Origins of Scythians
- Thread starter Allegro
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Merlkir
Oh boy, have you picked a topic. Someone like Círdan would explain it better, but I'll give it a shot.
My opinion is that they were mostly indo-european. But again, "scythians" is SUCH a broad term, it's impossible to throw them all in one sack.
Which scythians? The greko-scythians living in greek-like cities? The rural scythians living further northeast? The nomad tribes even further east?
That huge area where "scythians" lived was quite the melting pot, none of those tribes was pure blood or something, north-iranians would mix with turkic tribesmen, greeks would be there once in a while...
You have tribes like the Tocharians, Yuezhi, those were indo-european for sure.
I've read some theories that even the Kimmerians were turkic, but that (and most of the others) seems too far fetched to me.
Were some of the scythian tribes influenced by non-indo-european people? yes.
Were the scythians turkic? Most certainly no.
My opinion is that they were mostly indo-european. But again, "scythians" is SUCH a broad term, it's impossible to throw them all in one sack.
Which scythians? The greko-scythians living in greek-like cities? The rural scythians living further northeast? The nomad tribes even further east?
That huge area where "scythians" lived was quite the melting pot, none of those tribes was pure blood or something, north-iranians would mix with turkic tribesmen, greeks would be there once in a while...
You have tribes like the Tocharians, Yuezhi, those were indo-european for sure.
I've read some theories that even the Kimmerians were turkic, but that (and most of the others) seems too far fetched to me.
Were some of the scythian tribes influenced by non-indo-european people? yes.
Were the scythians turkic? Most certainly no.
Merlkir
You know, I think nobody here can give you a simple answer. Read a book about them, that might give you a reasonable answer.
We know about their languages from the accounts of ancient writers, some rare scribes and writing and obviously from the remnants in modern languages like in Ossetia.
Also DNA and all that jazz helps, have you read something about the white mummies in China?
We know about their languages from the accounts of ancient writers, some rare scribes and writing and obviously from the remnants in modern languages like in Ossetia.
Also DNA and all that jazz helps, have you read something about the white mummies in China?
Stubb
Veteran
You give me too much credit, stygN-; I did some writing on the use of and development of cavary up until, but not including King Filip II of Macedonia, but I've forgotten a lot of it already.
I'll go back and check my sources and see if I can come up with an answer, but I was more interested in how they used the horse in warfare than whether they were turk or Indo-European.
I'll go back and check my sources and see if I can come up with an answer, but I was more interested in how they used the horse in warfare than whether they were turk or Indo-European.
Bank Robber
Recruit
I think Herodotus wrote about Scythians but I don't remember him offering any explanations on their origins. He says they didn't use stirrups or saddles and their women were excellent fighters too, which gave rise to the myth of Amazons. From what it seems the women were equal with men in all aspects of society.
Sythians were also big fans of cannabis They used it for clothing, and getting cleaned in its smoke and getting stoned of course
I remember reading somewhere how Alexanders army when first encountered the Scythians got really stoned and didn't wanna leave
They were the first to domesticate horses and the first to use them in warfare. They used poisonous arrows and darts from horseback. They drank the horses blood.
Scythians were not turks in any way. They got extinct around 100BC but the Eastern Romans kept referring to the Eurasian mounted barbarians as Scythians, which became a word to describe a eurasian mounted barbarian. Turks are mongolian tribes which came to Europe long after the Scythians were extinct. The true origins of Scythians are unknown from what I know.
Greco Scythians were Scythians that came to Greece. Like the Scythian philosopher Anacharses who came to athens in the 6th century B.C and became very wise and popular.
On another note Indo-European theory is a joke. THere is no such thing as a Indo-European tribe or language. It is just a myth the scientists have devised to explain similarities in language, customs and DNA of European peoples. There is no real scientific evidence to support it. No evidence of a "tribe". No explanation of where they came from and most importantly why did they move or seperate into different tribes. Also if there was really a people which then became different people, how can one explain the huge differences in language, culture and civilization? Why did some of them become really advanced and civilized and some of them devolved into barbarians?
The similarities are there of course and nobody can deny them. But they can be more easily explained with the presence of an ancient, advanced culture which influenced all of these different people, others to a bigger extent others to a smaller.
Sorry for this but I hate it when people take the Indo-European theory as granted when it is nothing more than a hypothesis, and a weak one as such.
Sythians were also big fans of cannabis They used it for clothing, and getting cleaned in its smoke and getting stoned of course
I remember reading somewhere how Alexanders army when first encountered the Scythians got really stoned and didn't wanna leave They were the first to domesticate horses and the first to use them in warfare. They used poisonous arrows and darts from horseback. They drank the horses blood.
Scythians were not turks in any way. They got extinct around 100BC but the Eastern Romans kept referring to the Eurasian mounted barbarians as Scythians, which became a word to describe a eurasian mounted barbarian. Turks are mongolian tribes which came to Europe long after the Scythians were extinct. The true origins of Scythians are unknown from what I know.
Greco Scythians were Scythians that came to Greece. Like the Scythian philosopher Anacharses who came to athens in the 6th century B.C and became very wise and popular.
On another note Indo-European theory is a joke. THere is no such thing as a Indo-European tribe or language. It is just a myth the scientists have devised to explain similarities in language, customs and DNA of European peoples. There is no real scientific evidence to support it. No evidence of a "tribe". No explanation of where they came from and most importantly why did they move or seperate into different tribes. Also if there was really a people which then became different people, how can one explain the huge differences in language, culture and civilization? Why did some of them become really advanced and civilized and some of them devolved into barbarians?
The similarities are there of course and nobody can deny them. But they can be more easily explained with the presence of an ancient, advanced culture which influenced all of these different people, others to a bigger extent others to a smaller.
Sorry for this but I hate it when people take the Indo-European theory as granted when it is nothing more than a hypothesis, and a weak one as such.
there is no real evidence to their origin; we just dont know who they are. so labeling them as "not turks in any way" or "turkic tribes" is wrong.
reading wont really help at this point seeing how there are different wievs on the subject; we just need to find more of their ****.
reading wont really help at this point seeing how there are different wievs on the subject; we just need to find more of their ****.
Merlkir
Cleidophoros said:
Reading WILL help. Since you will KNOW something and not guess or rely on **** people on internet forums tell you. You will know facts and opinions of scientists.
Of course, having more finds would definitely help. Are there any works comparing scythian finds to early turkic? (in english if possible)
Cleidophoros, you're an archeologist, right? Any turkish articles about that maybe?
And yeah, I'm sure Bank Robber is correct with his Atlantis theory or whatever it is he's trying to sell.
reading will not tell you anything more; scythians are of turkic origin. no u! they are iranian tribes. no lol! they are indo-european tribes. archaeologists have no facts right now and all their opinions are presented here.Merlkir said:
ohh and their language is believed to be of iranian origin.
Scythians are not exactly my subject of interest but you can take a look at further reading and external links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians i believe they are up to date.
According to Turkish Historical Society Scythians are of Turkic origin. so any article i can show you in turkish will be based on that.
a few turkish books here;
http://www.netkitap.com/kitap/75147/iskitler.htm
http://www.netkitap.com/kitap/54907/iskitlerin_tarihi.htm
http://www.tumkitaplar.com/kitap/index.pl?kitap=68042 - this one is translated from russia.
there is something on scythians in The Greeks Overseas by Boardman. http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-Overseas-Early-Colonies-Trade/dp/0500281092
but as i said you wont find much info anywhere. of course me not bein an expert on the subject i may not be aware of recent findings. i am a classical archaeologist; my doctorate is on a roman civic basilica.
Merlkir
I have a book or two about them and if nothing else, it will give you an idea of the finds there are, the funeral customs and maybe a comparison to other cultures. It's quite varied too, that's why I said before it's silly even talking about scythians as if they were a single nation.
Yeah, I've read that about the language too.
(please, take a look at the edit)
Yeah, I've read that about the language too.
(please, take a look at the edit)
of course there is the diversity but you can talk about scythians' origins before they all went separate ways. (posted just to get attention so you see teh edit )
)Merlkir
Mhm, I think I have the Grakov book somewhere, haven't read it yet. There is a nice (and short) book by A.P.Smirnov, but it's quite old.
i dont think its a much studied subject. maybe due to the comperatively less findings. or maybe ruskies study the hell out of it but we dont know i am not sure.
anyways back to teh goddamn basilicas!
i am not sure.anyways back to teh goddamn basilicas!
Bank Robber
Recruit
The only reason I said they weren't Turkish tribes is because Scythians were believed to be extinct in the first century BC, while Turks came to Eurasia 700 years after that.
Of course it is possible that Turks were descendants of the Scythians since the name Turk started being used in 6th century A.D.
I was always under the impression that Turks were descendants of Attila's hordes who conquered Eurasia in the 5th century A.D. and who were descendants of Mongolian tribes.
Scythian origins and history are very obscure. They were even obscure back in the 5th century B.C. when Herodotus first wrote about them.
Anyway we know they important things. They smoked weed, were the first horse archers and their women were hawt amazon *****es. A magnificent people to say the least.
About the Indo-European theory I'm not saying its wrong (well maybe I am), but I hate it that people take it for granted because it is just a hypothesis and a very fragile one at best. It goes against not only scientific discoveries but common sense as well.
Of course it is possible that Turks were descendants of the Scythians since the name Turk started being used in 6th century A.D.
I was always under the impression that Turks were descendants of Attila's hordes who conquered Eurasia in the 5th century A.D. and who were descendants of Mongolian tribes.
Scythian origins and history are very obscure. They were even obscure back in the 5th century B.C. when Herodotus first wrote about them.
Anyway we know they important things. They smoked weed, were the first horse archers and their women were hawt amazon *****es. A magnificent people to say the least.
About the Indo-European theory I'm not saying its wrong (well maybe I am), but I hate it that people take it for granted because it is just a hypothesis and a very fragile one at best. It goes against not only scientific discoveries but common sense as well.
Turks and Mongolians come from same ancestors but they are not descendants of each other. Turks inhabited Mongolia for a long time before Mongolians invaded through Manchuria. Turks are classified as "Altaic" yet Pazryk excavations suggest that Altai range had been inhabited by some Europoid people who strongly resembled Celts. So if Turks had in no way any relationship with Europoid peoples of the steppes then it has to be like they entirely wiped those peoples and settled on their lands?
And about Scythian women;
I thought Scythians were very much patriarchal since there is a legend that when Amazons migrated to Scythia they refused to live among weak and obedient Scythian women so they found their own tribes, Sarmatians.
And about Scythian women;
I thought Scythians were very much patriarchal since there is a legend that when Amazons migrated to Scythia they refused to live among weak and obedient Scythian women so they found their own tribes, Sarmatians.
Merlkir
That's probably a misinterpretation by Herodotus or someone like that. There are quite a few warrior/leader- like women graves...
