Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[Tomenable]

Perhaps Lechites were Celts or Romans and Slavs called them Vlachs?]

Lechites did not exist as a distinct group, only as a term.

Term "Vlachs" is derived from Germanic word for "foreigners" which was also adopted by Slavs:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Vlach&allowed_in_frame=0

Old Church Slavonic vlakhu, a Slavic adoptation of Germanic *walh (source of Old English wealh) "foreigner," especially applied to Celts and Latins

And also:

The Old Frankish word for Gaul is "Walholant" from the Old Germanic "wahla" meaning foreigner. The name Wallonia/Walloon comes from that too.

The equivalent in Britain of the Anglo-Saxons called the Celtic Britons, Wales/Welsh. From the Old English word "waelisc" (welsh) and "wealas" (Wales) all from the same Germanic root "walh" and wahla".

Slavs also adopted that word. For example Poles today call Italians "Włosi" and Vlachs "Wołosi".

Welsh people is a Germanic name for Brythons, which also dervied from this word.

=================================

Vlachs called themselves "Romanians" or "Rumanians", land "Tara Româneasca" and language "rumâniască, româneasca", etc.:

Tranquillo Andronico 1534 - "Valachi nunc se Romanos vocant".

Ferrante Capeci 1575 - "Anzi essi si chiamano romanesci, e vogliono molti che erano mandati quì quei che erano dannati a cavar metalli".

Pierre Lescalopier 1574 - "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l’empereur... Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain".

1542 Johann Lebel = "Romuini" ("Ex Vlachi Valachi, Romanenses Italiani,/Quorum reliquae Romanensi lingua utuntur.../Solo Romanos nomine, sine re, repraesentantes./Ideirco vulgariter Romuini sunt appelanti"),

Stanisław Orzechowski 16th century - "qui eorum lingua Romini ab Romanis, nostra Walachi, ab Italis appellantur",

Ante Verance 1570 - "Valacchi, qui se Romanos nominant... Gens quae ear terras - Transsylvaniam, Moldaviam et Transalpinam - nostra aetate incolit, Valacchi sunt, eaque a Romania ducit originem, tametsi nomine longe alieno...".

Francesco della Valle 1532 - "Romei".

In 17th century (Rumun - Johann Tröster; Rumuny - Paul Kovács de Lisznyai; Rumuin - Laurentius Toppeltinus; Rumen - Johannes Lucius i Martin Szentiványi). Etc.

 

[Tomenable]

It make sense if Huns were Slavs.

The Huns were steppe nomads, Slavs were sedentary agriculturalists (farming + cattle and other animals).

And Slavs were not as warlike as Huns.

IMO there is no way the original Huns were Slavs, but Slavs could be part of the Hunnic Confederation (which was multi-ethnic and included also some Germanic tribes as Hunnic vassals).

Hunnic 4th century king - Balamber - even took a Gothic princess as one of his wives, after defeating those Goths in battle.

This might explain why there were some Germanic names in the Hunnic royal family - that Balamber and other Hunnic kings could have multiple wifes from various ethnic groups and tribes.

==============================================

As for anthropology - Lubomir Czupkiewicz in his book "Pochodzenie i rasa Słowian" ("Origin and race of the Slavs") shows that Early Medieval Slavic populations had similar cephalic index and other indexes as Ancient Iranic, Scytho-Sarmatian populations:

Ilość /m+k/ = Sample size /males+females/
Cefaliczny = Cephalic index
Etc., etc.

Early Medieval Slavic skulls:

Polanie zachodni = western Polans (from Greater Poland region; founders of Poland)
Czesi = Czechs
Wieleci = Veleti
Wołynianie = Volynians / Volhynians
Drewlanie = Drevlians (probably eastern, East Slavic ones)
Dregowiczanie = Dregoviches
Krzywiczanie = Kriviches
Siewierzanie = Severians
Polanie wschodnie = eastern Polans or Polianians (from the region around Kiev)
Nowogrodzianie = Novgorodians

Ancient Iranic (Irano-Aryan) skulls:

Scytowie = Scythians (from various regions)
Sarmaci / Sauromaci = Sauromatae / Sarmatians
Sakowie = Sakae (from various regions)
Ludy kultury andronowskiej = peoples of Andronovo Culture
Ludy kultury katakumbowej = peoples of Catacomb Culture
Ludy kultury jamowej = peoples of Yamna Culture
Etc., etc. (ask if you need translation for something else)

Wusunowie = Wūsūn / Usun (most of the population were Indo-European, likely Iranic, probably Sakae):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wusun

 

[mihaitzateo]

What ??? In the same you can claim that Ancient historians like Ptolemy or Tacitus fabricated this term.

All terms are "fabricated" because they are just terms, which denote some things. This is basics of logics.

By the way - Fredegar's Chronicle (Chronica Francorum, Frankish Chronicle) also talks about Slavs as the the Venedi.



Samo was made the king of the Slavic federation, he was elected by united Slavic tribes. Read the Fredegar's Chronicle.

Samo was originally a smuggler of weapons who traded (illegaly) with Slavs, selling them Frankish swords (exporting swords from the Frankish Empire was illegal at that time). After the Slavic-Avar war started, Samo - with his bodyguard unit - was travelling across Slavic lands to sell them more swords, as usual. He (with his bodyguards) encountered Slavs when they were just preparing to battle against the Avars, he joined their army and supported them in battle - showing courage and killing many Avars (according to Fredegar's Chronicle).

Grateful for his help and admiring his bravery in battle, Slavic tribes democratically elected Samo their king.

This is how it happened according to Chronica Francorum. Though the assumption that he was trading weapons is my theory. Chronica Francorum only says that he was a merchant / trader trading with Slavs. But IMO he was an illegal smuggler of weapons.

As for Samo's ethnicity - he was born in the region of Sens at the Yonne River in what is now Central France. That region was overwhelmingly Gallo-Romano, and so was most certainly Samo. So he lived in the Frankish Empire but he was a Gallo-Roman guy.

Later he adopted Slavic identity and he had 22 Slavic wives (according to Fredegar - the main source for that period).



The so called "Pomeranian" Culture was in fact Late Lusatian Culture - continuation of the Lusatian. And it ended in the 3rd century BC. At that time (3rd century BC) people of that culture emigrated east, contributing to formation of the Zarubintsy Culture.

We hear about the Slavs (the Antes in this case) for the first time in the 4th century AD in Ukraine.

Some regions belonging to the Zarubintsy Culture were invaded first by Sarmatians and later by Goths. The Zarubintsy Culture were IMO Slavs. And a very large role in creation of that culture (in the 3rd century BC) was played by descendants of the Late Lusatian Culture. The Zarubintsy developed from cultural influences of earlier local Milograd Culture and immigrants from the Late Lusatian Culture.

Which is consistent with my hypothesis - that "Lusatians" mixed with the "Milogradians", and Slavs emerged as the result.

Where I can read this book?
Anyway,22 wives seems a little on the legend side.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Do we know when word "Lach" was used first describing polish ethnicity? I find it doubtful that a nation would call themselves "after Lechites", like leftovers of someone else, it is not very proud name. Even if Polach changed into Polak, the meaning of the word had different roots.
We can also receive word Lach when we drop V from Vlach. Vlahs are Romance speaking remnants of Roman Empire on Balkans, hens name Wlochy in Polish and other Slavic languages for Italians, who are also Romance speakers. Lachy was a description of Poles used by Ukrainians mainly. Poles were Roman Catholics and nobles spoke Latin. Perhaps this is why Ukrainians, being Orthodox Christians, started calling Poles Vlachs as a description of Roman culture, later simplifying and dropping V, and retaining Lachs. The fact that original Vlachs also settled around Karpaty and Western Ukraine could help the confusion and misnomer.

Perhaps Lechites were Celts or Romans and Slavs called them Vlachs?



It make sense if Huns were Slavs. Who were Huns? There is not much I2a Dinaric in Mongols or in Kazakhstan.


It's just that nobody really know where white Croatia was located. Probably somewhere in Carpathian mountains, Hrvaty. The biggest problem of your hypothesis is that Lusatian Culture ended about 1,000 years before we hear anything about Slavs, Croats in this instance. Croats never met Lusatians.

How can you even start guessing what language your Lechites spoke?! You just really really really want the to speak Slavic. Wouldn't it be so bad if they spoke Germanic or Celtic?


There are always regional differences called dialects, also containing many borrowed words from neighbours.
Polish rulers were busy learning Latin not some east russian dialects.

Wow

Because they are neighbors? There are also germanic words in Polish. What does that mean?

LeBrok in old Romanian Poles were called "Lesi" and a Pole was called "Leah".
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/leah
The word is taken from Ukrainian which were using for Pole "ljach".

 

[mihaitzateo]

Arvistro,

Poland since the end of the Piast rule (1370) and since the reign of King Louis (late 14th century), was ruled de facto by Polish nobility (so called noble democracy) and not by kings, power of whom was limited and who could reign only when supported by majority of Polish nobles.

Jogaila was allowed to get Polish crown because Polish nobles agreed to give him this crown (and officially he was not even the king of Poland, but just the husband of Polish queen Jadwiga - who was officially "the female king" until her death, though of course de facto the nobility was in charge), in exchange for incorporating Lithuania into the Polish sphere of influence - as the Union of Krewo clearly says:

Document of the Union of Krewo from 1385 says:

Demum etiam Jagalo dux saepedictus promittit terras suas Litvaniae et Rusiae coronae regni Poloniae perpetuo applicare.

In short - Jogaila promised to incorporate Lithuania and Russia to Poland (as integral parts of the Polish Crown) forever (perpetuo applicare).

In other words Polish nobility wanted to annex Lithuania into their realm, and Jogaila agreed to sell his country in exchange for being recognized as the husband of Polish queen (that's why Lithuanian nationalists still consider Jogaila as traitor of Lithuania today) and in exchange for Polish help in Lithuania's struggle against the Teutonic Order and against internal chaos and rebellions (check: civil wars in Medieval Lithuania).

No surprise that the Lithuanian nobility did not like those extremely pro-Polish, anti-Lithuanian conditions - and eventually the union was revised (check the Union of Horodlo, in which terms of unification were revised, or google "Polish-Lithuanian unions", because there were more than 3 of them).

Well I do not understand one thing,how can Jogaila grant rule over Russia also,since he was King of Lithuania?

 

[LeBrok]

Early Medieval Slavic skulls:



Polanie zachodni = western Polans (from Greater Poland region; founders of Poland)
Czesi = Czechs
Wieleci = Veleti
Wołynianie = Volynians / Volhynians
Drewlanie = Drevlians (probably eastern, East Slavic ones)
Dregowiczanie = Dregoviches
Krzywiczanie = Kriviches
Siewierzanie = Severians
Polanie wschodnie = eastern Polans or Polianians (from the region around Kiev)
Nowogrodzianie = Novgorodians

Ancient Iranic (Irano-Aryan) skulls:



Scytowie = Scythians (from various regions)
Sarmaci / Sauromaci = Sauromatae / Sarmatians
Sakowie = Sakae (from various regions)
Ludy kultury andronowskiej = peoples of Andronovo Culture
Ludy kultury katakumbowej = peoples of Catacomb Culture
Ludy kultury jamowej = peoples of Yamna Culture
Etc., etc. (ask if you need translation for something else)

Wusunowie = Wūsūn / Usun (most of the population were Indo-European, likely Iranic, probably Sakae):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wusun

Thanks, interesting. How do these measurements compare to modern Poles and other europeans, ancient and modern?

 

[LeBrok]

Lechites did not exist.

It is a term coined later to describe North-Western Slavs, descendants of legendary Lech (or Lechius in Latin).

There was a legend about two brothers - Lechius and Czechius. Another version has three brothers - Lech, Czech and Rus.

According to this legend Czechs, Slovaks and Lusatians / Sorbs are descendants of Czechius (Czech).

Poles ("Lachs" is the name for Poles in East Slavic), Pomeranians, Polabians* are descendants of his brother - Lechius (Lech).

*Polabians consisted of Obodrites, Veleti and Rujani.

.

Are there any records when term "Lechites, Lechy" was first used as description of Polish ethnicity?
To go from Lech to Lach one needs sound shift from e to a. Is such shift known in Ukrainian?

 

[Sile]

What ??? In the same you can claim that Ancient historians like Ptolemy or Tacitus fabricated this term.

All terms are "fabricated" because they are just terms, which denote some things. This is basics of logics.

You clearly do not read anything presented.
The fabricated Venethi of Jordanes where the ones that appeared in central eastern Europe.

There where never any Venethi/venedae there....they where only on the baltic coast.

As I said before, the Venedae where an insignificant tribe who did nothing, lasted from 350BC to 220AD and where ONLY mentioned in history because they where part of the amber trade to the adriatic sea with the more famous Aestii tribe.
Jordanes is the only one who fabricated the Venethi greatness..............its already proved he is wrong in where they resided and their greatness

Just admit it, it is a slavic fabrication commenced by the lies of Jordanes.............your scholars have already understood this, but you live under some kind of nationalistic propoganda.

I state that when nationalism commenced circa 1780, the amount of historical lies of past historical times 10 folded. This amount of lies from all nations was clearly only an attempt to maintain or form some form of national pride.

To conclude........it would be far easier for you if you use Jordanes papers as toilet paper

 

[LeBrok]

Lechites did not exist as a distinct group, only as a term.

Term "Vlachs" is derived from Germanic word for "foreigners" which was also adopted by Slavs:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Vlach&allowed_in_frame=0

It makes sense to look at it as germanic exonim. Goths had extensive contact with Romans of Balkans before Slavs did.

Slavs also adopted that word. For example Poles today call Italians "Włosi" and Vlachs "Wołosi".

Welsh people is a Germanic name for Brythons, which also dervied from this word.

=================================

Vlachs called themselves "Romanians" or "Romanians", land "Tara Româneasca" and language "rumâniască, româneasca", etc.:

There is also district of Valachia in Romania. I think it was the place where Romance language was preserved and "reconquered" Romania after Slavic expansion. Do we know if Valachina is exonym, germanic word. Later becoming geographic and ethnic description. Or was is Romanian Endonym, their own name?

 

[arvistro]

What is actually the proof that L550 or L1025 went to Sweden rather than staying on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea.

I found this (on another forum):

"As a matter of fact N1c-L1025 are of Baltic origin only. We can find this clade someware else, but in the Tawasts/Räihä family. But this branch is only a child branch to one of Baltic branches. (...) one of about thirty L1025 lines is the Tawasts/Räihä line. I propose they have some ancient West Baltic origin."

And also:

"The Finnish sublineage of N1c-L1025 was separated very early from the main branch that gave rise to the lineages found among Balts, and we cannot be sure whether this split happened it in today’s Baltic countries, in Finland, Northern Russia, or maybe somewhere in Scandinavia."

And your theory makes no sense according to members of that forum:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&sid=cb915a815cc91743113eadfb637f27f0&start=50

"He seems to think it's an ancient Finnic marker spread by a Scandinavian tribe (Goths?) into the Baltic states very recently. Of course this makes no sense, because all of that N1c1 in the Baltic states can't be of late Iron Age origin. N1c1 is a Boreal zone marker, and modern Balts took form when R1a from the Corded Ware zone (which is now Poland) moved into that N1c1 Boreal zone during the Bronze Age."

And also:

"Thus, if N1c-L1025 members were indeed present among the Balts at that early time (500 BC – 1 AD), I would expect that their sudden expansion would have taken place at the same moment (more or less) and not about one thousand years later."

But a response to this is:

"Those are the subclades, not L1025 itself. Their expansion is most likely related to the formation and growth of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. You are confusing the original East Baltic expansion with the formation and growth of the GDL. "

And more explanation why your theory makes no sense:

"Also, the very fact that the Varangian sister branch of L1025, having no specific SNP so far, hence usually described as L550(xL1025), is commonly considered to be derived from some Scandinavian (Nordic) population, makes the Northern origin of N1c-L1025 quite likely."

Debunking:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&sid=cb915a815cc91743113eadfb637f27f0&start=50

"No, that does not follow. One could just as easily reverse your statement's direction to say that "the usual association of L1025 with the South Baltic makes a similar origin of its sister Varangian branch quite likely." Your argument would carry some weight only if you could show that L550(xL1025) in Scandinavia is significantly older than the L550 (both L1025+ and L1025-) in the South and East Baltic."

=======================================

Well I'm not very familiar with new findings about N1c haplogroup so maybe I will just leave it alone.

But you need to back up your claims with archaeological and other kinds of evidence.

There is no any indication that ancestors of the Giedyminids came from Scandinavia.

There is even no evidence of Viking presence in Lithuania.

I googled "Vikings in Lithuania" and found an article, the first sentence of which says:

"(...) the Baltic Region is an area far less written about and understood about than continental and insular Viking activity. Even less is known about the Vikings in today's Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. (...)"

So when you have no any other evidence then you can't speculate about such things.

Why isn't there any evidence of Scandinavian material culture in Lithuania ??? No evidence of migration or incursion to the region.

Please read Neman trade route by Kovalov. It is in Russian.

 

[arvistro]

@Tomenable,
If you really want to read more on vikings in Lithuania, then Neman Trade Route by Kovalov is great source. That is if you read Russian.
If not in Rus, there is co-work by Kaliningrad, Polish, Lithuanian scientists on Viking age finds in Old Prussian lands in English.
I also did not know, its not yet in schools. But observed model/pattern predicted relatively late influx of l1025 in Baltic nobility and I searched for it. I hoped those were not varyags...

Thank you for checking up with molgen. I am somewhat sad that Michal from molgen forum was the first not me to suggest this version but I guess he deserves the credit far more.
It is funny how his version was attacked then by asking - where is Baltic 1025 in Scandinavs if it came from there I received updated question in Rus version of forum - where is Scandinav version of 1025+ m2782+ if it came from there (since L1025 Scand was already found) Funny folk them.

For some reason I am unable to register on English version molgen forum (admin has not activated me) to open relevant topic and discuss my collected info on the subj...

 

[Taranis]

Let me understand you correctly.........you are saying that the venedi/venedae who lived on the coast of the baltic sea north of the Old prussians ( galidians, sudini) , east of the aestii, west and SW of the goths where Slavs ?
Is this what you mean?

No, I am suggesting that "Venedae" was a Germanic exonym for Balto-Slavic-speaking peoples, I'm suggesting that the distinction between "Baltic" and "Slavic" was minimal around the 1st century AD (for which a good case can be made based on the internal evolution of Proto-Slavic), and I'm suggesting that the "Venedic" tribes near the Baltic Sea coast (Galindians, Sudovians) were indeed Baltic (as which they are recorded 1000 years later), but that those Venedic tribes in the inland would later become Slavic. Under this scenario, it would be logical if the term (exonym) Venedi was later re-used for labeling the West Slavic peoples as "Wends".

I elaborated about the Venedi in greater detail in this earlier post:

On the "Venedi", in my opinion, they were either 1) Baltic or 2) undifferentiated Balto-Slavic (based on the timing - 2nd century AD, it could be still possible to argue for the latter).
- Ptolemy places them clearly along the shore of the Baltic Sea.
- The "Venedic" mountains are certainly not the Carpathians, I'm not sure where exactly they are (today, in the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia?). There can be no doubt about it because Ptolemy gives coordinates for the Venedic mountains, and these place them in vicinity to the Baltic, in the general area of the Baltic tribes also listed by Ptolemy.

EDIT: I might add that Ptolemy lists the Carpathians mountains separately, as "Καρπατης ορος" (Karpatēs oros), marking part of the border between European Sarmatia and Dacia.

I think for the identity of the Venedi, Tacitus (part 46) describes the differences between Bastarnae (Peucini), Venedi and Fenni in detail:

- he says that the language of the Bastarnae is similar to the Germanic one (from which we can conjecture, the Venedi and the Fenni spoke a different language).
- he says that the Venedi are like the Germanic people in so far as that they lived in permanent settlements (but in contrast to the nomadic Sarmatae).

So, in my opinion (I will get to the Lusatian culture later), the construction of a "Venedic" language is unnecessary here, as the Venedi of the classical sources were probably Balto-Slavic peoples. Its possible that the term "Venedi" was a Germanic exonym, and if that is the case its plausible that the later term "Wends" (for the Slavs) was just a logical continuation of the name.

No linguistic scholar has ever found any sea terms in slavic script/literature , but you are

What would you call this then: Polish "morze", Russian "more" (море), which, in turn, has cognates in Celtic (Gaulish "Aremorica", Irish "muir", Welsh "môr"), Germanic (German "Meer") , Latin ("mare")...?

 

[LeBrok]

No, I am suggesting that "Venedae" was a Germanic exonym for Balto-Slavic-speaking peoples, I'm suggesting that the distinction between "Baltic" and "Slavic" was minimal around the 1st century AD (for which a good case can be made based on the internal evolution of Proto-Slavic), and I'm suggesting that the "Venedic" tribes near the Baltic Sea coast (Galindians, Sudovians) were indeed Baltic (as which they are recorded 1000 years later), but that those Venedic tribes in the inland would later become Slavic. Under this scenario, it would be logical if the term (exonym) Venedi was later re-used for labeling the West Slavic peoples as "Wends".

This makes a lot of sense.

What would you call this then: Polish "morze", Russian "more" (море), which, in turn, has cognates in Celtic (Gaulish "Aremorica", Irish "muir", Welsh "môr"), Germanic (German "Meer") , Latin ("mare")...?

Probably Sile wanted to say that Slavic languages don't have rich vocabulary related to the sea.
I never read interesting conversation with good counter arguments, so I'm not sure how this would pan out either.

 

[Sile]

No, I am suggesting that "Venedae" was a Germanic exonym for Balto-Slavic-speaking peoples, I'm suggesting that the distinction between "Baltic" and "Slavic" was minimal around the 1st century AD (for which a good case can be made based on the internal evolution of Proto-Slavic), and I'm suggesting that the "Venedic" tribes near the Baltic Sea coast (Galindians, Sudovians) were indeed Baltic (as which they are recorded 1000 years later), but that those Venedic tribes in the inland would later become Slavic. Under this scenario, it would be logical if the term (exonym) Venedi was later re-used for labeling the West Slavic peoples as "Wends".

There was no Venedae/Venedi tribes in the inland, there is only the fabricated name of venethi which appeared for the Very first time under Jordanes, a tribe he stated came from the Viscla river and not the Vistula river.
Cna you link any other historians who places these Venedae not on the coast?

- The venedae/venedi are outside of Wendish lands, how can they be wendish?
By claiming the venedae as wendish you are also claiming Galidians, sudovians wendish as well.



Jordanes associated the classical Venedae with Vinid-, the Gothic designation for the Latin/Byzantine Sklavin-, on the same «linguistic» grounds that he identified the Goths with the Getae: simple similarity in sound [64]. On the other hand, he included the group he called Venethae = Vinid- in his introductory section for good reason: it was part of the Gothic tradition, where the great ruler Hermanarich (§ 119) had dealings with the Venethae. We assume, then, that Jordanes in this case is not speaking of his own time, but is merely putting together information from his heterogeneous sources. We cannot trust his remarks about the Venethae (= classical Venedae). Further, Jordanes had learned about the populous band of the Venedae from classical sources, especially Ptolemy, who connected them with the Vistula River, even giving the Gulf of Danzig the designation κόλπος Οὐενεδικός. Tacitus wrote that the Venedi's «plundering forays take them over all that wooded and mountainous country» (§ 46) [65]. It was apparently on that basis that Jordanes gave his description of the habitat of the Venethae: hi paludes silvasque pro civitatibus habent (§ 35). Jordanes here is not providing contemporary, sixth-century, data, but a rehash of material from older sources.

But there was still another reason why Jordanes identified Venetae (= classical Venedae) with the Germanic term Vinid-. Like the Goths, who took over the former habitat of the Getae, the Vinid-, of his time lived on the territory of the ancient Venedae. Jordanes's data on the Vinid- (~ Vindi) are original and extremely important.

He tells us that the Vidivarii (this word has correctly been recognized as Vindivarii) live «on the shores of the ocean (Baltic Sea) where the waters of the Vistula river stream through three throats». They are not an ethnic unit, but people «congregated from different bands (or races)» (ex diversis nationibus adgregati, § 36). It is certain that in Jordanes' Vi[n]divarii we are dealing with a form of a name which Jordanes incorrectly took to be a supposed illustration of the original name of the people concerned: Vindi = Sclavi, plus the Latin word varii, meaning 'different'.

It is fortunate that Jordanes provides another form of this name: Viuidarii, gens Viuidaria (§ 96, which specialists have also corrected to Vinidarii). The second element in the name, -varii > -arii, stands for the Germanic *vari-ōs 'defender' [67]. The term *vinid-[v]ari-ōs, therefore, should be translated as «defender of the comrades in the [warriors'] ring» (or possibly: «inhabitant of the ring ») [68]. The remaining information that Jordanes furnishes corroborates this proposed etymology. He writes:
«The same Gepidae were bursting with envy as long as they lived in the region of Spesis (Spesis provincia, unidentified hapax) [69] on the island surrounded by spits of the Vistula which in their own language they called Gepedoios (Germ. ojos «island »). Now, I was told, this island is inhabited by the kind (gens) *Vinid-ari, since the [the Gepidae] left (ca. 250) for better lands.
It is well known that the *Vinidarii [are those] who had congregated together from different bands [or races] (ex diversis nationïbus) as if to one refuge and had formed one kind (in unum asylum collecti sunt et gentem fecisse noscuntur, § 96)» [70].
This definition of the Vinid-ari- is of profound importance for European history. Jordanes was in large part a compiler, and he patched together facts or statements from many different sources with no regard at all for the times and places these sources were written.

[FONT=&quot]The Vinid- were linked with the great Ostrogothic king Hermanarich (d. 375) who, having overpowered the Heruli, forced them and the Baltic Aesti to submit to his rule (§ 119) [/FONT][FONT=&quot][75][/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Dagne]

LeBrok in old Romanian Poles were called "Lesi" and a Pole was called "Leah".
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/leah
The word is taken from Ukrainian which were using for Pole "ljach".

In Lithuanian Poland is Lenkija
and Polish person is lenkas.

 

[Tomenable]

As I said before, the Venedae where an insignificant tribe

No. Ptolemy called them "greater races" and mentioned them first when listing those "greater" peoples of Sarmatia.

After "greater races" he listed "lesser races" (among them the Goths). The Venedi were first (largest?) among the "greater" ones.

The Goths were less numerous (and inhabited a smaller area) than the Venedi, because the Goths were listed among "lesser races".

There was no Venedae/Venedi tribes in the inland

On what basis are you so sure about this ??? Your interpretation might be valid, but I don't get how can you be so sure about this.

Accounts of Tacitus and Pliny the Elder can be interpreted in such a way, that the Venedi lived deeply inland as well.

Tacitus wrote (in Latin - every translation I saw is different, maybe someone can accurately translate this?):

"Venedi multum ex moribus traxerunt; nam quidquid inter Peucinos Fennosque silvarum ac montium erigitur latrociniis pererrant."

Pliny the Elder wrote (in Latin):

"Quidam haec habitari ad Vistlam usque fluvium a Sarmatis, Venedis, Sciris, Hirris."

=============================

Ptolemy also doesn't say anywhere that the Venedi were limited just to the coastline - it is only your own minimalistic interpretation.

Ptolemy does not say anywhere that the Venedic Mountains were the southern boundary of their territories. The Venedic Mountains could just as well be located in the middle of their territory, being surrounded by Venedic people from all sides. The fact that Ptolemy listed them as first emong the "greater" (more numerous) "races" (peoples), indicates that they were not confined just to the coastline.

 

[Sile]

No. Ptolemy called them "greater races" and mentioned them first when listing those "greater" peoples of Sarmatia.

After "greater races" he listed "lesser races" (among them the Goths). The Venedi were first (largest?) among the "greater" ones.

The Goths were less numerous (and inhabited a smaller area) than the Venedi, because the Goths were listed among "lesser races".



On what basis are you so sure about this ??? Your interpretation might be valid, but I don't get how can you be so sure about this.

Accounts of Tacitus and Pliny the Elder can be interpreted in such a way, that the Venedi lived deeply inland as well.

greater because they had 5 towns instead of 3 towns, greater becaus ethey occupied a large portion of the coast than the goths

Tacitus wrote (in Latin - every translation I saw is different, maybe someone can accurately translate this?):

"Venedi multum ex moribus traxerunt; nam quidquid inter Peucinos Fennosque silvarum ac montium erigitur latrociniis pererrant."

Venedi lived between the mountains and forests and where bandits , below them was the Peucini and the Fenni tribes.

The mountains where the Venedic montes as we stated - next to the coast and forests have always been everywhere ( not really a description )

Pliny the Elder wrote (in Latin):

"Quidam haec habitari ad Vistlam usque fluvium a Sarmatis, Venedis, Sciris, Hirris."

Near the vistula river lived the sarmatians, venedi, scirri and Hirri tribes...................we know the hirri, scirri and venedi lived on the coast of the baltic and next to the vistula river

=============================

Ptolemy also doesn't say anywhere that the Venedi were limited just to the coastline - it is only your own minimalistic interpretation.

its on his many many maps, they the venedi are along the coast

Ptolemy does not say anywhere that the Venedic Mountains were the southern boundary of their territories. The Venedic Mountains could just as well be located in the middle of their territory, being surrounded by Venedic people from all sides. The fact that Ptolemy listed them as first emong the "greater" (more numerous) "races" (peoples), indicates that they were not confined just to the coastline.

your dreaming and hopeful like before that the venedic mountains are the carpathian mountains.........I already showed you many time Ptolemy venedic montains are in Prussia near Elbing

 

[Tomenable]

Your translation is wrong (or should I sey - deliberately manipulated by you):

Here are better translations:

Tacitus:

http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?Lat=L&DocID=Ger_Bk01_46

"From whence the Venedians have derived very many of their customs and a great resemblance. For they are continually traversing and infesting with robberies all the forests and mountains lying between the Peucinians and Fennians."

Pliny the Elder:

http://www.jassa.org/?p=221

"These regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri, and the Hirri."

===============================

Note that the Sarmati were not the same peoples as the Sauromatae.

 

[LeBrok]

In Lithuanian Poland is Lenkija
and Polish person is lenkas.

Thanks Dagne. So we have:
Lithuanian - Lenkas (Lenkija - Poland)
Ukrainian - Liach
Romanian - Leach, Lesi

Ok, we have a pattern. So far it looks Balto-Slavic with possible root "Lech, Lek, Les", possibly something to do with forrest "Les" ("Po-les-ka" - Poland). Could be just Slavic and adopted by Lithuanians from Belarusians. Do you know of other nations using this term? I know Turkey does, Lechistan, but this was borrowed from others.

 

[Sile]

Your translation is wrong (or should I sey - deliberately manipulated by you):

Here are better translations:

Tacitus:

http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?Lat=L&DocID=Ger_Bk01_46

"From whence the Venedians have derived very many of their customs and a great resemblance. For they are continually traversing and infesting with robberies all the forests and mountains lying between the Peucinians and Fennians."

Read what you state.........Peucini are Bastanae people, bastanae lands where inland on the east side of the vistula river all the way to moldovia .........the finni lived along the baltic coast from modern lithuania to finland
That stretch of land on the coast from vistula river on the east side where, gothanes, Venedi, Aestii, then the finni

Pliny the Elder:

http://www.jassa.org/?p=221

"These regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri, and the Hirri."

===============================

All different people.............venedi, hirri and scirri are historically along the baltic sea near the vistula river
Sarmati are not along the baltic sea, but are next to the vistula further south

Note that the Sarmati were not the same peoples as the Sauromatae.

I do not know what this is in reference to