--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > So Satarchae, Sadagarii, Sagartioi, Sargetae and more are just
> > several names for the same people. Are there more?
> >
> > It seems Pekkanen derives all the various forms of the names of
> > this Iranian upper layer / nomadic people, descendants of the
> > Royal Scythians, from *(a)sagart-.
> > Now this is just too tempting:
> >
> > *asagart- -> Ãsgarð-
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard
...
>
>
> > I'll attempt an etymology myself:
> >
> > Snorri calls his people men of Asia.
...
> >
> > de Vries
> > 'austr - 2 'east',
> > Icel. austur, Faroe eystur, Norw. aust(er),
> > OSw. oster, Sw. östr, ODa. ostær, Da. øst(er).
> > - > lp. austa (Qvigstad 95); > ne. ON. Owston, Austwick (Mawer 3).
> > - OE easter, eastre "easter"), OFr. Åstr, OS OHG Åstar,
> > cf. Got. Austro-gothi, Ostrogothae 'East Goths'.
> > - Lat. aurora 'dawn', auster 'south wind',
> > Gr. α`ÏÏιον 'morning', Hom. `ηÏÏ 'dawn',
> > Sanskrit uÅÄs 'dawn', ucchati 'it dawns',
> > Lit. au~šta 'it dawns', aušrà f. "dawn", Latv. austrs 'east wind',
> > austrums m. 'east' (IEW 86-7). '
> >
> > from *aNs- -> *aus-?
> >
> >
> > The original form of the toponym/ethnonym, might thus be
> > *aNsa-gart- "east fort/court"
> > Perhaps *aNsaN-gart -> *asaÅart- -> *samart- -> Sarmat-, with
> > folk-etymological side-form(from sauro- "lizard", ommat- "eye")
> > Sauromat- ?
> > cf. the nasal of
> > Avestan uÅ¡Ã¥:, acc. uÅ¡Ã¥ÅhÉm, gen. uÅ¡aÅhÅ "dawn" (Pokorny);
> > and note also aug- "shine"; see' ibd., best explained (I think)
> > from
> > *aN- -> *aÅ- -> *aNg- -> *aug-, the above root as an s-stem *aN-s-
> > -> *aus-
>
>
> I can't find an etymology for Persian saudagar "trader".
> Is it <- *aNsaN-gart- (cf. Sadagarii)?
>
Some may recall that George Knysh and I had a long debate on the first date of Mithridates' preparation for war on Rome in its Italian homeland where he insisted that Mithridates had no such plans until immediately before his suicide in 63 BCE and that no further attempt were made to carry out such plans.
Harmatta has a long interesting excerpt on the net on the Western Sarmatian tribal confederacy 125 BCE - 61 BCE.
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_1.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_2.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_3.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_4.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_5.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_6.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_7.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_8.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_9.html
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_10.html
I quote from
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_5.html
'That he succeeded in winning the Sarmatians for himself is proved clearly by a report of Appianos (Mithr. 19),
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_04.html
according to which he used Sarmatian cavalry as his vanguard as early as in the first war against the Romans.
Apart from this our sources also mention continually the Sarmatians as his allies. This shows that he could after the initial hostilities establish lasting good relations with them which might have been inspired in addition to his personal charm and clever diplomacy also by common economic and political interest. Undoubtedly the Sarmatians were in sore need of the industrial goods made or distributed in the Greek cities of the Black Sea. There is no better evidence of this than the fact that after the Getae had devastated their town, the Olbians returned to its site as a result of the persuasion of the "Scythians" (= Sarmatians) and founded Olbia again. Accordingly, it was in the interest of the Sarmatians to be on good terms with the king ot the Pontus who held the Greek cities in his power. As to political aims, it may have been Mithridates' old plan to attack the Romans by land, from the North, i. e. from the Pontus as well. To this effect, along with the other Pontic peoples, the strong Sarmatian tribal confederacy could be used appropriately, therefore it is probable that Mithridates approved, and possibly encouraged, the spreading of the Sarmatians to the West. For the Sarmatians, on the other hand, this was the only possibility of expansion after the occupation of the Greek cities of the Pontus by Mithridates, besides, the possession of the Roumanian plain and the Dobrudja was always highly desirable to the peoples of the steppes.'
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_6.html
'In this construction it is of special importance that this was not the first intrusion of the Bastarnae in this direction towards the territory south of the Danube. Much earlier, in 179 B. C., in alliance with Philip, king of Macedonia, strong Bastarnian forces had crossed the Danube. Philip wanted the Bastarnae first to occupy the territory of the Dardani in order that they should then intrude with the Scordiscians into Northern Italy. Although his death foiled this plan, one Bastarnian fraction, notwithstanding set foot on Dardanian territory and only three years later was it possible for the Dardani to drive them out. These antecedents of this Sarmato-Bastarnian-Scythian expansion during the Ist Mithridatic War, are all the more interesting as they show Mithridates' plans to have been very similar to Philip's designs of attacking Italy on land from the Balkans. Thus it is easily possible that the intrusion of these peoples on Triballian territory happened at his instigation. That this territory had strategic importance is clearly shown by the fact that the Bastarnae much later, after Boirebistas' death, again penetrating into this South-Danubian territory and setting foot on the land of the Dentheletians, south of what is to-day Sofia, marched across Triballian territory.'
The Strabo quotes of that page are here
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/7C*.html
I'll venture another etymology:
The Saii/Saians of
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_8.html
are *(aN)saN-, living in *(aN)saN-gart- (see above). If so, the Royal Scythians/Sarmatians are not a new people, but another name for the Saii.
Harmatta concludes
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_10.html
'Round the time of the death of Mithridates Eupator the strong Sarmatian tribal confederacy disintegrated and the "Royal" Sarmatians vanished from history. What may have been the reason cannot be clearly stated for the time being. However, later, after the consolidation of Roman power in the Balkans and the Pontic region such a strong Sarmatian power could not again spring up., so that we may indeed regard the epoch of the Sarmatian tribal confederacy existing between 125 B. C. and 61 B. C. as the most interesting period in Western Sarmatian history.'
Torsten