Why are Scythians depicted as European?

sogdian

>Scythians were nomadic
>Turkics were nomadic
>Scythians were renowned as excellent horsemen
>Turkics were renowned as excellent horsemen
>Scythians drank horse milk
>Turkics drank horse milk
>Scythians spoke a Turkic language
>Turkics speak Turkic

You've answered your own question, Europeans, but you can't deny here his arguement, though the idea that they were all blonde tall nordic men riding short horses is silly, saying that they were all mongoloids is pretty farfetched, the steppes was always the line where the definitions of Caucasian and Mongoloid blur.
But then again, Europeans do push their head in places you wouldn't expect them to pop up, the Mamluks for example.

They were tho. Im sorry your entire being and culture is based on the Iranian Scythians, but it is what it is.

>Scythians were not Iranians. Iranians are subhumans and we should have genocided their subhuman kind (Tajiks Afghans and Persians) a long time ago.
Nice argument.

In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting European traits.[118] In Histories, the 5th-century Greek historian Herodotus describes the Budini of Scythia as red-haired and grey-eyed.[118] In the 5th century BC, Greek physician Hippocrates argued that the Scythians have purron (ruddy) skin.[118][119] In the 3rd century BC, the Greek poet Callimachus described the Arismapes (Arimaspi) of Scythia as fair-haired.[118][120] The 2nd century BC Han Chinese envoy Zhang Qian described the Sai (Scythians) as having yellow (probably meaning hazel or green), and blue eyes.[118] In Natural History, the 1st century AD Roman author Pliny the Elder characterises the Seres, sometimes identified as Iranians (Scythians) or Tocharians, as red-haired and blue-eyed.[118][121] In the late 2nd century AD, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria says that the Scythians are fair-haired.[118][122] The 2nd century Greek philosopher Polemon includes the Scythians among the northern peoples characterised by red hair and blue-grey eyes.[118] In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[118][123] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[124] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[125] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired.[118][126] It is possible that the later physical descriptions by Adamantius and Gregory of Scythians refer to East Germanic tribes, as the latter were frequently referred to as "Scythians" in Roman sources at that time.

>there were no Europoids living in Central Asia
That's factually and historically wrong.

>Scythians spoke a Turkic language
False

You can tell this whole thread is a pathetic bait.

Uzbek are a turkic people originated in the Altai region, ethnolinguistically and culturaly unrelated to the scythians who were replaced by them

Scythians were Indo-Iranian and Uralic.
Sorry Turks, you're latecomers from China.

This

Iranians literally called Sarmatians and Scythians : TUR(K)AN

Uzbek faggots hide even there, in Veeky Forums
Time to leave this site forever

Uzbak akli badi

Pan-turanist appropriation is a mental illness, you're worse than the KANGZ afrocentrists

Who were even the original people of Central Asia? Indo-European nomads appeared later, there was also BMAC but they were also migrants. Was anyone even living there before the appearance of BMAC or steppe pastoralists? Some kind of Central Asian version of WHG?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelteminar_culture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botai_culture

The acid in the soil bleached their hair.

Human Remains: Conservation, Retrieval and Analysis : Proceedings of a Conference Held in Williamsburg, VA, Nov. 7-11th 1999 - Page 120

>These include 1) in life: grooming/ cosmetic effects, dyeing, bleaching and weathering and 2) in death: post-depositional alteration, contamination and curarion history. Sandford & Kissling (1994) in their study on elemental hair concentrations admitted that hair (like bone) might be subject to diagenetic and exogenous chemical changes because of its inherent physiological properties.

Thanks. I wonder if those Botai people were related to Indo-Europeans.

t.nordicist faggot

OP is right scythians were turkics and you niggers need to stop with appropriating every succesful people as worthless snowniggers.

>Do we look white to you?
You unironically would be in America

Scythians spoke/wrote an Indo-European language. Scythians were very likely had Indo-European genes. Indo-Europeans did settle in Uzbekistan and even parts of Western China. East Asians did migrate west, and settle in Western Eurasia. Western Eurasians migrated east, and settled as far east as the Americas, DNA tests have confirmed.
Ergo, most likely, Uzbeks are mutts.

>I'm Uzbek and we see Scythians as our ancestors.
Nothing wrong about that.
>when they were in fact Turkic just like us?
No they weren't, they were Iranic
>Also there were no Europeans in Central Asia so they can't look European.
Well yeah, there were no Europeans there (aside from the Greeks of course, but their impact is negligible). But people like Yaghnobis, Nuristanis, etc are indigenous central Asian populations and they have the exact look you described.

In general what you're missing is that it's not that hard to influence the genetics of small nomad populations via admixture or even largely replace them by driving them to a different place. By contrast it's much harder to change large sedentary agriculturalist populations. Which is obvious once you look at populations in Uzbekistan's cities like Samarqand or Bukhara.

so is the chick in the middle a russian remnant from the soviet era or...

they've been described as having gray eyes, blonde hair and red hair so I guess that has something to do with it

You're a dumb cunt. Turanians are an Iranian people in every single Iranian text, be it the Avesta or Shahnameh. Turks later LARPed and claimed to be Turanians.

Uzbeks are disgusting post-Soviet drug-addicted horse-riding nomadic barbarians who were only recently introduced to written language and sewerage.

>horse-riding nomadic barbarians
This part hardly qualifies as an argument though

Because wh*Tes are subhman wewuzzers with no history

You got tired of making kara bogya threads?

Obvious European tourists - you can't fool us with your tricks, Uzbek scum. Ferghana is Kyrgyz!

Amerimutt tier mongrels. Two people look white, two look like hapas, the others are kebabs.

You must be a self hating amerimutt yourself with a post like this.
Or you being a total brainlet is also possible.

t. mutt

What?

Scythians were an eastern iranic group. Uzbeks are a mix of turkics and iranics.

Scythians were BLACK

>These include 1) in life: grooming/ cosmetic effects, dyeing, bleaching and weathering and 2) in death: post-depositional alteration, contamination and curarion history. Sandford & Kissling (1994) in their study on elemental hair concentrations admitted that hair (like bone) might be subject to diagenetic and exogenous chemical changes because of its inherent physiological properties.

The depths to which academia will lie to tear down Western Civilization...

Herodotus and others described the Scythians as flaxen or red haired with fair skin and blue or grey eyes. Those in the east (Sarmatia at the time) were specifically referred to as having bright red hair. He also said they migrated along the Danube and there were already satellite groups of Scythians in central Europe by the 5th century BC.

One of those mummies you guys are discussing was wearing tartan leggings. Archeologists say that some of them did in fact have blond hair. (They know what mummies are; grow up.)

R1a and R1b haplotypes in general migrated from the Eurasian steppes into Europe. This probably represents the beginning of Hallstatt culture. This is not controversial. Later migrations are disproportionately represented in Iberia and northern British Isles. This is also not controversial.

Celts in general had chariots seemingly 'ahead of their time.' The Irish have, since their prehistory, claimed that the Scottish were of Scythian origins. The Picts were nomads with a clear affinity for horses (like the Scythians) who avoided Roman invasion in *exactly* the same manner the Scythians defeated Darius.

At this point, for anyone who cares about objective, factual, DNA evidence, it is an utter fucking banality to observe that Europeans migrated from this region.

Post-structuralism is cancer.

>to observe that Europeans migrated from this region.
>Europeans
They weren't similar to modern day Europeans if that's what you're thinking.

>Herodotus and others described the Scythians as flaxen or red haired with fair skin and blue or grey eyes. Those in the east (Sarmatia at the time) were specifically referred to as having bright red hair
Yeah because they're an Iranic group

> They weren't similar to modern day Europeans if that's what you're thinking.

So there's this thing called DNA...

>So there's this thing called DNA..
I'm not saying they're not but considering the Aryan identity of the IE went to Iranians plus DNA, they would have greater claim to the Scythian's.

That's fine. The point is that everyone acting like it's racist pseudo-history to draw the connection can feel free to adopt an epistemology that isn't wilfully retarded.

Scythians/Sarmatians were Iranic

All centrAl Asians descend from Scythians, but being Turkic you are a Mongol mutt rapebaby

Only tajiks are pure

tajiks are basically just Sunni Persians, nothing Scythian about them.

speaking Persian doesn't make them Persian, they're ethnically central Asian Iranians, whereas Persians are west Asian

Proof?

I'm phoneposting, but look up any PCA and autosomal research, Iranians are near turks, Georgians and Armenians, whereas tajiks are future east

Them speaking Persian us just a result of persianisation, the tajik are sadly a stateless people, they form big minorities in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan but they adopted the locals custom/culture

>tajiks are pure
kek
a lot of tajiks in tajikistan are mixed with turkics

tajiks in afghanistan are the same as pashtuns in terms of genetic ancestry (i.e. a tajik from panjshir will be more similar to a pashtun from neighboring provinces, both will be different from a tajik from herat or balkh in terms of ancestry)

literally 50-60% of tajiks from tajikistan would be mistaken as hazaras in afghanistan

t. from afghanistan

>speaking Persian doesn't make them Persian
also, by this logic, 99% of farsi speaking iranians aren't persian since they don't descent from the pars tribe

Which was the most powerful Central Asian civilization? Uzbeks? Kazakhs? Timurids?

But they are in the Persian heartland

>Iranians are near turks, Georgians and Armenians
That's literally just because Iran absorbed a fuckload of Azeris who first got persified and then turkified (in Azerbaijan). Modern Tajiks are unironically more "Persian" than modern Iranians.

Yes.

Timur was an uzbeck so uzbeks and timurids are basically the same.

There isn't much needed to bring down western civilization when the west cant be arsed to raise the next generation of westerners.

>we wuz everything

Scythians were proto-Slavs

>I'm Uzbek and we see Scythians as our ancestors.

Scythians are iranian
proto-slavs are primitive forest-niggers

They don't look dissimilar to the people in OP's pic

WE
WE

WE

Slavs never lived in forests you dumb sandnigger.

> I'm Uzbek

So you are a part of the tribes who migrated there and displaced the Scythians, who were IndoEuropean.

You retard.

It is though you fucking retards timur was an uzbek.

He was a Mongol you gigantic retard.
>inb4 we wuz mongols too

I'm a little confused why we're all so eager to claim ancestry from a nation of illiterate, blood-thirsty nomads who would wear human skin?

You are Turkic not Iranic, you have largely no connection to any Indo-Iranian people genetically, especially those from Antiquity. So no, you do not get to lay claims on Scythian ancestry here.

There is far more Turkic admixture in the average Afghan then there is remotely in the average Tajik.

Might want to check out what the jews did the the greeks and romans in their revolts and why is that people still worship them.

PCA and autosomal research shows Iranians not remotely plotting nearest anyone but Caucasus peoples, Azeris only plot close because they are Iranians who were Turkified. Tajiks are not remotely "more Persian" than modern Iranians because they have a higher genetic impact from Turkics admixing in Central Asia due to the migrations of Turkic peoples into those areas for centuries following the collapse of the Sassanid Empire.

>tajiks are a sadly a stateless people
Except for the country of Tajikistan, you silly fuck. Are you conflating the Tajiks with the Kurds for some odd reason?
No. Iranians have never historically in the past nor today ever plotted particularly close to Turkics, much less even other Near Eastern Semitic peoples. They share mutual history and genetic kinship with Caucasus peoples like the Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, and others due to similar backgrounds stemming from the same early mixing between PIE peoples and sedentary farming pastorals in the Caucasus and Western Asia.

>Azeris
Iranian Azeris still also are genetically closer to ethnic Iranians like Persians, Gilaks, and so on because their language was Turkified by the Ottomans and Seljuks before them. They were always Iranian prior, like living in the same area that was Media/Atropatene millenia before the Turks were ever in the Near East.

that was the Caucasian Albanians

Because some people are not civilicucks who are too sissified to love barbarity.

I said Azeris were culturally persified then turkified you baboon, I never claimed they were Turks.

All turks are the children of Iranian, Chinese, Russian women being gang raped by mongoloid soldiers. Uzbekistan is a nation of elliot rodger looking hapas.

Nope. Tajiks in afghanistan look caucasian.

Tajiks in tajikistan look like uzbeks on average.

Scythians were Aryans (not the meme definition of Aryan) you have no relation to them.

The steppes are so vast and with so little population that it is extremely easy to displace original populations. You are turks.

So basically Scythians were in appearance European or Russian and not at all like Iranians

>Russian
What

no, they were similar in appearance to nuristanis/kalash/pamiri people

Look up Tatars. Russians lived for centuries under t*rk slavery.

Nope. Not at all. Those people are too mixed with Pakistanis. It's like Spanish and Mexicans.

>we wuz Tatars
>we wuz Mongols
>we wuz Timur
>we wuz Scythian
Is there something Uzkeks won't claim to be? You lived under Russian yoke, never the other way around.

>we wuz azeri

(F)ersian I....

>PCA and autosomal research shows Iranians not remotely plotting nearest anyone but Caucasus peoples

between Arabs and Indians*

What did they do?

Well they do now, not so much 2000 years ago.

It's a shit meme, you should cease being a faggot for reactions sake.

Minorities will always be mad about this fact.

>minorities
Ameriorc detected