From: george knysh
Message: 41877
Date: 2005-11-07
> uptrue
> > your claim. The Indo-Aryans could well have been
> > nomads, and such populations are exceedingly hard****GK: Love it (:=)) Ideological thinking.
> to
> > track down (before and after settlement). The case
> of
> > the Pechenegs in Ukraine is a perfect example
> (though
> > the Huns would fit the bill almost as easily). We
> > know that the Pecheneg Confederacy was dominant on
> the
> > steppes of southern Ukraine for a century and a
> half
> > [ca. 890's- 1030's] (Constantine Porphyrogenitus
> has
> > much to say about it in his De administrando
> imperio).
> > But they remain archaeologically elusive. We know
> that
> > most of those who stayed on the steppes after
> their
> > big defeat of 1036 were eventually invited by
> Prince
> > Vasyl'ko Rostyslavych to settle in Galicia. Upon
> > settlement, they adopted the local culture so
> quickly
> > and extensively that one cannot differentiate them
> > from the rest of the population in terms of
> > archaeological remains. All that we have are some
> > place names ("Pechenihy" "Pechenizhyn")and
> possibly
> > some family names ending in -yuk. And in their
> case we
> > have to deal with a fairly large population. So
> your
> > conclusion as to the archaeological argument is
> > disputable at best. The Indo-Aryans may well have
> been
> > integrated on the Pecheneg model, with one
> admittedly
> > major difference, viz., their language became
> dominant
> > over that of the locals amongst which they
> > settled.
>
> Irrelvant.