Библейската генеалогия и география в карти

[Aspandiat]

The Peoples List

Hamitic Peoples

Patriarchs/Peoples

KUSH: The Kushitic peoples are the main Hamitic group. Their original land was the Lower Mesopotamia, where they settled the first civilization: the Sumerian. One of their cities was Kysh, after Kush's name. That geographic area was still called "Kush" even for a long time after Kushites were no longer there, and today the region in the East of the Tigris is called "Khuzistan". Kushites then settled in the South of Egypt and founded the nation of Ethiopia.

MITZRAYIM: Egypt. Mitzrayim is a plural name, meaning the "Two Egypts", but means also "The Embanker of the Sea", as this patriarch is identified with Menesh, the founder of the Egyptian nation and embanker of the Nile Delta. Ancient Egyptians called their land "Khemet", meaning "The Land of Cham", who was Mitzrayim's father and Noach's son.

PUT: Ancient Libic peoples, forefathers of all North-Africans.

KANA'AN: Kanaanites were the first inhabitants of present-day Israel, Lebanon and Western Syria. They are known in history as "Phoenicians", the name given them by Greeks, but they called themselves "Kan'ana". The term Kanaanites, however, is applied to a group of peoples settled in that area, but specifically to Phoenicians. Those Kanaanites who inhabited the land that now is Israel were extinct as an ethnic identity, because they intermarried with Hebrews and became Israelites. Their descendants are Jews now.

SEVA: An Ethiopic people whose ancient name was "Habasat" - therefore, "Abyssinia" - they inhabited the African coast of Southern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

HAVILAH: It is difficult to identify this Havilah, though it seems to refer to the area between Elam and Shinar, called also "Kush", or else the Eastern coast of Arabia, by the Persian Gulf.

SAVTAH: Sabatan, a pre-Semitic people of Yemen, settled in the area of Shabwah, that became the capital of Hadhramawt. This people was assimilated by Semitic folks.

RA'AMAH: The pre-Semitic "Himayar", in the South of Yemen, term that was adopted by Sabean "Himyarites", whose kingdom was also called "Dhu-Raydan".

SAVTEKAH: The pre-Semitic "Qataban", in the East of Yemen. Qataban was taken as official name by Sabeans that settled there and founded their own kingdom.

SHEVA (of Ra'amah): The pre-Semitic Sabeans. They were totally assimilated by Sabeans and are undistinguishable from them in Yemenite history, as the pre-Semitic period has left rare traces.

DEDAN: The pre-Semitic Mineans, also known as "Dedanites". Like all Hamitic peoples of ancient Arabia, they were completely assimilated by the Semitic people after them.

NIMROD: The founder of the Sumerian nation and the first settlements in Mesopotamia. He extended his colonies to the North. He founded Babel at Barsippa (word that means "Tower of the Languages"); then the city was re-founded by Semites in a place nearby in the South. The Sumerians are the original Chaldeans.

LUDIM, ANAMIM, LEHAVIM: Egyptian tribes.

NAFTUCHIM: Egyptian tribe settled in the area of Nof, the city of Memfis.

PATHRUSIM: Egyptian tribe settled in Pathros, name of the Upper Egypt.

KASLUCHIM: The "Peoples of the Sea", that were originally settled in the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and in the islands, mainly in the area between the South of Kana'an and the Nile Delta. These peoples were the following: Tzekelesh, Shardana, Pelesati, Akhaiusha, Danauna, Tzakara, Masa or Meshwesh, Lukki, Dardana, Tursha, Keshesh or Karkisha, Labu and Irven. Some of them are easily recognizable:

Tzekelesh: settled in the area of Tziklag in Southern Kana'an, allied with Cretans and Philistines, emigrated in Eastern Sicily and gave the present name to that island: Tzekelya.

Shardana: it seems that their origin was in the area of Sardis, in Anatolia, but in early times they settled in Kana'an, to emigrate and remain definitively in Sardinia, to which they gave the name. Their particular buildings (nuraghe) are found only in Kana'an besides Sardinia; and the ancient altars in that island are still called with the Kanaanite term "tophet".

Pelesati: the original Philistines of the times of Avraham, that subsequently mixed with Cretans and the Anakim.

KAFTORIM: The ancient Cretans of the Minoic civilization. The island of Crete was called "Keftiu" by Egyptians. Their magnificent civilization disappeared suddenly and most of them settled in Gaza, city whose original name was "Minoa". They became one people with Philistines, and they are often mentioned together as "Keretim and Peletim".

HETH: The Hittites. Their original stock was lost after mixing with Indo-European tribes. In fact, the ancient Hatti seem to be quite different from what the more popular Hittites were. They inhabited in Kana'an and had close relationships with Hebrews, but the largest group emigrated to Anatolia and became completely different; they founded a powerful empire whose capital was Hattusas.

Semitic Peoples

Patriarchs/Peoples

EYLAM: The Elamites are still considered a people of difficult classification, yet the original stock is likely to have been close to Chaldeans, but after settling beyond the Hidekel (Tigris) they mixed with other peoples (Kushites), to become the historic Elamites - from whom also Persians originated.

ASHUR: The main Assyrian tribe, after which the whole nation is called. They were the leading Semitic people, whose civilization determined the whole Semitic culture and heritage.

ARPAKHSHAD: Akkadians; Assyrian tribe whose capital was the city of Akkad. They settled in Mesopotamia and overcame Sumerians, then joined Ashur contributing to the final identity of the Assyrian nation. Apparently, their original homeland was Arrapkha, in Assyria (land that was later hold by the Hurrians, and annexed to Assyria after the fall of Mitanni). Their Southern branch was also known as Chaldeans after they replaced the Sumerians. Avraham was an Akkadian resident in a formerly Sumerian city: Ur 'of the Chaldeans'.

LUD: An Aramean tribe often erroneously identified with Lydians, who were not Semitic. Lud is to be identified with Lihyanites, a people of Northern Arabia that mixed with Minean tribes.

ARAM: The Arameans, later identified as Syrians. The term "Aramean" in ancient times was equal to "Semite" in our days, as all Semitic peoples were generally called "Aramean peoples". Assyrian language is widely known as Aramaic, and Mesopotamia - that was Assyrians' land - is called "Aram-Nahrayim" in Hebrew (Aram of the Rivers). Aramaic was the international language and was official even in the Persian Empire instead of Persian language. All Semitic languages derive from Aramaic, of which Hebrew was originally a dialect.

UTZ, HUL, GETER, MASH: Aramean tribes between Southern Syria and Northern Arabia.

YOQTAN: "Qahtan", patriarch of the tribes of Southern Arabia that overcame all Hamitic peoples previously settled in the same area and totally assimilated them. Qahtan may also be identified with Qataban, though all Qahtanites are generally called "Sabeans". According to Arabs, Qahtan (Southern peoples) and Adnan (Northern peoples) were the founders of their nation. Qahtan is also listed as the first king of Himayar.

ALMODAD: One of the "Southern Arabian" tribes.

SHELEF: The B'ney Sulaf, in Yemen.

HATZARMAVET: Hadhramawt, a Sabean nation settled in the territory of Savtah, whose capital city was Shabwah. "Hatzar-mavet" means "Court of Death".

YERACH: One of the "Southern Arabian" tribes, near the area of present-day Oman.

HADORAM: One of the Sabean tribes.

UZAL Awsan, a Sabean nation in the South of Yemen, is also the ancient name of San'a.

DIQLAH: One of the Minean tribes. It was suggested that their original land was by the river Tigris because this river's name is Diklat in Akkadian and Idiklat in Assyrian, but it is unlikely that this tribe was so far away from all other Yoqtanites.

OVAL: One of the "Yemenite" tribes, by the southernmost shore of the Red Sea.

AVIMA'EL One of the "Southern Arabian" tribes, near the area of present-day Oman.

SHEVA: The Sabeans, who founded the most important civilization in Yemen and dominated all Southern Arabia, so that all peoples of that area were generally known as "Sabeans". They settled in the same territory where pre-Semitic Sabeans were and completely assimilated them, as well as Himayar, that became a Sabean kingdom. Sheva exerted hegemony over the whole Arabian Peninsula in ancient times.

OFIR: This land has been of difficult identification, and was thought to be the Punt (the Horn of Africa); yet, it is more likely the South of India, that had intense trade with Sheva and Israel in Shlomoh's times.

HAVILAH: The Semitic Havilah is to be identified with the land known as "Khawlan", in Yemen. Havilah is often mentioned together with Sheva.

YOVAV: One of the Minean tribes. Akkadians called them Yabibi, while in Sabean inscriptions they are mentioned as Yuhaibab.

ZIMRAM: One of the tribes close to the Midyanites.

YOQSHAN The main tribe of the land known as "Khayappa" by Assyrians, in close relationship with Midyanites, Yishmaelites and Sabeans. Their territory was within the Red Sea and Mesopotamia, in Northern Arabia.

MEDAN: One of the tribes close to the Midyanites.

MIDYAN: The Midyanites' original land was Sinai, by the Eastern coast of the Gulf of Eylat, and the North-Eastern coast of the Red Sea, from where they extended their territory and influence in a vast area up to Southern Syria. They assimilated other tribes and mixed also with Yishmaelites, so that both terms became equally applied to any Northern Arabian tribe.

YISHBAK: One of the tribes close to the Midyanites.

SHUWAH: One of the tribes close to the Midyanites, whose territory was near Edom.

SHEVA: This Sheva is a Lihyanite tribe in Northwest Arabia, closer to Midyanites and mixed with them.

DEDAN: A Lihyanite tribe. One of their capitals was Al-'Ulah, in Northwest Arabia.

ASHURIM, LETUSHIM, LE'UMMIM: The Ashurim (not to be confused with the Assyrians) were described as "travelling merchants"; the Letushim were those who "sharpened weapons"; and the Le'ummim were somewhat enigmatically described as "chiefs of those who inhabit the isles", the significance of which phrase is now lost to us. From this information, it would appear that they were very similar to the Qeynites who inhabited within Midyanites and Israelites, and are identifiable with tribes of Gypsies (Gypsies are still known as "Ashura" by Indians).

EFAH: One of the main five Midyanite tribes, reported by Assyrian inscriptions as "Hayappa", in the Northern Arabian desert.

EFER: One of the main five Midyanite tribes, reported by Assyrian inscriptions as "Apparu", settled near Yatrib (Medinah).

HANUK: One of the main five Midyanite tribes, in the Sinai area.

ABIDA: One of the main five Midyanite tribes, reported by Minean inscriptions as "Abiyadi".

ELDA'AH: One of the main five Midyanite tribes, reported by Minean inscriptions as "Yada'il".

YISHMAEL: The Yishmaelites are the people identified with the early Arabs, who inhabited all the Northern Arabia and subsequently also most of Syria. They gradually assimilated all peoples settled in those territories, who acquired the generic denomination of "Arabs". Yishmaelites were twelve tribes in origin: Nevayot, Qedar, Adbe'el, Mivsam, Mishmah, Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Teyma, Yetur, Naphish, and Qedmah; most of them gave the name to towns in the North of Arabia and were mentioned by Assyrian records as part of Khayappa (together with some Midyanite tribes). Two of them had a more important role: Nevayot and Qedar.

NEVAYOT: The Nabateans, who founded the first "Arab" civilization, originally in the Northwest of Arabia. Then they conquered Edom and settled their capital at Yoqte'el (Petra), and Syria, being Tadmor (Palmyra) their capital.

QEDAR: Qedar was the Arabian tribe closer to Babylon, then mixed with Nabateans.

YISRAEL: The ancient Hebrews, an Akkadian people that settled in Kana'an and assimilated some Kanaanite groups. They adopted the national name of ISRAELITES, were divided in 13 tribes. They are actually the oldest existing people that has ever owned the land of Kanaan and the only one that has right to claim its total possession, as well as the only people that has ever had a State whose capital has been Yerushalaym (Jerusalem). In early times the Israelites settled colonies in the lands of Sheva and Ofir. Subsequently, as consequence of deportations and exile, they are present in almost every country.

EDOM: The Edomites, a people of mixed Hebrew and Kanaanite background, settled in the desert area around the mount Se'ir, overcoming the Hurritic inhabitants of that land. Their culture was influenced by neighbouring Midyanites and Ishmaelites, that finally assimilated them, and Edomites (or Idumeans) have disappeared as ethnic entity.

MO'AV and AMMON: Moabites and Ammonites were a mixed people of Akkadian, Amorite and probably Hurritic background that settled in the East of the Dead Sea (Moabites) and the Yarden (Ammonites). As well as the Edomites, they were assimilated by the Nabateans and disappeared from history; nevertheless, the ancient Ammonite capital, Rabbah, still keeps the people's name: Amman.

Yaphetic Peoples

Patriarchs/Peoples

GOMER: The ancient Cimmerians, to whom Assyrian chronicles refer as "Gimirrai", a barbaric people that was wandering between the Caspian Sea and Anatolia. They invaded Lydia and in Roman times that land was still called Galatia after them. Cimmerians had to emigrate towards Western Europe, where they finally settled and became known in history as the Celtic peoples, or Gallic for Romans. Their ethnic name, Cymru, is present in many toponyms in different countries, as Cymru (Wales), Umbria, Northumbria, Cumberland, etc; while their Roman name is present in others like Galica, Galicia, Britain, etc.

MAGOG: The peoples originated in Magog were widely diversified, yet in ancient times they were known as Scythians. They have been often associated with Cimmerians and shared with them the lands between Anatolia and the Southern shore of the Caspian Sea. After Assyrian and Persian pressure, they emigrated towards the steppes of Central Asia.

MADAI: The ancient Medes, who founded an empire in association with Persians. They originated probably most of the Iranic peoples.

YAVAN: The Ionians, one of the main Greek peoples.

TUVAL: Inhabitants of Anatolia in ancient times, were known as "Tybareni". They emigrated to the West and the Tyrrhenian Sea was given such name after them. They may be related to the Etruscans.

MESHEKH: Reported as Moshkhi by Assyrians, they are identified with the Massageti or Meshkhetians, that inhabited within Togarmah's territories. Their land was also known as "Iberia" (today is Georgia, in the Caucasus), whose capital was Mtskhet, and they were also called "Abaski". In fact, some hordes of Meshkhetians emigrated to the West and settled by the Pyrenees; since then, that land is known as Iberia, too, while their descendants are still called Basks (whose national name is Euskadi). Those remaining in the Caucasus area were also known as Alanians or Ossetians.

Any idea of relating them to Moscow is simply ridiculous, as there is not any single hint that may link Meshekh with Moscow or Meshkhetians with Russians, who are a completely different people. There is not even any similarity between both words: In Hebrew Meshekh is written "M-SH-KH" [MEM-SHIN-KAF], while Moscow is written "M-S-Q-V-H" [MEM-SAMEKH-QUF-VAV(or BET)-HE]. This fact is enough to discard any further speculation.

TIRAS: The Thracians, who inhabited in the Southeast of the Balkans. This was a generic designation for a complex of peoples that originally dwelled in the Southern Balkans and around the Marmara Sea, among whom the Germanic peoples (Goths, Franks, Saxons, Angles, etc.), that moved to Middle and Western Europe after the Trojan War.

ASHKENAZ: The ancient Scandinavians were originally in the Kavkaz, from where they emigrated mainly to the Nordic lands, but also some group known as "Sikani" settled in the Western half of Sicily. The name of Ashkenaz is still present in some toponyms like Skåne (Southern Sweden) and Skandinavia. Centuries later, they conquered and colonized many areas of Europe and overseas and were known as Normanns or Vikings. Finnic inhabitants of Eastern Europe called them "Ruotsi", from where the name Ross and Russia come.

RIPHAT: The Slavic peoples, whose original land was the basin of the Pripyat and the Karpathian mountains, from where they expanded throughout all Eastern Europe.

TOGARMAH: The land known by Assyrians as "Tilgarimmu" was the territory around Mount Ararat (Urartu), identified with ancient Armenia. Thargamos is also considered by Georgians as the founder of their nation. It seems that both peoples, Armenians and Georgians, have this common progenitor. Armenians' nation is called Hayastan after Haik, son of Togarmah, while Georgians' is called Sakart'velo after Karthlos, son of Togarmah.

ELISHAH: The Aeolians, a Greek people from whom Ellas, the national name of Greece, comes. In Egyptian inscriptions they are referred to as Alashia, and Hittites called them Alasiya. This name was also applied to Cyprus. Elisha is present also in the name of the Greeks' paradise, Elysean Fields.

TARSHISH: The Tartessian people, that inhabited Southern Spain in ancient times. There is still a town called Tarsis in Andalusia. Phoenicians had an intense trade with them, so that a special kind of vessels they built for sailing long distances were called "ships of Tarshish". Tartessians disappeared from history after mixing with Phoenicians, Celtic and Iberian peoples.

KITTIM: Kittim are the Italic peoples, settled in "Magna Grecia" -Southern Italy- and from whom Romans descended as result of intermarriage with Aetruscans.

DODANIM: The ancient Dardanians, people of the Northwest Anatolia to whom the city of Troy belonged. Their name is still present in the Strait of Dardanelles that divides Europe from Asia. Part of the Trojans joined Celtic groups that settled in Britain.

Ancient Eurasian Peoples

The term "Eurasian" is indeed a vague classification, yet it is in a certain way more appropriate than other historic definitions that are as much or perhaps more vague than this. Such is the case of various peoples that Greek historians after Herodotus gathered under the common denomination of "Scythians", even though such definition included peoples of different origins and not completely related to each other if not by sharing the same geographic area for centuries and having eventually been either allies or antagonists at different stages in history. In later times and even now, most of them are classified as "Turkic", without adding any accuracy to the classification patterns given by former historians. Let us take as an example the Hungarians: in fact, while today anthropologists would hardly consider them to be a "Turk" people, most historians do not hesitate to place the ancient Hungarians among the Turkic groups, and before the Turks appeared in history, they were simply among the Scythians. In the same way, today it would be in appearance more reasonable to consider Hungarians closer to Scottish (being both peoples fully "European") rather than to Kazakhs or Uyghurs. Back in the dawn of history, both Scots and the ancestors of Hungarians were indeed together, among those peoples commonly called "Scythians" - but the Scots have never been Turks! - how can this be possible? Of course, not all Scythians became Turks, but it is also feasible that peoples like Hungarians have never been Turks at all, and perhaps not Scythians either, and that have been erroneously included in these groups in the absence of any more accurate definition.

Therefore, with the term "Eurasian" we intend to make reference to those peoples, mainly Japhetic, that in ancient times dwelled in the area of Mesopotamia and neighbouring regions, then extended towards Anatolia, Caucasus and Central Asia, furtherly expanded towards India, China, Siberia and maybe beyond, and that in various migration waves reached Europe and settled in the regions between the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean. So, they were "Asians" in their early history to become "Europeans" later.

As we have already considered in the previous chapters, these peoples that are often confused with each other or even erroneously identified were originated in different Japhetic branches with the contribution of some Kushitic elements, sharing a common territory in Mesopotamia but displaced by the Semitic civilizations that compelled them to move eastwards. We take as a starting point in a concise way what has been said regarding the original background of some of these peoples:

·From Sumerians (Emegir) and Hurrian-Mitanni (Subartu/Magor) evolved the Hun-related tribes – Magyar, Sabir, Uyghur, Khazar, Székely, etc.

·From Meshekh emerged the Massageta-Alan groups, that under Medo-Persian and Ashkenazic influences constituted the background for the Sarmatian ethnogenesis.

·The Scythians have a partially common origin with the first group as descendants of Magog, but instead of receiving a Sumerian-Hurrian cultural contribution, they evolved under Iranic influence and became closer to the second group.

Other features were acquired after centuries of sharing the same territory and so, having adapted themselves to the same conditions, their life styles became more uniform and consequently more difficult for outsiders to distinguish between the different groups. Therefore, that is why for the ancient Greeks all the peoples of the steppes beyond the Persian Empire were "Scythians", and later the same peoples for Arabs and Europeans were "Turks" - while some centuries before, many of the Europeans themselves would have been regarded as Scythians since they were outside the Greek-Roman realm. Once those Asian peoples settled and intermarried with Celtic, Germanic and other European groups, they were no longer "Scythians", while those that were still in Asia became "Turks". Such is the precision with which their ethnicity has been established!

Notwithstanding, an accurate research is extremely difficult, since the territories where such peoples dwelled were a melting pot of many tribes and sub-tribes always on the move. In spite of the fact that those were not reduced areas but boundless lands plenty of room for many peoples, they have been always contending for supremacy, making and breaking alliances, assimilating tribes from a different background or borrowing tribal names from unrelated groups, wandering or migrating westwards, then back to the east, then again towards the west, and so on. These peoples had no written records, which makes it even harder to reconstruct their history and original differences between the various tribes, and we must rely on external sources that cannot be always considered impartial.

An outline of their history route begins in Mesopotamia and the Ararat region, from where in successive migrations the Central Asian area became their "homeland", that is where these peoples were when acquired some relevance for historians, and from where they started their massive expansion towards every direction: the Far East, India and Europe, generating new ethnic entities that are at present the peoples populating most of Eurasia.

Scythians

It is not easy to define who the true Scythians really were, since such term has been used with reference to different peoples sharing outwardly similar characteristics. The word Scythian comes from the Greek skythai, while their Persian name was "saka". Therefore, we may assume that Scythians and Saka are the same people and that both terms may be used as synonymous. In order to make this topic easier to understand, here we would call "Saka" the eastern branch -concerning mainly their relationship with Persia and India-, and "Scythians" the western branch, in connection with Europe. It is often ascribed the same identity to the "Askuza" of the Assyrian chronicles, which is not correct; the Askuza were a different people, recruited by the Assyrians to guard the frontiers of their empire and keep it off-limits for Scythians and any other eventual plunderer. It is also wrong to ascribe to Scythians any participation in the fall of Nineveh: The Assyrian Empire was overthrown by the alliance of the Southern Assyrian emerging power, namely Babylon, with the Medes and probably also the early Magyars. Scythians had nothing to do with such facts.

As it has been already said, the Scythians shared their lands with other peoples and are often confused with them, even by historians. Such happened since the very beginning of their history, so that it is important to define who were the "real" Scythians and to distinguish them from other groups. They belong to the descent of Magog, of Japhetic stock, and their original homeland was Northern Mesopotamia, namely the country of Magor/Matiene/Subartu, the Biblical Charan. In their early history they should have been deeply influenced by the Hittites, and presumably they spoke a Hattic language – not Iranic, as it is generally thought. Their ability in manufacturing metals undoubtedly belongs to the earlier phase of their history, very likely learnt from Hittites. Some Scythian tribes (or presumably Scythian in origin) were particularly skilled in iron working, a characteristic of Anatolian peoples. Also the alleged "Scythian-Phoenician connection" may be explained by the fact that Hittites were associated with Canaanite tribes and Scythians may have inherited their artistic style. It is in a later period that, having been displaced towards the steppes by the Middle Eastern civilizations, they were exposed to Iranian-related cultures and strongly influenced by the Medes. Some scholars support the hypothesis that Scythians and Phoenicians were ethnically related founding their theories on the art style developed by both peoples, but many other relevant cultural aspects show evidence of the deep differences between them, for example: Phoenicians excelled in architecture, whereas not any Scythian building has been found; Phoenicians are credited for the invention of modern alphabet, while Scythians did not know writing; Phoenicians were outstanding seafarers, whereas Scythians lived in the steppes and there is not any evidence that they even sailed the rivers within their territory; Phoenicians were peaceful merchants, while Scythians were warlike plunderers, and so on. The Phoenicians were Semitized Hamitic peoples, the Scythians were fully Japhetic without any single trait of Semitization. The Scythians expanded in a vast area since Assyrian times, often at other peoples' expense, like the Cimmerians, their early rivals in Anatolia that were displaced westwards. The Scythians themselves were pushed in several directions by Assyrians first and Massagetas later, so that in the period of the Persian Empire they were populating not only the historic "Scythia" (approximately modern Ukraine) but also Central Asia, the Indus Valley and the ancient Sakastan.

The Scythians were renowned by their ability in horse-riding, yet, it is a natural feature common to every people of the endless plains and taken isolate by itself is not enough to ascribe a common origin or ethnicity, in the same way as language or any other characteristic taken alone is not sufficient.

Concerning their origins, the Scythians' own legend claim that they descend from the three sons of Targitai, to whom they ascribed a prodigious birth. The mythical sons of Targitai were Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai. Attempting to relate such names with some others apparently similar results in additional confusion and speculative un-scientific theories. These names indeed are not related to known patriarchs, but rather express their character. There are two main accepted keys to decipher the meaning of the names of the legendary Scythian ancestors: one based on old Persian and Ossetian languages, the other on Turkic tongues. Targitay is known also as an important name among Avars, considered a Turkic people. According to the Scythians life style, in many aspects resembling those of the native Americans (so-called "Indians"), the most creditable hypotheses support that their names recalled the spirits of natural phenomena, animals or warlike symbols and weapons. Therefore, according to the Iranic origin theory such names are connected with terms like arrow, sunshine, water, while for the Turkic theory they indicate nobility and possession – typical within Turk tribal names.

Also their religion had many features in common with those of some native Americans – Scythian shamanism involved ecstasy produced by smoking hemp (cannabis); they had no temples and worshipped the forces of nature and were very superstitious, believing in witchcraft and talismans. Scythian shamans, called enaree, were effeminate.

One of the best known features typical of Scythians was their ability in manufacturing gold, usually to make jewels that they wore in considerable amounts, and even their horses were adorned with golden outfits. Indeed, not existing any Scythian written record, most of what is known about their culture derives from the objects attesting their extremely fine workmanship that have been found in their frozen tombs in the Eurasian plains.

The Scythians, pushed away by the Assyrians, occupied the northern shores of the Black Sea from the Tanais to the Danube until the third century b.c.e., when the Sarmatians virtually obliterated them from history. The Sarmatians were also called "Royal Scythians", as they were thought to be one of their tribes that prevailed over the others. Very probably the conquerors took many of the characteristics of the subdued Scythians, so that outwardly they seemed to be the same people. Yet, the Sarmatians were not related to Scythians and had a quite different social structure. The common belief that Scythians practised a matriarchal system has not any archaeological support. They were polygamous and male chauvinist, while the Sarmatians became famous for their warrior women and the absolute social equality between male and female. Paradoxically, according to Herodotus' report, among the Scythians there were many eunuchs, the enarei, who spoke with high-pitched voice and were engaged in female works; many of them were shamans. Some scholars assert that there was indeed a "Royal Scythian" tribe, but anyway not to be identified with the Sarmatians.

While the European Scythians disappeared and were assimilated by Sarmatians, Goths and other peoples, the Sakas followed a different direction: the East. They are reported in the Persian records as those who rendered the war idle. When king Dareyavesh tried to engage a conventional battle with them they applied their withdrawal tactic, as they had nothing to lose – no cities, no treasures, no booty to take. They lived in the steppes and they were the plunderers that swooped down on the cities, but the contrary was not possible as they had not any established civilization. There was no profit in conquering them, on the contrary, there was an expense in protecting the borders from them – only peoples with a similar life style were interested in fighting for the supremacy over the steppes.

The Persian inscriptions distinguish three Saka tribes: 1) Saka Tigraxawda, characterized by their pointed hats, that lived in Turkestan; 2) Saka Hawmavarga, apparently fond of alcoholic beverages, that inhabited the region then called "Sakastan", by the eastern border of the Persian Empire; and 3) Saka Paradraya, those "beyond the sea" described above as the western branch of the Scythians. Tribes of the Turkestan and Sakastan groups migrated to India, and will be considered later, in the India section.

Sarmatians

The Sarmatians' origin and identity is often a controversial matter because they are either identified with other peoples or distinguished from the same ones. It is evident that they did not spring up from the nothingness to overthrow the Scythians, but they came from somewhere and were already a people or a complex of peoples. In the same way as the term "Scythian" has been applied in a broad, generic manner to indicate the wandering peoples of the steppes – and that here we attempted to render more specific by defining with such term only the Saka of the Persian records –, also the term Sarmatian does not refer to a single, well-defined people, but to a more or less homogeneous ethnic complex. As it was stated before, the peoples of the steppes were continuously moving, making alliances, assimilating other clans or assuming other tribal names, and so on. That is why the same tribe names result as belonging either to one or other group, according to different authors, and perhaps both versions are correct. That is the case of the Alans, Roxlans and Yazygs, regarded as Massageta tribes by some authors and Sarmatian tribes by others, or the Alans considered themselves as a separate people that joined the Sarmatians later or else, associated with the Huns, overwhelmed the Sarmatians (only to be in turn overcome by the same Huns and Magyars). Such was the complexity involving those peoples of which the only written records existing come from external sources.

Besides this, the peculiarity that characterized the Sarmatians – the warrior-women – was emphasized and exaggerated by ancient Greek writers, so that it is not an easy task to separate the myth from the reality. Here we intend to expose the possible truth on the basis of archaeological finds and feasible social circumstances of that epoch.

The name issue may be solved by linking the different denominations to definite time periods. In this way, we can notice that in early records we find the Massagetas and after they have virtually vanished the Sarmatians appeared; yet, the three main branches of the Massagetas kept their own names, which were then regarded as Sarmatic tribes. Indeed, it is the main group that is known by a different name, so that Massageta and Sarmatian should be considered as quasi-synonymous terms.

They are the "Moshkhi" of the Assyrian chronicles and Meshekh of the Bible, and their original homeland was in Eastern Anatolia and Southern Caucasus. They apparently split up into three main groups: the western one, the Yazygs, that inhabited in the Balkan/Danubian area; the middle one, the Roxlans, between the Dniepr and the Don; and the eastern tribe, the Alans or Alanians, between the Don and the Volga. These three branches evolved separately and undoubtedly they mixed with the local population, mainly the Yazygs, living among Thracians acquired a mixed descent from Tiras, and the Roxlans became in a certain way part of the Scythian people, perhaps to be identified with the enigmatic "Royal Scythians". The Alans probably kept their ethnicity more exempt from external influences. Therefore, the Sarmatian ethnic complex may be listed among the descent of both Meshekh and Magog as their primary original stocks.

Concerning the warrior-women, which is the feature that has inspired more than any other the fantasy of the writers, there are in fact archaeological finds that confirm that Sarmatian women were very active in the military life of their people. There is a considerable number of graves in which Sarmatian women were buried with their own weapons, and are richer in ornaments than those of the male soldiers. Such a strong character of female Sarmatians may be a long-lasting tradition: Tamyris, queen of the Massagetas, headed personally her army and became famous for having defeated the Persian kings in 3231 (529 b.c.e.). Notwithstanding, it is possible that not always women were engaged in war activity, but only when required by particular circumstances: probably the Sarmatians were less numerous than their neighbours, and in order to prevail they needed to recruit women to supply the lack of male warriors. A similar situation exists today in the State of Israel, that needs a strong Defence Force in order to survive and stand against the enemy hordes. Yet, this is not a traditional feature of the Jewish people. Therefore, even though among Sarmatians it was indeed a tradition, it is likely that the actual participation of women in bellicose activities was limited to certain periods or perhaps to some clans or tribes. According to Herodotus and other writers, a Sarmatian girl must remain virgin and cannot marry until she has killed a man in battle. Concerning this aspect, there are contradictory versions, as some authors assert that they were engaged as warriors and performed masculine roles as long as they were unmarried, but after the wedding they carried out a normal womanly family life. Other writers witness that Sarmatian women have been seen engaged in hunting and war together with their husbands and dressed like them. Both versions may be true, as they may regard different tribes, clans or social classes having their own rules.

This particularity was not exclusively Sarmatian; there were also some American native cultures in which female members assumed male roles, like the Yuma, the Kaska, some tribes of the Great Plains, etc. – It is also very likely that some native Americans actually descend from Sarmatians or are in some way related to them, as we will mention later. At present, similar customs exist among the Kazaks, whose children of both genders are trained in horseback riding since very young age.

Up to this point the exposed facts are feasible and supported by archaeological evidence, but such a singular feature was amazing for the writers in such a way that they created a myth rendering their accounts not thoroughly creditable. Herodotus, for instance, asserted that the Sarmatians were the offspring of Scythian men and Amazons, that obviously did not exist. The women eventually learnt the Scythian tongue, but he stated that the men could not learn the women's language. This is somewhat unlikely; although it is known that in Hunan, China, a written code -"nushu"- was known only by women, who taught it only to their daughters and kept it secret from male members of their family, it does not seem to be a spoken language and in any case there is no proof that such a peculiarity existed among Sarmatians – since they had no known writing records, if such assertion credits any reliability will remain a mystery.

Whenever it concerns their early history, the Sarmatians are often called Sauromatians, chiefly implying the idea that the historical Sarmatians are the result of the mixture with the Scythian element. Even though both peoples (Sauromatians and Scythians) seem to have been associated since long before one conquered the other, mutual assimilation took time. For example, the Sauromatians did not forge iron; according to Pausanias, they used wood, stone and even bone to make their weapons. It is amazing that such a primitive people achieved in war overcoming the armies of much more developed cultures. Indeed, it was their battle tactics that proved successful: relying mainly on their horses rather than on their weapons, they used to ride around their enemy and fling their arrows at them instead of engaging a hand to hand fighting, quite resembling the very same tactics used by Northern American natives.

As it has been stated, they were not a single people but consisted in three main groups that developed separately, and often this term is used primarily to indicate those Sarmatians that overthrew the Scythians, namely the Roxlans. It was the territory occupied by the Roxlans that was previously called Scythia and then renamed Sarmatia (approximately modern Ukraine). They were deeply influenced by the submitted Scythians, that were much more numerous and with whom intermarried becoming one people. It happened roughly the same paradox that took place between the few and rather primitive Romans that conquered the more advanced Greek world but were culturally absorbed by it.

Some centuries later, the Alans came from the East and took over the leadership of the Sarmatian confederacy. Having previously been settled beyond the Tanais, they evolved in a different environment, closer to the Ashkanian/Parthian realm and consequently exposed to the dominant Iranian culture. They were influenced by it in such a way that many researchers consider Sarmatians as Iranic peoples. The Alans established their cultural supremacy over the Scythian-Roxlan tribes and marked the golden age of Sarmatia until they were vanquished by the Huns, with whom they likely had a previous alliance. Many Sarmatians followed the Huns in their relentless advance to the west – henceforth we find the Alans as the third ethnic element contributing to the formation of the Hungarian people: after the Huns' retreat, Sarmatia was occupied by Khazars and Magyars, who assimilated the previous Scythian-Sarmatian inhabitants and in a later period emigrated to the Danubian Basin, to join the Huns settled there. These historical facts validate the essential truth illustrated in a romantic way by the Legend of the White Stag, in which two men, a Hun and a Magyar, married two Alanian princesses, portraying two strong peoples (the male characters, who are brothers) that assimilated the same weaker one (the female counterpart, represented by two sisters) before they gathered to become one people (see the White Stag at "The Huns" and "Origins of the Hungarian Nation").

The collapse of Sarmatia pushed its inhabitants westwards to wander throughout Europe and join other peoples. Alans are known to have reached Spain and even crossed the Gibraltar Strait to North Africa. Others returned back to their ancient homeland in Caucasus and are represented today by the Ossetians (intermarrying with Iranic peoples whose language prevailed) and some groups that evolved into a Turkic cultural identity.

By the end of the fourth century c.e. Sarmatia ceased to exist, not only as a political entity but also as a people: its inhabitants were almost completely replaced by others and left no significant remains except their graves. When the Rus' vanquished Khazaria, they expelled the Magyars living in Sarmatia and with them, the last vestiges of Sarmatian culture. There are more Scythian-Sarmatian elements present in Central European nations than in Russia, and more traces of them in the Balkans than in Ukraine.

The third main group were the Yazygs, that inhabited since ancient times in the Balkans. In that region they coexisted with Thracians and Scythians. They are mentioned in different sources as the Jata, Jasi, Iasi, etc., and it is likely that they were in some way related to the Goths and the Juts, peoples that were originated in Thrace. The Gothic historian Jordanes asserted that the Goths were Massagetas, identifying both peoples with each other.

There is enough evidence regarding the Yazyg presence in the Danubian/Karpathian region even before Roman times. Some writers like István Gyárfás in his work "The History of the Jász-Kun" ("The History of the Yazygs and Kumans"), vol.I, reports that the Greek geographer Ptolemy mentioned the Jász among the peoples of Pannonia in the area of Sabaria (present-day Szombathely, Hungary) – Notice that the name "Sabaria" is very likely related to ancient Subartu, Sabirs, Siberia, etc. The scholar Adorján Magyar has done an outstanding research in his effort to demonstrate that Hungarians are autochthonous rather than Asiatic, precisely because the Jász are mentioned by Roman accounts as the people dwelling in Pannonia. He reached some interesting conclusions though mainly founded on linguistics, that is not a decisive factor for establishing the origin of a people. He asserted that the Hungarian language existed in the Danubian Basin since ancient times, and that some terms that are similar to Greek words having the same meaning are not of Greek origin but the contrary, since they exist in Uyghur and other languages that had no contact with Greek civilization. Nevertheless, he recognizes that they are close to Canaanite words and therefore of likely Middle-Eastern origin. Indeed, such links between unrelated languages are explainable by the evidences that point out to the Sumerian/Hurrian origin of Hun and Magyar languages, and that many Sumerian terms passed on to Akkadian as well as to Massageta/Sarmatian tongues, and in a lesser amount also to Greek. The scholar assumed that the name of the Dacian capital, Sarmizegetusa, is connected with the word "Sarmatian", though it is not certain that such term existed in those times with reference to the Jász or any other people. Even though the Jász may have contributed to the formation of Hungarian ethnicity and language, it is not tenable the thesis that Hungarians are autochthonous since the Sarmatic element is a minority complement to the primary Hun/Magyar ethnicity and is even less relevant than the Khazar component, all of them undoubtedly of Asiatic origin. At most, the Yazyg presence in early times may be considered as the embryo that legitimated the further settlement of related peoples in that land.

As well as the terms Sarmatian and Alan are often applied in a generic way, also the word Jász may be referred not only to these Balkan Sarmatians but also to Siberian peoples, namely Eastern Alans, the "As" or "Aorsi" (not the Ashkenazic As of the Don river - see under Ashkenaz).

The Yazygs' territories were close to the Roman Empire, which was enlarging its borders in every direction and consequently, both parties got engaged in war against each other since the beginning of the Roman expansion in the Balkans. After a two-and-a-half-century conflict, Romans achieved in conquering all the Balkan area and Yazygs had to contribute with their cavalry to the Roman army. In this way, Yazygs became part of the multi-ethnic complex of soldiers commonly known as "Romans" (as the true original Romans were not so numerous, their armies were mostly composed by peoples of every conquered nation). Being part of the Roman legions, Yazyg warriors moved within the Empire. Their cultural influence in Western Europe is not noticed or not acknowledged, but it does not mean that it is irrelevant. In fact, the most cherished British myth is not British at all, and is not Anglo-Saxon either: the Legend of the Knights of the Round Table, is Sarmatian. The probable origin of this myth in Britain is to be found in a Yazyg contingent that the Romans distributed in Northumbria to guard the frontier from Pict invaders. Their general was called Artorius, who may be identified with the legendary king Arthur. All the other elements of the legend are Sarmatic, and belong to similar myths among Hungarians, Ossetians and other peoples that keep the ancient Sarmatian traditions in their own cultural heritage. Herodotus mentions the sword worship in connection with the Scythians; the magic atmosphere surrounding the "sword in the stone" is found in the ancient Anatolian traditions as well as among the Huns and Magyars, and the name Excalibur is related to the Sarmatian iron forgers; also the name of king Pendragon, the lady of the lake, magicians and sorcerers, the chalice hovering in the air and all the main elements of the Arthurian legend belong to the Sarmatian mythology. It was after the introduction of Christianity in Great Britain that the legend was adopted and adapted according to the patterns of Medieval British society as their own myth of origins.

The Yazyg warriors introduced as Roman soldiers (that by number would be rather insignificant) are not the only Sarmatian component of the British ethnogenesis. Indeed, the Anglo-Saxon peoples that settled in Great Britain and established the foundation of the English nation, consisted also of a third element: the Jutes (or Juts). There are several reasons to assert that the Jutes were Yazyg - not only by the similarity between the terms Jasi, Jata, etc. and Jut, Jute, which may have only a very relative value, but also because of the Juts' life style and traditions. Before their arrival in England, the Juts and the Angles were neighbours in the continent: they inhabited respectively in Jutland and Slesvig. Yet, that was not their original homeland; the Juts came from the south and conquered the peninsula that was called Jutland after them. By the end of the fourth century c.e., Sarmatic groups began to move westwards: Alans driven from the Danubian Basin by the Huns, Juts expelled from Jutland by the Danes. Alan tribes settled in the Gaul and some of them went further to Spain and North-Africa, while the Juts crossed the Channel and founded the kingdom of Kent.

The Jute settlement in Sutheastern England was led by Hengist and Horsa, who became the kings of Kent - the double kingship is a typical feature of the Scytho-Sarmatic peoples. Besides this, the Kentish people were well-known by their warlike character, and they organized their army in a Yazyg/Alan style. Their property succession laws and family rules and those of the Alans were alike, as well as their agriculture techniques and other traditional customs. A further support to the hypothesis that the Juts were Sarmatians is given by the fact that many Kentish family names are identical to clan names of Scytho-Sarmatic origin found in Asia (see India, Jats).

This is what concerns the Sarmatian peoples in Europe; they will be mentioned again in this chapter in relation to their presence in Asia. As it has been already said, their contribution to the Western culture is not noticed or not recognized; the main cause of such oblivion is surely owing to assimilation into other peoples that founded the modern nations and gave them their language and characters. Yet, there are some essential elements that have been universally adopted as hallmarks of the modern Western civilization, which are of Scythian/Sarmatian origin: trousers and coats were worn by these peoples since ancient times - notice that also Northern American natives wore trousers, and such particularity together with other interesting details might be associated with a probable common origin.

See map of the Sarmatian settlements and migrations in Europe.

Croatians

Besides the already mentioned Sarmatian tribes acknowledged as being the same ancient Massagetas, there are other peoples that may be regarded as Sarmatic although probably of different origin. Among them, the Croats or Croatians are worth considering since their name has been perpetuated from ancient times until today, and are still recognized as a nation even though almost completely Slavicized (as well as Bulgarians and other peoples). Their exact ethnic classification is complex as they share common features not only with Sarmatians but also with Huns: indeed, their origin is to be found in the Hurrian-Mitanni civilization, but they evolved under strong Iranization like a large number of Sarmatian tribes, and were related to both Sarmatians and Huns throughout their history.

It is a fact that most of the present-day Croatians are genetically different from the Slavic peoples and very close to Kurds and Armenians, who are still inhabiting in the same area of their origins. Besides the genetic factor, there are historic records that point out to a Hurrian identity of Croats:

·In an inscription of Tushratta, king of Mitanni, his own people are called "Hurrwuh", meaning Hurrites, and such term may be identified in the Croatians' own national name, "Hrvat".

·The Avestic literature mentions the people of Harahvaiti, and several records of the Persian Achaemenid kings make reference to a province in the east of their empire, in present-day Afghanistan, named "Harauvatya", which sounds very similar to Croatia's modern name, "Hrvatska". The geographic displacement is historically coherent, as the Hurrians are credited as the founders of Khwarezm, connected with the Székely Huns' origins and the land from which they departed to settle in Transylvania. In a later period, also Croats dwelled in the Carpathian area.

·Since the 4th until the 10th century c.e., the Croatians were established by the Azov Sea and the Tanais, the same region that was inhabited by Khazars and Magyars in that period. Orosius referred to them as "Aryan Horites" (notice that Horites is the name of Hurrites in the Bible); then also Zachariah the Rhetor speaks of them as the "Aryan Hrwt".

By that time their state in Eastern Ukraine was known as "Red Croatia" and its inhabitants as "Sarmatian Horites". Croatians spoke an Iranic language then, and their rulers had Iranic names. Since the 6th century c.e., another branch of them settled in the Carpathian region and founded the "White Croatia". The assignment of colours to represent the four cardinal points is typical of Iranian cultures, and that is why their different territories were called that way. Their coat of arms, composed by red and white squares in a chessboard style, is of Iranic origin as well.

It was during the period of the Great Migration of the Peoples that the Croats moved westwards and their main settlement, the "Great Croatia", extended by the 10th century c.e. over a territory that roughly coincides with modern Czech/Slovakia and Southern Poland. By that time they were strongly Slavicized, before they moved southwards and settled in their present territory by the Adriatic Sea.

Following their history since their origins until modern times, it is evident a sequence of events that link them with the Hungarian peoples: we have already considered the possible identity of ancient Magyars with the Mitanni, whose land was known as Magor/Mada/Matiene, in Hurrian territory (see: "The Huns"). The Mitanni ruled over the Hurrites, and both peoples migrated to Central Asia during Assyrian domination over their land. Hurrians settled in the area of modern Afghanistan/Turkestan and founded the kingdom of Khwarezm, from where the Székely Huns migrated to the Carpathian region. The area of Khwarezm was next to the province of the Persian Empire called Harauvatya, regarded as the original Croatia. Then we find the "Sarmatian Hurrians" having their own realm, the Red Croatia, in Khazarian territory next to the Magyars' land in Ukraine. Both peoples were driven westwards by the Rus' expansion and chose the Danubian Basin as their new settlement. The Croatians dwelled near the Magyars, first at the north of them and subsequently moved close to the southern Hungarian border. The Croats followed the same destiny of most Eurasian peoples in Eastern Europe, that were either Slavicized, Germanized or Romanized, while Hungarians were the only exception, achieving in keeping their roots and building their own national identity. A few Croatians were assimilated by Hungarians, hence the very common Hungarian family name "Horvát". The Croatians' definitive territory between Hungary and the Adriatic Sea was still under Austrian-Hungarian sovereignty, like in ancient times the Hurrites were under Mitanni rule.

Even though the modern Croatian language is Slavic, attempts to restore the old tongue are being done, mostly through the rural dialects that have kept Iranic archaisms and still present traces of Hurrian-Mitanni terms.

Identity and Assimilation in Europe

Concerning the peoples here defined as Eurasians, they have left a genetic legacy in most of present-day European nations, though hardly a cultural or linguistic heritage - with the exception of Hungary. Archaeological findings, external written records and some toponyms are the main or sometimes the only witnesses of their presence. As well as Scythians and Sarmatians, the largest number of them have been Slavicized (Bulgars, Croatians, etc.), others have been Germanized (like the Juts), Romanized (peoples settled in present-day Romania), or were assimilated within the Hungarian nationality. In the Caucasus area, tribes of the same peoples have evolved into a more defined Iranic identity (Ossetians) or else a Turkic ethnicity.

Therefore, it is still difficult to define which was their original culture and language; different schools propose controversial theories in opposition to each other: the Iranic on one side and the Turkic on the other. As it has been said in the introduction of this chapter, they have been gathered under conventional definitions in different periods of history, and since Turks appeared long after they existed, the Iranic background is more plausible. Notwithstanding, an accurate research credits the Mesopotamian-Anatolian origin for most of these peoples, and perhaps Iranic for some of them.

Here is a brief exposition regarding other groups that in the "Dark Ages" took part in the Great Migration of the Peoples that led them from the Asian steppes to the Russian plains first, to the Danubian Basin and the Balkans later, and eventually into Central and Western Europe:

Avars

The Avars are related to the Huns, having shared with them approximately the same territorial range both in Asia and Europe and have been often either allied or antagonists. In the same way as the Huns are identified by some scholars with the Hsiung-nu of the Chinese chronicles (without certainty), the Avars are thought to be a branch of the Juan-Juan, though further proofs are required to establish such identity. There are different opinions regarding their origins, though the most feasible hypothesis indicates Khwarezm as their homeland from where, like the Huns, they expanded first eastwards reaching China and furtherly westwards into Europe. Therefore, a Khwarezmian background associates the Avars with the Huns, Magyars, Székely, Croatians, and consequently with Hurrian-Mitanni and Sumerian origins. Nevertheless, according to archaeological findings in Avar graves, their somatic traits were those of a Turk-Mongol people when they reached Europe, and to add mystery to the enigma of their origins, many Jewish items were found as well. This peculiarity may be owing to their sojourn in Khazaria, where they have certainly been influenced by Judaism, while their Mongol features indicate a previous long stay in China and perhaps a mixed background, result of intermarriage with local peoples. Among their characteristics, the Uyghur features seem to be the most remarkable.

The Avars appeared in Europe in the 6th century c.e., ruling over an extended territory from the Volga to the Elbe and from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans, and were powerful until the end of the 8th century. Their kingdom arose after they subdued the weakened Bulgars in the Volga region. Associated with the Onogurs and the Kabars, they conquered the Danubian Basin, where remnants of Attila's Huns were still dwelling. Their dominions were organized as a confederation known as the Avar Ring. At their decline, the Avars were in turn assimilated by Árpád's Hun-Magyar tribes in the Upper Danubian Basin, while in the Southern Balkan region, they were absorbed by the Bulgars and consequently Slavicized together with them. The remaining of the Avars in other lands were completely Slavicized (in the Adriatic region) or Germanized (in Austria).

There is still an existing people called Avars in the Caucasus, mainly in Kabardino-Balkaria and Daghestan, but their actual relationship with the historic Avars is still not confirmed. Nevertheless, it seems that the present-day Caucasian Avars may indeed descend from ancient Avars settled in that area during the Khazar rule.

Kumans

Also known as Polovtsi or Kipchak: The Kumans appeared in Europe in a later period (11th century c.e.), at the end of the Great Migration, when the movement of all the preceding Eurasian peoples was over and the modern nations' identities were either defined or at the last stage of formation.

The Kumans were Turks, likely related to the Seldjuks, Kimaks and other tribes. Although they were present in a very vast area, from the Siberian steppes to India, Egypt and Ukraine, they never consolidated any empire because the lack of unity within the different tribes, that often fought each other. For a short period they ruled over part of India and also a relevant contingent of the Mamluks that took the power over Egypt were Kipchaks. In Europe they were intermittently in war with the Pechenegs, a people of their kin with whom they were previously allied and at last they absorbed. Always in war against the Russians, elsewhere the Kumans were characterized by their ambiguous behaviour: while they were continuously attacking Byzantium, other Kumans were serving as mercenaries in the Byzantine army. A relevant number of them settled in Bulgaria, a kingdom that was often in war with Byzantium, and the Kumans were on both sides or else as a third party, sometimes fighting against Bulgarians and sometimes allied with them. Also Slavic kingdoms engaged Kuman mercenaries, that frequently had to fight Kuman raiders. After their defeat in the Volga in 4998 (1238 c.e.), they no longer achieved independence and fled to the nations which they have formerly fought, like Russia and the Balkan states, where usually served as mercenaries. Most of them settled in Hungary, becoming an important contingent of the Hungarian army. Their character led them to be in continuous contrast with Hungarians, and as a result they were expelled and gathered the Kuman tribes in Bulgaria. They were later requested back in Hungary, but on their way they joined the Vlachs in the revolt that led to the independence of Walachia in 5090 (1330). Few decades later, the Kumans disappeared as an ethnic entity, being assimilated by the different nations where they inhabited. Their presence in the past is mainly recognized in some toponyms in which the term "kun" is part of the name.

They have been previously mentioned in relation with the Yazygs ("The History of the Jász-Kun", by István Gyárfás), and because of this association some scholars assumed that both peoples may have a common origin. Nevertheless, the sole fact of being mentioned together or even being assigned a common territory does not relate them ethnically. The Yazygs were largely integrated in the Hungarian or Bulgarian nationality when Kumans arrived in the Balkans, and would hardly been still recognized as Yazygs. The Kumans on the contrary, were a contrasting element within the societies with whom they coexisted. They were probably allocated in some districts that once were specifically assigned to the Yazygs and that kept their historical toponym with the addition of the new element. Therefore, both names were associated. Such a thing is not a rarity in the Eastern European area, and there are very recent examples of totally different peoples being gathered in a single administrative unit, such as some Soviet Republics like Karachayevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria or Checheno-Ingushetia. There is also a political reason behind this distribution of the territory to non related peoples: if the Kumans would have been given a district for them alone, loyalty to the state would have not been granted.

Pechenegs or Patzinaks

There is not much information available concerning this people; they appeared in the European scene about a century before the Kumans and were like them of Turk ethnicity, though sometimes they were called "Scythians" by the Byzantines.

The Pechenegs introduced an originality in battle tactics: the war wagon, a kind of tank of that epoch. They settled in the later 9th century c.e. in the region between the Caspian Sea and the Don, from where they began their advance westwards along the lands by the Black Sea towards the Bosphorus. They fought against all their neighbours: Khazars, Magyars, Russians, Bulgars, Ghuzz, etc. The Pechenegs reached Thrace, made alliance with the Bulgarians and, like the Kumans, attacked Byzantium but were recruited as mercenaries in the Byzantine army as well. Having become a continuous threat for its Balkan dominions, Byzantium engaged the Kumans to fight them and the Pechenegs were driven to Walachia, losing their coastland territories. In 4882 (1122 c.e.), the Varangian Guard defeated them definitively and almost exterminated them. The survivors were absorbed by the Kumans.

The Pechenegs might be the same people as the "Pasiani" of ancient chronicles, to be identified with the "Besenyö" of the Hungarian accounts, and probable origin of the name "Bosnia".

Goths

The Goths can hardly fit the characteristics of the peoples here described as Eurasians, and it is only because their own historian, Jordanes, asserted that the Goths are Massagetas that they are mentioned here. Jordanes, being a Goth himself, should have known what he was saying and his opinion is worth being respected even though not thoroughly creditable. There are some traces that actually connect the Goths with the Scytho-Sarmatian peoples, and some scholars identify them with the ancient "Guti" of Mesopotamia, but there are not enough evidences for such association beyond the name similarity. It appears more appropriate to place the Goths among the Thracian peoples that evolved into Germanic, therefore as descendants of Thiras. Nevertheless, they may have been an old Scythian or Massageta tribe that since ancient times dwelled in Thracia and followed the evolution common to Germanic peoples. Such is the case of some Scytho-Sarmatic tribes that adopted a Celtic or Germanic identity and behaviour, like the Scots, Jutes, etc. Notwithstanding, either were the Goths Germanized Massagetas or originally Germanic, it is more suitable to deal with them in an essay regarding Germanic peoples.

India

As well as the Danubian Basin was the European "promised land" for the Eurasian peoples, in Asia the same status corresponded to the Indus Valley. The choice of that land however was connected to historic links existing since ancient times, namely, the relationships between Mesopotamia and the Harappan civilization.

There are many Sumerian documents as well as Assyrian records mentioning the flourishing trade they had with "Meluhha, Makkan and Dilmun", lands that have been identified respectively with Harappa (Meluhha), the Arabian coastland by the Southern Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman (Makkan), and the Arabian coast by the Northern Persian Gulf (Dilmun). It is possible that Meluhha might be related to the Biblical land of Ophir, though this one seems to indicate Southern India instead of the Indus Valley. Ophir's trade was connected with the Kingdom of Sheva and the Horn of Africa rather than with the Mesopotamian region. Although a research concerning the civilization of Harappa and its unique cultural features is a quite interesting topic as well as the mysterious Harappan undeciphered writing, it is not the subject of this chapter, but it is necessary to take account of it as the background for the subsequent settlement of Eurasian tribes and other peoples. Indeed, Harappa's origins are to be found within the Kushite stock, closely related to Sumerians, with whom they should have had not only commercial exchange but also a strong cultural relationship owing to a common ethnicity. In a later period, Harappa established links also with Hurrians. It is a proven fact that the Indo-Aryan peoples are not autochthonous but reached the Indian subcontinent from the west and displaced the Kushite population previously settled. It is also certain that they were not homogeneous and that they arrived in different migration waves, and that the tribes of the Indus Valley were and are still different from the other peoples of India.

The controversial issue of the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent as well as the cultural diversity existing between the peoples of the Indus Valley and the rest of India since ancient times until today may be solved through the accurate research of their origins in Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia. In early times, that area was inhabited by Japhetic peoples: Cimmerians, Scythians, Mitanni and Askuza, that were of different descent. They were all culturally related to Hittites and Hurrites and spoke similar languages of the Indo-European branch. Far from being identified with each other as it is often assumed, they were rather in permanent rivalry and fighting for territorial supremacy. This situation caused the first migration waves in their early history, subsequently they were displaced from their original homeland by the Assyrians. The later cultural influence of the Medes over Eurasians enhanced the differences between them and other kin peoples, which led scholars to establish the present conventional classification (though not necessarily accurate) that distinguishes the Indo-Europeans into the Indo-Aryan and the Indo-Iranian branches.

The Aryans of India belonged to the Vedic culture, while the peoples of the Indus Valley were related to the Mesopotamian and Iranian world. Therefore, it is helpful to shed a little light on the identity of the controversial "Aryans" before dealing with the Eurasian settlement in India. As well as the terms "Scythian" or "Turk" have been widely used as a general definition for a complex of peoples not always related to each other, the word "Aryan" has been misused as a synonym of "Indo-European" or "non-Semitic", including the racist misconception of "white race" (maybe it is something different from the human race?...). The Aryans or Aryana were only one of the Sanskrit-speaking peoples dwelling among the Hurrians, and probably the first ones that left the Anatolian homeland by pressure of neighbour tribes. Unlike other Hurritic groups that interacted with the Kushitic cultures in the region, they were reluctant to assimilation and developed the system of caste division in a more marked way. Here we find an interesting parallelism that may be the key for identifying the Aryans that invaded India with a similar people that followed the opposite direction to settle in Europe: the Celts. Even though it may seem a hazardous hypothesis, there are many common features between the Vedic and the Celtic culture that suggest a common origin of both peoples.

The Celts began their migration westwards in the late Bronze Age; about the same period from the same land the Aryana began their wandering towards the east. Cultural incompatibility with their neighbours is a plausible reason for leaving their country. The last surviving Celtic tribe in the region, the Cimmerians, were expelled by the Assyrians and later from their acquired homeland in Ukraine by the Scythians. On the other side, the Aryans - having been unable to coexist with their Mesopotamian neighbours - invaded the Indus Valley and destroyed the peaceful civilization of that area, subduing the remaining peoples to their caste system (such facts are supported by evidences that many are trying to deny in order to render the Aryan invasion a myth). These peoples, Celts/Cimmerians in the west and Aryans in the east, shared many common characteristics, of which some are worth to be briefly considered in order to draw a conclusion whether they are the same people or not:

·The Celts had a very well defined caste system, in which the druids were at the top level, immediately followed by the warriors, exactly in the same way as the brahmins and the kshatryas in the Vedic society.

·The privileges and rules of the brahmin caste and the druids are quite similar, so that some scholars assert that both priesthoods do not only resemble to each other, but that they are exactly the same.

·Both the Celts and the Aryans believed in reincarnation, a concept that was not shared by their neighbour peoples. The early Celts burned their dead in the same way as the Aryans did.

·Not only the Celts' religion was identical to the Aryans' Vedic one, but also their laws, institutions, traditions, myths, etc.

·The most significant symbols of Aryans and Celts are the same: the swastika and the sunwheel, commonly known as "Celtic cross".

·The Celtic language shows evidences of a common origin with Sanskrit.

The above mentioned elements and some others are exclusive of these two peoples, peculiarities that perhaps are not enough to give a complete answer to the question if the early Aryan conquerors of India were Celts or not, but certainly show that they had a common ancestry. They evolved separately in quite dissimilar environments and it is natural that differences emerged, but in the beginning they may have been quite alike, closely related to each other if not the same people.

The Eurasians that are the subject of this chapter were undoubtedly different from them, even though in origin they have shared the same homeland and were subject to the same empires and along history they often met again, most of times in contrast to each other. That is what happened also in the Indus Valley region.

The civilization of Meluhha/Harappa/Sarasvati was in close touch with Sumer/Arrapkha/Mitanni, and it is very likely that Hurrian tribes settled in the Indus Valley since ancient times, establishing a footstep for further migrations into that area. Yet, both regions had undergone drastic changes and these cultures seem to have disappeared: in Mesopotamia, Sumerians were replaced by the Semitic Akkadians and Subarians/Hurrians by the Semitic Assyrians; in the Indus Valley the Harappan civilization collapsed under the Aryan invasion. Nevertheless, they still existed, although displaced. In the midpoint between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, Hurrian/Mitanni tribes founded the kingdom of Khwarezm, from which some important Eurasian peoples like Huns and Sabirs expanded throughout the continent, from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea and southwards to the Indian Ocean. Neighbouring Khwarezm, other Japhetic peoples were also ready to conquer the Indus Valley: Medes, Scythians, Massagetas and Parthians.

Sakastan

As it has been said above, Sakas and Scythians are the same people and only for a better understanding here we distinguish the western tribes by their Greek name (Scythians) and the eastern groups by their Persian one (Saka). In the same way as the term Scythian is applied in a general manner to different peoples not always related to each other, also the word Saka is commonly used in reference to many Eurasian tribes besides the Sakas proper. Therefore, when it is said "the Scythian origin of the Rajput" or other peoples of India, it should be understood in a broad sense, including Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, etc. and not only Sakas, and such statement is generally enunciated in order to point out that they are different from the Aryan Indians. Although both Sakas/Eurasians and Aryans were not autochthonous of the subcontinent but conquerors (as well as further invaders like Moghuls and Muslims), there is a historic link between the Indus Valley and the Eurasians' homeland in Mesopotamia by which the settlement of the Saka ethnic complex in the region should be considered natural, dating back to early times.

Yet, it is essential to establish that by recognizing that the peoples of the Indus Valley are not Aryan Indians we acknowledge a historical truth beyond any political or religious claims. There are biased efforts on both sides to blame the counterpart: Hindus trying to deny the Aryan invasion as determinant for the collapse of the Harappan civilization and claiming that all Indians are of the same origins, opposed by Muslims that emphasize the historical facts that prove the different origins. Even though the Indus Valley peoples are certainly different from Aryan Indians and that the caste system was imposed them by Hindu domination, such evidence does not justify the Muslims' claims: when the Eurasians settled in Sakastan they surely did not practise a religion imported from Arabia many centuries later.

The presence of Eurasian peoples in the Indus Valley dates back at least to the second century b.c.e., as it is attested by Herodotus, the Chinese chronicles, Persian documents and other sources. Sakastan was the name given to the Parthian province comprising the regions of Sindh, Pundjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, inhabited by Saka peoples.

The settlement of the first Saka tribes in the Indus Valley was followed by a sequence of events quite similar to those happened in the Ukrainian Scythia: different Eurasian peoples succeeded one another in exerting territorial hegemony, assimilating the previous inhabitants and so contributing to the ethnic complexity and making more difficult an accurate classification of the distinct origins of each people. In the 2nd century b.c.e., the Kushan (Yue-zhi) arrived in the region expelled from China by the Hsiung-nu, and established an empire that endured almost four centuries. Their origin is subject of discussion as they spoke or adopted the Bactrian language written in Greek characters. Their ethnonym however, suggests a Mesopotamian background and they might be related to the Khazars or be their eastern counterpart. Other elements apparently connect them with the enigmatic Tokharians (Daxia), who were probably Scythians. The Kushana were defeated by the Sassanians in 3993 (233 c.e.), that constituted over the territory administrative units called "Kushanshahs".

If the word "Saka" or "Scythian" has been used and sometimes misused to indicate a group of more or less related ethnic entities, the term "Hun" has been applied in a quite erroneous manner to utterly unrelated peoples. So, in the Central Asian and Indian region, it is frequent to find mentions of the "Red Huns" or the "White Huns", though none of them were Huns at all. The only relationship between the true Huns and these allegedly referred to as such is the historic period, but nothing else. Whereas in Europe the Scythians were succeeded by Sarmatians first and by Hun tribes later, in Sakastan neither Sarmatians nor Huns played a relevant role, and their presence in the area was marginal. These preliminary remarks are essential to continue with this essay, in order to give a brief description of the peoples that took control of the region after the Kushan:

First, the Chionites -improperly called "Red Huns"- pushed the Kushan southwards and took part of their territory, establishing an ephemeral kingdom ruled by the Kidarite dynasty. They were in turn shoved into Gandhara by the Alchon, a kin tribe, that were followed by another related tribe, the Nezak. All these still not accurately classified peoples preceded the most relevant invaders of the Indus Valley in that period: the Hephthalites or Hayathelaites, also known as "White Huns", that undoubtedly were not Huns. Such a name was them given by Procopius in his work "History of Wars", yet acknowledging that they were quite different from the "European" Huns. Indeed, not only their physical features but also their culture, language, traditions, etc. were markedly dissimilar to each other. There are divergent theories about the origin of the Heftalites, of which the most creditable has been framed by the Japanese scholar Kazuo Enoki, who has taken account of various undisputed facts and left aside faint and misleading elements, like apparent name resemblances. Considering the cultural features of the Heftalites, their geographic distribution and migratory flows, Enoki concludes in a convincing manner that they were of Iranian origin. A peculiarity of the Heftalites was that they practised polyandry, a feature that has never been connected with any Hunnish people but rather with some Aryan clans and with Tibet. The Heftalites were defeated in the 6th century c.e. by an alliance of Kök Turks and Sassanians, and almost disappeared.

Since this period, a new ethnonym is always more frequent in history records: "Turk". Such term became a general classification that in many cases replaced the former one of Scythian applied to most Eurasian peoples, bringing up to date the ethno-cultural reality: in fact, the old Scythians did no longer exist as such but evolved into new diversified peoples, adopting also different languages that in Asia were mainly related to Turkic tongues. The Turks however, were not directly connected with the ancient Scythians. Both names have been used in the same way, ascribed by other peoples to any nomadic tribe coming from the Siberian or Central Asian steppes, regardless of their actual ethnicity. This generalization made more difficult an accurate definition of each single group.

The Turks evidently did not come out from nowhere but descend from somebody. According to Chinese sources, it appears that the Turks were a branch of the Hsiung-nu (or Xiong-nu), the same people that are allegedly the ancestors of the Huns, a theory that is still neither confirmed nor refuted. In such case, the Turks would be indeed related to the Huns, even though the Huns definitely were not Turks. This does not exclude that some Hun tribes may have been mixed with Turk ones and became Turk. This seems to be the case of the Kök Turks (closely connected with the Khazars), described as "having white complexion, red hair and green eyes", a description that perfectly fits the Huns. If such hypothesis proves true, the so-called "White Huns" (Heftalites) were crushed by genuine Huns, the Kök.

There are relevant elements in favour of a Hsiung-nu origin of Turks:

·Chinese documents assert that the Kök Turks were related to the Uyghurs and that both were part of the Hsiung-nu.

·The Hsiung-nu were ruled by 24 chiefs, and the Turk original tribes (Oguz) were 24, according to their own legends.

·The first Turkic writing was Runic, which links Turks and Huns with a possible common origin.

·The Turks' homeland apparently was the Altay region, the same territory of the Hsiung-nu.

Besides the relevance that the actual origin of Turks may have concerning Sakastan, their rule over that land is essential to define the ethnogenesis of the peoples of the Indus Valley, because the oldest lineages of the existing tribes and clans date back to that period, not before. The Kök Turks indeed, were not an homogeneous people, but a confederacy that included Huns, Sarmatians and Scythian-related tribes, which originated the present-day inhabitants of Sindh, Pundjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Kashmir and neighbouring regions, with contributions of Iranic elements from the Sassanid Persian rule. These Eurasian conquerors found in the Indus Valley not only a fertile and desirable land to settle, but also inhabitants of their same stock, with whom they merged. On the other side, the Aryans have always done every effort to colonize the region and have exerted their influence up to some degree. Yet, they were not able to subdue the tribes of Sakastan as they did with the other peoples in India, whom they assigned the lower levels into their own caste system. They had to act in a different way, and in order to find favour with the new rulers, they granted all of them the status of "kshatrya", regardless of their actual social position. Such is the origin of the Rajput, the "Royal offspring". The Eastern Sakastan became Rajputana, "land of the Royal offspring", or Rajasthan, "Land of Kings".

Indeed, the name Rajput stands for a social definition rather than a purely ethnic one, that includes different tribes not immediately related to each other but sharing a long-lasting interaction and a closely connected ancestry. Rajput clans are not only Saka in the strict sense of the word, but also Massageta, Hunnish and even Medes. All Rajput-related tribe names can be traced back to one of these origins, with the valid support of their cultural features, historic records and other witness elements like the coinage.

Among the 36 Rajput tribes we find some names that are similar to those of their counterparts in the west, as in the following list:

·Jatt or Jat, whose relatives were the Jász/Yazyg of the Danubian Basin and the Jutes of Kent and whose direct ancestors were very likely the As/Yazyg of the Siberian steppes. Therefore, of Massageta/Sarmatian stock. Arabs called them "Zott", name that they used as general term for any people coming from the Indus Valley.

·Gujjar, Gujrati, identified with the Khazars by authoritative scholars. Indo-Aryan languages, lacking the "kh" and the "z" sounds, convert them respectively into "g" and "j". Khazars were part of the Kök Turks before establishing their own independent kingdom in the Volga Basin, and it was in this period that the Gujjars/Gujratis appear in the Indus Valley. They settled mainly in Gujarat, namely, "Land of the Khazars".

·Sisodiya, one of the most prominent clans; according to the Rajput scholar Mulchand Chauhan, derive their name from the Sassanid dynasty, therefore ascribing them a Medo-Persian origin. Beyond the precision or reliability of this claim, there are other important elements, anthropological, historic and cultural, that prove the non-Aryan but Indo-Iranian origin of this tribe.

·Dahya, who may be identified with the Dahae of the Persian chronicles, a Scythian tribe mentioned together with the Saka Tigraxawda and the Saka Hawmavarga. The Dahae were nomads from the lower Yaksartes (Syrdarya), outstanding archers that eventually served as mercenaries to the Persians against Alexander the Great and later sided with him in the conquest of the Pundjab, where they settled. They were related to the Parthians as well. Their character has been inherited by the Dahya Rajput.

Other Rajput clans have names that recall those of Eurasian tribes, like the Hun Rajcula, or are traceable to the Scytho-Sarmatic peoples that belonged to the Kök Turk hordes or even those that settled in the Indus Valley during the Kushan and Heftalite rules.

Further evidences of the ethnic background of the Rajputs are given by documents of that period attesting the character of their original religion, that consisted in sun-, fire- and sword-worship. All their rituals and ceremonies, like drinking from the skull and other practices, are completely strange to Vedic Aryans and are definitely features typical of Scythian-related peoples.

The Rajput clans emerged during the Kök Turk rule. In fact, the term "Rajput" is never mentioned in any Sanskrit document before that period. They established various kingdoms and dynasties in the Indus Valley and even in other regions of Northern India, like the royal house of Kannauj, a Gujjar family.

The Scythian character of the Rajputs, that of being always in conflict with their neighbours because of their lack of unity, yielded advantage to the expansionist policy of the Aryan rulers of India, that achieved in subduing most of the Indus Valley to their religious structure based on caste divisions. Notwithstanding, that region remains a conflictive area where different alternative religions emerged, a natural tendency of the non-Aryan inhabitants to search for something different from their neighbours' system.

A special mention deserve the Jat people, sometimes identified as Rajput and sometimes distinguished from them. Indeed, the differences between the two groups are not ethnic but socio-cultural, and the same tribe may be regarded as Rajput or Jat, depending on the geographic area. There are not fixed patterns to establish whether one clan may be considered either one or the other from outside; it is a subjective self-definition. Jats are however, one of the 36 "royal tribes" of the Rajput society; consequently, it would be more appropriate to distinguish if a Rajput clan is Jat or not.

The Jats undoubtedly descend from the easternmost branch of the Sarmatian people, the Yazyg of Central Asia, that curiously have the same name of the westernmost branch in the Danubian region: Jász, Jat, Jut. During the British rule over India, colonizers and scholars noticed to their astonishment that many Jat people had apparently English family names or very similar. Certainly the proud Jats would have never adopted British surnames for their own ancestral clans, and they did not result from intermarriage either. Other foreign powers ruled over the Indus Valley before and for longer periods than England, yet no Jat clan names corresponding to the previous rulers have been found. Besides this, no other Indian people had such names except Jats. This peculiarity led scholars to research about these Jat-British homonyms: those names in England may be traced back to a Jut origin, mainly Kentish; among the Jats, they exist since the distant past. This appears to be more than a coincidence; Jats and Juts are the same people. This assertion finds confirmation in historic records, for example, the Roman writer Ammianus Marcellinus, who called all Sarmatian peoples "Alani", wrote: "Alani once were known as the Massagetae. The Alani mount to the eastward, divided into populous and extensive nations; these reach as far as Asia and, as I have heard, stretch all the way to the river Ganges, which flows through the territories of India". British scholars and also officers compared the Jats' warrior character with that of the Kentish men as well as their traditional laws, for instance, the double heritage part for the youngest son, still practised among Indian Jats. An accurate research about this people which takes account of all the relevant characteristics of their ethnicity reveals that they are among the purest Sarmatic tribes existing today. See map of the Indus valley peoples.

A widespread erroneous theory claims that also Roma (Gypsies) are Jats or else connected with them, such hypothesis is utterly groundless, but as is not the subject of this chapter, it has been exposed in other essays (see: Origin of Roma and Sinti and Myths, Hypotheses and Facts about the Origin of Roma).

Beyond the East

The Eurasians were undoubtedly the most widespread peoples throughout the continent. From their original homeland they reached the Arctic in ancient times, which means that their expansion eastwards ended not at the Pacific Ocean, but at the Atlantic Ocean.

The "Bering Strait theory" is the only creditable hypothesis about the origin of most American native peoples, who are biologically quite similar to Eurasians; they are indeed Eurasians. Before going on with the exposition of this subject, it is right to make clear that the term "American" natives used here intends a general, geographic denomination and not an ethnic one (in the same way as "Eurasian"). Such term is used with great respect for those peoples, and is found to be more neutral and appropriate than "First Nations" or "Indians", with the purpose of not offending those tribes, which have their own ethnic denomination that is undoubtedly the most correct, but difficult to apply to the whole complex of peoples. Having done this clarification, if the term "American" natives offends somebody, please let us know.

In the same way, our purpose is to present the origin of nations from a scientific viewpoint, according to evidences and leaving aside religious concepts. The Biblical statements perfectly harmonize with science, while many religious interpretations of them conflict with scientific proofs. Therefore, we can safely say that American natives are in the largest proportion Japhetic peoples (definitely neither Semitic nor Hamitic). It is true that ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and probably other peoples engaged trade relationships with the Americas - according to some products found in Egypt and the Middle East that existed only in the American Continent -, but there is no proof that they established colonies or gave origin to any specific tribe; perhaps if some of them settled, they were absorbed by the local population. It is also ridiculous the assertion that American natives may descend from the Israelite "lost Tribes", a speculative theory that has not any scientific support and deserves no further mention.

Therefore, what concerns to the American natives (mainly North-American) and the likely relationship with a Scythian/Sarmatian origin of most tribes is still a creditable hypothesis rather than a confirmed fact, based on many relevant elements: besides the anthropological and biological features, there are important cultural characteristics that they share with the Eurasian peoples, some of them have been already mentioned above - personal names that recalled the spirits of natural phenomena, animals or warlike symbols and weapons; shamanism involving ecstasy produced by smoking; religious ceremonies performed without temples; worship of the natural forces; belief in the power of talismans. Concerning social customs, many tribes wore trousers, in some of them female members assumed male roles. Regarding war tactics, their main "weapon" were the horses, riding around their enemy to fling their arrows at them instead of engaging a hand to hand fighting, etc. -.

The particular familiarity that some tribes acquired with the horse leads to think that they had an atavic heritage transmitted through generations which did not know that animal, that was the main friend of their ancestors. Some American natives were very skilled riders, excelling the Europeans that made them know the art of riding and using the horse in battle. Among those peoples, a special mention deserve the "Nermurnuh", or also "Nimenim", "Nemene", "Nuumu", commonly known as "Comanche". Without asserting that they were Sarmatians, which is likely but still not proven, here we mention some common features between both peoples that might lead to trace an ancient common origin of Sarmatians and Comanche.

Even though the Comanche were apparently a branch of the Shoshones, they distinguished from the other tribes by their unique and unequalled characteristics. They were not an unified people, but a complex of related tribes: Kewatsana, Kotsai, Kwahadie, Motsai, Nokoni, Patgusa, Penateka, Pohoi, Tanima, Wasaih and Yamparika. In the same way as Eurasian groups, they did not always keep the same denomination but changed their names over the years. Since they did not have historic records, it is not possible to determine their remote origins (though all American natives believe to be autochthonous); the Comanche seem to have completely lost their memory of how their life was before they knew the horse; in fact they believed to have always had horses, even before the Europeans introduced this animal in the Americas. If this phenomenon may have an explanation, a likely one is that they remembered their remote past in the Asian plains and forgot their "exile" without horses in America - when the horses appeared again, their ancestral memory was restored. Undoubtedly, it is hard to imagine the Comanche without horses, as their whole social structure was founded on breeding, training and riding-based war tactics. They had expertise in selecting equine breeds in order to obtain horses with the desired characteristics, and were also skilful in taming wild mustangs. Their enormous herds, exceeding in number those of any other tribe, were acquired through every possible means: trade, theft, breeding, etc. The Comanche' social life was thoroughly oriented around the art of war, more than any other American native people, and was developed through their mastering horsemanship. Comanche horses were so well-trained that they responded to spoken and touch commands. While on foot a Comanche warrior was not better than any other, on horseback was matchless. Galloping at full speed, a Comanche warrior could lean over to use his horse as a shield while he shot arrows from under the horse's neck. He could also rescue a fallen friend by pulling him up onto his horse while in motion. An accurate description of their skill was given by the documentary artist George Catlin, who said: "Amongst their feats of riding, there is one that has astonished me more than anything of the kind I have ever seen, or expect to see, in my life: a stratagem of war, learned and practised by every young man in the tribe; by which he is able to drop his body upon the side of his horse at the instant he is passing, effectually screened from his enemies' weapons… as he lies in a horizontal position behind the body of his horse, with his heel hanging over the horse's back; by which he has the power of throwing himself up again, and changing to the other side of the horse if necessary. In this wonderful condition, he will hang whilst his horse is at the fullest speed, carrying with him his bow and his shield, and also his long lance of fourteen feet in length, all or either of which he will wield upon his enemy as he passes; rising and throwing his arrows over the horse's back, or with equal ease and equal success under the horse's neck…". We do not know if any Eurasian people reached the same level of expertise in the art of riding, but this achievement by Comanche fits only for a people that knew the horse since the dawn of history rather than to one which learnt about this animal in relatively recent times.

There are other features that are common to Comanche and Sarmatians: Both boys and girls were given their first mounts at the age of four-five years old. Boys worked hard to become warriors since they were teenagers; girls also became accomplished riders and when they grew up, they went antelope hunting with the men. Horses were not only essential for war, but also enabled the Comanche to travel great distances following the migrations of the buffalo, animal from which they obtained food, clothing and shelter. Contrary to the stereotype, the Comanche did not wear feathered headgears like the Sioux but leather caps, usually with buffalo horns, and instead of the typical moccasins they wore high boots, like Eurasian peoples. Although both boys and girls were engaged in horseback riding and hunting, their social parity ended in adulthood; the Comanche society was dominated by men, who were even polygamous. This characteristic is in opposition to Sarmatian society, but in harmony with Scythian culture. The leadership of the group or tribe was not hereditary but conferred to a male warrior according to his war achievements.

Concerning religion, it was similar to the Eurasian shamanism although Comanche seem to have believed in a main supreme Creator and a Paradise. They revered the earth, sun, moon, rivers, etc. and believed in spirits dwelling in natural forces and animals, but they did not have special celebrations, rites, priests or doctrines. The Comanche buried their dead and, if he was a notable warrior, his horse was killed and buried with him. This custom is also found among Eurasian tribes.

In proportion to their number, Comanche have killed much more European and American colonists than any other native tribe, but as well as many Eurasians, their behaviour towards other peoples was ambiguous and they were always in war with some or many other American native groups as well. Europeans first and American colonists later took advantage of this situation to fight the native inhabitants and conquer their lands.

The native American peoples are all of them worth being mentioned, a task that requires a separate essay. Therefore, the Comanche here have been chosen as an emblematic case that allows us to propose a comparison between their culture and those of the Eurasians.

The Huns

The Huns appear officially in history only when their hordes coming from the east reach the Roman Empire and in a very short time they conquer most of Europe.

Before that time, they have been numbered among the nomadic tribes of the Asian steppes and their origin was almost unknown. Now we have many research elements that have brought more light about this people, or complex of peoples, and have discovered that they were present in the most ancient times in Mesopotamia, and that have even been linked in some way, though not ethnically, with the Israelites in different times along history.

The Huns' origin is directly connected with two well-known peoples of ancient Middle East: the Sumerians and the Scythians, namely, in the kingdom founded by Nimrod. Even though they belong to the Japhetic stock and their most creditable ancestor is Magog, the Sumerian heritage has been kept by them more than by any other people, which implies that they are in fact the result of a mixed background. According to their own legendary accounts (legends that are anyway founded on true facts), it is very feasible that Magog's descent was under Nimrod's rule, and that they kept close ties with Sumerians even for a long time after the Sumerians disappeared from Mesopotamia as a national entity.

Their particular link with ancient Sumerians was found through the comparison of modern Hungarian (Magyar) and other related languages with documents of the ancient Middle East, that revealed a possible common origin. It is evident that the language element is absolutely not a sufficient basis to establish the origin of peoples, since language can be lost and adopted from other non-related cultures (for example, Yiddisch, a German-based tongue, became for centuries the language of European Jews, who are Semitic). Therefore, other more relevant elements like traditions, cultural heritage and, if existing, historic documents are needed.

Taking language as the starting point, we have to consider on one side the whole complex of peoples that may be regarded as Huns (Hunogurs, Bulgars, Magyars, Sabirs, etc) and on the other side, the relationship between Sumerians, Scythians, Hurrites and Elamites.

The ancient Sumerians, that in the dawn of history settled in Southern Mesopotamia, in the land commonly known as Shin'ar or Chaldea, arrived there from the north, precisely from the Ararat region, that they called "Subar-Ki" or "Subar-Tu". This area was also named after one of the peoples that inhabited there, the Hurri, whose language was agglutinative like Sumerian and had many words in common, even being a totally different tongue. Modern Hungarian shares many terms with both, Sumerian and Hurrian, as well as with Elamite. The peoples of that area, the Biblical Charan, were also called Subar, Supar, Sabir, etc. For example, Assyrian documents refer to them as Sapar-da; Persian records mention that country as the land of the Sabarda (Sabir) and the Matiene (Mada), while the Greek historian Herodotus refers to them as Sapir or Sabir, Makr or Magar and Matiene. One of the Subar tribes were the Mitanni, that ruled over the Hurrites and founded an important kingdom in association with them. Their land was then known also as Mada or Mata (not to be confused with Maday, the Medes, a different people). The term that may be transliterated as "mat", "madh", "madj" means "country" or "district" in Sumerian, Subarian, Parthian, and other related languages, and it was also used by the Assyrians and Egyptians with the same meaning. Notice that in those languages, the phoneme "dh" or "dj" is equal to the modern Hungarian "gy", and "megye" is still "district" or "province" in Hungarian. Therefore, if the denomination has been transferred along the generations, the Magyars might be the ancient tribe of Mitanni. The territory of the Mada or Mitanni is referred by some Egyptian documents as Magor. Magor was also the name of one of the mythical ancestors of the Hungarian nation according to the Legend of the White Stag.

Descendants of the Hurrites are credited as the founders of the Central Asian kingdom of Khwarezm, which is considered by some scholars as the original land of the Finnic and Altaic peoples, and that is in some way related to the Székely, one of the Hungarian tribes that will be mentioned later in this chapter.

Among the many terms that link the Northern Mesopotamian peoples to modern Hungarians, it is interesting to notice the following: in Hurrian/Subar language, the word "tarshua" means "all the people", while in Sumerian "shag" conveyed the meaning of people as well as head or high. In Hungarian "társaság" means "society", as "köztársaság" is "republic" (notice that "s" in Hungarian sounds like "sh").

Byzantine documents concerning the Hungarian prince Termatzu from Árpád's lineage assert that the oldest name of the Hungarians was Sabartoi Asphali, recalling their ancient Mesopotamian name Subar-tu and Sabir-ki, while Asphali was the Arab name of the Lower Zab river. Arab and Persian records also mention the tribe of Mager in the area of Azerbaidzhan. Until the 15th century c.e. there was a county in Armenia called Madzhar Agadzor, whose people believed that their origin was from one of Nimrod's sons, which coincides with the Hungarian legends. There are still geographic names in the Caucasus related to Magor and Nimrud.

The Magyar and Sabir peoples' names have been found in Northern Mesopotamia since the dawn of history, and then their traces lead eastwards to the Turkestan, where even today there are geographic names which attest their presence. Indeed, it is after the Sabirs that Siberia has been called like that.

Greek records mention two peoples called "Tibar and Moser" who were metal workers of the Caucasus; these names have an interesting though maybe only apparent resemblance with the Biblical Tuval and Meshek. In the chapter "The Peoples of the North", we have seen that Tuval is identified with the Tybareni, and such is actually the very name given by the Greeks, Tibar. These are believed by some historians to be the distorted names of Subar (Tibar) and Machar (Moser), which can also mean varieties of smiths in the Hungarian language: "mozser" meaning sword smith, "tibor" meaning smith in the past, but not in modern language. Similarly in Sumerian "tibir", smith, and Turkic "timur", iron. It is an interesting fact that the Subarians of the Caucasus were skilful metal smiths, and some metals names come from their language: in Sumerian "subur", bronze is apparent in the Hungarian "szobor", bronze statue. In the time of the Hungarian resettlement, the kind of steel used to make swords was called "sabura-kan". In the same way, the Subarian peoples were expert horsemen; and the Hungarian words for horse, warhorse and chariot are all from Northern Mesopotamia.

The Hungarian chronicles say very little about the early history of the Magyars. The main references to that period are found in two accounts, one of which is the Legend of the White Stag , that suggests the unification of three nations: Magyars, Huns and Alans. Of course, the integration of Alans with the Hun/Magyar tribes refers not to the whole people of the Alans, but only to some of their tribes. A valuable document about the story of the magical hunt in early versions was taken from the Hungarian Royal Library captured by the Turks and re-published under the title " Tarihi Üngürüs" (History of the Hungarians), now in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul.

The other reference to that period is very interesting since it mentions ancient rulers and Biblical patriarchs. That document starts with Tana, who is identified with Kush, the father of Nimrod - undoubtedly, the same as the Sumerian Etana of the city of Kish (Kush). The Kushan Scythians also had an ancestor called Kush-Tana. The Sumerian Etana was the first mighty one on earth who wanted to visit heaven, and did - this coincides with the Biblical account concerning Nimrod, and his role in the construction of the Tower of Bavel. In the Hungarian account, his son is called Ménrót (Nimrud), whose sons were Magor, Hunor, and the ancestors of the Iranians. This resembles the myths recorded by Berosus, the outstanding historian of Babylon. Even the wife of Nimrud (Anuta/Bau) has similar names in the Hungarian version, Eneth/Boldog-asszony. Assyrian accounts refer that Nimrud had twin sons, one of whose names is Magor. Following this mythical ancestor there is a short list of patriarchs who can be associated to early Scythian ones as recorded by Herodotus. This period then is followed by the better documented historic Avar-Hun rulers, concluding with the early Hungarian leaders before and after the settlement in the Danubian Basin. They emphasize the strong dynastic bonds with the Huns. The Hun tribes were the heirs of the Scythians by culture and consanguinity. An interesting reference is the burial rites of Scythians and Huns, that were quite similar: the same barrows, burial frames of logs and thick timbers, burial blocks, sacrificial horses etc.

The name of Árpád, the founder of the modern Hungary, can be found in ancient records, from Egypt to Northern Mesopotamia. According to the Hungarian legend of the Turul Hawk (a mythical bird which corresponds to the Sumerian "Dugud"), Ügyek, the descendant of king Magog (the Scythian king Magog lived in Northern Mesopotamia, according to Assyrian records) and a royal leader of the land of Scythia, married the daughter of Ened-Belia, whose name was Emeshe (a word that means "priestess" in Sumerian language). From her was born their first son Álmos. Álmos, who was Árpád's father, is said to be a descendant of Attila the Hun.

Among the very few records attesting the earliest presence of the Huns in western Asia, there are some Persian documents: at Persepolis, there are written on the walls the names of some of the subject nations, among which Sapardia and Hunae. Being mentioned one next to the other may indicate that they were neighbours. Scythia, which early Hungarians called Hetmagyar ("Seven Magyars", of whom we speak furtherly) is recorded in the ancient legends of Persia, the Zend Avesta, under the name of "Haetumat", and located in Sakastan (Scythia).

The territories of the Huns at various times stretched from Central Asia to Central Europe, from Siberia and China to North India. To consider them as barbaric "nomads" actually means to ignore their true history and to underestimate them. Modern researchers in the Huns' old homelands have found quite the opposite: paved streets, stone buildings, agriculture, metallurgy, and even writing. Much less sheep-breeding than the later Mongols who replaced them after they left. Europeans often equated and degraded all horsemen as "nomads and barbarians" even though there were sometimes great cultural differences between different groups. The Chinese historians clearly distinguish between Mongols and Huns, stating that the earlier Huns were much more advanced than the Mongols who came after them.

As stated previously, the Huns were indeed a complex of peoples rather than a single nation. After their arrival in Europe, the Hun tribes developed their own history and identity; some of them achieved in establishing themselves as an organized state, others were assimilated by non-related nations. Their heritage has been transferred to many Eurasian peoples, including the Uyghurs of Western China and several Turkic and Ugro-Finnic tribes. Indeed, they were no longer regarded as "Huns" and were considered separately. Two of them have given their name to modern European states: the Bulgars and the Magyars.

The Bulgars

The Bulgar Huns appear in early times in the Caucasus, from where they subsequently expand towards the Volga Basin, in the territory that approximately coincides with a great part of Khazaria. The first historical accounts that refer to them come from Armenian and Syrian documents. There are also Chinese sources since the first century b.c.e. until the eighth century c.e. that mention the Bulgars dwelling in the Uyghur territories, too. Regarded as direct descendants of the Sumerians and the Scythians, the myth of their origins roughly reproduces the legends of the Magyars.

The Bulgars were, or became, the main component of a larger ethnos known as Hunogurs or Onogurs, and were closely related to the Khazars. There is also a controversy about the original Bulgars being Huns or not; nevertheless, if they were not, and however closely related to them, they joined the Huns in early times and reached Europe together with them.

One of the most valuable documents regarding their early history is the "Church History" by Zachariah the Rhetor, written in Assyrian language (Syriac Aramaic) in the sixth century c.e., and describes the Caucasus as the "Huns' lands", listing thirteen peoples: Abdel, Alan, Avar, Avgar, Bagrasir, Bulgar, Dirmar, Hephtalit, Khazar, Kulas, Kutargar, Sabir and Sirurgur. Some of these peoples are not Huns, like the Alans and Avars (or the Hephtalites, improperly called "White Huns"), others are tribes of a larger ethnos, like the Kutriguri, a branch of the Bulgars. He mentions also the Avnagur, who are clearly identifiable with the Hunogurs, and of whom Armenian records attest that they dwelled in the Caucasus. The earliest references are found in the work of Egishe, written in the fifth century c.e., which states that in the mountain land by the Caspian Sea dwelled the Huns Hajlandur'k - the resemblance with the term "Highlander" is pure coincidence -, ruled by a royal clan and in good relationship with the Kushan. The Hajlandur people are identified with the Hunogurs according to related history texts.

The texts also mention a people north of the Caucasus called the Unogundurs. The name Onghondor-blkar in the Armenian geography is a variant of the older Vh'ndur-bulgar in the History of Moses Horenaci and both terms are transcribed in Greek as Unogundur or Unogur. These are just two denominations of the same tribe, the Hunogurs or Onogurs. After the departure of the Huns for Central Europe, a group of Unogundurs occupied the plains of maritime Daghestan and became known to Egishe under the name Hajlandurs. Almost all chroniclers identify the Unogundurs with the original Bulgarians. Even the khan of the Great Bulgaria Kubrat was called "the ruler of the Unogundurs".

The Hunogur/Bulgars were displaced from the Caucasus by the Sabirs and other Hun tribes, and migrated northwards to the steppes of Southern Russia, though some of them settled in Armenia. Their heritage in the Caucasus is represented today by some peoples in Daghestan and mainly by the Karachay and Balkar, both of them associated with Circassian tribes in autonomous politic entities [Kabardino-Balkarskaya and Karachayevo-Cherkesskaya]. The relics of Hun burials and typical Hun monuments have been found in the territory of both these republics. These peoples are the rich mixture of different Hun/Hunogur/Bulgar tribes, with the contribution of Khazars. Indeed, one of the Khazar tribes called "Basi" or "Bas" is reflected in the name of a legendary Balkarian hero, Basiat, and in the way Georgians call Balkarians, Basiani. According to many scholars, Khazars and Bulgars were almost the same people and spoke one language.

Their settlement in the area of the Volga river is however connected to Attila the Hun. In his time, the Huns intermarried with the peoples of the steppes, including the Sarmatians, acquiring new cultural features. According to tradition, he divided his hordes among his sons, giving to Ellak the Sabir peoples, to Dengizik the Kutriguri, and to Irnak the Utiguri. Concerning the latter tribes, Procopius said that one of the Hun kings had two sons, Utihur and Kuturhur. After the death of their father, the tribes subject to them consolidated into two separate tribes, which became the two branches of ancient Bulgarians. These two peoples were often at war against each other, what caused their weakening and subsequent displacement westwards after the Avars overran their lands. A large number of them were carried by the Avars to the Danubian plains.

One century later, Bulgars achieved in re-organizing their kingdom in the Northern Caucasus area, but the rising power of the Khazars subdued them. Then, the Bulgars split into three groups: a large number remained within the Khazar Empire; a second group re-settled by the Volga river beyond the northern boundary of Khazaria and founded Bulgar; the third branch, led by Asparukh, migrated westwards and established their kingdom in Moldavia. The Volga Bulgarians became powerful after the collapse of Khazaria, and their capital, Bulgar, was the main commercial centre between the Baltic and the Caspian Seas. The Bulgars of Moldavia crossed the Danube, where they met remnants of Attila's Huns, and defeated the Byzantines, establishing the nation that is called Bulgaria until today.

Since then, these three branches followed separate ways: The Kuban Bulgarians, identified better as Hunogurs, became with Magyars and Khazars the people known today as Hungarians. The Volga Bulgarians slowly assimilated with other Uralic peoples into the present-day Bashkirs, Tatars and Chuvash. The Balkan Bulgarians were completely Slavicized in a relatively short time; their old language was replaced by the modern Slavonic Bulgarian by the tenth century c.e., and are now considered a Slavic people.

Huns, Hunogurs and Magyars

Origins of the Hungarian Nation

The Hungarians have an interesting and complex history about their origins, that in different versions, historic or legendary, always indicate an association of two main peoples, to which other tribes joined. In the dawn of history, they are directly related to Sumerians and Scythians, with contribution of Subartians, Mitanni, Hurrites and Elamites. After their long "wandering" in Asia, they make irruption in European history in different migratory waves, first as Huns and then as Magyars, but also Onogurs (all these groups related to both Scythians and Sumerians), and mixed with Khazars, Alans, Avars and other Turkic tribes, including the Hurritic Khwarezmians. In fact, their nation is still widely recognized under two different names: Magyarország and Hungária. The controversy still subsists, if the Magyars were Huns or not. There are elements that suggest that Magyars and Huns were one and the same people in ancient Mesopotamia, and that in early times migrated in different stages, thus becoming separate groups that developed independently, though being always in touch with each other. Conventionally, we have to give a name to that original stock (being itself a mixture of Sumerians and Scythians), and either that name is Hun or Magyar is of secondary importance, though the term "Magyar" seems to be the oldest of both. Nevertheless, this term became the name of one single tribe, while Huns is suitable to the whole; therefore, we can define the Magyars as one of the Hun tribes, probably, the Sumerian/Mitanni component of the Scythian tribes that later became the Huns.

In other languages usually both names are used to identify the nation, though it seems that in the Middle Ages they were not exactly equivalent, and that Magyar-related terms referred to the language most widely spoken by the inhabitants of the Hun-related lands. It is a commonplace that the name Hungaria is connected with the Hun peoples. When in the year 4656 (896 c.e.) the Magyars, coming from the east, started multitude of raiding parties that recalled to Western Europeans' mind the invasions of Attila, they were called "Hungars", not Magyars. Of course, Hungarus is not exactly Hun; and even though the two names resemble each other, there is a "g" added to "Hun" that has not any apparent linguistic explanation. Where this "g" might have come from will be explained furtherly.

In 5248 (1488 c.e.) it was published a printed chronicle, Chronica Hungarorum (Thuroczy, 1488). All the four authors were high members of the royal administration; so the texts must reflect the official opinion about Hungarian history. All of them suggest a direct connection between Attila the Hun and the Hungarian kings. The chronicle was written in Latin. It is recurrent in the text the "Hunni, sive Hungari" expression, that does not need any explanation because of the similarity of the names. However the usual Magyar translation is "hunok, azaz magyarok", "Huns, namely Magyars", which means a nontrivial identification. Still, this equation is also explicit in the chronicle, that refers to the two forefathers of the nation, two Biblical patriarchs, Nimrod the "great hunter before Elohim" (and king of the Sumerians) and Magog, son of Yephet (ancestor of the Scythians). Nimrod's wife was Eneh, and their two sons were Hunor & Magor. Once they went to hunt a white female deer, who led them to new lands in the marshes of Maiotis. Thence came the Hungarian nation, according to the legend.

Nevertheless, the term "Hungarus" may have another origin: Attila's son Irnak re-organized the Hun hordes in the Volga-Don area. According to Bulgarian history, Asparuch, the founder of present Balkan Bulgaria in 4441 (681 c.e.) belonged to the lineage of Irnak, who was the head of the Bulgarian dynasty. Therefore, it is certain the fact that Irnak organized a new tribal alliance in the Maiotis region. The tribes associated in this "Bulgarian" alliance are called Onogur. "On Ogur" means Ten Tribe or Ten Arrow, tribes symbolised by arrows. Even though in modern Turkish the expression would be On Oguz, the form "ogur" is characteristic for a well defined minority group of Turkic languages, of which a surviving one is the Chuvash, spoken by the direct descendants of the Volga Bulgars. Being these ten tribes an alliance of Hun peoples (or predominantly composed by Huns), they are as well called "Hun Ogur", meaning Hun Tribe. Therefore, the name "Hungaria" may come from Hunogur, and the "g" missing in the word Hun is now explained. Notwithstanding, some Magyar historians that are overcautious about Hun-Magyar connections, suggest that the name of Hungary comes from Onogur, being the "h" a later addition. Indeed, in some languages the initial "h" is missing, like in German (Ungarn) or Romanian (Ungur), and the initial "u" became "v" in Slavic languages.

Some historians suggested a possible identification of the Huns with the Xiung-nu (or Hsiung-nu) of the Chinese chronicles, but it has still not been proven. Nevertheless, there is another people in China closely related to the Huns, and recent discoveries show amazing resemblances with Hungarians: the Uyghurs, whose land is historically called "Dzhungharia". Uyghurs played important roles in the Asiatic Hun empire during about six centuries, and then in the Kök Turk kingdom, from which Khazars arose. Even being so far away, their relationship with Huns and Khazars are significant so much that they seem to be the eastern counterpart of the Magyars. The Uyghur archaeological evidence is important to confirm the Hun-Magyar connection as well, crediting the historicity of the original account from which the Hungarian legends came.

There are two main mythical accounts regarding the origin of Hungarians: one is the legend of the " White Stag", frequently mentioned before, that describes the story of Nimrod's sons, Hunor and Magor. They were pursuing a female stag that led them into a foreign land and there she vanished without leaving any trace. The disappointed hunters met there two sisters, princesses of the Alans, kidnapped and married them. Thus they became the forefathers of Huns and Magyars. There is another version of this legend (in Simon Kézai's "Gesta Hungarorum"), according to which the two brothers arrived in the marshes of Maiotis while pursuing a hind that they did not find any more. Anyway, they found the land suitable for raising livestock, and settled there. After some years, they married the two daughters of the prince of the Alans, and became the forefathers of all the Huns (Magyars are not mentioned in this version).

This legend in both versions acknowledges a third party, the Alans, who actually contributed to the ethnogenesis of modern Hungarians. The stag is relevant in Scythian mythology, and this legend remarks the Scythian origin of Hungarians.

The second account is the legend of the Turul Hawk, mentioned before, that belongs to the Sumerian ancestry. The Turul is the symbol of both the house of Attila the Hun and the Magyar dynasty of Árpád. The mythical story explains that Ügyek, a descendant of Magog, was the king of Scythians and married Emeshe, a Sumerian princess, from whom Álmos was born after a Turul hawk came from heaven and made her fertile. In the same vision, she saw her descendants to be kings in a far away land in the west. The characteristic aspect of this legend, that credits the actual Sumerian origin of Magyars, is that Álmos is described as dark complexioned and black-eyed (indeed, it would seem rather unexplainable that Hungarians and Ethiopians share a common ancestor, Kush, but the original nations should have been very few in the dawn of history, becoming many diversified peoples by migration and mixture). It is also remarkable the fact that in modern Hungarian the name Álmos means sleepy/dreamer, but the ancient Ugrian form of the word dream was Adom, Adam, similar to the Hebrew for "man". Álmos was the father of Árpád, the founder of modern Hungary.

Hungarians today call themselves "Magyar". This name, as it was said before, is likely related to the ancient land of Magar or Matiene and the Mitanni people in Northern Mesopotamia. However, since their myth of origins is more explicitly referred to the ancient Sumerians, it is interesting to notice that Sumerians called themselves and their language "Emegir" (a word with apparent resemblance with Magyar), and their country was called Kiengi.

With certainty, Hungarians had multiple origins. The Magyars were the leading tribe of the alliance that conquered the Danubian Basin in 4656 (896 c.e.). They found there the remnants of the Avars, from 4328 (568 c.e.), and also the Hunogurs dwelling there from 4440 (680 c.e.). Hunogurs and Magyars indeed shared a long-lasting relationship in Khazaria, either alliance or rivalry. Magyars were first allied with the Khazars against the Hunogur/Bulgar tribes, in a subsequent period the rebel Khazars (Kabars) and Hunogur clans joined the Magyars. -The term Hunogur is often used as equivalent to Bulgar, what is not thoroughly exact. Bulgars had for a long time a prevailing position in the Hunogur complex, but in later times the Hunogurs sealed alliance with the Magyars.-

Magyars were organized in a confederacy of seven tribes. The Alliance of Hetmagyar [seven Magyars] was a border defender ally of Khazaria mainly during the reign of Kings Bulan and Ovadyah. The Alliance of Seven Magyar consisted of the following tribes: Jenô, Kér, Keszi, Kürt-Gyarmat, Megyer, Nyék, Tarján. The Kabars joined them later, when they turned against the Khazars. Some of these seven tribes were probably part of the On-Ogur [ten tribes], consequently, Magyars took the leadership of part of the Hunogurs dwelling in Khazaria and started their move to the west. When they reached the Carpathian-Danubian Basin, they came across other Hunogur tribes dwelling there since about two centuries before, and those settled there with the Avars. The migration from Khazaria and Levedia to the present-day Hungary was completed after the collapse of the Khazar Empire, with many Khazars taking refuge in the realm of their old allies and rivals. Other groups like Kiptchaks (Kumans), Yazygs (Sarmatians), etc. added their contribution in composing the modern Hungarian nation.

Even though the largest number of the Magyars migrated westwards, many remained in the Caucasus and others moved north between the Volga Bulgarian land and the Ural Mountains, present-day Bashkiria. Indeed, four of the seven Hungarian tribal names (Yeney/Jenô, Djurmati/Gyarmat, Tamyan/Tarján, Girei/Kér) are still found in Bashkiria. The very term "Bashkir" is a Turkic misspelling of Magyar, and neighbouring peoples call the Bashkirs in a similar way as Hungarians call themselves (Mozerjan/Magyar). When the Mongols invaded Hungary they had previously run over the Bashkirs' land, and applied the same name to both Hungarians and the Bashkirs of the Urals. Early Persian and Arab references relate both peoples as the eastern and western branches of the Hungarians. However, modern Bashkirs are quite different from their original stock, largely decimated during the Mongol invasion, and assimilated into Turkic peoples.

The definitive establishment of the Hungarian nation in the Danubian area was completed with the "Hungarian Resettlement"; nevertheless, in the Carpathian Basin, usually defined as Transylvania (Erdély, Ardeal), there is a consistent Hungarian population that is historically not related to the Seven Magyars alliance: they are the Székely, the main ethnic component of the Hungarian minority in Romania. They are fully acknowledged as Magyars, and according to their own tradition, they are Huns - thus explicitly confirming the identity of Magyars as a Hun tribe.

The legend of their origins identifies in a mythical way Irnak (Attila's son) with an ancient legendary hero, Csaba, thus tracing their own ancestry back to a much earlier age, relating themselves not only with the Huns, but with Hurrians and Sumerians as well. Indeed, the legend of Csaba the shepherd and guardian of the people was originally written in Sumerian. He married a Khwarezmian woman, and Khwarezm was founded by the Hurrians. There are also Indian accounts that credit historicity to the origin of this legend, regarding the Scythians of the Csaba tribe from Khwarezm, part of which migrated and settled in India.

The Székely people's tradition states that after Attila's empire collapsed, his youngest and favourite son Ernák (Prince Csaba), led them to settle in Transylvania, and they consider themselves to be the descendants of the army of Csaba. He left Örmedzur as their chief. The Hungarian term "ör" means guard, "medzur" actually sounds like an archaic form of Madzar (Magyar), the ruling tribe found amongst eastern Scythians . Therefore, Ör-medzur is likely a title meaning "Magyar guard".

The Székely people's origin is a matter of historical controversy. It is certain that they were settled in the Carpathian Basin in early times, not only long before the Seven Magyar tribes left their homeland in Khazaria and Levedia, but also before the Bulgarians reached the Balkans. Scholarly accounts of Székely sources state that they were Huns, disclaiming any other possible ethnicity. When the Seven Magyars met them, they found a people speaking the very same language, and having the same Runic writing system, called Rovás (Hun/Magyar/Székely Rovásírás). Also the " Tarihi Üngürüs" confirms the great affinity between both peoples and their common language, a remarkable fact considering that they were geographically separated from each other for at least three or four centuries.

To conclude, we can say with certainty that the Magyars were originally Huns, and probably one of the Hunogur tribes, consequently, very closely related to the Bulgars. Their ancestry concerning Biblical patriarchs can be traced to Kush, forefather of the Sumerians, and Magog, the Scythians. Since the Alans have also contributed, their third ancestor is Meshekh.

As it was stated in the beginning of this chapter, they have been in some way related with the Israelites in different times along history. In fact, Avraham was an inhabitant of Ur and had Sumerian neighbours; then he settled in Charan, that is Subartu and Magor, the land of the Hurrites and Mitanni. Centuries later, the Northern Israelites were exiled in Assyria and Media, and from those lands most of them migrated eastwards, as many of them have been living in China until recent times. It is even possible that intermarriage occurred with Huns, as well as with Khazars. Since the fifth century b.c.e., Jews settled in Central Asia and around the Caspian Sea established peaceful exchange with the Huns and the other peoples of the region. Then, the Khazar leadership adopted Judaism. After the Khazar Empire collapsed, many Khazarian Jews took refuge in Hungary. The Hungarian Jewry enjoys a rich cultural heritage from both east and west, and has actively contributed in the development of modern Hungary.

The Khazars

Who were the Khazars, and with whom should they be identified today?

The "Khazar issue"

The discovery of the Khazar Kingdom that flourished in the Middle Ages has became now a favourite topic of argument ad speculation by the anti-Semites and other fanatic and hate groups and organizations that attempt to undermine the Jewishness of the Jews, often to claim the rights of the Jews for themselves. Here I want to expose some essential facts regarding the Khazars and their history, their contribution and assimilation within the Ashkenazic Jewry.

Before dealing with the subject of this page, it is important to make clear some irrefutable facts:

There are supporters of the false hypothesis that all present-day Jews are not of Israelite origin but Khazars, and they found their claim in the fact that many Khazars adopted Judaism as their belief. Even if such assertion be true for a large number of Jews (which is not), this may be said exclusively of the Ashkenazim, which is only one of the ethnic branches of the Jewish nation. Actually, nobody can ascribe Khazar origin to the Sephardi, Teymani, Mizrachi, Bukharan, Indian, Ethiopic and all the other branches, that constitute the majority of the Jewish population and are undoubtedly of Semitic, Israelite origin. Therefore, whoever tries to undermine the Jewish right on Eretz Yisrael has failed the goal since the beginning: even if none of the Ashkenazim be a true Jew, all the non-Ashkenazim Jews are enough to claim the Land of Israel as their homeland, with Yerushalaym as their capital.

Notwithstanding, it is essential to establish: 1) the origin of the Ashkenazim Jews of Eastern Europe; 2) the origin of the Khazarian Jews; and 3) the origin of the Russian, Polish and Balkan Jews.

1) Ashkenazim is the general definition applied to the heterogeneous branch of European Jews, excluding those of the Mediterranean area. As the term itself suggests, it referred in origin to the Jews dwelling in the Mitteleuropa, considered to be the land of Ashkenaz, but was subsequently applied in an extended manner to different Jewish communities that include German, Polish, Scandinavian, Russian and Danubian Jews among others.

The Mitteleuropean Jews sojourned in Germany, Austria and Bohemia long enough as to develop their own German-based language: Yiddisch, which became the "official" tongue of all Ashkenazim Jews. It was from Germany that they emigrated eastwards and reached Russia.

Genetic tests indicate that Ashkenazim Jews are also the direct descendants of the Israelites, and their DNA confirms their ancestry from the ancient Middle East. Genetics studies show that Ashkenazim Jews are more closely related to Yemenite Jews, Assyrian Jews, Sephardic Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Arabs than they are to European peoples, and that hardly any intermarriage or conversion has occurred to affect the Jewish groups over the centuries.*

2) When the Khazarian rulers converted to Judaism (and also before), they established religious freedom, which was a determinant fact to attract those persecuted minorities in Europe and the Islamic countries to immigrate into their kingdom. Besides the Jewish population already living in Khazaria, a large number of Jews persecuted in the Byzantine Empire and other areas fled to that land of freedom and prosperity. Jews came to Khazaria from Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and even from Western Europe, as documented by al-Masudi, Sa'adiyah Gaon, the Schechter Letter and other accounts. The Arab writer Dimashqi wrote that these refugee Jews offered their religion to the Khazars and that they "found it better than their own and accepted it".* Jewish immigrants quickly outnumbered the native Jews of the kingdom.

It is documented that also many Khazars adopted Judaism after their kings themselves converted to the Jewish belief, but it is not possible to establish whether they were more or less in number than the original Jew inhabitants of Khazaria.

3) After the fall of the Khazar Empire, the Kievan Rus' took its place and ruled over its territory. Consequently, a large number of Jews - both Khazar and non-Khazar (Israelite) - became the inhabitants of the growing Slavic-Varangian (Russian) state. The Russians inherited most of the social system of the Khazar Kingdom, and granted a relative religious freedom to their new heterogeneous population. Since the 11th century c.e., the havoc wrought by the Crusades in the Jewish communities of Western Europe caused a constant stream of German Jews fleeing to the comparatively free countries of the Slavonians. Russia was the most desired land to live in those times. The Jewish settlers from abroad soon outnumbered the native Jews, spreading their Yiddisch language and their customs wherever they established themselves. Besides the Ashkenazim, the great majority of the Jewry, which had until then lived under the shelter of Arab rule, fled eastward to escape the new inquisition in Spain, and reached Ukraine, Poland and Russia, where they met with Jews who had been continuously migrating there from Germany since the 11th century c.e. Most of East European Jews migrated from the west to the east of the continent, and were not descended from the inhabitants of the Khazar Empire. They are actually a fusion of Balkan-Greek Jews from the Byzantine Empire, Babylonian Jews from the Abbasid Caliphate, Yiddish-speaking Jews from Germany, Sephardic Jews fleeing the Spanish inquisition, and Khazars. All these groups intermarried over the centuries, so that the Khazar converts disappeared as a distinguishable ethnical entity and their descendants became fully Jewish with Israelite ancestry.

Russian Jews descend mainly from Mitteleuropean Jews, while the first Polish Jews had Slavic given names typical of Bohemia and Moravia. Sephardic Jews from Spain, Portugal, and Turkey emigrated as well to Poland, Hungary and Romania and intermarried with Ashkenazim Jews. This has been confirmed by research done on numerous families' genealogies, some of which have Sephardic surnames and oral traditions of Sephardic ancestry.*

If Khazarian ethnicity may be considered in any way of relevant influence among Russian Jews, the same is not valid for those of Poland; which is confirmed also by the following facts:

Polish "shtetl" life is completely extraneous to the Khazars.

The majority of Polish Jews came from the west, not the east.

There are no places in Poland that may recall Khazar origin.

Most Ashkenazi Jews have Germanic, not Khazar, surnames and customs.

There's not any relevant trace of the Khazarian language among Jews, on the contrary, the Ashkenazim's tongue, Yiddisch, is evidently of German origin.*

The Khazars

The origin of the Khazars and their earliest history is hidden within other peoples of Scythian stock, and very few is known of them before the sixth century c.e., when they established a powerful kingdom in Southern Russia, between the Dniepr and the Aral Sea. Anyway, they are surely very closely related to the Huns, who are the subject of the next chapter. According to their own records, they descend from Togarmah through his son Khozar. This hypothesis would be feasible, but the Khazarian tradition is not creditable since they consider Togarmah the father of Turkic nations and differs from the Caucasian (Kartvelian and Armenian) records which are reliable. According to Khazars, Togarmah had ten sons called Ujur, Tauris, Avar, Uauz, Bizal, Tarna, Khozar, Janur, Bulgar and Savir, whose names obviously coincide with different Turkic tribes once settled in the area around the Black and Caspian Seas, within the Khazarian Empire. This alleged descent from Togarmah seems to belong to the later period, when Khazars adopted Judaism.

Even though some peoples in ancient times joined others of different extraction (like the Alans, that were a leading Sarmatic tribe, then contributed with the Huns/Magyars to form the Hungarian nation while other branches were assimilated by Slavic peoples), the Khazars are more likely related to Magog and eventually to Sumerians. Anyway, it is also possible that the Khazars were in origin a Caucasian people of Togarmah that became part of the Scythian and subsequently Turkic peoples.

The lack of knowledge and information about the Khazars' history and their civilization is due to historic revisionism - as it is well known, history is re-written by those who replaced the extinct civilization, in this case, the Russians and Byzantines, and by the surviving enemies, the Arabs. Their link to Judaism has been a determinant factor for historians to obscure the importance and high cultural development of the Khazars (in a similar way as the Hyksos' rule over Egypt is discredited).

From about the year 4310 to 4390 (550 to 630 c.e.), the Khazars were ruled by the Kök Turks. When that empire collapsed as a result of civil wars, the Khazars successfully achieved their independence.

The kingdom of Khazaria was in the beginning in the Northern Caucasus area, with the capital at Balanjar, identified with the archaeological site Verkhneye Chir-Yurt. Around the year 4480 (720 c.e.), the Khazars transferred their capital to Samandar, by the Caspian Sea, a nice city with beautiful gardens and vineyards. Thirty years later, the administrative centre was moved to the city of Itil, in the Volga Delta, near Khazaran ("Itil" was also the name of the Volga River in those times), and remained the capital of the Khazar kingdom for about two centuries.* Another fortified city and very important trading centre was Sarkel, by the Don River. Also Kiev, which became later the Russian capital, was founded by Khazars and Magyars.

The Khazarian Empire extended its territory from the Dniepr River in the west to the Aral Sea in the east, controlling most of the shores of the Caspian Sea, so that it is still called "Khazar Sea" in Turkish, Persian, Arabic and other languages of that area. The Khazars conquered and ruled over many peoples like Huns, Bulgars, Magyars, Sabirs, Pechenegs, Sarmatic, Slavic, Turkic and Caucasian tribes, etc. and displaced others beyond their kingdom boundaries.

The Khazars advanced over the lands by the Volga River, that was then the realm of the Bulgar Huns and, although these were a numerous and warlike people, they could not withstand the Khazars. Part of them moved northwards along the Volga, outside the Khazar jurisdiction, and settled their capital in the city of Bulgar; others fled westwards as far as the Danube River, where they founded the present-day Bulgaria; and others remained in Khazaria or re-settled in the Caucasus, giving origin to the Balkharian people. Once the Khazars' kingdom was consolidated and prosperous, the Bulgar Huns became their allies.

The history and destiny of the Khazars is, more than to any other people, closely related to another Hun tribe: the Magyars. The Khazar-Magyar was a mutual love-hate relationship. In the beginning they were associated against the Bulgars and other tribes, subsequently, the Magyars were allied with the Kabars (rebel Khazars) against the Khazars and Bulgars, that in turn established an alliance. After the collapse of the Khazar Empire, the Magyars, that by that time had consolidated their Danubian kingdom, welcomed many Khazars fleeing from the Russians.

Reliable documents attest that there was a fluent Magyar-Khazar/Kabar relationship, and that Magyars and Khazars learned each other's languages: The Khazar language was spoken in Hungary until the 10th century c.e. and was assimilated into the Magyar tongue. There are still some places in Hungary that show evident Khazar origin, like Nagykozár and Kískozár (Great and Little Khazar).

Another interesting fact is the description that several contemporary authors gave of the Khazars, saying that they had a fair skin, blue eyes, red hair and other features that resemble those of modern Hungarians.

The Khazarian Empire

The Khazar Empire extended its hegemony over a significant part of the world, controlled one of the most important trade routes between the Middle East and Northern Europe, and its civilization influenced Eastern European peoples as far as the Baltic shores and the Danubian Basin. Nevertheless, if it were not for some few references from Arabic, Persian and other sources, the very existence of the Khazars would hardly have become known!

The most important document about their reign reached us through the correspondence of a Sephardi Jew, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, appointed by the caliph of Cordoba (Spain) to an important administrative role. He heard about a mysterious kingdom in the East where Jews were not persecuted but enjoyed freedom and were even kings, and took advantage of his position to obtain an embassy to Khazaria and establish relationships with that kingdom.

Other records, mainly Arabic, emphasized the Jewish character of that empire.

Even though Khazars were excellent warriors and imposed their rule over several warlike peoples, Khazaria was one of the most pacific states in the world, and had the most advanced justice system. Far from being an expansionist state, has played a role of fundamental importance in stopping Muslim expansionism. Indeed, Arabs conquered westwards all the North-African lands up to the Atlantic Ocean and ruled over Spain, having even crossed the Pyrenees, but they were unable to enlarge their northern border and cross over the Caucasus, because they were repeatedly defeated by the Khazars in the Khazar-Arab wars (7th and 8th centuries c.e.). Khazaria prevented Islam from spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains and thanks to this, all of Eastern Europe has not been overrun by the Arabs and become Islamic.

On the other side, Khazaria has never raised war against the Eastern Roman Empire, on the contrary, had frequently been at war with Byzantium's enemies. Indeed, if the Eastern Roman Empire survived the successive onslaughts of the Sassanid Persians and Abbasid Arabs it is owed to the Khazars. Therefore, it is European Christianity rather than the European Jewry that has taken a great advantage from Khazaria!

The Khazarian cultural heritage and judicial system has been as well adopted by succeeding reigns: the Kievan Rus' (Scandinavian-ruled Slavs) and the Hungarians both adopted the dual-kingship system of the Khazars. The Russian princes also borrowed the title kahan and patterned their legal procedures after the Khazars.

Khazars and Jews

The Khazar royalty was descended from the Ashina Turk dynasty. In the 9th century c.e., the Khazarian kings and nobility as well as a significant part of the Khazarian population embraced the Jewish belief and adopted the hallmarks of Judaism, including Torah and Talmud, the Hebrew script and the observance of Jewish holidays.* Anyway, most of the empire's population adopted either Christianity or Islam. The Jewish kings established a legal system that equally respected each religion, and the courts were ruled by Jewish, Christian, Muslim and also Slavic judges.

The Scythian-Turkic peoples, to which Khazars belong, were originally nomads and had an elementary Runic writing system, if any. In fact, when the Turks conquered the Arab Empire, they adopted Arabic script and began to keep records of their own history, which hardly existed before. In the same way, the Khazar Kahans observed the Jews dwelling in their kingdom and proved admiration for the Jews' culture and technical abilities, so that they appointed Jews as their counsellors and commercial advisors (Ottoman Turk Sultans did the same centuries later). The Jews taught them the art of writing, and since then, the Khazar language was written in Hebrew-Aramaic script.

King Bulan adopted Judaism in 4621 (861 c.e.), according to tradition, after having heard a debate between representatives of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths. King Ovadiyah, his successor and the first of a series of kings with Hebrew names, established synagogues and Jewish schools in Khazaria. The Khazar nobility and many of the common people, as well as some of the Alan tribes, embraced Judaism. (see Khazar Kings list)

Yet, the association between Jews and Khazars begins many centuries earlier. The Jews encountered Scythian-Turkic tribes, including the Khazars, in the fifth century b.c.e. in Asia, when Israelite merchants from Assyria and Persia reached Kaifeng, then the capital of China. It is even possible that intermarriage occurred with Khazars and members of some of the Northern Israelite tribes, those considered "lost", which have dwelled in China and only now are being discovered and returning back to Israel. In this case, the Khazars' particular tendency towards Judaism would have a natural, genetic link. In fact, such idea was also spread among Khazar kings, who asserted that they did not convert, but returned back to Judaism. If this is true, the "Khazar Issue" supporters (see above) would lack any reason at all, but I would not fall into speculative theories as they do.

Jewish-Turk relationships were continuous since then, and Jews became an influent people in many Central Asian towns like Balkh, Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, etc. Jews and the Turkic tribes dwelled together and had a peaceful exchange during centuries.

When the Khazars settled around the Caspian Sea, they found there some communities of Jews that were deported from Galil in 3409 (351 b.c.e.).

In the 10th century c.e., the political situation changed: the Sarmatic-Slavic tribes were organized under Scandinavian Russians, giving birth to a new rising power, the Kievan Rus'. On the other front, the Abbasid Empire was in decline, consequently, no longer threatening for Byzantium. This situation frustrated the importance of Khazaria as a safeguard for the Christian Europe. The Magyars consolidated their state in the Danubian Basin, and aimed at achieving the hegemony over the Balkans, where their kin-related Bulgars were still the leading nation.

The perfidious Byzantines, who have always taken advantage of the good relationships with the Khazarian Empire, first supported the Magyars against the Bulgarians (who were allies of the Khazars), by assailing them from the south while Magyars advanced in the north. Hungary became the new hegemonic state in the Balkans. Secondly, the Byzantines encouraged the Rus' (Varangian Scandinavians have supplied the Eastern Roman Empire with mercenary troops for centuries) to attack the Khazar Kingdom, that fell under the Viking armies in 4776 (1016 c.e.).

Nevertheless, the Khazar heritage was transferred to the two new powerful states: the Rus' and Hungary. The rather underdeveloped Rus tribes thus became heir to the industrial, technological and commercial development that took place under the Judaic/Khazar state over the course of three centuries. The presence of Jewish communities in Kiev and elsewhere in Southern Russia were essential for maintaining the industries they had established and for bringing wealth into the region with the commercial ties they had likewise established.

After the fall of their kingdom, the Khazars gradually intermixed mainly with the Kipchak (Kuman) populations and lost their character of being a distinct people. Several ethnic groups of the Caucasus such as Karachays, Kumyks and Daghestani tribes have Khazars among their ancestors. The Kabars (a rebel Khazar tribe of whom many were also Jewish) emigrated to Hungary and were assimilated by their very closely kin-related Magyars.

The Khazarian population in Hungary was in constant increase since the Hungarian Duke Taksony (4715-4730 / 955-970 c.e.) invited Khazar Jews to settle in his realm. On the other hand, Hungarian Jews promoted for a while the suggestion that they were themselves of Khazar rather than authentic Jewish origin, and hence legitimate Hungarians no less than the Magyars.** There were many converted Khazars among them, but the majority was of original Jewish stock. Undoubtedly, the most strongly Khazar element within Jews is present in Hungarian Jews, descendants of the last Khazars who fled into Hungary until the 14th century c.e., where they were received by their former vassals, the Magyar kings. The Hungarian Jews are definitely a fusion of Semitic German Jews, Khazars, Kabars and Sephardic immigrants who came to Hungary by way of Italy fleeing from the Spanish inquisition.

Concerning the Jewish communities that remained in the formerly Khazar territories, they were assimilated by the Slavic-speaking Jews, and in a later period, by the Yiddisch-speaking immigrants from Central Europe, that outnumbered the native Russian Jews. In this way, the Khazar origin within Jewry was reduced to a minority and furtherly disappeared by intermarriage.

Conclusion: There is a Khazar component in the ancestry of many Eastern European Jews, though it has been rendered irrelevant by intermarriage with the overwhelming majority of Semitic Ashkenazim. The most authentic descendants of the Khazars are today to be found among the modern Hungarians, including many Hungarian Jews, and in a lesser degree, also within Bulgarians and some peoples of the Caucasus area.

[down]

ОК, дано поне някои от генеталните дадености да ВИ са доволно големи при този излшен copy>paste дето првите. Достатъчно поне линк да се даде, и след това да се очакват някакви коментари...... Струва ми се, че във форума е прието да се пише на кирилица и с предпочитания към българския език. Може да се правите на отворени също като пишете заглавията на санскрит, пък съдържанието на темите и на кечуа да пускате, няма проГлеми... възли разни, пък важно е да има оборот...

К'во пра'им при &0% посетители на форума дето не знаят Енглийски? ако искате на немиски или френски да си пердашим примерно..... ? Пък кои к'вото иска, т'ва да разбира? 5 езика в една тема, 4 бири и оркестара да свири? Или просто български език ?

Ми то айде да е някакава представитена извадка от няколко реда! ОК! Ми то цял ферман. Шшш аФтора ай преди да ни занимаваш да прочетеш праилата! А? Или ела да изпием по един студен айрян в двора под асмата ?

[Геннадий Воля]

несколько цитат из Бируни, которые вызывают вопросы к официальной западной христианской истории:

The Chronology of Ancient Nations. Albiruni.

London 1879.

перевод и издание проф. Берлинского королевского университета С. Эдварда Сачау.

Стр. 104 (счётчик pdf 121) таблица р.93.

Имена Romans Kings (англ.) Ромейских царей, Кесарей правивших в Риме, которые являются потомками:

даю английское написание:

Sepho ben Eliphaz ben Essau ben Issaak ben Abraham.

Далее перечисляются имена известных императоров и кесарей от Августа и его сына Тиберия до Проба и Кария (Carus).

Оказывается, что древние считали, и Бируни это подтверждает, что эти цари вели своё происхождение от Исаака и Абраама. Но поскольку ни те, ни другие себя евреями не считали, то явно, что ни Исаак, ни Абраам евреями не были, как это сказано теперь в официальном современном тексте Библии.

По-моему, надо понимать как то, что ромейские цари вели свой род от Ариев Исаака и Абраама (испорченное а-брахмана.)

Стр. 60. Бируни пишет, что диктатор, король (king) Юлий правил задолго до Моисея (Moses)!

Стр. 85 (pdf 102) Авраам родился от Terah ben Nahor, по христианскому исчислению от Адама в 3189 году, по еврейскому в 1949г.

Стр. 86. Из Книги Тора между рождением Авраама и Моисеем 420 лет, и на момент исхода из Египта Моисею было 80 лет. Из 2 книги Тора: евреи были в Египте 430 лет.

По еврейскому исчислению: от исхода из Египта до Александра прошло 1000 лет.

Стр.98 (115) в некоторых книгах о правлении ассирийских, коптских, египетских царей и птолемеев между рождением Авраама и Александром – 2096, что значительно больше, чем у евреев и христиан.

Стр. 101 (pdf 118) после Дария (428 год правления Халдейский царей) стал Александр (ben Macedo)

Стр. 103 (pdf 120) c Филиппа начинаются цари Македонские, Греческие (Ионические), также называемые Птолемеи. После Филиппа идёт Александр 2, сын Александра.

Подозреваю французов, которые превратили Александра Строителя в Александра Македонского.

По французски Macon - каменщик, строитель, превратился Macedo. Этакий легендарный народ.

Клаудiоу Птолемаiоу Table Chronologique des Reignes

Париж изд-во A.Bobee 1819.

в Kanon des Reignes манускрипты № 2364 и 2399 из Царской библиотеки в Александрии:

(счётчки пдф 104) Александр Македонский, так же как и у Бируни, идёт после Дария 3 в персидских царях.

А цари македонской династии начинаются после Филиппа и следующий после него Александр 2.

(пдф 113) комментарий издателя: эти манускрипты не знают названий "Ассирийский или Халдейский", всех перечисленных правителей они называют просто цари.

Dodwell и Petau дали название Ассирийский, а Syncelle - Халдейский, этим царям.

Так что ещё два названия, две страны, два народы были выдуманы "условно названы" западными историками.

[Геннадий Воля]

http://litopys.org.ua

ЛѢТОПИСЬ ПО ИПАТЬЕВСКОМУ СПИСКУ.

Афетово же 21 колѣно и то Варѧзи . Свеи . Оурманє . Готѣ 22 . Русь . Аглѧнѣ . Галичанѣ . Волохове . Римлѧнѣ . Нѣмци . Корлѧзи . Венедици . Фрѧговѣ . и прочии присѣдѧть ѿ запада къ полуденью 23 . и съсѣдѧтсѧ съ племенем̑

ЛІТОПИС РУСЬКИЙ. Роки 1111 — 1126.

Афетови полунощнаӕ страна и западнаӕ Мидиӕ Ѡлъваниӕ Армениӕ Малаӕ и Великая Каподокиӕ Фефлагони Галатиӕ Кольхысъ Воспории Меѡти Дереви Сармати Тавриани Скуфиӕ Фраци Македониӕ Далматиӕ Молоси Фесалиӕ Локриӕ Пелениӕ ӕже и Полонописъ нареч̑тсѧ Аркадиӕ Ипириноӕ Илурикъ Словене

Афетово же колѣно и то Варѧзи Свеи Оурманє Готѣ Русь Аглѧнѣ Галичанѣ Волохове Римлѧнѣ Нѣмци Корлѧзи Венедици Фрѧговѣ и прочии присѣдѧть ѿ запада къ полуденью