Print Page | Close Window

original inhabitants of ancient England

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Description: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
Moderators: Leonidas, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26583
Printed Date: 17-Oct-2019 at 04:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: original inhabitants of ancient England
Posted By: pebbles
Subject: original inhabitants of ancient England
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 03:09
 
They were the Celtic-speaking " Romano-Britons " before the arrival of Anglo-Saxon Germanic tribes.
 
Me and many of you surely have read more than enough of how Anglo-Saxon or Germanic the English are blah blah blah ... lol.I want to know what happened to those natives,wiped out or absorbed by the invading conquests ? Roughly what percentage of modern day English gene pool can trace to England's indigenous people ? I am aware of Viking & Norman components,surname suffix ending " sen " or " son " most likely has Viking ancestry.
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 12:30

Nobody really knows ... it varies from area to area but there's a big debate on to what extent Anglo-Saxons actually replaced natives. There does appear to be a line in the western part of England (beyond which lies Wales, Cornwall, Devon, Shropshire etc) after which Saxon influence seems to drop sharply.

But there is genetic continuity throughout England with the very earliest inhabitants as well, as seen for instance in the case of Cheddar Man, a 9000 year old body that was discovered and genetically tested. Results were compared to a local history class of 20-odd children and their teacher: it so happened that the teacher was a close match, and two of the children were direct descendants!



Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 16:42
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Nobody really knows ... it varies from area to area but there's a big debate on to what extent Anglo-Saxons actually replaced natives.

But there is genetic continuity throughout England with the very earliest inhabitants as well, as seen for instance in the case of Cheddar Man, a 9000 year old body that was discovered and genetically tested. Results were compared to a local history class of 20-odd children and their teacher: it so happened that the teacher was a close match, and two of the children were direct descendants!

 
The Anglo Saxon chronicle probably glossed up some historic facts.I say those Germanic tribes became a powerful force that united England and installed themselves as ruling class with many indigenous tribes remain intact except the ones ( known as Breton people ) left to settled in Brittany ( France ).
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_people
 
Isn't it safe to assume English ( exclude Celtic component ) are distant cousins of today's Germans and Scandinavians ( mainly the Danes Norwegians Swedes ) ?
 
 


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 16:57
 
They are often believed to be a mixture of several closely related groups that have settled in what became England, such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brythons - Brythons (including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano-British_culture - Romano-Britons ), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles - Angles , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons - Saxons , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking - Norse Vikings and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans - Normans .
 
However, recent DNA analysis suggest that the majority of the ancestors of British peoples were the original paleolithic settlers of Great Britain, and that the differences that exist between the east and west coasts of Great Britain though not large, are deep in prehistory, mostly originating in the upper paleolithic and mesolithic (15,000-7,000 years ago).
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_%28ethnic_group - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_(ethnic_group )
 
 


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 23:06

We discussed this e.g. in the thread "Anglo Saxons" (Medieval history).

Especially Reginmund and me discussed about an expulsion of Britons or an absorption.

There are two main streams. One believes that the Anglo-Saxons wiped the Britons out or at least expelled them to Wales and Cornwall. The other group believes that the Anglo-Saxons were a little ruling elite that absorpted the Britons.

Since a couple of years we have also the possibility the compare genetic material. I am not a specialist here. I  have heard here two main opinions too. The one that says that the genetic material is close to the Germanic areas of modern Germany/Netherland and Skandinavia and another one that says that the British people can be linked to much older groups.

I am convinced that we can find both genetical material. The genes that seem to come from the Netherlands, Belgium, NorthEast France and Germany are linked with he Anglo-Saxon invaders. Yes, sure that is correct. But since the LaTene era we have a Celtic migratioon from these areas as well. So I am not sure that all these genetic markers are Germanic.

The germanic regions where the Anglo-Saxons came from were depopulated since the middle of the 5th century. But not completely. There was a lot of population left. So the Anglo-Saxons never had the great amount of population that was able to expell or wipe out the Britons. The Anglo-Saxons needed more than 200 years to beat the Britons. And if we look to the British history there was no especially fight between Anglo-Saxon invaders and British Defenders. It was a time of war between different British kingdoms, of war between different Anglo-Saxons kings, of war between Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxons fought as mercenaries for British kings and Britons fought for Anglo-saxon kings. So where was these Anglo-Saxon system of Apartheid that some believe it had exist?
Another fact is that we speak of Anglo-Saxons. Yes, we can use this term, but it is not the term for a single nation. Three nations are said to have invaded Britain, the Angles, the Saxons and the Iutes. It is true, there were Angles among the invaders and Iutes, but the term Saxons is as well not a term for a single nation but for pirating northwest germanic groups. So the so-called Anglo-Saxons are a polyethnic population. We can only speak of an Anglo-Saxon nation just at its end, when the Vikings invaded Britain. So I can't see why they should have wiped out or expelled the Britons.
If we speak of the Britons we can't speak of an heterogene population to. Before the Roman conquest we have different groups in Britannia. We have Belgians (the latest invasion), Celts from the Marne region, we have so-called Q-Celts and we have pre-Celtic groups too that reached a different stage of celtification. In Scotland and Ireland we had groups that were much longer inhabitants than the Celts or others. So it is hard to speak of original inhabitants.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 00:25
 
Thanks for your input.
 
This past day since started this thread,I now realized the term Anglo-Saxons has been excessively promoted & used.
 
I recently reconnected with a few White-American 6th grade schoolmates from rural Kansas at classmates.com.Their surnames ( Berry/Williams/Barker/Hood/Shank/Hendrix/Kuhn ) brought back memory of my newphew ( born & raised there ) once said to me that local kids generally aware of their heritage,usually identify to be of Anglo-Saxon stock.Do these families really trace ancestral roots to those Germanic tribes or they're indoctrinated by the concept of English are basically from Anglox-Saxon lineages  ?!
 
 


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 11:31
I hope I understand you correct! Well, Kuhn is for sure a German name, not Anglo-Saxon.
Different regions have different names. So a lot of Skandinavians have name that end of -son or -sen. But e.g. even in North Germany it was a mode. I didn't care for English names, but I think one can see if a name has an Anglo-Saxon origin or a Normannic origin. Exept of the Mc's and O's I don't know if there are celtic names existing, sorry. But I am not sure if an Anglo-Saxon name means that one is 100% Anglo-saxon. A child has always two parents. So how Anglo-saxon is a person with an Anglo-Saxon name. The male lineage is perhaps Anglo-Saxon but we can't say more. Another fact is that Britons could use Anglo-Saxon names. So in that situation we can't say an Anglo-saxon names stand for an unbroken Anglo-Saxon male lineage. In Germany there are Latin family names. These people aren't neither Italian nor have Roman ancestor (as far as we know). Once ago a ancestor thought a Latin name would sound more noble. So they changed it. That's all. There are a lot of Slavic names, too. But in many cases, the male lineage just used a former Slavic place name for there family. So they are in the male line Germanic but have a Slavic name. The most people I know, exept of noble families, can trace their families far back than to the 18th century. Well, in England the sources are better, so that a lot of families find their names in medieval sources. But I don't know if they are really related with those persons. I heard that every O'Neil believes that he is a descendant of the royal Ui Niall or that every McDonald or McAlpine believe that he is a descendant of those former kings. But I am sur this is often mor fiction than reality. It is perhaps the same with recent Anglo-Saxon traditions.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 12:44
According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html - http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)
 
About Red Hair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair
 
Redheads constitute approximately four percent of the European population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-6 - [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland - Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads, as 13 percent of the population has red hair and approximately 40 percent carries the recessive redhead gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-7 - [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland - Ireland has the second highest percentage; as many as 10 percent of the Irish population have red, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_hair - auburn , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#strawberry_blond - strawberry blond hair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-8 - [9] It is thought that up to 46 percent of the Irish population carries the recessive redhead gene. Red hair reaches frequencies of up to 10 percent in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales - Wales . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-9 - [10] In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England - England , the county of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall - Cornwall , the far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England - north , near the Scottish border, and the counties of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottinghamshire - Nottinghamshire and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire - South Yorkshire also have significant proportions of redheads.
 
 
It is interesting to read about red-haired mummies which were found in the northwest of Iran (southern Armenia) in BBC Oxford: http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 13:17
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html - http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)
 
About Red Hair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair
 
Redheads constitute approximately four percent of the European population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-6 - [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland - Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads, as 13 percent of the population has red hair and approximately 40 percent carries the recessive redhead gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-7 - [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland - Ireland has the second highest percentage; as many as 10 percent of the Irish population have red, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_hair - auburn , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#strawberry_blond - strawberry blond hair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-8 - [9] It is thought that up to 46 percent of the Irish population carries the recessive redhead gene. Red hair reaches frequencies of up to 10 percent in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales - Wales . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#cite_note-9 - [10] In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England - England , the county of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall - Cornwall , the far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England - north , near the Scottish border, and the counties of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottinghamshire - Nottinghamshire and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire - South Yorkshire also have significant proportions of redheads.
 
 
It is interesting to read about red-haired mummies which were found in the northwest of Iran (southern Armenia) in BBC Oxford: http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml
So


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:01
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

According to almost all English sources, like "The Anglo Saxon chronicle" that you mentioned http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html - http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html : "The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward.  Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland."
 
Numerous evidences prove this fact, especially linguistic evidences, there are even several genetic evidences which confirm it, for example the famous Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 450B.C.) says about Scythians ("Scothes" in Greek, the same word in Latin was used for Scots): "They are a large and powerful nation: they have all blue eyes, and red hair" (Herodotus, Histories 4. 108)


Cyrus, good man, you read a lot of primary sources but unfortunately you do not seem to care much for the latest studies done by professional historians, who with all due respect are far more qualified than you to assess the source material.

Reading primary sources is rather dangerous you see unless you are an educated historian schooled in source criticism. What you just wrote here is a perfect example. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle is relating an origin myth, a very common construct in medieval European history writing. The 12th century historian Geoffrey of Monmouth for example explained how the British kings descended from the Trojans, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is doing the same in relating the origin of the Britons. Both are pure fantasy, as the historians of that time did not have the tools necessary to trace the origin of the Britons nor their kings as far back as they claim to, but that wasn't the point either, the point was to invent a glorious background for these people.

I see you use Herodotus to verify the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, but this is just one fallacy built upon another. The ancient history works by Herodotus and co. were the only sources available to medieval European authors, and so you find their works build on the writings of classical Greece and Rome. It is almost guaranteed that the author of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle read Herodotus. This does not mean he is correct, it just means he copied information from an earlier source and misinterpreted it by trying to make it fit in his own context. To put it plainly; the author of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle wrote a lot of rubbish, for he did not know anything about the Scythians other than what he had read in classical sources. Heodotus and the classical authros too had to write history based on few and dubious sources, so they also wrote a lot of rubbish,  and putting rubbish and rubbish together does not make truth.

If you truly wish to study the ancient Britons I advice you to lay off the primary sources until you have read a few of the books that are used for university courses on this topic. F.ex. "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, or "The Britons" by Christopher Snyder in the Peoples of Europe-series. That is, if you truly wish to learn about the real Britons and not just invent theories to connect them with Iranians.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:09

About linguistics, there is a very long discussion about Iranian and Germanic languages in this thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637 - Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages? , one of the main things that we discussed so much there was about the sound shifts in these languages, it is said there were k->g & s->h in the Iranian languages but k->h & p->f in the Germanic languages and I said several times that the second ones also occured in the Iranian languages and gave several examples.

As you read here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pork&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pork&searchmode=none  from proto-IE *porko, there are Latin porcus (English Pork comes from this word), Slavix prase (k->s), Old English fearh from P.Gmc. *farhaz (p->f & k->h) and Middle Persian pigra (k->g), what is the origin of Pig? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pig&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pig&searchmode=none  O.E. *picg, found in compounds, ultimate origin unknown. !!! 
 
You can read http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=1&text_proto=&method_proto=substring&text_meaning=pig&method_meaning=substring&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=proto - here there is another PIE word for pig: proto-IE *sūk, as you read modern English sow has a Germanic origin (k->h), the Middle Persian word is Hug/Xug (s->h & k->g), what is the origin of Hog?


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:21
Germanic and Iranian languages are related as far as they are both Indo-European, but Germanic is not a subgroup of Iranian, they are separate branches, and most of the similarities you find will therefore be coincidental. This isn't even a discussion among linguists and us amateurs have no business trying to set up our own misbegotten theories.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/%7Ecfford/Indoeuropean%20language%20family%20tree.jpg - http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/Indoeuropean%20language%20family%20tree.jpg

This is all there is to be said as far as the Indo-European theory goes.




-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 14:38
Reginmund, You are talking with someone who has a PhD on Iranian history and researched about Scythians more than 10 years and has read hundreds books and articles about them, so I am not really an amateur!


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 15:13
Good, reading at least one of the two books I suggested should be no problem then.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 17:06

What Is the Advantage of reading them? Do they disprove by evidences the historical fact of the migration from Scythia to Britain which has been mentioned in almost all primary sources? I searched in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe for the word "Scythia": http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&id=kMJmAAAAMAAJ&dq=scythia+inauthor%3ABarry+inauthor%3ACunliffe&q=scythia&pgis=1 - Click Here , and found just one unrelated mention in the page 175!

A migration from a land to another land in Europe is not an impossible thing especially when several sources mention it too, but the problem is just that you don't like to believe this fact, of course you easily believe the vice versa, for example some Germanic peoples like Goths migrated to Scythia, didn't they?


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 04:56
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

 
Well, Kuhn is for sure a German name, not Anglo-Saxon.
 
I didn't care for English names, but I think one can see if a name has an Anglo-Saxon origin or a Normannic origin. Exept of the Mc's and O's I don't know if there are Celtic names existing, sorry. But I am not sure if an Anglo-Saxon name means that one is 100% Anglo-Saxon.
 
Another fact is that Britons could use Anglo-Saxon names.So in that situation we can't say an Anglo-saxon names stand for an unbroken Anglo-Saxon male lineage.
 
 
 
Thanks again for your further explanation in greater details Clap
 
Oops ... that surname belongs to my world history teacher Mr Kuhn ( back in rural Kansas ).I vividly recall,he said to us .... in German,we pronounce it " Kane Shocked ".
 
So,this means Anglo-Saxon restricts to England or English of supposely Germanic roots ( & their new world colonist kins ) and it doesn't equate to ' German ' in broader sense.
 
I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
 
My hunch is indigenous Britons account for a good percentage of English population ( exclude Welsh Scotts & Irish ).They're no longer pure bred Britions,rather heavily mixed with non-native Anglo-Saxons Vikings Normans.
 
If redhead & freckles are physical characteristics identify " Celtic roots ".How about child actor Rupert Grint ( of Harry Potter movie series ) who is English looks " Irish " LOL .
 
On final thought,typical English look more similiar to Germans & Scandinavians with slight distinctions.It's those French are ethnically mixed looking Europeans,some even can pass as Italians LOL.
 


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 08:10
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

 
Oops ... that surname belongs to my world history teacher Mr Kuhn ( back in rural Kansas ).I vividly recall,he said to us .... in German,we pronounce it " Kane Shocked ".
It is spoken as Koon (like typhoon)
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

So,this means Anglo-Saxon restricts to England or English of supposely Germanic roots ( & their new world colonist kins ) and it doesn't equate to ' German ' in broader sense.
Yes, Anglo-Saxon is just a term for Germanic groups in Britain. BTW the British sources usually spoke of Saxons or Angli, the term Anglisaxones is a artificial term. It was once thought that the Iutes settled in Kent and Wight, the Saxons in Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Mddlesex, Surrey and the Angles in Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia. This is no longer to believe especially because we have to deny a Saxon nation. The groups were completely mixed. So a name like Anglia doesn't mean that only Angles lived there but that an Anglian groups was in the leading position.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
Yes, there was. Especially in the Medieval times. And don't forgetBig smile the royal house of England is of German origin. Both Lizzy and Phil belong to German houses, Saxon-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

My hunch is indigenous Britons account for a good percentage of English population ( exclude Welsh Scotts & Irish ).They're no longer pure bred Britions,rather heavily mixed with non-native Anglo-Saxons Vikings Normans.
They are lika any other nation, mixed, mixed, mixed.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

If redhead & freckles are physical characteristics identify " Celtic roots ".How about child actor Rupert Grint ( of Harry Potter movie series ) who is English looks " Irish " LOL .
 
On final thought,typical English look more similiar to Germans & Scandinavians with slight distinctions.It's those French are ethnically mixed looking Europeans,some even can pass as Italians LOL.
 
My aunt has ginger hair too. She's no Celt. Usually if dark haird type get kids with blond ones, you get ginger hair kids. So this is a possible explanation. There never was a typical Celtic habitus, especially the ginger haired Irish can't be called typical Celtic, because the original Celts came from the Rhine area.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:37
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 11:41
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

What Is the Advantage of reading them? Do they disprove by evidences the historical fact of the migration from Scythia to Britain which has been mentioned in almost all primary sources? I searched in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe for the word "Scythia": http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&id=kMJmAAAAMAAJ&dq=scythia+inauthor%3ABarry+inauthor%3ACunliffe&q=scythia&pgis=1 - Click Here , and found just one unrelated mention in the page 175!


Exactly! Because no modern specialists believe they are related, for good reason.

The advantage of reading them is that you learn who the ancient Britons were.


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 13:47
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.
 
 
In this case,is it fair to say indigenous Britons of England ( A division of the United Kingdom, the southern part of the island of Great Britain. Originally settled by Celtic peoples, it was subsequently conquered by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans ) lost own Celtic-ethnic identity as a conquered people & unwittingly assumed the  " Anglo-Saxon " Germanic origin superficially.
 
 


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:10
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Exactly! Because no modern specialists believe they are related, for good reason.

The advantage of reading them is that you learn who the ancient Britons were.
Specialists are those who express their opinions based on sources not their own imaginations!


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:14
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Specialists are those who express their opinions based on sources not their own imaginations!

I'll remember this next time you make up etymologies out of the blue Wink


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:48
 
Just a sporadic thought ... Sleepy
 
In recent years,there seems to be a wave of " liberal " Western linguistic experts attempt to lump Eastern & European languages in one umbrella on " superficial likeness ".Altaic group is one example LOL
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:48
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Reginmund, You are talking with someone who has a PhD on Iranian history and researched about Scythians more than 10 years and has read hundreds books and articles about them, so I am not really an amateur!
If you have read hundreds of books and articles, haven't you noticed that virtually all of them do not link Scythians to Britons, Saxons or whatever other Western or Central European tribes? Is your PhD in historical linguistics (and if not, on what grounds do you suggest we should accept your typical arguments - mostly word-games - as evidence)? And since you keep waving language-related arguments, can you articulate please some phrases in ancient Scythian? Translate a text into this language maybe? Conjugate a verb? Or in some other languages you believe Scythian was related to?
Can you present some of your articles (relevant to your theories and in particular to this thread - because I don't see how Iranian history relates to the "original inhabitants of ancient England") which you submitted for notable peer-reviewed journals? Or some of your theories which are accepted by a significant part of the current academia (if not the mainstream)?
 
No offense, but if most of my questions above will be answered by "no" or not answered at all, I don't really care you have a PhD and I don't think many would. Expertise should also be proved, not only claimed ex cathedra. You can have as well a PhD in geology or in computer science, it doesn't make much of a difference.
 


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.
 
 
In this case,is it fair to say indigenous Britons of England ( A division of the United Kingdom, the southern part of the island of Great Britain. Originally settled by Celtic peoples, it was subsequently conquered by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans ) lost own Celtic-ethnic identity as a conquered people & unwittingly assumed the  " Anglo-Saxon " Germanic origin superficially.
 
 


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:35

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.

I guess if you were in England ... but if you were Welsh and in Wales any time before about the 19th century, you'd have a patronymic surname, that is, from your father's given name, usually with an "s" at the end in a possessive sense. Jones, Davies, Roberts, Evans, Williams, etc. If your father was Dave and you were Robert, you'd be Robert Davies (ie Robert, Dave's kid). Before (and during) Anglification, instead of "s" they'd use "ap" at the front of the name meaning the same thing as "Mac" - ie son of - and that's where you get names like Pritchard (Ap Richard) and Bowen (Ap Owen).



Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:38

I'm just a historian, not a linguist, the most important thing for a historian is the sources, I have researched about a Scythian presence in different regions and found that according to almost all English sources, such as "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" by Bede, the father of English History, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, "Historia Brittonum", by Nennius, "History of the Kings of Britain", by Geoffrey of Monmouth, "The Pictish Chronicle" and several other ones, Scythians migrated to Britain and were among the first inhabitants of this land, therefore as what Ibn Khaldun, the father of modern social science and history, says about the law of tawatur, we have to believe that this is a historical fact.

http://www.al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/Preface.htm - The Meaning of Tawatur: :
 
By tawatur is meant the multiplicity of the sources of a certain report that leads to certitude in the listener that the report is indeed true. One's knowledge of the existence of distant countries and towns and such historical figures as Cyrus or Napolean may be said to be based on the tawatur of reports that one hears about them.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 18:01
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

m just a historian, not a linguist, the most important thing for a historian is the sources, I have researched about a Scythian presence in different regions and found that according to almost all English sources, such as "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" by Bede, the father of English History, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, "Historia Brittonum", by Nennius, "History of the Kings of Britain", by Geoffrey of Monmouth, "The Pictish Chronicle" and several other ones, Scythians migrated to Britain and were among the first inhabitants of this land, therefore as what Ibn Khaldun, the father of modern social science and history, says about the law of tawatur, we have to believe that this is a historical fact.
To read primary sources outside the framework provided by the critical editions (where available, otherwise just collect the various studies and articles published throughout the scholarly journals), you must be also a philologist. The text, the language, the style, the narrative techniques and subtleties must be dealt with. Also you need to have some expertise in historiography and the history of ideas to spot the patterns, the mental models, the stereotypes. Telling fact from fiction, the artificial constructs from merely reflected realities it's one of the hardest task when reading the primary sources. If you have studied the history of Iran for 10 years, it won't help you much in understanding Bede, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and similar texts if you don't have any other skills or experience. I see you avoided to answer my previous questions, therefore I conclude you have no scholarly authority whatsoever and your PhD is just a red herring.
 
The sources you invoke say nothing about a Scythian origin of the "English nation" or about a pre-historical Scythian migration in Britain (they do as much as Perrault's stories say about talking cats). You, as a PhD historian with no expertise whatsoever in dealing with ancient or medieval texts, show an unprofessional attitude if you disregard the existing expert work only to promote those theories dear to you. Because if you wouldn't, you'd see how "real" are the Scythian, Trojan, Biblical, etc. origins of the medieval nations.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 18:12
Slight problems with your theory, Cyrus.  First, you clearly don't understand the idea of source criticism, Bede, nor any of the medieval "historians" you mentioned above, did not have the same perspective on history, as factual based, as we do today.  In the 7th-8th C. history was not the objective interpretation of facts that it is today.  We known that many times Chronicles, Annals, and Histories are bogged down with propaganda and lies.  A prime example of this would be certain stories written about King John in certain chronicles which we know to be false since the parties in question were still living when the entry was written or had been dead for years when the event was supposed to have happened.  In all probability Bede is not reliable in relating the events that happened beyond the confines of living memory, that is to say that he is unreliable when talking about things that happened 100+ years before he lived/wrote.  Second you should be aware that Bede is the earliest and that ASC, Nennius, and Geoffrey of Monmouth all would have known about Bede and his writings.  Bede lived in the late 7th to early 8th Century at least 100 years before Nennius and the starting of ASC.  You should also note that in this period it was common to plagiarize more famous sources.  Regarding the law of tawatur, in order for this to be applied there needs to be an independent multiplicity of sources.  Furthermore, we have a multiplicity of historical documents that talk about monsters (ie dragons), are we to believe that monsters are real?  By this rational (the law of tawatur) we must accept the historical fact of monsters like dragons.  You should probably read up on the source criticism regarding Bede, ASC, Nenius, and Monmouth et al.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:16
Chilbudios and King John, your posts sum it up far better than I could but I think it's a wasted effort. Cyrus has already decided what he wants to believe and will stick with it in spite of anything, as he has done in numerous other threads.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:24
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:



 

They were the Celtic-speaking " Romano-Britons " before the arrival of Anglo-Saxon Germanic tribes.

 

Me and many of you surely have read more than enough of how Anglo-Saxon or Germanic the English are blah blah blah ... lol.I want to know what happened to those natives,wiped out or absorbed by the invading conquests ? Roughly what percentage of modern day English gene pool can trace to England's indigenous people ? I am aware of Viking & Norman components,surname suffix ending " sen " or " son " most likely has Viking ancestry.

 

 


Archaeology magazine had an interesting article about this a few years back but I am not sure how you would find it. I do not believe the Angle, Jutes or Saxons wiped out the Romanized Celts. I can believe they might have killed most of the men and kept the women. The article did support this belief via genetics. I wish I could locate it- darn. If you are really interested I would go into the archives of "Archaeology Magazine." It is the American Archaeology Society and I love their lectures.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:57
Some extinct beasts could be considered as monsters in the ancient times, why shouldn't we accept the existence of them? Just because they don't exist now? You have to believe there should be a reason that several sources in the different periods mention something, there have been always some researchers and analysts, not just in the last century, who researched about these thing, as I know in the Islamic world from at least 1200 years ago http://books.google.com/books?id=RDSJ9aoxNKsC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&source=web&ots=BcxyoqemAz&sig=B5uhj-gz8N_-K8q_r3Pj911UIFY&hl=en&ei=LRGbSc2lA8yp-gajttWUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result - 'ilm al-rijal' -> ("science dealing with the scrutiny of the reporters") dealing with source criticism, existed and numerous books were written in this subject. If you want to be just, you will see that Bede, Nennius and other English historians did the same thing too but they could never deny a historical fact that probably the whole people of England believed it. 
New researches certainly show the precense of a Scythian people in England some hundreds years before Bede and other English historians, for example you can read here: http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-10/szarme.htm - http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-10/szarme.htm about Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England, it is good that you read new researched about of the Arthurian legend that I had mentioned in a thread about it:
 
http://www.magtudin.org/Arthur%20part%201.htm - http://www.magtudin.org/Arthur%20part%201.htm
 
A NEW VIEW OF THE ARTHURIAN LEGENDS
 
"Some of the new research points us to some quite unexpected people as originators of the Arthurian legends. These are the Sarmatians and, the Alans,  ancient peoples who once inhabited much of continental Europe and their descendants, the Ossets, who still flourish within the boundaries of what used to be the Soviet Union, in the Caucasus region. In the 1997 January and February  issues  of the Archeological Journal, Scott C. Littleton, Professor of Anthropology at the Occidental College in Los Angeles, published  an article entitled Were Sarmatians the Source of Arthurian Legend? He writes  that, in 175 A.D., Marcus Aurelius dispatched 5,500 Iazyg (Sarmatian) warriors from the Danube region to England. In Professor Littleton’s opinion, it is from their culture that the Arthurian legend and the legend of the Holy Grail originated."
 
You can't deny all historical facts just because you don't like to believe the presence of an Iranian people in England in the ancient times.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:33
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.

I guess if you were in England ...

Well, the question was about England, not about Wales. Or Ireland or Scotland. The fact that English speakers were only given surnames that late indicates that they have a linguistic origin long after most or the ethnic divisions had been forgotten.
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:38
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

[
The sources you invoke say nothing about a Scythian origin of the "English nation" or about a pre-historical Scythian migration in Britain (they do as much as Perrault's stories say about talking cats).
Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:41
I have read lots of Bede, Cyrus.  He is generally "trustworthy" for events that happened in his time and in the time of recent memory.  However, to call him "trustworthy" for events that occurred beyond that time in the past is not historically prudent.  Had you read him closely you would find that he only mentions the Picts as Scythian not the Britons.  You should also know that the Picts were mostly relegated to what is now Scotland.  

Nobody has denied the fact that Romans stationed Sarmatians in Britain; however, this garrison was nowhere near the size to have a drastic imprint on the culture and society.  Rome had more of an impact then the Sarmatians stationed there.

Arthurian mythology doesn't really start until after the Romans leave Britain in the early 5th Century.  There is a reason that Arthur's first real foes are the Angles and the Saxons.  Furthermore, the Grail story is an addition to Arthuriana by Chretien de Troyes and hardly contemporary with the advent of the Arthurian Myth.  The Grail is first mentioned in conjunction with the Arthurian myth in the story of Percival written by Chretien in the 12th Century.  Let's not conflate the Early Medieval Chronicles with High Medieval Romance.  Before you start espousing your "theories" you should probably read up on Medieval English History and the sources from which you wish to cull your information.

By the way, who has said that what Bede wrote is Historical Fact?  Also, you did not address the major point of my previous post so I will repeat it.  How can we say that Bede, Nennius, ASC, Geoffrey of Monmouth, et al. are all independent sources?  Bede because of his position in the writing of History (and other works) would have definitely been known to Nennius, the compiler(s) of the ASC, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc. and most certainly would have been imitated if not lifted.  Just because Bede says that Picts were Scythians and is seconded by the other names you mentioned (because they drew their information from Bede, not exactly an independent verification) doesn't mean that the claim is true.  Please note, Cyrus, that your claims lack a real criticism of the sources you are using and for them to be accepted and/or seriously considered you need to be more critical with what the sources claim.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:42
I believe the correct answer to the question at hand is the Trojans.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:57
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Well, the question was about England, not about Wales. Or Ireland or Scotland. The fact that English speakers were only given surnames that late indicates that they have a linguistic origin long after most or the ethnic divisions had been forgotten.

My bad. Do you happen to know if patronymics were ever in use among the Anglo-Saxons or is that habit restricted to the Gaels and Cymry? Or, to put it another way - do we have any idea what they did before they started using names like "Baker" and "Smith"?



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 22:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.
Well, Charles Perraut's fairy tales are actually about talking cats (like le chat botté). My point is no talking cats or Scythian prehistoric migrations in Britain ever existed. These sources say nothing about such real things, they only reflect the political, cultural, mental constructs of Anglo-Saxon (or English, if later) world.
 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 23:15
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

You can't deny all historical facts just because you don't like to believe the presence of an Iranian people in England in the ancient times.
What historical facts? That Roman Empire resettled population of various origins (including Sarmatians) all over, Britain included? No one is challenging that. But if some historians would harbor a theory that these Sarmatians formed a persistent ethnic enclave which would feed several later cultural traditions (the Arthurian legend in Britain, for instance) they must bring evidence, and they didn't. Such fringe theories are rather mentioned for their exotic nature than for some other merit.
 
Quote New researches certainly show the precense of a Scythian people in England some hundreds years before Bede and other English historians, for example you can read here
That's not new, that's very old (the book was published in 1960s, I don't know what material of Sulimirski they use, his book on Sarmatians was published in 1970). But that material is not about Scythians and moreover, IIRC, none of those authors endorse your theories that Scythians are among the first to settle Britain or that Scythian language and English language (or any other Germanic language) are related.
 
And certainly you have a very low standard for scholarship. Susan Tomory is a Hungarian author living in US for a long while, harboring a large variety of fringe theories (connections between Magyars and Basques, Sumerians, Philistines), and your article is no exception from that. One of the articles from magtudin.org qualifies this author as "independent researcher". That should say a lot.
As for the link (which probably you haven't read), it suggests that some of the Sarmatian tribes were actually the Magyars. "The Vettersfelde find is a beautiful summation of the mythology of three Magyar ethnic groups: the Jász, the Székely and the Magyar,  and proves their presence before the fifth century A.D. (sic!) in Europe."


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 20:13
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.
Well, Charles Perraut's fairy tales are actually about talking cats (like le chat botté). My point is no talking cats or Scythian prehistoric migrations in Britain ever existed. These sources say nothing about such real things, they only reflect the political, cultural, mental constructs of Anglo-Saxon (or English, if later) world.
 
That's true but the point is that Cyrus (unusually Smile) was right to say the ancient authors talk about a prehisoric migration from Scythia, nonsesne though it may be. (cf King John's post.)


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 23:08

But this is influenced by antique literature, those of the Romans and even the Greeks, when the European barbarian population was devided into just two groups, Celts and Scythians. The other source is the bible. The medieval writers tried to link their history with those of (their) biblical ancestors. Armenia was mentioned above. This is where Noah's arch is thought to be.

All the sources Cyrus uses are very important for history, but not because they tell us what was but because these sources can tell us how people thought about their history. It is Cyrus great mistake that he takes these stories for true.



Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 05:35
 
 
double post  
 


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 05:48
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
 
Yes, there was. Especially in the Medieval times. And don't forgetBig smile the royal house of England is of German origin. Both Lizzy and Phil belong to German houses, Saxon-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg.
 
 
How about present time,any subconscious affinity within these two populations in Europe or deep seated rivalry hinders it ?
 
Yes .. Britain's House of Wndsor is of German origin ( actually,foreign stock ... those poor conquered indigenous Britons  Cry ).This begs the question,how come anti-German sentiment exists with the late Lord Mountbatten " Anglicized " his surname to appease the English populace.Can we conclude Britain's royal family has unbroken Germanic patrilineal line ( excluding the Norman kings ) ?
 
Only in recent years,I discovered in fact that many Europe's dynasties have been " Germanic stock " included Mexico's last European emperor and empress.I am still puzzle by powerful European states ( especially England ) have always tried to keep down Germany ( the country ) and denied her place in the sun.I once had one casual conversation with a White middle-aged colleague regarding Germany & the Germans,he say very little and only blurred out one word " strong " Confused.
 
 


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 06:04
Unfortuantely nowadays in Europe the truly enlightened men are considered to be those who say biblical stories are untrue or mythical and try to disprove religious theories which are based on the bibile, for this purpose they have to deny all historical sources which talk about a migration from a region that religious theories also confirm them, it doesn't matter for them that this region is Scythia that is said to be the original land of Indo-European people, if it is even proved by all scholars then they will say Indo-Europeans never put their feet on England. Who is a racist? I think someone who says the pure race of our ancestors never mixed with migrated people from inferior lands because it is certainly impossible to prove there has never been any migration from a land to another land in Europe in very old times.
 
Of course there have been some real researches like Prof. Scott Littleton and Dr. Linda Ann Malcor who dig out the historical facts and complile valuable books like "From Scythia to Camelot" http://books.google.com/books?id=x9v0FaIgEFEC&printsec=frontcover - http://books.google.com/books?id=x9v0FaIgEFEC&printsec=frontcover  (published in 2000), 400 pages about this important ignored fact.


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 07:00

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Who is a racist? I think someone who says the pure race of our ancestors never mixed with migrated people from inferior lands

Wouldn't that make one a, er, landist?



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 08:56
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Of course there have been some real researches like Prof. Scott Littleton and Dr. Linda Ann Malcor who dig out the historical facts and complile valuable books like "From Scythia to Camelot" http://books.google.com/books?id=x9v0FaIgEFEC&printsec=frontcover - http://books.google.com/books?id=x9v0FaIgEFEC&printsec=frontcover  (published in 2000), 400 pages about this important ignored fact.
You probably google out search terms and bring here whatever you find, even you haven't read it. That book is not about prehistoric migrations of Scythians, but about some Sarmatian elements settled by Romans in Britain (actually some Iazyges deployed there under the command of Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd century Roman officer - but please note, he was not of Sarmatian extraction!) which allegedly inspired the Arthurian legend. A fringe theory, but it is not related with your theories with anything else but a finding a connections between Iranian speaking populations and England. Can you quote the two authors saying Scythian and Old English were related languages? Can you quote the two for a migration in England as you usually claim in your threads?
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 11:48
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

I have one question.Then,is there ever a strong kinship between English & Germans these past centuries since the creation of England.
 
Yes, there was. Especially in the Medieval times. And don't forgetBig smile the royal house of England is of German origin. Both Lizzy and Phil belong to German houses, Saxon-Coburg-Gotha and Battenberg.
 
 
How about present time,any subconscious affinity within these two populations in Europe or deep seated rivalry hinders it ?
On the whole, yes, despite the wars. Cousins can be intense rivals. On the whole in my experience the English nowadays - even during WW2 - felt closer to the Germanic peoples (Scandinavians, Dutch/Flemings, Germans) than to other Europeans.
Quote  
Yes .. Britain's House of Wndsor is of German origin ( actually,foreign stock ... those poor conquered indigenous Britons  Cry ).
Only because you are taking a patrilineal line. Look at the Queen's ancestors say five generations back and you'll find most of them are English or Scots. Many of them, possibly most, are not even aristocratic.
 
Incidentally, not one of the Queen's ancestors was born in the German Empire or the German Republic, but only in precursor states to them.
Quote
This begs the question,how come anti-German sentiment exists with the late Lord Mountbatten " Anglicized " his surname to appease the English populace.
It was a fairly temporary feeling (and was more intense in the US, I believe.) It wasn't the 'late Lord Mountbatten' who changed his name actually, but his father, Prince (not Lord) Louis, who followed the example of the King and most descendants of aristocratic German dynasties connected with the Royal Family in 1917. The change of surname wasn't actually as important as the relinquishing of the German titles: it's a bitt odd to call yourself a German prince while fighting against Germany.
Quote
Can we conclude Britain's royal family has unbroken Germanic patrineal line ( excluding the Nornam kings ) ?
I'm a bit confused by that. The Anglo-Saxons after all are Germanic, including the ones who ruled in Scotland. So are the Normans. The patrilineal line has been broken many times, so it's difficult to trace it all back, but the Tudor line went back to the Welsh in the person of Owen Tudor.  
Quote  
Only in recent years,I discovered in fact that many Europe's dynasties have been " Germanic stock " included Mexico's last European emperor and empress.
There is really only one single European 'Royal Family'. The most widespread influence in its heredity is Danish (IIRC), with English being in a strong place too. Actually the fact that Germany was a whole lot of small states until 1870 meant there were lots of 'royal' princes and princes to go round and provide suitable spouses.
Quote
I am still puzzle by powerful European states ( especially England ) have always tried to keep down Germany ( the country ) and denied her place in the sun.
Sounds like German propaganda. The reason Germany didn't find a 'place in the sun' was because it couldn't get its act together and form a single country until 1870, which left it well behind (in the imperial race, anyway. Industrially and commercially of course the group of states we now call Germany always had 'a place in the sun'.).
 
Nothing to do with Britain.
Quote
I once had one casual conversation with a White middle-aged colleague regarding Germany & the Germans,he say very little and only blurred out one word " strong " Confused.
Confused


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Who is a racist? I think someone who says the pure race of our ancestors never mixed with migrated people from inferior lands

Wouldn't that make one a, er, landist?

Maybe or even an ancestorist or anti-migratist!


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 20:23
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

You probably google out search terms and bring here whatever you find, even you haven't read it. That book is not about prehistoric migrations of Scythians, but about some Sarmatian elements settled by Romans in Britain (actually some Iazyges deployed there under the command of Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd century Roman officer - but please note, he was not of Sarmatian extraction!) which allegedly inspired the Arthurian legend. A fringe theory, but it is not related with your theories with anything else but a finding a connections between Iranian speaking populations and England. Can you quote the two authors saying Scythian and Old English were related languages? Can you quote the two for a migration in England as you usually claim in your threads?
It is not necessary that Scythian migration dates back 10,000 BC, we just know, according to some medieval English sources, it happened before the Middle Ages and as I myself said, it could be related to Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England in second century AD or earlier.
I have said several times that we don't know much about Scythian language but according to ancient sources, we can say that it could be very similar to British language, for example from the first century AD Tacitus in his Germania about the eastern neighbours of Germanic peoples says that their language more resembles the British -> http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html - http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html  as you read in the footnote, the reason could be that they retained the Scythico-Celtic language, which long prevailed in Britain.


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 20:41
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

You probably google out search terms and bring here whatever you find, even you haven't read it. That book is not about prehistoric migrations of Scythians, but about some Sarmatian elements settled by Romans in Britain (actually some Iazyges deployed there under the command of Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd century Roman officer - but please note, he was not of Sarmatian extraction!) which allegedly inspired the Arthurian legend. A fringe theory, but it is not related with your theories with anything else but a finding a connections between Iranian speaking populations and England. Can you quote the two authors saying Scythian and Old English were related languages? Can you quote the two for a migration in England as you usually claim in your threads?

It is not necessary that Scythian migration dates back 10,000 BC, we just know, according to some medieval English sources, it happened before the Middle Ages and as I myself said, it could be related to Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England in second century AD or earlier.

I have said several times that we don't know much about Scythian language but according to ancient sources, we can say that it could be very similar to British language, for example from the first century AD Tacitus in his Germania about the eastern neighbours of Germanic peoples says that their language more resembles the British -> http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html - http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html  as you read in the footnote, the reason could be that they retained the Scythico-Celtic language, which long prevailed in Britain.


British – you mean a Celtic dialect correct? There is some speculation that the Pictish tribes were possibly pre Indo European. The ancient Picts, or last I read, immigrated from Ireland but if they are pre –Indo European then who is to stay their migration route did not come through what we now call England. The Belgae were a Germanic tribe or some scholars believe this but the Sarmations came much later and I really have never read about any large scale immigration into the British Isles by these people. Some believe that some of King Arthur’s knights were Sarmation and a recent movie about King Arthur brings that into the plot. As far as I have read this is only speculation and has not been proven. So much of King Arthur is made of legend and myth and older movies always put him at a later date than, if he was real, he lived in.

for example from the first century AD Tacitus in his Germania about the eastern neighbours of Germanic peoples says that their language more resembles the British

What page is this? I will have to pull out my copy of Tacitus Germania and check it out.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 20:59
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

It is not necessary that Scythian migration dates back 10,000 BC, we just know, according to some medieval English sources, it happened before the Middle Ages and as I myself said, it could be related to Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England in second century AD or earlier.
But it was no migration, they were mainly soldiers fighting in the Roman army (and no medieval English sources know about them). At the same time in Roman Britain there were Egyptians, Thracians, Gauls, Greeks, Syrians, soldiers recruited from all the corners of the empire. And it was not only the army, it was a more profound cultural syncretism. For instance, check the religious cults of African or Near-Eastern origin, e.g. Jupiter Dolichenus, Dea Syria, Isis, etc. The Iranic element renders almost of no significance in this ethnic and cultural mosaic which was the Roman Britain.
 
Quote I have said several times that we don't know much about Scythian language but according to ancient sources, we can say that it could be very similar to British language, for example from the first century AD Tacitus in his Germania about the eastern neighbours of Germanic peoples says that their language more resembles the British -> http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html - http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html  as you read in the footnote, the reason could be that they retained the Scythico-Celtic language, which long prevailed in Britain.
That's because you use outdated editions of Tacitus. There's no Scythico-Celtic language. As for the Aestii, they were living on the Baltic sea shores and they are rather considered an ancient Baltic or Germanic-speaking population. Here's a newer edition of Tacitus + commentaries:  http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA317 - http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA317
 
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

What page is this? I will have to pull out my copy of Tacitus Germania and check it out.
Germania 45:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ger.shtml#45 - http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ger.shtml#45
http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA95 - http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA95
 
 
 
 


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 22:25
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

It is not necessary that Scythian migration dates back 10,000 BC, we just know, according to some medieval English sources, it happened before the Middle Ages and as I myself said, it could be related to Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England in second century AD or earlier.
But it was no migration, they were mainly soldiers fighting in the Roman army (and no medieval English sources know about them). At the same time in Roman Britain there were Egyptians, Thracians, Gauls, Greeks, Syrians, soldiers recruited from all the corners of the empire. And it was not only the army, it was a more profound cultural syncretism. For instance, check the religious cults of African or Near-Eastern origin, e.g. Jupiter Dolichenus, Dea Syria, Isis, etc. The Iranic element renders almost of no significance in this ethnic and cultural mosaic which was the Roman Britain.

 

Quote I have said several times that we don't know much about Scythian language but according to ancient sources, we can say that it could be very similar to British language, for example from the first century AD Tacitus in his Germania about the eastern neighbours of Germanic peoples says that their language more resembles the British -> http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html - http://www.elfinspell.com/TacitusGermany5.html  as you read in the footnote, the reason could be that they retained the Scythico-Celtic language, which long prevailed in Britain.
That's because you use outdated editions of Tacitus. There's no Scythico-Celtic language. As for the Aestii, they were living on the Baltic sea shores and they are rather considered an ancient Baltic or Germanic-speaking population. Here's a newer edition of Tacitus + commentaries:  http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA317 - http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA317

 

Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

What page is this? I will have to pull out my copy of Tacitus Germania and check it out.
Germania 45:

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ger.shtml#45 - http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ger.shtml#45

http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA95 - http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA95

 

 

 

 


thanks for the link but I need time to study it.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 23:32
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

   
How about present time,any subconscious affinity within these two populations in Europe or deep seated rivalry hinders it ?
I don't think that the Anglo-Saxon history of England is important for the relations between the two nations. I would say there is now just partnership. Parts of the British press try to keep the WWI and WWII alive and we have the "towel war" on the Balears, but I would no longer speak of a deep seated rivalry.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

   Yes .. Britain's House of Wndsor is of German origin ( actually,foreign stock ... those poor conquered indigenous Britons  Cry ).This begs the question,how come anti-German sentiment exists with the late Lord Mountbatten " Anglicized " his surname to appease the English populace.Can we conclude Britain's royal family has unbroken Germanic patrilineal line ( excluding the Norman kings ) ?
I never started a research of anti-German sentiment before WWI. But I would suppose there wasn't. I don't want to say something wrong, but usually in the last hundreds of years England stood aside of my former duchy or my duchy aside them. We e.g. supported them in the war against their American colonies. The anti-Germanic feeling started with WWI and the anti-Germanic hate propaganda. You can't tell your population Germans are Huns who rape woman and slaughter children and after the war it is all forgotten. And during WWII the British population suffered under the German threat again. Not as much as others. But this is a subjective feeling. But again, exept of some British press and a usual basal stock of idiots I don't think there is still a great anti#German feeling. I met a lot of English people and never had problems.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

   Can we conclude Britain's royal family has unbroken Germanic patrilineal line ( excluding the Norman kings ) ?
this depends of our view on it. If we take Phillip perhaps, I don't know the Battenberg family history. If we look to Lizzy II., I wouldn't call it so, cause there are so many generations, I don't think this is really important.
 
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

   Only in recent years,I discovered in fact that many Europe's dynasties have been " Germanic stock " included Mexico's last European emperor and empress.I am still puzzle by powerful European states ( especially England ) have always tried to keep down Germany ( the country ) and denied her place in the sun.I once had one casual conversation with a White middle-aged colleague regarding Germany & the Germans,he say very little and only blurred out one word " strong " Confused.

Well I think this is a result of our history. We have hundreds of sovereign kings and dukes and all the other titles. So it was interesting for foreign countries to get a bride from a German territory. And it was also interesting for German dynasties to give their daughters and sons abroad.

Every state tries to get power and influence and to keep their neighbours down as much as possible. The German situation is a result of their history of the breakdown of a central monarchy or the unability to install a strong monarchy for the Reich like it happened in England, Spain or France..


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2009 at 23:42
I should read all the postings before I post as well. Is saw gcle2003 gave some of the answers I gave before I could do it. So some is double.
 
Tacitus said that the language of tha Aesti sounds like those of the Britons. He didn't say they spoke the same language. We shouldn't expect he knew what he wrote. He was no modern linguist.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 12:16

Chilbudios, the newer edition of Tacitus that you suggested, is really interesting to read, I read some first pages of this book and found some good info about Scythians, Celts and Germanic people, I hope you yourself read it too.

For example lets see the pages 19-21: http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA19 - http://books.google.com/books?id=9xLVEPR-ax8C&pg=PA19

 
 


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 13:28
Cyrus, we know that, I do so for long and I am convinced all the others here too. The problem is, even when you use good sources you cannot or won't understand it.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 13:37
Cyrus, I am not sure what's your point. If anything, those paragraphs should tell you not to use the sources as you do, as most Scythian-Germanic (or Celtic-Germanic) connections are just a mental constructs, stereotypes.
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

[
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

   Can we conclude Britain's royal family has unbroken Germanic patrilineal line ( excluding the Norman kings ) ?
this depends of our view on it. If we take Phillip perhaps, I don't know the Battenberg family history.
 
Prince Philip is not a Battenberg, at least not in the male line. His mother's father was a Battenberg/Mountbatten, though his mother didn't use the name (being a royal Princess). Philip adopted the name 'Mountbatten' from his uncle shortly before his marriage in 1947.
 
As the son of Prince Andrew of Greece Philip was born Greek but dynastically is, like his father, of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which is as much Danish as anything.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2009 at 11:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
 
 
How about present time,any subconscious affinity within these two populations in Europe or deep seated rivalry hinders it ?
 
[/QUOTE]
 
On the whole, yes, despite the wars. Cousins can be intense rivals. On the whole in my experience the English nowadays - even during WW2 - felt closer to the Germanic peoples (Scandinavians, Dutch/Flemings, Germans) than to other Europeans.
 
Quote  <
 
 
It's the same in the USA LOL
 
On average,most middle-class White-Americans of English or German or Scandinavian descent marry either their own or one another ( it seems preferrably,that's the case in Kansas at least ).
 
Berry/Rickner
Shank/Rivard
Barker/Rice
Gokmen/Hagaman
Sherer/Lunceford
Williams/Smith
Gettle/Quandt
Wells/Keesling
Compton/Thamann
Gross/Norton
 
I thought the Normans were French.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2009 at 22:45
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Prince Philip is not a Battenberg, at least not in the male line. His mother's father was a Battenberg/Mountbatten, though his mother didn't use the name (being a royal Princess). Philip adopted the name 'Mountbatten' from his uncle shortly before his marriage in 1947.
 
As the son of Prince Andrew of Greece Philip was born Greek but dynastically is, like his father, of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which is as much Danish as anything.
Yes, I had forgotten, from Glücksburg, you're right. But I wouldn't say it's Danish. BTW, to call the Windsors German was a joke. Yes they have German origins but when they became Kings of Britain they became British. When Katharina became Zar she was Russian and no longer German and I could name a lot more. We don't have a national nobility, it is mostly European.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2009 at 07:40
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
 
 
 
On the whole, yes, despite the wars. Cousins can be intense rivals. On the whole in my experience the English nowadays - even during WW2 - felt closer to the Germanic peoples (Scandinavians, Dutch/Flemings, Germans) than to other Europeans.
 
Quote  
 
 
 
 
 
 
One last question,is there solidarity or every man for himself ( i.e. British royal family turned its back on last Czarina Alexandra of Imperial Russia,a granddaughter of Queen Victoria ).
 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2009 at 11:46
The British Royal Family didn't turn their backs on the Czar's family (they were also related since Nicholas' mother was sister to the English Dowager Queen Alexandra), though they couldn't do much for Nicholas's immediate family.
 
George V was instrumental in sending the batleship HMS Marlborough to the Crimea during the civil war to rescue his aunt the Dowager Empress Maria, and his cousins Grand Duchess Xenia, the Czar's sister, and Grand Duke Nicholas, the Czar's cousin.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2009 at 12:03
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
As the son of Prince Andrew of Greece Philip was born Greek but dynastically is, like his father, of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which is as much Danish as anything.
Yes, I had forgotten, from Glücksburg, you're right. But I wouldn't say it's Danish.
That's why I said 'as Danish as anything'.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 09:38
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Prince Philip is not a Battenberg, at least not in the male line. His mother's father was a Battenberg/Mountbatten, though his mother didn't use the name (being a royal Princess). Philip adopted the name 'Mountbatten' from his uncle shortly before his marriage in 1947.
 
As the son of Prince Andrew of Greece Philip was born Greek but dynastically is, like his father, of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, which is as much Danish as anything.
Yes, I had forgotten, from Glücksburg, you're right. But I wouldn't say it's Danish. BTW, to call the Windsors German was a joke. Yes they have German origins but when they became Kings of Britain they became British. When Katharina became Zar she was Russian and no longer German and I could name a lot more. We don't have a national nobility, it is mostly European.
´ Georg of Greece was certainly a Dane, no question about that. Doesn't matter they gave him the prince of Glückburg title - he was no more German than the Prince of Wales is Welsh.Smile


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 14:00
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

  Georg of Greece was certainly a Dane, no question about that. Doesn't matter they gave him the prince of Glückburg title - he was no more German than the Prince of Wales is Welsh.Smile
Yes and No. That's why I call the nobility European. Georg was born in Danmark, that's right and he was the son of Christian of Danmark, that's right. I don't know if he felt Danish or something else. His father was Wilhelm of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg-.....He was born near Königsberg. So he was probably German. And now? Georg's mother was Karoline of Hessen-Kassel. Georg's wife was a Romanov, so what what was his son Andreas of Greece and Danmark? Greece, Danish, German, Russian? And Philip's mother was a Battenberg, a lineage from the House of Hessen-Darmstadt.
So it is the question if Georg of Greece is certainly a Dane! But we're hijacking the thread. I said it above, it was a joke to call the Windsors German. They have German ancestors, but that's all. There is no national nobility in Europe, that is my conclusion.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 14:34
My conclusion too.
 
However, I figure that one at least of the present Prince of Wales' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers was Welsh. (Owen Tudor)


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 14:48
I don't disagree. It's quite difficult to speak of nationality in these cases. 


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 15:04
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Cyrus, we know that, I do so for long and I am convinced all the others here too. The problem is, even when you use good sources you cannot or won't understand it.
I think the problem is that you think the only one who can understand these texts, is you but I don't know why you never explain your understanding of the concept of them to us! By my understanding it says Germanic peoples appeared in a region in the north which was before known as the lands of Celtic or Scythian peoples, of course mostly Scythian because it itself says Scythians were in the north but Celts in the west, anyway the important point is that Germanic peoples probably from a more northern region, like Scandinavia, migrated to the land of Scythians, where some Irano-Germanic languages like Saxon were formed, it is possible that in this time a group of Scythians had to leave their land towards England.


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 15:23

Cyrus, the Celtike and Scythia are names for an unknown northern region. It doesn't mean there lived only Celts or Scythians.

In Germany we usually call everyone east of Poland Russian, sometimes if we're very angry we include Poles too. But Poles, Ukrainians, Usbekistanis or Kasachs are of course no Russians and we usually know that. We as well call the native Americans Indians. We know that they aren't from Bombay and Kalkutta but we never changed the expression. That is probably even better as my Russian example.

The Romans and Greeks had any interest in the ethnicity of barbarian people. If they lived in the West they were Celts, if they were riding on horses they were Scythians. Everyone between was Celtoskythian.
 
Cyrus, I told you about the Saxon history. Perhaps it would be wise if you think about it for a while instead of repeating on and on your unscientific nonsense about Saxons.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 17:00
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Cyrus, the Celtike and Scythia are names for an unknown northern region. It doesn't mean there lived only Celts or Scythians.

In Germany we usually call everyone east of Poland Russian, sometimes if we're very angry we include Poles too. But Poles, Ukrainians, Usbekistanis or Kasachs are of course no Russians and we usually know that. We as well call the native Americans Indians. We know that they aren't from Bombay and Kalkutta but we never changed the expression. That is probably even better as my Russian example.

The Romans and Greeks had any interest in the ethnicity of barbarian people. If they lived in the West they were Celts, if they were riding on horses they were Scythians. Everyone between was Celtoskythian.
 
Cyrus, I told you about the Saxon history. Perhaps it would be wise if you think about it for a while instead of repeating on and on your unscientific nonsense about Saxons.
 
May I ask why we shouldn't believe what the Greek and Romans sources say about Scythian presence in those regions in the north when all archaeological finds support them? I think the problem is that you even don't believe Scyhtians to be a real people, you certainly remember my this post in Iranian & Germanic thread:
 
The Cambridge History of Iran
By William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshater, R. N. Frye, J. A. Boyle, Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville

Do you know someone else who knows more than them about the Iranian peoples?

http://books.google.com/books?id=vRR8dfI7j_kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&&source=bl&ots=tgIv73v2NJ&sig=wb-dpPZkfDC5ImCvWJeqagZ-L30&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA192,M1 - The Cambridge History of Iran, page 192



Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 17:16

I think I told you about the map. The book is fpublished in 1985. That doesn't mean it is wrong, I don't want to say this, but if we have new research we should use it too, shouldn't we?

I don't know why you think I believe Scythians aren't real? One could make a map of Geek, Etruscian or Roman material like you show us from the Scythians. You wouldn't believe that the North Sea was Etruscian, wouldn't you?



Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 18:12
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

I think I told you about the map. The book is fpublished in 1985. That doesn't mean it is wrong, I don't want to say this, but if we have new research we should use it too, shouldn't we?

I don't know why you think I believe Scythians aren't real? One could make a map of Geek, Etruscian or Roman material like you show us from the Scythians. You wouldn't believe that the North Sea was Etruscian, wouldn't you?

So why do you think all ancient Greek and Roman sources and medieval English sources were wrong about Scythians? It seems as if you neither believe what others say about my ancestors, nor what I myself say, so I have to ask that you believe my ancestors were a real people or not?!!


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 18:25

So you are a Scythian?

Greek authors had no interests in the barbarian nations north of them. Even when the Romans realized that Germans were no Celts, the Greeks went on calling Germanic nation Celts. The early Romans followed that tradition but during the times they got better informations. so they did not go on calling Germans Celts nor Scythians. With Poseidonius and especially with Cesar they new that there were Germanic people. That doesn't mean they weren't there before.

Your medieval authors used Roman and Greek sources and they tried to combine biblical stories with the history of their people. a lot tried to link the northern people with mediterranian heros, with Troy, with Alexander. That are tales not historical facts,recognize a PhD should be able to recognize this.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 18:32


Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:


So why do you think all ancient Greek and Roman sources and medieval English sources were wrong about Scythians? It seems as if you neither believe what others say about my ancestors, nor what I myself say, so I have to ask that you believe my ancestors were a real people or not?!!

The Scyths were ancestors to the peoples living in and around Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia etc. I thought you were Iranian? If your theories would be correct, me and beorna would be more descendant from the Scyths than you are. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the glory of the Scyths based on your nationality alone. No one else except you are taking people's nationalities in consideration when discussing this.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 18:54
The map says that the Scythians did a great trade in arrowheads, but that they were restricted, in Europe, to 'Cossack country' and a bit of roughly speaking Romania.
 
Whatever the truth of the matter, why do you claim this map supports your case?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 19:43
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Cyrus, the Celtike and Scythia are names for an unknown northern region. It doesn't mean there lived only Celts or Scythians.

In Germany we usually call everyone east of Poland Russian, sometimes if we're very angry we include Poles too. But Poles, Ukrainians, Usbekistanis or Kasachs are of course no Russians and we usually know that. We as well call the native Americans Indians. We know that they aren't from Bombay and Kalkutta but we never changed the expression. That is probably even better as my Russian example.

The Romans and Greeks had any interest in the ethnicity of barbarian people. If they lived in the West they were Celts, if they were riding on horses they were Scythians. Everyone between was Celtoskythian.
 
Cyrus, I told you about the Saxon history. Perhaps it would be wise if you think about it for a while instead of repeating on and on your unscientific nonsense about Saxons.
 
May I ask why we shouldn't believe what the Greek and Romans sources say about Scythian presence in those regions in the north when all archaeological finds support them? I think the problem is that you even don't believe Scyhtians to be a real people, you certainly remember my this post in Iranian & Germanic thread:
 
The Cambridge History of Iran
By William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshater, R. N. Frye, J. A. Boyle, Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville

Do you know someone else who knows more than them about the Iranian peoples?

http://books.google.com/books?id=vRR8dfI7j_kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&&source=bl&ots=tgIv73v2NJ&sig=wb-dpPZkfDC5ImCvWJeqagZ-L30&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA192,M1 - The Cambridge History of Iran, page 192

Cyrus, allow me to draw your attention to the map key for a moment.  In this key you will see that the areas of the Scythian culture are marked with a boundary represented by a line of short dashes broken by a dot.  The area for which this is a boundary for only goes slightly past the Dnieper River and does not touch the Vistula.  The other boundaries demarcated on this map are Lusatian Culture and Hallstatt culture, are you saying that the Scythians were the founders of these cultures?  No one has claimed that the Scythians are not real people, why do you take criticism of your argument so personally?


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 06:22
I never said that Scythians were the founder of Lusatian Culture (1300 BC-500 BC) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture  but the people who brought to an end this culture in 500 BC, it is good that you read the previous page of the book:
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=vRR8dfI7j_kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&source=bl&ots=tgHA91r6TD&sig=hTOdS4AwLX00k0m9rLWIaDu1tdU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result - The Cambridge History of Iran, page 191
 
"Destroyed earthworks in the lands of the Lusatian culture, with Scythian arrowheads sticking in their outer defensive walls, and traces of other hostile Scythian activities, have been found all over its territory. The shock inflicted was the cause of the downfall of the Lusatian culture. The advance of the Scyths may be followed, via southern Germany, as far as France. The Scyths appear as the forerunners of the Huns and Avars of the Migration period."


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 09:25
 
Scythia theory " eccentric " supporters Hard Working now go as far as claiming ownership Shocked of Chinese civilization's Iron Age & such  LOL 


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 09:35
Cyrus, but your map and your quotes do not show any migration, but an area of contact: raiding and trading. King John already pointed out how Scythian culture is represented on that map. 
 
As for your book, the "western advance of the Scyths" is compared with those of the Huns and of the Avars. Even if larger warrior groups ventured in the west, they probably left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges. Like the Huns and the Avars.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 14:00
I know, because of your bias towards your European heritage, you can never believe there could be any influence on your proud culture from inferior Eastern peoples but I have to say the historical facts which have been confirmed by your own ancient and medieval sources.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 14:12
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I know, because of your bias towards your European heritage, you can never believe there could be any influence on your proud culture from inferior Eastern peoples but I have to say the historical facts which have been confirmed by your own ancient and medieval sources.

 Can you not argue without making personal attacks and accusations? Show me anyone who made such a claim. You seem to have an inferiority complex, assuming we think we are greater than you. Everyone here knows and acknowledges the huge influence from eastern cultures, starting with agriculture itself, followed by for example the Persian and Arab scientists. You are the one with racist behaviour here, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you to be supremacists.

I will tell you why your theories are not taken seriously. First, all your claims have been very poorly based. You supported your Germanic-Iranic claims by arguments by looking at similar words in modern dictionaries, failing to use any sort of scientific method. You of course ignored all linguists who specialize in the field. You literature review lacks, well basicly everything taught starting from college level: source criticism. That you have used tons of sources which you never even read and turned out to say the opposite of what you claimed doesn't really strengthen your case either.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:04
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I know, because of your bias towards your European heritage, you can never believe there could be any influence on your proud culture from inferior Eastern peoples but I have to say the historical facts which have been confirmed by your own ancient and medieval sources.

 Can you not argue without making personal attacks and accusations? Show me anyone who made such a claim. You seem to have an inferiority complex, assuming we think we are greater than you. Everyone here knows and acknowledges the huge influence from eastern cultures, starting with agriculture itself, followed by for example the Persian and Arab scientists. You are the one with racist behaviour here, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you to be supremacists.

I will tell you why your theories are not taken seriously. First, all your claims have been very poorly based. You supported your Germanic-Iranic claims by arguments by looking at similar words in modern dictionaries, failing to use any sort of scientific method. You of course ignored all linguists who specialize in the field. You literature review lacks, well basicly everything taught starting from college level: source criticism. That you have used tons of sources which you never even read and turned out to say the opposite of what you claimed doesn't really strengthen your case either.
I replied to Chilbudios who said "As for your book, the "western advance of the Scyths" is compared with those of the Huns and of the Avars. Even if larger warrior groups ventured in the west, they probably left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges. Like the Huns and the Avars.", what is the meaning of it?! Is it a racist statement or what I said about it? Do you believe that Scythians, Huns and Avars left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges in Europe?
About Iranian and Germanic thread, you can read there that we compared those languages not only lexically but phonologically, grammatically and in other linguistic aspects and about source criticism, I said that when we see all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidences support them, why shouldn't we believe them?!! Just because what those sources say, sounds a little strange for you?!!


Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:14
I can think of one vestige left by the Huns in European culture: the very image of "the Hun", applied derogatorily to a rival/enemy considered particularly barbarous (thus, the Brits called the Germans in WWI "the Hun").

Another is a conviction held by some to be their descendants (I've met a secui who was adamant about this). I will not discuss here the truth behind such a claim because in matter of "ethnic identity" what you believe to be is often more important than what you are.

But other than these two things, could you point to other, more visible vestiges left behind by Huns and Avars?


-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:33
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I replied to Chilbudios who said "As for your book, the "western advance of the Scyths" is compared with those of the Huns and of the Avars. Even if larger warrior groups ventured in the west, they probably left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges. Like the Huns and the Avars.", what is the meaning of it?! Is it a racist statement or what I said about it? Do you believe that Scythians, Huns and Avars left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges in Europe?


In most places, they didn't leave much, no. They brought mainly destruction. The Japanese didn't leave much linguistical or cultural legacies after their rampaging through China in the 1930s either. It has nothing to do with West vs East. What do you think the Huns or Avars left?
Quote
About Iranian and Germanic thread, you can read there that we compared those languages not only lexically but phonologically, grammatically and in other linguistic aspects and about source criticism, I said that when we see all archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidences support them, why shouldn't we believe them?!! Just because what those sources say, sounds a little strange for you?!!

For the hundreth time, only you are seeing these "linguistic aspects". Linguists have been studying this for decades, specializing in the field and thoroughly shown you wrong. Germanic is much closer to Slavic than to Iranic languages, and that has been shown through many a study. You are the only one in that thread who didn't even read the basics about linguistics. EVERYONE in that thread has disagreed with you, Persians as well as Europeans and Americans.

The archaeological evidence you have shown is also extremely lacking. There is a pattern here. You say: this is evidence for Apples. But the thing you show is evidence for Pears. Sometimes it has even been evidence that disproves Apples!


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I replied to Chilbudios who said "As for your book, the "western advance of the Scyths" is compared with those of the Huns and of the Avars. Even if larger warrior groups ventured in the west, they probably left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges. Like the Huns and the Avars.", what is the meaning of it?! Is it a racist statement or what I said about it? Do you believe that Scythians, Huns and Avars left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges in Europe?
What's racist in that? Are Scythian, Hunnic or Avar languages spoken today in Europe? Is anything of their political, social organization left? A religion? A monument? Except for some mythologies (a large part fabricated by other European populations based on perpetuating stereotypes and patterns) and perhaps some improvements in horseback raiding and horseback warfare, I can't think now for much else. That's why I mentioned the significance. They are far from being the great ancestors you try to make them be. And though I might be biased, I'm no eurocentrist. I believe, for instance, Europe owes much more to Persians or even Chinese, not to Scythians.
 
And even if these Scythians were in contacts with Central Europe, with some isolated groups even reaching Western Europe, their influence (if any) in the British Isles must be extremely dim.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 20:52
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

What's racist in that?
Saying Eastern people who lived in Europe left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges.
 
Quote Are Scythian, Hunnic or Avar languages spoken today in Europe?
I think the same ancient languges are spoken nowhere, are Latin, Saxon or Gaulish spoken today in Europe? Does it mean they had no influence on modern European languages?
 
Quote Is anything of their political, social organization left?
There are numerous things but the problem is that logic has no meaning for you and you never want to believe any influence from the east, lets read what you replied to my this post: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=491480#491480 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=491480#491480
 
Chilbudios, would you please also answer this question: Do the administrative divisions of Indo-European countries relate to their proto-Indo-European languages or they were developed later?
You can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran Modern Iran is divided into provinces and counties, the Persian word for county is Shahr from Old Persian "Shatra", so the counties of Iran are usually referred to with a "-shahr" suffix and named after their capital, such as Khorramshahr, Fereydunshahr, Noshahr, Bushehr,  ... Shahr is controlled by a governor known as Shahrip (arabicized Shahrab, Old Persian Shatrapa, hellenized Satrap and Modern Persian Shahrdar), from the link: "the Sassanids—like the Achaemenids—had a system of governors (MP: shahrab [arabicized]) personally appointed by the Emperor and directed by the central government.", there are also a subdivision which is called Dehun from Old Persian "Dahiyu" or Avestan "Dunhiu" (enclosed land).

You know in Ossetian/Scythian language Persian "p" should be changed to "f" and "d" to "t", so we have Old Saxon "Sher", modern English Shire -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shire which were controlled by a royal official known as a Sheriff. from the link: "Shire" can also be used in a narrower sense, referring only to ancient counties ending in "shire". These counties are typically (though not always) named after their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_town - county town , Shires in England include Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, ... and you know Old Saxon "Tun", English "Town" which also means "enclosed land" -> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=town&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=town&searchmode=none

and your reply:
 
Chilbudios: Huh? Why don't you start with United States, and then we'll discuss Eurasia.
 
Quote A religion?
What was the major religion in Europe before Christianity? Mithraism, yes? Wasn't it a Scythian religion? You know the famous London Mithraeum.
 
Quote A monument?
Like Scythian monument in Vettersfelde in northern Germany, yes? There are several other ones.


Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 21:44
Mithraism was but one of the many Oriental cults (or, to use a more appropriate terminology, proposed by R. Turcan, "Greco-Oriental") that flourished in the Hellenistic and later Roman world. It was by no means "the major religion in Europe before Christianity", just "one of the many important religions in Europe before Christianity".

Moreover, there are no links between Mithraism and Scythia.

There are studies which link certain aspects of Mithraism with Oriental realities (Median linguistic imports, Mesopotamian theology, Zoroastrian ideas etc.), but all modern researchers agree that the Roman or Western Mithraism is fundamentally a different religion than simply "focused Zoroastrianism", as the godfather of the domain, Fr. Cumont, believed, and that this religion originated within the Greco-Roman world, perhaps in Commagene.


-------------


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 00:37

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

What was the major religion in Europe before Christianity? Mithraism, yes? Wasn't it a Scythian religion? You know the famous London Mithraeum.

Uhm, definately not in Britain. The religion in Britain before the Romans was Druidism and Mithras was unknown, until the Romans brought him. The Mithraeum was not built until around 250 AD, by the Romans. Mithras was an imported alien god to the Britons, and apparently not a very appealing one, as the Mithraeum was rededicated to Bacchus after only about a century.



Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 07:44
Perhaps you can help me, Cyrus. But I don't know any single place in OLD SAXON that has a -shire in it's name. If you speak of Anglosaxons in Britain, please, speak of Anglosaxons, if you speak of Old Saxons than they have nothing to do with Britain but with the continent.
 
Please, Cyrus, how often do I have to tell you the newest research about Vettersfelde? Shall I spell it for you or what's your problem?
 
You say we deny Eastern influence and are too eurocentristic? As far as I know the Scythians lived North of the Black Sea, that, as far as I know, perhaps I am wrong, belongs to Europe. So why should we deny Scythians, then? And what's about the Indo-Europeans, usually it is accepted that they came from the East. Christianity came from the East! Your accuse is rediculous.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 07:47


Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:


Saying Eastern people who lived in Europe left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges.

Are you serious?

Quote
I think the same ancient languges are spoken nowhere, are Latin, Saxon or Gaulish spoken today in Europe? Does it mean they had no influence on modern European languages?


Latin, Saxon and Gaulish is still spoken as mother tongue by hundreds of millions. They have evolved into a dozen other languages, but it's still the same root. You make yourself seem extremely ignorant asking a question like that.


Quote What was the major religion in Europe before Christianity? Mithraism, yes?

No, it wasn't.

Quote
Like Scythian monument in Vettersfelde in northern Germany, yes? There are several other ones.

We've discussed Vettersfelde at least ten times. You've been shown wrong ten times. Why do you never learn?


We discussed shire and sheriff a dozen times already, and your attempts at etymology have been shown wrong. You never tried to discuss back, you just iterated you erroneous claims in yet another thread. How do you think that makes you look?


Posted By: tullyccro
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 08:17
I thought that some of the archaeological and linguistic evidence points to a parallel or at least a distinct English culture which was markedly different from continental Celtic culture.

I know the early Bronze Age similarities might point to a common civilization between continental and British Celts, but to the effect that migrating continental Celts and other peoples (such as Eastern and Central Europeans) would have been displacing a drastically different, more "native" (hate that word) population as they moved to the Isles, as the Saxons, Angles, and other groups later did to them as well.

At least, I think there's a myth of some kind of Celtic monoculture existing in North-Western Europe and I'm not sure that's accurate. Consider the difference between the Macedonians and the Greeks, for example. We kind of lump them together, despite the terms Hellenic and Hellenistic, but very different economic, political, philosophic, religious and cultural forces were at work and there are extremely significant differences, and the subjection of Greece at the hands of Philip was an extremely traumatic event, a genocide or at least a suppression of culture. Food for thought. 


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 09:03
 
When comes to ancient history,I say it's the Chinese ( an Eastern people ) are most ethnocentric.Many average folk would be up in arms to any suggestion or sketchy facts ( it's the case lately on the web ) regarding Scythian culture contributed to the foundation of early Chinese civilization.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 09:52
Originally posted by Cyrus Cyrus wrote:

Saying Eastern people who lived in Europe left no significant cultural and linguistic vestiges.
I didn't say that (if you want to suggest that I said "all eastern people" or "eastern people in general"), I said Scythians, Huns, Avars. I openly admitted significant influence from other "eastern people" like Persians or Chinese.
 
Quote I think the same ancient languges are spoken nowhere, are Latin, Saxon or Gaulish spoken today in Europe? Does it mean they had no influence on modern European languages?
Latin and Saxon are arguably spoken as these languages evolved so much in time, that today they have a different form. But I see your point, and yes, there are some languages which vanished almost without a trace.
 
Quote There are numerous things but the problem is that logic has no meaning for you and you never want to believe any influence from the east, lets read what you replied to my this post
One thing is certain, that you don't know what I believe.
Do you even understand that answer of mine?
 
Quote What was the major religion in Europe before Christianity? Mithraism, yes? Wasn't it a Scythian religion? You know the famous London Mithraeum.
No, it was not the major religion (it was a popular one, though), nor a Scythian one.
 
Quote
Like Scythian monument in Vettersfelde in northern Germany, yes? There are several other ones.
If you put it that way a grave stone is a monument. Perhaps I was too vague, I was thinking of something more ... monumental, say the Arch of Constantine.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 09:56
I believe the cult of the Iranian god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness, existed in the northern Europe before the Roman times, for example we know the birthday of Mithra which is called Yule/Yuletide (Yalda in modern Persian) in both Iranian and Germanic languages, was celebrated on December 25 with the same Iranian ceremonies in those regions from the old times (before Christ)


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 10:17
Everybody celebrates the winter solstice at around the time of the, uh, winter solstice, assuming they celebrate it at all. How you can say anybody not using the later Roman calendar celebrated anything on December 25 I have no idea. How would they know it was December, let alone the 25th?

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 10:27
 
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

 
 
 
It is interesting to read about red-haired mummies which were found in the northwest of Iran (southern Armenia) in BBC Oxford:
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/articles/2005/10/04/saltman.shtml
 
 
 
 
 
I watched it on PBS channel back in the early 2000's,a documentary on redhead Chinese mummies excavated along the corridor of ancient Silk Road.I now wonder if they were Scythians LOL
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcyiiviM9_8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcyiiviM9_8
 

The Takla Makan Mummies

In the late 1980's, perfectly preserved 3000-year-old mummies began appearing in a remote Chinese desert. They had long reddish-blond hair, European features and didn't appear to be the ancestors of modern-day Chinese people. Archaeologists now think they may have been the citizens of an ancient civilization that existed at the crossroads between China and Europe
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html
 
 


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 11:13
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I believe the cult of the Iranian god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness, existed in the northern Europe before the Roman times, for example we know the birthday of Mithra which is called Yule/Yuletide (Yalda in modern Persian) in both Iranian and Germanic languages, was celebrated on December 25 with the same Iranian ceremonies in those regions from the old times (before Christ)

No. Jul, ie Midwinter, was celebrated on the midwinter solstice. Not on December 25th. So did most civilizations. The "birthday of Mithra" is NOT called Jul in the Germanic languages, and never was. Mithra wasn't even known. Why do you invent such nonsense?


Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 11:22
Quote I think the same ancient languges are spoken nowhere, are Latin, Saxon or Gaulish spoken today in Europe? Does it mean they had no influence on modern European languages?


Some linguists have analysed different stages of Latin, from the phonetical point of view. They argue that the difference between Archaic Latin and Classical Latin is more drastic than that between Classical Latin and Romance languages. Take the word for cattle (particularly for the donkeys or mules pulling the carriage):

AL: IOUXMENTA > CL: IUMENTA > Fr. jument.

It's true that from other points of view, such as syntax, the difference is more defined, but I guess you see my point: in many ways, Latin is STILL spoken nowadays.


-------------


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 11:35
Originally posted by khshayathiya khshayathiya wrote:

It's true that from other points of view, such as syntax, the difference is more defined, but I guess you see my point: in many ways, Latin is STILL spoken nowadays.
True. Moreover even Classical Latin (well, rather slightly modified, the so-called Neo-Latin) was largely used in early modern era, and to a smaller degree even today (in some scholarly or professional fields or even practiced by small groups of speakers). It's no longer the native language of some community, but it is still spoken.
 
In comparision, Scythian is not even very well known. A modern daughter of it may be the Ossetian language spoken in Northern Caucasus.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 14:55

Read this one: http://www.heroicage.org/issues/11/littletonmalcor.php - http://www.heroicage.org/issues/11/littletonmalcor.php

As you see modern researches also show very strong influence of Scythian culture on the Germanic culture, I am sure someday you will have to believe this historical fact. People who read this thread see that you have just denied my very logical comparison between Scythians and Germanic peoples.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net