Re: [tied] Re: etruscan

From: Steve Woodson
Message: 5398
Date: 2001-01-10

    It's my understanding that the Danes didn't enter the historical record until the 5th century when they replaced the Jutes (who had settled in Britian) in Jutland.  By this time the Iranians had long ceased to be the dominant people of the Pontic steppe.  Does anyone know of an earlier mention of them?  Also, just because they're not mentioned (in any of my books) doesn"t mean they didn't exist, of course.  
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin R. Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: etruscan

----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2001 January 8 Monday 20:18
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: etruscan

No, perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The only area where *da:nu- still meant 'river' about the time when the Germanic languages were formed was the Iranian-speaking or Iranian-influenced lands. The historical river Tanais was of course the Don, and Danastris was the Dniester, both running where expected. If the Danes were to have received their name from the Don or the like, you'd have to explain how they ended up as one of the North Germanic tribes.
Possibly, the Danes were named after the river which they predominantly used to trade with the eastern folk. The locals would not know of the originating location of the Danes and most probably had little or no knowledge of their language either. I wonder if this idea has any precedents in other parts of the world/history.