Discussion:
Perhaps Attila's Huns were Iranian?
(too old to reply)
Nirvana
2004-02-08 21:02:07 UTC
Permalink
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've
heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)
were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some
Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.

Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
Huns:
1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.
2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.
3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
than Mongolic.
4. Loan words?

The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-08 21:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nirvana
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian.
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.

It's one of these times I suggest for everyone who discuss a subject to go
back to contemporary sources and read the firsthand witness information.
They give a totally different picture than what's assumed above.

First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?

Then I suggest that you compare contemporary sources.
While one Historian might call a group where the members are named with
first name and what each did for Alans, an other called the same persons and
group for Alemagner a third call them Germanic.

I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.

Inger E
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-09 03:11:31 UTC
Permalink
the Alans were split by teh Huns into European (those chaised away) and
Caucasian branches. the European branch assimilated amongst indigenous
peoples, incl. germanic speaking ones.
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-09 07:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Yusuf,
how about going back to the contemporary souces. Your assumptions re. Alans
aren't supported in anyway. Neither by Orosius (English edition Seven Books
against Pagans) nor by Zosimus, Priscus, Ammanianus Marcellinus, Procopious,
Olympidors, Sozomen, Eunapius, Malchus, Jordanes and so on.

Inger E
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the Alans were split by teh Huns into European (those chaised away) and
Caucasian branches. the European branch assimilated amongst indigenous
peoples, incl. germanic speaking ones.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-09 15:12:03 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <hWGVb.82065$***@newsc.telia.net>:
: Yusuf,
: how about going back to the contemporary souces. Your assumptions re. Alans
: aren't supported in anyway. Neither by Orosius (English edition Seven Books
: against Pagans) nor by Zosimus, Priscus, Ammanianus Marcellinus, Procopious,
: Olympidors, Sozomen, Eunapius, Malchus, Jordanes and so on.

what do these sources say about language?
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-09 15:17:35 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <hWGVb.82065$***@newsc.telia.net>:
: Yusuf,
: how about going back to the contemporary souces. Your assumptions re. Alans
: aren't supported in anyway. Neither by Orosius (English edition Seven Books
: against Pagans) nor by Zosimus, Priscus, Ammanianus Marcellinus, Procopious,
: Olympidors, Sozomen, Eunapius, Malchus, Jordanes and so on.

well, Biruni explicitly says the caucasian alans spoke a language simialr
to his native khwarezmian.

european alans coudl have given up their original langauge early.
mosalmounkosh
2004-02-10 23:31:11 UTC
Permalink
WRONG again! In fact they preserved their language when they were
settled as Foederati by Marcus Aurelius in Britannia, as well as when
they were recruited by Charlemagne of the Franks to fight the people
of Britanny. Once again, you know NOTHING of history.
Furthermore, Iranian Alans and Sarmatians that had settled in Hungary
maintained their dialects locally until the 16-17th centuries, when
they then adopted Magyar.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
european alans coudl have given up their original langauge early.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 05:15:15 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang mosalmounkosh <***@excite.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:

interesting.

but there was a fresh immigration into central and SE europe later.

: WRONG again! In fact they preserved their language when they were
: settled as Foederati by Marcus Aurelius in Britannia, as well as when
: they were recruited by Charlemagne of the Franks to fight the people
: of Britanny. Once again, you know NOTHING of history.
: Furthermore, Iranian Alans and Sarmatians that had settled in Hungary
: maintained their dialects locally until the 16-17th centuries, when
: they then adopted Magyar.


:> In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <hWGVb.82065$***@newsc.telia.net>:
:> european alans coudl have given up their original langauge early.
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 06:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Yusuf,
Why will you and your fellow linguists not accept that the persons who knew
the Alans best were those who met them? It's not often we Historians and you
linguists have more than one first hand witness but for the Alans as well as
for Attila's Huns we do. There are more than 10 contemporary reliable
Historians both Christians and non-Christians, the later often Sophists, on
top of that there are documents from Fathers of the Church. How can you and
some other here continue to insist of an Iranian/Persian origin of the
Alans?

As for the Huns there is only Priscus who in 'text9' say that the Scytians
and the Huns were one and the same without presenting information that there
were at least three groups who could be called Scytian;
* the Goths who definitely not were from Easter Europe or Asia. [If you need
a list of referenses you can have it but for full information please send me
a private mail it's too long to send all information to the groups]
* The Alans who by some were call 'Alan's but in most contemporary sources
were called 'Alamagni' or 'Hraid-Gótanz' resp 'Hraid-Goci'. A few called
them 'Scytians from 'Skandza'. The names given are often either Scandinavian
such as 'Knudomar'(Knud/Knut today), 'Kol'(Karl/Carl today),
'Sveinar'(Sven/Svend today) or alike names a few of the others can be
followed from the Baltic down to the Black Sea and over to Gaul. In Western
Europe same persons are called 'Hredgotar' as well as 'Wisigoths' which of
course is confusing for those who don't have at least three contemporary
sources speaking of same event at hand.

Inger E
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
interesting.
but there was a fresh immigration into central and SE europe later.
: WRONG again! In fact they preserved their language when they were
: settled as Foederati by Marcus Aurelius in Britannia, as well as when
: they were recruited by Charlemagne of the Franks to fight the people
: of Britanny. Once again, you know NOTHING of history.
: Furthermore, Iranian Alans and Sarmatians that had settled in Hungary
: maintained their dialects locally until the 16-17th centuries, when
: they then adopted Magyar.
:> european alans coudl have given up their original langauge early.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 15:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 15:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf,
: Why will you and your fellow linguists not accept that the persons who
knew
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: the Alans best were those who met them? It's not often we Historians and
you
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: linguists have more than one first hand witness but for the Alans as
well as
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: for Attila's Huns we do. There are more than 10 contemporary reliable
: Historians both Christians and non-Christians, the later often Sophists,
on
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: top of that there are documents from Fathers of the Church. How can you
and
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: some other here continue to insist of an Iranian/Persian origin of the
: Alans?
as for the Alans / As , there is Biruni, who recognized in their speech
similarity to his own native Khwarezmian.
NO NO NO.
Most of the so called Alans were Goths recognised as Goths by the
Historians. The language they are said to have spoken were Gothic. They had
Gothic names etc etc.
How many of the contemporary sources have you read either in original
language or transcribed during Medieval Age to two or more languages?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is a whole article about the Iranian languages of South Russia, that
not only identifies them as Iranian speakers, but also identifies
daielctical variants.
Now you are totally out in the blue. Please read Ammanianus and compare his
lines with Procop and Orosius. Then read more carefully what the Eastern
European Historians said the closest you can come to your assumptions is the
Ar-rus which was mentioned in 844. But since they too has been noted in more
than one independent source and thus identified to be from Sweden your
theory falls.

As for Attila and his brother I would recommend you to read Cassiodorus
Variae.

Inger E
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
now, the groups that western roman wirters came into contact may have
been considerably germanized by the time.
: As for the Huns there is only Priscus who in 'text9' say that the
Scytians
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: and the Huns were one and the same without presenting information that
there
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
they didn't know how to compare the Hunnic language with any other
language they knew of. they didn't know asian languages.
scythian could have meant anything.
if you want to read about speculations about their language, read "the
World of the Huns" which is based on the same sources.
the Huns are historically connected with the Bulghars, for whom some
direct linguistic evidence is available.
: were at least three groups who could be called Scytian;
: * the Goths who definitely not were from Easter Europe or Asia. [If you
need
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I didn't claim anything about the Goths.
: a list of referenses you can have it but for full information please
send me
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: a private mail it's too long to send all information to the groups]
: * The Alans who by some were call 'Alan's but in most contemporary
sources
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: were called 'Alamagni' or 'Hraid-Gótanz' resp 'Hraid-Goci'. A few called
: them 'Scytians from 'Skandza'. The names given are often either
Scandinavian
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: such as 'Knudomar'(Knud/Knut today), 'Kol'(Karl/Carl today),
: 'Sveinar'(Sven/Svend today) or alike names a few of the others can be
: followed from the Baltic down to the Black Sea and over to Gaul. In
Western
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Europe same persons are called 'Hredgotar' as well as 'Wisigoths' which
of
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: course is confusing for those who don't have at least three contemporary
: sources speaking of same event at hand.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 16:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 16:13:12 UTC
Permalink
:> : Yusuf,
:> : Why will you and your fellow linguists not accept that the persons
who
: knew
:> : the Alans best were those who met them? It's not often we Historians
and
: you
:> : linguists have more than one first hand witness but for the Alans as
: well as
:> : for Attila's Huns we do. There are more than 10 contemporary reliable
:> : Historians both Christians and non-Christians, the later often
Sophists,
: on
:> : top of that there are documents from Fathers of the Church. How can
you
: and
:> : some other here continue to insist of an Iranian/Persian origin of
the
:> : Alans?
:>
:> as for the Alans / As , there is Biruni, who recognized in their speech
:> similarity to his own native Khwarezmian.
: NO NO NO.
: Most of the so called Alans were Goths recognised as Goths by the
: Historians. The language they are said to have spoken were Gothic. They
had
: Gothic names etc etc.
: How many of the contemporary sources have you read either in original
: language or transcribed during Medieval Age to two or more languages?
Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.
I suggest that you read the Khazarian papers and documents by those who met
the different groups.
If Biruni had the origin he claim it's queer to say the least that he seems
to be unaware of his 'own' and those who worked together with them.
:>
:> there is a whole article about the Iranian languages of South Russia,
that
:> not only identifies them as Iranian speakers, but also identifies
:> daielctical variants.
: Now you are totally out in the blue. Please read Ammanianus and compare
his
you mean you have read the article? :)
: lines with Procop and Orosius. Then read more carefully what the Eastern
: European Historians said the closest you can come to your assumptions is
the
: Ar-rus which was mentioned in 844. But since they too has been noted in
more
I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
an anecode for levity.
: than one independent source and thus identified to be from Sweden your
: theory falls.
: As for Attila and his brother I would recommend you to read Cassiodorus
: Variae.
He didn't know asian languages or a clue about inner asia. but the author
of the book I mentioned (a famous german name I keep fogetting) has read
those sources.
But his grandfather who participated in the first group sent to Attila did.
He also as did his grandfather now the Goths, no matter under which name
they were called in different parts of Europe, first handed. Both Cassiorus
and his grandfather had close contacts with the Goths living on their
Family-land and also helped the Goths during times when the Roman Emperor
hadn't money enough for his troups to pay the soldiers. Among them Gothic
soldiers, some of which you call Alans one of them origin from Ranriki same
place as King Rudolf of the Heruls origin from. You better read Variae.

Inger E
: Inger E
:>
:> now, the groups that western roman wirters came into contact may have
:> been considerably germanized by the time.
:>
:>
:> : As for the Huns there is only Priscus who in 'text9' say that the
: Scytians
:> : and the Huns were one and the same without presenting information
that
: there
:>
:> they didn't know how to compare the Hunnic language with any other
:> language they knew of. they didn't know asian languages.
:>
:> scythian could have meant anything.
:>
:> if you want to read about speculations about their language, read "the
:> World of the Huns" which is based on the same sources.
:>
:> the Huns are historically connected with the Bulghars, for whom some
:> direct linguistic evidence is available.
:>
:> : were at least three groups who could be called Scytian;
:> : * the Goths who definitely not were from Easter Europe or Asia. [If
you
: need
:>
:> I didn't claim anything about the Goths.
:>
:> : a list of referenses you can have it but for full information please
: send me
:> : a private mail it's too long to send all information to the groups]
:> : * The Alans who by some were call 'Alan's but in most contemporary
: sources
:> : were called 'Alamagni' or 'Hraid-Gótanz' resp 'Hraid-Goci'. A few
called
:> : them 'Scytians from 'Skandza'. The names given are often either
: Scandinavian
:> : such as 'Knudomar'(Knud/Knut today), 'Kol'(Karl/Carl today),
:> : 'Sveinar'(Sven/Svend today) or alike names a few of the others can be
:> : followed from the Baltic down to the Black Sea and over to Gaul. In
: Western
:> : Europe same persons are called 'Hredgotar' as well as 'Wisigoths'
which
: of
:> : course is confusing for those who don't have at least three
contemporary
:> : sources speaking of same event at hand.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 16:15:45 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <c0djt9$pgj$***@pcls4.std.com>:

: Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.

european alans

: He didn't know asian languages or a clue about inner asia. but the author
: of the book I mentioned (a famous german name I keep fogetting) has read
: those sources.

O. Maenchen-Helfen "The World of the Huns, Studies in their
History and Culture," 1973
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 16:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.
european alans
: He didn't know asian languages or a clue about inner asia. but the author
: of the book I mentioned (a famous german name I keep fogetting) has read
: those sources.
O. Maenchen-Helfen "The World of the Huns, Studies in their
History and Culture," 1973
Who I don't give much credit to. Why? Who ever calls himself a scholar and
give referenses must live up to two essential criterias:
* present quotes which aren't selected to point into one direction - in
other words if a source say one thing you can't as a scholar chose only to
select the parts of the source which could point in your direction you have
to present the other as well.

* you can't lean on other scholars analyse which is a NONO for the validity
of your akrebi.

I still suggest that you read Khazarian sources as well as Cassiodorus and
not lean to the work you refer to. There have been other later real good
works in the subject which don't have same akrebi-problems as
Maenchen-Helfen's. Might be due to their deeper studies they haven't arrived
at his conclusions.

Inger E
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 16:34:13 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <wGsWb.82347$***@newsc.telia.net>:

: "Yusuf B Gursey" <***@TheWorld.com> skrev i meddelandet
: news:c0dkfh$8f8$***@pcls4.std.com...
:> In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in
: <c0djt9$pgj$***@pcls4.std.com>:
:>
:> : Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.
:>
:> european alans
:>
:> : He didn't know asian languages or a clue about inner asia. but the
: author
:> : of the book I mentioned (a famous german name I keep fogetting) has read
:> : those sources.
:>
:> O. Maenchen-Helfen "The World of the Huns, Studies in their
:> History and Culture," 1973

: Who I don't give much credit to. Why? Who ever calls himself a scholar and
: give referenses must live up to two essential criterias:

he does linguistic analysis. he tlaks about langueg language, on the
chapter on language. if you care to argue about that go ahead. the rest
don't concern *language*.


: * present quotes which aren't selected to point into one direction - in
: other words if a source say one thing you can't as a scholar chose only to
: select the parts of the source which could point in your direction you have
: to present the other as well.

: * you can't lean on other scholars analyse which is a NONO for the validity
: of your akrebi.

: I still suggest that you read Khazarian sources as well as Cassiodorus and


Khazarian sources? they identify the turkic tribes of the area. there is
only really one, King Joseph's letter.

: not lean to the work you refer to. There have been other later real good
: works in the subject which don't have same akrebi-problems as
: Maenchen-Helfen's. Might be due to their deeper studies they haven't arrived
: at his conclusions.

: Inger E
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 20:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> : Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.
:>
:> european alans
:>
:> : He didn't know asian languages or a clue about inner asia. but the
: author
:> : of the book I mentioned (a famous german name I keep fogetting) has read
:> : those sources.
:>
:> O. Maenchen-Helfen "The World of the Huns, Studies in their
:> History and Culture," 1973
: Who I don't give much credit to. Why? Who ever calls himself a scholar and
he does linguistic analysis. he tlaks about langueg language, on the
chapter on language. if you care to argue about that go ahead. the rest
don't concern *language*.
Problem for linguists are when they aren't up to the simple fact that while
a group can take a language with them when moving, which they many times
does,
they also can adopt the language spoken in the new area more quickly then
expected.

One other problem for todays linguists, not 19th century which seems odd but
that's the way it is, is that most of them aren't Historians. They aren't
all aware of text-valuation methods and since they don't think of close in
time, close in place and tendency many of them miss the context while trying
to trascribe the sentenses.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: * present quotes which aren't selected to point into one direction - in
: other words if a source say one thing you can't as a scholar chose only to
: select the parts of the source which could point in your direction you have
: to present the other as well.
: * you can't lean on other scholars analyse which is a NONO for the validity
: of your akrebi.
: I still suggest that you read Khazarian sources as well as Cassiodorus and
Khazarian sources? they identify the turkic tribes of the area. there is
only really one, King Joseph's letter.
NO - there are much more. much much more written documents as well as
archaeologic excavation results.
I thought you knew that.

Inger E
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 21:44:06 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <D6wWb.82377$***@newsc.telia.net>:

:> : give referenses must live up to two essential criterias:
:>
:> he does linguistic analysis. he tlaks about langueg language, on the
:> chapter on language. if you care to argue about that go ahead. the rest
:> don't concern *language*.

: Problem for linguists are when they aren't up to the simple fact that while
: a group can take a language with them when moving, which they many times
: does,
: they also can adopt the language spoken in the new area more quickly then
: expected.

sthat's certainly not a problem.

: One other problem for todays linguists, not 19th century which seems odd but
: that's the way it is, is that most of them aren't Historians. They aren't
: all aware of text-valuation methods and since they don't think of close in
: time, close in place and tendency many of them miss the context while trying
: to trascribe the sentenses.


they very much are.

:>
:>
:> : * present quotes which aren't selected to point into one direction - in
:> : other words if a source say one thing you can't as a scholar chose only
: to
:> : select the parts of the source which could point in your direction you
: have
:> : to present the other as well.
:>
:> : * you can't lean on other scholars analyse which is a NONO for the
: validity
:> : of your akrebi.
:>
:> : I still suggest that you read Khazarian sources as well as Cassiodorus
: and
:>
:>
:> Khazarian sources? they identify the turkic tribes of the area. there is
:> only really one, King Joseph's letter.

: NO - there are much more. much much more written documents as well as
: archaeologic excavation results.
: I thought you knew that.

not much that gives information about language. pottery doesn't speak.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 16:23:19 UTC
Permalink
searching, I found this interesting quote posted:


From: Vassil Karloukovski <***@lancs.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: Za oneziq koito njamat nishto tjurkso
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:10:34 +0000
Organization: Lancaster University, U.K.

Ogranichavajki se pak do imenata i vyv vryzka s ljubimoto za njakoi
priravnjavane prabylgari = huni, eto zakljuchenieto na O. Maenchen-Helfen
v glavata mu za hunskija ezik ("The world of the Huns, Studies in their
history and culture, 1973):

" The distribution of the Iranian and German or Germanized names
is very instructive. No Germanic names occur among the non-Attilanic
Huns. If any Germans in the East, outside the Crimea, survived the Hun
storm, they either were too few or in a social position too low to
allow their names to appear among those of the ruling groups or even
in the ranks of those free warriors who took service in the Byzantine
army. In contrast, no less than six of the Attilanic names are Germanic
or pseudo-Germanic. The forms in Priscus and Iordanes are as Germanic
as Alaric and Theoderic, not only because the real Hunnish names were
transformed in Gothic pronunciation; they corroborate what Iordanes
says about Attila's friendship with the Germanic leaders. The stress is
on leaders. Thompson rightly emphasized the one-sidedness of the
so-called Hunno-Gothic symbiosis. The generous and magnanimous Attila
of German epic poetry shared with the Gothic and Gepidic chieftains
the loot he brought back from his campaigns. If those wretched Goths
who in the 460's were forced to march with the Hunns had composed songs,
they would have been very different from the poetry at the sites of the
Germanic "kings."

Taken by themselves, Charalon and Ernac could he either Turkish or
Iranian. In view of the absence of definitely Iranian and the
preponderance
of definitely Turkish names among the Attilanic Huns, they must be
transferred from the column "of unknown origin" to the Turkish names.
In a previous chapter I conjectured that the greater part of the Alans
broke their alliance with the Huns about 40 A.D. and migrated west.
This is now borne out by the analysis of the Attilanic names. In the
fifth century the Alans played no political role in the life of the Huns.
None of their nobles was accepted as equal, none rose to any prominence.

The absence of Iranian names before the sixth century speaks against
strong relations between pre-Attilanic Huns and Parthians, Sasanian
Persians, and Middle Asiatic Iranians. The Iranian names of the
Caucasian Huns were no doubt borrowed either from Persians or from
Armenians and Georgians under strong Persian influence. Of greater
interest are the Iranian names in the Byzantine army, but they concern
first of all the students of the proto-Bulgarians. Asparuch-Isperikh,
Bezmer in the Princes' List, and Rasata in the list from Cividale are
also of Iranian origin. To analyze the Iranian Hunnish names must be
left to Iranian scholars. Some of these names, as, for instance,
B(V)alas, are almost certainly Persian; others may be Sarmatian.
Whereas there is very little archaeological evidence of Persian
influence on the nomads between the Volga and the Crimea, the
presence of Sarmatian elements in the culture of the proto-Bulgarians
is well attested. The artificially deformed skulls in proto-Bulgarian
graves cannot be separated from those in the graves of the Sarmatized
Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians of the post-Attilanic graves in the
South Russian steppes."
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-11 16:39:40 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <c0djt9$pgj$***@pcls4.std.com>:

: Biruni. he didn't know teh eurpoean who had disolved by then.

(he alans had in fact intermingled with the Pechenegs (turkic)by that
time)


From: ***@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 17 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <***@news.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang
I just founds such a discussion in studia orientalia I (budapest -
1961 I think) J. Harmata, the language of the iranian tribes in south
russia

<<
It was Zeki Validi who first succeeded in discovering Chorasmian
texts in any quantity and who found a passage in Bi:ru:ni: (in the
Introduction to the tajdid niha:ya:t al-ama:kin) which seems to be of
decisive importance in forming a judgement about the language of teh
Alans. According to Validi teh passage in Bi:ru:ni: informs us that
"the Alans or A:s. had formerly lived, together with the Pechenegs,
around th elower reaches of the Amu-darya (the Uzboy), and later,
after the river had changed its course, they migrated to the coast of
the Sea of the Khazars"; Bi:ru:ni: also telss us that "the language of
these Alans is a compound Chorasmian and Pecheneg-Turkish". ...
the historical error abouit the pechenegs aside, and leaving aside the
question of the relation between alanian ansd ossetian (which is
basically one of th efine points argued in the article) this would
tend to show an awarness (biruni was a kwarezmian) of the east-iranain
nature of alanic.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-13 12:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
[..]
I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
an anecode for levity.
For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-13 13:15:18 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Seppo Renfors <***@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in <***@not.pollis.net.au>:


: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
: [..]
:>
:> I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
:> whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
:> an anecode for levity.

: For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!

I'm not religious and I use a very simple editor.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-15 01:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
: [..]
:>
:> I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
:> whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
:> an anecode for levity.
: For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!
I'm not religious and I use a very simple editor.
That's unfair, to blame the editor being "simple" as the reason for
the atrocious spelling, no that won't to at all!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-15 12:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
[..]
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
:> whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
:> an anecode for levity.
: For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!
I'm not religious and I use a very simple editor.
That's unfair, to blame the editor being "simple" as the reason for
the atrocious spelling, no that won't to at all!
I don't care about your opinion either. don't read my posts if you wish.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-16 03:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
[..]
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
:> whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
:> an anecode for levity.
: For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!
I'm not religious and I use a very simple editor.
That's unfair, to blame the editor being "simple" as the reason for
the atrocious spelling, no that won't to at all!
I don't care about your opinion either. don't read my posts if you wish.
WHHHHhhhhhhhoooooosssssssshhHHHH......

*grin*
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-15 12:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
: [..]
:>
:> I don' have any assumptions about teh Rus, nad it is perpheral to me
:> whetehr they were in majority slavic or scandinavain. I had merely quoted
:> an anecode for levity.
: For christ sake Yusuf, use a spell checker!!
I'm not religious and I use a very simple editor.
That's unfair, to blame the editor being "simple" as the reason for
the atrocious spelling, no that won't to at all!
It won't what?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Nirvana
2004-02-11 22:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Inger,

One thing that you've failed to mention is that the Iranian speakers
could have adopted Germanic/Slavic names. In America, it's typical
for foreign-born or newer immigrants to assimilate in this manner.

I heard that the Vikings quickly slavicized once they came to Russia.
Post by Inger E Johansson
NO NO NO.
Most of the so called Alans were Goths recognised as Goths by the
Historians. The language they are said to have spoken were Gothic. They had
Gothic names etc etc.
How many of the contemporary sources have you read either in original
language or transcribed during Medieval Age to two or more languages?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is a whole article about the Iranian languages of South Russia, that
not only identifies them as Iranian speakers, but also identifies
daielctical variants.
Now you are totally out in the blue. Please read Ammanianus and compare his
lines with Procop and Orosius. Then read more carefully what the Eastern
European Historians said the closest you can come to your assumptions is the
Ar-rus which was mentioned in 844. But since they too has been noted in more
than one independent source and thus identified to be from Sweden your
theory falls.
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-12 06:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nirvana
Inger,
One thing that you've failed to mention is that the Iranian speakers
could have adopted Germanic/Slavic names. In America, it's typical
for foreign-born or newer immigrants to assimilate in this manner.
That I investigated in 1993-1995 following the 20 most mentioned Alans. They
are all but two known to have arrived 'over sea' to two places where they
first settled, the Geata/Gotha merchandise 'town' of the Goths on outlet of
Wisla River; in the Baltic (one of them were to collect the Varjag taxation
in the Baltics for a plough-innovation!); the other two were one who is said
to have origined from 'ranriki' which as every scholar in Europe who has any
knowledge at all of written contemporary sources was the land from Uddevalla
(Bohuslän) up to Halden in today's Norway; the one remaining was a Saxon who
was enrolled in the coast area of the Baltic's. Who enrolled him?
Hermaneric's son short after Hermaneric and his troups had crossed the sea.
So no Iranic speaking who adopted Germanic names among any of the known
Alans up to 553 AD. Which was the outher time border I could follow persons
and families. Then there is a 'gap' from 553 AD to 615 AD, that I admit but
I don't think it's that period we discuss.
Post by Nirvana
I heard that the Vikings quickly slavicized once they came to Russia.
Well, while some did most didn't. There is so many myths going around
regarding the Rus and the Varjag that I wonder if 20th century scholars,
funny but no myth seems to have any bearing older than 1919 AD in writing at
least, missed to compare written Prime Sources. While some or most of the
Prime Sources speaks out of a tendency position they agree to an extant that
never been mentioned re. what happened. Not why. Not always methods used by
their own side. Both it's always funny to have three versions of same
occasion and for all but the founding of Kiev there are one source from each
side and usually one outside version of an eyewitness. More often a
representative from the Ortodox Church, sometimes one of these splendid
'Arab' Geographers never mentioned in sci.archaeology or for that matters in
soc.history.ancient resp soc.history.medieval.

Inger E
Post by Nirvana
Post by Inger E Johansson
NO NO NO.
Most of the so called Alans were Goths recognised as Goths by the
Historians. The language they are said to have spoken were Gothic. They had
Gothic names etc etc.
How many of the contemporary sources have you read either in original
language or transcribed during Medieval Age to two or more languages?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
there is a whole article about the Iranian languages of South Russia, that
not only identifies them as Iranian speakers, but also identifies
daielctical variants.
Now you are totally out in the blue. Please read Ammanianus and compare his
lines with Procop and Orosius. Then read more carefully what the Eastern
European Historians said the closest you can come to your assumptions is the
Ar-rus which was mentioned in 844. But since they too has been noted in more
than one independent source and thus identified to be from Sweden your
theory falls.
m***@io.com
2004-02-11 14:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
were at least three groups who could be called Scytian;
* the Goths who definitely not were from Easter Europe or Asia.
* The Alans who by some were call 'Alan's but in most contemporary sources
were called 'Alamagni'
indeed. the name scythian has been very broadly applied. the greeks
identified both germans and celts as scythian, as well as the people of
eastern europe.

this led to secondary applications of the name, all of which have been
rejected by modern historians:

posidonius indentified the germanic cimbri as cimmerians, the people
displaced in eastern europe by the scythians.

the welsh cymri are also identified as cimmerians in classical texts.

subsequently, the 20th cent. author robert e. howard made his character
conan a cimmerian, while representing this cimmerian culture as celtic.

the irish book of invasions traces the ancestry of most of the irish to
the scythians. the exception is the parthalonians, who are descended
from magog, relatives of the scythians in the bible.

this idea was revived by the british-isrealite theory, which traces the
lost tribes of israel to scythia and then to the germanic anglo-saxons.

the british-israelite theory is still around in the form of identity
christianity, a white supremacist movement.

geoffery of monmouth identifies the picts as scythians, while gog king
of magog from the bible appears as the giants gog and magog [or one
giant named gogmagog in other folklore]. gog and magog might appear
here because of the connection to scythians in the bible.

in the table of nations from genesis, gomer [cimmeria], ashkenaz
[scythia] and magog are brothers, grandsons of noah and fathers of the
people who bear their names [the eponymous ancestor of scythians
appears in greek texts as king skoloti].

when jews settled in germany, they took the name ashkenazim based upon
the greek custom of referring to the germans as scythian.

until the 20th cent., turkish and other altaic languages were
identified as scythian by linguists. this led to marlowe's description
of tamberlane, the scythian shepherd.

a poem about 19th cent. immigration to america mentions scythians,
apparently meaning greeks who came from the ottoman turkish empire.
thus the circle becomes complete and by defining scythian so braodly,
the greeks themselves became identified as scythians.

the above list of bizarre misappellations should demonstrate what
happens when you try to rely entirely upon contemporary sources.

only the laughingstock of the newsgroup would advocate such a thing.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-13 07:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by mosalmounkosh
WRONG again! In fact they preserved their language when they were
settled as Foederati by Marcus Aurelius in Britannia, as well as when
they were recruited by Charlemagne of the Franks to fight the people
of Britanny. Once again, you know NOTHING of history.
Furthermore, Iranian Alans and Sarmatians that had settled in Hungary
maintained their dialects locally until the 16-17th centuries, when
they then adopted Magyar.
This sounds awfully iffy to me.

The Alans also called Alani were an ancient nomadic pastoral people
that occupied the steppe region northeast of the Black Sea - formerly
Scythian territory. The Alani were first noted in Roman literature in
the 1st century AD. Later they were noted for being warlike and horse
breeders. They raided the Parthian empire often as well as the
Caucasian provinces of the Roman Empire. In about 370 AD they were
overwhelmed by the Huns. This split the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.

Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa. They were no
longer "Alani" and "Vandals" on their return sometime in the 1200's as
Islamic invaders. The last mention I know of the "Alani" as any kind
of people comes from papal and Chinese records. In 1336 a group of
Alani Christians in Ta-tu sent a letter to Pope Benedict XII, who sent
John of Marignola with a mission to the Mongol court. It reached
Shang-tu in 1342. Chinese sources have recorded the date of the
audience as Aug. 19, 1342. The country from where the envoys came is
given by the Chinese source as Fu-lang, a Chinese version of the name
Farang (Franks), which was used as a general term for Europeans in the
Middle East.


As for the "Foederati", well that is correct PROVIDING Britannia is in
North Africa. King Gaiseric (or Genseric) of the Vandals and Alani
(428-477) conquered a large part of Roman Africa and even sacked Rome
itself in 455! In 435 Gaiseric concluded a treaty (that really didn't
mean much) with the Romans under which the Vandals retained Mauretania
and part of Numidia and became foederati of Rome. During this time
the Alani became absorbed by the Vandals, and they became dominant as
a people and the Alani name disappears there.

BTW, "foederati" means "allies under special treaty".

Further more there are several other errors above. The Alani were
nowhere NEAR Marcus Aurelius at any time. They were busy sacking the
Caucasian provinces. Marcus Aurelius was kept busy elsewhere in
Europe, fighting germanic people in Italy and Bohemia.

There is no such thing as "Iranian Alans", they must be either Alans
OR Iranians as the term is used for an ethnicity.

A people in Eurasia, north of the Black sea, until the 9 –> 8 cent. BC
were called by the Greek, also by the Roman historians, by a common
name Cimmerians, in the 9 –> 3 cent. BC as Scythians (in Russian:
Skif, in Western European: Scyth), at the same time they also called
them Sauromats. In the 3 cent. BC –> 4 cent. AD they also called them
Sarmatians. Then in general use was the ethnonym Alan, or Alani. This
is the view of one scholar at least.

But here is a problem. "Scythians" in their heyday were a people from
the Danube right across the steppes into China. They never were one
people and is based more on cultural artefacts and not on any form of
ethnicity. The name "Scythians" shows up for the first time in the
Assyrian documents of the middle of the 7 cent. BC. The country of
Scythians was called Ishkuza". A couple of Scythian kings were
"Ishpakai" and "Partatua" (Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 44-48).

What language the Scythians spoke is unknown - however one can say
with certainty that there were many languages spoken in the Scythian
kingdom. An Iranian language may well have been one of them, but it is
most certainly wrong to claim "Scythians spoke Iranian". It is equally
wrong to claim "Alans spoke Iranian" (or more properly worded, "one of
the Iranian languages"). It simply isn't known. What the Ossetes speak
is irrelevant as they are not Alani - they don't exist anymore. The
Hungary connection appears to be a rather loose one, relying on the
Legend of the Stag, which supposedly unifies the 3 nations of the
Magyars the Onogurs, Avars and Alans.

The Huns most certainly did go through Hungary, and there may well
have been Alans left behind - and the legend could indicate this. But
there is another problem with this. The Magyars were a very late
people from about the late 800's AD IIRC. They are a Finno-Ugric
people who may well have had contact with the Huns at one point in
time at some other place, well before they came to Hungary. They did
arrive from the East, where they had been knocking around N -> NW of
the Black Sea for some time.

Further to that the Hungarian legends do contain "Väinämöinen" a name
of an important person from the Finnish and Estonian creation story
known as Kalevala. This, if nothing else, establishes connection of
those people.

It seems to me to be most unlikely that any people, at a time of great
people movements, stayed in the one place as a homogenous isolated
group for well over a 1000 years. Specially when it has no physical
barriers to people movement.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-13 07:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus. It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.

As for the later called Vandals they are known to have arrived over sea to
today's Jutland and from there you can follow them down hack in heel of the
Cimbrerians in beginning but later close associated with Teutons or Thiudos
as they became known as. The group that became known as the Vandals is known
in written documentation from the early days of the Markomans. All in all I
have more than 60 contemporary or close to contemporary sources which I
myself have studied, analysed and made notes from. Part of them confirm the
Danish Linguist W Thomsen(late 19th early 20th century) in his conclusen
that they are the same group as later was called the
Kvens/Kväner/Wends/Venedi/Veneti/ etc and that they lived in the area which
the later Estonians called "Wene" as late as in 19th century. Thomsen's
studies can for most part be said to be confirmed by Russian and Slavic
scholars from 17th-18th century.
For more information re. Thomsen please read:
Thomsén V, samlade afhandlinger BD1, Copenhagen 1919.

Inger E
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by mosalmounkosh
WRONG again! In fact they preserved their language when they were
settled as Foederati by Marcus Aurelius in Britannia, as well as when
they were recruited by Charlemagne of the Franks to fight the people
of Britanny. Once again, you know NOTHING of history.
Furthermore, Iranian Alans and Sarmatians that had settled in Hungary
maintained their dialects locally until the 16-17th centuries, when
they then adopted Magyar.
This sounds awfully iffy to me.
The Alans also called Alani were an ancient nomadic pastoral people
that occupied the steppe region northeast of the Black Sea - formerly
Scythian territory. The Alani were first noted in Roman literature in
the 1st century AD. Later they were noted for being warlike and horse
breeders. They raided the Parthian empire often as well as the
Caucasian provinces of the Roman Empire. In about 370 AD they were
overwhelmed by the Huns. This split the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.
Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa. They were no
longer "Alani" and "Vandals" on their return sometime in the 1200's as
Islamic invaders. The last mention I know of the "Alani" as any kind
of people comes from papal and Chinese records. In 1336 a group of
Alani Christians in Ta-tu sent a letter to Pope Benedict XII, who sent
John of Marignola with a mission to the Mongol court. It reached
Shang-tu in 1342. Chinese sources have recorded the date of the
audience as Aug. 19, 1342. The country from where the envoys came is
given by the Chinese source as Fu-lang, a Chinese version of the name
Farang (Franks), which was used as a general term for Europeans in the
Middle East.
As for the "Foederati", well that is correct PROVIDING Britannia is in
North Africa. King Gaiseric (or Genseric) of the Vandals and Alani
(428-477) conquered a large part of Roman Africa and even sacked Rome
itself in 455! In 435 Gaiseric concluded a treaty (that really didn't
mean much) with the Romans under which the Vandals retained Mauretania
and part of Numidia and became foederati of Rome. During this time
the Alani became absorbed by the Vandals, and they became dominant as
a people and the Alani name disappears there.
BTW, "foederati" means "allies under special treaty".
Further more there are several other errors above. The Alani were
nowhere NEAR Marcus Aurelius at any time. They were busy sacking the
Caucasian provinces. Marcus Aurelius was kept busy elsewhere in
Europe, fighting germanic people in Italy and Bohemia.
There is no such thing as "Iranian Alans", they must be either Alans
OR Iranians as the term is used for an ethnicity.
A people in Eurasia, north of the Black sea, until the 9 -> 8 cent. BC
were called by the Greek, also by the Roman historians, by a common
Skif, in Western European: Scyth), at the same time they also called
them Sauromats. In the 3 cent. BC -> 4 cent. AD they also called them
Sarmatians. Then in general use was the ethnonym Alan, or Alani. This
is the view of one scholar at least.
But here is a problem. "Scythians" in their heyday were a people from
the Danube right across the steppes into China. They never were one
people and is based more on cultural artefacts and not on any form of
ethnicity. The name "Scythians" shows up for the first time in the
Assyrian documents of the middle of the 7 cent. BC. The country of
Scythians was called Ishkuza". A couple of Scythian kings were
"Ishpakai" and "Partatua" (Pogrebova M.N., 1981, 44-48).
What language the Scythians spoke is unknown - however one can say
with certainty that there were many languages spoken in the Scythian
kingdom. An Iranian language may well have been one of them, but it is
most certainly wrong to claim "Scythians spoke Iranian". It is equally
wrong to claim "Alans spoke Iranian" (or more properly worded, "one of
the Iranian languages"). It simply isn't known. What the Ossetes speak
is irrelevant as they are not Alani - they don't exist anymore. The
Hungary connection appears to be a rather loose one, relying on the
Legend of the Stag, which supposedly unifies the 3 nations of the
Magyars the Onogurs, Avars and Alans.
The Huns most certainly did go through Hungary, and there may well
have been Alans left behind - and the legend could indicate this. But
there is another problem with this. The Magyars were a very late
people from about the late 800's AD IIRC. They are a Finno-Ugric
people who may well have had contact with the Huns at one point in
time at some other place, well before they came to Hungary. They did
arrive from the East, where they had been knocking around N -> NW of
the Black Sea for some time.
Further to that the Hungarian legends do contain "Väinämöinen" a name
of an important person from the Finnish and Estonian creation story
known as Kalevala. This, if nothing else, establishes connection of
those people.
It seems to me to be most unlikely that any people, at a time of great
people movements, stayed in the one place as a homogenous isolated
group for well over a 1000 years. Specially when it has no physical
barriers to people movement.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
xYmassyXmass:=~#*
2004-02-13 13:37:37 UTC
Permalink
*SO* WHAT *I~#'F?!!!!.#
THE POINT?
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-15 10:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by xYmassyXmass:=~#*
*SO* WHAT *I~#'F?!!!!.#
The above is most certainly NO PART whatever of the message Inger
posted!
Post by xYmassyXmass:=~#*
THE POINT?
The point is that the text attributed to Inger is a forgery.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-15 12:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by xYmassyXmass:=~#*
*SO* WHAT *I~#'F?!!!!.#
The above is most certainly NO PART whatever of the message Inger
posted!
Post by xYmassyXmass:=~#*
THE POINT?
The point is that the text attributed to Inger is a forgery.
As so many times before.
Point is that what the forgers(three person that we- my supplier and I know
of) don't know that we nailed them via their own IP-address.

Inger E
Post by Seppo Renfors
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
m***@io.com
2004-02-13 06:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus. It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
have english translations been published? is there some reference you
can give us for these?
Post by Inger E Johansson
Part of them confirm the
Danish Linguist W Thomsen(late 19th early 20th century) in his conclusen
that they are the same group as later was called the
Kvens/Kväner/Wends/Venedi/Veneti/ etc and that they lived in the area which
the later Estonians called "Wene" as late as in 19th century.
the wendish people [sorbs/serbin/white serbs] are today slavs who live
in germany. the name wend was once more wide spread in the region, but
was then used to refer to slavs/alans, not germanic people. this is
several centuries after the vandals.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Thomsen's
studies can for most part be said to be confirmed by Russian and Slavic
scholars from 17th-18th century.
i'm really not one to automatically dis obsolete sources, but the
difficulty here is context. we are discussing the way that historical
peoples fit into the definitions of modern scholars.

the researchers of past centuries had different definitons for the
terms scythian et al, so when they defined a people as scythian or
german they had very different qualifications in mind than we do today.

as i have pointed out a couple times before, they thought the scythians
were turks, so there is no frickin way to resolve that with modern
scholars who identify scythians as iranian.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Thomsén V, samlade afhandlinger BD1, Copenhagen 1919.
certainly. you can't expect to discuss this topic without knowing
danish, or having access to this book, of which the one or two
surviving copies are to be found:

a. on inger's bookshelf
b. frozen in an arctic glacier
c. propping up an uneven bench in santa's workshop
d. buried underneath a viking rune stone in the american midwest

i'm closest to the last site, so it looks like i'll need a shovel and a
greyhound ticket to ohio.

oh wait a minute, maybe i should just call inger an idiot and be done
the whole affair. yeah, that would probably be easier.

inger, you're an idiot.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-15 09:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
You will find books here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc

Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?

One other problem is that who were were "germanic" at 100 BC isn't
known - it is assumed from fairly ill-informed Greek and Roman
writers.

Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities
(1898) has an entry for "Alani" and it says "See Scythia"!

and there it says in part:

"Hence, in writers of the time of the Roman Empire, the name of
Scythia denotes the whole of Northern Asia, from the river Rha (Volga)
on the west, which divided it from Asiatic Sarmatia, to Serica on the
east, extending to India on the south. It was divided by Mount Imaüs
into two parts, called respectively Scythia intra Imaüm, i. e. on the
northwestern side of the range, and Scythia extra Imaüm, on its
southeastern side. The later Scythians overran Parthia (B.C. 128), and
also invaded Northern India, where they maintained themselves for
several centuries. The Jats and Rajputs of modern India have by some
scholars been regarded as the descendants of these Scythian invaders."

Not much help there, and in fact "Alani" gets no further mention.
Post by Inger E Johansson
As for the later called Vandals they are known to have arrived over sea to
today's Jutland and from there you can follow them down hack in heel of the
Cimbrerians in beginning but later close associated with Teutons or Thiudos
as they became known as.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia says this:

"Vandals

A Germanic people belonging to the family of East Germans. According
to Tacitus, they were originally settled between the Elbe and Vistula.
At the time of the War of the Marcomanni (166-81) they lived in what
is now Silesia, and in about 271 the Roman Emperor Aurelian was
obliged to
protect the middle course of the Danube against them."

Note the dates. This is well after Diodorus Siculus time by some 300
years. Note also the location difference according to Harpers
Dictionary. Considering both information, it precludes the Alani from
being Vandals.
Post by Inger E Johansson
The group that became known as the Vandals is known
in written documentation from the early days of the Markomans. All in all I
have more than 60 contemporary or close to contemporary sources which I
myself have studied, analysed and made notes from. Part of them confirm the
Danish Linguist W Thomsen(late 19th early 20th century) in his conclusen
that they are the same group as later was called the
Kvens/Kväner/Wends/Venedi/Veneti/ etc and that they lived in the area which
the later Estonians called "Wene" as late as in 19th century.
You and I will never agree on the "Kvens" :-)

The Estonian word means "boat", as does "vene" in Finnish.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Thomsen's
studies can for most part be said to be confirmed by Russian and Slavic
scholars from 17th-18th century.
Thomsén V, samlade afhandlinger BD1, Copenhagen 1919.
If that book claims "Kvens" = "Wends", then there is a perfect use for
it. Next time you want a nice warm fire.....


This might be of some use:

German chronicler writes: "Ibi sunt etiam, qui dicuntur Alani vel
Albani, qui lingua eorum Wizii dicuntur, crudelissimi ambrones, cum
canite nascuntur: de quibus Solinus meminit"(1). Hence, the term "Alba
Russia" in the context of the treatise would mean "part of Russia,
which used to be Albania", i.e. the country of Albanians-Wepsans.

1 - Magistri Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Ponti?
cum, P. 248 (Lib. IV, cap. XIX)

I can't understand that, and it sure doesn't look like German to me.
However I see "Alani" near "Albani", and this is from a discussion
about why "white Russia" has earned that name, which I though rather
odd.


[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-15 09:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc
Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?
Well it's 100% evidence of it's existence. I checked up the referenses and
places where the Professors of 1833 said they had found the text. It's
there. My problem is that I am a female. I can't go to those places myself
so I had to use friends of friends who looked for specific information which
I didn't say was connected to Diodorus..... One of the friends of a friend
is an ortodox monk/priest. He checked for himself and came up with even more
interesting information. The thing I had from him I worked on in my Gothic
Mosaic manuscript, the other I haven't been able to look further into. Due
to obvious reasons.
Post by Seppo Renfors
One other problem is that who were were "germanic" at 100 BC isn't
known - it is assumed from fairly ill-informed Greek and Roman
writers.
They knew much more than they have been credited for. That part is also in
my Gothic Mosaic manuscript. One of my favorite things is to 'dig' around
the historians, authors etc and find out which potential they had to know a
lot.
I admit that it's easier from 1st century AD due to Dio's forgotten(!)
speaches and works, still existing btw had a Greek scholar friend of mine
asks for copies to be sent to her where she lives in Östergötland today and
she translated parts for me which to 95-98% contained same information which
Jordanes refered to.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities
(1898) has an entry for "Alani" and it says "See Scythia"!
Well for that Scythia we do have a lot of Historians, Sophists and other who
directly said that in the later centuries that name was given to some of the
Ostrogothic groups who had arrived via the Rivers from north after crossing
a hugh sea. More interesting is the fact that they also are noted that most
of the merchandisers among them returned home(!) via Dnjepr and Great Volga
to the sea we today call the Baltic Sea. Btw. one interesting detail. if you
look on maps from 1800's for the area outside Nyköpings ån you will find
that the name presented long ago by the Greek and the Romans still was in
use locally up to 1800's. If you can find that name on early maps. Yes of
course.
Post by Seppo Renfors
"Hence, in writers of the time of the Roman Empire, the name of
Scythia denotes the whole of Northern Asia, from the river Rha (Volga)
on the west, which divided it from Asiatic Sarmatia, to Serica on the
east, extending to India on the south. It was divided by Mount ImaÃŒs
into two parts, called respectively Scythia intra ImaÃŒm, i. e. on the
northwestern side of the range, and Scythia extra ImaÃŒm, on its
southeastern side. The later Scythians overran Parthia (B.C. 128), and
also invaded Northern India, where they maintained themselves for
several centuries. The Jats and Rajputs of modern India have by some
scholars been regarded as the descendants of these Scythian invaders."
I don't agree with you. Can we take that to a specific thread?
Post by Seppo Renfors
Not much help there, and in fact "Alani" gets no further mention
Oh? They do. Much much more.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
As for the later called Vandals they are known to have arrived over sea to
today's Jutland and from there you can follow them down hack in heel of the
Cimbrerians in beginning but later close associated with Teutons or Thiudos
as they became known as.
"Vandals
A Germanic people belonging to the family of East Germans. According
to Tacitus, they were originally settled between the Elbe and Vistula.
At the time of the War of the Marcomanni (166-81) they lived in what
is now Silesia, and in about 271 the Roman Emperor Aurelian was
obliged to
protect the middle course of the Danube against them."
Note the dates. This is well after Diodorus Siculus time by some 300
years. Note also the location difference according to Harpers
Dictionary. Considering both information, it precludes the Alani from
being Vandals.
That part would need at least 100 A4 pages to analyse that. I have a lot
more than 100 A4 pages with quotes, analyses validation of assumptions
presumptions and conclusions. To say the least - It's not much I agree upon
in the Vandal case with theview of Dictionaries and the Encyclopedia.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
The group that became known as the Vandals is known
in written documentation from the early days of the Markomans. All in all I
have more than 60 contemporary or close to contemporary sources which I
myself have studied, analysed and made notes from. Part of them confirm the
Danish Linguist W Thomsen(late 19th early 20th century) in his conclusen
that they are the same group as later was called the
Kvens/Kväner/Wends/Venedi/Veneti/ etc and that they lived in the area which
the later Estonians called "Wene" as late as in 19th century.
You and I will never agree on the "Kvens" :-)
No but you haven't worked with it for several years month after month, have
you?
Post by Seppo Renfors
The Estonian word means "boat", as does "vene" in Finnish.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Thomsen's
studies can for most part be said to be confirmed by Russian and Slavic
scholars from 17th-18th century.
Thomsén V, samlade afhandlinger BD1, Copenhagen 1919.
If that book claims "Kvens" = "Wends", then there is a perfect use for
it. Next time you want a nice warm fire.....
Thomsén has got it right. You need a good look into the prime sources he
refers to. But what you didn't know is the simple fact that it's also noted
on some of the earliest maps. That's been sadly missed by historians.
Post by Seppo Renfors
German chronicler writes: "Ibi sunt etiam, qui dicuntur Alani vel
Albani, qui lingua eorum Wizii dicuntur, crudelissimi ambrones, cum
canite nascuntur: de quibus Solinus meminit"(1). Hence, the term "Alba
Russia" in the context of the treatise would mean "part of Russia,
which used to be Albania", i.e. the country of Albanians-Wepsans.
Have you looked into that quote more carefully? Have you read the B- and
C-versions? Have you read several of the contempory sources? I have. I know
what I am speaking of. I had five of Scandinavias best scholar specialist in
the periods we discuss reading thru my manuscript. It's solid.
Post by Seppo Renfors
1 - Magistri Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Ponti?
cum, P. 248 (Lib. IV, cap. XIX)
I can't understand that, and it sure doesn't look like German to me.
However I see "Alani" near "Albani", and this is from a discussion
about why "white Russia" has earned that name, which I though rather
odd.
You and I haven't read same background material, that's obvious. I have no
problem at all with that. The first part of my study you can find in the
C-essay 'Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider' which I believe I sent
you in text but not the maps for linguistic nor the maps for specific rare
herbs, weed and seed. The second part is to be found in my Gothic Mosaic
manuscript and the third part in the essay I work with from time to time
today.

Inger E
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-15 12:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc
Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?
No, Seppo. The Perseus project is not more complete than, say, the Loeb
Classical Library. If it's the only place you look for Classical
sources, then you obviously have access to very few Classical sources.

Inger's statement that mss. exist(ed) that were known in the early 19th
century but are not known to mid-20th-century editors is rather strange,
though.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-16 05:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc
Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?
No, Seppo. The Perseus project is not more complete than, say, the Loeb
Classical Library. If it's the only place you look for Classical
sources, then you obviously have access to very few Classical sources.
Again you missed the hole point. It is indeed the best source ON LINE,
(Loeb isn't available on line). It is the best referenced text
available and material there can be used as a discussion point as it
is readily available irrespective of the part of the world one is in.
Come on, get with it!!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-16 12:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc
Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?
No, Seppo. The Perseus project is not more complete than, say, the Loeb
Classical Library. If it's the only place you look for Classical
sources, then you obviously have access to very few Classical sources.
Again you missed the hole point. It is indeed the best source ON LINE,
But that's not what you said, is it.
Post by Seppo Renfors
(Loeb isn't available on line). It is the best referenced text
available and material there can be used as a discussion point as it
is readily available irrespective of the part of the world one is in.
Come on, get with it!!
Learn to use a library. With books.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
miss calm
2004-02-16 12:21:07 UTC
Permalink
or maybe just crossposters?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Inger E Johansson
Seppo,
here you are wrong in your assumptions of the Alan/Alani groups. They were
first observed in the Germanic speaking area. One of those who noted them
from older sources and also from his own time was Diodorus.
You mean "Diodorus Siculus", (born in Agyrium, Sicily circa 90-21
BCE), wrote "Bibliotheca Historica" - where he talks about Atlantic
island discovered by Phoenician navigators who were driven there by
strong winds... (Book 5)
Post by Inger E Johansson
It's in one of
the presumed missing books. Presumed, well several of the so called missing
books were translated into German and edited in 1833-1835 by three
Professors of History. One copy is known to have existed up to WWII in a
monestry on the Greek monk island; thought to still exist but I haven't been
able to have confirmation. One other handwritten copy how ever was known as
late as 10 years ago as owned by one of the oldest monestries which today is
on the border between Turkey and Iraq. That I had confirmed in 1995.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Diod.+toc
Some do indeed appear to be missing, others are partial. The Perseus
project is the most complete source I know off on early Greek history.
If such a book existed, they would have a copy of the text in it.
However how can one rely on something like you describe, when there is
nil evidence of it left?
No, Seppo. The Perseus project is not more complete than, say, the Loeb
Classical Library. If it's the only place you look for Classical
sources, then you obviously have access to very few Classical sources.
Again you missed the hole point. It is indeed the best source ON LINE,
But that's not what you said, is it.
Post by Seppo Renfors
(Loeb isn't available on line). It is the best referenced text
available and material there can be used as a discussion point as it
is readily available irrespective of the part of the world one is in.
Come on, get with it!!
Learn to use a library. With books.
--
m***@io.com
2004-02-13 06:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.
Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa.
there were many settlements of sarmatians/alans throughout europe, in
addition to what you have noted. you are probably right that those in
western europe and africa lost their culture after a while, although
many place names have survived, such as the island of sark in the
english channel.

in eastern europe they are considered to be the antecedants of the
slavic peoples, even if the language has changed so that it may no
longer be condidered iranian.
Post by Seppo Renfors
The country from where the envoys came is
given by the Chinese source as Fu-lang, a Chinese version of the name
Farang (Franks), which was used as a general term for Europeans in the
Middle East.
fu-lang/fu-lin is probably earlier than farang [which is a term dating
from the crusades], as as you may see from the following:

file:///lore/doc/East%20Asian%20History%20Sourcebook%20

The history of the same dynasty (the northern Wei) is
the subject of a later work, the Pei-shih, which contains an
almost literal reproduction of what we find in the Wei-shu. Of the
histories preceding the Pei-shih I merely mention the Sui-shu,
embracing the period 581-617 C.E., because I found in it the first
trace of the new name under which the country of Ta-ts'in was
known thereafter, viz., Fu-lin. There is no description in this
book of either Ta-ts'in or Fu-lin, but in an account of Persia
(ch. 83), I found it stated that "Fu-lin is 4,500 li north-west of
that country."


the similarity of farang to fu-lin is an interesting coincidence,
however, since these were both widespread terms for europe. perhaps
there was a later folk-etymology which confounded these terms?
Post by Seppo Renfors
There is no such thing as "Iranian Alans", they must be either Alans
OR Iranians as the term is used for an ethnicity.
ethnicity? try a branch of languages, because that is what it means, in
addition to the geographic area of iran.

this confusion has appeared earlier on this thread. there really ought
to be a term such as iranic [as inger rendered it] in order to
distinguish it from iran itself. but there's not.

maybe you and inger can start a campaign to introduce this term into
academia. we will all be eternally grateful to you.
Post by Seppo Renfors
A people in Eurasia, north of the Black sea, until the 9 –> 8 cent. BC
were called by the Greek, also by the Roman historians, by a common
name Cimmerians, in the 9 –> 3 cent. BC as Scythians
herodotus says the scythians invaded and chased the cimmerians into the
balkans and the middle east. these events are noted in the book of
ezekiel [gog king of magog, battle of armageddon] as well as assyrian
records [as you have noted].

some of these scythians were allied to the assyrians, invaded
urartu/ararat and became the armenians.

some archeologists trace the cimmerians to the balkans, rather than
from the east with the scythians.
Post by Seppo Renfors
In the 3 cent. BC –> 4 cent. AD they also called them
Sarmatians. Then in general use was the ethnonym Alan, or Alani. This
is the view of one scholar at least.
whoever that one scholar is, he's in agreement with everyone else.
Post by Seppo Renfors
What language the Scythians spoke is unknown - however one can say
with certainty that there were many languages spoken in the Scythian
kingdom. An Iranian language may well have been one of them, but it is
most certainly wrong to claim "Scythians spoke Iranian".
all true, but this gets back to the fundemental problem of identifying
steppe nomads. any time you see one of these polyglot groups identified
as iranian or turkic or whatever, it can be assumed that the author is
making an arbitrary decision to pick one ethnicity as being definitive.
an educated reader will know the context in which to regard this.

e.g., modern scholars see the lowest common denominator of scythian
culture as iranian. however, identifying it as iranian is not a denial
of all the other groups known to be present among the scythians as
well.
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is equally
wrong to claim "Alans spoke Iranian" (or more properly worded, "one of
the Iranian languages").
one of the iranian languages and iranian are both perfectly acceptable
usages.
Post by Seppo Renfors
It simply isn't known. What the Ossetes speak
is irrelevant as they are not Alani - they don't exist anymore.
no. not only is that wrong, it's not even obscure information anymore
since ossetia has been regularly appearing in the news because of the
wars in the region.

http://www.peoples.org.ru/eng_oset.html

Ossetian (Ossetic) language - one of the Indoeuropean languages
(Iranian group). Spoken
in the republics of North Ossetia (Russia) and South
Ossetia (Georgia), in various regions of
Georgia and Northern Caucasus. The number of the
Ossetians in Russia is 402,3 thousand. 93,2 %
of them regard Ossetian as their mother tongue, 6,4 %
Russian. The total number of the Ossetians on
the territory of the former USSR is 598 thousand. Main dialects:
Iron and Digor.
Post by Seppo Renfors
The last mention I know of the "Alani" as any kind
of people comes from papal and Chinese records.
that's a really difficult statement to defend. for one, the ossetes are
still around, and secondly lots of writers have made lots of ethnic
identifications about lots of different peoples since the 1300s.

can you really be sure that not a single soul has used the term alan
since then?
Nath Rao
2004-02-13 17:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
there were many settlements of sarmatians/alans throughout europe, in
addition to what you have noted. you are probably right that those in
western europe and africa lost their culture after a while, although
many place names have survived, such as the island of sark in the
english channel.
in eastern europe they are considered to be the antecedants of the
slavic peoples, even if the language has changed so that it may no
longer be condidered iranian.
I don't follow this. Slavic languages cannot derive from Iranian
languages: For example, in the latter PIE *e, *o and *a merged.
m***@io.com
2004-02-14 11:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nath Rao
I don't follow this. Slavic languages cannot derive from Iranian
languages: For example, in the latter PIE *e, *o and *a merged.
not in the way that indo-european languages are catagorized, no.

slavic languages are part of the european branch, iranian languages are
grouped with the indic branch and western academia might have little
motivation to see otherwise.

after all, the description of this language family was originally made
by comparing hindi and sanskrit to western european tongues, thus
creating two major groups. as the description of this family
progressed, other languages were assigned to either one or the other of
the original two groups.

languages from regions caught in the middle of this classification,
eastern europe, central asia and the middle east, were then classified
as either one or the other in disregard for similarities between them.

it is primarily eastern european linguists who spend time drawing
connections between slavic and iranian languages, and that reference is
pretty much the limit of my competantcy as a linguist. language is
something i know mainly in the context of history, so if i am to add
anything further it will have to be regarding history.

mention of the slavic people begins in the 600s ad. deciding who their
ancestors were is a matter of establishing:

a. where they were living when first documented by history.
b. who was known to be living in those regions beforehand, or known to
have migrated to those locations.

in this case the common denominator would seem to be the
alans/sarmatians/scythians, who are described by modern linguists as
iranian. the alans et al. were once described as altaic, and inger has
provided references that they were once thought to be germanic.

now exactly why the alans are supposed to be considered iranian today,
i don't know, and once again i will have to refer you to some
linguistically inclined person who would know.

but they are.

another approach would be to look at the names by which the early
slavic peoples called themselves. serbs, croats, wends, roxolani, etc.
are names which again lead us back to the alans.

a notable exception would be bulgaria, an indisputably slavic people
indentified by an indisputably turkic name. which leads us to the topic
of the uncertainty inherent in the identification of steppe peoples,
and at this point i should end by referring you to the 50-odd posts
already on this thread which discuss said topic ad nauseum.

good day to you.
Miguel Carrasquer
2004-02-14 22:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Nath Rao
I don't follow this. Slavic languages cannot derive from Iranian
languages: For example, in the latter PIE *e, *o and *a merged.
not in the way that indo-european languages are catagorized, no.
It has nothing to do with categorization. In Iranian, *e, *a and *o
merged. In Slavic they didn't. Therefore, the Slavic languages cannot be
descended from Iranian (your: "the language has changed so that it may no
longer be considered iranian").
Post by m***@io.com
slavic languages are part of the european branch, iranian languages are
grouped with the indic branch and western academia might have little
motivation to see otherwise.
Also, no such categorization exists. There is no such thing in
Indo-European studies as a "European branch".
Post by m***@io.com
it is primarily eastern european linguists who spend time drawing
connections between slavic and iranian languages, and that reference is
pretty much the limit of my competantcy as a linguist.
It shows.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl
m***@io.com
2004-02-15 09:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
It has nothing to do with categorization. In Iranian, *e, *a and *o
merged. In Slavic they didn't. Therefore, the Slavic languages cannot be
descended from Iranian (your: "the language has changed so that it may no
longer be considered iranian").
the phrase descended from indicates the most basic words and grammar of
a language. it does not account for all the events and influences that
produced that language.

english is a germanic language, but it would not be appropriate to
simply ignore the influences of latinic of celtic.

or try my statement in a different context:

a. after the roman invasion, the language of the gauls changed so that
it may no longer be considered celtic.

this stamement does not assert that french is descended from celtic.

b. after invading gaul, the language of the franks changed so that it
may no longer be considered germanic.

this stamement does not assert that french is descended from germanic.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Also, no such categorization exists. There is no such thing in
Indo-European studies as a "European branch".
not anymore. the particular context i was discussing is the
historiography of linguistics, the formation of indo-european theory in
the 1800s. example:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/iedocctr/ie-docs/lehmann/reader/Cha
pter12.html

the latter part of this essay mentions an earlier classification which
divided i-e into dicrete aryan and european branches. it also mentions
how scholars of the time, such as johannes schmidt, were already
finding problems with this simplistic definition.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
pretty much the limit of my competantcy as a linguist.
It shows.
well of course it should show. there is no one on the planet who is an
expert on all catagories of knowledge. someone who claims to know
everything would be a kook and not worth listening to.

i have stated where my area of expertise lies: history, with a limited
knowlegde of language in the context of historical studies. i can give
references to linguists when their work intersects with history, but
beyond that i would just be making it up. is that what you want?

in other words, i have a limited amount to say on this topic and i'm
gonna say it. i can't be responsible for the jealousy it may inspire in
those who have nothing to say at all.
Miguel Carrasquer
2004-02-15 21:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
It has nothing to do with categorization. In Iranian, *e, *a and *o
merged. In Slavic they didn't. Therefore, the Slavic languages cannot be
descended from Iranian (your: "the language has changed so that it may no
longer be considered iranian").
the phrase descended from indicates the most basic words and grammar of
a language. it does not account for all the events and influences that
produced that language.
Of course not.
Post by m***@io.com
english is a germanic language, but it would not be appropriate to
simply ignore the influences of latinic of celtic.
a. after the roman invasion, the language of the gauls changed so that
it may no longer be considered celtic.
this stamement does not assert that french is descended from celtic.
b. after invading gaul, the language of the franks changed so that it
may no longer be considered germanic.
this stamement does not assert that french is descended from germanic.
Both statements certainly read that way, which is why Nath Rao expressed
his puzzlement (and undoubtedly that of others reading this on sci.lang,
including myself).

After the Roman invasion, the Gauls gradually adopted Latin as their native
language. Gaulish didn't change as much as it got obsolete. The same goes
for Frankish: the Franks adopted (Romance) French as their native language
and abandoned Frankish (which lives on elsewhere as for instance Dutch).

Modern French has a minimal amount of Celtic lexicon and a much more
sizeable amount of Germanic lexicon (perhaps also some Germanic influence
in phonology and syntax), reflecting the history of the language and its
speakers. But it's confusing (and wrong) to say it's somehow a
transformation of either Gaulish or Frankish. It's a transformation of
Latin.

The history of the interactions between Iranian and Slavic is no different.
Iranian exerted a fair amount of influence on early Slavic (and Baltic),
which shows up in a number of Iranian borrowings (*bogU "god", perhaps
*sUto "100", to name just two off the top of my head). It's possible that
some Iranians became Slavicized and that some Slavs became Iranicized, but
given the lack of documentation on much of that history, it's hard to tell
whether the scenario was the Gaulish/Latin one, or the Frankish/French one,
at any given time.

We certainly have mismatches between language and ethnic appellations
(internal and/or external) all around: Ugric-speaking Hungarians and
Slavic-sepaking Bulgarians are known by Turkic-Bulgar names,
Slavic-speaking Croatians are known by an Iranian name, etc.
As I learned just the other day, the Svan of Georgia call the Turkic
language Karachay-Balkar "Ossetian".
Post by m***@io.com
the latter part of this essay mentions an earlier classification which
divided i-e into dicrete aryan and european branches.
OK. But it has nothing to do with what is currently the consensus in
IEistics.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl
Uno Hu
2004-02-16 06:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
The history of the interactions between Iranian and Slavic is no different.
Iranian exerted a fair amount of influence on early Slavic (and Baltic),
which shows up in a number of Iranian borrowings (*bogU "god", perhaps
*sUto "100", to name just two off the top of my head).
'Early Slavic' being ca 600ad?

'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
Miguel Carrasquer
2004-02-16 13:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
The history of the interactions between Iranian and Slavic is no different.
Iranian exerted a fair amount of influence on early Slavic (and Baltic),
which shows up in a number of Iranian borrowings (*bogU "god", perhaps
*sUto "100", to name just two off the top of my head).
'Early Slavic' being ca 600ad?
No. I meant Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions in general, from before 2000
BC to our earliest historical sources (i.e. Herodotus).
Post by Uno Hu
'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
*die~was and *s'im~tas, actually. (Lith. die~vas, s^im~tas, Latv. dìevs,
sìmts).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl
Uno Hu
2004-02-17 00:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
The history of the interactions between Iranian and Slavic is no different.
Iranian exerted a fair amount of influence on early Slavic (and Baltic),
which shows up in a number of Iranian borrowings (*bogU "god", perhaps
*sUto "100", to name just two off the top of my head).
'Early Slavic' being ca 600ad?
No. I meant Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions in general, from before 2000
BC to our earliest historical sources (i.e. Herodotus).
Herodotus mentions 2000BC "Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions"?
I wasn't aware that his histories went that far back.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
*die~was and *s'im~tas, actually. (Lith. die~vas, s^im~tas, Latv. dìevs,
sìmts).
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Actually not.
It's DIEVS in currrent Latvian, and it's SIMT in current Latvian.
The Lithuanian versions are DIEVAS and S(H)IMTAS

Your asterisked entries remain reconstructions - and needless on this point.

Uno Hu
miss calm
2004-02-17 00:59:13 UTC
Permalink
or maybe just crossposters?
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
The history of the interactions between Iranian and Slavic is no different.
Iranian exerted a fair amount of influence on early Slavic (and Baltic),
which shows up in a number of Iranian borrowings (*bogU "god", perhaps
*sUto "100", to name just two off the top of my head).
'Early Slavic' being ca 600ad?
No. I meant Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions in general, from before 2000
BC to our earliest historical sources (i.e. Herodotus).
Herodotus mentions 2000BC "Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions"?
I wasn't aware that his histories went that far back.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
*die~was and *s'im~tas, actually. (Lith. die~vas, s^im~tas, Latv. dìevs,
sìmts).
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Actually not.
It's DIEVS in currrent Latvian, and it's SIMT in current Latvian.
The Lithuanian versions are DIEVAS and S(H)IMTAS
Your asterisked entries remain reconstructions - and needless on this point.
Uno Hu
Miguel Carrasquer
2004-02-17 01:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
No. I meant Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions in general, from before 2000
BC to our earliest historical sources (i.e. Herodotus).
Herodotus mentions 2000BC "Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions"?
No. Read it again.
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
*die~was and *s'im~tas, actually. (Lith. die~vas, s^im~tas, Latv. dìevs,
sìmts).
Actually not.
It's DIEVS in currrent Latvian, and it's SIMT in current Latvian.
Endzeli:ns (Latviski-va:ciska un va:ciski-latviska va:rdni:ca, Ri:ga, 1926)
gives only <simts>. I see that both are given in my Krievu-Latvies^u
va:rdni:ca skola:m, Ri:ga, 1976. Anyay, <simts> is obviosuly the older
form, though still not quotable as "Baltic".

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl
miss calm
2004-02-17 01:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps they were just crossposters?
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
No. I meant Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions in general, from before 2000
BC to our earliest historical sources (i.e. Herodotus).
Herodotus mentions 2000BC "Iranian/Balto-Slavic interactions"?
No. Read it again.
Post by Uno Hu
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
Post by Uno Hu
'Bog' is Slavic. It's 'dievs' for Baltic.
'Shto' for Slavic; 'simt' for Baltic.
Quite a difference.
*die~was and *s'im~tas, actually. (Lith. die~vas, s^im~tas, Latv. dìevs,
sìmts).
Actually not.
It's DIEVS in currrent Latvian, and it's SIMT in current Latvian.
Endzeli:ns (Latviski-va:ciska un va:ciski-latviska va:rdni:ca, Ri:ga, 1926)
gives only <simts>. I see that both are given in my Krievu-Latvies^u
va:rdni:ca skola:m, Ri:ga, 1976. Anyay, <simts> is obviosuly the older
form, though still not quotable as "Baltic".
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m***@io.com
2004-02-16 06:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it's confusing (and wrong) to say it's somehow a
transformation of either Gaulish or Frankish. It's a transformation of
Latin.
sounds good. i'll avoid using the word transformation, which i have not
used before on this thread anyway.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it has nothing to do with what is currently the consensus in
IEistics.
the son is the father of the man. in other words, the history of
linguistics has a bearing on the state of linguistics today.

on this thread, we have seen the current consensus [alans spoke an
iranian language] contrasted with older theories [alans were germanic
or turkic]. understanding the rise and fall of these theories in the
history of linguistics is an important part of evaluating their
validity.

modern lingustics divides i-e by use of words such as centrum and
satem. this is different than the old aryan/european division, but the
two systems are not completely different. there is still the tendancy
to begin by defining sanskrit as the polar opposite of western european
languages.

a given theory might also develop in opposition to former theories.
race was once considered significant to language. modern lingustics
avoids the topic of race -in order to understand why, one must be aware
of the old racial theories.

the modern system evolved from the former. understanding the older
theories is an important part of understanding the current consensus.
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-16 16:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Markovic,
if you believe that Historians stand behind your said consensus regarding
Alans then you are definitely out in the blue air. There is nothing what so
ever in any of the contemporary sources mentioning the Alans who makes them
Iranian speakers!

On the contrary ALL but one = everyone but one of the Alans who is mentioned
in the sources with names can be followed in contemporary sources for more
than 20 years. All but the person who is said to have his origin in the
coastal area of the Baltic Sea, everyone else have arrived to centre Europe
over the sea. Either from Sweden or from one of the Danish islands. Nothing
else can there be consesus of if you are using Primary sources for your
assumptions!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary sources
who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and Khazarian
papers. Why do you continue to build a fantasy tale and try to call it
consensus without even refering to one single source. Observe I am not
talking about odd quotes chosen because they seem to say this or that but to
a complete contemporary source where more than single quotes could be
interpreted as you try to do?

Inger E
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it's confusing (and wrong) to say it's somehow a
transformation of either Gaulish or Frankish. It's a transformation of
Latin.
sounds good. i'll avoid using the word transformation, which i have not
used before on this thread anyway.
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it has nothing to do with what is currently the consensus in
IEistics.
the son is the father of the man. in other words, the history of
linguistics has a bearing on the state of linguistics today.
on this thread, we have seen the current consensus [alans spoke an
iranian language] contrasted with older theories [alans were germanic
or turkic]. understanding the rise and fall of these theories in the
history of linguistics is an important part of evaluating their
validity.
modern lingustics divides i-e by use of words such as centrum and
satem. this is different than the old aryan/european division, but the
two systems are not completely different. there is still the tendancy
to begin by defining sanskrit as the polar opposite of western european
languages.
a given theory might also develop in opposition to former theories.
race was once considered significant to language. modern lingustics
avoids the topic of race -in order to understand why, one must be aware
of the old racial theories.
the modern system evolved from the former. understanding the older
theories is an important part of understanding the current consensus.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-17 02:20:49 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <Sj6Yb.82958$***@newsc.telia.net>:

: Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
: Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary sources
: who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and Khazarian

Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to Khwarezmian,
which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.

please *quote* which arabic or khazar source supports your opinion.

: papers. Why do you continue to build a fantasy tale and try to call it
: consensus without even refering to one single source. Observe I am not
: talking about odd quotes chosen because they seem to say this or that but to
: a complete contemporary source where more than single quotes could be
: interpreted as you try to do?
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-17 07:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
: Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary sources
: who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and Khazarian
Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to Khwarezmian,
which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.
That's not correct. I guess most of you have not only missed to study the
Khazarians closely but that you aren't among them who have the latest
information sent to your mailbox from the scholars specially working with
the Khazarian's history, linguistic and archaeology.
If you had you wouldn't have written such a comment.
The close connection between the Alans who were Europeans and had been
living at least from 54 AD short north of Donau in the settlement some
contemporary sources calls a merchandise village with farmland named Gaeta
same name as the merchandise area on the outlet of Visla River and the Goths
that settled in Ukraine, still writing Gothic language and the group that
became the Khazarians. For many years while working with the region in
question I had good contact with Russian Archaeologist and Historians. I had
monthly updating.
Thanks to one of the scholars in the team working with the Khazars today I
two weeks ago had an updating to my present mailbox of all that happened up
to January this year.
If you want me to I can send you information about details in sources and
present knowledge from excavations. But not to an open group for everyone to
read.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
please *quote* which arabic or khazar source supports your opinion.
I would like you to *quote* yours - I haven't found anyone at all supporting
your assumptions. Neither has the scholars I have had contact with the last
10 years.
I suggest that you look in the Khazarpapers for Ingar(Ingvar) and his men in
924 to 945 AD. You will find a lot more there which contradicts your
assumptions.
For those who want's me to send quotes on this one,
I could but it's not easy for me to write Hebraic with a Swedish setting on
my old computer. Nor is it likely that I could find myself time to write the
old Gothic but I can direct you to them but write down? I don't have such
letters in my computer and I don't own a scanner. As for the Arabic sources
the details can be found in all the older Geographers works.

Funny thing is that at least two of them had same correct knowledge of how
north in todays Sweden there were a major village of their time but that's
an other story to be told which gives more information of the Wends then
about the Alans.

Inger E
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-17 12:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
: Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary
sources
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and
Khazarian
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to Khwarezmian,
which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.
That's not correct. I guess most of you have not only missed to study the
Khazarians closely but that you aren't among them who have the latest
information sent to your mailbox from the scholars specially working with
the Khazarian's history, linguistic and archaeology.
You seem to be confusing Khazar and Khwarezmian.
Post by Inger E Johansson
If you had you wouldn't have written such a comment.
The close connection between the Alans who were Europeans and had been
living at least from 54 AD short north of Donau in the settlement some
contemporary sources calls a merchandise village with farmland named Gaeta
same name as the merchandise area on the outlet of Visla River and the Goths
that settled in Ukraine, still writing Gothic language and the group that
became the Khazarians. For many years while working with the region in
question I had good contact with Russian Archaeologist and Historians. I had
monthly updating.
Thanks to one of the scholars in the team working with the Khazars today I
two weeks ago had an updating to my present mailbox of all that happened up
to January this year.
If you want me to I can send you information about details in sources and
present knowledge from excavations. But not to an open group for everyone to
read.
Why the hell not? Scholars exist in order to enlighten the world. And
don't e-mail me privately.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
please *quote* which arabic or khazar source supports your opinion.
I would like you to *quote* yours - I haven't found anyone at all supporting
your assumptions. Neither has the scholars I have had contact with the last
10 years.
I suggest that you look in the Khazarpapers for Ingar(Ingvar) and his men in
924 to 945 AD. You will find a lot more there which contradicts your
assumptions.
For those who want's me to send quotes on this one,
I could but it's not easy for me to write Hebraic with a Swedish setting on
my old computer. Nor is it likely that I could find myself time to write the
old Gothic but I can direct you to them but write down? I don't have such
letters in my computer and I don't own a scanner. As for the Arabic sources
the details can be found in all the older Geographers works.
You've never heard of transliteration?
Post by Inger E Johansson
Funny thing is that at least two of them had same correct knowledge of how
north in todays Sweden there were a major village of their time but that's
an other story to be told which gives more information of the Wends then
about the Alans.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
miss calm
2004-02-17 13:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Maybe they were just crossposters?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
: Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary
sources
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and
Khazarian
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to
Khwarezmian,
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.
That's not correct. I guess most of you have not only missed to study the
Khazarians closely but that you aren't among them who have the latest
information sent to your mailbox from the scholars specially working with
the Khazarian's history, linguistic and archaeology.
You seem to be confusing Khazar and Khwarezmian.
Post by Inger E Johansson
If you had you wouldn't have written such a comment.
The close connection between the Alans who were Europeans and had been
living at least from 54 AD short north of Donau in the settlement some
contemporary sources calls a merchandise village with farmland named Gaeta
same name as the merchandise area on the outlet of Visla River and the Goths
that settled in Ukraine, still writing Gothic language and the group that
became the Khazarians. For many years while working with the region in
question I had good contact with Russian Archaeologist and Historians. I had
monthly updating.
Thanks to one of the scholars in the team working with the Khazars today I
two weeks ago had an updating to my present mailbox of all that happened up
to January this year.
If you want me to I can send you information about details in sources and
present knowledge from excavations. But not to an open group for everyone to
read.
Why the hell not? Scholars exist in order to enlighten the world. And
don't e-mail me privately.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
please *quote* which arabic or khazar source supports your opinion.
I would like you to *quote* yours - I haven't found anyone at all supporting
your assumptions. Neither has the scholars I have had contact with the last
10 years.
I suggest that you look in the Khazarpapers for Ingar(Ingvar) and his men in
924 to 945 AD. You will find a lot more there which contradicts your
assumptions.
For those who want's me to send quotes on this one,
I could but it's not easy for me to write Hebraic with a Swedish setting on
my old computer. Nor is it likely that I could find myself time to write the
old Gothic but I can direct you to them but write down? I don't have such
letters in my computer and I don't own a scanner. As for the Arabic sources
the details can be found in all the older Geographers works.
You've never heard of transliteration?
Post by Inger E Johansson
Funny thing is that at least two of them had same correct knowledge of how
north in todays Sweden there were a major village of their time but that's
an other story to be told which gives more information of the Wends then
about the Alans.
--
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-17 14:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
: Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary
sources
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and
Khazarian
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to
Khwarezmian,
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.
That's not correct. I guess most of you have not only missed to study the
Khazarians closely but that you aren't among them who have the latest
information sent to your mailbox from the scholars specially working with
the Khazarian's history, linguistic and archaeology.
You seem to be confusing Khazar and Khwarezmian.
No Peter, I am not. Definitely not. I had parts of it up together with my
C-essay in Linköping at Linköping's University. Had help of one of the
linguists there for the Khazar part. I am not confused. Not at all. but it
seems that several linguists in Europe and Asia are contrary to the
linguists in or around 1900 who had exactly same definition of the Khazars
as I do. Luckily for science those who works with the studies, several
Professors and Ph.D don't have that problem they speak of same Khazars as I
do.

Inger E
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-17 15:23:41 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in <hcjYb.83042$***@newsc.telia.net>:

: "Yusuf B Gursey" <***@TheWorld.com> skrev i meddelandet
: news:c0rtq1$2j8$***@pcls4.std.com...
:> In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <***@notelia.com> wrote in
: <Sj6Yb.82958$***@newsc.telia.net>:
:>
:> : Once again I suggest that you linguists start to look at Ammanianus,
:> : Orosius, Zosimus as a starter. There are at least 180 contemporary
: sources
:> : who proves your so called consensus wrong. Also Arabic sources and
: Khazarian
:>
:> Biruni, whose native language was (iranian) Khwarezmian, but wrote in
:> arabic, identifies Alans as speaking a language similar to Khwarezmian,
:> which fits very well with the opinion of modern linguistics.

: That's not correct. I guess most of you have not only missed to study the
: Khazarians closely but that you aren't among them who have the latest
: information sent to your mailbox from the scholars specially working with
: the Khazarian's history, linguistic and archaeology.
: If you had you wouldn't have written such a comment.
: The close connection between the Alans who were Europeans and had been
: living at least from 54 AD short north of Donau in the settlement some
: contemporary sources calls a merchandise village with farmland named Gaeta
: same name as the merchandise area on the outlet of Visla River and the Goths
: that settled in Ukraine, still writing Gothic language and the group that
: became the Khazarians. For many years while working with the region in
: question I had good contact with Russian Archaeologist and Historians. I had
: monthly updating.

"close connection" coudl still mean they were using different languages
amongst themsleves.

: Thanks to one of the scholars in the team working with the Khazars today I
: two weeks ago had an updating to my present mailbox of all that happened up
: to January this year.
: If you want me to I can send you information about details in sources and
: present knowledge from excavations. But not to an open group for everyone to
: read.
:>
:> please *quote* which arabic or khazar source supports your opinion.
:>
: I would like you to *quote* yours - I haven't found anyone at all supporting
: your assumptions. Neither has the scholars I have had contact with the last
: 10 years.
: I suggest that you look in the Khazarpapers for Ingar(Ingvar) and his men in
: 924 to 945 AD. You will find a lot more there which contradicts your
: assumptions.
: For those who want's me to send quotes on this one,
: I could but it's not easy for me to write Hebraic with a Swedish setting on

an english translation would do. "the Alans speak ...".

I gave one for from Biruni. a simple sentence.


you give very little information on *language*


: my old computer. Nor is it likely that I could find myself time to write the
: old Gothic but I can direct you to them but write down? I don't have such
: letters in my computer and I don't own a scanner. As for the Arabic sources
: the details can be found in all the older Geographers works.

I gave one. it talked about *language* and nothing else.


: Funny thing is that at least two of them had same correct knowledge of how
: north in todays Sweden there were a major village of their time but that's
: an other story to be told which gives more information of the Wends then
: about the Alans.

: Inger E

Miguel Carrasquer
2004-02-16 18:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it's confusing (and wrong) to say it's somehow a
transformation of either Gaulish or Frankish. It's a transformation of
Latin.
sounds good. i'll avoid using the word transformation, which i have not
used before on this thread anyway.
You used "changed [so that it no longer can be considered X]", which
amounts to the same thing.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Miguel Carrasquer
But it has nothing to do with what is currently the consensus in
IEistics.
the son is the father of the man. in other words, the history of
linguistics has a bearing on the state of linguistics today.
on this thread, we have seen the current consensus [alans spoke an
iranian language] contrasted with older theories [alans were germanic
or turkic]. understanding the rise and fall of these theories in the
history of linguistics is an important part of evaluating their
validity.
OK.
Post by m***@io.com
modern lingustics divides i-e by use of words such as centrum and
satem. this is different than the old aryan/european division, but the
two systems are not completely different. there is still the tendancy
to begin by defining sanskrit as the polar opposite of western european
languages.
Modern linguistics, after the discovery of Hittite and Tocharian (i.e. in
the first half of the 20th century), abandoned the notion of "centum" and
"satem" as valid subdivisions of Indo-European. "Centum" surely isn't a
valid subgroup, although "satem" (Indo-Iranian + Balto-Slavic + Armenian +
Albanian) may be. If we're talking about polar oppositions, the major
debate in Indo-European studies of the 20th (and still in the 21st) century
has been that between the "Indo-Greek" position and the "Hittite" position,
that is, simplifying: was PIE verbal morphology similar to that of Sanskrit
and Greek (present-aorist-perfect; indicative-imperative-optative-
subjunctive) or more like that of Hittite (present-past; indicative-
imperative)?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-16 18:58:47 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Miguel Carrasquer <***@wxs.nl> wrote in <***@4ax.com>:
: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:14:47 +0500, <***@io.com> wrote:

:>In article <***@4ax.com>, Miguel
:>Carrasquer <***@wxs.nl> wrote:
:>
:>> But it's confusing (and wrong) to say it's somehow a
:>> transformation of either Gaulish or Frankish. It's a transformation of
:>> Latin.
:>
:>sounds good. i'll avoid using the word transformation, which i have not
:>used before on this thread anyway.

: You used "changed [so that it no longer can be considered X]", which
: amounts to the same thing.

:>> But it has nothing to do with what is currently the consensus in
:>> IEistics.
:>
:>the son is the father of the man. in other words, the history of
:>linguistics has a bearing on the state of linguistics today.
:>
:>on this thread, we have seen the current consensus [alans spoke an
:>iranian language] contrasted with older theories [alans were germanic
:>or turkic]. understanding the rise and fall of these theories in the
:>history of linguistics is an important part of evaluating their
:>validity.

: OK.

:>modern lingustics divides i-e by use of words such as centrum and
:>satem. this is different than the old aryan/european division, but the
:>two systems are not completely different. there is still the tendancy
:>to begin by defining sanskrit as the polar opposite of western european
:>languages.

: Modern linguistics, after the discovery of Hittite and Tocharian (i.e. in
: the first half of the 20th century), abandoned the notion of "centum" and
: "satem" as valid subdivisions of Indo-European. "Centum" surely isn't a
: valid subgroup, although "satem" (Indo-Iranian + Balto-Slavic + Armenian +


recent statistical analysis of cognates (I don't know how reliable or how
well esablished) places germanic at the "heart of the satem group" so
maybe satem isn't valid either.

: Albanian) may be. If we're talking about polar oppositions, the major
: debate in Indo-European studies of the 20th (and still in the 21st) century
: has been that between the "Indo-Greek" position and the "Hittite" position,
: that is, simplifying: was PIE verbal morphology similar to that of Sanskrit
: and Greek (present-aorist-perfect; indicative-imperative-optative-
: subjunctive) or more like that of Hittite (present-past; indicative-
: imperative)?


: =======================
: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
: ***@wxs.nl
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-15 00:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Nath Rao
I don't follow this. Slavic languages cannot derive from Iranian
languages: For example, in the latter PIE *e, *o and *a merged.
not in the way that indo-european languages are catagorized, no.
slavic languages are part of the european branch, iranian languages are
grouped with the indic branch and western academia might have little
motivation to see otherwise.
after all, the description of this language family was originally made
by comparing hindi and sanskrit to western european tongues, thus
creating two major groups. as the description of this family
progressed, other languages were assigned to either one or the other of
the original two groups.
What a peculiar idea of the history of IE linguistics.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
miss calm
2004-02-15 00:54:55 UTC
Permalink
yeah, but his nuns were all irish.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Nath Rao
I don't follow this. Slavic languages cannot derive from Iranian
languages: For example, in the latter PIE *e, *o and *a merged.
not in the way that indo-european languages are catagorized, no.
slavic languages are part of the european branch, iranian languages are
grouped with the indic branch and western academia might have little
motivation to see otherwise.
after all, the description of this language family was originally made
by comparing hindi and sanskrit to western european tongues, thus
creating two major groups. as the description of this family
progressed, other languages were assigned to either one or the other of
the original two groups.
What a peculiar idea of the history of IE linguistics.
--
m***@io.com
2004-02-15 09:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
the description of this language family was originally made
Post by m***@io.com
by comparing hindi and sanskrit to western european tongues, thus
creating two major groups. as the description of this family
progressed, other languages were assigned to either one or the other of
the original two groups.
What a peculiar idea of the history of IE linguistics.
peculiar? is that a way of saying wrong? ok sure, i'll indulge you and
hear what you have to say, since i am sure you must have something
meaningful to contribute here.

in the time frame of about 1800-1850, discuss the development of ie
linguistics, in particular regarding whatever makes my statement so
peculiar.

go ahead, i'm waiting.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-02-16 00:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by m***@io.com
the description of this language family was originally made
Post by m***@io.com
by comparing hindi and sanskrit to western european tongues, thus
creating two major groups. as the description of this family
progressed, other languages were assigned to either one or the other of
the original two groups.
What a peculiar idea of the history of IE linguistics.
peculiar? is that a way of saying wrong? ok sure, i'll indulge you and
hear what you have to say, since i am sure you must have something
meaningful to contribute here.
in the time frame of about 1800-1850, discuss the development of ie
linguistics, in particular regarding whatever makes my statement so
peculiar.
go ahead, i'm waiting.
There wasn't any such thing before Bopp's grammar, 1st edition. Does he
even offer a classification?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Uno Hu
2004-02-16 06:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
another approach would be to look at the names by which the early
slavic peoples called themselves. serbs, croats, wends, roxolani, etc.
are names which again lead us back to the alans.
Not quite.. There's always the (W)Venta (river), and (W)Ventspils (a
city) on the coast of Latvija (Baltic).
Post by m***@io.com
a notable exception would be bulgaria, an indisputably slavic people
indentified by an indisputably turkic name. which leads us to the topic
of the uncertainty inherent in the identification of steppe peoples,
and at this point i should end by referring you to the 50-odd posts
already on this thread which discuss said topic ad nauseum.
good day to you.
dobri nochi.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-15 11:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.
Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa.
there were many settlements of sarmatians/alans throughout europe, in
addition to what you have noted.
Yes, so it has been said by a number of Greek writers - but fact is
every one of them are relying on hearsay. Consequently they all appear
to differ slightly from each other and as they talk about very small
areas, it gets to be rather a mess and a headache to figure out
geographically where they were. The Alans (Alani, Asis) are said to be
a Sarmatian tribe by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy (c 100-178 CE) said in his book, "Geographike hyphegesis"
European Sarmatia between the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and
the Sudeni and the Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned
another tribe, Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the
other side of the Alani.
Post by m***@io.com
you are probably right that those in
western europe and africa lost their culture after a while, although
many place names have survived, such as the island of sark in the
english channel.
I don't know that it can be so identified. First their language would
have to be identified, and it hasn't been. Many sources point to
Scythians and claim "Iranian" for Sarmatians as they are said to be
Scythians and on it goes.... but to save me a lot of writing, this
appears to say most of what I would say:

http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
Post by m***@io.com
in eastern europe they are considered to be the antecedants of the
slavic peoples, even if the language has changed so that it may no
longer be condidered iranian.
Post by Seppo Renfors
The country from where the envoys came is
given by the Chinese source as Fu-lang, a Chinese version of the name
Farang (Franks), which was used as a general term for Europeans in the
Middle East.
fu-lang/fu-lin is probably earlier than farang [which is a term dating
file:///lore/doc/East%20Asian%20History%20Sourcebook%20
Errr..... I don't think I have access to your local hard drive :-)
Post by m***@io.com
The history of the same dynasty (the northern Wei) is
the subject of a later work, the Pei-shih, which contains an
almost literal reproduction of what we find in the Wei-shu. Of the
histories preceding the Pei-shih I merely mention the Sui-shu,
embracing the period 581-617 C.E., because I found in it the first
trace of the new name under which the country of Ta-ts'in was
known thereafter, viz., Fu-lin. There is no description in this
book of either Ta-ts'in or Fu-lin, but in an account of Persia
(ch. 83), I found it stated that "Fu-lin is 4,500 li north-west of
that country."
the similarity of farang to fu-lin is an interesting coincidence,
however, since these were both widespread terms for europe. perhaps
there was a later folk-etymology which confounded these terms?
The point of my reference was the date being the latest (that I know)
of a people being identified as "Alani".

One thing is readily apparent. Over time people move, they divide,
combine and recombine and divide again, their cultures change,
languages divide, and evolve, allegiances change, etc. All of these
things creates a new people. We see them surfacing suddenly in text at
different points in time, we also see old names for people disappear
after a time. They don't just drop from the sky, and the old don't get
sucked up either.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
There is no such thing as "Iranian Alans", they must be either Alans
OR Iranians as the term is used for an ethnicity.
ethnicity? try a branch of languages, because that is what it means, in
addition to the geographic area of iran.
The language group is called "Indo-Iranian", from which exists many
subgroups of languages, of which none are called simply "Iranian" -
there are two that incorporates the term "Iranian", "West Iranian" and
"East Iranian" and occasionally "Iranian Avestan". In the text it was
in, it did appear to have an ethnicity meaning - as you do again lower
down.
Post by m***@io.com
this confusion has appeared earlier on this thread. there really ought
to be a term such as iranic [as inger rendered it] in order to
distinguish it from iran itself. but there's not.
The best way is to incorporate some word that guarantees "language" is
intended - eg "Baluchi speaking". I see nothing wrong with identifying
a people by their language, as long as it is eminently clear, it is
language one is identifying by.
Post by m***@io.com
maybe you and inger can start a campaign to introduce this term into
academia. we will all be eternally grateful to you.
Been there, tired that, got accused of being a Nazi, by PD.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
A people in Eurasia, north of the Black sea, until the 9 –> 8 cent. BC
were called by the Greek, also by the Roman historians, by a common
name Cimmerians, in the 9 –> 3 cent. BC as Scythians
herodotus says the scythians invaded and chased the cimmerians into the
balkans and the middle east.
Scythian's hey-day was about a millennia before Hdt. He cannot have
had more than legends and urban myths to go by. I find people take
what he has written as gospel, far too readily and uncritically. One
has to remember he often makes the note "so I was told" or like words
implying a warning that he doesn't really know and is merely recording
what has ben said to him without judgement.
Post by m***@io.com
these events are noted in the book of
ezekiel [gog king of magog, battle of armageddon] as well as assyrian
records [as you have noted].
some of these scythians were allied to the assyrians, invaded
urartu/ararat and became the armenians.
some archeologists trace the cimmerians to the balkans, rather than
from the east with the scythians.
The Cimmerians referred to was about 680 BCE - a simultaneous
existence with Scythians. It refers to Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
carried out a campaign directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus
- Scythian country. This really suggests that Scythians and Cimmerians
were the same people.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
In the 3 cent. BC –> 4 cent. AD they also called them
Sarmatians. Then in general use was the ethnonym Alan, or Alani. This
is the view of one scholar at least.
whoever that one scholar is, he's in agreement with everyone else.
Post by Seppo Renfors
What language the Scythians spoke is unknown - however one can say
with certainty that there were many languages spoken in the Scythian
kingdom. An Iranian language may well have been one of them, but it is
most certainly wrong to claim "Scythians spoke Iranian".
all true, but this gets back to the fundemental problem of identifying
steppe nomads.
Tell me about it! Not only do they move around, mix and the like.
There are a myriad of names used by different researchers, that are
often for the same people.
Post by m***@io.com
any time you see one of these polyglot groups identified
as iranian or turkic or whatever, it can be assumed that the author is
making an arbitrary decision to pick one ethnicity as being definitive.
an educated reader will know the context in which to regard this.
Why is it necessary to identify them twice? "Scythian" is enough - or
a subgroup name is adequate too. A language name in addition to the
ethnonym is misleading and implies ethnicity.
Post by m***@io.com
e.g., modern scholars see the lowest common denominator of scythian
culture as iranian. however, identifying it as iranian is not a denial
of all the other groups known to be present among the scythians as
well.
Unfortunately "the lowest common denominator" tends to infer "fools".
Well, in a way it does apply, in that it takes the least amount of
brain power or knowledge. It is not correct and it does indeed say to
the "fool" that they are *ethnically* "Iranian" or "Turkic" and in
fact your use of "culture" + "Iranian" makes absolutely certain that
is the way it is understood -as an ethnicity, despite the fact that it
should only refer to language.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is equally
wrong to claim "Alans spoke Iranian" (or more properly worded, "one of
the Iranian languages").
one of the iranian languages and iranian are both perfectly acceptable
usages.
Only to those who don't mind being misunderstood from time to time.
See above re: Indo-Iranian.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
It simply isn't known. What the Ossetes speak
is irrelevant as they are not Alani - they don't exist anymore.
no. not only is that wrong, it's not even obscure information anymore
since ossetia has been regularly appearing in the news because of the
wars in the region.
http://www.peoples.org.ru/eng_oset.html
Ossetian (Ossetic) language - one of the Indoeuropean languages
(Iranian group). Spoken
in the republics of North Ossetia (Russia) and South
Ossetia (Georgia), in various regions of
Georgia and Northern Caucasus. The number of the
Ossetians in Russia is 402,3 thousand. 93,2 %
of them regard Ossetian as their mother tongue, 6,4 %
Russian. The total number of the Ossetians on
Iron and Digor.
That is not what is at issue here That Ossetia is an Indo-Iranian
language is known and there is no argument about that. If the ALANI
language was anything like Ossetia simply isn't known.

This from the above URL:

"It is known that the theory about Iranian (or Ossetian) speaking of
Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans was not developed in the objective
research, and was created purposefully by tendentious etymologization
of Scythian and Sarmatian words, through application of exclusively
Indo-Iranian languages. Iranists tenaciously did not admit any other
languages to the etymology of these words, not Turkic, or Slavic, or
Finno-Ugrian, or Mongolian, whose carriers did not 'fall from the
sky', but lived in these territories for centuries."
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
The last mention I know of the "Alani" as any kind
of people comes from papal and Chinese records.
that's a really difficult statement to defend. for one, the ossetes are
still around, and secondly lots of writers have made lots of ethnic
identifications about lots of different peoples since the 1300s.
It is a very easy matter to defend, much, much harder to argue
against. The Ossetia are not Alani, they are Ossetia by name, culture
and heritage, though there is a North and South divide apparently.
Post by m***@io.com
can you really be sure that not a single soul has used the term alan
since then?
A "single sole" is not "a people", it is "a person" and as there is no
place/nation called "Alania" or the like, how can they identify
themselves with something that doesn't exist?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-15 12:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.
Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa.
there were many settlements of sarmatians/alans throughout europe, in
addition to what you have noted.
Yes, so it has been said by a number of Greek writers - but fact is
every one of them are relying on hearsay. Consequently they all appear
to differ slightly from each other and as they talk about very small
areas, it gets to be rather a mess and a headache to figure out
geographically where they were. The Alans (Alani, Asis) are said to be
a Sarmatian tribe by Ptolemy.
Sorry Seppo,
this is one of the 'facts' which many linguists have misunderstood. I will
return to that later.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Ptolemy (c 100-178 CE) said in his book, "Geographike hyphegesis"
European Sarmatia between the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and
the Sudeni and the Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned
another tribe, Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the
other side of the Alani.
Definitely not Asiatic - that's a later added factor or mistranslated by
those who has tried to transcribe one of the D-versions.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
you are probably right that those in
western europe and africa lost their culture after a while, although
many place names have survived, such as the island of sark in the
english channel.
I don't know that it can be so identified. First their language would
have to be identified, and it hasn't been. Many sources point to
Scythians and claim "Iranian" for Sarmatians as they are said to be
Scythians and on it goes.... but to save me a lot of writing, this
Which sources do you refer to for those Scythian and 'Iranian' assumptions?
Prime sources written before 650 AD or works?

Inger E
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-16 13:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
the Alani. Some escaped Westward
into Gaul with the Vandals. The Alani who remained under the rule of
the Huns are said to be ancestors of the modern Ossetes of the
Caucasus.
Those who escaped with the Vandals went to North Africa.
there were many settlements of sarmatians/alans throughout europe, in
addition to what you have noted.
Yes, so it has been said by a number of Greek writers - but fact is
every one of them are relying on hearsay. Consequently they all appear
to differ slightly from each other and as they talk about very small
areas, it gets to be rather a mess and a headache to figure out
geographically where they were. The Alans (Alani, Asis) are said to be
a Sarmatian tribe by Ptolemy.
Sorry Seppo,
this is one of the 'facts' which many linguists have misunderstood. I will
return to that later.
I'm not relying on linguists here. Ptolemy wasn't a linguist - but an
astronomer, mathematician (the Father of Trigonometry it is said),
geographer and he also dabbled in music.

It is also claimed that the Alans were inhabitants of Kingdom of
Albania that was where modern day Armenia/Azerbaijan is - that is to
say on the shores of the Caspian - [Mamedova Farida, 1989].

Here is a map suggesting location of European Sarmatia:
Loading Image...

This map is from Ptolemy's own data:
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/10%20History/European%20Sarmatia%20Ptolemy3-5%20En.htm
Loading Image...

If I see correctly the Alani (written as Ases on the second map) were
NE of the Dnestr (Tyras) river. But they are also found on the NE side
of the Dnieper as well, marked on the map as "Alans-Scythian". Though
I certainly wouldn't trust the language attributions. There is a hell
of a lot of Finno-Ugric people missing or wrongly allocated.

Jordanis claims that in the beginning of the era of the migrations,
the Goths had carried on a war with the "nation of Slavs". That nation
must have lived in what is now Southern Russia. This in turn puts them
roughly where Ptolemy suggests for Alans. Though naturally there is a
serious time difference and it is unlikely any Alans were left there
anymore. Jordanis writes well after the Huns after all and the Alani
would be in Africa by that time - or somewhere East.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Ptolemy (c 100-178 CE) said in his book, "Geographike hyphegesis"
European Sarmatia between the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and
the Sudeni and the Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned
another tribe, Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the
other side of the Alani.
Definitely not Asiatic - that's a later added factor or mistranslated by
those who has tried to transcribe one of the D-versions.
Are you suggesting there never ever were any "Asiatic Sarmatians" in
Asia?
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
you are probably right that those in
western europe and africa lost their culture after a while, although
many place names have survived, such as the island of sark in the
english channel.
I don't know that it can be so identified. First their language would
have to be identified, and it hasn't been. Many sources point to
Scythians and claim "Iranian" for Sarmatians as they are said to be
Scythians and on it goes.... but to save me a lot of writing, this
Which sources do you refer to for those Scythian and 'Iranian' assumptions?
Prime sources written before 650 AD or works?
Where I am I have no access to "prime sources", most of those are in
museums on your side of the world - therefor I have to rely on other
people's works and opinions. These are current people arguing
"Iranian" as that is their belief - or an opinion accepted. I am of
the view that it cannot be argued in favour of any language - therefor
a name of a proven Indo-Iranian (or Germanic) language origin cannot
be claimed to be Sarmatians or Alans or any ethnic group who's
language isn't known.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-15 16:48:58 UTC
Permalink
: http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm

it's crackpot.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-16 04:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
it's crackpot.
...whispered the flower to it's pot, about the pot the Bynjip stood
on...
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-16 14:44:15 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Seppo Renfors <***@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in <***@not.pollis.net.au>:


: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:> : http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
:>
:> it's crackpot.

: ...whispered the flower to it's pot, about the pot the Bynjip stood
: on...


more specifically it uses modern forms to explain ancient ones in an
inconsistent manner.

it even analyzises the turkic ethnonym Oghuz (o*gh*uz) wrongly deriving it
from < uz > (Uz) whereas < uz > comes from < o*gh*uz) and not the other
way round.
m***@io.com
2004-02-15 10:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
but fact is
every one of them are relying on hearsay.
it gets to be rather a mess and a headache to figure out
you've just described the study of history in general.
Post by Seppo Renfors
I don't know that it can be so identified. First their language would
have to be identified, and it hasn't been.
identified, or identified to your liking? it has been identified as
being several different things [iranian, turkic, etc.].

if you are waiting for a conclusive identification, then you will be
dead and buried before you get it, because that's never going to
happen.

it's always going to be a tenuous link.
Post by Seppo Renfors
this
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
this is a polemic that admits it is a polemic that is blowing in the
wind of conventional wisdom.

as such, it still a valuable contribution to the discussion, but not
the last word on the subject.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
file:///lore/doc/East%20Asian%20History%20Sourcebook%20
Errr..... I don't think I have access to your local hard drive :-)
oops. my apologies. here is the url:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/romchin1.html
Post by Seppo Renfors
One thing is readily apparent. Over time people move, they divide,
combine and recombine and divide again, their cultures change,
languages divide, and evolve, allegiances change, etc. All of these
things creates a new people. We see them surfacing suddenly in text at
different points in time, we also see old names for people disappear
after a time. They don't just drop from the sky, and the old don't get
sucked up either.
i can't disagree with that.
Post by Seppo Renfors
in, it did appear to have an ethnicity meaning - as you do again lower
down.
The best way is to incorporate some word that guarantees "language" is
intended - eg "Baluchi speaking". I see nothing wrong with identifying
a people by their language, as long as it is eminently clear, it is
language one is identifying by.
ethnicity is an arbitrary term used to mean different things: language,
culture, race, etc. it is difficult, and perhaps meaningless, to try
to separate into precise catagories.

i made the claim that another person writng on this thread seemed to
mean language rather than other usages of the term, but i can only go
so far in second-guessing the intentions of others.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Scythian's hey-day was about a millennia before Hdt.
that would be about 1400bc. is that what you meant?
Post by Seppo Renfors
One
has to remember he often makes the note "so I was told" or like words
implying a warning that he doesn't really know and is merely recording
what has ben said to him without judgement.
in other words, he was honest about what he knew and what he didn't
know. i wish the same could be said about a few writers on this
newsgroup that i can think of.
Post by Seppo Renfors
The Cimmerians referred to was about 680 BCE - a simultaneous
existence with Scythians. It refers to Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
carried out a campaign directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus
- Scythian country. This really suggests that Scythians and Cimmerians
were the same people.
perhaps i am recalling these assyrian texts incorrectly, but weren't
the assyrians allied with the scythians against the cimmerians?
Post by Seppo Renfors
Unfortunately "the lowest common denominator" tends to infer "fools".
Well, in a way it does apply, in that it takes the least amount of
brain power or knowledge.
the recognition of patterns, finding what is common in different sets
of data, is usually regarded as the foundation of intelligence.
Post by Seppo Renfors
That is not what is at issue here That Ossetia is an Indo-Iranian
language is known and there is no argument about that.
that's not what you said. you said the ossetes are extinct and no one
knows anything about whatever language they spoke.
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is a very easy matter to defend, much, much harder to argue
against.
A "single sole" is not "a people", it is "a person" and as there is no
place/nation called "Alania" or the like, how can they identify
themselves with something that doesn't exist?
perhaps i should rephrase that. by single soul i meant anyone using the
term alan to indicate a contemporary people, after the 1300s reference
you gave; or for that matter, anyone using the name alan to refer to a
people who existed in the past, but after the 1300s.this hypothetical
person might be referring to their own people, or to another people.

the ossetes have been descibed as alans in modern times. i am not
making a claim as to the veracity of calling them alans [although i
have no reason to disagree with it], i am simply recognizing the fact
that someone in the universe has used the name alan after the 1300s.

that is what i meant by claiming your statement is hard to defend. a
better way of phrasing it would be that no one has LEGITIMATELY used
the term alan since the 1300s.

i would still disargee with such a statement, but it would place you on
much firmer ground for defending your views.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-16 06:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
but fact is
every one of them are relying on hearsay.
it gets to be rather a mess and a headache to figure out
you've just described the study of history in general.
:-)

Some bits are easier than others. This particular period is very
confused, differing opinions abound - all have some support for them
too even when diametrically opposed.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
I don't know that it can be so identified. First their language would
have to be identified, and it hasn't been.
identified, or identified to your liking? it has been identified as
being several different things [iranian, turkic, etc.].
No, "identified" as in the correct meaning of the term. On the balance
of probability will do. Nothing reached that level of certainty to be
able to claim "identified".
Post by m***@io.com
if you are waiting for a conclusive identification, then you will be
dead and buried before you get it, because that's never going to
happen.
it's always going to be a tenuous link.
That may be, but to CLAIM something without realistic proof of some
kind, is intellectually corrupt. It is then far, far better to say "we
don't know".
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
this
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/24Alans/AlansEn.htm
this is a polemic that admits it is a polemic that is blowing in the
wind of conventional wisdom.
Call it what you like, but there it is, the arguments against the
claims. They are powerful arguments, or more correctly, powerful
enough to discredit claims of "iranian". I don't accept any arguments
there to be strong enough to claim Turkish either.
Post by m***@io.com
as such, it still a valuable contribution to the discussion, but not
the last word on the subject.
Perhaps, and it may well be that the "last word" will never be found.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by m***@io.com
file:///lore/doc/East%20Asian%20History%20Sourcebook%20
Errr..... I don't think I have access to your local hard drive :-)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/romchin1.html
Post by Seppo Renfors
One thing is readily apparent. Over time people move, they divide,
combine and recombine and divide again, their cultures change,
languages divide, and evolve, allegiances change, etc. All of these
things creates a new people. We see them surfacing suddenly in text at
different points in time, we also see old names for people disappear
after a time. They don't just drop from the sky, and the old don't get
sucked up either.
i can't disagree with that.
Post by Seppo Renfors
in, it did appear to have an ethnicity meaning - as you do again lower
down.
The best way is to incorporate some word that guarantees "language" is
intended - eg "Baluchi speaking". I see nothing wrong with identifying
a people by their language, as long as it is eminently clear, it is
language one is identifying by.
ethnicity is an arbitrary term used to mean different things: language,
culture, race, etc. it is difficult, and perhaps meaningless, to try
to separate into precise catagories.
Ethnicity is today understood to mean nationality/race, and has no
bearing on language. English speaking nations are of different
"ethnicity" and is evaluated on the basis of nationality. "Race" does
exist scientifically, but is used for a segregation based on physical
features purely, but often has nationality added to the parameters. In
any event at a slightly more informed level it is a multifaceted thing
that incorporates language, culture and the mythical "race". In
academia "race" cannot be sustained as it is scientific rubbish! Nor
has physical features any bearing on culture OR language.

Language is a precise category, and is a unifying aspect of "a
people". Culture shows a common "taste" for things. A culture needs
not include the same language and one most certainly cannot determine
a person's skin colour on the basis of their spear points, or bronze
composition.
Post by m***@io.com
i made the claim that another person writng on this thread seemed to
mean language rather than other usages of the term, but i can only go
so far in second-guessing the intentions of others.
A bouquet to that person for making it clear and NOT bastardising the
terms.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
Scythian's hey-day was about a millennia before Hdt.
that would be about 1400bc. is that what you meant?
No, that's an Oooooppsss..... used the Hdt's time on the wrong side of
the epoch, CE instead of BCE. The hey-day (maximum influence) of the
Scythians I put at about 700 BCE.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
One
has to remember he often makes the note "so I was told" or like words
implying a warning that he doesn't really know and is merely recording
what has ben said to him without judgement.
in other words, he was honest about what he knew and what he didn't
know. i wish the same could be said about a few writers on this
newsgroup that i can think of.
There are also times he doesn't say that, and it is illogical to
assume he can know as there are huge time differences. Yet he is
quoted as "proof" of a claimed "fact".
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
The Cimmerians referred to was about 680 BCE - a simultaneous
existence with Scythians. It refers to Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
carried out a campaign directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus
- Scythian country. This really suggests that Scythians and Cimmerians
were the same people.
perhaps i am recalling these assyrian texts incorrectly, but weren't
the assyrians allied with the scythians against the cimmerians?
Well... that would be like arguing they were allied with the Assyrians
against themselves... Didn't Assyrian empire collapse soon after the
death of Esarhaddon - that his son wasn't up to the task?
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
Unfortunately "the lowest common denominator" tends to infer "fools".
Well, in a way it does apply, in that it takes the least amount of
brain power or knowledge.
the recognition of patterns, finding what is common in different sets
of data, is usually regarded as the foundation of intelligence.
I don't think that is relevant to what I said, as even rodents can
"recognise patterns".
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
That is not what is at issue here That Ossetia is an Indo-Iranian
language is known and there is no argument about that.
that's not what you said. you said the ossetes are extinct and no one
knows anything about whatever language they spoke.
Hmmm..... (check)... Yes it could be misunderstood, provided one held
the POV that the Alani exist today.
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Seppo Renfors
It is a very easy matter to defend, much, much harder to argue
against.
A "single sole" is not "a people", it is "a person" and as there is no
place/nation called "Alania" or the like, how can they identify
themselves with something that doesn't exist?
perhaps i should rephrase that. by single soul i meant anyone using the
term alan to indicate a contemporary people, after the 1300s reference
you gave; or for that matter, anyone using the name alan to refer to a
people who existed in the past, but after the 1300s.this hypothetical
person might be referring to their own people, or to another people.
the ossetes have been descibed as alans in modern times. i am not
making a claim as to the veracity of calling them alans [although i
have no reason to disagree with it], i am simply recognizing the fact
that someone in the universe has used the name alan after the 1300s.
that is what i meant by claiming your statement is hard to defend. a
better way of phrasing it would be that no one has LEGITIMATELY used
the term alan since the 1300s.
That is taken for granted to be part of the statement. After all,
bogus claims remain bogus claims of no relevance or value.
Post by m***@io.com
i would still disargee with such a statement, but it would place you on
much firmer ground for defending your views.
If you read what I said carefully, you would find it is quite
impossible to prove me wrong, as I added the qualifier "that I know"
:-)
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
m***@io.com
2004-02-16 05:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Ethnicity is today understood to mean nationality/race, and has no
bearing on language.
many spanish speaking persons in the united states see their language
as an ethnic characteristic, although nationality/race varies.
Post by Seppo Renfors
the mythical "race".
that is an aspect that is significant to culture. actual literal
physical race cannot be scientifically defined, but here we are
speaking of a cultural characteristic.

the mythical race might have never existed, much less be the actual
ancestors of all persons in a culture. yet traditional ancestors might
be important to a culture.
Post by Seppo Renfors
In
academia "race" cannot be sustained as it is scientific rubbish!
right. or rather, it cannot be defined precisely. if one were to make a
historical description of the american south in 1860, one could
accurately say that race played a large role in one's social standing
and and subsequently culture.

but this description would break down if defined precisely. many of the
black slaves had some european ancestors, many of the free whites had
african ancestors. some free blacks owned black slaves.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Nor
has physical features any bearing on culture OR language.
the paintings of india are a characteristic of that culture. some
feature blue-skinned persons, such as krishna. this is a way of showing
dark skinned people. thus a physical attribute led to a cultural
attribute.

many people of the middle east have the physical characteristic of
thick facial hair. thus, beards are a significant part of their
culture.
there are probably more words for facial hair in arabic than in chinese.
Post by Seppo Renfors
Language is a precise category,
a language might include many dialects and cultural divisions.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-16 14:40:59 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang ***@io.com wrote in <150220041524484736%***@io.com>:


: ethnicity is an arbitrary term used to mean different things: language,
: culture, race, etc. it is difficult, and perhaps meaningless, to try
: to separate into precise catagories.

ethnicity is socio-psychological (though a material basis for this would
exist), it is a bunch of people identifying themselves as a group and
normally adopting for themselves a name. language usualy plays an
important role. people have to be able to communicate to each other in
varying degrees, or at least through some more or less established
standard, in order to be able to identify with each other.
Uno Hu
2004-02-16 06:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Ptolemy (c 100-178 CE) said in his book, "Geographike hyphegesis"
European Sarmatia between the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and
the Sudeni and the Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned
another tribe, Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the
other side of the Alani.
Not quite. The present day Lithuanians are a fusion of previous Baltic
tribes.
The Galinds and Sudovians were two of the Baltic tribes - southeast
and, repectively, south of present day Lithuania.
Post by Seppo Renfors
One thing is readily apparent. Over time people move, they divide,
combine and recombine and divide again, their cultures change,
languages divide, and evolve, allegiances change, etc. All of these
things creates a new people. We see them surfacing suddenly in text at
different points in time, we also see old names for people disappear
after a time. They don't just drop from the sky, and the old don't get
sucked up either.
Less so in the case of Balts, of course.

Uno Hu
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-16 13:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
The language group is called "Indo-Iranian", from which exists many
subgroups of languages, of which none are called simply "Iranian" -
there are two that incorporates the term "Iranian", "West Iranian" and
AFAIK "Iranian" is normally regarded as a valid branch firtehr divided
into "eastern" and "western". the iranian languages of south russia
(*alanic (with several idioms identified, ossetian) are classified as
"east iranian".
Post by Seppo Renfors
"East Iranian" and occasionally "Iranian Avestan". In the text it was
"Iranian Avestan" is not normally used since no other form of Avestan
exists. it's just the language of the Avesta.
Post by Seppo Renfors
in, it did appear to have an ethnicity meaning - as you do again lower
down.
m***@io.com
2004-02-08 21:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.
First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?
you seem to be displaying a common confusion here. inger, i'm sorry i
don't know what the conventional usage is in your native language, but
in english academic terminology iranian means the branch of languages,
not just the nation of iran.

it would be convenient to use the term iranic, so one could make the
distinction iranic/iranian just as one could say turkic/turkish or
germanic/german.

unfortunately, the term iranic does not exist as an accepted
designation.
Post by Inger E Johansson
I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.
ammianus was apparently referring to the alleman, a name that is still
in use for germany today. not the alans/sarmatians.

a similar error is found in a translation of marco polo, which mistakes
the alans living in china for germans.

besides, in 1877 they used the term scythian to refer to what is today
called altaic. i'm not saying you should totally disregard obsolete
sources, but be aware that there are vast differences in theory.

otherwise, you will come off as a ridiculous internet kook.
oops, too late.
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-09 08:14:44 UTC
Permalink
markovic,
I am not confused. You seem to be. As so many who have spoken in the
questions re. the Alans respectively Attila's Huns.

I suggest that you go back to the contemporary sources. Not one single of
them give the origin of the Alans as so many linguists seems to do. Actually
there language as related by contemporary meeting them isn't the one which
assumed by linguists either.

First of all it seems that more than one linguist needs to look more
carefully into documents written by contemporary Historians, Fathers of the
Church respectively those who participated in the first Roman delegation
sent to Attila's court. The person called 'Alan' in that delegation is by no
means from Eastern Europe at all. Since he was a close child-hood friend to
Cassiodorus grandfather there are good information to be found about him in
Variae which confirms at least 10 other sources information re. that person.

Same person can in one source be called Alan and in the other German, Goth
etc etc.

I am not confused. I studied the subject for 5 years. I read contemporary
sources and also sources of Historians resp. Fathers of the Church who were
eyewitness.

Inger E
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.
First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?
you seem to be displaying a common confusion here. inger, i'm sorry i
don't know what the conventional usage is in your native language, but
in english academic terminology iranian means the branch of languages,
not just the nation of iran.
it would be convenient to use the term iranic, so one could make the
distinction iranic/iranian just as one could say turkic/turkish or
germanic/german.
unfortunately, the term iranic does not exist as an accepted
designation.
Post by Inger E Johansson
I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.
ammianus was apparently referring to the alleman, a name that is still
in use for germany today. not the alans/sarmatians.
a similar error is found in a translation of marco polo, which mistakes
the alans living in china for germans.
besides, in 1877 they used the term scythian to refer to what is today
called altaic. i'm not saying you should totally disregard obsolete
sources, but be aware that there are vast differences in theory.
otherwise, you will come off as a ridiculous internet kook.
oops, too late.
m***@io.com
2004-02-09 07:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Inger E Johansson
Same person can in one source be called Alan and in the other German, Goth
etc etc.
then the name alan is being confused with alleman.
mosalmounkosh
2004-02-10 23:34:59 UTC
Permalink
You read it for five years while you played with your pecker. Go back
and read it for another 5 years, this time without distraction and
then come back and make the proper statement, that ALL ANCIENT AND
MODERN SOURCES MENTION ALANS AS AN IRANIAN PEOPLE!
Post by Inger E Johansson
markovic,
I am not confused. You seem to be. As so many who have spoken in the
questions re. the Alans respectively Attila's Huns.
I suggest that you go back to the contemporary sources. Not one single of
them give the origin of the Alans as so many linguists seems to do. Actually
there language as related by contemporary meeting them isn't the one which
assumed by linguists either.
First of all it seems that more than one linguist needs to look more
carefully into documents written by contemporary Historians, Fathers of the
Church respectively those who participated in the first Roman delegation
sent to Attila's court. The person called 'Alan' in that delegation is by no
means from Eastern Europe at all. Since he was a close child-hood friend to
Cassiodorus grandfather there are good information to be found about him in
Variae which confirms at least 10 other sources information re. that person.
Same person can in one source be called Alan and in the other German, Goth
etc etc.
I am not confused. I studied the subject for 5 years. I read contemporary
sources and also sources of Historians resp. Fathers of the Church who were
eyewitness.
Inger E
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not
have
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans
themselves
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
were not.
First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone
of
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?
you seem to be displaying a common confusion here. inger, i'm sorry i
don't know what the conventional usage is in your native language, but
in english academic terminology iranian means the branch of languages,
not just the nation of iran.
it would be convenient to use the term iranic, so one could make the
distinction iranic/iranian just as one could say turkic/turkish or
germanic/german.
unfortunately, the term iranic does not exist as an accepted
designation.
Post by Inger E Johansson
I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in
the
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.
ammianus was apparently referring to the alleman, a name that is still
in use for germany today. not the alans/sarmatians.
a similar error is found in a translation of marco polo, which mistakes
the alans living in china for germans.
besides, in 1877 they used the term scythian to refer to what is today
called altaic. i'm not saying you should totally disregard obsolete
sources, but be aware that there are vast differences in theory.
otherwise, you will come off as a ridiculous internet kook.
oops, too late.
Seppo Renfors
2004-02-12 14:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mosalmounkosh
You read it for five years while you played with your pecker.
Errr... anyone who suggest a female has a "pecker" is a sever need of
an education (and a life), not the other way around!!


[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-12 14:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by mosalmounkosh
You read it for five years while you played with your pecker.
Errr... anyone who suggest a female has a "pecker" is a sever need of
an education (and a life), not the other way around!!
Seppo that reminds me of the story about the two kids age 2, one girl and
one boy; one of them from Gothenburg and the other from Stockholm. Guess you
have heard that story? It's on same theme.

Inger E
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mosalmounkosh
2004-02-10 23:33:44 UTC
Permalink
People, Alans and Alamani had nothing to do with each other, other
than they were both Indo-Europeans. THe first were IRANIANS, the
second Germans.
marco Polo never confused Alamani for Alans. He DID mean the ALans who
still lived in the area of Astrakhan on the VOlga river and mentioned
them in the former lands of Khazaria as well. There was no mention of
Alamani and the Alans were in fact Iranians, who had originated among
the Massagetae Scythians living in Khwarazm, and then mingled with the
Aorsi Sarmatians to form the Alani nation (mixed Scythian and
Sarmatian).
Post by m***@io.com
Post by Inger E Johansson
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.
First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?
you seem to be displaying a common confusion here. inger, i'm sorry i
don't know what the conventional usage is in your native language, but
in english academic terminology iranian means the branch of languages,
not just the nation of iran.
it would be convenient to use the term iranic, so one could make the
distinction iranic/iranian just as one could say turkic/turkish or
germanic/german.
unfortunately, the term iranic does not exist as an accepted
designation.
Post by Inger E Johansson
I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.
ammianus was apparently referring to the alleman, a name that is still
in use for germany today. not the alans/sarmatians.
a similar error is found in a translation of marco polo, which mistakes
the alans living in china for germans.
besides, in 1877 they used the term scythian to refer to what is today
called altaic. i'm not saying you should totally disregard obsolete
sources, but be aware that there are vast differences in theory.
otherwise, you will come off as a ridiculous internet kook.
oops, too late.
m***@io.com
2004-02-11 13:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mosalmounkosh
marco Polo never confused Alamani for Alans. He DID mean the ALans who
still lived in the area of Astrakhan on the VOlga river and mentioned
them in the former lands of Khazaria as well. There was no mention of
Alamani
alamainz is the spelling used by marco polo. on page 207 of the pengiun
edition, this is rendered as german.

the passage takes place at siang-yang-fu in manzi [southern china], not
europe. the german in question is among polo's retinue.

the editor speculates that this alamainz is intended to be an alan,
which would explain what he is doing in china [the mongols used alan
troops in southern china].

or perhaps this person is really intended to be a german, which would
explain why he is with polo.
mosalmounkosh
2004-02-10 23:28:55 UTC
Permalink
shouldn't you go back to playing with your Play Do? You obviously
don't know jach SHIT about Iranian history. Fo ryour information, the
Alans were a mixture of Scythian and Sarmatian IRANIANS and that has
been verified by over half a dozen linguists and historians.
Post by Inger E Johansson
Post by Nirvana
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian.
NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.
It's one of these times I suggest for everyone who discuss a subject to go
back to contemporary sources and read the firsthand witness information.
They give a totally different picture than what's assumed above.
First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?
Then I suggest that you compare contemporary sources.
While one Historian might call a group where the members are named with
first name and what each did for Alans, an other called the same persons and
group for Alemagner a third call them Germanic.
I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.
Inger E
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-08 21:26:45 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang Nirvana <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around

for the European Huns, Iranian is considered and rejected in favor of
Turkic in "the World of the Huns", a classic work on the european huns.

: 400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
: I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known

they also broke up he Alans and chased some of the Alans into europe.

at any rate, a political alliance is not a sure indicator of language.

: to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
: Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've

most accounts understand having tehm come from elsewhere into the region.

: heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)

the offshoot of the Huns that eventually settled into SE Europe, i.e. the
Bulghars, seem to have had more Alanic / Iranian amongst them.


: were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
: suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some


the Huns by most accounts admitted rather freely amngst them people from
diverse backgrounds, but maintaiend continuity in terms of culture, and
probably language as well.


: Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
: know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
: predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
: mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.

: Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
: Huns:
: 1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
: Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
: mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.

it doesn't show the original linguistic affiliation of them.

: 2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
: like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.

again, see above. also the issue of language not race.

it is usually acknowlodged that the white Huns of S. and W. Asia had
considerable iranian admixure. however, the iranian language associated
with them (or ratehr with their offshoot the hephthalites) turns out to
have been just the local iranian language (Bactrian).

later persian (islamic era) accounts associated the Hephthaites with Turks
and particularly Khalaj Turks who speak a somewhat divergent (hence
perhpas cut off from the mainstream early) turkic language.

: 3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
: than Mongolic.

people "ravaged by them" has less to do with their language

: 4. Loan words?

: The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
: to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
: they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
m***@io.com
2004-02-08 21:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the offshoot of the Huns that eventually settled into SE Europe, i.e. the
Bulghars, seem to have had more Alanic / Iranian amongst them.
the huns settled on the pannonian plain [modern hungary] about 400 ad.

the bulgars who settled in bulgaria came a few centuries later.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-10 20:25:53 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang ***@io.com wrote in <090220040216364693%***@io.com>:
: In article <c069il$es3$***@pcls4.std.com>, Yusuf B Gursey
: <***@TheWorld.com> wrote:

:> the offshoot of the Huns that eventually settled into SE Europe, i.e. the
:> Bulghars, seem to have had more Alanic / Iranian amongst them.


: the huns settled on the pannonian plain [modern hungary] about 400 ad.

that's "Central Europe"

: the bulgars who settled in bulgaria came a few centuries later.

that's SE Europe.
m***@io.com
2004-02-08 21:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nirvana
Also, I've
heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)
were Iranian at one time
croatian is a western rendering of the native form: hrvati. this is
traced back to haravaiti, one of the regions of iran mentioned in the
zoroastrian scriptures.

serb is also an iranian name, thought to be a military term [big
suprise there, huh?]. the serbs were identified as a tribe of the alans
by classical authors, long before the ememgence of the slavic peoples.

while the serbs and croats have an especially clear-cut identification
with the iranian past, the connection to all slavic nations should not
be underestimated.

the polish aristocracy were confident enough of their alanic past that
they adopted the ancient tamga symbols for their own heraldry.

modern linguists in eastern europe see a close relationship between
slavic and iranian languages.
Post by Nirvana
The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
you've got that backwards. in the iranian languages, it is hindu and
haravaiti and haoma. in indic, it is sindhu and sarasvati and soma.
Post by Nirvana
My
suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some
Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.
i don't know whether your speculation is correct, but you've got the
right idea. that being that it's really hard to tell.

the steppe peoples were not the best documented in the world.

groups of them tended to be composed of different ethnicities, so it's
hard to say which ethnicity should denfine a group. the huns are linked
to the hsiun-nu who lived north of china, which is the strongest link
to the altaic peoples.

so if you want to deine them by the name hun, go with the altaic
identification. just don't try to apply the same logic to bulgaria.

being nomads, a given steppe people might be found in any corner of
eurasia, so it's hard to group them by geography. the name hsing-pi, a
people who invaded china in the 200s ad, is thought to be a chinese
rendering of the name serb.

yes, there are loan words. the mongols called the yellow river of china
the kara-moran, names which are common in slavic languages today.

so sure, there are any number of ways you might speculate upon hunnish
linguistics, and no one can prove you wrong. how about the uralic
family of languages? maybe the huns were uralic. have you thought of
that?
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-10 03:40:33 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang ***@io.com wrote in <090220040205173841%***@io.com>:

: groups of them tended to be composed of different ethnicities, so it's
: hard to say which ethnicity should denfine a group. the huns are linked
: to the hsiun-nu who lived north of china, which is the strongest link
: to the altaic peoples.

there is also some scanty linguistic evidence.

: so if you want to deine them by the name hun, go with the altaic
: identification. just don't try to apply the same logic to bulgaria.

huh?

: being nomads, a given steppe people might be found in any corner of
: eurasia, so it's hard to group them by geography. the name hsing-pi, a
: people who invaded china in the 200s ad, is thought to be a chinese
: rendering of the name serb.
:

hsien-pi were not iranian. either mongolic or (AFAIK minority veiwpoint
hunno-turkic).

: yes, there are loan words. the mongols called the yellow river of china
: the kara-moran, names which are common in slavic languages today.

: so sure, there are any number of ways you might speculate upon hunnish
: linguistics, and no one can prove you wrong. how about the uralic
: family of languages? maybe the huns were uralic. have you thought of
: that?

they were more outlandish than uralic.

there is scanty evidnce that they were turkic and best evidence, they seem
to be linked to the bulghars.
m***@io.com
2004-02-10 04:48:35 UTC
Permalink
: just don't try to apply the same logic to bulgaria.
huh?
: being nomads, a given steppe people might be found in any corner of
: eurasia, so it's hard to group them by geography. the name hsing-pi, a
: people who invaded china in the 200s ad, is thought to be a chinese
: rendering of the name serb.
hsien-pi were not iranian. either mongolic or
correct. the hsien-pi and the nation of bulgaria are examples of names
which seem to contradict the language of the people themselves.

the turkic origin of the name bulgar is well established. there was a
turkic bulgaria in the volga region, a people who are known today as
the chuvash.

but the bulgarians of the balkans are not turkic; they are slavs. it is
therefore supposed that they once had a turkic elite of their society.

the same book [empire of the steppes] that posits serb = hsien-pi also
identifies these people as tungistic, another altaic branch.

this leads to the possibility of either an actual serbian componant of
their society [which is not impossible, since this is the period when
the serbs were identified as alanic nomads] or use of the name serb as
a loan word.

all of which contributes to the difficulty in making a positive
identification of the steppe people's ethnicity.
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-02-10 20:37:58 UTC
Permalink
In sci.lang ***@io.com wrote in <100220040948357682%***@io.com>:
: In article <c09jrh$l33$***@pcls4.std.com>, Yusuf B Gursey
: <***@TheWorld.com> wrote:

:> : just don't try to apply the same logic to bulgaria.
:>
:> huh?
:>
:> : being nomads, a given steppe people might be found in any corner of
:> : eurasia, so it's hard to group them by geography. the name hsing-pi, a
:> : people who invaded china in the 200s ad, is thought to be a chinese
:> : rendering of the name serb.
:> :
:>
:> hsien-pi were not iranian. either mongolic or


: correct. the hsien-pi and the nation of bulgaria are examples of names
: which seem to contradict the language of the people themselves.

: the turkic origin of the name bulgar is well established. there was a
: turkic bulgaria in the volga region, a people who are known today as
: the chuvash.

the chuvash are those that preserve the language.

Kazan Tatars also call themselves "Bulghars" (sometimes), bu thtey are
qychaqized. the tatars now inhabit the region whcih was the central part
of the former bulghar state. the central muslim parts became qypchaqized
(one researcher followed this proccess for a family through tombstones) ,
while the hinterland (a refuge for pagans) retained the language. there is
small quarrel over the Bulghar legacy between k. tatar and chuvash
literati.

: but the bulgarians of the balkans are not turkic; they are slavs. it is

one usually distinguishes, at elast in writing between bulghars and
bulgars (i.e. bulgarians) to emphasize the differnece.

: therefore supposed that they once had a turkic elite of their society.

: the same book [empire of the steppes] that posits serb = hsien-pi also
: identifies these people as tungistic, another altaic branch.


that book makes some linguistic identifications at variance with more
common current ones. one does have some examples hsien-pi language from
chinese sources (esp. the ones who formed the Wei). it is usually
identified as mongolian, or among a minority turko-hunnic, or at least
with many turkic loanwords.


: this leads to the possibility of either an actual serbian componant of
: their society [which is not impossible, since this is the period when
: the serbs were identified as alanic nomads] or use of the name serb as

a group of alans may have joined the confederacy at some point.

: a loan word.

: all of which contributes to the difficulty in making a positive
: identification of the steppe people's ethnicity.

usually there is one linguistiocally dominant one,or one of the royal
house.
Nath Rao
2004-02-09 12:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nirvana
[...]
The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
Actually Hindu is of Persian origin.

PIE *s often becomes h in Persian Avestan etc. Iranian intervocalic s
generally comes from PIE k^.

Nath Rao
Prai Jei
2004-02-10 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Nirvana (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
Post by Nirvana
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian.
.
No way. They were Celtic
--
Paul Townsend
I put it down there, and when I went back to it, there it was GONE!

Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply
mosalmounkosh
2004-02-10 23:27:47 UTC
Permalink
That is a correct speculation and one that has caught the attention of
many scholars.
It seems however that originally, the core of the Huns (Xiong Nu) was
made of Paleo-Asiatic speaking Mongoloid people. After their defeat at
the hands of the Chinese, their leader Motun clashed with the
Indo-European Tokhars and the Iranians Asiani Scythians living in
Central Asia and the Tarim basin.
The rule on teh steppes was incorporation, not extermination so in
during theier drive westwards, the Huns came to incorporate many
Iranian people in their midst.
You mentioning them in India is also correct since those that settled
in northern INdia had in fact European features (common among the
Scythians) and looked white ratehr than Oriental. In addition, they
spoke Iranian dialects when they settled in abctria and northern
India.

Those Huns that made it westwards, to the Catalaunian fields, did
incorporate Iranian speaking Alans among their midts. Amminianus
Marcellinus mentioned that the part of the Alan nation that wasn't
exterminated by the Huns, or driven inthe Caucasus mountains (where
they now live as Ossetians) joined the Hunnush federation as vassals
and allies, along wtih Germanic Goths and Gepids.
Post by Nirvana
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've
heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)
were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some
Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.
Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.
2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.
3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
than Mongolic.
4. Loan words?
The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
Inger E Johansson
2004-02-11 00:08:28 UTC
Permalink
mosalmounkosh,
most things are correct but the Alans Ammanianus mention were Germanic not
Iranic speaking. As for the Scytians Ammanianus as well as later Orosius and
Zosimus speaks out that they in Ancient days belonged to the group you refer
to but that in their days were other groups, Goths included, which by some
were called Scytians because they lived where the Ancient Scytians once had
lived. Which is correct.
(Orosius 7:34 ff to give one of the sources)

Inger E

Inger E
Post by mosalmounkosh
That is a correct speculation and one that has caught the attention of
many scholars.
It seems however that originally, the core of the Huns (Xiong Nu) was
made of Paleo-Asiatic speaking Mongoloid people. After their defeat at
the hands of the Chinese, their leader Motun clashed with the
Indo-European Tokhars and the Iranians Asiani Scythians living in
Central Asia and the Tarim basin.
The rule on teh steppes was incorporation, not extermination so in
during theier drive westwards, the Huns came to incorporate many
Iranian people in their midst.
You mentioning them in India is also correct since those that settled
in northern INdia had in fact European features (common among the
Scythians) and looked white ratehr than Oriental. In addition, they
spoke Iranian dialects when they settled in abctria and northern
India.
Those Huns that made it westwards, to the Catalaunian fields, did
incorporate Iranian speaking Alans among their midts. Amminianus
Marcellinus mentioned that the part of the Alan nation that wasn't
exterminated by the Huns, or driven inthe Caucasus mountains (where
they now live as Ossetians) joined the Hunnush federation as vassals
and allies, along wtih Germanic Goths and Gepids.
Post by Nirvana
As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've
heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)
were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some
Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.
Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.
2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.
3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
than Mongolic.
4. Loan words?
The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".
Loading...