Re: [tied] Re: Germanic Scythians?

tgpedersen wrote:

>> ******GK: Now this is completely fantastic, as pointed
>> out many many times, apparently to no avail. In 60/50
>> BC the only "Iranians" which would (barely, since
>> neither controlled cities)fit Snorri's Odin story
>> would be either the Aorsi or the Alans.
> I assume you want there to be cities because of a "Slavic
> interpretation of the name Ásgard. But 'garD' in Old Norse means
> farmstead, 'kongsgaard' in older Danish "court", and the word has to
> do with surrounding, fencing in. Thus Ásgard, if it existed, would
> have been little more than a stronghold or keep.

the form "gard" without methatesis is to find in Albanian and Romanian.
In Rom. it means just "fence".

> I realised that I had completely left out the Jastorf culture. That
> means I don't have to claim a Bastarnean component in an Iranian -
> Germanic mix in Thuringia
>
> Torsten

I must agree with George that in teh time BC the Bastarnae were strong
enough for having an Iranian ruling class. If once, then long time
before. After 100 AC , there is by no way the possibility of having
Iranian masters. Just the Roxolanes and Yaziges or maybe some
Sarmatians, but I doubt since these could not come until the isle of
Peuce where the Bastarnae lived to last. And in fact, just in the time
came the Goths. Why should accept a Germanic folk an Iranian class as
rulers when in that time the Goths have been so powerfully? It doesn't
make any sense to put some Iranian pieces here, don't you find?
But it seems curious to me why always these Iranians? If you take a look
at every folk we are speaking about there should be some Iranians there
as "rulers". It seems a bit funny to me. It looks more as paper game but
no more..