Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are the Kazakhs descended from the ancient Scythians or the Saka? Or are they are group that moved out of east asia and into central asia. If the kazakhs were indeed in Kazakhstan all this time, this boggles my mind thinking there were asian people living this close the Europe. Do they have any relations to the Khazars by any chance?
Scythians are Iranian people, where Kazakhs are more similar to Mongols. So most likely their ancestors did move out of east Asia into Central Asia, which originally was populated with Iranian tribes ( at least big part of it.)
Now in terms of relations to Khazars, the answer is probably yes and no, because ( at least Russians) consider Khazars not homogenous group, but rather a result of combination of three ethnic groups; Iranian, Turkic and Finno-Ugric. So taking this in consideration, Khazars are only somewhat related to Kazakhs, who themselves are probably combination of Mongolians and Turkic/Altaic people. (Who knows.)
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Scythians are Iranian people, where Kazakhs are more similar to Mongols. So most likely their ancestors did move out of east Asia into Central Asia, which originally was populated with Iranian tribes ( at least big part of it.)
Now in terms of relations to Khazars, the answer is probably yes and no, because ( at least Russians) consider Khazars not homogenous group, but rather a result of combination of three ethnic groups; Iranian, Turkic and Finno-Ugric. So taking this in consideration, Khazars are only somewhat related to Kazakhs, who themselves are probably combination of Mongolians and Turkic/Altaic people. (Who knows.)
Still, i love how Kazakhs are a big middle finger to those racial purists. It goes to show that not everyone fits neatly into these racial categories as defined by these racists.
Are the Kazakhs descended from the ancient Scythians or the Saka? Or are they are group that moved out of east asia and into central asia. If the kazakhs were indeed in Kazakhstan all this time, this boggles my mind thinking there were asian people living this close the Europe. Do they have any relations to the Khazars by any chance?
Uzbeks and Kazaks have a high percentage of the R1a genetic marker, the Indo-European (pre-"Scythian") marker. In Uzbeks, this reaches over 60% of their genetic heritage, in Kazakhs, it's around 40%. What happened was that after the last Ice Age, proto-Indo-Europeans migrated into Central Asia, the Altai, and Mongolia. Mongol and Turkic people were just beginning to develop at that time (from an early undifferentiated Turko-Mongol-Tungusic prototype) in Manchuria. Eventually, those "Asiatics" moved west, and mixed with the Indo-Europeans already occupying parts of Inner Asia. So people like the Uzbeks, the Uighurs, the Kazakhs are hybrids resulting from that meeting of Far East and ("Western"- Indo-Euro) Central Asia. At that early point, though, the Indo-Euro contingent were not yet Scythians. They were just nomadic tribes moving around, populating different parts of Inner Asia, and eventually Iran and northern India. When they settled into the desert areas of Western China and created a civilization there, they evolved into the Tocharians. At what point the Scythian mounted warrior tradition developed, I"m not sure.
Still, i love how Kazakhs are a big middle finger to those racial purists. It goes to show that not everyone fits neatly into these racial categories as defined by these racists.
They don't neatly fit into the 'white' or 'asian' racial category. Americans would see them as 'mixed'.
You obviously have no idea about the racial categories as defined for EEO and census purposes in the US.
I am not saying I agree with them, as they are pretty much BS and their purpose is BS; but you still show a lack of understanding on how they are currently defined.
You obviously have no idea about the racial categories as defined for EEO and census purposes in the US.
I am not saying I agree with them, as they are pretty much BS and their purpose is BS; but you still show a lack of understanding on how they are currently defined.
They're Asians. Why? Because their nations are located in Central Asia.
Aren't those countries not very well off because of the former Soviet occupation? Plus, they're just not well known, for whatever reason.
Yes, thanks for bringing the discussion back to topic. This is why they're underrated. They're way off the beaten path, and underdeveloped, so few people know they're interesting places to visit. They're just not on most people's radar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
