Quote:Mitra, you are fairly-much on the money.
The Alans were the earlier Massagetae who, in turn, branched from the Saka ("tall hat Scythians"), all of whom originated in the Altai but came from the bronze age Androvono culture. I think the Aorsi were also Alanic, as were the Taifali and Roxolani ("light Alans"). All had an Asiatic admixture and carried fairly long swords.

The other group, the western Scythians, produced the earliest "Sauromatae" through an Alanic infusion (Herodotus called the Alanic women "Amazons"). We find the Iazyges in this group. They used shorter, Scythian-styled, swords.

I'm pressed for time. More later.

Quote:Correct. The Roxolani had to be the first of the mixed Caucasian-Asiatic to reach the western steppes, then going through Iron Gate Pass onto the Hungarian Plain to admix with the Iazyges. Thus we find newer graves-- tumuli-- and the introduction of the longer sword to Europe. Simply because the Roxolani appeared prior to the Alans does not mean they were other than Alanic. They were just the lead-group of the migrating culture. Even their name is Alanic. I believe the Taifali followed behind the Roxolani, but they were cleaved from the migration by the approach (from the northwest) of the Goths, and that the Tailfali were squeezed between the Tyrfingi Goths and Greutungi Goths. They formed an association, probably as part of the "kunja," with the Tyrfingi that lasted for at least 8 generations until 378.

Of note to these RAT forums, both the Iazyges and Taifali were formed into Roman cavalry units; and both were sent into Britain, the first around 177, the second around 396.

The Sarmatian cultures are certainly interesting, even with all the controversy of their origin. They gave us great inventiveness-- the "quick-draw dagger," the concept of "jousting," the steppe horse-dance (still seen in Austria's haut ecole), and the knight in shining armor. Not a bad legacy, eh?

Quote:The -alani in Roxolani derive from the "Arya" a superethnonime used by many iranian peuple also the Medes and the Persians. The lambdacisme of -ry in -l is common in many iranian languages, so Roxolan will be translated as Lighty Arians not Lighty Alans. The same choice of name Alans probably indicate a ethnogenesis from many different tribes, choicing to indicates the new formation a onorific and super-tribe name The Aryans. The Roxolani appears in the european steppes more than a century before the name Alans appears in the sources, in the middle sarmatian period, so also if we imagine a common basis in the origin, at the time of arrive of alans in european steppes the two group are culturally different like the Iaziges respect the Alans.

The Roxolans migrated in Ungarian plains only late, probably under the gothic pressures, before they lived in souther carpatian area, Anyway in IV century the Iaziges and Roxolan name disappers from the source substuted by Limigantes and Argaragantes, probably in the first IV century start a change in the tribal structures, after the coming of Roxolans in Ungary.

Quote:According to Harmatta (and grave finds), the Roxolani first began appearing on the Hungarian Plain just before the end of the 2nd century; and yes this could have been due to Gothic pressure, but it was not "late." I still believe that the Roxolani were more culturally related to the Alans than to the Iazyges.

Quote:You are correct in your interpretation of their name, "the light Aryans," but the term also transposes to "light Alans."

Quote:If we were to fill in the blanks between what was written by western historians, we would find that the Massagetae were related to, perhaps even were, the Alans. So claimed Dio and Ammianus. It would appear that this building of a "super-tribe" (your term, and a good one) began in the time of Tomyris and lasted until the advent of the Black Huns. The related physical remains (Asiatic facial structure) and weapons (the akinakae and longer swords) found in both Fillipovka and Issyk Kul show this relationship. It differs from the Iazyges and other tribes once connected to the western group formerly known as the "Sauromatae."

Quote:I base this association from Herodotus who stated that the Sauromatae "never learned to speak Scythian properly.

Quote:Getae and Dacians are the same, or possibly more probably, at some point a Getae tribe, know by Romans as Dacians (this was the name they called themselves too, and posible the name used by all Getae), become more proeminent and took control over all Getae at that point. As first peoples individualised among so called "indo-europeans"(iranians, aryans, celts, germanic, greek, latin etc.) and the most numerous of them, proto-thracians was spread in Cimerians (probably mixed or influenced at some point by iranians), Phrygians (they migrated from the thracians european teritory and their language was related with both thracian and greek one), Geto-Dacians (north thracians) and Thracians (or south thracians). From an unknown reason, greeks named the northern thracians "Getae". They are the "original Getae" if you wish, and probably a mixed Geto-Dacian-Iranic tribe (as celto-germanic ones are supposed to exist, see Cimbri, Teutonii or Bastarnae for ex.) was named as Masagetae for ex. Anyway, about Get/Got part, here is some quotes from "wikipedia" and some authors mentioned there, regarding the Cherneakov/Santana de Mures culture, atributed to "Goths":

Quote:Halsall (2007, p. 132)The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences, but most come from existing cultures in the region

Matthews (, p. 90) argue that it shows that the local Daco-Getans played the leading role in the creation of the Culture

<< However, Guy Halsall challenges some of Heather's conclusions. He sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark types"[13]. Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Cehrnyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (ie the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indegenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the third century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. >>

And if you look at the many ancient chronicars (not just Jordanes, since he inspired a lot from previous chronicars) who name them "Gets/Getae" (name gived usualy by Greeks and some Romans to Dacians) you will see that the majority of so called Goths was in fact Gets/Dacians (a part of so called "Free Dacians"), mixed at some point however, with some germanic relatd peoples and probably Sarmatians too.

Quote:There is no way that the Cimbri,Teutonii, and Bastarnae, were related to Dacians or Massagetae. They were Germanic with a Capital "G." That's what "Teuton" means.

Quote:Sorry, but this are modern scholars, from late XX and early XXI century, who wrote that, based on archeology, who dont lie and is above misinterpretations. I think the old view, with Goths as 100% germanic are really outdated. Well, it seem that the even older view, from ancient and medieval time, that they had a clear and strong Dacian/Getae origin (yes, probably mixed with germanic and sarmatian peoples too) are, indeed, the real one.

And i never said that Cimbrii and Teutones and Bastarnae are related with Getians/Dacians, but they are a mix of Germanic and Celtic origin, as Masagetae was a mix of Dacian/Getian and Iranian.

Quote:My speculation goes on with the assertion that the taefali Calvary were Slavs or mixed to no recognition; perhaps a word in reference to a social condition. The Umayyad Caliphate provided clues as one of the earlier leaders of Almeria (Spain) was called Zohair Alameri The Slav. (Jose Antonio Conde) around 960 AD. The word used by the Muslims was Saqalib of which Taifa is a derivative. He also (Jose) introduced the word Xetayfa of which Geta is a derivative.

Quote:The old view that Goths were totally Germanic is outdated, and we know that other groups were in their mix including Sarmatians and Dacians. But your idea of a "Dacian/Getae origin" is faulty today as it was to elder historians.
Vortigern Studies is correct in noting the Teutonic-Cymbric connection. I believe the Gauls even worshiped a high god Teutates at Vermentum, aka "centre," near what is now Orleans. (I think this tidbit came from de Bello Gallico.)
Your statement that "Masagetae was a mix of Dacian/Getian and Iranian" has no cultural or historic value. The Massagetae extended from the Saka (a Persian word for the northeasten Scythians), and the Dacians were a totally different group.
Am I looking at some kind of agenda to glorify a perceived personal heritage. :? I think I am. And its full of holes and hopeful wishing, but not based on actuality.