Did the Franks originate from nowrthwestern Europe, or eastern (Eurasian) Europe?

Dreamhunter said:

But the interesting thing is that the Persian rendition for Frank is Farangi, and even more intriguing, there is a Turanian princess named Farangis in Uzbek ancient legend. She was daughter of Afrasiyab, a legendary Turanian king, and she married Siavush, son of Iranian king Kay Cavush from a captive Turanian princess.

Click to expand...

The Persian word ´farangi´ is simply an adoption of the Frankish self-designation ´Franks´ and was indiscriminately applied to all European peoples, since most of the crusaders were Franks so that their self-designation became a Persian designation for Europeans, and subsequently a word for ´white people´ in many areas of the Orient, e.g. Thailand. In Malaysia, where you are writing from, the word ´ferringhi´ (rooting in ´farangi´) means ´foreigner´.

As to the princess, this figure had a lot of names, ranging from Vispanfrya (8th century at the latest) and Vasfafarid via Kasifari and Gisfari to Farigis and, in the end, Farangis in the Sahnama texts from around 1,000 CE. ´Farangis´ is seen as a corruption of the name ´Farigis´.

So it is more than improbable that her latest name refers to ´Franks´ and that it indicates a Persian origin of these people. It just phonetically coincides with the Persian adoption of the self-designation of the Franks.

Around 580 A.D, the chronicler Gregory of Tours speaks of a people of Pannonia who would have gone up the Danube then would have settled on the banks of the Rhine, to then invade Gaul.
Therefore it would not have been impossible for part of the same people to migrate in the opposite direction, i.e. south-east.
The Said Germanic peoples emigrated a lot in the periods between 300 B.C and 500A.D.
Pannonia, region which would be that of the origin of the Franks:


Note that the Celts are supposed to originate from about the same region as the Franks (Halstatt) and that their presence is attested in Asia Minor well before the appearance or identification of the Franks by the Latin sources (from 254 A.D under the name of Francs) from the 3rd century B.C under the name of Galatians by the Greek sources.
In yellow in the 6th century B.C. (Halstatt), in light green around 275 B.C:



Another version of the origin of the Franks makes them descendants of the "Trojans" thus of population originating from Anatolia where were installed the Galatians (chronicle of Frederegaire and the Liber Historiae Francorum 725 A.D).
So one can speculate that an early identification or confusion between Franks and Galatians in Persia is not impossible and that it would go back to the 3rd century B.C.
One can also speculate a Galatian population movement from "Galatia" (Ankara region) to Pannonia or the survival of links between the original Celtic tribes, therefore from central Europe, and those who emigrated to Anatolia.
Galatan settlement area:


In addition, it is known that many Franks fought in the Byzantine armies and fought against the troops of the Persian Empire.
It could have fuelled some legends.

Dreamhunter said:

Most western history-related sites favour a Danish or thereabouts ultimate origin for the Franks. But the interesting thing is that the Persian rendition for Frank is Farangi, and even more intriguing, there is a Turanian princess named Farangis in Uzbek ancient legend. She was daughter of Afrasiyab, a legendary Turanian king, and she married Siavush, son of Iranian king Kay Cavush from a captive Turanian princess.

The Turanian region, BTW, was the ancient playground of those nomadic horsemen warriors the Saka, the Massagetae, the Sarmatians and the Scythians.

I was just wondering, if there cud be something more than this behind that legend.

Click to expand...

Where Did you get the Danish origin? That's for tribes such as the Burgundians. The Franks originated East of the Danube. Not all Germanics were the same or of the same ultimate origin. Germania is a region where different barbarian tribes mingled and eventually formed a more or less common culture. The barbarians could range from Nordic type, Celtic/Gallic type (probably the majority), Hunnic (partly mongoloid), even Iranic (Allans) and others. The Franks origin is more mysterious. All we know they were a very adaptable people that usually integrated into their host culture. Originated somewhere East of the Danube, mixed with the Germanics and ended up as the founder of the French ethnic group.

Dreamhunter said:

Well, very unlikely Persian, becos there was yet no Persia at the time of Afrasiyab.

Click to expand...

I mean the Persians from the time of the crusades, as I mentioned in my post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangistan

Frangistan literally means "Land of the Franks", from Farang which is the Persianized form of Frank plus the suffix -istan coming from the Persian language.

The name of the princess, Farangis, is, as I wrote, a later modification (corruption) of her name ´Farigis´ in a precedent source, and appears only in Persian texts (´Shahnameh´ or ´Shahnama´) from around 1,000 CE:

Shahnama: 1000 Years of the Persian Book of Kings| Explore and Learn | Freer and Sackler Galleries

Dreamhunter said:

The name Feringhi, BTW, is used in older Malay language literature to refer to only the Portuguese (who were the first Europeans to hv reached our shores), but not to any other European people, AFAIK. It might hv been something borrowed from the initial Arabic form for Frank, i.e. Farangi or Faranji.

Click to expand...

Apart from your insider knowledge, I can only rely on some hints in the net. There it says about the village Batu Ferringhi in the north of Penang Island/Malaysia that its name means "Foreigner´s Rock".

Chlodio said:

Merovingian scholars consider the Pannonian origin story told by Gregory and the Trojan origin story told by Fredegar to be origin myths. The archealogical record of northwest Germany shows no sudden arrival of new technology or art forms. The Franks emerged as a new ethnic or political identity from among previous peoples who had lived in Northwest Germany for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

My understanding as well. Linguistically, they spoke Germanic. There would have to have been some kind linguistic shift if the myths reflected history, which means they Franks would have had to have been in NW Europe for some time, similar to the Celts' story.

the reason the germanic tribes of caesars and augustus times no longer existed as such during the late empire is because they merged into broader confederations, hun hegemony played a part but also the marcomannic war, dont remmeber by who but one myth highlights the sugambri as important to the frank ethnogenesis;

alexfritz said:

the reason the germanic tribes of caesars and augustus times no longer existed as such during the late empire is because they merged into broader confederations, hun hegemony played a part but also the marcomannic war, dont remmeber by who but one myth highlights the sugambri as important to the frank ethnogenesis;

Click to expand...

The allusion to the Sicambri among the possible ancestors of the Franks is interesting.
Indeed, this people is mentioned in the Latin sources from 55 B.C in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico of Caesar.
Sicambri or Sicambers are also mentioned as peoples of either Celtic, Germanic or mixed cultures.

Like the Cimbri, and like their neighbours across the Rhine, the Eburones, many names of Sicambrian leaders end in typical Celtic suffixes like -rix (Baetorix, Deudorix, etc.). If the Sicambri were not Celtic speakers themselves, this could also indicate intense contacts with Celtic peoples across the Rhine in Gaul.

Click to expand...

It should also be pointed out that when we speak of "Germanic peoples" or "Celts", we are in fact speaking of a confederation of peoples that may have important differences, especially linguistic ones.
It would be hazardous to imagine, for example, that those whom the Greeks called the Galatians spoke a language close to those whom the Romans called the Gauls even if we call them Celts.

Gregoire of Tour refers to Sicambers in his chronicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicambri#Sicambri_as_poetic_name_for_Salian_Franks

...Salian Franks were called Sicambri. An example of this custom is remembered by the 6th-century historian Gregory of Tours (II, 31), who states that the Merovingian Frankish leader Clovis I, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith, was addressed as a Sicamber by Saint Remigius, the officiating bishop of Rheims. At the crucial moment of Clovis' baptism, Remigius declared, "Now you must bend down your head, you proud Sicamber. Honour what you have burnt. Burn what you have honoured." It is likely that this recalled a link between the Sicambri and the Salian Franks, who were Clovis' people.

More examples of Salians being called Sicamber can be found in the Panegyrici Latini, Life of King Sigismund, Life of King Dagobert and other old texts.

Click to expand...

According to the German wikipedia the Sicambri (Sugambri) are the same tribe as the Cherusci and the Chatti.
They are identified as of 70 A.D in Latin sources as occupying territories which will be allotted to the Franks several centuries later:


These are the territories that would have been occupied by the Franks Saliens (in yellow) and Ripuaries( in brown) around 400-440 A.D.


It is not impossible that the Franks, especially the Ripuaries, were at least in part descendants of the Celts.
Therefore, not impossible that they have links (distant?) with the Galtatians, mentioned in my previous post ,who were known to the Persians since the 3rd century B.C.
It is only a bold theory noworry, but there are several references to links between Franks and Anatolia in ancient sources (allusion to "Trojans", Persian sources).
Perhaps rolleyes these references are not only effects of styles but clues to the history of little-known peoples.