|
Post by jamyangnorbu on Aug 2, 2010 19:34:27 GMT 3
It is my contention too. Bulgarians are Scytho-Sarmatians. Your contention rests on a couple of highly questionable assumptions. 1) Being a Scytho-Sarmatian, or member of any other culture, is based on genetics. 2) That the genetic makeup of modern Bulgaria is identical to the genetic makeup of Thrace as recorded in ancient Greek sources. #1 is pretty shaky if one considers the importance of language in forming a sense of cultural identity. A modern speaker of the slavic Bulgarian language would not be able to speak to an ancient Scythian (whether one believe their language to be Iranic, or proto-Turkic) in Bulgarian. If people can't communicate with each other through speech, there isn't much chance of a collective sense of culture forming. With that in mind, one needs to explain how the modern population of Bulgaria came to be speakers of a slavic language, instead of an Iranic or proto-Turkic langauge. Which brings us to the second assumption. During the periods between the ancient Greek reports of the Thracians and the present, there were many cultural interactions, and changes of regional power that had an effect on the genetic makeup of the regions. There were the hybrid Thracian-Celts, the Romans, the Greeks, the South Slavs, the Bulgars, the Ottomans, not to mention other steppe tribes. Even if the genetic mix occurred only with small groups of 'warrior elites', it still has had some impact on the makeup of the region.
|
|
|
Post by aynur on Aug 7, 2010 23:03:02 GMT 3
I personally think the Scythians were just another confederation of Asiatic nomads, let it be Iranian-speaking peoples or early Turks. There's not a clear ethnic distinction within the Scythians, we can see death masks featuring both Europoids and Mongoloids or of mixed racial identities in Jenisei River.
The claims that I have come across when it comes to Scythians and Sarmatians like "Hungarians/Bulgarians are ancestors of Scythians/Sarmatians" make no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by scythian on Jan 27, 2012 4:27:19 GMT 3
I thought this was a good article on the subject. s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htmThe article is mistaken on many accounts. It states that Etruscans were non-Indo European. There is zero evidence for this. That theory hasen't been taken seriously since the early 20th century. And even then it was one of those 'The Pyramids were Built by Aliens" ideas. And this is a good video on the subject. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDQgMCmnBNwThey did a DNA test to find out she was a whitey. I think there is a pan-Turkic agenda that wishes to link the Scythians as proto-Turks, and is angry at Russian white oppressors for trying to steal their identity.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Jan 27, 2012 11:17:55 GMT 3
I thought this was a good article on the subject. s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htmThe article is mistaken on many accounts. It states that Etruscans were non-Indo European. There is zero evidence for this. That theory hasen't been taken seriously since the early 20th century. And even then it was one of those 'The Pyramids were Built by Aliens" ideas. And this is a good video on the subject. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDQgMCmnBNwThey did a DNA test to find out she was a whitey. I think there is a pan-Turkic agenda that wishes to link the Scythians as proto-Turks, and is angry at Russian white oppressors for trying to steal their identity. Etruscans are not Indo-Europeans. And their language is definitively non-Indo European and non-Semitic. It's generally accepted that their languages are isolated which is an anomaly. Of course it's unscientific and impossible for a language to be isolated. But since there are no other people speaking a similar language near them, it's assumed like this at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 27, 2012 20:18:58 GMT 3
Isolated just means that the relatives disappeared so it is isolated from any known language families. Nothing unscientific about it.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Feb 5, 2012 19:30:28 GMT 3
To ignore Ancalimon's rambling - the Ice Maiden documentary is very good, I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Feb 20, 2012 3:32:38 GMT 3
I did not elaborate clearly I'm sorry, I'm refering to the use of genetics to define races/ethnics/people/etc. When it comes to politics, genetic studies, as well as historical research has a habit of getting involved with politics. None of which as such are declared facts, it is as 'factual' as any propaganda - as all seem to almost automatically wish to take it all out of context. Reminds me of Churchies in a way, using a piece of the scripture to justify a particular viewpoint. Why do people fund archeology and genetics and stuff like that anyway? Out of charity? Who are funding all of these scientific works and what do they expect in return?
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Mar 17, 2012 6:47:24 GMT 3
With that in mind, one needs to explain how the modern population of Bulgaria came to be speakers of a slavic language, instead of an Iranic or proto-Turkic langauge. Which brings us to the second assumption. Clergy intervention? Creating alphabets and languages for people to speak? Eradicating the people and culture and turn them into a different culture in only three generations? Basically called Christianization ? Keep in mind that The Balkans was the geography which interested the clergy most. It's not a surprise that Balkanlaþma means "a large group of same people dividing into smaller groups because they can no longer get along" I personally think the Scythians were just another confederation of Asiatic nomads, let it be Iranian-speaking peoples or early Turks. There's not a clear ethnic distinction within the Scythians, we can see death masks featuring both Europoids and Mongoloids or of mixed racial identities in Jenisei River. The claims that I have come across when it comes to Scythians and Sarmatians like "Hungarians/Bulgarians are ancestors of Scythians/Sarmatians" make no sense to me. Actually there is something we know about. There were more than one kind of Scythians. The sedentary Scythians were the lower class Scythians and they were farmers. On the other hand there were the warrior Scythians and they were the higher class. In my opinion, there were more Persians than Turks among the Scythians. I guess more and more Persians (and also Chinese) kept migrating to where Turks lived and they settled there. Look at this graph: In my opinion it should roughly tell us about the concentration of Persians among the Scythians. Persians are mostly lactose intolerant. They have problems with eating meat and drinking milk, eating yogurt. I guess as a rule of thumb, sedentary populations are more lactose intolerant than nomadic populations. Their ancestors were mostly collectors and farmers and they did not eat meat and consume milk and its byproducts.
|
|
|
Post by aynur on Mar 17, 2012 17:55:26 GMT 3
Wow, I didn't know lactose intolerance was so widespread in Central Asia. Here in Finland pretty much everyone can drink milk and eat meats of all kind.
I suppose it makes sense that many Persians migrated north and 'became' Scythians, though I don't make that assumption solely based on the lactose intolerance data presented in that map.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Mar 17, 2012 20:06:42 GMT 3
Wow, I didn't know lactose intolerance was so widespread in Central Asia. Here in Finland pretty much everyone can drink milk and eat meats of all kind. I suppose it makes sense that many Persians migrated north and 'became' Scythians, though I don't make that assumption solely based on the lactose intolerance data presented in that map. Of course there are many other sources about Persians migrating North. But this map could be a very nice starting point if we keep in mind that drinking horse milk was one of the cultural traits of Turks. This map also shows us to what extend the Chinese and Persians joined Turks and then assimilated with them. I can even say that we are lucky that Persians and Chinese are lactose intolerant because it helps us better understand the geography.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Mar 17, 2012 21:21:36 GMT 3
ALL neolithic people were lactose intolerant, prooves nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Mar 17, 2012 21:41:14 GMT 3
ALL neolithic people were lactose intolerant, prooves nothing. How can we know this? And isn't there a huge gap between neolithic people and Scythians?
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Mar 17, 2012 22:21:20 GMT 3
Lactose intolerance is the norm rather than the exception. The trait you're looking for is called lactase persistence and it only evolved in humans recently as a result of the invention of animal husbandry, which increased the availability of animal milk as a food source.
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Mar 18, 2012 3:04:11 GMT 3
Wow, I didn't know lactose intolerance was so widespread in Central Asia. Here in Finland pretty much everyone can drink milk and eat meats of all kind. I suppose it makes sense that many Persians migrated north and 'became' Scythians, though I don't make that assumption solely based on the lactose intolerance data presented in that map. Scythians may be Iranian speaking, but they were not Persians. Actually Ammianus Marcellinus wrote the exact opposite - that the Persians have descended from Scythians which is also not quite correct. Still, the Royal Scythians were called Paralatai (by Herodotus) which corresponds to the name of the legendary first dynasty Paradhāta in Avesta (= Pishdād in "Shāhnāmeh"). The original homeland of the Iranians was northern - its astronomic and climatic conditions as described in the Zoroastrian sources correspond to the latitude of 48 degree North (possibly the Trans-Uralian Arkaim culture).
|
|
|
Post by Yazig on Apr 11, 2012 16:55:47 GMT 3
Why do people think that scythians were iranian? We need more proof. They have their own culture. The animal style. Some parts are affected by assyrian and persian culture by it proves nothing. Maybe they came from the middle east but I would link them rather with cimmerians.
|
|