestian kind of langauge. ANd no i never said Sacian is Bactrian but a branch of bacrtian or a sub-group of Avesta. As simple as that.
If, according to you, Bactria (or Afghanistan) was the original home of the Sakas, then "Sacian" originated there. There is simply no way around your original logic. If Avestan was the original language which Yagnobi was derived, which came from Sogdian, then Sogdian came from Avestan. Since, for you Avestan was the original Sacian language, Sogdian was a Sacian language. If Sogdian was thus a Sacian language, than all eastern Iranian languages were Sacian languages.....so, this is where your logic leads.
"Avestan" is the recognized name for the old eastern Iranian language. But, given its uniqueness, we still don't know where it developed, much less,
Are you going to be happy if i say Avesta was created in Altic or Ukrian or maybe india. The fact remains the same Avesta was created in Eastern Iran simple and clear. Don't talk about what we don't know talk about what we do know. And that's how historians but it so that in the future we can go even more far and build our knowledge.
All I said is that we don't know specifically where Avestan originated. All we can say is that it developed in eastern Iranian lands (somewhere between the Aral Sea to the north to the region of Seistan in the south). That is far too much area to pinpoint where it originated.
Diakonoff was the author of the entire Cambridge History of Iran chapter on "Media". And what is so "fishy" about him being a linguist, and not just any linguist, but a world renown linguist? That makes him completely qualified to make those judgements. What is "fishy" is your estimate for the man.
how come he's not listed as an contributor or an author?? please i need full inforamtion on that, and if he's famous then there must be a book of him in the internet so please provide me with cover-picture, or a braif information on how i can get his books.
He is listed as the author of the entire chapter on "Media" in the Table of Contents. Please go see.
Igor Diakonoff has written many books and contributed articles to many journals and other scholarly works. I would suggest that you google him to get an idea as to what he has written.
1. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that the Saka originated in Afghanistan. You have not provided any source, either ancient or linguistic to show that.
Look you are confussed with i am saying and you have lost the base of this arguement so why should i waste my time argue with you.
You want me to connect Indo-Scythia (the region of the lower Indus and Kathiavar) where have ruled Central INDIA the indo-scythians claim to have come from Afghanistan. ANd here you are thinking that these Scythians first reached Afghanistan by 200-150 BCE and moved into India by 100-30 BCE. You are missing the point, there is nothing moot here.
Still, nothing indicates that they were located "east" and then "northeast". All the Bisutun does is locate the Saka "northeast" of Media (on the east of the Caspian Sea).
Wait when you are refering to Caspian Sea under median control be very specific of the time and the direaction which your refering to. North East of medians of 600 BCE was the origional homes of Sakas fell under under their and it was the end of saka's in iranian side, but the liftover were still trying to control Europe. BTW EAst of Caspian Sea was the Ancient Khwarezm cultural community had formed in 7th-6th centuries B.C. on the basis of the local saco-massagetian people under strong interaction of southern agricultural civilizations, no civilzation was known from there other then MERV close border with Herat which was always part of Aryans.
2. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that these supposed Afghani Sakas went west into Europe.
Note I did not said they were Afghani since its a currency, and i am not saying they were Afghan, What i have said is what remains of Scythians, ie Scythians were natives of Afghanistan and eastern Iran, and i have posted the links where i got my information from. I am not claiming them to be Pashtun since its not a ethnic or a race, what i have said is what we know today that langauge of Scythians were Avestian/Eastern Iranian, Pashto is the closest and oldest langauge that we can trace to the root langauges of Eastern Iranian. THERE is no such a thing as Scythians. And if there is please provide me a source.
The point, is that in your effort to reconstruct ancient Afghani history, your inattention to when Bactria was independent, shows the flaw or carelessness in which you express your "facts". Bactria was not independent for at least 300 years (c. 535-250 BC) "after the Median Empire".
Again read what i had said, Bactria was never part anyone and according to AVESTA they had an seperate Empire that's not according to me. YES i know bactria was part of Medians from 530 BCE and on. What has become after that, is very known.
Since, for you Avestan was the original Sacian language, Sogdian was a Sacian language. If Sogdian was thus a Sacian language, than all eastern Iranian languages were Sacian languages.....so, this is where your logic leads.
Are you trying be funny here, there is no such thing as Scythain langauge the end, I have already provided you a link and its genral believe, forget about your old stuff.
He is listed as the author of the entire chapter on "Media" in the Table of Contents. Please go see.
Igor Diakonoff has written many books and contributed articles to many journals and other scholarly works. I would suggest that you google him to get an idea as to what he has written.
Here is both an article and a picture of him:
As i read about him he's not that important, however give me a websources or something to how that quote of yours match with his saying.
The Hephthalites never even went to Europe.
yes they did.
Prove it.
You said they never went to Europe but many contects were made by Byzantine, hoever i could be wrong but the europeans give the Attali connection with the Hephthalites. SO the question is are Hephthalites the hunic group, if yes then yes they invaded Europe in not then i maybe wrong cause there are many who connect the Eastern Iranian Hephthalites with altic Hunnics. As i said before i don't claim things just from the top of my head but gather information, not just one source but from many. The base of my point was the connection between Hephthalites and Europeans (Byzantine), and what they thought of these people.
Much research has verified Herodotus. It simply takes a closed mind to ignore him. Herodotus was quite specific as to where he got his information:
"for some of the Scythians make their way to them, from whom it is easy to get knowledge, and from some of the Greeks, too, from the Borysthenes port and the other ports of Pontus" (Book 4.24)
You still hav't provided me information regarding your Scythain language. Just answer the question. WAS Scythain sacian (whatever you call it) a langauge by itselve. If it was then what evidance is there to say that Scythains had a language diferent from other eastern Iranians.
I would suggest that you do research using the terms "Saka language", "Khotanese", "Khotanese Saka", etc.
Sorry your going EAst and we're still not done with the European Scythians. This web of yours does not prove that that Scythains of Europeans had a different langauge from other Avestians, AND besides this is from late indo-Scthias "Buddhist era" Thanks for the Altic connection.
It was these Sakas (Chinese, Sai) which were pushed into eastern Iran by the Tocharians (Ta-Yuezhi) and eventually settled Drangiana which then became Sakastan. These were probably the descendants of the third Saka group noted in Old Persian inscriptions, notably the Saka Haumavarga.
As far as Tocharians are concerned again as i said befor much of the sources comes from Chinese source, and they were natives of Afghanistan and not much is known about them. the text fell to european hands and that's why is sound complacated. The botom line is that Tokharians were very close to Chinese border and contects were made, and as to where they come from is off the topic and no source to back this, There langauge was not different from other Eastern iranians.
It therefore gives no proof that the religion of Bactria was "Sacian". It only shows that it was "Indo-Iranian".
Now why are you concentrating on something else, I posted the site to prove my point, everything else could be true or non-sense, i don't care. And what's with your Sacian religion?? There is no Sacian we have already talked about it is not known. If anything it would be zoroastrian. Since they they (Scythians of Europe) believed in Anatisa which was a zoroastrian goddess. SO since we all know that Bactrians were the first nation of zoroastrians. It would prove me right 100%.
BTW i hope you are not 100% agree with mr. Diakonoff of yours since he has not been updating himself. I found this site http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/ieorigins/ where Mr.Diakonoff seems to be a big contributer, you these information is off topic very old and with no-or less facts. The books that were used on that side is from 1700-1800 where European just wrote anything they wanted most of them uneducated regarding the subjects they were refering to. First here is the map where i feel that you seemed to be a big supporter of is nothing but lie there is no Pro-Scythain langauge (Colin Renfrew from 1700) and if there is any it would be in afghanistan.
And look at this Indo-European language distribution, 5,500-3,000 BCE another word REAL ARYANS righhhtttt you see friend these things are just old white man's creation circling all over, it holds almost no truth. Aryans were natives of Eastern Iran, Afghanistan. There is no prove of them coming from somewhere else, and same with Scythians.
Simple. There was a time when all Indo-Iranian speakers inhabited the same region, in central Asia. At that time not only did they speak common dialects, but they also had a common religion. As they separated, the first being the Indo-Aryans which eventually migrated into India, their religion became varied as well. While still in central Asia, the western Iranians separated from the eastern Iranians. Those western and eastern Iranians which migrated into Iran became the Iranians. Those eastern Iranians which remained in central Asia became the Sacians.
Again with your own Fairy Tales, you have lost your base-agrument then what is there for me to argue. LOL From the start i have been saying that Scythains were Eastern Iranians. END OF THE arguement. BTW with that "central Asia" Eastern Iran, and Afghanistan is part of Central Asia but sometimes people like to refer this to Siberia or Kazakistan where no evidance of Aryans been found.
1. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that the Saka originated in Afghanistan. You have not provided any source, either ancient or linguistic to show that.
Look you are confussed with i am saying and you have lost the base of this arguement so why should i waste my time argue with you.
True, or not true, you believe that Afghanistan was the homeland of the Sakas? If you do, the first point still stands - you offer no proof.
You want me to connect Indo-Scythia (the region of the lower Indus and Kathiavar) where have ruled Central INDIA the indo-scythians claim to have come from Afghanistan. ANd here you are thinking that these Scythians first reached Afghanistan by 200-150 BCE and moved into India by 100-30 BCE. You are missing the point, there is nothing moot here.
If you say that Afghanistan was the homeland of the Saka, since time immemorial, and if the "proof" is that part of lower Afghanistan was called Sakastan, then it does not matter that lower into India, the Saka invaded and colonized. The point is still that you have not provided any proof that the Saka were already in Afghanistan at such a remote period.
Still, nothing indicates that they were located "east" and then "northeast". All the Bisutun does is locate the Saka "northeast" of Media (on the east of the Caspian Sea).
Wait when you are refering to Caspian Sea under median control be very specific of the time and the direaction which your refering to.
I'm referring to the Bisutun inscription which is dated to about 520 BC. At that time Media was a satrapy under the Persian ruler, Darius I. This satrapy not only included Media, but Hyrcania and Saka Tigrakhauda. In other words, this extended Median satrapy also included a part of Turkmenistan.
North East of medians of 600 BCE was the origional homes of Sakas fell under under their and it was the end of saka's in iranian side, but the liftover were still trying to control Europe.
You had not established how the European Scythians even related to the Asiatic ones. Please document that claim. The "Scythians" of the Median period were based in Manna (i.e. the region to the south of Lake Urmia). They were not there before 680 BC, only the Mannai and the Medes. It is no coincidence that by 715 BC, the Cimmerians had made their appearance to the south of the Caucasus, having defeated the Urarteans in their own land. It was after these, that the Scythians made their appearance. There is no debate that the Cimmerians came from the Pontic steppe. The Scythians came after them, as documented by Herodotus and others. And, again, the Greeks knew that the Scythians were already on the Pontic Steppe by about 720 BC. Hence they were in steppe before they appeared in northern Media.
BTW EAst of Caspian Sea was the Ancient Khwarezm cultural community had formed in 7th-6th centuries B.C. on the basis of the local saco-massagetian people under strong interaction of southern agricultural civilizations, no civilzation was known from there other then MERV close border with Herat which was always part of Aryans.
Wrong again. "Khwarezm", (i.e. classical Chorasmia) comprehended the region just south of the Aral Sea. It did not include the entirety of Turkmenistan (although at times it did). In the period in question (time of Bisutun, c. 520 BC) the region between Hyrcania and Chorasmia was called Saka Tigrakhauda. In the time of Xerxes, the region was divided into Saka Tigrakhauda and Daha (Greek, Dahae).
2. You have unsuccessfully tried to prove that these supposed Afghani Sakas went west into Europe.
Note I did not said they were Afghani since its a currency, and i am not saying they were Afghan, What i have said is what remains of Scythians, ie Scythians were natives of Afghanistan and eastern Iran, and i have posted the links where i got my information from.
Unfortunately the sources of information from those sites (which you agreed were "outdated") are not given, hence, they prove nothing.
And yes, the ancient sources were using the term in a cultural sense of tribes living beyond the agricultural communities. Bactria was an agricultural land, hence outside the area of those tribes.
I am not claiming them to be Pashtun since its not a ethnic or a race, what i have said is what we know today that langauge of Scythians were Avestian/Eastern Iranian, Pashto is the closest and oldest langauge that we can trace to the root langauges of Eastern Iranian.
The best that we can say about Saka languages is that they were eastern Iranian. Avestan is only one language in that group. Saco-Scythian is another branch in that group. Bactrian, Sogdian, and Chorasmian are other branches. Let's keep our terminology straight, okay?
THERE is no such a thing as Scythians.
Agreed. The Scythians are extinct. But, just as there was a "Scythia" so long ago, there were "Scythians". The Greeks, Assyrians, and Hebrews knew them with variants of the same name.
And if there is please provide me a source.
Gee, ummm, does "Herodotus" ring a bell?
The point, is that in your effort to reconstruct ancient Afghani history, your inattention to when Bactria was independent, shows the flaw or carelessness in which you express your "facts". Bactria was not independent for at least 300 years (c. 535-250 BC) "after the Median Empire".
Again read what i had said, Bactria was never part anyone and according to AVESTA they had an seperate Empire that's not according to me.
I am not going to go over that material again, only to mention that the Avesta never said anything about a Bactrian empire. History and linguistics is quite clear on this. Bactria was part of other empires until about 250 BC.
YES i know bactria was part of Medians from 530 BCE and on. What has become after that, is very known.
You mean, under Persians. So, then, what are you talking about?
Since, for you Avestan was the original Sacian language, Sogdian was a Sacian language. If Sogdian was thus a Sacian language, than all eastern Iranian languages were Sacian languages.....so, this is where your logic leads.
Are you trying be funny here, there is no such thing as Scythain langauge the end, I have already provided you a link and its genral believe, forget about your old stuff.
Well then, if "no such thing as Scythian language" and "no Scythians", then, no homeland of Scythians in Bactria, right?
He is listed as the author of the entire chapter on "Media" in the Table of Contents. Please go see.
Igor Diakonoff has written many books and contributed articles to many journals and other scholarly works. I would suggest that you google him to get an idea as to what he has written.
Here is both an article and a picture of him:
As i read about him he's not that important,....
He is the creator of one of the major theories as to the origin of Indo-European languages. If he is "not important", than who is?
however give me a websources or something to how that quote of yours match with his saying.
This link describes the distinctions between the various Iranic languages and the eastern Iranic languages in particular:
It notes that Avestan has enough characteristics to place it in a special "central" group of eastern Iranic languages, and that Bactrian displays characteristics of both western and eastern Iranic languages and that it is most similiar to Parthian.
According to the author of this site, Bactrian was not the descendant of Avestan.
It notes that Avestan has enough characteristics to place it in a special "central" group of eastern Iranic languages, and that Bactrian displays characteristics of both western and eastern Iranic languages and that it is most similiar to Parthian.
According to the author of this site, Bactrian was not the descendant of Avestan.
You said they never went to Europe but many contects were made by Byzantine, hoever i could be wrong but the europeans give the Attali connection with the Hephthalites.
No they didn't. If you think they did, please prove so.
SO the question is are Hephthalites the hunic group, if yes then yes they invaded Europe in not then i maybe wrong cause there are many who connect the Eastern Iranian Hephthalites with altic Hunnics. As i said before i don't claim things just from the top of my head but gather information, not just one source but from many. The base of my point was the connection between Hephthalites and Europeans (Byzantine), and what they thought of these people.
No modern scholar identifies the Ephthalites with the Huns. The confusion is with the term "White Huns". Europeans had called many groups "Huns" without regard to if they were actually Huns or not. The Ephthalites in particular, ruled in the eastern Iranian lands and for a time had control over western India, but no source ever said that they invaded Europe. The time of their power, c. 420 to 560 is far too late to have had "control over Europe" by 250 BC".
Much research has verified Herodotus. It simply takes a closed mind to ignore him. Herodotus was quite specific as to where he got his information:
"for some of the Scythians make their way to them, from whom it is easy to get knowledge, and from some of the Greeks, too, from the Borysthenes port and the other ports of Pontus" (Book 4.24)
You still hav't provided me information regarding your Scythain language. Just answer the question. WAS Scythain sacian (whatever you call it) a langauge by itselve. If it was then what evidance is there to say that Scythains had a language diferent from other eastern Iranians.
According to Herodotus, references to the Scythian language can be found in following verses:
Book 1.73.3
Book 4.117.1
We note that in the second reference, the Sauromatae spoke "Scythian". Since we know that Ossetian came from a Sarmatian dialect, we can see in Ossetian, the remnant of once more widely spoken Scythian language.
I would suggest that you do research using the terms "Saka language", "Khotanese", "Khotanese Saka", etc.
Sorry your going EAst and we're still not done with the European Scythians.
The point was to show that there was indeed a "Saka language".
This web of yours does not prove that that Scythains of Europeans had a different langauge from other Avestians,....[/quote]
1. All I wanted to prove is that Sacian was a language. There was nothing from your last response to show that you wanted me to prove that "Scythian" was different than "Avestian" (whatever that meant). Otherwise, the proof is in the sites I've posted, in this response. Please see links, above.
2. We've already established that Avestan and Sacian are two different languages, so even your use of linguistic terminology is wrong.
AND besides this is from late indo-Scthias "Buddhist era" Thanks for the Altic connection.
Those inscriptions came from that region in the Silk Road, known to have had a Saka population, according to both Chinese and Greek sources, before the appearance of those same Saka in Sakastan.
It was these Sakas (Chinese, Sai) which were pushed into eastern Iran by the Tocharians (Ta-Yuezhi) and eventually settled Drangiana which then became Sakastan. These were probably the descendants of the third Saka group noted in Old Persian inscriptions, notably the Saka Haumavarga.
As far as Tocharians are concerned again as i said befor much of the sources comes from Chinese source, and they were natives of Afghanistan and not much is known about them. the text fell to european hands and that's why is sound complacated. The botom line is that Tokharians were very close to Chinese border and contects were made, and as to where they come from is off the topic and no source to back this, There langauge was not different from other Eastern iranians.
The Chinese sources are quite clear that the Tocharians (Ta-yuezhi) were pushed by the Xiongnu onto the Saka who were then pushed into eastern Iran, where they founded Sakastan.
Here's a link to the Chinese account of the Ta-yuezhi migration.
It therefore gives no proof that the religion of Bactria was "Sacian". It only shows that it was "Indo-Iranian".
Now why are you concentrating on something else, I posted the site to prove my point, everything else could be true or non-sense, i don't care. And what's with your Sacian religion?? There is no Sacian we have already talked about it is not known. If anything it would be zoroastrian. Since they they (Scythians of Europe) believed in Anatisa which was a zoroastrian goddess. SO since we all know that Bactrians were the first nation of zoroastrians. It would prove me right 100%.
You posted that site to show that certain Iranian deities were actually Scythian deities. Have you forgotten?
On the other matter, when was it established that the Bactrians were the first Zoroastrians?
BTW i hope you are not 100% agree with mr. Diakonoff of yours since he has not been updating himself. I found this site http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/ieorigins/ where Mr.Diakonoff seems to be a big contributer, you these information is off topic very old and with no-or less facts. The books that were used on that side is from 1700-1800 where European just wrote anything they wanted most of them uneducated regarding the subjects they were refering to. First here is the map where i feel that you seemed to be a big supporter of is nothing but lie there is no Pro-Scythain langauge (Colin Renfrew from 1700) and if there is any it would be in afghanistan.
I neither subscribe to Diakonoff's nor Renfrew's IE theories. I am much closer to Gimbutas and Mallory. Nevertheless, this is going off-topic, but Diakonoff, being a linguistic expert, is not the only one which draws the conclusion as to the relationship between Avestan and Bactrian, as the links I've posted attest to.
And look at this Indo-European language distribution, 5,500-3,000 BCE another word REAL ARYANS righhhtttt you see friend these things are just old white man's creation circling all over, it holds almost no truth. Aryans were natives of Eastern Iran, Afghanistan. There is no prove of them coming from somewhere else, and same with Scythians.
There is far too much archaeological evidence to show migration of culture from central Asia into Iran. Even the Avestan name for the land Airyanem Vaejah shows a migration. It was said to have been watered by the Vanguhi Daitya (the Oxus) which watered into the sea Vouru Kasha (the Caspian). Hence, long before Iran was Ariana, the original "Iran" was where Turkmenistan and part of Uzbekistan is now. Please do research on Avestan geography.
As for Saka origins, well, this has already been discussed and the preponderance of the evidence simply does not support your point-of-view.
Simple. There was a time when all Indo-Iranian speakers inhabited the same region, in central Asia. At that time not only did they speak common dialects, but they also had a common religion. As they separated, the first being the Indo-Aryans which eventually migrated into India, their religion became varied as well. While still in central Asia, the western Iranians separated from the eastern Iranians. Those western and eastern Iranians which migrated into Iran became the Iranians. Those eastern Iranians which remained in central Asia became the Sacians.
Again with your own Fairy Tales, you have lost your base-agrument then what is there for me to argue.
Umm, how did I "lose" my base argument?
LOL From the start i have been saying that Scythains were Eastern Iranians. END OF THE arguement.
It was never a debate that Scythians were "eastern Iranians". What is the debate is that you claim that all "eastern Iranians" only inhabited "eastern Iran", but this is proven false when we have Ossetians in Europe and at one time Sakas in western China. Since the Ossetian language came from Sarmatian (which was spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe) this shows that at one time Iranic had a much wider distribution than it does today, much like at one time, Turkic had a much wider distribution, than it does today.
BTW with that "central Asia" Eastern Iran, and Afghanistan is part of Central Asia but sometimes people like to refer this to Siberia or Kazakistan where no evidance of Aryans been found.
Aryans from Central Asia be spisific
Because a body of related languages may have a wide distribution, being "specific" as to where they were spoken is not possible. However, what I give is a map showing the distribution of a complex of related cultures which affected the region where the first "Iran" was located. This region became the origin of know Iranic-speaking groups such as the Sarmatians, Issedonians, "Asiatic Scythians", and Arimaspians.
There's so much crap in this thread it's ridiculous. I'm an Azeri TURK okay, a Turkish Caucasian you may say. Most of all a Turk. There's nothing Persian or Iranian about me. Period. I'm sick of seeing Armenians, Russians, or Iranians trying to put Azerbaijan in their maps of "Greater [insert country name here]". Get over it...
If Yagnobi is related to Pashto, and if, according to you, Pashto is a Sakian language, then Yagnobi is also a Sakian language. If Yagnobi (being close to AFG) came from Sogdian, then Sogdian was also a Sakian language. Your former reasoning forces such conclusions. You just can't say that Bactrian was a Sacian language and ignore all the other information.
I dont know if sogdanian was a sacian language ,But I know that Yagnobi, Pashtu and ossetians are the closest language to proto-Bulgarian and the homland of proto bulgarians was ancient Bactria, somewhere arount mountains of hindu-kush.
According to our ( Bulgarians) linguists and historians, proto-bulgarians were Saka-scythians.
with prot-bulgarians I mean forfathers of Bulgarian BC (Balkh-Arians) befor any mentioning of Turks in the history.So how Proto-bulgarians can be turks while turks even did'nt exist in that time.
with prot-bulgarians I mean forfathers of Bulgarian BC (Balkh-Arians) befor any mentioning of Turks in the history.So how Proto-bulgarians can be turks while turks even did'nt exist in that time.
The same way you believe in the proto-Bulgarians of the mythical kingdom of Bulgarian Bulhara.
Turks ie Turkic speaking peoples according to Chinese sources have existed for thousands of years, read Wei Shu who recorded that the Xiongnu, Goache, Dingling etc tribes shared the same language.
Most historians have written that the proto-Bulgars were Turkic with Uralic elements and that the closest language to old Bulgar is todays Chuvash.
The Kingdom of Balhara...please show me some sources showing there was a Bulgarian Kingdom of Balhara in todays Afghanistan sometime BC.
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Chuvashs and Balkars could be turkified /Uralized Bulgarian tribes in Caucasus, centuries after their migration from Bactria.
Today there is a lot of evidence which shows that proto-Bulgarians came somewhere from around hindo-kush and Pamir, and they were Iranic ,but not Persians.
According to the Bulgarians historians and linguists proto-Bulgarian language has a lot of similarity to Pamirian languages ,Yagnobi, Pushtu , and Ossetian languages.
Some element in Bulgarians language which has been thought still now that are were Turkish elements in Bulgarian language , today its proven that these are pure Iranic elements in Turkish language.
Prof. Peter Dobrev is a Bulgarian historian has published a lot of Books about Bulgarians origin with logical explanations, but I' m not sure of there is his books in English.
Turkish theory of Bulgarian origin made up by Bulgarians communists and Russians is already proven wrong.
Peter Dobrev is not a historian he is not even a linguist, but just an economist; his books are funny forgeries filled with inconsistensies and logical flaws.
No serious historian takes his fairytales into account. Besides, this pseudo "historian" is full of bias towards Turkic people. IMHO this is the very reason for his efforts.
While it's complitely possible that Turkic Buglars mixed and included Iranic nomades in their tribal unions, kingdom of Balkhara is a fairytale which I would like to discuss in the "historical amusement" section of this forum
Peter Dobrev is not a historian he is not even a linguist, but just an economist; his books are funny forgeries filled with inconsistensies and logical flaws.
And You are .. ? You are prof. ....? prof. ....who ?
If Bulgarians were not easterns iranic people then how can you explain the similarity between proto- bulgarian language even modern bulgarian languages with easterns Iranian , pamirian and Dardic languages .
I'll send u some links i want you to explain to me how is that possible ? professor
One doesn't need to be a professor to explain your "fascinating proofs." Perhaps, it will be a big discovery for you, but... you know, Bulgarians are Slavs and Slavic languages bare a notable influence of Iranic languages due to the centuries of interaction and intermixing with Skythians and Sarmatians.
Also it's funny course some of the words from your actually also present in Turkic languages.
I understand that Balkh_Arianism might look very appealing, but it's not a serious science unfortunately.
There are other interesting Bulgarian historians discussed on this forum who wrote about Bulgar-Iranic (meaning Skytho-Sarmatian) connection in this regard, but Dobrev is not one of them.
I'm talking about some pure Bulgarian element which doesn't exist in other slavic languages nor in Turkish and nor in westerns Iranian languages
You need to look at it a little bit deeper
I'm not saying that there is no turkish element in bulgarian language, but mostly its about iranic elements in turkish language.But some prof. like you thinking that these elements are turkish .
Do not overestimate yourself, to make such a conclusion without any linguistical knowledge.
I just saw that most of these words are Slavic and I'm a native speaker of Slavic language and able to distinguish them clearly enough and some other words like bai are very common in Turkic languages. Don't tell me please that they are present in other Slavic languages because they were adobted from Ancient Bulgar language.
Balkh_Arians use this logic all the time: if Volga Bulgar language was Turkic then they were Turkified later, if Irano-Bulgars words are present in other Slavic languages then, those languages just were influences by ancient Bulgar... It's flawed logic when one just wants to find the best explanation to make the things look like he wants them to look, but not like they really are.
In fact, my friend, I just repeat to you that is a common knowledge and is known by the mainstream historians and linguists.
Dobrev is the one who comes up with an extreme and unproved hypo which needs additional proofs and evidence. Many, many of them.
You don't need to be a linguist to know that Bulgarian language is Slavic it's written in every source.
The fact that you like Dobrev's ideas doesn't mean that he is right.
I always thought the Bulgarians were descendants of a Roxalani/Alan/Sarmatian contingent with the Bulghar Turks - I think DNA evidence links elements among them strongly with modern Ossetians, though I am not certain.
Zagros, according to the Peter Dobrev supporters, Dobrev the economist says...
The theory goes... Bulgars have absolutely no Turkic connection this is a myth invented by Communists, Anti-Bulgarians and the Russians, the Bulgars are actually from Balkh, yes Balkh in Afganistan and sometime in BC they formed a great Empire, the Kingdom of Balhara. The "Balkharas" became the "Bulghars", Balkhara --->Bulghars and left their homeland in Balkh region to todays Bulgaria. They apparently speak the same langauge as these ancient peoples etc etc
There are many users in this section of the forum with a more in-depth knowledge of old Iranic empires, I guess Sharrukin would have heard of such a state?
If not this belongs to historical amusement.
Edited by Bulldog - 13-May-2008 at 23:37
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
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
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Iranians root in Central asia
you see friend these things are just old white man's creation circling all over, it holds almost no truth. Aryans were natives of Eastern Iran, Afghanistan. There is no prove of them coming from somewhere else, and same with Scythians. 
BTW with that "central Asia" Eastern Iran, and Afghanistan is part of Central Asia but sometimes people like to refer this to Siberia or Kazakistan where no evidance of Aryans been found.
professor
.
