|
Post by Alanus on Apr 27, 2010 23:53:18 GMT 3
There appears to be confusion in the various threads on Early Central Asia as to the exact language used by the Saka. Was it Indo-Iranian (branch of Indo-European) or Turkic? I wasn't aware the question was even contestable. To most scholars, linguists, and reenactors, the Saka language has been a form of Old Iranian or northestern Iranian. What is Saka? First we look at an obvious "international" source: the Encyclopedia Britannica (as opposed to Wiki. : "Middle Iranian language spoken in Xinjiang, in northwestern China, by the Saka tribes. Two dialectal varieties are distinguished. Khotanese, from the kingdom of Khotan... the other dialect, known from only one Buddist fragment, is connected with Tumshuq. The texts are written in Brahmi script..."Now to Janos Harmatta, one of Hungary's best. See History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Chap. 16, Sub-Chap. "The Language of the Southern Sakas," pp. 409-416. Harmatta gives countless Saka examples in Indo-Iranian. (It's through this discourse by Harmatta, that I realized that the Buddha was himself a Saka.) Here is the Russian, Vitalii Fedorov, from Golden Deer of Eurasia, p. 65, "One group of Saka, Iranian-language-speaking nomads..."Now the French point of view from Rene Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia; p. "The regions of Tashkent, Fergana, and Kashgar were inhabited by the people known to the Chinese under the name of Sse (ancient pronunciation, Ssek), to the Persians and Indians as Saka, of Shaka, and to the Greeks as Sakai: or Sakas. They were in fact the 'Scythians of Asia.' The language... is an East Iranian dialect."We turn to Elizabeth Wayland Barber, The Mummies of Urumchi, p. 202, "When written records began in the Tarim Basin in the ealy centuries AD, the whole southern chain of oases was occupied by speakers of Iranian, the most prominent being the Sakas of Khotan..."And now, we hear from J.P. Mallory's veritable "bible," the famed In Search of the Indo-Europeans; "Furtherest to the east lay the bearers of Khotanese Saka, an Iranian language situated in Chinese Turkestan which was employed in religious texts...."These are just a few references-- from sane professors-- to the Saka language as being Indo-Iranian. I could have added a quote from Dr. Davis-Kimball, but since she could be construed as "flying with one wing" I have deleted her. To me, the research and observations seem inconfutable; and we have inscriptions, coins, and religious texts backing it up. The eastern Scythians (Saka) and the Massagetae-Alans (who descended directly from the Saka) spoke Indo-Iranian. If somehow-- through a warp from another dimension-- the Saka were alternately speaking and writing a Turkic language, please feel free to contradict Mallory, Grousset, Fedorov, Barber, Harmatta, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. I would like to know a consensus from members of this forum. I'm new here, and I don't want to make enemies. But if the Saka dialects weigh toward Iranian languges, then perhaps we can continue the Early History of Central Asia threads without constant "questions" that keep arising in so many individual posts. Thank you,
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 28, 2010 0:35:07 GMT 3
It is "presumed" that Sakas spoke an "Iranic language." But how can it be proved in any way, if we don't have any remnants or inscriptions in this language at all, except Issyk-Kul inscription for which there are several possible explanations?
The theory about the Iranic-Sakas is based exclusively on an interpretation of a limited number of names, that can also be perfectly be interpreted based on Slavic, Turkic and even some attempt to use Finno-Ugrian languages.
The "Saka language" you're referring to is attested in Khotan. And the proper name for it would be "Khotanese," it's an Eastern Iranic language close to Sogdian. It's a confusion that it somehow relates to the language of historical nomadic Sakas.
Regarding Ossetian language it has 40% of Turkic, 20% of Iranic and 40% of Caucasian vocabularly and it's agglutinative language like Turkic or Caucasian languages. There are some limited "Iranic" grammar elements in it which are exagerrated to the point of calling it "Iranic." But based on what? It can be called Turkic or Caucasian by the same token!! After all, is there any Indoeuropean agglutinative language? I don't think so. The classification of Ossetian is clearly flawed. And, BTW, the way Ossetians speak and pronounce the words clearly sounds Turkic, nothing even close to Iranic languages...
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 28, 2010 0:50:12 GMT 3
We had tons of these threads already. It's getting a rather suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on Apr 28, 2010 1:36:16 GMT 3
It is "presumed" that Sakas spoke an "Iranic language." But how can it be proved in any way, if we don't have any remnants or inscriptions in this language at all, except Issyk-Kul inscription for which there are several possible explanations? The theory about the Iranic-Sakas is based exclusively on an interpretation of a limited number of names, that can also be perfectly be interpreted based on Slavic, Turkic and even some attempt to use Finno-Ugrian languages. The "Saka language" you're referring to is attested in Khotan. And the proper name for it would be "Khotanese," it's an Eastern Iranic language close to Sogdian. It's a confusion that it somehow relates to the language of historical nomadic Sakas. But we do have more than the Issyk inscription, as you have just mentioned. The Khotanese Saka extended from the same culture that the Issyk Massagetae did. So we have hundreds of examples, not only in Khotanese, but in various Buddhist texts, as pointed out by Harmatta. Archaeologically, we know that the Pazryak culture extended from the Afanasievo and Sintashta cultures, all of which were Indo-European. At Pazryak they were dominent-- 60%-- and this is the same group that moved across the Junngar Pendi to reach Ferghana, Issyk Kul, and down into India (twice!). Why would the dominent, "royal," class of this culture convert to another langugue? It goes against cultural grain. (I have also heard the same argument foisted upon the Goths, who's leadership had Germanic names and spoke a well-attested Germanic language that became the foundation of their Bible.) When we get to the time of Ossettic, it's a totally different story. Here we have three, four I think, different cultures living in the Caucasus over a millenium's worth of time. Yes, you get enmeshed linguistics. But not in earlier Saka-Massagetae-Alanic, where the horse-- "asp"-- was dominent and shows up in so many names. The move from Pazryak to Issyk was only a few centuries, and there were no non-Indo-European speakers along the route other than the Chinese. Everyone in the whole area, from the Tokarians to the Sogdians, spoke IE. No other languages could influence Saka speech. Please, if you would, give me concrete quotes from doctorial-educated professors as I did in the initial post of this thread. Then we could have a legitimate argument.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 28, 2010 5:40:23 GMT 3
But we do have more than the Issyk inscription, as you have just mentioned. What else do we have? We have nothing else that could be attributed to the Nomadic Sakas. The Khotanese Saka extended from the same culture that the Issyk Massagetae did. How did you come to this conclusion? How could they have extended from the same culture? Massagetae were nomades. Khotanese were an elaborate sedentary civilization. What kind of "similarity" you're talking about? So we have hundreds of examples, not only in Khotanese, but in various Buddhist texts, as pointed out by Harmatta. What kind of texts? Where were they found? In the middle of Kazakh steppe? There is just a couple of books in Khotanese language that have no relation to Sakas and Scythians. Archaeologically, we know that the Pazryak culture extended from the Afanasievo and Sintashta cultures, all of which were Indo-European. At Pazryak they were dominent-- 60%-- and this is the same group that moved across the Junngar Pendi to reach Ferghana, Issyk Kul, and down into India (twice!). Why would the dominent, "royal," class of this culture convert to another langugue? It goes against cultural grain. I can't see at all how all of the above presents any proofs that Scythians spoke Iranic language. (I have also heard the same argument foisted upon the Goths, who's leadership had Germanic names and spoke a well-attested Germanic language that became the foundation of their Bible.) I don't know what kind of "arguments" can be there about Goths, their language is well studied. When we get to the time of Ossettic, it's a totally different story. Here we have three, four I think, different cultures living in the Caucasus over a millenium's worth of time. Yes, you get enmeshed linguistics. If it is so, then why can one claim that their language is "Iranic" may be it's Caucaisan or Turkic complicated by some Iranic elements? Some Caucasians believe Ossetians are a product of the mixture of some Iranic speaking soldiers of Tamerlan and the locals... But not in earlier Saka-Massagetae-Alanic, where the horse-- "asp"-- was dominent and shows up in so many names. What Saka-Massagetae-Alanic if we don't have any books or inscriptions in their languages except a group of scientists repeating the same stuff after each other? The move from Pazryak to Issyk was only a few centuries, and there were no non-Indo-European speakers along the route other than the Chinese. Everyone in the whole area, from the Tokarians to the Sogdians, spoke IE. No other languages could influence Saka speech. This is just a theory without much factual support. I could claim the same stuff about Altaic languages without much problem Please, if you would, give me concrete quotes from doctorial-educated professors as I did in the initial post of this thread. Then we could have a legitimate argument. What quotes are you talking about? The quotes you gave are just "ghost citations" where everybody is repeating after everybody but there is no any enough documented evidence of Saka-Scythian being a Iranic language. And I'm not denying the possibility that it could be Iranic, I just don't see any evidence to prove that. We have Greek and Latin languages documented, we have Turkic languages, etc. etc. etc. but we don't have anything like this for Scythian languages even close. On the other hand I don't see any much difference in the description of the religion, customs and outlook of Scythians and Turkic tribes. There are too many similarities and that is suspicious...
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on Apr 28, 2010 10:18:29 GMT 3
What quotes are you talking about? The quotes you gave are just "ghost citations" where everybody is repeating after everybody but there is no any enough documented evidence of Saka-Scythian being a Iranic language. And I'm not denying the possibility that it could be Iranic, I just don't see any evidence to prove that. We have Greek and Latin languages documented, we have Turkic languages, etc. etc. etc. but we don't have anything like this for Scythian languages even close. On the other hand I don't see any much difference in the description of the religion, customs and outlook of Scythians and Turkic tribes. There are too many similarities and that is suspicious... To me, the evidence is in the Khotani scripts and the many names of the Saka and Massagetae, all of which are Iranian. Would we not find at least one anomaly, perhaps a Chinese or Turkic name? But we don't. We must remember that not all the Saka tribes were totally pastoral. We have evidence from Herodotus and Strabo that some of these tribes (or sub-tribes) were sedentary; and so we have the same situation with the Haumavarga Saka who were driven down into India by the Greater Yue-zhi. P'iankov points out that, "It is significant that the first Saka king in India (Maues on coins; Moga in epigraphic evidence) had the same name as the king of the Amyrgian [Haumavarga] Sakas." These are the same people, ie part of a larger Saka culture. P'iankov continues, "Among the living East Iranian languages, Pashto and Munji share a distinctive feature, the shift of ancient Iranian d to l. This is also typical of a dialect, traces of which have been preserved in personal names and toponyms of Indo-Scythia (the region of the lower Indus and Kathiavar), Sakastana, and Arachosia, and which was probably brought there or adopted by Sakas moving into the area from northern India."Mallory, Alexseev, Harmatta, P'iankov, and a host of other linguists are not just repeating someone else's findings. They do their own research with the raw materials. Yes, we can insult them in a blog but we cannot say they are wrong without some kind of factual rebuttal that proves them wrong. I don't see that, but only one man's gut feeling that the Saka language was not Indo-Iranian based on "customs and outlook." In probability, just about every nomadic tribe-- from the Cimmerians to the Mongols--- had similar customs and outlooks. It goes with the territory. But for me to say that I'm a Mongul because (in truth) I wear trousers and boots, shoot a bow, wear armor, and believe in one great god (Tengri), would be really stretching a point. ;D I'm giving citations from trusted academics, but I don't see any citations to counter the point. (I could quote Davis-Kimball, if anyone wants an unsound opinion. ) The ancient scribes, Herodotus, Strabo, Caius Dio, and Ammianus Marcellinus, linked these tribes in a cultural and historical progression, one to the other, from the Saka to the Massagetae to the Alans. Linguists have, for over a century, studied their roots. Archaeologists have linked the progression of their wanderings. We have to trust someone, and it might as well be sane academics with gold-stickered PHDs. I cannot believe that any Scythian or Sarmatian spoke a language other than Indo-Iranian until someone gives me hard evidence that counters the research and deductions that we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Apr 28, 2010 12:38:00 GMT 3
Nice thread, thank you Alanus I would like to find and read this book, as it is the only real convincing-looking work you listed... But on the other hand, I know that Harmatta is too Indo-Europeanist (as can be seen in his efforts to link the Gokturks to IEs), so I will nonetheless approach him with caution. Bad thing with EB is that it doesn't give any citations Not convincing for me Ok, but did all these scholars give examples and citations to support their claims? I don't know others but I got Grousset's book, where he simply doesn't give any citations and proofs. Dismissed, in this case Regarding the Khotanese Saka issue, what are the actual evidences of the thought that the Khotanese were Sakas? I would like to know. And Alanus, actually in another thread I gave a list of Saka vocabulary found in the Susa inscriptions, some of which İlhami Durmuş from the Gazi University in Ankara identified as Old Turkic, but some of his identifications look suspicious, while some of them look more reasonable. I also gave a list of some Turkic scholars I read who discussed this Saka and Sarmatians being Iranic-Turkic issue (though like your list above, some of them, especially those defending the Iranic theory, did not give any citations or detailed explanations). Btw, I remember Mir Fatih Zakiyev from Tatarstan also had some Turkic identifications of Saka names, but I can't find his book right now so I can't help. The whole issue for me is to see all the known Scythian-Saka-Massaget-Sarmatian-Alan vocabularies and their academicly-made identifications.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 28, 2010 19:40:07 GMT 3
I can't find the thread right now... It may benefit Alanus to know that Sarmat was asking the question earlier on another thread about how do we know that the Scythians spoke an Iranic language.
In that thread I discussed somewhat about the influence of an Iranic language on the Finno-Ugric languages with roughly the same dates as Scythian presence, the point being that there wouldn't be such an influence if there wasn't an Iranic-speaking group of some importance in the vicinity.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 28, 2010 20:14:37 GMT 3
According to this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_IranianSIL lists Sogdian, Ossetic, Yaghnobi, Scythian as Northeastern Iranic and Khotanese Saka and Saka (Scytho-Khotanese) as Southeastern Iranic. It isn't immediately clear the reasons behind the classification.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Apr 28, 2010 20:22:14 GMT 3
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eastern-iranian-languages"Within Eastern Iranian one can establish several sub-groups of languages which are particularly closely related to one another, e.g.: Alanic, Sarmatian and Ossetic; Khotanese and Tumshuqese; Sogdian and Yaghnobi; the Shughni group and Yazghulami. However, it does not seem possible to regard the Eastern Iranian group as a whole—even excluding Parachi and Ormuri—as a genetic grouping. Such a conception would imply the existence of an ancestral “proto-Eastern Iranian” intermediate between “common Iranian” and the attested Eastern Iranian languages; but if one reconstructs “proto-Eastern Iranian” in such a way as to account for all the features of the group, it proves to be identical to the “common Iranian” reconstructible as the ancestor of the whole Iranian family. It is therefore more plausible to conceive of Eastern Iranian as a “Sprachbund” or areal grouping of languages. In this case the members of the “Sprachbund” happen to be genetically related, but the special features which mark them out as a group result rather from centuries of contiguity, during which innovations will have spread from one language of the group to another and neighboring languages will have supported each other in the retention of shared features. "
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 28, 2010 21:39:23 GMT 3
I can't find the thread right now... It may benefit Alanus to know that Sarmat was asking the question earlier on another thread about how do we know that the Scythians spoke an Iranic language. In that thread I discussed somewhat about the influence of an Iranic language on the Finno-Ugric languages with roughly the same dates as Scythian presence, the point being that there wouldn't be such an influence if there wasn't an Iranic-speaking group of some importance in the vicinity. Yes, this is the thread. steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=board20&thread=1216&page=1In fact, this is the question I'm very interested in clarifying. I, also, want to point out that I am very conservative in terms of accepting new "alrernative" historical "theories." I didn't doubt the "Iranicness" of Scythins that much at all, until I started to dig deeper in the matter. The fact is that we can't definitely prove that. And regarding the sources, there are many sources, particularly, in Russian that address this disputable question. Here is a quite good artilce. real-alania.narod.ru/alanialand/history/L1/4skif.htmUnfortunately, I don't have time to translate all the stuff from Russian, so I'm using the google translator. translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Freal-alania.narod.ru%2Falanialand%2Fhistory%2FL1%2F4skif.htm&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 2, 2010 23:27:34 GMT 3
linguistic classification is a problem in itself. do we use vocabulary or grammar as basis? Korean and Japanese is altaic by definition of grammar for example. if we even include pronunciation, then Spanish isn't Roman but Germanic (same pronunciation rules as Gothic). then there's Urdu, Hindi grammar but Persian (etc) vocabulary. what needs to be done is to make lingustic classification less one-dimensional but more two or even three-dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 5, 2010 5:59:25 GMT 3
According to this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_IranianSIL lists Sogdian, Ossetic, Yaghnobi, Scythian as Northeastern Iranic and Khotanese Saka and Saka (Scytho-Khotanese) as Southeastern Iranic. It isn't immediately clear the reasons behind the classification. I have always believed that Alanic was very close to Sogdian, and certainly the Alanic clothing was influenced by Sogdiana. But!-- we cannot trust wiki. Just about anyone, even nut cases, can write or modify a wikipedia article to suit their own perspective. (And only the Buddha knows what that might be. ) As Sarmat has stressed, there is a Turkic undercurrent that sweeps through these languages. That's very understandable, appearing as "borrowed words" and personal names. Someone pointed out the influences of Scythian on Finnish, and we can expect the same with Eastern Iranian. It's an old story with adjoining cultures. Look at Aspar the famous Alan-- he had a Gothic concubine and gave his eldest son a Roman name. It would seem that anyone with a little savy could find Turkic words in these various groups (rather than calling them tribes) and then claim "unequivically" that Saka IS a Turking language. My point simply was that the greater majority of extremely respected linguists, then and now, have classified Saka as an Iranian language. It's not that Iranians are influential at the United Nations, or they are taking over Wikipedia, or that they tap-dance better than James Cagney. It's just a scholarly consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 5, 2010 6:09:48 GMT 3
Ihsan, Great news for all us "financially anemic." Janos Harmatta's book (I forgot the title, but it's up above where I can't get back too it) is readable on Google Book Search. You just can't down-load it. Actually he's the editor, but the Khotani chapter quoted was written by him. (When we don't hit the "quote" button and just write a straight post, we don't have the option of a "smily-face" reply. So no faces. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Alanus on May 5, 2010 6:18:17 GMT 3
Oops! Where did that face come from? If anyone was wondering why I disappeared for a couple of days, I was at a reenactment. I portray myself-- Alanus-- a Roxolanus in the Cohors I Pannoniarum, Legio III Cyranaica. I wear ankle boots, chainmail, helmet with a horsehair swag, a crescent-pommel sword, and a "quick-draw" akinakes. Yuh! It gets heavy, but there are worse forms of self-abuse.
|
|