Who Were the Ancient Central Asians?

Sacae writes:

Rob, were the ancient central Asians White just like Europeans, were they Slavic?

Hi, the ancient IE people from the steppes were very, very White. Whether or not there were Asiatics living in these places, I have no idea. My opinion is that the Asiatic infusion is relatively recent, in the last ~3,000 years, possibly associated with Mongolic invasions, Genghis Khan and whatnot. There has been proven Asiatic-Caucasian breeding in the steppes for 2-3,000 years now, but before that, it does not seem like there is a lot of it. Siberia is an ancient zone of interbreeding between these major races.
Slavic is a linguistic term and has no relevance beyond 2-3,000 years ago. The progenitors of the Slavs in the Rus where red-haired Scandinavians, possibly due to a Scandinavian invasion and conquest of this region. The Viking types conquered the region and the native Slavs, instead of fighting them, simply retreated into the forest where they led surreptitious lives. This may have been the beginnings of the Slav “slave race” theory of Slavs not wanting to fight and just surrendering to invaders.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

16 thoughts on “Who Were the Ancient Central Asians?”

  1. From what I understand, the steppes were at one time dominated by Iranic speaking peoples, most notably the Scythians, who brought their horse technology to the Mongols. They also mixed with the Asiatic people in Central Asia and were probably a dominant component of the Turkic ethnogenisis. We know the mixture happened from burial mounds. It also stands to common sense, if you’re thousands of miles from home without airfare home, you’re probably gonna shack up with the local women. Also, while you’re out plundering an empire far away, your wife is going to teach your child her language, not yours.

  2. There is no evidence that the mongols were introduced to horse riding by caucasians. I still believe that the Chinese also independently invented the Chariot and metal working.

    1. Bullshit. Horse riding as we know it, and the domestication of the horse, took place in and around the Caucasus region. The original horse people were IE speaking, most likely Iranic.
      Show us were the Chinese independently domesticated the horse. These things have pretty cut and dry genetic components.

  3. “his may have been the beginnings of the Slav “slave race” theory of Slavs not wanting to fight and just surrendering to invaders.”
    That shows the invaders are of the low caste aholes.. That’s what I see.

    1. slaves were named after slavs because the ottomans captured them for their janissaries and beautiful women.

      1. The supposed “slave/Slave” connection goes back to the times of the Romans, a thousand years or more before the Ottomans showed up.
        Besides, you are confusing “Slavs” for “Circassian beauties” I believe..

  4. The Chinese history strongly indicate that China central asian (xinjiang) are aryans. But I believe ancient central asian could have been mixture of Turks, Aryans, Mongols and Sino Tibetan.
    The old chinese history states that Chinese people came from the west. In Chinese Xinjiang, the northern parts were Mongols dominant up till 18th centuries, until the Manchus wipe them out.
    Today, Central Asia is Turk dominant, although there are pockets of Iranian. Nevertheless, the Turks could be Turkified Iranian.

    1. My own theory is that the “Turks” as a linguistic group are the product of East Asians and Indo-Europeans mixing over a long period of time.
      As for Central Asians today, the distinction between “Turk” and “Persian” is pretty fluid. Iranian speakers are more than mere pockets but a very large minority, and the Turkic speakers have the same exact culture as those of their Iranian cousins.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)