Re: [tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

At 4:29:35 AM on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:

>>> According to Hunibald, the people that came from the east
>>> changed their language during their sojourn in Germania.
>>> His work is generally considered a forgery, but he has an
>>> interesting detail

>> > http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_16.html

>>> He uses the name Wechtam of a holy minstrel and singer, a
>>> name reminiscent of the Old Norse name Vegtam-r, Odin uses
>>> of him self,

>> Note that the name has an obvious meaning in ON and is one
>> of several similar constructions (<vígtamr>, <gangtamr>,
>> <valtamr>). It would appear unlikely to be a borrowing.

> Folk etymology.

That would be far more convincing if the epithet weren't one
of a matched set.

>>> but also of Vakhtang, the Georgian (I think it was)
>>> version of Iranian V&r&Tragna. Georgia is in the
>>> vicinity of the old kingdom of Vani, where I suggested
>>> before that the Vanir came from. Now how would a forger
>>> come up with a coincidence like that?

>> What coincidence, exactly? You've pointed to superficial
>> resemblances between <Wechtam> and <Vegtamr> on the one
>> hand and between <Vakhtang> and <Vegtamr> on the other.
>> In order to claim that both are significant, you must
>> further claim that there is a connection between
>> <Vegtamr> and <Vakhtang>. This appears most unlikely, to
>> put it mildly.

> And that's what I'm claiming.

And added subsequently:

> Just for completeness' sake: Armenian Vahagn (also <
> V&r&Tragna), the Germanic tribe Vangiones, the runic
> inscription 'vangijo' on weapons finds in Denmark and the
> Danish given name Vagn.

There seems to be no good reason not to see it as identical
with the appellative 'wagon, sledge'.

> Add a (South?) Caucasian or Armenian contingent (= Vanir)
> to the Iranian elite (= Aesir) of the Tungri.

I see. Clearly we have very different ideas of what
constitutes evidence.

* Your assertions about <sól> and <sunna> are questionable
to begin with and are cherry-picked out of a much longer
list that doesn't appear to support your claim.

* In the case of <Vegtamr> (and probably <Vagn> as well)
you appeal to folk etymology when there is a natural and
reasonably convincing etymology, and you place great
evidentiary weight on superficial resemblances.

* You do the same when you say that 'the names [<Tungri>
and <Thuringian>] are alike'.

* In the case of the Tungri and Thuringians you go on to
say that this superficial similarity, combined with the
simultaneous appearance of these peoples in the
historical record, is sufficient reason for you to
conclude that they are the same people.

* You treat a known forgery (Trithemius's Hunibald) as a
serious source and appeal to a known pseudo-scholar
(Heyerdahl) as if he were a serious authority.

This looks very much like an attempt to justify an idée
fixe, and I'm afraid that I'm strongly reminded of some of
the odder folks in sci.lang and sci.archaeology. At any
rate it does not appear that productive discussion is
possible.

Brian