Conclusion Each presented argument may be infinitely extended to ever smaller incongruent details and traits, the arguments may be disputed, reinterpreted, or skillfully explained away, but the compound picture created by the preponderance of the multi-disciplinary evidence cant be dismissed off-hand. As a theory, the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory has utterly failed, it is unable to explain the past, and is unable to predict the future discoveries, or even to advise on the perspective directions for research. The de-facto rejection of the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory is happening in front of our eyes with publication of studies that penetrate deeper into the substance, bringing up new and newer controversies and conflicts with the scummy Theory. The “consensus” opinion in favor of the Iranian paradigm is not really there, with only the IE linguistic portion of the global science lagging somewhat behind in adjusting to reality, probably because of the embarrassing vested mass of the past IE efforts and publications. Fortunately, re-evaluation or abandoning of the Iranian paradigm promises to be a boon to the major parties involved, that of Russia, China, Iran, and India, even though the last does not carry a burden of colonial and empire-building aspirations anyway; these countries, and a number of others, will be able to recover their history in a more multi-color, richer, and open fashion, giving credit where the credit is due, and immensely enriching the narrative of their brilliant national histories. For the historical period, efforts to negate the eyewitness accounts of the contemporaries over and over again bring nothing but failures. Every effort to negate evidence leads to the opposite, a raise of additional, usually independent, corroborating evidence. The evolutionary contiguities between the archeological and literary Scythians and the Türkic people are unmistakable, while in the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory the descendance consist of few dots bridged by gaping disconnects. The cleanest method to follow the Scytho-Osseto-Iranian Theory is to monitor the operation of the “Lord of the gaps” that mysteriously fills evidentiary gaps with notional assertiuons, otherwise called speculative interpretations. M. Gimbutas artfully reconstructed the IE mythology, religion, and gender relations in the context of the IEs westward kurgan migrations, riding the “Lord of the gaps” to construct the most popular IE creationist story, the so called “mainstream consensus”. The Lord of the gaps did hold its supremacy until the moment of truth, when it encountered the earthly facts: M. Gimbutas confused the eastward movement of the IEs with the much prior westward movement of the Kurgan people, with the two movements separated in time by a whooping millennium and then some. Her conflation let the “Lord of the gaps” loose, but once the gaps are filled with the reproducible mundane evidence, the interpretive arches bridging the gaps collapse in a house of cards fashion. The tell-tale indicators show up at the first glance at the evidentiary references. The staunchest proponents of the Indo-European paradigm stumble into problems as soon as they leave the sphere of airy constructions and descend to the earthly world. To avoid invoking the ubiquitous Eurasian Türkic sea, the sneakiest proponents turn to the ethnology of Mongols and Chingiz-Khan, the others use Türkic ethnological parallels, in clear manifestation of the lack of the IE examples, independently of the trait on hand: be it yurts, kurgans, burial rituals, mounted warriors, horseflesh, kumis, all kinds of artifacts, myths and legends, genealogical lines, etc.; one way or another they all default to the Türkic examples. In case of Mongol and Chingiz-Khan detour, the purity of example is solely terminological, the Proto-Mongol foot hunters Dunhu were associated with the Türkic ethnos ever since they were subjugated by the Hunnic Maodun ca 200 BC; some Türkic tribes from the old were called Mongols after half-a-million Huns submitted to the Syanbi Mongol minority in 93 BC and adopted the Mongolic name Syanbi. They continued their undisturbed daily life under the Syanbi politonym, and largely preserved their distinction until the conquest of the Oirat Mongols in the 15th c. Similarly compromised are the Chingiz-Khan examples, his genealogy ascends to the Tele Uigur dynastic tribe Yaglakar, which became Jalayir in Mongolic, an offshoot of which was the Chingiz-Khans Borjigin line. The Mongolic examples may confuse only uninitiated, ethnologically they do not extend deeper than the 13th c. for the term “Mongol”, and 200 BC for the term “Syanbi”. It remains unknown whether any Iranian-speaking tribes ever took to systematic, Scythian-style horse husbandry nomadism. In the course of millennia, numerous foot hunter societies did that, becoming bona fide horse nomads, but examples of sedentary agriculturists becoming transhumant nomads on a tribal level are known only from the archeological observations, evidenced by the “pots that do not talk”. Any evidence that notable masses of peasant people from agricultural societies abandoned their fields, switched to nomadic animal husbandry, and left any documentary evidence on their linguistic affiliation is yet to come to light. In contrast, there is plenty of opposing evidence, that peoples that neighbored horse nomads decisively did not do that: no ethnically Chinese, Indian, Sogdian, Dravidian, Greek, Slavic, or originally Iranic nomads are known from the Classical or later periods. We have the examples of Dunhu, Magyars, and Tibetans becoming nomadic pastoralists, but the type of their original economy is not positively known. s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/KisamovNScytho-TurkicEn.htm
Posted on: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:09:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015