The Scythians language is a very controversial subject, because like everything near Europe, there has been and still is a great emphasis at IndoEuropeanizing everyone and everything. When a word here or there could be made to seem like IndoEuropean then it all becomes so. No other option is even considered. It either is or its an unknown isolate. If the racial characteristic of the remains in a grave appear Caucasian, by and large, it is immediately stated that the corpse was an IndoEuropean speaker, as though no one else can fit that racial category. The opposite has been done to all neighboring people in respect to their race, on the basis of the most untypical and more distant types, such as the so called Uralic race being mongoloid originally. Yet the speakers of the typical uralic languages are Caucasians. Whatever suits the purpose of indo Europeanization of a group to enhance their empires of history, data and facts are twisted to accomodate. In the opposite camp, there has been way too much acceptance of these twisted, and racist methods, mainly because the bulk of the research and the governmenet backing for such work is for the European scholars studying the IndoEuropean origins. Such governments throughout the recent past have all been very racist and biased, so that the results can also be the same. A total methodological double standard is in play also which requires an infinite amount of proof of a language to be related to a non-Indo European community, vs trivial look alikes are accepted and simplistic racial charactirizations are adequate to allow a culture to be characterized as IndoEuropean. Those who control most of the world are never satisfied with what they have, but want everything from the present to the distant past as well. The situation is sheer madness. The following is an independent view of the Scythians and their language and culture. From my own perspective, I consider them to be a culture complex which more likely didn't all speak a common language. I don't mean just different dialects but totally different language types, which were indigenous to their areas of control. What this means is that the ruling class may have been of one language type but many of their ally or local subjects were definitely different types, even if they shared a lot of cultural features.
It should be mentioned that throughout history. History has been written by the conquerors, by the ruling class, and no one talked about the much larger subjects of the rulers, who survived them, and even though we don't have any proofs from the distant Scythians, much of history left to us and what is today reinvented is again based on lies and deception. So how is this article any different? I am not out to fool anyone, but present a different perspectives, from various authors, based on the material and interpretation we were able to find. Take it for what it is, an alternative view, which may have more proof and logic than the official view, but thats totally up to the reader to decide. It is a simple fact that people who are not expert in certain subjects, believe what they wish to believe, and may not even consider the evidence when they don't wish to or dislike the conclusions. All too often they simply take the word of the so called experts. The worse case is when there is a vested interested in the subject being discussed, one not founded on a long standing tradition but simple desire to associate with those that look appealing to them. I will eventually include documents that are from both sides of this argument, with comments and criticisms of their proposals. Oftent the critics of certain methods do not comply with the logic of their own criticisms, but expect only others to do so, which is like saying that do as I say and not as I do.
The Scythians, Hamori
Scythian Vocabulary : Mészáros, Hamori with additions from
The Early Scythian Pantheon Hamori
The Scythian Language explained as a Sumerian dialect; Rudolf Dudás [ a very thought provoking article ]