Re: "As"

>****GK: I'm still working out the intricacies of what
>follows, so just take it as an eminently modifiable
>working hypothesis. "Aorsi" supposedly meant "of the
>west", so these would also have been Alans ("of the
>west", and the As/Os "of the east" (Alans)... When
>Strabo was writing, his "upper Aorsi" were located in
>the area between Caspian and Aral. That is where
>Chinese Chronicles (the SHIJI particularly, relying on
>the material of Zhang Qian's embassy to the Central
>Asian "Tocharians" (Yuezhi) in 129-128 BCE) place "the
>kingdom of Yantsai", independent at the time. The same
>source identifies "Kangju", an associate power of the
>Yuezhi, somewhere near today's Tashkent. Now neither
>Yantsai nor Kangju are given ethnic labels, but we
>know from Justin (Prol. to ch. 41) that the ruling
>class of the latter was composed of "Saraucae"
>[=Sakarauka, usually translated "royal Scythians"] and
>"Asiani" [and these Strabo simply calls
>"Asii"/XI.8.2/. ] BTW the same two groups (Sakarauka
>and Asii/Asiani) were the ruling class of the
>Tocharians settled south of "Kangju" in Sogdiana and
>Bactria.== At some point after 128 BCE, possibly but
>not certainly before 50 BCE, "Kangju" imposed its
>dominance on "Yantsai". We know this from the Han
>Chronicle HOU HANSHU (drawn up in the 3rd c. CE, but
>incorporating material going back to the great general
>Pan or Ban Chao (1rst c. CE). The HOU HANSHU states
>that the conquered Yantsai "has changed its name to
>the kingdom of Alan-liao". We know from Justin that in
>both kingdoms of Kangju and Yuezhi (the latter became
>the Kushans) there was a bloody elimination of the
>Sakarauka by the Asiani.== Right now, I am leaning
>towards the theory that the Alans imposed their
>domination on a pretty wide area in the 1rst c. BCE.
>They ruled over Kangju (Tashkent)+ Yantsai
>(Caspia/Aral) + Yan (a territory north of Yantsai),
>and were also the "reges Tocharorum Asiani" as Justin
>refers to them in the Prol. to his ch. 42). For the
>time being, the Aorsi remained independent (Pliny
>distinguishes them from the Alans).I'm wondering if
>the Siraces mentioned by Strabo were
>Sa(ka)rauka...****

Anyway, it seems that in most tribal/state configurations
of Eurasia (of the Iranic, Turkic/Khazar, Slavic, Hungarian,
Mongolian/Tatar kind) those Saka clans were some kind of
acknowledged "royal" (dynastic??) 'Gog-Magog' upper-crust.
Any plausible link to the European-like people in Uyguria,
a.k.a. "the Takla Makan mummies" (kept in the capital Ürümçi)?
Seemingly, the KIpçak (Cumanians) and a smaller tribe/clan
Çak (Csák) within the Cumanian or Petcheneg crowds might also
be derivations of Saka.

>>How about Æsir and Asgard? :-)
>
>****GK:I suggest we leave this alone (:=)))*****

Why? Norsepeople are eager to know who their... Shah-in-Shah
Aryamer masters once were. :-)

George