--- In cybalist@..., S.Tarasovas@... wrote:
> Trying to find an authority which I could oppose to Saxo's
commentators mentioned by Torsten, I found a short article by Max
Vasmer, a brief of which folows:
>
> 1. Ruteni (Latin), hoi Rhoute:no'i (Greek, by Strabo) first
mentioned as residents of Gallia. (It would be extremely interesting
to hear a Celtist's opinion here).
>
> 2. Saxo's Ruteni (sg.), New High German Rutene (pl.) is, as I
supposed, a bookish adaptation of East Slavic RusinU 'an inhabitant
of RusI' (< RusI 'ethnonym of some germanic people' > ' toponym,
territory of East Slavs'), an old self-designation of this part of
East Slavs, outdated now, as this name is adopted by descendants of
only a part of East Slavs, proper Russians, while other descendants
call themselves Byelorussians and Ukrainians. Descendants of Rusini
(pl.), having been an independent branch of East Slavs for
centuries, eventually have merged to Ukrainians, now forming a part
of West Ukrainian ethnos. A medieval writer, as is generally known,
preferred to adapt an old Latin/Greek ethnonym rather than to invent
a new one.
>
> 3. Saxo's Ruteni could well designate 'an inhabitant of the
territory known as RusI *at Saxo's time*', which of course doesn't
imply East Slavs or proper (Celtic) Ruteni inhabited all the
territory of former RusI at the time the events from books 2 and 5
took place.
> New High German Rutene means 'a RusinU, a representative of the
most western part of East Slavs' .
>
Torsten:
To which one should perhaps add
4. Roslagen, the landscape north of Stockholm?
>
Sergei:
> From that we can see, at last, that the Torsten and I argued beside
the point: he stated that Saxo mentions Danes' activities in Dnieper
basin, which seemes to be right (it doesn't mean Saxo mentions real
things yet), I stated that proper Rutenians were 100% not Slavs (and
therefore not Ukrainians) at the time events which Saxo describes
took place (the first half of the 1st millenium), and this seems to
be right as well.
>
Torsten:
Actually, the whole matter started as a side remark in Galster's
book, to the effect that: After having fought the Slavic Ruthenians
for centuries...
I'm willing to grant you that the passages in Saxo don't warrant a
claim such that Galster made that the Danes were in the Austvegr
(east route) pre-Huns and Attila. Such a presence would have to be
established by other means.
Sergei:
> At last, after a profound reflexion on all that :)) I would like to
propose the following theory:
> The mentioned part of today's West Ukraine was called VelynI in Old
Russian and Wol/yn' in Polish. One of the most prominent cities of
VolynI was Galic^I (Old Russian), Ga'litza (Medieval Greek), hence
Ukr. Galic^ina', Medieval Latin Galicia as a second and later name of
this country. There are no plausible etymologies for these two
toponyms, but both of them strongly associate with some Celtic
ethonyms (Wel-, Gal- etc.). What if the remnants of the former
*Celtic* (not Germanic or Slavic) substratum existed in this part of
Carpathian mountains up to the arrival of Slavs? What if these Celtic
people were relatives of those Gallican Ruthenians and even
designated themselves with the same name? What if this name (as is
often the case) was mechanically transfered to local branch of
(future) East Slavs (as High German did), which gave medieval
chronists occasion to extend it to the East Slavs in general, even
those, who lived in the basin of Dnieper far away from the Carpathian
mountains (as Saxo did)?
Torsten:
Alternatively: Could it be that these Celts were later Slavicized?
>
> Sergei.
Torsten