Paul K. Manansala kabalen at MAIL.JPS.NET
Mon May 11 01:53:46 UTC 1998

 Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv at WXS.NL>

> "Paul K. Manansala" <kabalen at MAIL.JPS.NET> wrote:
> >Modern Central Asians come in all types.  Most indigenous Central
> >Asians (non-Russians) like the Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Uighurs and
> >so are Altaic peoples.
> Altaic-speaking, yes.  So are the Turks of Turkey.  So are the Yakut
> of Siberia.

They are also of a different physical type than Iranians.

> >> Inscriptions, manuscripts, a body of literature...
> >
> >Could you give a reference?
> "Compendium linguarum iranicarum", ed. R. Schmitt, Wiesbaden 1989 (E,
> F and G) gives a description of all Iranian lgs.

Interesting, but I'm quite sure I will not find any Scythian
"manuscripts" there.

> >> There is no such thing as a Ural-Altaic family, that's a 19th century
> >> construct that has been utterly disproved.  There may not even be an
> >> Altaic family.
> >
> >There may not be an Indo-European family.
> You wish.

I guess I'm treading on holy ground here. But the fact remains that
IE is nothing but a theory.

> >  Current consensus is that Mongol and Tungusic are
> >> related, and probably further linked to Korean and Japanese.  The
> >> similarities between Turkic and Mongol-Tungus(-Korean-Japanese) are
> >> now thought to be due to areal diffusion.  Turkic is best treated as
> >> an isolate for the time being.
> >
> >Just are simply modifying old "Aryan" racial theories.  Indo-European
> >is all this and that, but we don't know about the rest.
> >
> >What about all these new theories connecting Altaic and Uralic, but
> >under the great white Nostratic/Proto-World banner?
> Yes, Uralic and Altaic (or Uralic, Turkic and Altaic, if one prefers)
> are probably Nostratic languages, along with a few others.  There is
> sufficient evidence for that, I think, although much work still needs
> to be done.

I see. Now that one can give these languages a good "white" origin
all of a sudden they are related again.  First you claim that
Iranians were the original steppe dwellers.  Then you modify that to
include speakers of Caucasian and Yenesei-Ostyak.  Then, you assert
there may not be an Altaic family, and even if there is it is not
related to Uralic. Now, you think all these are related under the
Caucasoid Nostratic banner.

Let me say the idea that early Scythians were mixtures of
Mongoloid and "Europid" people have led to much confusion. Just
A little research on the term "Europid" reveals that it was a term
used in early literature to postulate a herrenvolk movement through
SE Asia and Indonesia into the Pacific.  In most modern literature,
it is referred to as Southern Mongoloid.  However, the whole Tarim
Basin-Siberia-Kennewick line of argument has tried to resurrect the
old dark whitetheory in favor of blond Caucasoids peopling the New
World and gifting the Chinese with horses.

The skeletons associated with Scythian burials are by and large
platyrrhine and prognathous with wide prominent malars and robust
mandibles.  That is, they do not conform to modern Iranian or
European phenotypes and most of the burials are not that old in
relative terms.

I guess we have reached the end of enlightenment in our discussion.
However, I will discuss the matter with anyone who doesn't see the
Scythian/Hsiung-nu likenesses as purely coincidental.

Paul Kekai Manansala

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list