QuoteReplyTopic: Saxon and Scythian Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 10:40
This is a fact that among all European languages, old Saxon language is the most similar one to Persian language. Don't you think that there should be a reason for this huge similarity?
SAXON.
PERSIAN.
am, I am.
am, I am.
aelan, to burn.
alaw, a flame of fire.
afora, a son.
afa, the eldest son.
andega, an appointed term
andan, a term.
abidan, to abide.
abadan, an abode.
are, honour.
aray, decoration.
arian, to honour.
arayidan, to adorn.
ase, as.
asay, like.
andget, the intellect, sense.
angar, reason. andgashtan, to think.
enge, trouble.
anjam, grief. andjugh, a sigh.
angel, a hook.
angulah, a button.
ewe, water.
aw, water.
earmth, misery.
urman, trouble.
ende, the end.
anjam, the end.
berend, fruitful.
bar, fruit.
beeran, to carry.
bar, a load.
brother, a brother.
bradar, a brother.
barn, a barn.
barn, a covered place.
bearn, a son.
barna, a youth.
bedan, to offer.
bedroz, a present.
balew, depraved.
bulad, a malefactor.
beal, destruction.
bulaghan, a calamity.
bilewite, simple.
biladah, foolish.
beado, cruelty.
bada, wickedness.
barbacan, a front tower.
burbik, a portico.
bur, a chamber.
barkh, an open room.
blessian, to bless.
balistan, to bless.
blad, fruit, the blade.
balidan, balandan, to grow
basing, a pallium, a chlamys. basuian, to be clothed in purple.
As Sharrukin already mentioned, first of all the Saxons were a conglomerate of smaller Germanic tribes, a confederation of tribes, not unlike the Franks, that had formed relatively late in the first centuries AD. And secondly, these tribes were Northern Germanic tribes, descendents of pre-historic settlers in Europe that had lived there ever since homo sapiens finally arrived in these regions, with very little later influx.
The Eastern Germanic tribes might have come into contact, mainly on their wanderings in the Russian steppes, and mixed with all kinds of people, but the people that later became the Saxons were a pretty settled bunch and didn't walk about too much until they set over to England in the 5th century.
I wish we could stop these dilettantic attempts on etymology, there are only so many sounds a human can make, and if two similar appaer on two different corners of the earth, it does not mean they are in any way related. And if anybody ever tries again to tell us that virtually all people in the universe and beyond are the descendents of some roaming Turkic, proto- or post- or what ever tribe, I'm gonna scream.
There is no doubt that what Tacitus and Ptolemy presented were mere "snapshots" of the situation in Germany. The Germanic tribes were notorious for forming "fly-by-night" leagues or even new tribes only to reform into new ones under a new leader. However, by the mid-third century AD, those leagues gained a certain coherency such as the Franks and Alemanni and no doubt, the Saxons.
The problem with both ptolemy and Tacitus is that they sooo very much wanted to divide the world in nice little cubicles to analise and name. The Greeks and Romans were very fond of nice clear divisions. Unfortunately, reality back then was no more clear cut or obvious than it is now. Peoples change, move and are re-named, and therefore are rather difficult to keep track of by a couple of desk-bound writers...
As the scythians are described as short and dark and the saxons as tall and blonde, I'd say there is very little chance they are the same, just because their names both start with an S.
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
When Tacitus wrote his Germania, (c. AD 96), he did not know about any "Saxons". Instead he knew about a group of tribes where the Saxons eventually were known to have been located. When the geographer Ptolemy (c. AD 150) wrote about Germany, that group of tribes no longer existed, but instead, their names were replaced by the name "Saxons". The conjecture, is that sometime between the time of Tacitus and Ptolemy, those tribes mentioned by Tacitus formed a league, much like the later Franks and Alemanni, which was named the Saxons. It is thus very unlikely that the Saxons had an Iranian origin. The Saxons in terms of ethnogenesis only originates in the 2nd century AD.
In the Nordic languages - which is supposed to still maintain its ancient semantics...
These etnicities have had different languages, as the Scytian belongs to the Fenno-Ugrian part and the Saxon to the Germanic part of old Eurasia.
The old division-line is still existing, although both languages have changed, due to Greek respectively Roman influence. But the old cultural border can be seen between Swedes and Finns, as well as along the river Wizla/Weichsel. Here the Slavic people relate to the Scytians while the Germans/Austrians and Swiz descend from the Saxons.
Though - it may be significant to stress that they both originate from one and the same source, - namely from a small group of h.s. sapiens that survived the end of ice-time in the Baltic, where the caucasian features developed...
That is conjecture she has no proof whatsoever she merely speculates. I have read that piece written by Sharon Turner, she also said that the Saxons were at some point defeated by the Persians and sent scuttering across Trans-Asia to end up in England.
Actually, there is no connection between the words Saxon and Scythian.
"The History of the Anglo-Saxons" by Sharon Turner (1768-1847):
"The Saxons were a German or Teutonic, that is, a Gothic or Scythian tribe; and of the various Scythian nations which have been recorded, the Sakai, or Sacae are the people from whom the descent of the Saxons may be inferred, with the least violation of probability. Sakai-suna, or the sons of the Sakai, abbreviated into Saksun, which is the same sound as Saxon, seems a reasonable etymology of the word Saxon."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum