Post by m***@io.comPost by Seppo Renforsthe 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.comyou 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.comin 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 RenforsThe 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.comThe 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.comPost by Seppo RenforsThere 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.comthis 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.commaybe 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.comPost by Seppo RenforsA 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.comthese 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.comPost by Seppo RenforsIn 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 RenforsWhat 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.comany 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.come.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.comPost by Seppo RenforsIt 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.comPost by Seppo RenforsIt 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.comPost by Seppo RenforsThe 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.comcan 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
