Armenians, descendants of Sakson

how is saxon related to scythian? scythian is a greek word anyways, we know they called themselves sakas. sax and scalpel for that reason cannot be related, even if we play around with words. sax is not scy same as sex is not ski...

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Why not include sex, ship, sea, star and every other word that happen to start with an s? Cyrus, etymology and especially history do not work like this.

how is saxon related to scythian? scythian is a greek word anyways, we know they called themselves sakas.

You answered your question, Saka son & Saka.

sax and scalpel for that reason cannot be related, even if we play around with words. sax is not scy same as sex is not ski...

Do you mean "Saka" also doesn't relate to "Scythian"? Isn't it strange for you that the Persian word for "Scalpel" is "Sakalpad"?

Why not include sex, ship, sea, star and every other word that happen to start with an s? Cyrus, etymology and especially history do not work like this.

It was not too difficult to understand at least those words start with "sc" not just "s", there could be no relation between those words but what about these verbs:

Scyth: cut with a scythe
Score: cut a mark or notch on (a surface)
Scotch: cut the skin or surface of.
Scarify: cut debris from (a lawn).
Scarp: cut so as to form a scarp.
Scratch: cut with a sharp or pointed object
Scrub, Scart, Scathe, Scrape, Scab, Scar, ....

The name of the thread is clearly wrong.

Sharrukin, would you please tell me you idea about it:

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Anglo-Saxon-Chronicle1.html

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th Century. The original language is Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but later entries are essentially Middle English in tone.

Translation by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional
readings from the translation of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847).

The island Britain (1) is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British) (2), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia (3), 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. ...

A torc is jewelry common in celtic and germannic societies. However, they were not exclusive to these cultures... The kingdom of Aksum in Nubia (which sounds suspiciously like Saxon!) had an advanced torc-making jewelry, but it in no way correlates to the fact that they are connected to Anglo-Saxons. IIRC, torcs were also common in early Indian societies... not much correlation, other than proving that some of these peoples are undoubtedly Indo-European in origin (not Aksum, however), but to claim a closer relationship based on these findings is spurious scholarship. Just because people eat with forks in Denmark and America doesn't mean the Danes are ancestors of all Americans...
BJC

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri ]I have similar proof the Swedes are the descendants of the Atlanteans. Just read the Atlantica. Give some linguistic, historical (some Swedish and Atlantean sources which prove it) and archaeoligical evidences then I will certainly believe it. But if you have archaeological proof, why don't you show it. As I said just search about "Turc" in the web, you wil find yourself numerous archaeological proves. Just a sample: http://www.craftycelts.com/torcs/falcon.html The falcon motif is common in Celtic, Saxon, and Viking artwork. It was originally a Scythian symbol, and may have been a charm against death. The kingdom of Aksum in Nubia (which sounds suspiciously like Saxon!) had an advanced torc-making jewelry Just say "I don't want to believe it", there is no need to tell a lie!

huh? I was drawing an Aksum/Saxon parallel sarcastically, just to make a point about the ease with which etymology and name-similarities can be misconstrued. But the simple fact of the matter was that torcs were common jewelry in pretty much all Indo-European societies. I'm sure that Scythians would have had them, as would Celts, Dorian-Greeks, Picts, Goths, Jutes, Huns, Lombards, Franks, Angles... but to trace all those groups back to a single common ancestor wouldn't make any sense. Celts are different from those other groups, Dorian-Greeks pre-date the Scythians, Picts arrived after the fall of Rome; Goths, Lombards, Franks and Angles are all Germannic people; Jutes are Scandinavians, and Huns were Central-Asian steppe people. Just because they shared similar jewelry-making customs does not imply biological/genetic relationship. Besides, all these torc-wearing peoples that I just listed span over a period of around 1,500-2,000 years. Over-time, people acquire and share one another's technologies. It happens. It's called cultural diffusion.

So, in effect, just because both Saxons and Scythians wore torcs as jewelry has no implications whatsoever as to their genetic or biological similarity. Similarly, just because "Saksun" sounds like "Saxon" does not mean they are related.
Cheers.

But the simple fact of the matter was that torcs were common jewelry in pretty much all Indo-European societies. I'm sure that Scythians would have had them, as would Celts, Dorian-Greeks, Picts, Goths, Jutes, Huns, Lombards, Franks, Angles... but to trace all those groups back to a single common ancestor wouldn't make any sense. Celts are different from those other groups, Dorian-Greeks pre-date the Scythians, Picts arrived after the fall of Rome; Goths, Lombards, Franks and Angles are all Germannic people; Jutes are Scandinavians, and Huns were Central-Asian steppe people. Just because they shared similar jewelry-making customs does not imply biological/genetic relationship. Besides, all these torc-wearing peoples that I just listed span over a period of around 1,500-2,000 years. Over-time, people acquire and share one another's technologies. It happens. It's called cultural diffusion.

I'm sure you have not researched about "Torc" yet!!

Cyrus, please find one serious scholar who supports that idea.

Just one?!!! Do you know Prof Andrew Hadfield? please read his "Briton and Scythian"

The first development found in the Celtic world are many many centuries older than any mention of Scyths.

I hope you have a valid source for you claim, that Celtic torc should be at least 4000 years old.

Sharrukin, would you please tell me you idea about it: http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Anglo-Saxon-Chronicle1.html The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th Century. The original language is Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but later entries are essentially Middle English in tone. Translation by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from the translation of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847). The island Britain (1) is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British) (2), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia (3), 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. ...