worrylesswarrior

As you know, Attila and his hench men pillaged all of Europe around
400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known
to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've
heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)
were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some
Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.

Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
Huns:
1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.
2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.
3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
than Mongolic.
4. Loan words?

The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".

inger e johansson

"Nirvana" <worrylesswarrior@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:34e36f1b.0402081302.83f2561@posting.google.co m...

NOW you are dreaming. While the Alan language might have or might not have
been of same origin as languages in the Iranian area - the Alans themselves
were not.

It's one of these times I suggest for everyone who discuss a subject to go
back to contemporary sources and read the firsthand witness information.
They give a totally different picture than what's assumed above.

First I suggest that you look at the names of the Alan Kings. Can anyone of
you honestly say that Knudomar, Sveinar etc is Iranic names?

Then I suggest that you compare contemporary sources.
While one Historian might call a group where the members are named with
first name and what each did for Alans, an other called the same persons and
group for Alemagner a third call them Germanic.

I agree with V Ullman who translated Ammianus Marcellinus into
Norwegian(Roms historie i det fjerde århundrede e.Kr, Arendal 1877, page
188). Ullman show that Ammianus spoke of the Alans as Germans living in the
area between Donau, Main and upper Rhein.

Inger E

yusuf b gursey

for the European Huns, Iranian is considered and rejected in favor of
Turkic in "the World of the Huns", a classic work on the european huns.

: 400 AD. For the next 1000 years, or so, Europe was in a "Dark Ages."
: I know that the Huns allied themselves with the Alans who were known

they also broke up he Alans and chased some of the Alans into europe.

at any rate, a political alliance is not a sure indicator of language.

: to be Iranian. Moreover, the Huns were from lands that had
: Iranian-speaking people (i.e. around the Black Sea area). Also, I've

most accounts understand having tehm come from elsewhere into the region.

: heard that Croatians (or some other ethnicity in the Yugoslav areas)

the offshoot of the Huns that eventually settled into SE Europe, i.e. the
Bulghars, seem to have had more Alanic / Iranian amongst them.


: were Iranian at one time - I'm not sure about this, however. My
: suggestion is that the Huns were Iranian speakers, and maybe had some


the Huns by most accounts admitted rather freely amngst them people from
diverse backgrounds, but maintaiend continuity in terms of culture, and
probably language as well.


: Altaic elements (Turkic or Mongolic) languages. I say this because I
: know the Scythians is a broad term that encompasses people who spoke
: predominantly Iranian and Altaic languages, and this is my way of
: mildly suggesting that the Huns were a Scythian tribe.

: Here are reasons to consider regarding the Iranian origins of the
: Huns:
: 1. Supposedly, the Huns migrated to India around 400 AD also. The
: Rajput clans claim direct lineage from them. By the way, the earliest
: mention of the Rajputs is around 400 AD.

it doesn't show the original linguistic affiliation of them.

: 2. Artistic depiction of the Huns from Europe shows them looking more
: like Iranians/Semitic types than Eastern Asians.

again, see above. also the issue of language not race.

it is usually acknowlodged that the white Huns of S. and W. Asia had
considerable iranian admixure. however, the iranian language associated
with them (or ratehr with their offshoot the hephthalites) turns out to
have been just the local iranian language (Bactrian).

later persian (islamic era) accounts associated the Hephthaites with Turks
and particularly Khalaj Turks who speak a somewhat divergent (hence
perhpas cut off from the mainstream early) turkic language.

: 3. The people who were ravaged by the Huns seem to look more Iranian
: than Mongolic.

people "ravaged by them" has less to do with their language

: 4. Loan words?

: The only thing debunking my theory is that the Iranian speakers tended
: to use the sound of "S" as opposed to the sound of "H". That's why
: they said "Sindu", as opposed to "Hindu".

yusuf b gursey

the Alans were split by teh Huns into European (those chaised away) and
Caucasian branches. the European branch assimilated amongst indigenous
peoples, incl. germanic speaking ones.

croatian is a western rendering of the native form: hrvati. this is
traced back to haravaiti, one of the regions of iran mentioned in the
zoroastrian scriptures.

serb is also an iranian name, thought to be a military term [big
suprise there, huh?]. the serbs were identified as a tribe of the alans
by classical authors, long before the ememgence of the slavic peoples.

while the serbs and croats have an especially clear-cut identification
with the iranian past, the connection to all slavic nations should not
be underestimated.

the polish aristocracy were confident enough of their alanic past that
they adopted the ancient tamga symbols for their own heraldry.

modern linguists in eastern europe see a close relationship between
slavic and iranian languages.


you've got that backwards. in the iranian languages, it is hindu and
haravaiti and haoma. in indic, it is sindhu and sarasvati and soma.


i don't know whether your speculation is correct, but you've got the
right idea. that being that it's really hard to tell.

the steppe peoples were not the best documented in the world.

groups of them tended to be composed of different ethnicities, so it's
hard to say which ethnicity should denfine a group. the huns are linked
to the hsiun-nu who lived north of china, which is the strongest link
to the altaic peoples.

so if you want to deine them by the name hun, go with the altaic
identification. just don't try to apply the same logic to bulgaria.

being nomads, a given steppe people might be found in any corner of
eurasia, so it's hard to group them by geography. the name hsing-pi, a
people who invaded china in the 200s ad, is thought to be a chinese
rendering of the name serb.

yes, there are loan words. the mongols called the yellow river of china
the kara-moran, names which are common in slavic languages today.

so sure, there are any number of ways you might speculate upon hunnish
linguistics, and no one can prove you wrong. how about the uralic
family of languages? maybe the huns were uralic. have you thought of
that?

the huns settled on the pannonian plain [modern hungary] about 400 ad.

the bulgars who settled in bulgaria came a few centuries later.

inger e johansson

Yusuf,
how about going back to the contemporary souces. Your assumptions re. Alans
aren't supported in anyway. Neither by Orosius (English edition Seven Books
against Pagans) nor by Zosimus, Priscus, Ammanianus Marcellinus, Procopious,
Olympidors, Sozomen, Eunapius, Malchus, Jordanes and so on.

Inger E

"Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@TheWorld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c06tp3$gfv$1@pcls4.std.com...

you seem to be displaying a common confusion here. inger, i'm sorry i
don't know what the conventional usage is in your native language, but
in english academic terminology iranian means the branch of languages,
not just the nation of iran.

it would be convenient to use the term iranic, so one could make the
distinction iranic/iranian just as one could say turkic/turkish or
germanic/german.

unfortunately, the term iranic does not exist as an accepted designation.


ammianus was apparently referring to the alleman, a name that is still
in use for germany today. not the alans/sarmatians.

a similar error is found in a translation of marco polo, which mistakes
the alans living in china for germans.

besides, in 1877 they used the term scythian to refer to what is today
called altaic. i'm not saying you should totally disregard obsolete
sources, but be aware that there are vast differences in theory.

otherwise, you will come off as a ridiculous internet kook.
oops, too late.

inger e johansson

markovic,
I am not confused. You seem to be. As so many who have spoken in the
questions re. the Alans respectively Attila's Huns.

I suggest that you go back to the contemporary sources. Not one single of
them give the origin of the Alans as so many linguists seems to do. Actually
there language as related by contemporary meeting them isn't the one which
assumed by linguists either.

First of all it seems that more than one linguist needs to look more


sent to Attila's court. The person called 'Alan' in that delegation is by no
means from Eastern Europe at all. Since he was a close child-hood friend to
Cassiodorus grandfather there are good information to be found about him in
Variae which confirms at least 10 other sources information re. that person.

Same person can in one source be called Alan and in the other German, Goth
etc etc.

I am not confused. I studied the subject for 5 years. I read contemporary
sources and also sources of Historians resp. Fathers of the Church who were eyewitness. Inger E
<markovic@io.com> skrev i meddelandet news:090220040252123183%markovic@io.com...

nath rao

Actually Hindu is of Persian origin.

PIE *s often becomes h in Persian Avestan etc. Iranian intervocalic s
generally comes from PIE k^.

Nath Rao