From: tgpedersen
Message: 57710
Date: 2008-04-20
>Well, he's relevant to the question of Iranian->Germanic interaction.
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh"
> > <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Given a claim that Germanic developed while dominated by
> > > > Iranian speakers (those that are disgusted with my
> > > > Odin-Galicia-Thuringia story can think of it instead as King
> > > > Arthurs Sarmatians arriving for Roman duty in Germania), a
> > > > good candidate for the choice of Iranian language in which to
> > > > find features similar of those in Germanic is Ossetian; it is
> > > > generally considered to be the descendant of Alanic, the
> > > > speakers of which are on historical record as participating in
> > > > the Germanic migration, roving from Portugal to China),
> > >
> > > GK: The Alans remain east of the Don until the mid-first c. CE.
> > > If "Alani" in Pliny is not a later addition, it would mean that
> > > some contingents had reached the Danube by 77 CE. They are no
> > > longer known there (again if the text of Pliny we have is his
> > > unedited original) in the time of Ptolemy, who localizes them
> > > about the Don. And indeed that is where they remain (in Europe)
> > > until the time of the Huns, except for some groups which reach
> > > the southern shores of the Crimea by the early 3rd c. CE (near
> > > Theodosia/Artabda =these may have been Zoroastrians), and other
> > > groups which form part of the Gothic complex in the 4th c. CE.
> > > All this seems way too late for creative Iranian->Germanic
> > > linguistic contacts particularly since there is no "domination"
> > > involved here except for that of Germanics over Iranians. As for
> > > "King Arthur and his Sarmatians" in the present context the less
> > > said the better...
>
> \
> > >
> >
> > Wikipedia contradicts you.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
>
> ****GK: No. You are confusing Sarmats and Alans.****
>
> > Haven't you forgotten Strabo?
>
> ****GK: Strabo doesn't know the Alans.****
> >
> > Those Lubiesewo princely graves remain a problem. Wherever I lookWhat did you mean by 'vaguely Sarmatian'?
> > it seems for some reason no one ever considered the possibility
> > that that militarized upper crust you find in them could be of any
> > other origin than indigenous. Seems one has to the work oneself.
>
> ****GK: You've tried this before, and somehow it never
> works (:=))). Archaeologists usually know their stuff.
> If these graves had Alanic features they would have
> mentioned it. Those old horse bones sure look
> attractive don't they? Just kidding.****
> >