Let's try to do a little better on this. I'm not sure
if Miguel's judgement ["not terribly convincing"]
applies specifically to Trubachev's analysis of
Temarunda, to Trubachev's other suggestions in his
article, or to his general thesis that the Sindi and
Maeoti were Indo-Aryans. Francesco's point is
clearer["far-fetched" re Temarunda a la Trubachev],as
is Marius'[*tem- could also be Thraco/Dacian, not
merely Indic]. In any even nobody seems to reject the
Trubachev hypothesis categorically, which is wise,
since that hypothesis is based on much more than the
Temarunda analysis (incl. the Hesychius statement
/writing in the 400's AD, when "Indic" was surely no
mystery identity/).
What was Pliny's source? We don't know for sure. Some
say it was the Pontic king Mithradates (VIII).
Ultimately it doesn't really matter. Nor can we be
certain that "mater maris" was more than an
approximate Latin equivalent of the local term. I feel
rather confident that the "Scythae" is an
all-embracing categorization in NH 6.20, since it
initially refers to Central Asian material ("Silis").
All we can say is that Temarunda is almost certainly a
restatement (garbled a la Herodotus or otherwise) of
the local name for the Lacus Maotis. It could very
well reflect a Sindic/Maeotian appellative.
Is there anything radically impossible about the
"Indic" analysis of Temarunda?
If not, then Trubachev's view of this, while not in
itself decisive or conclusive may certainly be seen as
a useful addition to other indicators concerning
Sindo/Maeotic identity, nicely congregated by Babaev.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping