Print Page | Close Window

Poland, original land of legendary Iranian tribes

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28712
Printed Date: 02-Apr-2020 at 02:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Poland, original land of legendary Iranian tribes
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Poland, original land of legendary Iranian tribes
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 12:05
In Shahnameh we read about the legendary tribes of Kashvadian and Gutarzian, of course Ferdosi considers them as the same tribe, he says the great Iranian hero Gudarz (Gotarzes in Greek sources) was the son of Kashvad, so this tribe/dynasty is called both Kashvadian and Gutarzian, Ferdosi says in the era of Kian (Kingdom Era), after the family of Sam Sakzi (Scythian), the grandfather of Rustam, this is the most important Iranian family, Giv (Pahlavi Viv), son of Gudarz, married the daughter of Rustam, and then became the greatest Iranian hero, after Rustam.
 
I have said many things about ancient Gutian (Gothic) tribe in the south of Luristan in http://www.allempires.com/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27064 - this thread , it is interesting to know the largest city of southern Luristan is Aligudarz (Al-e-Gudarz) which mean "the tribe of Gudarz" in Persian, people of this city consider themselves as the descendants of the legendary Iranian hero Gudarz and call themselves Gudarzi.
 
But about Kashvad, you probably know Kashu/Kassites: http://www.livius.org/k/kassites/kassites.html - http://www.livius.org/k/kassites/kassites.html  -> Kassites (Akkadian Kaššu): tribal federation living in the Zagros mountains, in modern Luristan. In the seventeenth century BCE, they threatened Babylonia, which they captured in the fifteenth century.
 
I believe the original land of both Kashvad (Akkadian Kashu) and Gudarz (Old Babylonian Guti) was in the north of Poland (Pomerelia and Pomerania) where Kashubians and Gutars (name of Goths in the Old Norse) lived.
 
Of course it is said Gutars (Goths) first lived in Scandinavia and then a legendary king named Berig or Berigas, according to Jordanes, led his people to Gothiscandza (the Vistula region in modern Pomerania), I think that is in fact the name of a major god, as you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BAri - here , Buri was the first god in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology - Norse mythology . He is the father of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borr - Borr and grandfather of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin - Odin . And you can read http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/burijas.html - here that Burigas was the war god of the Iranian Kassites.


-------------



Replies:
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 12:52
poland is way to far from iran though


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 15:00
Originally posted by balochii

poland is way to far from iran though
 
They didn't migrate directly to Iran, for almost a long time they settled in a region around the black sea and also the Caspian sea, in fact ancient Caspians were also the same Kashubians, there is almost no doubt that they were also related to Kassites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspians  About etymology of Caspian you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea  According to Greek historian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo - Strabo , the name ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian - Caspian ' is supposed to have been derived from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Sanskrit word ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashyapa - Kashyapa ' the name of an ancient Indian Sage, as is also believed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu - Hindus from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India .


-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 15:44
Cyrus I think it was an opposite. Not Iranians came from Europe but Europeans - Celts, Germans, Slavs, Balts - came from the area of Iran/Afganistan/Northern India. Thats why they are called Indoeuropeans. Or maybe Im wrong?

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 16:10
^ well indo iranians or indo aryans were settled in what is south/central asia, which is today north east iran, northern afghanistan, southern Tajikistan and northern pakistan. This area is mostly likely the orginal home land of aryans, from there they spread in every direction including europe.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2010 at 21:03
I seem to have problems with both ideas! First of all, any movers and shakers (massive movements of people via assimilation or war) that came out of the vast forests of most of Europe, hundreds or thousands of years ago, would have built their societies with the most common and most easily shaped elements, and thus they were mostly (except for the great stone circles, and tombs etc.) a wooden society!

That is, their great cities are mostly only the remains of wooden post-holes!

But, for your edification, just think of all of the accounts of cities being burned to the ground in the areas where most buildings were built of stones or blocks of cut stone, or even "concrete?"

Yes, of course the roofs of almost all of these buildings were made of wood! But would that cause the distruction of the entire city?

Or would the inhabitants still left alive only start to re-roof their homes?

But, as always, I could well be wrong!


Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2010 at 09:56
Originally posted by Mosquito

Cyrus I think it was an opposite. Not Iranians came from Europe but Europeans - Celts, Germans, Slavs, Balts - came from the area of Iran/Afganistan/Northern India. Thats why they are called Indoeuropeans. Or maybe Im wrong?
I don't talk about the original land of Indo-European peoples, from this UNKNOWN original land these peoples migrated to different regions and formed different cultures in different periods, one of the most important events in the history of the world was the rise of the first civilizations in the Middle East, maybe we can compare it to Modern USA, this region attracted several peoples from almost all around the world, Indo-Europans were certainly among these peoples, some of them like Hittites preserved their own culture, but some other ones like Mitannians mixed with other peoples and formed new cultures, the most important thing about Gutians and Kassites is that they have mostly mentioned to have fair skin and hair in the Mesopotamian texts, so it is more possible that they came from somewhere in the northern Europe.


-------------


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2010 at 04:59
Of course Christian-related religious books mostly talk about an opposite migration, for example look at this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ccF81Snih_IC&pg=PA12&hl=en&ei=yoypTN_eC4HNjAeQ6pHqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false - The God-Kings of Europe by Hugh Montgomery
 


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2010 at 19:10
What a good book! It is just chock full of wholesum information! Thanks for it!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 04:31
In reading the selection on the "God Kings" What strikes me as that the confederation of The Franks (The Franks were a confederation of German tribes not one tribe) Claim they were descended from the Trojans. In this book it talks about how the Trojan Gods were the same as the Norse. The Germanic God Wotan of the Chatti  and Cherusi( two of the Larger Frank Tribes) as we know is the same as Odin.
 
 


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 10:43
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I

In reading the selection on the "God Kings" What strikes me as that the confederation of The Franks (The Franks were a confederation of German tribes not one tribe) Claim they were descended from the Trojans. In this book it talks about how the Trojan Gods were the same as the Norse. The Germanic God Wotan of the Chatti  and Cherusi( two of the Larger Frank Tribes) as we know is the same as Odin.
 
 
They were a confederation of Germanic  (not "German") tribes ( occasionally :" Germanian" after "Germania") some of which were in current Germany, others in the current Low Countries (Netherlands and Belgium) etc.
 
In Dutch (Nederlands ) or German ( Deutsch) languages themselves the usage of Germaans and Germanisch  is neutral and does not point to any specific modern country/etnicity. The equivalent in English for Germaans and Germanisch is "Germanic" not "German" which means "German " alone. That some English speaking authors  make no difference and use it wrongly is not relevant.   You know it so I expect you to use the normal term, in case you dont want to appear as a German Nationalist.
 


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 13:43
Sander--I hate to break it to you but you are German. The Dutch are German, they are just as German as folks in the Rhineland or Lower saxony-- The only reason why the Dutch don't speak HD is that they were not in the Prussian SOI during the language shift/ kulture Kampf. But rember you were part of the HRE until the 1500s and then the Hapsburgs. Before the 1800's a majority of Germany spoke a local dialect. Dutch is just another tribal dialect of German like Ruparian, Niederrheinisch or platte deutsch.
 
Guess what else the Romans refered to them as German Tribes not Germanic Tribes.
 
So when I say German Tribes (becuase that is what the Romans called them-They called them German and that includes the tribes and the NLDs even the Friese and the Angles)--I mean The Franks why-Becuase more many more of the tribes in the Frakish confederation were from what today would be known as Germany.
 
Tribes in the Frakish Confederation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherusci - Cherusci  (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsi_%28Germanic%29 - Marsi  (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatti - Chatti  (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicambri - Sicambri  (NLDs),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci - Chauci  (Germany) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salian_Franks - Salii  (NLDs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamavi - Chamavi  (NLDS and Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bructeri - Bructeri  (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattuarii - Chattuarii  (Germany/France)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampsivarii - Ampsivarii  (NLDs/ Germany),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencteri - Tencteri  (Possiblt Gaullic not Germanic but called "German by the Romans")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubii - Ubii   (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavians - Batavi  (NLDs-Orginally part of the Chatti in modern Hesse-Kicked out and moved to the NLDs)
Blegic (Gaulic Tribe)
 
and the tribes that settled in the NLDs came from Germany proper
 
So don't play symantecs with me. When you say stuff like this you sound bigoted towards the German people.


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 02:16

While I am at it--I am sorry your need for PC spits flat in the face of Historical accuracy--

 

The Romans used the term "German tribes" not Germanic tribes to describe the tribes that made up the Frankish Confed---Why

 

1. Because they weren't all Germanic--To call them Germanic would be historically wrong.  Germanic is a cultural term--German a place term

 

2. The Romans called any tribe (To include Gaulic Tribes) Living in GI, GS or Germania Magna--German it didn't matter if they were Germanic or not-- If you lived in the three German areas you were German, if you lived in Gaul you were a Gaul--So German is correct here not Germanic

 

3. I use Gaul and not Celt, because I really don't believe that there was any real difference between Germanic Tribes and Cont Celts at the Time of the Romans I think they were branched of the same people.

 

Germania Inferior was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_provinces - located on the left bank of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine - , in today's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg - , southern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands - , parts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium - , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Rhine-Westphalia - left of the Rhine.

The principal settlements of the province were Castra Vetera and Colonia Ulpia Traiana (both near http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanten - - Heerlen ), Albaniana ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn - - Lugdunum Batavorum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katwijk - - Forum Hadriani ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voorburg - - Nijmegen ), Traiectum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrecht_%28city%29 - - Tongeren ), Bona ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonn - - Colonia Agrippinensis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne - Germania Superior ("Upper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Inferior - - province of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire - western http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland - , the French http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jura_mountains - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace - regions and south-western http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany - . Important cities were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besan%C3%A7on - - Strasbourg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentoratum - - Wiesbaden (Aquae Mattiacae) and Germania Superior's capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainz - - Middle Rhine , bordering on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus - - Raetia to the south-east.

Tacitus wrote in AD 98:

For the rest, they affirm Germania to be a recent word, lately bestowed. For those who first passed the Rhine and expulsed the Gauls, and are now named Tungrians, were then called Germani. And thus by degrees the name of a tribe prevailed, not that of the nation; so that by an appellation at first occasioned by fear and conquest, they afterwards chose to be distinguished, and assuming a name lately invented were universally called Germani.

Or in English German

 

Germania was inhabited by different tribes, the vast majority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples - but also including some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts - , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts - , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian - , and proto- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples - peoples. The tribal and ethnic makeup changed over the centuries as a result of assimilation and, most importantly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration - So when I use German--It is a place name-and since the Gaulic Belgic tribes were in the Frank Confederation as well as other Gaulic Tribes who lived in modern North east france and Belgium-to call them Germanic would not be accurate.



Posted By: Aijn
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 07:42
In medieval times Germany was known as Ashkenaz.


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 23:23

I’ v seen enough. Maximus Germanicus (MG) was warned some time ago and in the former post as well. No attention was paid to it. Only using it to expand his  rubbish. He is suspended for excessive nationalism towards other national groups and gross distortion of facts for that purpose. COC violations etc. will be posted soon in the announcement section.

 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 01:37
 A few comments  regarding MG's last posts:
German tribes or Germanic tribes ? 
Most German nationalists prefer “German tribes” above  the nowadays far more commonly used  “Germanic tribes”.  It often  used as some  bridge for  labelling the modern Dutch as “German”  instead of  Germanic. MG  has  just demonstrated so by calling me “German”. Of  course he knows that with that he denies the specific Dutch identity. His extreme nationalists intentions are clear .He is balancing on the edge.
If there was any doubt about his intentions, he just cleared it up with the below comment:
Originally posted by Maxiumus Germanicus

Dutch is just another tribal dialect of German like Ruparian, Niederrheinisch or platte deutsch.
 
MG ‘s  German Nationalism reached its peak there !  With this deliberate distortion he doesnt get of the hook. He asserts there is no such thing as a genuine Dutch language by claiming its actually only a dialect(!)of German.  Such is another serious denial of the Dutch identity. Its also  the joke of the year.
Standard Dutch belongs to  the Low Frankish (Low Franconian) group while standard German belong to the  High German group. Both are distinct  languages and follow their own distinct lines from  West-Germanic. And yes, Old  Low Frankish originated/developed in the southern half of the Netherlands. High German group ( German ) developed in Germany.
MG  never referenced  good academic papers/URLS to support his fiction ( only wiki-like/derived stuff) . He may learn from this tree  (2009 ):
 
Red is Dutch. Green is German ( NHG=New High German)
Development of Dutch (Low Frankish) :
West Germanic> [Low Saxon-Low Franconian] >  Old Low Frankish/Old Dutch> Middle Dutch> Modern Dutch/Flemish
Development of German (High German):
West Germanic> Old High German> Middle High German> New High German
See also  link to Ethnologue (leading in the field of linguistics, source for academics and governments) for the official classifications (as mentioned above )of Dutch and German:

  http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=2-16 - http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=2-16

In short, MG 's nonsensical claim that  Dutch is a dialect of German is anti-Dutch garbage, posted for nationalist purposes. Big mistake Thumbs Down


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:15
Well, for me Dutch, German, English are also Germanic languages, not German, in the same sence as Polish, Russian, Czech, Serbian or Sorbian (eastern Germany) are slavic languages. So the notion Germanic describes the familly of languages, not a specific language. saying that Dutch is German is stupid because it is like saying that Polish is Czech or Czech is Polish.

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:17
And I would bet that even in the times of Roman empire there wasnt 1 German language but many many dialects.

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:23

Please stick to the main topic, there are also some ignorants who, for example, say Gilaks are Persian!!! just because Romans called this country Persia, of course Gilaki, Mazandarani, Luri and even Kurdish are very similar to Persian language but Persian, like German, is just the name of one language with several dialects.



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2010 at 09:37
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Please stick to the main topic, there are also some ignorants who, for example, say Gilaks are Persian!!! just because Romans called this country Persia, of course Gilaki, Mazandarani, Luri and even Kurdish are very similar to Persian language but Persian, like German, is just the name of one language with several dialects.

 
 
Sorry Cyrus, Im not trying to highjack your topic. However staying on it its not possible for me because I cant find this theory in any serious book. I consider it as pure speculation.


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2010 at 06:08
Of course this is just a theory but it is not my fault that no one has researched about it, I believe in a migration from Poland to the west of the Caspian sea and then western Iran, another interesting thing is that Persians call Poland as Lakhistan which means "Land of Lakh", a large number of people in Luristan province of Iran also call themselves Lakh/Lak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_%28Iran - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran ) and of course in the west of the Caspian sea, Dagestan of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_%28Dagestan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Dagestan ) and just in these two regions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2010 at 09:15
[QUOTE=Cyrus Shahmiri]Of course this is just a theory but it is not my fault that no one has researched about it, I believe in a migration from Poland to the west of the Caspian sea and then western Iran, another interesting thing is that Persians call Poland as Lakhistan which means "Land of Lakh", a large number of people in Luristan province of Iran also call themselves Lakh/Lak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_%28Iran - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Iran ) and of course in the west of the Caspian sea, Dagestan of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_%28Dagestan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people_(Dagestan ) and just in tow regions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people%5b/QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lak_people
 
[/QUOTE ]
 
 
This is different story. According to one of the oldest legends Poles come from the mythic hero named Lech. Because of that many neighbouring nations for centuries were calling Poles - Lachy, Lechites ets. For example in hungarian language Pole is Lengiel. Some historians also call the tribes which formed Poland - Lech tribes. In Ottoman empire Poland was called Lakhistan - from Lechistan - also from the name Lech. As the Ottomans conquered middle east this name of Poland also became common there. So there is no secret and this has nothing to do with the theory we are discussing here. The name Lech is still popular in Poland (eg Lech Walesa) and even the soccer team from city city is named after that mythic hero : Lech Poznan.
 
And there are also other theories, eg from viki:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Poland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Poland
 
"There is, however, a group of languages, where the exonym for Poland derives from the name of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendians - Lendians , a proto-Polish tribe that lived around the confluence of rivers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula - Vistula and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_River - San , in what is now south-eastern Poland. Their name derived probably from the Proto-Polish word lęda, or "scorched land". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Poland#cite_note-PWN-2 - [3] Not surprisingly, exonyms of this kind are used primarily by the peoples who lived east or south of Poland. Among those exonyms are:
  • лях (lyakh) used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Slavic_languages - East Slavic languages . The historical region of Poland on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus - Belarusian border known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podlachia - Podlachia (Polish Podlasie) derives its name from that East Slavic exonym. Today, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachy_S%C4%85deckie - Lachy Sądeckie is a name of a small cultural group around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowy_S%C4%85cz - Nowy Sącz in southern Lesser Poland. In Polish literature, the word Lachy is used by East Slavic characters as synonyms for "Poles" and "Poland".
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language - Lithuanian Lenkija
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language - Hungarian Lengyelország
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language - Turkish Lehistan (now considered obsolete and replaced by Polonya). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Poland#cite_note-Lehistan-3 - [4] The former became the basis for Poland exonyms in a number of other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East - Middle Eastern languages, including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language - Armenian Լեհաստան, Lehastan; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajik_language - Tajik لهستان, Lahestan. "
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2010 at 18:46

I found some interesting things about Lakhs:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1xIIAAAAQAAJ - Handbook for travellers in Russia, Poland, and Finland , Page 218:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BuDaac0rsvoC - Comte de Gobineau and orientalism: selected eastern writings , Page 54:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=U4C3TO7nHYiL4Qa6ucyuCg&ct=result&id=7uEOAAAAIAAJ - International affairs, Volume 22 , Page 92:



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2010 at 19:38
There is no single serious historian claiming that Poland was invaded by Normans or conquered by them. There was a theory that Mieszko I was a viking (given up long time ago) but there is complete lack of evidences and no German contemporary chronicler write about it.  There were ties between Poland and Scandinavia like marriages in the royal famillies, aliances or wars but nothing what could suggest that just like in Russia, the rulers of Poland or creators of the state were of norse origin. Some theories come from the fact that on the grave of Boleslaw the Brave was incription : King of Poles and Gots, some other because Polish 15th century chronicler and some German chroniclers claimed that Poles comes from Wandals. Archeological discoveries bring only a lot of arms and armours of scandinavian origin but those can as well come from trade or from mercenries, who like Awdaniec familly came to Poland and served in royal army.
 
In fact the theory that Mieszko I was a viking invader was invented in Nazi Germany to explain that Slavs should be ruled by Germans.


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 02:08
Poland being the Iranian homeland is a laughable idea imo, but for the sake of sounding polite, here are the points to consider:

- Whatever records exist of the Kassites clearly show that their language is isolate and unrelated to any other group (Meaning they're not Iranian), not to mention they arrived from the east (Modern day Iran).

- We know nothing of the Guti a side from the Sumerian records mentioning them, we don't know about their language, their culture, their foods, customs, so on, absolutely nothing, what we do know is that they were portrayed as barbarian mountain tribes that came from the Zagros, and we do have a list of king names, but once again the sound of the names are unrelated to any other language, how do the Guti get mixed up with Iranians and Poland goes beyond my head.

- The only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of the Scythians, and by the time they were in Europe it's way way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian origins, by the time they got there there has already been many Iranian groups all over, not to mention Greek historians pointed out that the origin of the Scythians is actually somewhere in South Central Asia but they ended up migrating to Eastern Europe due to tribal wars and disputes with other Iranian groups.

- To determine Indo-Iranian culture one has to look at the earliest Indo-Iranian records, in this respect the Rig Veda and the texts of Zoroastrianism both point to a similar location which what could have the land of the Aryan culture, the Rig Veda points to Northwest India around the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Zoroastrianism mentions an Aryan homeland around the region of Bactria (Around modern day Afghanistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan), in other words South Central Asia was likely the birthplace of Indo-Iranian (Aryan) culture.

- The Aryans were not a race but a culture, and among all Indo-European peoples only the Indians and Iranians have used the term Arya, meaning other Europeans are NOT Aryans, only those Indo-Iranian speakers have this Aryan heritage.

- Possibly some of the Indo-Iranian ancestors came from Central Asia (Before they were Indo-Iranians), I suppose as they migrated down in South Central Asia they must have merged with native populations there and created the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) branch.


Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 08:07
Dear Mosquito, could you give some information about doctrine of "Sarmatism" among Polish aristocracy in XV-ХVІІІ century?  
 
Thanks in advance.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 10:52
Originally posted by Putty19

Poland being the Iranian homeland is a laughable idea imo, but for the sake of sounding polite, here are the points to consider:

- Whatever records exist of the Kassites clearly show that their language is isolate and unrelated to any other group (Meaning they're not Iranian), not to mention they arrived from the east (Modern day Iran).

- We know nothing of the Guti a side from the Sumerian records mentioning them, we don't know about their language, their culture, their foods, customs, so on, absolutely nothing, what we do know is that they were portrayed as barbarian mountain tribes that came from the Zagros, and we do have a list of king names, but once again the sound of the names are unrelated to any other language, how do the Guti get mixed up with Iranians and Poland goes beyond my head.

- The only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of the Scythians, and by the time they were in Europe it's way way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian origins, by the time they got there there has already been many Iranian groups all over, not to mention Greek historians pointed out that the origin of the Scythians is actually somewhere in South Central Asia but they ended up migrating to Eastern Europe due to tribal wars and disputes with other Iranian groups.

- To determine Indo-Iranian culture one has to look at the earliest Indo-Iranian records, in this respect the Rig Veda and the texts of Zoroastrianism both point to a similar location which what could have the land of the Aryan culture, the Rig Veda points to Northwest India around the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Zoroastrianism mentions an Aryan homeland around the region of Bactria (Around modern day Afghanistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan), in other words South Central Asia was likely the birthplace of Indo-Iranian (Aryan) culture.

- The Aryans were not a race but a culture, and among all Indo-European peoples only the Indians and Iranians have used the term Arya, meaning other Europeans are NOT Aryans, only those Indo-Iranian speakers have this Aryan heritage.

- Possibly some of the Indo-Iranian ancestors came from Central Asia (Before they were Indo-Iranians), I suppose as they migrated down in South Central Asia they must have merged with native populations there and created the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) branch.
 
I'm talking about the legendary Iranian tribes in this thread, not some known Iranian peoples, these are two different things, we certainly know that Iranian sources never mentioned Central Asia as the original land of Aryans, but just some of the earliest known Iranian peoples, like Sogdians and Bactrains, lived there.
 
According to Avesta, the original land of Aryans was Airyana Vaeja (Iran-vij) in a remote land in the north of the world, Zoroastrians believe that it was the first land which was created by Ahuramazda, you can't read about a similar land in any other Indo-European sources, except Germanic ones, we read in the Iranian and Germanic sources that three successive winters (Fimbulvetr in Norse mythology) caused a disorder and then a mass migration from this land.
 
Vendidad, Fargard 1, says about this holy original land: http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm
 
3. There are ten winter months there, two summer months9; and those are cold for the waters10, cold for the earth, cold for the trees11. Winter falls there, the worst of all plagues. [Hum 35: "Ten are there the winter months, two the summer months, and even then [in summer] the waters are freezing, the earth is freezing, the plants are freezing; there is the center of winter, there is the heart of winter, there winter rushes around, there (occur) most damages caused by storm."]
 
It is really possible that it talks about the climate change that occurred in the Nordic countries, before this climate change, the Nordic countries were considerably warmer, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate
 
Anyway if you read the Iranian mythical history then you will see that it is really very similar to the Norse mythology, for example look at this thread: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28642 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28642


-------------


Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 01:16
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by Putty19

Poland being the Iranian homeland is a laughable idea imo, but for the sake of sounding polite, here are the points to consider:

- Whatever records exist of the Kassites clearly show that their language is isolate and unrelated to any other group (Meaning they're not Iranian), not to mention they arrived from the east (Modern day Iran).

- We know nothing of the Guti a side from the Sumerian records mentioning them, we don't know about their language, their culture, their foods, customs, so on, absolutely nothing, what we do know is that they were portrayed as barbarian mountain tribes that came from the Zagros, and we do have a list of king names, but once again the sound of the names are unrelated to any other language, how do the Guti get mixed up with Iranians and Poland goes beyond my head.

- The only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of the Scythians, and by the time they were in Europe it's way way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian origins, by the time they got there there has already been many Iranian groups all over, not to mention Greek historians pointed out that the origin of the Scythians is actually somewhere in South Central Asia but they ended up migrating to Eastern Europe due to tribal wars and disputes with other Iranian groups.

- To determine Indo-Iranian culture one has to look at the earliest Indo-Iranian records, in this respect the Rig Veda and the texts of Zoroastrianism both point to a similar location which what could have the land of the Aryan culture, the Rig Veda points to Northwest India around the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Zoroastrianism mentions an Aryan homeland around the region of Bactria (Around modern day Afghanistan/Turkmenistan/Tajikistan), in other words South Central Asia was likely the birthplace of Indo-Iranian (Aryan) culture.

- The Aryans were not a race but a culture, and among all Indo-European peoples only the Indians and Iranians have used the term Arya, meaning other Europeans are NOT Aryans, only those Indo-Iranian speakers have this Aryan heritage.

- Possibly some of the Indo-Iranian ancestors came from Central Asia (Before they were Indo-Iranians), I suppose as they migrated down in South Central Asia they must have merged with native populations there and created the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) branch.
 
I'm talking about the legendary Iranian tribes in this thread, not some known Iranian peoples, these are two different things, we certainly know that Iranian sources never mentioned Central Asia as the original land of Aryans, but just some of the earliest known Iranian peoples, like Sogdians and Bactrains, lived there.
 
According to Avesta, the original land of Aryans was Airyana Vaeja (Iran-vij) in a remote land in the north of the world, Zoroastrians believe that it was the first land which was created by Ahuramazda, you can't read about a similar land in any other Indo-European sources, except Germanic ones, we read in the Iranian and Germanic sources that three successive winters (Fimbulvetr in Norse mythology) caused a disorder and then a mass migration from this land.
 
Vendidad, Fargard 1, says about this holy original land: http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm
 
3. There are ten winter months there, two summer months9; and those are cold for the waters10, cold for the earth, cold for the trees11. Winter falls there, the worst of all plagues. [Hum 35: "Ten are there the winter months, two the summer months, and even then [in summer] the waters are freezing, the earth is freezing, the plants are freezing; there is the center of winter, there is the heart of winter, there winter rushes around, there (occur) most damages caused by storm."]
 
It is really possible that it talks about the climate change that occurred in the Nordic countries, before this climate change, the Nordic countries were considerably warmer, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate
 
Anyway if you read the Iranian mythical history then you will see that it is really very similar to the Norse mythology, for example look at this thread: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28642 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28642


Germany is out of the question with Zoroastrianism because the Vendidad Lands are places in South Central Asia in regions like modern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, this region is way too far from Germany.

Also to prove that the Aryan culture (At least the Iranian branch) is not a Eurasian Steppe culture, when the Aryan homeland is described, the terrain seems to be full of mountains and valleys, as far as I'm concerned the Steppe culture was a nomadic one that roamed in big fields, that's what the Steppes are all about, but we know in South Central Asia there are massive mountains and to this day, many people still live in these mountains and valleys.

As I said, the only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of Scythian background (Sarmatians), and their arrival is way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian culture.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 15:05
Originally posted by Putty19

Germany is out of the question with Zoroastrianism because the Vendidad Lands are places in South Central Asia in regions like modern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, this region is way too far from Germany.

Also to prove that the Aryan culture (At least the Iranian branch) is not a Eurasian Steppe culture, when the Aryan homeland is described, the terrain seems to be full of mountains and valleys, as far as I'm concerned the Steppe culture was a nomadic one that roamed in big fields, that's what the Steppes are all about, but we know in South Central Asia there are massive mountains and to this day, many people still live in these mountains and valleys.

As I said, the only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of Scythian background (Sarmatians), and their arrival is way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian culture.
 
Similar to what Darius the Great says in one of his inscriptions at Persepolis (DPh): "Darius the King says: This is the kingdom which I hold, from the Scythians who are beyond Sogdiana, thence to Ethiopia; from Sind thence to Sardis ", Vendidad also talks about some different regions from the northeast (Sogdiana) to the southeast (Hapta hindu) and finally ot the west (Arvastâni Rûm).
 
But the most impotant thing is the first land (Airyana Vaeja) which was too far from these regions, in fact we read in the different parts of Avesta about seven Karshvar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshvar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshvar  (in Persian Karshvar means Country) in the land of Aryans, for example you can read in Vendidad: Fargard 19. http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm  that it first again says "1. From the region of the north, from the regions of the north, forth rushed Angra Mainyu, ..." then, as I said about in another thread about the similarities between Gathic (Old Avestan) language and Gothic language, it talks about Gathas: "38. 'I invoke the holy, beneficent Gathas, who rule over the Ratus ..."
and then we read about these seven countries:
 
39. 'I invoke the Karshvares of Arzahe and Savahe;
'I invoke the Karshvares of Fradadhafshu and Vidadhafshu;
'I invoke the Karshvares of Vourubaresti and Vouruzaresti;
'I invoke the bright Hvaniratha
 
and finally it says:  'I invoke the Glory of the Aryan regions
 
As I said before, Hvaniratha (Land of the Vanir in the Norse Mythology) which was the central land of Aryans, was probably in modern Poland, Arzahe or Harzahe could be the same Harz region in the north of Germany, Svahe could be the same Old Norse Svea or Svava (modern Sweden) but as you read here: http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm - http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm  'Svava' or ' Swana' means the region of the Harz by evaluation of contemporary chronicles and old cartographic material.
 
I have talked about other countries too, for example Voru Baresti was probably the same Voru Parish in the south of Estonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B5ru_Parish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B5ru_Parish  ...


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 17:45
Cyrus, just a guess from out in left field, but do you think that this Celtic place could be in any way related to your last post?

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

As you wrote above;

"As I said before, Hvaniratha (Land of the Vanir in the Norse Mythology) which was the central land of Aryans, was probably in modern Poland, Arzahe or Harzahe could be the same Harz region in the north of Germany, Svahe could be the same Old Norse Svea or Svava (modern Sweden) but as you read here: http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm 'Svava' or ' Swana' means the region of the Harz by evaluation of contemporary chronicles and old cartographic material."

Regards,




-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 23:35
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Originally posted by Putty19

Germany is out of the question with Zoroastrianism because the Vendidad Lands are places in South Central Asia in regions like modern Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, this region is way too far from Germany.

Also to prove that the Aryan culture (At least the Iranian branch) is not a Eurasian Steppe culture, when the Aryan homeland is described, the terrain seems to be full of mountains and valleys, as far as I'm concerned the Steppe culture was a nomadic one that roamed in big fields, that's what the Steppes are all about, but we know in South Central Asia there are massive mountains and to this day, many people still live in these mountains and valleys.

As I said, the only Iranian presence in Eastern Europe is that of Scythian background (Sarmatians), and their arrival is way too late to associate with Indo-Iranian culture.
 
Similar to what Darius the Great says in one of his inscriptions at Persepolis (DPh): "Darius the King says: This is the kingdom which I hold, from the Scythians who are beyond Sogdiana, thence to Ethiopia; from Sind thence to Sardis ", Vendidad also talks about some different regions from the northeast (Sogdiana) to the southeast (Hapta hindu) and finally ot the west (Arvastâni Rûm).
 
But the most impotant thing is the first land (Airyana Vaeja) which was too far from these regions, in fact we read in the different parts of Avesta about seven Karshvar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshvar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshvar  (in Persian Karshvar means Country) in the land of Aryans, for example you can read in Vendidad: Fargard 19. http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm - http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm  that it first again says "1. From the region of the north, from the regions of the north, forth rushed Angra Mainyu, ..." then, as I said about in another thread about the similarities between Gathic (Old Avestan) language and Gothic language, it talks about Gathas: "38. 'I invoke the holy, beneficent Gathas, who rule over the Ratus ..."
and then we read about these seven countries:
 
39. 'I invoke the Karshvares of Arzahe and Savahe;
'I invoke the Karshvares of Fradadhafshu and Vidadhafshu;
'I invoke the Karshvares of Vourubaresti and Vouruzaresti;
'I invoke the bright Hvaniratha
 
and finally it says:  'I invoke the Glory of the Aryan regions
 
As I said before, Hvaniratha (Land of the Vanir in the Norse Mythology) which was the central land of Aryans, was probably in modern Poland, Arzahe or Harzahe could be the same Harz region in the north of Germany, Svahe could be the same Old Norse Svea or Svava (modern Sweden) but as you read here: http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm - http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm  'Svava' or ' Swana' means the region of the Harz by evaluation of contemporary chronicles and old cartographic material.
 
I have talked about other countries too, for example Voru Baresti was probably the same Voru Parish in the south of Estonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B5ru_Parish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B5ru_Parish  ...


The problem is archeological and genetic evidence go against a homeland being at Poland, the closest we get is Ukraine, and even that's stretching it.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2010 at 09:57
Originally posted by opuslola

Cyrus, just a guess from out in left field, but do you think that this Celtic place could be in any way related to your last post?

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

As you wrote above;

"As I said before, Hvaniratha (Land of the Vanir in the Norse Mythology) which was the central land of Aryans, was probably in modern Poland, Arzahe or Harzahe could be the same Harz region in the north of Germany, Svahe could be the same Old Norse Svea or Svava (modern Sweden) but as you read here: http://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/svava_en.htm 'Svava' or ' Swana' means the region of the Harz by evaluation of contemporary chronicles and old cartographic material."

Regards,


 
According to your link "its name is derived from Sveinn's island (Old Norse: Sveinsey)", so it could be related.


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2010 at 20:50
As I thought! Although I think that a lot of things can be related via language, as opposed to others!

Regarde'

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2010 at 23:47
The Time/Life book The Persians says;

"Scholars are thus fairly sure that the Prussians were part of a tribal family known as the Iranians, who were members of a still larger group called Aryans, a scattered assemblage of nomadic tribes whose original homeland was probably the European plains of southern Russia.  Sometime between 2000 and 1800 BC, the Aryans began to migrate.  Some moved to the Indian subcontinent; others turned westward through Iran and penetrated as far as northern Mesopotamia and Syria. About 1400  BC, a third group of Aryans-which included the Persians- moved into Iran from the northeast and gradually moved west.....

Journeying west, the Iranian tribes made their way across the plateau, skirting the Elburz Mountains that form its northern edge, and then turned southeast along the Zagros range that separates the plateau from the long-settled, thickly populated, fertile plains of the Mesopotamia.  In their progress the Iranians shoved out or took over indigenous tribes such as the Guti and Lullubi who lived in the Zagros for centuries.   The newcomers jostled with one another for the choicest territories, stayed for a while, moved on and settled again.  The principal tribes of this immigrant wave included not only the Persians, but also the Medes- who became their neighbors on the Iranian plateau, and who formed a vital part of the history, first as the Persian masters, later as their leading vassals." 


That would make the theory correct. 



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2010 at 07:15
Originally posted by Kanas_Krumesis

Dear Mosquito, could you give some information about doctrine of "Sarmatism" among Polish aristocracy in XV-ХVІІІ century?  
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Well, I could but its a bit off topic.
 
Sarmatism was a ideology of noble class in Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. Sarmatism was based on the belief that Poles are direct descendants of ancient Sarmatians so the Poles and also the Lithuanians were calling themselves Sarmatians, the state was somtimes called "Republic of both Sarmatia's", and everything in the culture was being adopted to the sarmatian standard. Part of this sarmatian style were sabres in turkish and persian style, cloths, paintings.
However some scientists claim that it is possible basing on facts that some coats of arms of Polish nobelity are very similar to sarmatian tamga's. Polish heraldry was born in 12/13 century and it is possible that some of the coats of arms were really based on tamga's that were used by Sarmatians.
 
 
Strong points of theory of sarmatian origins of Poles:
 
+ this theory explains the mysterious symbols (tamgs) of Sarmatians in the Polish coats of arms and names of this coats of arms like for example "Chamiec", "Roch", "Mora", "Doliwa", "Jaksa")
 
 
+this theory explains the 2-partial names of Slavs and Poles which were present in all Indoeuropean tribes except for Romans but only in slavic languages (especially in Polish) are so strict in its form. Some of those names sound even like being directly translated from Iranian. This was also very typical for Sarmatians.
 
+ this theory explains the expansion of Slavs in early medieval times, somthing unusual for the people who were settled farmers, it could have been inspired by the nobles of sarmatian origin for whom wandering was more typical than for settled farmers, what would last until the soughtern Slavs were conqured by Awars,
 
+this theory explains the names of cities and villages in Poland which come from the Iranian language
 
 
Now - what is TAMGA. In the culture of steppe people it were the symbols, signs which were weared on the shields and on other items. It was a simplified image of the animal or weapon or somthing like sun, thunder, bird but very simple in its form (look on the picture in my earlier post). In Sarmatian culture one Tamga was shared by big number of famillies or even by the whole tribe. Polish coats of arms dont look similar to the Tamga's of Scandinavians or Hungarians but they look excatly like sarmatian tamgas. In many cases the symbol on the shield of Polish knight was nothing more but exactly a sarmatian Tamga. This is somthing that cannot be find on the coats of arms in any other european country. And notice also the fact that only the earliest polish coats of arms are sarmatian in shape.
The problem is that there is no other theory explaining why polish coats of arms looks like many hundrieds years earlier sarmatian Tamga's and are very different (in fact unique) in Europe.
Afcourse in time Polish coats of arms were changing its shape, after reneissance so much that looked even different. The 11th century polish knight had on his coat sarmatian Tamga but his descendant 500 years later had it symbol which was only more less lokking like that Tamga.
 

Although the Polish heraldic system evolved under the influence of French and German heraldry, there are many notable differences.

The most striking peculiarity of the system is that a coat of arms does not belong to a single family. A number of unrelated families (sometimes hundreds of them), usually with a number of different family names, may use a coat of arms, and each coat of arms has its own name. The total number of coats of arms in this system was relatively low � ca. 200 in the late Middle Ages.


A single coat of arms could appear in slightly different versions, typically in different colours, depending on the custom of the family using it. Such versions ( odmiany ) are still considered to represent the same coat of arms.

One of the most visually striking characteristics of Polish heraldry is the abundance of gules fields. Among the oldest coats of arms in Poland, nearly half use a red background, with blue (azure) coming in a distant second. Nowhere else in Europe, shows such a strong bias towards a particular color scheme.

Other typical features used in Polish heraldry include horseshoes, arrows, Maltese crosses, scythes, stars and crescents. There are also many purely geometrical shapes for which a separate set of heraldic terms was invented. It has been suggested that originally all Polish coats of arms were based on such abstract geometrical shapes, but most were gradually "rationalized" into horseshoes, arrows and so on. If this hypothesis is correct, it suggests in turn that Polish heraldry, again unlike western European heraldry, may be at least partly derived from a kind of rune-like symbols: the Tamgas used by nomadic peoples of the Steppe, such as the Sarmatians or the Avars, to mark property. However, the evidence about the origins of the system is scanty, and this hypothesis has been criticized as being part of the Polish noble tradition of romanticizing their supposed Sarmatian ancestry. On this matter, research and controversy continues.

 
 
 


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2010 at 16:34

Mosquito, thank you very much. From a long time I`m in love in Polish history and culture. Polish history is great and tragic at once. You were one of the European superpowers and likewise felt the stigma of slavery (which fate make you close to us Bulgarians). Henryk Sienkiewicz had been my favourite author from childhood, and novels like "The Knights"-(Krzyżacy) and "Quo Vadis" formed my love towards history. I think that the Sarmatism of Polish nobility from Medieval times had always been big problem for the Pan-Slavic ideology and all Slavism in historic science. If we talking about old Polish heraldry I find this:

We can see many archaic Indo-European symbols there. Like "Swastika" on the coat of arms of clan Boreyko and "Triskelion" on the coat of arms of clan Rola. Of course the Cross is also in this group of symbols.  I should note that this stile of figuration is quite similar with coat of arms of royal clan Dulo from early period of First Bulgarian empire, which is found everywhere in towns and fortress from that time:
 
 
 
 
and also the ancient Bulgarian runes:
 
 
I always ask the question where is the border between Sarmatians from Antiquity and so called Slavs from the pre-Medieval period? In the list of Sarmatian tribes by Roman authors we can find names like Serboi (Serbs), Horouathos (Croat), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti#Historical_sources_mentioning_the_name_Veneti.2FVenedi - Venethi , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antae - Antae  and many other. I have a feeling about strange metamorphosis in historic terminology.
 



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com