Scythians

Originally posted by DerDoc It is not racist to speak out facts. However, distorting facts is considered "racism". Since the vast majority of modern Turkic-speakers are not East Asian looking, and since the time of Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk, these Turkic-speakers believe that they are descendants of ancient Turks and Huns, they are trying to falsify history by claiming that "ancient Turks were also Caucasian looking". This contradicts all historical sources available.

Originally posted by DerDoc What is also important is that these tribes were mostly Caucasian, in stark contrast to the East Asian Turkic and Mongol hordes.

check out the scythians :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian

Schtians were Iranıc Nomads with Turkic leaders and some Turkic tribes in People,also most of the army.

Originally posted by Anton ... Their "Turkicness" as you call it is seen in their Turkic language and still very strong habit to breeding of horses for food (in addition to hunting and fishing). ...

I agree with the language part, but not with the horse breeding part. Breeding horses is not really a "Turkic habit" (or maybe you mean only "breeding for food"?!)

The domestication of the horse is strongly connected to the Indo-European expansions more than 4000 years ago (or even more?!). In fact, the domestication of the horse was one of the main reasons for the vast expansion of Indo-European languages accross Eurasia, more than 3000 years before the Turkic expansion. The horse was a holy animal in the PIE society, and Indo-European names, such as "Hippocrates" (Greek) or "Tahmasp" (Persian) - all containing the word "horse" - reflect this society.

Originally posted by Bulldog Saka-Yakuts are not descendants of Indo-European people's, if the Scythians were in these regions its likely they would have had Turkic tribes among them, Turkic people's always inhabbited the Altay region, Scythian tribal confederaton seems to have stretched to there according to maps.

The Yaquts are in part descendants of Indo-European nomads, although their East Asian nomadic (Turkic) origin is far more significant. However, their self-designation "Sakha" is evidently derived from "Saka" ("Skythian").

The Yaquts are inhabitants of Siberia, and not of the Altay region. So, the Yaquts are neither descendants of the original Turks nor of the Indo-European Scythians, although both groups had their influences on them. The still very present nomadic life-style of the Yakuts reflects the strong Turkic on them:



Map of Turkic expansion (note the origins of the Turks and the small geographical area they inhabitted in the 6th century):

Their language today is not Indo-European, but the origin of the self-desigantion is clearly Scythian and Indo-European. It's kind of comparable to the Bulgarians. Although modern Bulgarians are mostly descendants of Indo-European Slavs and speak a Slavic language, their self-designation - "Bulgar" - is derived from a Medieval Turkic nomadic confederation.


Edited by DerDoc - 05-Apr-2007 at 20:25

Originally posted by Xiongnu Hun Originally posted by Kerimoglu No, this is just one of theories about the origin of Saka's , that they may be are descendants of Sakha Yakuts. But not proven though. I believe, according to Rene Grousset, Huns are also seperated from Scythians, as did German tribe (only German).   Saka Turks and Iranic Saka's are different.And Huns have no relation with Schytians.

The term "Sakha" (self-designation of Turkic Yakuts) is evidently derived from the word "Saka" ("Scythian").

But this does not mean that Scythians were proto-Turks. It is the other way around. The "Sakhas" (modern Yakuts) are - in part - descendats of early Indo-European nomads who - at some time in the course of history - adopted a Turkic language.

The early Turkic confederations were only centered around the Altay mountains and expanded from there throughout Eurasia. They conquered other peoples, and they were conquered by others. In the same fassion, they adopted other languages or imposed their own language on others.

The use of Non-Turkic words in early Turkish languages gives a small insight into this process. The Turkish title "Khan", for example, is derived from the proto-Mongolic "Khaqan", first used by the Mongolic Zuan-Zuan (Rouran). The ancient Turkic military title "Yabghu" is derived from an Indo-Europan word. The lack of vowel-harmony in the word ("Y-a-b-gh-u") clearly proves the Non-Turkic origin of the word.

Besides that, the early Turkc belonged to the Mongoloid  cluster of East Asian peoples - in total contrast to the Caucasian Tokharians and Iranians. Early art works of the Scythians in Central Asia clearly show Western Eurasian features:





Turkic peoples had East Asian features when they moved into Greater Iran. The Mongoloid features of the Turks are described in many Persian poems, and - because of their East Asian looks - the Turks were regarded as very handsome and pretty by the Persian writers. The term "Turk" has different meanings in Persian poetry. Depending on the poem's plot and mysticism, iIt can eather mean "barbaric" and "nomadic" (as in Ferdowsi's "Sh�hn�ma"), or - in this context - also "free" and "independent". On the other hand, Turks were also known as fierce and successful fighters, and the word "Turk" may also mean "strong", "handsome", "pretty".

In anyway, the Mongoloid features of the Turks were always mentioned by Persian poets, especially by the Persian poet Nizami who wrote many love poems for his Qipchaq-Turkic wife whom he had freed from slavery.

The East Asian looks of the early Oghuz Turks - and of the Seljuq ruling family - is also attested in many art works:



The most interesting of all is this sculpture:




It's a depiction of an early Seljuq prince and clearly shows the Mongoloid features.

Please also keep in mind that the word "Scythian" is related to "Sogdian", a related Iranian-speaking people in Central Asia. The Scythians are also shown as Caucasian looking in many historical Chinese paintings:



Two Sogdian and Chinese Buddhist monks:



So, in either way, the Scythians were Non-Turks and Indo-Europeans. Both, their language and the way they are shown in historical sources, point toward a Western (Indo-European) origin.

All other views are minority views with no academic value.

Were the Hun branch of Doqquz Oghuz Hun-Xiongu?

Originally posted by Kerimoglu No, this is just one of theories about the origin of Saka's , that they may be are descendants of Sakha Yakuts. But not proven though. I believe, according to Rene Grousset, Huns are also seperated from Scythians, as did German tribe (only German).

No, this is just one of theories about the origin of Saka's , that they may be are descendants of Sakha Yakuts. But not proven though. I believe, according to Rene Grousset, Huns are also seperated from Scythians, as did German tribe (only German).