# Semnoni and Semnani people



## CyrusSH

I'm myself a Semnani from both paternal and maternal sides, Semnani (called *Semnoni* by its speakers) is a northwestern Iranian language, but it was the name of a Germanic people too: Semnoni - Wikipedia what do we know about the origins of these words? 

As you read here: Semnan, Iran - Wikipedia There are several theories which seek to explain the origin of the name Semnan. According to the first theory, Semnan was an ancient pre-zoroastrian city in which the locals practiced idol-worshipping. Their religion was called samīna, hence the name Semnan. According to the second theory, Semnan was an ancient civil establishment by the Scythians, an Iranian people who named their settlement Sakanān. ...


----------



## ahvalj

A side question: Wikipedia lists the word "dog" in Semnani languages (Semnani languages - Wikipedia), and it turns out that several of them have _-sb-._ Is it the direct local outcome of _*kʲu̯_ (vs. _sp/s/š_ in other Iranic languages), i. e. _*kʲu̯->*ću̯->*sb->esb-_ or is it a later voicing? In a recent post about the origin of the dialectal Slavic _sobaka_ "dog" I, purely hypothetically, suggested the stage _*sb,_ and it appears that it exists in reality.


----------



## desi4life

@CyrusSH As you noted yourself, the etymology of _Semnan _is uncertain. Therefore, a connection with Germanic is rather improbable. By the way, do you speak the Semnani language? There are only 60,000 speakers.


----------



## ahvalj

Concerning the etymology of _Semnōnēs: _I doubt that anybody knows the origin of this name, but the first thing that comes to mind is the Germanic word for "seed", which is_ *sēmô_ (Nom.-Acc. Sg.), _*sēmn-_ in other case forms (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/sēmô - Wiktionary).


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> A side question: Wikipedia lists the word "dog" in Semnani languages (Semnani languages - Wikipedia), and it turns out that several of them have _-sb-._ Is it the direct local outcome of _*kʲu̯_ (vs. _sp/s/š_ in other Iranic languages), i. e. _*kʲu̯->*ću̯->*sb->esb-_ or is it a later voicing? In a recent post about the origin of the dialectal Slavic _sobaka_ "dog" I, purely hypothetically, suggested the stage _*sb,_ and it appears that it exists in reality.



Yes, another interesting Semnani word is _esbéza_ "louse": سایت جامع سمنان - زبان سمنانی ( گویش باستانی سمنانی ), in Persian it is _shepesh_ from Middle Persian _spiš_: شپش - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> @CyrusSH As you noted yourself, the etymology of _Semnan _is uncertain. Therefore, a connection with Germanic is rather improbable. By the way, do you speak the Semnani language? There are only 60,000 speakers.



For the same reason that the etymology of _Semnan_ is uncertain, I asked about the Germanic name, in fact there can be a common Indo-European origin.

I was born in Tehran and I speak the Tehrani dialect of Persian but my parents are from Semnan and I have just learned some Semnani words and phrases, it is actually one of the most difficult Iranian languages, for example unlike Persian, Semnani nouns and pronouns have grammatical gender.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Concerning the etymology of _Semnōnēs: _I doubt that anybody knows the origin of this name, but the first thing that comes to mind is the Germanic word for "seed", which is_ *sēmô_ (Nom.-Acc. Sg.), _*sēmn-_ in other case forms (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/sēmô - Wiktionary).



I think Persian _saman_ has a similar meaning too, like in the words _yasaman_ (Jasmine) and especially _samanu_.

Samanu - Wikipedia: The Azerbaijani proverb "Səməni, ay səməni, hər il göyərdərəm səni" ("Samanu, o samanu, I try to make you grow every year") refers to the annual renewal of nature.

Wheat sprout - Wikipedia: Wheat sprout (Persian: جوانه‌ گندم) is a product of germinating wheat seeds in a wet and relatively warm environment in a process called sprouting. It is commonly known and used in Iranian plateau. However, it is sometimes used instead of barley in the form of malt (early stage sprout) for making beer. It is used in numerous Persian pastries, dishes, and desserts. Also, it has been used traditionally in the new year's Haft-Seen table decoration in the form of Sabzeh (wheat grass) and a delicious dessert called Samanu as the symbols of blessing from Ahura-Mazda. This custom has been observed by most of the people on Iranian Plateau and some of the populations in beyond (e.g. some parts of India, Yemen, Lebanon, Russia, and China) for thousands of years maybe as old as emerging of Zoroaster.


----------



## Treaty

There is no reason to assume a flower's name (_saman_) has come from "seed". I'm not aware of a strong evidence suggesting that _samanū _or _samanī _is a Persian or Iranian word to begin with (Arabic _saman _is my guess). Even if it is, jumping to a conclusion about its relation to "sprout" is hasty (e.g., the name of similar dishes like _ḥalwā_, _harīsa_, _halīm _and _kāčī _are unrelated to their ingredient or "seed").

Regarding Semnān, again there is no reason to think the name must have had an Iranian origin. There are several toponyms in Iran which predate the Iranianization of the land (e.g., Urmia, Gīlān, Šīrāz, Tabar-, Ahvāz, possibly Kāšān, Kermān and Tabrīz, etc.).


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Regarding Semnān, again there is no reason to think the name must have had an Iranian origin. There are several toponyms in Iran which predate the Iranianization of the land (e.g., Urmia, Gīlān, Šīrāz, Tabar-, Ahvāz, possibly Kāšān, Kermān and Tabrīz, etc.).



It is true about the lands in the southwest and northwest of Iran where Elamites and Hurro-Urartian lived, south and southeast lands were also under the influence of Semitic and Indian/Harappan cultures, but most of central and northeast cities of Iran have Iranian-origin names (Yazd, Esfahan, Hamedan, Gorgan, Bojnurd, ...). Of course there are also some cities which seem to have ancient Turkic origins, like Qom and Saveh, but I doubt the word Semnan was related to Shaman, as you read here: SHAMANISM – Encyclopaedia Iranica Archeological and ethnological sources in Iran do not lead to confirmation of the existence of shamanic practices there, whether ancient or modern.


----------



## ahvalj

The root _*sehₑ- _"to saw" would have produced _*hā-_ in Iranic (and _*sehₑmn̥_ "seed" should have given modern Persian _**håm_ — like the rhyming Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hnā́ma - Wiktionary), plus it is anyway not attested so far in Indo-Iranic.


----------



## Borin3

CyrusSH said:


> Samanu - Wikipedia: The Azerbaijani proverb "Səməni, ay səməni, hər il göyərdərəm səni" ("Samanu, o samanu, I try to make you grow every year") refers to the annual renewal of nature.


*Semik*
an ancient Slavic ceremony associated with the cult of the dead and the spring agricultural cycle. The ceremony was performed in forests, on river banks, and in cemeteries. Participants wove wreaths, which they hung on birch trees and castinto water; sang special songs; performed round dances; and served special foods. Semik was observed in central and southern Russia and the Ukraine, usually on the Thursday of the seventh week after Easter. The week was called _semitskaia nedelia_, Semik week. The Russian Semik week corresponded to “green week,” orWhitsuntide, in the Ukraine, “green week” in Poland and Lithuania, and _rusalda_ in Bohemia and Slovakia.
seme, semen, semenka are some of the words from PIE root _séh₁mn̥ _among South Slavs.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> The root _*sehₑ- _"to saw" would have produced _*hā-_ in Iranic (and _*sehₑmn̥_ "seed" should have given modern Persian _**håm_ — like the rhyming Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hnā́ma - Wiktionary), plus it is anyway not attested so far in Indo-Iranic.



One of Semnani words that I know is _sowzi_ which means "plant", of course it is from _sowz_ "green": سوز - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

Borin3 said:


> *Semik*
> an ancient Slavic ceremony associated with the cult of the dead and the spring agricultural cycle. The ceremony was performed in forests, on river banks, and in cemeteries. Participants wove wreaths, which they hung on birch trees and castinto water; sang special songs; performed round dances; and served special foods. Semik was observed in central and southern Russia and the Ukraine, usually on the Thursday of the seventh week after Easter. The week was called _semitskaia nedelia_, Semik week. The Russian Semik week corresponded to “green week,” orWhitsuntide, in the Ukraine, “green week” in Poland and Lithuania, and _rusalda_ in Bohemia and Slovakia.
> seme, semen, semenka are some of the words from PIE root _séh₁mn̥ _among South Slavs.



That is interesting, I see a cultural similarity, in Czech and Slovak _semeno_ means "seed": semeno - Wiktionary


----------



## Treaty

There are two options for the etymology of Semnān: it is either Iranian or not.

If it is Iranian, it doesn't make sense to search European languages randomly. You should find a reasonable Iranian etymology (not _samanu _and _yāsaman, _or the "theories" in Wikipedia) which may have cognates in other IE languages but with respective sound changes.
If it isn't, it doesn't make sense to search European languages randomly. There is zero evidence for the existence of a non-IIr. Indo-European people inside Iran (save Armenians). So, a European etymology is as legit as Chinese, Tamil, Tibetan, Ethiopian, etc. regarding the geographic distance. A non-(Indo)-Iranian name would be most likely non-IE as well (and probably lost and of an unknown language). In pre-Iranian Iran, there were many different ethnicities, each with numerous tribes. Only a few of them were lucky to be recorded duly in historical sources.



CyrusSH said:


> but I doubt the word Semnan was related to Shaman, as you read here: SHAMANISM – Encyclopaedia Iranica Archeological and ethnological sources in Iran do not lead to confirmation of the existence of shamanic practices there, whether ancient or modern.


That's why I said reasonably. Rejecting one word from one language is not a reasonable way to dismiss other words of other languages. It is a very cheap logical fallacy. By the way, the origin of word shaman has probably nothing to do with Turkic (and there is no evidence Turkic has to do with any pre-/early Islamic toponyms in Iran). Also there were definitely shamans (<Skt. _śramaṇa _"(Buddhist) monk") in Iran who possibly met a dreadful fate in the early Sassanid era. I'm not suggesting any relation between the word _šaman_ and Semnān though.


Borin3 said:


> Semik


_semik _is apparently derived from the (East)-Slavic word for "seven" (it was the _seventh_ week after Easter). It has nothing to do with this topic.


Anyway, a fun fact about Semnān is that the word features a very rare cluster _mn_ (based in Iranian Census, there seems to be a few other names with this cluster: Semnā (or Sam~), Semnākelā (or Sam~) and Barsemnān, all small villages around 100Km north of Semnān; again just a fun fact not necessarily suggestive of relationship).


----------



## Borin3

Maybe it derived from seven and maybe not. If semitskaia nedelia meant seventh week then reasonably it would be called "sedmaia" if people in Russia and Ukraine had the same logic at that time. Also if word seventh meant semitskaia, then number seven would be pronounced as "semit" Would be good if someone who has sources checked on that.
It also says the ancient cult, so it is not related to Christianity, it is a pagan religion ceremony that kept going on through Christianity.
Anyway, maybe word seven has something to do with word sow, seed and week. Week being an agricultural circle of sowing or just attending to seeds. Check other languages for word seven, sowing, week and semen. I'm saying just maybe


----------



## ahvalj

_Семицкая недѣля ← семикъ_ (Семик — Википедия) "celebration of the _seventh_ Thursday after Easter" <  _sedmikъ < *sebdmīkas
сѣмя_ "seed" _< sěmę < *sēmen.
_
P. S. Why _семик_ and not _**седьмик:_ Russian has two variants of this numerаl: _седьмой_ (codified in the Standard language) and _сёмый_ (dialectal, cp. Ukrainian _сьомий_), both are ancient and go back to Proto-Indo-European or soon after: _сёмый_ continues _*sebdmos<*septmos _(cp. Prussian _septmas~sepmas_ and Lithuanian _sekmas_) while _седьмой_ continues _*sebdm̥os<*septm̥os_ (like Latin _septimus_ and Greek _ἕβδομος_).


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> There are two options for the etymology of Semnān: it is either Iranian or not.
> 
> If it is Iranian, it doesn't make sense to search European languages randomly. You should find a reasonable Iranian etymology (not _samanu _and _yāsaman, _or the "theories" in Wikipedia) which may have cognates in other IE languages but with respective sound changes.
> If it isn't, it doesn't make sense to search European languages randomly. There is zero evidence for the existence of a non-IIr. Indo-European people inside Iran (save Armenians). So, a European etymology is as legit as Chinese, Tamil, Tibetan, Ethiopian, etc. regarding the geographic distance. A non-(Indo)-Iranian name would be most likely non-IE as well (and probably lost and of an unknown language). In pre-Iranian Iran, there were many different ethnicities, each with numerous tribes. Only a few of them were lucky to be recorded duly in historical sources.



I see no reason to deny the presence of Indo-European people in the Iranian plateau before the Iranian migration, especially because the well-supported Anatolian hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origin. Other than it, it is very possible that western Iranians were in contacts with Europeans before their migration to Iran through the Caucasus. And the last point is that an European origin for Semnan can be supported by the importance of this land in the Hellenistic era, the famous city of Hecatompylos is believed to be in Semnan province.


----------



## Treaty

There is no need to deny. It is the proponents of such presence who need to show evidence for it. 


CyrusSH said:


> And the last point is that an European origin for Semnan can be supported by the importance of this land in the Hellenistic era, the famous city of Hecatompylos is believed to be in Semnan province.


I can't understand this statement. Would you please rephrase it? Do you mean because there was an important city or region in Iran, it must have been European? I find that offensive. By the way, I don't deny the brief Hellenistic presence in Iran. I don't accept some kind of migration of non-IIr. IE people, the same way they spread in Europe. Hellenistic names usually appear on names of cities made by the Greek. The city of Semnan has no such archaeological evidence, as far as I know.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> There is no need to deny. It is the proponents of such presence who need to show evidence for it.
> 
> I can't understand this statement. Would you please rephrase it? Do you mean because there was an important city or region in Iran, it must have been European? I find that offensive. By the way, I don't deny the brief Hellenistic presence in Iran. I don't accept some kind of migration of non-IIr. IE people, the same way they spread in Europe. Hellenistic names usually appear on names of cities made by the Greek. The city of Semnan has no such archaeological evidence, as far as I know.



I meant Semnan, after Kermanshah, was an important land in the Hellenistic and early Parthian era, like Zanjan which was an important land in Ilkhanid era, for this reason there are several places with Mongolian names in Zanjan.

We are not here to say this culture is superior to another one, the name of Semnan can be from Iranian, Germanic, Greek, Slavic, Turkic or Semitic origin and I see none of them offensive.


----------



## Treaty

We can't use a vague term "important land" to draw conclusions. Zanjan (or precisely Sultaniah) was the *capital* of the Ilkhanid empire. Hecatompylus (presumably near Damghan) was not a Greek capital. The Mongolian army, like its Turkic predecessors, was a (semi)nomadic confederation which had a tendency to settle in their conquered pastures (and so gradually giving their names to the land). This was not the case, at least with that scale, regarding the Greek invasion of Iran. Even if your alleged Mongolian names are true, it is not a proper example in this case. 

The Greek may have built or rebuilt cities in Iran, but as far as I know, there is no Greek name preserved. It would be likely that those names never became popular during the short rule of the Greek over Iran. As I said, there is no evidence of Greek activities in the *city* of Semnan (the province of Semnan is not relevant, because it is a new construct). Even a Greek etymology requires more than just "the Greek passed from there" as evidence. In any case, even if there was Greek activity there, it has nothing to do with Germanic and Slavic. The Greek invasion into Iran is a historical fact *with evidence*; Slavic and Germanic people settling in Iran were not.


----------



## CyrusSH

The fact is that most of northern cities of Iran have Greek origin names, of course they date back to 2nd millennium BC, such as Neka "Grecian goddess of victory", Kandelus "Grecian god of war", Chalous "Grecian god of water", ...


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> The fact is that most of northern cities of Iran have Greek origin names, of course they date back to 2nd millennium BC, such as Neka "Grecian goddess of victory", Kandelus "Grecian god of war", Chalous "Grecian god of water", ...


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> What on earth are you talking about?



I'm a historian and in the last 15 years I'm just researching about the origin of people who lived in the Iranian Plateau in the 2nd millennium BC, I say with no doubt that there were cultural relations between the people who lived in the north of Iran and ancient Greeks.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I'm a historian and in the last 15 years I'm just researching about the origin of people who lived in the Iranian Plateau in the 2nd millennium BC, I say with no doubt that there were cultural relations between the people who lived in the north of Iran and ancient Greeks.


And you think you can do that by inventing imaginary Greek gods?


----------



## Borin3

berndf said:


> And you think you can do that by inventing imaginary Greek gods?


It's not nice to behave like that. Instead of asking the man how did he come to such conclusion you are being arrogant and ignorant. Or if you know more you can say why do you think his opinion is wrong. On top of all you are the moderator.


----------



## berndf

Ok then. _Neka_ is clear, he meant _Νίκη_. But who are _Kandelus, Chalous_ in the Greek pantheon? Do you have any idea?


----------



## Treaty

He refers to the character Candalus, and the god Achelous. I don't know who had originally produced this nonsense (you can find it in some blogs) but he was so incompetent in Greek not knowing _ch _is pronounced [x] not [ʧ]. You can even find more of this laughingstock (e.g., Hormoz from Greek Hermes) . 

I wished during those 15 years, he had noticed that the Greek were one of the oldest and most literate IE people around and they left written material almost wherever they lived. As far as I know, the Caspian region, understandably, is one of the few regions in greater Iran in which Greek inscriptions are *not* found.


----------



## berndf

Ok, so he used_ نكا‎‎~Νίκη,  کندلوس~Κάνδαλος _and_ چالوس‎‎~Ἀχελώїoς_ interterchangably. Did I get that right? That makes it at least understandable but sadly follows a familiar pattern of pre-supposing what he is trying to demonstrate.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> He refers to the character Candalus, and the god Achelous. I don't know who had originally produced this nonsense (you can find it in some blogs) but he was so incompetent in Greek not knowing _ch _is pronounced [x] not [ʧ]. You can even find more of this laughingstock (e.g., Hormoz from Greek Hermes) .
> 
> I wished during those 15 years, he had noticed that the Greek were one of the oldest and most literate IE people around and they left written material almost wherever they lived. As far as I know, the Caspian region, understandably, is one of the few regions in greater Iran in which Greek inscriptions are *not* found.



Instead of mockery, please use logics, I'm talking about the 2nd millennium BC, hundreds years before the adoption of Phoenician alphabet, even before Greek dark ages. In this period Greek "ch" was certainly not pronounced [x] but aspirated [k] which could be changed to [ʧ] in Iranian, especially with a front vowel.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In this period Greek "ch" was certainly not pronounced [x] but aspirated [k] which could be changed to [ʧ] in Iranian, especially with a front vowel.


Thousands of other things "could have happened", too. That means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> Instead of mockery, please use logics


The logic is simple. There are hundreds of Greek mythological figures and thousands of place names Caspian region. It would be surprising if we *don't* find some coincidental matching names.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> The logic is simple. There are hundreds of Greek mythological figures and thousands of place names Caspian region. It would be surprising if we *don't* find some coincidental matching names.



The important point is the structure of these names which sound to be Greek, whether they mean something in Greek or not, for example as you probably know the highest mountains in Gilan are Samamous and Espinas, these names clearly differ from Damavand, Dena, Taftan, Alvand, ...


----------



## Treaty

Sorry, your argument is ridiculously thoughtless. First, the "structure" of names don't say anything. It is like to say Japanese and Italian people are related because the structure of their words are somehow similar! Secondly, the highest mountains in Gilan end with _-s_ because the borders of the province of Gilan are defined as such. If the borders were drawn 15 Km more east, the highest mountain would have been called _xoščāl_. So, your argument is basically that Gilan has Greek connection because the government drew the border like this. Thirdly, even if -_s_ ending was something important, only less than 0.6% (17 out 2936) of dwellings names in Gilan end with s.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Sorry, your argument is ridiculously thoughtless. First, the "structure" of names don't say anything. It is like to say Japanese and Italian people are related because the structure of their words are somehow similar! Secondly, the highest mountains in Gilan end with _-s_ because the borders of the province of Gilan are defined as such. If the borders were drawn 15 Km more east, the highest mountain would have been called _xoščāl_. So, your argument is basically that Gilan has Greek connection because the government drew the border like this. Thirdly, even if -_s_ ending was something important, only less than 0.6% (17 out 2936) of dwellings names in Gilan end with s.



All place names with Greek origins that I mentioned in the post #28 are in Mazandaran province, if there are also historical, archaeological, genetic, linguistic, ... evidences which show  Japanese and Italian people are related then similar structure of their words will certainly show their common origins. 

Try to get rid of your bias, cultural relations between ancient Greeks and Iranians is not something that you can deny, about 600 years after Alexander's conquest, we see Sassanid kings still use Greek as one of the main languages of their inscriptions in their homeland, it shows the deep influence of Greek culture in those times.


----------



## CyrusSH

Let's back to the topic, were Semnones really a Germanic people? As I found some ancient historians, like Zosimus, considered them as a Scythian people.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Let's back to the topic, were Semnones really a Germanic people?


No doubt.


CyrusSH said:


> As I found some ancient historians, like Zosimus, considered them as a Scythian people.


You must have misread something. Zosimus references the Alemanni (a tribal group into which the Semnones merged) and a Germanic tribal warlord called Semno but not the Semnones.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> No doubt.
> 
> You must have misread something. Zosimus references the Alemanni (a tribal group into which the Semnones merged) and a Germanic tribal warlord called Semno but not the Semnones.



Zosimus doesn't mention Semnones because he calls them Scythians, in fact Zosimus describes the invaders of Italy in 260 as Scythians, whereas we know they were Semnones.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Zosimus doesn't mention Semnones because he calls them Scythians, in fact Zosimus describes the invaders of Italy in 260 as Scythians, whereas we know they were Semnones.


Ah OK, but that doesn't mean much. The term Scythian was used rather liberally in the sense of "Babarians from the North-East". I doubt that those "Scythian" invaders referred to the Juthungi invasion of Italy in the late 250s. He speaks of the Invasion of Illyricum and that part of them carried on into Italy and they he continues with the revolt of Cecrops, Aureolus and Antoninus and about the "Scythian" war in Greece. It seems this "Scythians" was the Gothic invadors of 267-269.


----------



## Treaty

You need to understand the difference between denying and not accepting, and the difference between logic and bias. Not accepting something without evidence, is neither denial nor bias. It is logic. This is what I've been asking through this thread, to show evidence. On the other hand, concluding a whole province has Greek connection because the names of a few cities sound like Greek, is the definition of bias. Saying most northern cities in Iran has Greek-origin names based on 0.08% of the names (3 out of 3900) is bias. Another bias is to pick one Germanic tribe among tens (if not hundreds) of tribes and one Iranian toponym among tens of thousands and presume a relation between them. 

Regarding the names Semnan and Semnones, there are three main possibilities for a relationship (the linguistic-only relation is already dismissed by Ahvalj in #10): 
1- there were people from Semnan who migrated eventually to Germany.
2- there were people from Germany who migrated eventually to Semnan.
3- there were people from somewhere who divided and separately migrated to Germany and Semnan (that is in a time-frame much later than PIE division). 

We have no evidence, not only for 1 and 2, but anything like such migration. For 3, the only known options would be the Scythians and some kind of early Turks or Xionites. While there is evidence of Scythians intrusion in greater Parthia (which includes Semnan) and their imaginable settlement, there is no evidence that they had a tribe called like _Semn_- or the word _semn_ meant a thing in their language. Neither there is evidence that the "Scythians" who went to Germany are the same "Scythian" stock who came into Iran. The same goes for Turks who only appeared much later in Iran's history and did not go deep, let alone settled in Semnan before 9th century. All of these are of course inherently less probable that possibilities unrelated to migration (e.g., a Germanic origin of Semnones and a local origin of Semnan).

In summary, there are two layers of evidence non-existent: _a_) evidence for migration (in cases of 1 and 2, and partially 3), _b_) evidence for the tribe name within the migrated people (in case of 3). A non-biased logical conclusion would be the unlikely relation between the two, and not accepting claims of such a relation. Coincidence, as I said in the other thread, is the most likely explanation.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> You need to understand the difference between denying and not accepting, and the difference between logic and bias. Not accepting something without evidence, is neither denial nor bias. It is logic. This is what I've been asking through this thread, to show evidence.



I wonder what you consider as evidence, for example I asked that you search the word "Greek" in this book Marlik The Complete Excavation Report (Marlik is an ancient site in Gilan from mid-2nd millennium BCE) to see how many times it talks about the influence on Greek art, the problem is that you look at modern maps, whereas we know in the eight century BC Pontic Greeks were the western neighbors of Urartians.



> On the other hand, concluding a whole province has Greek connection because the names of a few cities sound like Greek, is the definition of bias. Saying most northern cities in Iran has Greek-origin names based on 0.08% of the names (3 out of 3900) is bias.



When I say "most northern cities", I certainly mean those ones which have ancient origins, do you expect that Qaemshahr, Kuchesfahan, Some'esara, Rezvanshahr, Astaneh-Ashrafiye, ... have also Greek origins?!!



> Another bias is to pick one Germanic tribe among tens (if not hundreds) of tribes and one Iranian toponym among tens of thousands and presume a relation between them.
> 
> Regarding the names Semnan and Semnones, there are three main possibilities for a relationship (the linguistic-only relation is already dismissed by Ahvalj in #10):
> 1- there were people from Semnan who migrated eventually to Germany.
> 2- there were people from Germany who migrated eventually to Semnan.
> 3- there were people from somewhere who divided and separately migrated to Germany and Semnan (that is in a time-frame much later than PIE division).
> 
> We have no evidence, not only for 1 and 2, but anything like such migration. For 3, the only known options would be the Scythians and some kind of early Turks or Xionites. While there is evidence of Scythians intrusion in greater Parthia (which includes Semnan) and their imaginable settlement, there is no evidence that they had a tribe called like _Semn_- or the word _semn_ meant a thing in their language. Neither there is evidence that the "Scythians" who went to Germany are the same "Scythian" stock who came into Iran. The same goes for Turks who only appeared much later in Iran's history and did not go deep, let alone settled in Semnan before 9th century. All of these are of course inherently less probable that possibilities unrelated to migration (e.g., a Germanic origin of Semnones and a local origin of Semnan).
> 
> In summary, there are two layers of evidence non-existent: _a_) evidence for migration (in cases of 1 and 2, and partially 3), _b_) evidence for the tribe name within the migrated people (in case of 3). A non-biased logical conclusion would be the unlikely relation between the two, and not accepting claims of such a relation. Coincidence, as I said in the other thread, is the most likely explanation.



As I said in my first post in this thread, Semnani people are a northwestern Iranian people, so first we should search for the original land of these people, if they lived somewhere near the lands of Slavic and Germanic people then we should search for similar names in those lands and if they lived in another place then we should search in them, the real bias is that you believe that all things which exist in Iran originated in this land and there were no relations between them and other lands.


----------



## Treaty

What about Sari, Natel, Babol, Rudan, Amol, Tamishe, etc. which also have ancient origins but don't have that "Greek structure"?

In the book you linked, there are totally 9 mention of "Greek". 6 of them have nothing to do with Marlik (2 titles of references, 2 Greek historians and 2 others about a general influence of Near Eastern art, esp. Mesopotamian, on Greek). 2 others suggest a possible later influence via indirect contact with Scythian in *specific* motifs. The last one suggests an influence of *one specific* Marlik tree pattern in later cultures. In other words, out of hundreds of studied art in the book, only a few were found to have similarities with some Greek motifs.

In both cases, you have selected only resources which fits your belief and neglected those (the majority) others which don't. This is called confirmation bias and ongoing problem of your arguments.



CyrusSH said:


> Semnani people are a northwestern Iranian people


They are called western Iranian because they developed west of the main eastern Iranian languages (not west of Iran). They are called north(ern) because they were mostly concentrated on north of the SW Iranian languages, not just north of modern Iran. The naming is not related to northwestern modern Iran.



CyrusSH said:


> you believe that all things which exist in Iran originated in this land


This is pathetic lie about me.


----------



## berndf

*Moderator note: This thread has not produced any evidence, not even tentative, for a relation but no counter-evidence either and the discussion is running in circles. Applying Occam's razor one would assume coincidence as the simplest of the plausible explanations. That is of course no proof.

Thread is closed.*


----------

