Saxon and Scythian

 

If we recon 18 hours nigth - at midwinter - we reach north to the 60th paralell - which definitly places the origin of Mitra north of Persia and far into "Schytia".  The 60th paralell crosses Oslo - Uppsala - Helsinki - Petersburgh and Perm,  where the old Schytians had their northern relatives...

 

http://uralica.com/900ad.htm  (Schytians/Huns going westwards...)

 

The Schytian relations to the "happy Hyperborea" up north may be underestimated;

 

 

In this site you may find indications that the origin of the Avesta litterature were closely related to the etnic folklore of the Fenno-Ugrians, as it is shown in the "Kalevala".

 

The heartland of the latter are located to north-western Russia and Finland, where the very oldest habitats of modern man are located.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstand a bit what the Saxons really were - I suggest reading Sharrukin's posts again. The Huns came to Europe several centuries after the Saxon federation was mentioned the first time." 

 

The TERM "Sakser/Saxon" exists in the entire north of Europe, with small variations in spelling. Both Hungarians and Samojeds know of them as "Saksa/Saksalaiset".

 

Sharukkins reply simply states what ONE Greek and ONE Roman scholar are able/willing to communicate. Do not forget their possible bias, as they were both part of pretty confused and rather naughty politics - where the lands up north were objects of stigmatisation - and possible conquest.  Already in the time of Pliny the "barbarians" of the high north were defined as "primitives" - a consept that modern archeology already have proved to be definitly wrong. Making these comments to be "basic facts" is nothing but an old, out-dated, scholarly presumption.  Tacitus and other Romans MAY have threated the Germans just the way Goebels described the Jews...  Quoting them does not prove or disprove any of the general outlines we discuss here.     

 

Maybe you could re-read my last replies - and comment on the general outline I made, as well as the sources reffered to. They seem to agree on that the Schytians was a southern branch of the Fenno-Ugrians, that actually populated eastern Eurasia already during the Mesolithic/Neolethic. Simultaniously the "German" (western) populations were spreading throughout the western part of Eurasia, that laid open and uninhabbitted - north of the line from the Pyrenees (via the Alps/Balkans/ Caucasia) to Himalaya and Manchuria.

 

I also made a point of the mere fact that both of them - still - belong to the Caucasian etnicity - which point back to a common origin. Considering that they share an arctic outlook, culture and surrounding we may deduce that Schytians and Saxons have an old ancestry in common, just like Swedes and Finns do.  Please enjoy these sites;

 

 

 

 

 

As far as we know - from saga-material and exacvations combined - there is a possibility existing, that the first family of agriculturalists who came to Sweden had a family-head named Sven - and/or Svea.  Old sagas says they placed their residence in Uppsala, from where they created off-shots, that eventually came to populate the vaious lands/counties of todays Sweden.  In that case we had the Yng-linga-family as the original family that created all swedish counts, earls and peasants.  Translated "yng-linga-et" means "young-language-family".

 

Meanwhile the Danes constituted the "Pal-ett" ("Pole-Family"), from which a branch were populating the shores and lands east of Denmark. Later this population were "saxed" ("cut") from their Danish ancestors and a new capitol made at "Branden-borg". Thus they could have become "Saxons". Perhaps.

 

Since the Danes building "Danevirke" (740-50 AD) as The Defense towards the brutal crusaders from the south, their northern allies started to relate to their common shield against Romes corruption, greed and violence. Thus they were reffered to as "Shielders" or "Children of The Shield", as we may transelate the old Norse term "Skjold-unger/Skjellong". We still have the Danish name Sjel-land refering to these times - and the heartland of the Nordic defence against the first wave of war that finally reached Denmark and the entire Baltics - from the south. 

 

PS.: Whats the difference between "dynastic" and "etnic" - in this case? If all Danes are defined as "Children of old Dan, the First Dane and (thus) the legitimate King of Jutland" -  whats the difference between "dynastic" and "etnic".  Or are the people populating Denmark today not really Danes anymore? Please explain the discrepancies substantiating your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please re-read my argument on "etnic"/"dynastic" - and try to explain your former statements that I just questioned. (No need to use cheap humor from a modern dictionary.)

 

---

 

Further you try to explain that a great number of historical words and names do not count for anything. If that was the case we would a hopeless task trying to explain any old culture, with any sense to our contemporary minds.  Do you really think that all our regular surnames, family-names and national/etnic names just came falling out of the sky??

 

Your own example with Churchhill just contradicts the essence of your critique. Or do you really think that this familyname have nothing to do - at all - with churches and hills?!

 

The names of Gylfings, Skjoldungs, Budlungs, Ynglings, etc. have an even deeper root in their respective culture, as they obviously served as names for larger groups of peoples.

 

Stating that Yng/Ung and Ling/Lingua has nothing to do with classic semantics is a pretty blasted argument.  Unless the Schytian came out of Swahili-land, but "Skytia" as we find it in the northern hemisphere - we have to relate to the obvious IE semantics of historical words, names and expressions from the caucasian area.

 

My guess is that you still have to discover how linguists normally work to interpretate old and ancient languages - by aproaching the essential expressions of the closest culture(s) known to the the case-object, to form a basis for closer investigations.  Using the classic Scandinavian languages (Swedish and Finnish)  to explore the roots of past and present languages of Northern Europe is nothing but logic. Especially when it fits - beyond doubt - with the historical material known about the old Saxon and Schytians.  

 

Like finding the "Saxon" in old Norse (Saksa) as well as modern Norwegian

(Sakser). When the same name appears in the Finno-Ugrian world as well - in the terms "Sakson-ma/Saksa-laiset" (= Germany/Germans) - we have to presume that this word have  both,  1. A genuin meaning, and 2. An ancient origin. 

 

When Greek and Roman writers were to name this peoples they may have used other names. What the indigenous Europeans called Frank-land and Saks-land the Latin invaders came to call "Gaul" and "Germania". Different views, off course - but who was "rigth"? 

 

We may find that such old misconceptions still create confusion. A typical example of that is the old distinction made between Celts and Germans. Todays archeologists have had a hard time explaining the basic differences between these two, supposedly different cultures. Which have made some historians wonder if Caesars descriptions weren't both biased and inaccurate. In that case we have to re-consider the validity of "Il Bello Gallico" and other biased sources - as invalid.  

 

Funny that a many Swedes still trust old, foreign and biased sources about Northern Europe - prior the basic semantics of your own, ancient language.

 

 

 

Please understand that where some see just paper others see money. What I call may call wood others may insist are threes, - "only". In our cionfused day and age many find negations to be simple and safe - even if it is dishonest or outrigh dumb.

 

Growing up with the traditional view on Nordic history many Scandinavian conventionalists insist that the old Norse civilisation were nothing but a scattered bunch of primitive survivors, forced out to the brim of the old cultures - until the Greek-Roman church arrived "slowly civilizing these brute bastards".   Even if the Catholic and Ortodox churches lost their political impact more than a century ago we still have the long-termed effect of their millenial rule, where this explanation was indoctrinated in each and every institution and book about European culture. Only a decade ago we still believed that all the northern forms of culture and civilisation came from the Greek and Roman antiquity, with the help of the ancient Egyptians, Sumerian and Assyrian. Thus we could rest assured that we had a solid explanation of a "evolutionary" process that originatied in the "very first cities" of Ur, Uruk, Ninive and Petra. It fitted in with the Biblical stories, explaining the Judeo-Christian tradition as the origin of modern civilisation.

 

That worked pretty well as long as India was still a colony and China was basicly closed to modern science. Only the massive myths of the Tibetan myths as well as the Avestas and the Vedas made some of us somewhat uneasy about that, ALTHOUGH they both "lacked proves" of historical relevance. Today, as the Chinese mummies have proven Scytian migration to the northern China, we suddenly see an old Fenno-Scandian culture of Caucasians - that once populated the empty, arid continent north of the Caucasian mountains - from the western border-rivers of Torne� and Wizla/Weichsel all over to the Chinese Wall.  As they establish in the various landscapes we get the sub-groups that the Greek and Roman conquerors later name by the respective regions. Thus we get "Phrygians", "Dachians", "Schytians", "Huns", "Bactrians", "Vans" or "Veneti", etc.   As the Greek expand north we get "Slavs", while the Asian/Indian immigrants (Gypsies), traders (Phoenicians) and invaders (Semites) finally arrived to create mixed etnicities - such as the  Romani, Libanese and Tartars.

 

The specific origin of the Persian culture seem to be based on an old Greek population that was re-inforced by the Scythian (Aryan) culture. Later it was heavily influenced by the Indian/Asian soldiers that invaded the areas around the Persian Gulf. Finally they came to invade the Anatolian areas and the plains between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea - gaining controll of the Anatolian resources as well as the trade-routes between Asia and Europe.

 

See also; http://www.clanrossi.com/

 

Map from  Wikipedia;

 

Map of Dr. Elisabeth Barber;

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003409/china.htm

 

 

 

How do you prove that the Scytians did NOT exist simultaniously with the Saxons? How do you prove that the Saxons were NOT Germans? How do you distinguish between Ask, Asc, Ash and Askur - or Em, Elm, Al or Alm? Are they different threes - or (just) different words (languages/dialects) for the same three?!

 

And how do you explain that you consequently reject the simple basics about  Scythians and Persians that we have elaborated on already - where the relations between Saxons, Greek, Persian and Schytian are pretty well elaborated already?! 

 

Since the Scandinavians have been divided in two different cultures and etnicities - east and west of the Botnic Ocean - for the last 10.000 years, it should not be all that difficult to assess the basic outlines between eastern and western Europe as paralell realms. We still find Finno-Ugrians and Slavs to the east, while the Scandinavians and the Germans roam the west.

 

Recent genetics even simplify this picture when it is now concluding that the basic origin of all the northern cultures actually have populated their respective areas already since ice-time, while the southern part of Europe and Eurasia have seen more mixed dishes, due to the simple fact that the arctic and the tropic cultures have met - to mix and mingle - in the sub-arctic/sub-tropic areas. Thus you find a history of travel and trade back and forth between these areas already 7.000 years ago. Later we find traces of agressive intrusion as well, finally resulting in massive war-campaigns.

 

Due to the last two millenias of wars and massive migrations we may have a hard time to understand the origins and the ancient history of Trans-Caucasia. But there is no reason to debunk honest attempts and reject plain discoveries - even if they may APPEAR simplistic to the Haeglian mind-set. In life as in history you may find that simple clarity is a basic characteristic of a scientifc truth. 

 

If you have a complete understanding maths and relativity you may express it very short and simple.  It may take you a couple of decades to reach the entire understanding higher maths and you will need a load of books to understand the various aspects of the physical universe as we know it.  And yet we have people running around claiming that it can be explain in a short and simple formula of four signs -  only. Can you prove them wrong? Facing the Quantum theory you could not even explain why they are rigth. Simply because we have to accept that 99% true is the closest we can get. Thus I would recommend that you drop - at least for a while - the absolute demand of 100% identicality to accept paralellity between the historical cultures of Schytians, Huns, Hungarians and Finns. Understanding the width of the old Scytian populations - from Danube to Tarim - we may have to accept their influence on the Persian culture. We may even have to accept the possibility that they both originated from the southern Baltics, that seems to have been the hartland of the old Corded Ware culture that once spread from Weichsel to the Tarim Bassin. If the Persian traditions have any significance on its own, we may even have to accept that their ancestors - that they call Aryans - came from this northern hemisphere. Likewise we have to accept that there once was a linguistic relation between the Fenno-Ugrian and the Old Egyptian language, too. Which give the division between the Greek and Roman hemispheres an intersting paralellity and relation - to the paralell division of Northern Europe.

 

Add latest conclusions from Colin Renfrews and the Oxford scholars and we may understand that these respective cultures have developed their regional characteristics already before 7000 BP. Since that time the process of travel and trade between the Baltic and the Mediterranean cultures were on a steady growth for 4000 years - until it was corrupted when war arrived in the Mediterranean area.  Some millenia later this primitive brutality also reached the lands north of Caucasia and the Alps, as the corrupted Greek and Roman finally launched their own campaigns - where there still was some loot to gain - to the north. 

 

The chaos and confusion following the decline of the various empires have even corrupted our history books. Luckily we have reached a world were the natural sciences are able to pick up the pieces and prove some of the basic structures of these old societies, cultures and civilisations. Compared with the present facts we soon find the history books of 20 years ago to be completly outdated. Obviously there is still much left to excavate and investigate to get all the nitty-gritties straight, but there is no doubt that there have been idle and steady connections between the populations of from the Baltic to the entire east, as well as to the entire Atlantic Facade, who - in turn helped develop the Roman culture. Just as the (proto) Fenno-Ugrian "Aryans" had a certain impact on Greece, as well as Persia and India.  

 

Maybe it would better if you read your links before posting them.

Please just search four-eyed dog in Google and then reply: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=four-eyed-dog

 

Is it the same as the Greek three-headed and dragon-tailed dog Cerberus or famous Persian huge four-eyed dog Char-chashm (Four-eyed)?