Post by sharrukin on Nov 30, 2006 11:19:15 GMT 3
The horse is utilized mainly to pull a chariot rather than an unstable back of the horse, until basic saddles are invented by the scythians and much better saddles and stirrups are invented by the Hunno-Turkic peoples. (1AD Hun stirrups).
While it is true that the Scythians were among the first accomplished horsemen, riding horses was something already known long before. It was certainly known in Mesopotamia by about 2000 BC in a context which discouraged its practice for nobility as being less dignified than riding a donkey.
The name of the horse, warhorse and charriot in Hungarian are all from northern Messopotamia.
If this is referring back to "Subarian", then this is fallaceous. The horse was not introduced into Mesopotamia until about 2000 BC. By this time, the greater part of northern Mesopotamia was Akkadianized. Unless the comparison is between Hungarian and Old Assyrian, the supposed "match" has nothing to do with linguistic relationships since Old Assyrian was Eastern Semitic and Hungarian is Finno-Ugrian.
Horse riding equipment like saddles, reins, strirrups are from Hunno-Turkic languages. None by way of any Indo European language..
This can't be right either. The saddle was invented almost simultaneously by both the Scythians and the Assyrians, which then spread eastward. The same with the stirrups, although there is some evidence evidence of its invention in India. Since these developed in areas outside of the region of Turkic ethnogenesis, it is rather hazardous to conclude the Turkic origin of the names of the earliest horse-riding equipment.
The Scythians were famous above all because of their horsemanship and great knowledge of raising and riding horses.
No one denies the Scythian accomplishment as horseriders.
This comes from their old homeland as is shown by the documents of Sargon (722-705BC).
Utter fallacy!!! The Scythians are not mentioned until the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) grandson of Sargon. They were mentioned in alliance with the Mannaeans but Esarhaddon defeated their king Ishpakai. Nothing in any Assyrian says that the Scythians originated in Anatolia.
North East of Urmia-lake in Urartu, there was a Sangi-buti land with two cities famous for its horses.
While it is true that the region was famous for training wild colts for horseriding, nothing states that this people were Scythians. Instead, the people were mentioned as coming from Subi, name of the local center and region, and this region was under Urartean sovereignty.
The Chaldi (Urartu) signs from the 8th century BC also talk of the land between the Transcaucasian Kura and Araxes River area and often mentions their horses. From a military expedition they obtained 10,000s of horned cattle and 100, 000 s of sheep, and 100s of horses. /Mescaninov, Leningrad (Chaldi ...?)
The Urarteans never called themselves Chaldi. This was an early name misconceived by the earliest archaeologists of Urartean antiquities who discovered that they were worshippers of the deity known as Haldi. The Urarteans never used that name for themselves, instead they referred to themselves as either the Biainilli or the Nairi.
The region in question where the Urarteans gained such booty was the land of Daiuekhi, Urartu's chief enemy to their north. This land was described in Assyrian sources as another Nairi land. Nothing is said of Scythian occupation of this land.
After this introduction I have used the pioneering work of Gyula Meszaros, into a comparative study of the language of the Scythians. Introducing basic words and their application in recorded Scythian names and titles which remain in many examples. Unfortunately no large textual remains are found today making it difficult to validate all of his comparisons. Even so this is a great lurch forward in a long stalemated study which up to now were utilizing simplistic associations with sound alike names, that could be described in many random ways, but forming no cohesive system.
The problem with such analysis is that one can use just about any language to give these names some meaning, without regard to space and time. In regard to "Scythian" the author at least admits that the Sarmatians (to the east of the Scythians) were Iranic-speaking. The Thracians (to the west of the Scythians) also spoke Indo-European languages. The culture of the Scythians was local in origin and not much different from that of the Sarmatians. Herodotus states that the Scythians and Sarmatians spoke variant forms of the same language. Therefore, a solution to the problem of the Scythian language should be found within a local context which was mainly Iranic.