The Achæmenian Empire established a new "world order" in which the centre of the political power was displaced to the east of Mesopotamia. The previously indeterminate eastern borders were better defined, enclosing large territories of the former "no man's land" where the nomadic tribes inhabited. Those that once were distant realms became neighbouring countries: the Persian dominion reached the gates of India and the most direct way to China. This was the propitious time for the movement within the vast empire for the Mesopotamian/Anatolian peoples to establish settlements in the east, along the Silk Road and on the old trade route to the Indus Valley. Thus the state of Khwarezm was founded (Hwârazmiya, in Persian).
In this period, the old ethnonyms progressively faded away, leaving their place in history to Iranian, Indian or even Chinese terms with which these ancient peoples would be known until they arrived in Europe. The language of history records changed. In fact, it is during this time that it seems that ancient peoples vanished into thin air while others sprung up from nowhere. The end of the Assyrian-Babylonian Empire appears almost like the end of the world for most of the nations that once were under their rule: many of those peoples recorded in the Assyrian chronicles would not be mentioned again... Even in the Hebrew Scriptures the name "Israelite" is equalled with "Jew", the term used by Persians in reference to the whole nation. In the Book of Ezra, we find a list of peoples that were transferred to Israel by the Assyrians, whose ethnic denominations were unknown in earlier Biblical records:

Some of them are easily recognizable, while others belong to the peoples that will play a relevant role in the post-Achæmenian era. [For their geographic location, please see the map here]. It has been difficult for exegetes and scholars to identify some of these peoples with certainty; nevertheless, from the Biblical text we can find their identity in agreement with historic sources. For example, the Apharsathkites (called Apharsakites in Ezra 5:6; 6:6) have often been thought to be the same as the Apharsi or Apharsites, accidentally mentioned twice, but from Aramaic and Persian records we can acknowledge two different peoples corresponding with each of both terms: the Aparni or Parni and the Pārs, that might roughly be translated as "Parthians" and "Persians". Therefore, having established that Apharsi is an alternative term for "Persian", the exact identity of the Aparni requires a deeper research, which is what we intend to do in this chapter. It is important in this people list the mention of the Dehites, that are the same as the Dahae (Dahâ) of the Persian accounts, as they were a Scythian tribe associated with the Aparni in the foundation of the Parthian Empire.
Before dealing with the probable origin and identity of the Aparni, it is important to make a brief reference to the foundation of Khwarezm, which is very relevant for the development of the Hungarian nation from the geographic and ethnic viewpoints. It was the Hurrians that moved from their original land in Subartu and settled in the area of modern Turkestan, namely Khwarezm, a region that is closely next to the province of the Persian Empire called Harauvatya, Harahwaty, regarded as the original Croatia (see Croatians). We will find the Hurrian-related peoples also widespread throughout the Indian sub-continent, and as it was said, they belonged to the Indo-Aryan group and their language was closely related with Sanskrit and not with Sumerian or Hungarian; nevertheless, they have since the beginning coexisted with Subarians and Habiri in the same country and moved together to the same lands along history, until now. As we found the Mitanni and Avraham's relatives dwelling among Hurrians in Mesopotamia, we find them again in Khwarezm, in the Indus Valley, in Scythia and in the Balkan region.
The Aparni are often identified with the Parthians or else with their leadership. Indeed, they were likely the ruling class, certainly not the whole of the Parthian people. According to Armenian and Turkish inscriptions, the Aparni dwelled by the southern/south-eastern shore of the Caspian Sea, and were in some way related with the Kushan - an enigmatic ethnonym that clearly recalls the name of Kush, the Sumerian forefather. From these sources we obtain a further confirmation that the word Apar/Aparni is not connected with Pārs but with Awar, as it is geographically identified with the land of Khorassan-Nishapur, in Khwarezm, and not with Persia, which is in the south of Iran. Their country is called Abarshahr, or Aparašxart in Armenian, which corresponds to Abarország in Hungarian - the Avars' land. Conventionally they were considered a Scythian tribe, but as we have said, this term was applied to every people sharing similar features or lifestyle, either ethnically related or not. In a later period of their history, a consistent part of the Avars reached China and very likely joined the Juan-Juan, with whom they are often identified, and surely played an important role in the composition of the Uyghur nation. By the time with which we are concerned now, the Achæmenid and Parthian period, the Avars (Aparni)  were regarded in classical sources as one of the main tribes of the Dahae federation ‒ and the Dahae were, indeed, Scythians. Notwithstanding, there are several interesting elements that relate the Avars with Hebrews rather than Scythians: when the Avars arrived in Europe, in spite of the fact that the Mongol influence was quite noticeable in their somatic traits due to their long sojourn in Asia, their graves were plenty of Jewish items! Such a peculiarity is obviously referable to their stay in Khazaria and their alliance with Judaized Kabars and OnOgurs, but very likely they also had an atavic link with their remote past when, by some reason, they were very favourable to the Jews dwelling in the Parthian Empire. This may be deeply, perhaps unconsciously connected with the very origins of the Avars: what about the Habiri dwelling in the lands toward "Sefar, the mountain of the east", of whom we have discussed above? If that mountain was the Elburz, there is not a great distance from there to the Avars' land, actually irrelevant considering that many centuries had passed between Avraham's times and the rise of the Parthian kingdom. The Assyrian name Sapar-da is not quite different from Apar-na. What is more, the Hebrew transliteration of the term "Avar" is written 'ayin-bet-resh, exactly the same as 'Ever, the name of the Patriarch Heber! This may be a coincidence, but there is not any proof against the possibility that the Avars/Aparni were indeed Habiri/'Apiru in origin ‒ Even the fact that the Hyksos capital in Egypt was Avaris seems to be more than a coincidence, as the Hyksos were 'Apiru.
Another interesting detail is their relationship with the Sabirs, with whom they have always shared the same land since the dawn of history. The Sabirs are identified with the Subarians, though in later times they are counted among the Sarmatians, as the Mitanni/Mada ethnicity prevailed. Nevertheless, Professor Hargita suggests a possible connection between the terms "Sabir" and "Habiri", which is feasible considering that an actual passage from "h" to "s" occurred in many words transferred from Persia to India, and vice-versa. For example, the Indian river Sarasvati and the Persian province of Harahvati appear as the same name, as well as the Indian region of Sindhu is the source of the name Hind given to the whole sub-continent. The difficulty of this hypothesis is that the name Sabir as derived from Habiri needs a passage by India to undergo such a transformation. In any case, since many terms have been promiscuously applied without precision, and the definition of Sabir is among the most uncertain ones (they are often identified with peoples from which they are also distinguished), it may happen that there is not just one people having this name, as we find that the Yazyg settled in Pannonia are known as "Savarians" by the Romans, while the Sapeires are located in the Caucasus by Herodotus; both of these groups very unlikely passed by India by that time, therefore such names are referable to Subar-tu rather than to Habiru. This fact does not prevent the possibility that a group of Habiri settled among the Hurrians and Scythians in India may have taken the name Sabir according to the linguistic transformation discussed above.
Even though the Habiri component within the Subarian/Mitanni and Hurrian peoples was quantitatively exiguous in comparison with the Japhetic stock to which these peoples belonged, and was even smaller among the Sumerian/Chaldean group, their influence regarding spiritual matters seem to have been rather relevant. Their importance seems to have been increased with the further contribution of exiled Israelites that would have been easily assimilated within the priestly social classes like the Magi. Indeed, not even the Israelites were a large number, according to the Assyrian figures given above, and it is clear that the Hebrew elements that are present in these peoples have absolutely nothing to do with the "lost Tribes" myth. Besides, the largest number of exiles from the Israelite Tribes continued their way eastwards and settled in the Indus Valley and neighbouring regions. Therefore, in establishing the Hebrew-Hungarian ethnic connexion we emphasize on the pre-Israelite Hebrews rather than on the exiled Tribes.
The Persian name of Abarshahr was Varkâna (Hungarian Várkony, Hyrcania - see additional information on this name below), a term that leads us to acknowledge that the Avars were not a single tribe but a composed group, as well as it might give us the key to the origin of the name "Hun". Nevertheless, the Persian words as they were interpreted by Greek historians have caused a significant confusion among scholars until today, and more difficulty for a certain identification was added by the Chinese and Indian terms ascribed to these peoples, either rightly or not. Apparently, from Varkâna derived the name Varkhon, Varkhunites, people identified with the so-called "White Huns" and the Hephthalites. They were supposedly the association of two peoples, the Var (Avars) and the Khun or Hua (Huns). The further migration of Avars and Huns to the northeast and their possible involvement respectively with the Juan-Juan and Hsiung-Nu (Xiung-Nu) has not contributed to a better definition but rather to a greater confusion and several chronology problems. Such a complexity generated controversial hypotheses and a complicated nomenclature so that it is a hard task to say who is who. In fact, the scholars have still not reached an agreement - and it is unlikely that they would - about the identity and origin of these peoples. So we find that the term "Avar" is applied to different peoples, as well as "Scythian" or "Hun". Some are called "Red" or "White" or other colours given before their ascribed ethnonym, without adding any important element that may help to know their identification besides a vague geographic location. In fact, the assignment of colours to represent the four cardinal points is typical of Iranian cultures, therefore, they only indicate different territories where these peoples dwelled or from where they came. Consequently, the indication "Red Huns" or "White Huns" is not a better definition than for example saying "Southern Barbarians" or "Western Barbarians", terms that indeed, have not any precise meaning. In other cases, the adjective "Royal" is given to distinguish the "true" from the "so-called", but the problem remained since it is still not clear who the "Royal Scythians" or the "Royal Huns" were, if they are to be identified with other people or else they are a distinct one ‒ in the case of the "Royal Scythians", some authors think that it's another name for the Sarmatians, while others consider them a branch of the authentic Scythians; and the term "Royal Huns" is often applied to Attila's Huns to distinguish them from other groups having the same name. The White Huns are usually equalled to the Hephthalites, but other sources lead us to consider them two different groups, and in any case, both of them not related with Attila's Huns.
By the later half of the 3rd century b.c.e., we find most of the peoples with which we are concerned here gathered under an empire ruled by kings related with their own kin: the Parthians. Who they were really, is still an enigma. While they quite differed from Medes and Persians as ethnic entity, their religious behaviour was shown in many aspects similar to the Achæmenian spirituality in contrast to the Greek-Seleucid cultural colonization: besides promotion of Zoroastrianism, their favourable policy towards Jews followed that of the Persian monarchs, and even more than them.
Parthians were not mentioned any longer after their empire collapsed. Their ethnos was undefined; they indeed were not any specific people but the alliance of different tribes, mainly of Avar-Scythian stock. Some scholars identify the Hephthalites as their direct descendants; if such assertion is correct, the Hephthalites may be only one of the tribes composing the former Parthian alliance, not certainly the whole. The complexity resulting from the overlapping of peoples and ethnic denominations has unavoidably generated intermarriages and cultural assimilations between the different tribes and groups, so that most of them, if not all, have adopted for themselves a Scythian pattern. Considering the original Avar-Dahae confederation from which the Parthians emerged, at the end of their empire their heritage was shared out by peoples that followed different directions: the Scythians proper towards the Indus Valley, and the Avar-Huns followed two ways, one westwards to the Ural-Volga-Don Basin and other eastwards to Siberia, Mongolia and China.

Heritage

The ethnic puzzle appears rather intricate and hard to compose in a meaningful order. Since somatic traits and language are scarcely helpful because they may change either being acquired through intermarriage or adopted due to several factors, the best indicator ‒as I emphasize in all my research works‒ are the spiritual patterns that in every people are manifested through their inner feelings, typical behaviours, subconscious memory, namely, features that exist in them as an atavic heritage.
Therefore, it is essential to consider the spiritual aspects, beliefs and traditions of the ancient peoples to know which of them have determined the present-day character of the Hungarian nation. In this chapter we make a brief resume about these cultural features regarding the peoples existing since early times until the Parthian and Sassanian periods, which were involved or presumably involved in the Hungarian ethnogenesis:

• Mitanni (Mada, Magor): Subarian in origin, they likely settled in Atropatene following the Hurrian migration to Khwarezm. By that time they had abandoned the Vedic religion of the ancient Hurrians and adopted Zoroastrianism. Their homeland was since the earliest times inhabited also by Habiri, and later received deportees from Israel. Their language was likely the Emegir/Emeshal, closely related with Sumerian ‒ different from the Hurrians' Indic one. Their Biblical ancestors were primarily Magog and Meshekh; intermarriage with the Habiri contributed with a Semitic component.
• Massagetas (Sarmatians, Alans, Yazyg): Their identification with the Moshkhi of the Assyrian chronicles is well established, that is Meshekh in the Hebrew Scriptures. In early times they were connected with the people of Tilgarimmu (Togarma) and the Mitanni, and subsequently they interacted with the Scythians in such a way that they were often considered of Scythian descent ‒ allegedly from intermarriage with the mythical Amazons. Their belief consisted in the worship of nature. Their contribution to the Hungarian nationality took place mainly in later times, when they were absorbed by the Huns.
• Medes (Madai): They were, like Hurrians, an Aryan people. Their language was Zend, which had much affinity with Sanskrit - consequently, with the Hurrians' language. Their primitive religion was probably Mithraism, inspired in the Chaldean mysteries, of which the Magi were the appointed ministers. In a later phase, the Magi adopted Zoroastrianism and the Medes practised both religions (that later merged into Mazdeism). Even though the Medo-Persian Empire held a favourable policy towards Jews, they did not appear quite friendly in at least two circumstances: when the satraps of Daryavesh the Mede conspired against Prophet Daniel (Daniel 6), and when Haman, son of Hammedatha, proposed the first mass extermination recorded in history (Esther 3:6) - he belonged to a Median district called Agag.
• Scythians: It has been widely exposed in "Eurasians" that the original Scythians came from the line of Magog, being an Indo-European people. Notwithstanding, this term was applied to every sort of wandering tribes, and since the Scythians were present in a very vast area of the continent, they have taken many cultural features of the peoples with whom they were in contact, usually as allied. Therefore, there is a wide range of peoples, from Europe to India, sharing several Scythian features and claiming Scythian ancestry, even peoples from opposite sides, Aryan and non-Aryan, Indo-Iranian and Eurasian, Turks, Slavs, Hungarians, Rajputs, etc. Their original language is still unknown, probably Hattic, but when they became known to historians, they apparently spoke an Iranic tongue (Zend?). Their religion was centred in the worship of natural forces and they had a chief female deity, Tabiti, comparable to the Indian Kali. The death of a Scythian king was followed with that of his wives, servants and horses, a characteristic common to the Indo-European peoples. On the contrary, the queens' graves were richly ornate but their funerals did not imply sacrifices. The Scythian myth of origins is also Indo-European, very similar to that of the Spartans and Dorians, consisting in a tripartite structure: Targitay and his three sons, Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai. Targitai is an important ancestor name also among Avar and Hun tribes like the Székely. This eponym recalls that of Thargamos of the Georgians and Armenians (Togarma), as well as Arpoksai may suggest the Arpakhshad of the Habiri, but it is important to consider that when the Scythian myths were known, they were already influenced by the surrounding cultures and did not speak their original language, consequently, these names may have been taken from other traditions. In fact, 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 the Scythian character; the most creditable hypotheses support that they recalled the spirits of natural phenomena, animals or warlike symbols and weapons and are connected with terms like arrow, sunshine, water, nobility and possession.
  Another important factor is their geographic distribution during the Persian/Parthian periods and afterwards: the Scythians were recognized as three groups, Saka Paradraya dwelling in present-day Ukraine, Saka Tigraxawda in Khwarezm and Saka Hawmavarga in Sakastan; the first group was completely absorbed by Sarmatians and those that came after them (Avars, Huns, etc.), the other two, together with the Dahae, migrated to the Indus Valley and their descent is to be found among the Rajputs, Jats, Dahya, etc. Therefore, it is the first group that contributed to the Hungarian ethnos through assimilation within the Sarmatians, Avars, Huns and Khazars. Notwithstanding, even though Scythians had not any Habiri ancestry, it was the Scytho-Sarmatic area of the Indian sub-continent (namely, the Indus Valley, Kashmir, Rajasthan and the upper Ganges region) where the exiled Israelites preferred to settle during the Macedonian rule and afterwards, having found a tolerant environment.
• Hephthalites or Hayathelaites: It is one of the peoples concerning whose origins there are many controversial theories and opinions. Usually known as "White Huns", they had indeed not any real relationship with the Huns. Such association is caused by misleading name resemblances: apparently they called themselves "Hua", according to the Chinese accounts, while their Sanskrit name was "Huna", terms that historians have connected with the Huns. Indeed, not only their physical features but also their culture, language, traditions, etc. were markedly dissimilar to each other. Theophylaktos Simokattes asserted that the White Huns were the fusion of two tribes, the Uar and the Hion, which some authors erroneously interpret as the Avar-Hun league. Indeed, the Greek historian confused the Chionites -improperly called "Red Huns"-, rulers of Kushan and probably originated in Varkâna, as one of the White Hun tribes. Considering the cultural features of the Hephthalites, their geographic distribution and migratory flows, the Japanese scholar Kazuo Enoki concludes in a convincing manner that they were of Iranian origin. One of their peculiarities was that they practised polyandry, which has never been a characteristic of any Hunnish people but rather of some Aryan clans and of Tibetans. By their background, the Hephthalites may be related with Parthians, but there is not any certainty to assert that they were. They almost disappeared, leaving very little of themselves to their descent. Considering their belief, it seems that they followed the most diffused religious trends of Iranian peoples, with some differences.
• Sabirs: This name is probably synonymous of "Hun" or "Magyar". In fact, Herodotus mentions them as Sapir/Sabir, Makr/Magar, in reference to Subarians and Mitanni. Other classical sources and historians always mention these two terms together (Sabir and Magor). In Persian inscriptions, Sapardia and Hunae are also consecutive. The descriptions of their mastery in the art of war and powerful cavalry and their somatic and cultural features lead to identify them with the Huns, so that they appear as the same people. The equation Subarians-Mitanni of old is paralleled in later times by the association Huns-Magyars. Therefore, further considerations about the Sabirs are those in reference to the Huns.
• Avars: The Avars, as exposed in the previous chapter, were culturally related with Scythian-Dahae tribes, but probably their early origin was Subarian/Habiri. Concerning their homeland, the Persian name Varkâna means "Land of Wolves", name that translated to modern Hungarian would be "Farkasok-földje/Farkasok-országa", but in old Hungarian it is correct to say "Farkasok-hona", which resembles to the historic Persian name. Even more similar is "Avarok-hona", meaning "Land of the Avars". Therefore, a possible sequence may be that the Persians adapted the Avar designation of the land, either translating the meaning (in case that the Avar name was actually "Land of Wolves") or else applying a meaning in Persian (converting the term "Avar" into "Wolf"); therefore, the modern Hungarian term was translated after the Persian historic name, being the complete sequence as follows:  Farkasok-hona»Varkâna»Várkony, or Avarok-hona»Varkâna»Várkony. In this case we assume that the Avars' language was an old form of Hungarian, which is not unlikely considering that they were Subarian Habiri, speaking a transitional tongue between Emegir and Magyar. There are additional evidences to establish these facts: The Avars' arrival in Europe and subsequent settlement in the Danubian Basin is chronologically placed after that of Attila's Huns and previous to the HunOgurs and Árpád's Magyars. Even though these migratory waves are interpreted as different, as a matter of fact, they represent a continuity, a "proto-Hungarian" territorial claim. The Avars held the land previously conquered by the Huns as a permanent resistance force against European occupants. Indeed, contemporary sources were not able to explain a clear distinction between the Avars and the Huns that preceded them, nor did between them and the Magyars that followed. The Avars easily "assimilated" the remnants of Attila's Huns, and in the same way did the Magyars with the Hun/Avar/HunOgur inhabitants - having the same language, life-style, clothing, cooking, ornaments, metallurgy, etc. The linguistic map of the Carpathian Basin during the Hun-Avar-HunOgur-Magyar settlement shows a homogenous territory in which no areas having different languages can be identified, not even Turkic tongues. Since the remnants of Avars were still living there by that time, as well as the Székely and other Huns, it results evident that they spoke the same language as the Magyars.
  Having established this identity, another determinant element is their belief: regarding this matter, what may be known about the Avars is revealed by the archaeological finds, in which a considerable number of items show unequivocal Jewish origin. Of course, they may have been influenced by the exiles of Israel first and those of Judah later, but their permeability towards the Jewish culture is explained by their consciousness of a common origin and their acknowledgement of the Israelites as the holders of the legacy of Arpakhshad, their forefather.
• Huns: The Huns are undoubtedly the most famous of the Hungarian ancestors, though much of what is known of them is tainted with biased accounts and legends that exalt their allegedly ferocious character, so that any horde of invaders is still qualified with this name. The western civilizations have received the Roman viewpoint first and the Catholic superstition later ‒ the mediaeval prayer "De sagittis hungarorum libera nos, Domine", that is "Save us from the arrows of the Hungarians, O Lord" (similar to the plea "De furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine", "From the fury of the Vikings deliver us, O Lord"), was framed as an invocation for protection from the Magyars, enhancing the excellence of their archery. The Magyars were recognized as the same Huns that four and half centuries before rushed into the heart of Europe with their outstanding archers. The outward characteristics of these peoples are widely discussed, but what is now of our interest regards their spirituality, which is the topic of the next chapter.

A definition problem: Notwithstanding, it is still necessary to make clear some concepts concerning the Hun-Scythian issue, as modern scholars emphasize the Scythian lineage of Hungarians, based on several elements and accounts. We should consider that the term "Scythian" is not a self-designation, but comes from the word "Skythai" with which the Greeks referred to every Eurasian people including Huns and Sarmatians, but we do not know how did Scythians call themselves. Indeed, "Skythai" is not exactly equivalent to the Persian "Saka", that was used in a more restricted way. Since it was the term with which the Greeks knew the Eurasian tribes, it is possible that they used it to identify themselves when dealing with the Greeks, in the same way as today the "Native Americans" have widely adopted such general identification given them by others ‒ no matter if they are Algonquian, Athapaskan, Muskogean, Sioux, etc., peoples that are only remotely related to each other, and that surely do not refer to themselves as "Native American" in their own languages.