New Theories about the origins of Turks

My other thread will clear the confusion about the ethnogenesis of Turks, et al.

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25074


Turks did not appear out of thin air just when the Chinese started writing accounts on them. They are far more ancient, and have roots in the Caspian region of Iran before any Aryan expansion.

When the Indo-Aryans were entering Iran from the NW they first encountered relatives of the Turks, some are known to us;  the Kassites. In actuality there was no complete replacement, but many inhabitants became Aryanized in the passing centuries by the foreign warrior culture. When the Aryan groups went further east they met the proper Turks, and further east they met Mongoloid tribes who were greatly influenced by the Turks; Uyghurs.

Turanian is a vague term for these Central Asian groups, that are related by lineage and cultural influence. They could be Aryans who joined the Turks, or Turks who settled down, and then was expanded to include all Altaic speaking people.

To propose any concrete theory on the origin of the Turks, one thing must be made clear first.

There is no such thing as a Scythian, its a complete farce. For horsemen who expanded from Eastern Europe to Mongolia and lived for centuries they left zero evidence of their exitence or influence as an Iranic tribe.

Yes, there were a variety of people living in those areas. Some of these people were nomadic and created arifacts and left remains. But none of these can point to an Aryan origin, nothing at all. Nothing left from those people can connect to the language or religion of the Aryans. The only thing the supporters of this theory have is innuendo, mostly based on vague local accounts of Greeks. If you take all local accounts at face value, there must be 100 armed people living in Russia with eyes on their chest.

Nothing in eastern "Scythian" culture or language could be connected to Iranic. But with Turkic, yes. The words for horsemen and horse used in many Central Asian groups, all Turkish in origin.

Of course there were Iranic horsemen, who lived a pastorial or nomadic life. But these were merely local adaptations, they did not span from all of Central Asia.

The term Scythian is to be used in the same way as the term Hyperboran. They dont denote a specific ethnicity, only a description of a nomadic outsider.

Now I know there will be many who say something to the effect of, there are tons of sources that say so and so, but these "sources" are merely echoing of each other. Bringing nothing of tangible evidence except speculation and romanticism for the so called Scythians.

I dare any of you to find direct proof of the Scythians existence as an Iranic groups. It could be material evidence, connecting early Aryan artifacts to Scythian artifacts, or Iranic words that the Scythians spread, any religious influences they brought. A citation of some battle with horseriders or rebels is not reliable, it could be anyone.

Speaking of "Scythian" religion, there are many artifacts that include stags found in "Scythia". Since when was the stag a symbol of the Aryans or any Indo-European?

On the other hand, the stag, deer or ibex is prominent in Uralic, Turkic, Altaic, and Sumerian faith and legend, from the white stag of the Hungarians, to the shamanistic worship the Koreans have for them to the Sumerian Enki, the ibex of the Absu.



Edited by CiegaSordomud - 05-Oct-2008 at 01:15

Scythians has become a generic word.  Associations with specific cultures are made at will. There sure lived Indo-European tribes as well as Altaic and Ugric in areas were Scythians were manufactured to exist.
If Scythians were of purely nomadic nature, than there was no Scythia proper. If there was no Scythia, no stags could be found in Scythia.