PDA

View Full Version : Scythian - Saxon/Jute connection?



Vanir
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 02:24 PM
Some very intriguing connections and similarities, but the author seems to overstate the connections, and conveniently overlook other explanations when parallels are tenuous. They seemed to want to believe the theory to the point of wilfully excluding evidence to the contrary, or more likely explanations for certain similarities.

If anyone knows of any studies comparing Scythian/Sarmatian and NW European DNA, could you let me know about them!! Thanks in advance!!!


http://www.imninalu.net/Eurasians.htm

The third main group were the Yazygs, that inhabited since ancient times in the Balkans. In that region they coexisted with Thracians and Scythians. They are mentioned in different sources as the Jata, Jasi, Iasi, etc., and it is likely that they were in some way related to the Goths and the Juts, peoples that were originated in Thrace. The Gothic historian Jordanes asserted that the Goths were Massagetas, identifying both peoples with each other. goths originating in Thrace? Hmm...ain't heard that one before. Bit of a stretch. From what I understand, the Goths were SETTLED there after smashing the region up, pillaging, burning and generally looting the place around 300-400AD iirc.


Being part of the Roman legions, Yazyg warriors moved within the Empire. Their cultural influence in Western Europe is not noticed or not acknowledged, but it does not mean that it is irrelevant. In fact, the most cherished British myth is not British at all, and is not Anglo-Saxon either: the Legend of the Knights of the Round Table, is Sarmatian. The probable origin of this myth in Britain is to be found in a Yazyg contingent that the Romans distributed in Northumbria to guard the frontier from Pict invaders. Their general was called Artorius, who may be identified with the legendary king Arthur. All the other elements of the legend are Sarmatic, and belong to similar myths among Hungarians, Ossetians and other peoples that keep the ancient Sarmatian traditions in their own cultural heritage. Herodotus mentions the sword worship in connection with the Scythians; the magic atmosphere surrounding the "sword in the stone" is found in the ancient Anatolian traditions as well as among the Huns and Magyars, and the name Excalibur is related to the Sarmatian iron forgers; also the name of king Pendragon, the lady of the lake, magicians and sorcerers, the chalice hovering in the air and all the main elements of the Arthurian legend belong to the Sarmatian mythology. It was after the introduction of Christianity in Great Britain that the legend was adopted and adapted according to the patterns of Medieval British society as their own myth of origins. All very convenient. Except for the fact that Artorius and his little gang of Sarmatians were in Britain in 184 AD. About 400 years too early to be fighting off invading Saxons. Unless of course Sarmatians live to be 500 years old or so...
Not to mention the fact that The Round Table™ etc etc were artistically embellished unto the story by Gregory Monmouth of France in 1200CE, thus any connection with Sarmatian myth in said regards being entirely irrelevant. Also, the name "Excalibur" being connected to the sarmatian word for "iron-forger" (or similar) is intriguing, and all well and good, but conspicuous is the author's neglecting to mention that it also resembles very closely "the Latin chalybs (steel) of Medieval Latin Caliburnus, from Middle Welsh Caletuwlch or Middle Irish Caladbolg, a legendary sword" all being far more likely explanations.


The Yazyg warriors introduced as Roman soldiers (that by number would be rather insignificant) are not the only Sarmatian component of the British ethnogenesis. Indeed, the Anglo-Saxon peoples that settled in Great Britain and established the foundation of the English nation, consisted also of a third element: the Jutes (or Juts). There are several reasons to assert that the Jutes were Yazyg - not only by the similarity between the terms Jasi, Jata, etc. and Jut, Jute, which may have only a very relative value, but also because of the Juts' life style and traditions. Before their arrival in England, the Juts and the Angles were neighbours in the continent: they inhabited respectively in Jutland and Slesvig. Yet, that was not their original homeland; the Juts came from the south and conquered the peninsula that was called Jutland after them. By the end of the fourth century c.e., Sarmatic groups began to move westwards: Alans driven from the Danubian Basin by the Huns, Juts expelled from Jutland by the Danes. Alan tribes settled in the Gaul and some of them went further to Spain and North-Africa, while the Juts crossed the Channel and founded the kingdom of Kent.
The Jute settlement in Sutheastern England was led by Hengist and Horsa, who became the kings of Kent - the double kingship is a typical feature of the Scytho-Sarmatic peoples. and similar to twin progenitor/hero worship indulged by the Romans too, as well as others. Let's not mention that though, 'eh! Spoils the story

Besides this, the Kentish people were well-known by their warlike character Along with just about everyone else on record at the time. whoop-de-doo.

and they organized their army in a Yazyg/Alan style. Pfft! WTF is that supposed to mean? Scythians were Horse Archers! Are they saying that the Jutes were nomadic Horse Archers? The Author must've heard this one from Jim Morrison in a dream or something.
Their property succession laws and family rules and those of the Alans were alike, as well as their agriculture techniques and other traditional customs. A further support to the hypothesis that the Juts were Sarmatians is given by the fact that many Kentish family names are identical to clan names of Scytho-Sarmatic origin found in Asia (see India, Jats).
The Jats undoubtedly descend from the easternmost branch of the Sarmatian people, the Yazyg of Central Asia, that curiously have the same name of the westernmost branch in the Danubian region: Jász, Jat, Jut. During the British rule over India, colonizers and scholars noticed to their astonishment that many Jat people had apparently English family names or very similar. Certainly the proud Jats would have never adopted British surnames for their own ancestral clans, and they did not result from intermarriage either. Other foreign powers ruled over the Indus Valley before and for longer periods than England, yet no Jat clan names corresponding to the previous rulers have been found. Besides this, no other Indian people had such names except Jats. This peculiarity led scholars to research about these Jat-British homonyms: those names in England may be traced back to a Jut origin, mainly Kentish; among the Jats, they exist since the distant past. This appears to be more than a coincidence; Jats and Juts are the same people. This assertion finds confirmation in historic records, for example, the Roman writer Ammianus Marcellinus, who called all Sarmatian peoples "Alani", wrote: "Alani once were known as the Massagetae. The Alani mount to the eastward, divided into populous and extensive nations; these reach as far as Asia and, as I have heard, stretch all the way to the river Ganges, which flows through the territories of India". British scholars and also officers compared the Jats' warrior character with that of the Kentish men as well as their traditional laws, for instance, the double heritage part for the youngest son, still practised among Indian Jats. An accurate research about this people which takes account of all the relevant characteristics of their ethnicity reveals that they are among the purest Sarmatic tribes existing today. All very interesting. But what are these fascinatingly similar surnames? I'd like to see them to compare for myself. From what I can see, the sarmatian~jutish/saxon linguistic links are grossly over-emphasized, given that all being members of the Indo-European language group, such connections (such as with Sanskrit) are likely to be evident anyway. On top of all this, cultural/linguistic movements may involve no genetic transfer at all, if enough dominance is present) and to go further, there are MANY words in daily use in the germanic languages that are non-IE in origin, and have no equivalent in other language families.("back, blood, body, bone, bride, child, gate, ground, oar, rat, sea, soul, egg, sky" just for starters!) ie, Germans seem to have been around their neck of the woods for an awful long time. Long before The Scythians ever went on their farewell tour of Europe.

The legal link is fantastical at best, at smacks of one churning through mountains of data for any other parallels at all, however spurious, to lend further weight to a theory. The "wArRiOr LiNk" is farcical to say the least. I'm surprised the author didn't also mention that both Kentish and Jatish Indians were remarkably BOTH in possession of two arms, two legs and one head. Incontrovertible proof Watson!

Then again, on the other hand....
The connection between the name "Saxon" with the Scythian tribe named "Sakas" is next to undeniable, even on first glance. The Saka tribe of Scythians lived in Uzbekistan around 3000BC apparently, and moved down around the Baltic people. Doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to see that they obviously pushed down into upper Germany too, unless it is merely one of the greatest co-incidences in history. Of course, the Saxons named themselves after their knives "Seaxes" (see my sigfile for pic) but since no other German tribe seems to have wielded these weapons, perhaps they are morphed form of some cavalry weapon..

That being said,

the image of the Horse is another indication of some Scythian influence. The Horse was a strong symbol to to the Old English people http://www.englishheathenism.homestead.com/horse.html Tolkien tried to show this by physically plonking the Rohirrim onto Horses in LOTR, rather than just having them put the Horse image on their shields etc.
I've always found the Horse connection strange, given that cavalry forms a non-existent part in English (or germanic per se) battle strategy, and yet there it is! An equine based nomadic connection would do much to explain it, and it does seem likely to me, but then again the Anglo-Saxons might just have found the Stallion to have been yet another powerful symbol (like many others) the Belgae carved a 380ft long White Horse into a chalk ridge at Uffington in England, yet they have no Scythian link...hmm...

And the last stand-out link to some form of Scythian influence is in Scythian Art. The zoomorphic/fantastical knotwork style art might have come straight out of Anglo-Saxon England, some of it looks so familiar. http://elmo.sssnet.com/7genex7/ for starters...

Anyway, *SOME* kind of connection between Saxon, and perhaps Jutish, tribes and Scythian nomads seems fairly probable to me. It remains to be seen whether the influence was of the veneer cultural/linguistic variety, or whether significant intermingling occurred. Anyone know of any DNA studies showing a link between Uzbek Scythians (or any kind of Scythian, since the term is pretty broad) and Saxons/Jutes/Germans?

There aren't TOO many worms in this can for me, as aside from a few names, symbols and art-style, there isn't too much else to suggest that anything earth-shattering occurred to alter the fabric of german society whenever this Scythian influence took place. Although the Nazis played up the link to emphasis Germanic Aryan-ness, I can't say I'm personally swayed. Seems to me that Germans were in Germany an awful long time before a few Scythians trotted in to say hello before disappearing in a puff off smoke.

Buried and subsequently frozen Scythians found in places such as the Pazyryk kurgans show some people with strong Mongolian features, and others who were blond and had quite European-looking faces. "Genes from ancient tissue are compared with genes from modern-day groups. Research with tissue from a number of burials suggests that the Pazyryks were ethnically diverse" (Nova).which sums up my feeling that this Scythian Culture seems to have been strong enough to dominate the cultures of other ethnicities, or leave its imprint over the top of them. Much like it seems to have done with the Saxons and the Jutes in one form or another.

Anyway, That's my half-baked 2cents on what is IMHO a very fascinating subject.
Anders

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Since you seem to know a bit on the subject. Didn't Anglo-Saxons originate from the Caspian steppe? Since the word Saxon is derived from the Persian world Saka.

Vanir
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Since you seem to know a bit on the subject. Didn't Anglo-Saxons originate from the Caspian steppe? Since the word Saxon is derived from the Persian world Saka. Yup, them's the ones!

Then again, on the other hand....
The connection between the name "Saxon" with the Scythian tribe named "Sakas" is next to undeniable, even on first glance. The Saka tribe of Scythians lived in Uzbekistan around 3000BC apparently, and moved down around the Baltic people. Doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to see that they obviously pushed down into upper Germany too, unless it is merely one of the greatest co-incidences in history. Of course, the Saxons named themselves after their knives "Seaxes" (see my sigfile for pic) but since no other German tribe seems to have wielded these weapons, perhaps they are morphed form of some cavalry weapon.. The names of the Saxons, and most likely the Jutes, seem to be Scythian in origin, there are the linguistic connections between persian and old english lexicons, the knotwork~zoomorphic art-style is clearly Scythian, and also the distant echo of the Horse as a symbol.

Aside from these cultural/linguistic impressions, there doesn't seem to be any genetic influence left by Scythians that I can find mention of, or see with my own eyes....that's why I am really interested in knowing whether any studies in comparing germanic and scythian DNA have been done! In its absence, I'm inclined to believe that Scythian influences were predominantly the legacy of a cultural domination (I mean, even today images & tales of Scythian culture are powerful to behold, and gripping) on a population of people that had been in north west europe for an awful long time. Also, I've felt for quite some time that Germans more than likely spoke a non IE language before taking on the IE language they speak now due to the large non IE vocabulary which is peculiar to Germanic languages (the remnants of our original language). which fits into the above idea of a cultural domination.

Seems likely to me that events panned out something like the above, though I personally won't insist upon it until I can see a few studies upon any genetic relationships between the two

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Since you seem to know a bit on the subject. Didn't Anglo-Saxons originate from the Caspian steppe? Since the word Saxon is derived from the Persian world Saka.

Actually thats unlikely, it probably refers to a Germanic weapon.

Vanir
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:29 AM
Actually thats unlikely, it probably refers to a Germanic weapon. Yup, this weapon...
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/%7EThorburn/RunicLangSeax.jpg

vicious looking thing 'eh? I pity the poor Celts who had their ribs tickled with one!
this one says "Beorghnoth" on one side and "Futhark" on the other in runic.

I can only assume, that if the connection is present, that the Seax is a mutated form of cavalry weapon or something.

"The Saxons" means "The People Of The Knife" and the name of a God unique to the Saxons is "Seaxnot" which means "Friend of the Knife People" (assuming you do not believe that Seaxnot was just the saxon name for Tyr/Thorburn)

SC-Mann
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:56 AM
You seem to know your stuff, any chance you can pass on some knowledge with more links, articles. etc? Thanks.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:25 AM
Actually thats unlikely, it probably refers to a Germanic weapon.

Are you fimiliar with Anglo-Saxon origins? Where the Angles,Saxons, and Jutes of Northern Germany and Denmark originally the steppe dwelling Scythians? I've read books that have stated that the Jutes did have a steppe origin and are related to Sarmatians.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Yup, them's the ones!
The names of the Saxons, and most likely the Jutes, seem to be Scythian in origin, there are the linguistic connections between persian and old english lexicons, the knotwork~zoomorphic art-style is clearly Scythian, and also the distant echo of the Horse as a symbol.

Aside from these cultural/linguistic impressions, there doesn't seem to be any genetic influence left by Scythians that I can find mention of, or see with my own eyes....that's why I am really interested in knowing whether any studies in comparing germanic and scythian DNA have been done! In its absence, I'm inclined to believe that Scythian influences were predominantly the legacy of a cultural domination (I mean, even today images & tales of Scythian culture are powerful to behold, and gripping) on a population of people that had been in north west europe for an awful long time. Also, I've felt for quite some time that Germans more than likely spoke a non IE language before taking on the IE language they speak now due to the large non IE vocabulary which is peculiar to Germanic languages (the remnants of our original language). which fits into the above idea of a cultural domination.

Seems likely to me that events panned out something like the above, though I personally won't insist upon it until I can see a few studies upon any genetic relationships between the two

I've read that based on Skeletal finds and historical descriptions anthropoligists have concluded they were a tall and fair people. Since they were also great Horsemen and lived a Nomadic lifestyle. It is definetly a possiblity that they help form what later become the Angles,Saxons,and Jutes.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:52 AM
Are you fimiliar with Anglo-Saxon origins? Where the Angles,Saxons, and Jutes of Northern Germany and Denmark originally the steppe dwelling Scythians? I've read books that have stated that the Jutes did have a steppe origin and are related to Sarmatians.

According to Ingemar Nordgren, the name of the Jutes is associated with Gaut.

Though steppe peoples did enter Germany, I think its going too far to say any of the Germanics were "originally the steppe dwelling Scythians".

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 10:39 AM
"The Saxons" means "The People Of The Knife" and the name of a God unique to the Saxons is "Seaxnot" which means "Friend of the Knife People" (assuming you do not believe that Seaxnot was just the saxon name for Tyr/Thorburn)

Tyr was certainly associated with the short one-edged sword, so I dont see why Seaxnot cant be a name for the same figure.

Vanir
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Tyr was certainly associated with the short one-edged sword, so I dont see why Seaxnot cant be a name for the same figure. Yes, absolutely. As you might see in my sigfile, I myself list Seaxnot and Tiw together, as i do lean toward the two being the same.
But then again, there is absolutely nothing to say that Seaxnot wasn't a god unique to the Saxons, and to more than one Anglo-Saxon scholar this is their preferred opinion.

In short, I feel that that in some way, Scythian culture came to bear influence upon some German tribes, but that that influence was a cultural transfer (like English in Africa today) and not a genetic one. The Angles don't seem to have been affected, not any other german tribe close by from what I can tell. Just the Saxons and perhaps the Jutes...

The zoomorphic-knotwork art alone is enough to raise eyebrows.

far ranging fast moving nomads on horseback might have wriggled into some very strange spots in those unrecorded days. If there was no Scythian influence upon the Saxons and Jutes, then the obvious scythian elements in the saxon name, artwork and horse-symbolism are amazing co-incidences on a monumental scale.

I would dearly like to see any DNA studies, and to find out more about the Sakas religion, and whether they themselves identified themselves with a sword or knife.

Milesian
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 12:17 PM
Also interesting to note that the Gaels considered themselves to have been a Celtic/Scythian people :)

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 12:33 PM
In short, I feel that that in some way, Scythian culture came to bear influence upon some German tribes, but that that influence was a cultural transfer (like English in Africa today) and not a genetic one. The Angles don't seem to have been affected, not any other german tribe close by from what I can tell. Just the Saxons and perhaps the Jutes...

I agree that there were borrowings, however cultural continuity between the steppe and the forest happened before the Saxons are identifiable and a lot of Celtic style has a Scythian look for this reason.

There was ethnic continuity between Indo-Iranians and their forest neighbours and the East Slavs are a mixture of a forest people and steppe people. The Low Germanic area is geographically far more distant to the steppe, so I suspect the similarities are probably through more indirect borrowings and distantly shared origins.

Vanir
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:46 PM
I agree that there were borrowings, however cultural continuity between the steppe and the forest happened before the Saxons are identifiable and a lot of Celtic style has a Scythian look for this reason. I recall reading that the Celts actually gleaned the knotwork style from the Anglo-Saxons (not blowing their trumpet at all, since they themselves purloined it from our fine Scythian friends) but the Celts were not to big on the zoomorphic part, focusing more on abstract knotted patterns.

There was ethnic continuity between Indo-Iranians and their forest neighbours and the East Slavs are a mixture of a forest people and steppe people. The Low Germanic area is geographically far more distant to the steppe, so I suspect the similarities are probably through more indirect borrowings and distantly shared origins. This is the only genetic data I can dredge up ATM...

About 50% of Slavs and Balts,and about 30% of Central Europeans share the same Y chromosome haplogroup (R1a) with 50% of the people of the Indus Valley. This Y-chromosome mutation is believed to have originated in people of the kurgan-building culture of traditional Scythia, the Eurasian steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas. This lineage is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe. Seems Germans do not share this Y-chromosome mutation, given their absence in the list above....

Yet another point against the idea that any significant body of Scythians moved off the steppe and into the forests of NW germany.

From what I can see the Scythians were both asiatic in ethnicity, but also caucasian as well, blond mummies have been dug up in ukraine (eg: the ice maiden mummy) I can only assume that the dominant Scythian culture supplanted whatever culture it was that the indigenous peoples of the Ukraine had.

http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/scythians/tatar.jpg
Asiatic scythianesque Tartar

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/%7EThorburn/scythian.jpg
They look very caucasian in the gold motif above...

http://www.plast.org/info/images/scythian-gold2.jpg
another beautiful gold piece. the men look iranian/afghani..

Scythian gold artwork slide collection
http://www.pitt.edu/~haskins/ (http://www.pitt.edu/%7Ehaskins/)

<shrugs> history certainly is stranger than fiction sometimes....

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 04:32 PM
From what I can see the Scythians were both asiatic in ethnicity, but also caucasian as well, blond mummies have been dug up in ukraine (eg: the ice maiden mummy) I can only assume that the dominant Scythian culture supplanted whatever culture it was that the indigenous peoples of the Ukraine had.

Caucasians formrely extended further to the east in the Bronze Age. I wouldnt say this makes Scythians culturally Asiatic, though.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:30 AM
"Saxon" is a contraction of Saxe-man. The "man" being the same word as the English mean with referring to an individual as "one". So, Saxon is a man or a person using a Saxe---no mystery at all. The saxe is a three foot backed blade (like a meat cleaver) used to slice through chain mail. It was not primarily a stabbing weapon.

Whoever wrote the story connecting the Scythians to the Saxons probably also wrote the story connecting Virgils story of Trojan survival to the Swedes. It makes just about as much sense. On no level does it make any sense, historical, cultural, or on the level of physical anthropology. Scythians were shorter, smaller people than the Anglo-Saxons. The lived centuries before the Anglo-Saxons, they were a steppe-horse culture. If there are any links of genetic markers they are probably just general links which are found between the Scythians and many other peoples living in Northern Europe.

Vanir
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 02:16 PM
I'm just trying to deal with this story as open mindedly as possible (being Devil's advocate in a way if you like).

There are people who would ignore data and play it down feeling Scythian influence in Germany would make them "less" German, people (like the Nazis) who played it up feeling it made them "more" aryan, and then again there are people who would over-emphasize it in effort to tone down nordic nationalism (like half-baked journalists and Arts students) none of whom are likely to honestly examine all facts for their own sake. Which is why I made this thread.


"Saxon" is a contraction of Saxe-man. The "man" being the same word as the English mean with referring to an individual as "one". So, Saxon is a man or a person using a Saxe---no mystery at all. The saxe is a three foot backed blade (like a meat cleaver) used to slice through chain mail. It was not primarily a stabbing weapon. Just going off on a tangent here (as this topic interests me) Seaxes were carried by all freemen, and were mostly small, all-purpose utility knives. The bigger war seaxes, or langseaxes, were IMHO primarily used for stabbing, or hacking at the unarmoured. In the name of science :D I have worn mail armour (with padding) and let my friends hack at me with a machete, and it did nothing. But I can tell you there is NO way I'd let them come near me with a sharp knife, spear or bow&arrow and give them open slather. Mail is hopeless at turning stabbing blows. The rings have to be REALLY strongly welded or riveted. And even then, I would not trust riveted links personally, the rivets can pop, and then you're dead. When we put the mail shirt on a mannenquin, all of us could stab through it with a forceful blow (that would be 15 years ago now, haha)
something like this would be awesome for chopping, given the shape and weight distribution http://www.himalayan-imports.com/yangdu-birgorkha.jpg
but the design of a seax would lend its strength in stabbing straight into the vitals, that long thin point getting between ribs with ease <shudder>
Here's a beautiful shortish seax..
http://www.heorot.dk/himalayan-saex-sher01.jpg
plus the large pic of the vicious looking langseax I posted further back in this thread.
Regia Anglorum have a really good page on Seaxes..
http://www.regia.org/seax.htm


The langseax, a tool much more suited for fighting with, usually ended in a deadly needle point, therefore a thrust could have had much the same effect as a spear. A slashing blow to an armoured man would do little visible damage directly through mail, certainly breaking bones and causing heavy bruising; but brought down on an unarmoured limb or neck would prove to be fatal. The simple rule of 'the bigger the weapon, the greater the damage' reflects how dangerous Scramaseaxes could be.
Whoever wrote the story connecting the Scythians to the Saxons probably also wrote the story connecting Virgils story of Trojan survival to the Swedes. It makes just about as much sense. You'll get no argument from me there!


On no level does it make any sense, historical, cultural, or on the level of physical anthropology. The only clear influence that I can't deny my eyes see is the zoomorphic-knotwork artstyle.
The similarity in the names Sakas and Saxon is interesting circumstantially when considering it along with the knotwork art and Horse symbolism, but on their own are reasonably & entirely explicable in a purely Teuronic way (ala seax = saxon) *IF* the Sakas were shown to idenfify themselves with a knife or sword, then I'd take another look, but since that is not likely to ever happen. Plonk.


Scythians were shorter, smaller people than the Anglo-Saxons. The lived centuries before the Anglo-Saxons, they were a steppe-horse culture. If there are any links of genetic markers they are probably just general links which are found between the Scythians and many other peoples living in Northern Europe. No argument from me. On the contrary I agree.

Just giving this story a chance under the naked light of day to prosper and grow, or wither away, on its own merits, so I never have to hear someone squawking at me "You aren't Germanic! You're a Saxon and thus asiatic! Germans don't exist!"

I can see how some cultural influence might have occurred, as such transmissions of ideas have happened many times in history, but that's about all.