Ibrahim Ibn Ya’qub wasn’t the only only traveler from the Muslim world to note the Slavs.  There were a number of others – we will bring you those reports over time beginning with four that are descriptive of the activities of certain early medieval trading groups.

One such group are the Radhaniya (Radania, Radhaniyya or Radanites in English) – a group of Jewish merchants that traversed the medieval world crossing boundaries between the Franks, Muslims, Byzantines, the Rus and the Slavs.  In fact, they were able to reach Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, Central Asia’s various –stans, India, perhaps Mongolia and even China.

As far as we can tell the Radhanites were principally traders carrying Western goods such as brocade, beaver pelts, marten, furs, swords but also (newly minted) eunuchs and, it appears, children – all to be sold into slavery.  From the East they came back with musk, aloe wood, camphor, cinnamon, celadon, silk (this was before the Italians took over production) and other products of the Orient.  In a way they were a more modest precursor to the Hanseatic iteague, the British East India Company or today’s corporations – a trading guild (or perhaps just a loose network of trading associates) whose members likely served as both merchants, explorers and, likely, spies for the local potentates.  It is possible that Ibrahim Ibn Ya’qub was also a “member” of this group – we will likely never know for sure (the fact that, when visiting Germany, he was surprised to see some of the Eastern wares and coins in the local markets, e.g., in Mainz – suggests that perhaps he was more of a diplomat traveler than a trader himself).

What the origin of the name is another mystery (Frankish, Rhodan River? The city of al-Rayy/Rhages in Persia? Rhadan, a province in Persia or Mesopotamia? Do they have anything to do with the Slavic Rodanice? Or Rod-a-niya (as in, ominously (!), ‘destroyer’ of the ‘clan’)?) and much ink has been spilled on this topic… (Moshe Gil’s “Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages” contains some of the latest attempts at shedding light on this).

As regards slaves, the Radhanites themselves being principally intermediaries dealing in all kinds of merchandise, were not the ones who would capture human cargo – rather for that they relied on wars, the various local monarchs and raiders.  We must remember that slavery never died out with the collapse of the Roman Empire and as the Franks and then the newly-added Saxons began to fight the Polabian Slavs, a surplus of prisoners of war would most profitably be disposed off by selling them into slavery.  In this fashion your enemies would never be heard from again and you would make a lot of money – a win win so to speak.

Similarly, local monarchs were no doubt to cash in on the action and send some of their political opponents on long-desrved vacations (see Bretislav in Bohemia who permitted the slave trade in Prague some one hundred years after the official adoption of Christianity).  Finally, you had the various raiding nomads who continued to plague Ukraine and Russia much as the various Scythian and Sarmatian tribes before or the Mongols, Turks and Tartars after.

One such group was the south-Caspian based Khurasan.  But another one that we now come to, one that monopolized all channels of commerce (downstream and upstream, so to speak) were the Rus warrior-merchants – most likely Varangians (much more on that later).  Their reach was more limited than that of the Radhanites but they also penetrated far: first on the Dnieper then into the Black Sea  and then all the way to Constantinople; or, sometimes, on the Volga to the Caspian Sea and all the way to Baghdad.

Unlike the Radhanites, the Rus captured their wares at their point of origin and delivered them all the way down to the final end users.  They sold beaver and black fox pelts, as well as swords but also Slavs.  They traveled through the Khazar Khaganate and the Byzantine Empire selling some of their goods there and paying customs duties to the local rulers as they traveled even further.  While the Radhanites were likely to have to hire guards for their long voyages, the Rus were both merchants and guards.  They liked to do things on their own and, one may conjecture, that the Rus’ ultimate decision to get themselves “invited” to rule the Slavs (after first being thrown out) as Nestor in his PVL so diplomatically puts it, was simply an attempt to formalize the Rus-Slav relationship in a legal framework of “ownership” so as to enable the Rus to collect their bounty directly without having to resort to bothersome raiding activity.

It is also noticeable that, as the furs, swords, honey, wax, amber and Slavic slaves were sent to the East, the traders brought (in addition to bartered goods) tons of Abbasid silver dirham coins back with them, fueling the economic revitalization of Europe previously suffering the doldrums of trading collapse that occurred in the wake of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The first report comes from Ibn Khurradadhbih (c 820 – c 911) and was written sometime between 840s-880s, however, it may be that what he describes relates to an earlier period perhaps in the beginning of the IX century.  Ibn Khurradadhbih was in the intelligence business working as a spymaster in the Persian province of Jibal (his official title being the director of the Abbasid Bureau of Posts and Intelligence).  He was a friend of the caliph Mu’tamid.  He is also the author of “The Book of Roads and Kingdoms” and that is where we find this first report.

The second report is one by Ibn al-Faqih (c 903?) of Hamadan (we have no idea who he was) and has been dated to 903.  Ibn al-Faqih almost certainly copied portions of the earlier Ibn Khurradadhbih report as will become clear to the readers.  It appears that what little survives of his writings is in the form of shorter versions that come from a monumental treatise which, alas, has been lost to us (it seems).  Faqih’s report is also curious because, while the first report (which predates Rurik’s takeover of Slavic tribes of later Russia), arguably, describes the Rus and the Slavs as separate [but maybe not see below] , the latter report calls apparently the same people just Slavs.

Third, as it seems to topically fit in here, we include a report by Ibn Hawqal (a traveler and geographer born in Nisibis c 920 – c 988; edited Istakhri’s Book of Roads and Kingdoms which was in turn an edition of Ibn Khurradadhbih’s version) regarding the trade in slaves and Slavic eunuchs which was written sometime before the year 988.  We note that there had been Slavs around his home town of Nisibis (albeit in a military capacity) already a century and a half before his writings.

Finally, we present a report on the Rus and Slavs by Ibn Rusta (circa 903), a native of Isfahan and an author of a multi-volume encyclopedia of geography and history.

In terms of the organization, we start with reports on the Radhaniya and their trade routes, follow it up with a note on the eunuch trade and then go into the excerpts dealing with the Rus and the Slavs.

We note, up front, that the name for Slavs in Arabic is Saqaliba.  Finally, note too that where possible we provide current place names but only once – if you can’t locate these in the text above then we didn’t provide any corresponding contemporary names (meaning you should know where the place is or what it is without help from us).

Ibn Khurradadhbih on the al-Radhaniya

“The routes of the Jewish merchants called al-Radhaniya; these merchants they speak Arabic, Persian, Greek, Latin, Frankish, Andalusian and Slavic.  They journey from west to east, from east to west, traveling by land and by sea.  From the west they export eunuchs [more on that later – these were largely Slavic captives brought to Al-Andalus], young girls and boys, brocade, beaver pelts, marten and other furs and also swords.”

“They set sail from Firanja [the land of the Franks?] on the Mediterranean coast and then head for Farama in Egypt [Tell el-Farama, on the Mediterranean Coast, in the delta north of Suez].  There they transfer their merchandise to the backs of camels and travel to Qulzum [former Clysma, at the southern end of the Suez Canal] on the Red Sea, a distance of 25 forsakes [parsecs?].  They sail [from Qulzum] down the  Red [Eastern] Sea to al-Jar, the port of Medina, and to Jiddah/Gudda [Jeddah], the port of Mecca.  Then they continue on to Sindh [in Pakistan], India and China.”

“They return from China with musk, alloe wood, camphor, cinnamon and other eastern products, docking again at Qulzum, then proceed to Farama, from where they again set sail on the Mediterranean [Western] Sea.”

“Some of them head for Constantinople to sell their goods to the Byzantines.  Others go to the palace of the King of Franks.  Sometimes these Jewish merchants set sail on the Mediterranean from the land of the Franks to Antioch [then in Muslim hands before a reconquista in 969 by the Byzantines; now under Turkish administration].  They then proceed overland to al-Jabiya on the Euphrates, a journey of three days [somewhere in Syria – East of Antioch].  They sail down the Euphrates to Baghdad, then down the Tigris to al-Ubulla [East of Basra in the Tigre-Euphrates delta, served as the Persian Gulf “gateway” to India], from where they sail  the Arabian Gulf to Oman, Sindh, India and China. All these lands are connected to one another.”

“The overland routes of the Radhaniya are as follows; the Jewish merchants also follow a land route.  Merchants departing from Spain or France sail to as-Sus al-aqsa [southern Morocco] and then to Tangier, from where they set off for Ifriqiyya [Tunisia/Tripolitania] and then to Misr the Egyptian [capital].  From there they head towards Ramla [today’s Israel?], visit Damascus, Kufa [on the Euphrates in Iraq], Baghdad and Basra [southern Iraq], then cross the Ahwaz [in Persia], Farz [Persia], Kirman [Kerman, Persia], Sindh and India, and finally arrive in China.”

“Sometimes they take a route north of Rome, heading for Khamlij [likely Atil close to the Caspian Sea shore] via the lands of the Saqaliba (Slavs).  Khamlij is a Khazar capital [city?].  They sail the Caspian Sea, make their way to Balkh [in Bactria – today’s Afghanistan], from there to Ma wars an–nahr [Transoxiana or Bactria, e.g, where the city of Samarkand is], then to the yurt [Wurt] of the Toghuzghuz [somewhere in Uighur countries or Mongolia – Toquz Oghuz means the (Turkish) Nine Tribes] and there to China.”

Ibn al-Faqih on the al-Radhaniya

“Someone tells that it is stated in the Torah that Rayy [Persian, close to the Caspian Sea] is one of the ports of the earth and the place of commerce for mankind.  [note that ray – also is Slavic for paradise]  … Rayy has a fine climate and its buildings are marvelous.  It is the gate of commerce, the refuge of those seeking liberty, the bridegroom of the Earth [?], the highway of the world.  It lies mid-way between Khurasan [northeast Persia], Jurjan [aka Gurgan in Persia on the Southeastern coast of the Caspian Sea] , Iraq and Tabaristan [Tapuria on the southern Caspian Sea].  It is the most beautiful creation on Earth.  It has the Surr and Sarban [presumably meaning those of the Pashtuns but there is always the question of the origin of the Serbs] quarters, and to it flows merchandise from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Khurasan, Khazaria and the country of the Burjan [Bulgar – probably of the Volga variety].”

[here the account begins to resemble what we know from Ibn Khurradadhbih]

“Merchants sail from east to west and west to east, carrying brocades and fine quality silk from the land of the Franks to al-Farama.  Then they sail from Qulzum and cross the sea to China, carrying these products.  Then they carry cinnamon and celadon and all the products of China until they come back to Qulzum and cross to al-Farama.  These are Jewish merchants.  They speak Persian, Greek, Arabic and Frankish.  They embark from al-Farama and sell the musk and aloes wood as well as everything they have brought with them from the kingdom of the Franks.  Then they come to Antioch, then go to Baghdad and then to al-Ubulla.”

Ibn Hawqal on the Trade in Eunuchs 

“The country of the Saqaliba is so immense that on the East side it delivers slaves to Korassan, whereas on the West side it sends them to Andalusia.  The Andalusians buy them in Galicia, in France, in Lombardy and in Calabria so as to make the eunuchs, and thereafter they ferry them over to Egypt and Africa.  All the Saqaliba [Slavic] eunuchs in the world come from Andalusia.”

“A well-known export from al-Andalus is slaves, boys and girls captured in France and Galicia, as well as eunuchs from the Saqaliba.  All the Saqaliba eunuchs in the world come from al-Andalus.  They are castrated near this country.  The [cutting] operation is performed by Jewish merchants.  The Saqaliba are descended from Japheth.  Their country is vast and extend over a very great length.  Raiders from Khurasan [or Khorassan] reach them through the territory of the Bulghars.  They are led in captivity to that province., their manhood left intact, their bodies unmutilated.  The territories of the Saqaliba are immense.  The arm of the sea which extend from the Ocean into the lands of Gog and Magog crosses their territory all the way to a point west of Trebizond [Trabzon, east of Paphlagonia on the Black Sea in today’s Turkey] then to Constantinople, thus dividing it into two halves.  One of these, throughout all its length is raided by the warriors of Khurasan, who live on its borders, while the northern regions are invaded by raiders from al-Andalus via Galicia, France, Lombardy* and Calabria.”

In another translation this text continues “so as to make the eunuchs, and thereafter they ferry them over to Egypt and Africa.” [See Ibn Khurradadhbih above on the same route]

Finally, he also says of the people of Khwarezm or Chorasmia:

“Their entire wealth comes from trading with the Turks and from livestock.  One imports to them the greater part of the Slavic and Khazar slaves and slaves from the bordering lands in addition to Turkish slaves and furs from the Korsak foxes, sables, foxes, beavers and other types of furs.”

* Incidentally, Lombardy meant all of northern Italy all the way to Rome. In fact, in the Life of Saint Zachary we have, under the year 747, an entry indicating that it was the Venetians who acquired slaves here and then delivered them to Saracen countries.  When the papal and imperial edicts forbade this practice, the Venetians began to use Adriatic and Mediterranean pirates to acquire slaves and hand them over to the Venetians.  Many of these slaves came from the Eastern shores of the Adriatic where we know slaves were traded as late as the 15th century in, for example, Dubrovnik.  However, in case  you ask, it is highly unlikely that it is for this reason that those Slavs living in the area became known as the Servi as that name appears in many places and predates the events described here.

[Ibn Hawqal concludes this chapter with a piece of good news]

“Captives from these regions are still plentiful [!]”

Ibn Khurradadhbih on Rus Merchants

“The routes of the Rus merchants are as follows; the Rus, one of the Saqaliba people, journey from the farthest reaches of Saqlab [the land of the Slavs] to the eastern Mediterranean and there sell beaver and black fox pelts, as well as swords.  The Byzantine ruler levies a ten percent tax on their merchandise.  On their return they go by sea to Samkarsh, the city of the Jews [Tamatarkha, former Greek colony on the Black Sea off of the Crimea; then in the Khazar Khaganate – today in Russia], and from there make their way back to Slavic territory [?].  They also follow another route, descending the Don (Tanais) River, the river of the Saqaliba, and passing by Khamlij, the capital/city of the Khazars, where the ruler of the country also levies a ten percent tax on them.  There they embark upon the Caspian Sea, heading for a point they know.  This sea is 500 forsakes [parsecs?] long [in diameter].  Sometimes they transport their merchandise on camel back from the city of Jurjan to Baghdad.  There Slavic speaking eunuchs interpret for them.  They [the Rus] pretend to be Christians and, like them [Christians] only pay a poll tax.”

Ibn al-Faqih on Rus Merchants

“Regarding the Saqalib merchants, they bring fox and beaver pelts from the depths of their country to the Mediterranean, where the Byzantine king imposes a ten percent tax on them.  Then they go by sea to “Samkarsh of the Jews” [Tamatarkha, former Greek colony on the Black Sea off of the Crimea; then in the Khazar Khaganate – today in Russia].  From there, they either go on to the Saqaliba or take the way from the sea of the Saqaliba to the river of the Saqaliba (Don or Volga?), until they come to the gulf of the Khazars, where the ruler imposes a tax off ten percent.  Then they go to the sea of Khurasan (the Caspian Sea), usually disembarking at Jurjan, where they sell all their goods, which are then sent to Rayy, and the most amazing thing si that this is the emporium of the world.”

Ibn Rusta on the Rus (and Slavs)

“The Rus (Rusiya) live on an island in a lake.  This island is three days’ march across and consists of forests and thickets.  It is pestilential and the soil is so damp that when a man steps on it, it quivers underfoot.  They have a ruler called khagan Rus.  The Rus raid the Saqaliba, sailing in their ships until they come upon them.  They take them captive and sell them in Khazaran and Bulkar (Bulghar).  They have no cultivated fields and they live by pillaging the land of the Saqaliba.”  [the island may be at Gorodische where Volkhov comes out of Lake Ilmen – aka [?] Holmgarthr]

A Note on the Global Slav Trade

It is clear that various raiding parties of slavers but also of traders drove into Slavic lands from both West and East.  The people captured were then taken to processing centers – such as Prague and then towards slave markets of al-Andalus or similar establishments in the Middle East.

Some were castrated and sold off as eunuchs – note, for example, the above reference about Slavic eunuchs serving interpreters in Baghdad.  Some remained in Spain.  Others were taken far into Muslim lands (e.g., the above mentioned Slavic eunuchs serving as interpreters in far off Baghdad), perhaps as far as the Arabian peninsula and, maybe, even further onto India and China.

Of course for the wheels of medieval globalization to turn you needed a number of factors to work just right.

First, as elsewhere in history where slavery comes up, you had to have a bunch of relatively hapless people who were isolated and ignorant of the wider world – preferably not speaking the language of the lands they were heading to.  These could be locals but, importantly, they could be strangers as in prisoners of war from other countries.

Second, you had to have brigand-raiders that would carry off the cargo.  These included the various Arabs (and Muslims in general), the Rus, the Avars, likely also – at least initially – the Magyars (Hungarians then called the “Turks”) and the already mentioned Khurasan.  As mentioned already, a great force in this trade seem to have been the Franks and, especially, the Saxons, who after (and during) their conversion to Christianity found a new cause in establishing marches for the Franks* among the various border tribes of the Slavs – their excursions into Polabian Slav lands were reminiscent of the later Reisen of the Teutonic Knights through the lands of the Old Prussians.

* The brutalization of the Saxons by the Franks – especially under the monstrous Charlemagne -may have contributed to their subsequent brutalization of the Slavs – no doubt psychologists might have something to say about this.

Third, things, no doubt, went more smoothly if you had coopted the local elites into this business.  These rulers and traders may have been looking for ways to boost their income and the rise of the various local standing “armies” may, perhaps, at least in part, been fueled by human chattel.  Further, the extensive presence of Arab coinage from this time in Central and Eastern Europe may too attest to this phenomenon.

What can’t escape notice is that it was the continued willingness of Europeans to sell their countrymen (though not always countrymen, e.g., Franks selling Saxons, Franks and Saxons selling Slavs, one Slavic tribe selling members of another Slavic tribe) into slavery, that was a driver of this process (as much a backbone of this slave trade as the willingness of African chieftains to do the same a few hundred years later).  This point of “Christians” selling other Christians to “Jews” was raised by Bishop Agobard of Lyons while otherwise complaining (including about the fact that Jewish preachings were better received – by Christians – than Christian ones) to Louis the Pious (in 826-827) (though the bishop did not similarly object to the sale of pagan slaves – perhaps he felt that would weaken his argument to a Christian ruler or perhaps he cared less).*  More than a century later, in 948, Bishop Liutprand reports that the town of Verdun was a center of castration as the residents could make more money selling eunuchs to Al-Andalus rather than “regular” slaves.**   Later, further East, Thietmar reports of the accusations of selling people (“to the Jews” – again, presumably, the act of selling your own to others seemed worse) being lobbied against Margrave of Meissen, Gunzelin of Kuckenburg in 1009.   See also the Life of Saint Adalbert.  Another slave-dealing report dates even to the much-later times of Boleslaw III Wrymouth (of Poland).  In each of those reports Jewish merchants are mentioned but we know that it was the Czech rulers who sold Poles, Pomeranian dukes who sold Obodrites (to Poles, Sorbs and Czechs), etc.  In fact, another Spanish-Jewish traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, makes the following observation (as late as the 1170s):  “Thence extends the land of Bohemia, called Prague.  This is the commencement of the land of Slavonia, and the Jews who dwell there call it Canaan, because the men of that land [the Slavs] sell their sons and their daughters to the other nations.”  While Benjamin’s sources here “may not have been entirely objective,” all evidence indicates that the maligned “Jews” – presumably, meaning the Radhanite merchants – served the same middleman role in the trade of human chattel as in the international trade of their other wares.  While the Radhanites’ behaviour was clearly terrible by today’s (Western) standards, the role of the sellers and buyers who happened to be “Christian” and “Muslim” (though some “ultimate” buyers may have been Jewish) sometimes seems to be ignored – which is, let’s just say, “odd” (thus no one seems to be blaming the “Swedes” for the acts of the Rus slave raiders even though they actually enslaved free people in the first place; same for the Franks and Saxons or other fellow Slavs)).  Without excusing anyone’s behaviour, one has to say that the slave trade was an acceptable practice of the times. (Whether Benjamin’s sources’ reference to Canaan originated from a different background is another story).

* The council of Meaux-Paris in 845-846 did express concern about some pagan slaves: “(LXXVI) Ut mercatores huius regni, christiani sive Iudei, mancipia pagana, quę per tot populos et civitates fidelium transeuntes ad manus infidelium et sevissimorum hostium nostrorum perducunt , ex quo et ipsi infelices servi, qui, si a christianis emerentur, poterant salvari, miserabiliter pereunt et inimicorum regni maximus numerus augetur, coerceantur a piis principibus nostris et intra christianorum fines vendere conpellantur, ne tam horrenda crudelitate et aperta infidelitate et animarum dampnis deus exasperetur et vires hostibus augeantur.”

** “Carzimasium autem Greci vocant amputatis viribilus et virga puerum eunuchim; quod Verdunenses mercatores ob immensum lucrum facere, et in Hispaniam ducere solent.” (Liutprand, Antapodosis, seu rerum per Europam gestarum, 6, 6)

Fourth, you had to have initial processing centers such as Prague and other places – maybe in Khazaria or Rus.  We know that Prague got rather rich on these kinds of transactions and when wealth is involved, morals, too often give way to rationalization. As per Ibrahim Ibn Ya’qub: “The Rus and the Saqaliba go [to Prague] from Cracow, to trade, and so do Muslim merchants from the lands of the Turks, as well as Turks and Jews, with [mathaquil al-marqatiyya [?] weights [?]].  They carry away slaves, tin and various kinds of furs.”

Fifth, you had to have distribution centers closer to ultimate markets – e.g., in Andalus where the final product would be prepared for retail (e.g., the castration business above) – then sold off to customers or shipped even further.

Sixth, you had to have a shipping/distribution network of traders/merchants who would be willing to take on such cargo – such as that of the Rus or of the more specialized al-Radhaniya (which, along with its successors, continued in the business well into the middle ages in Bohemia, Poland and Germany).

Of course, most importantly, you also had to have a willing buyer in need of soldiers, sex slaves or servants.

While slaves were clearly not the only export of Slavic lands and neither were Slavs the only slaves (see reference above to French and Spanish child slaves) of the time, the extent of this trade seems to suggest that significant parts of the non-Slavic world may today have Slavic ancestors (unless, of course, the arrivals were eunuchs).  It is no wonder that the Latin word servitor was replaced at this time by slave.

The unpleasant fate of those people who were, in effect, outmatched from birth by these global networks so as to be stolen from their families and their lands, forever, and sent to places that neither they nor any of their countrymen (including their initial wholesellers) likely ever dreamt of, suggests that, perhaps, at least in some cases, Slavic state formation may have been a defense mechanism against this kind of human poaching.

We also note that, at least some of the warrior slaves or, perhaps, eunuchs may well have accepted their fate and, in relative terms, prospered in their new “homelands.”  As mentioned before, there is at least one report of a Slav warrior band revolt somewhere in today’s Morocco where the mutineers set up their own town – known as the “village of the Slavs”.  We will return with some positives of what happened to some of these peoples in the future (there are a number of interesting reports!).

Obviously the fate of those who were brought in (male, female and, worst of all, children) to satisfy the prurient or deviant desires of local elites was, ahem, not so pleasant even if some may have ultimately won freedom somehow (some may have escaped).

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

A handy example of politicization of the study of the past should be brought back up because it is so compelling.  Here is a quote from an article published in 1991 when the fear of the rise of Eastern European nationalism (whatever that means) filled the pants of most academics who studied the area.  It was published, we kid you not, by a German (Austrian but, let’s be honest, that’s a fake country that’s always on the brink of not being around in a few years) who decided, in his disarming naiveté, to apply the reeducational training he must have received on deconstructing German nationalism (indeed the concept of the German nation which, though barely, is still in existence) to the other European nations.

(We note here that Germans have a tendency to excel in things – unfortunately for the rest of us, 1) they also often lack the preliminary judgment as to what things they should excel in in the first place and 2) too much excelling in anything can be a bad thing).

An individual well-schooled in the art of criticizing his own people might find no trouble in criticizing other “lesser” (this time “lesser” as regards their sensitivity/multiculturalism/spirit of tolerance – whatever – as usual, with this type – lesser) peoples when called upon to do so.  And so this proves true also here.

There are three brow-raising things here:

1) that this should be published by a German less than 50 years after their war;

2) that it was published in a Slavic (Polish actually) Archeological journal; but, importantly, also

3) that he comes out and says exactly what his purpose is (and, just in case you are wondering, it isn’t science or truth – it’s Momsense!)

Here you go, reintroducing the propagandist Walter Pohl:

“Traditional research has taken the meaning of the terms “people” or “tribe” for granted.  In this view, a “people” is a racially and culturally [our note: the latter only if you took Kossina seriously] highly homogenous group sharing a common descendant and destiny [our note: not sure where he got the destiny part from], speaking the same language and living within one state.  Peoples (and not individuals or social groups) were often seen as factors of continuity in a changing world, as the real subjects of history – almost immutable in its course [our note: huh?], indeed more a natural than a historical phenomenon [our note: here he must be referring to some of his own people’s ’33-’45 (?) Nazi writings and assuming/extrapolating].  Their fate was described using biological metaphors: birth, growth, flowering and decay [note: still awake?].  This historical conception was rooted in the national movements of the 19th and 20th century, and it had its share in encouraging all kinds of chauvinist ideologies [our note: we’re getting warmer]…. Today’s nationalist movements in many Eastern European countries have rediscovered the 19th century ideal of the homogeneous nation-state; it is sad to see that after so many tragedies it has brought about, some more seem to follow, and often in the name of history.  This situation explains the crucial importance of Early Medieval studies for the conceptions and preconceptions of ethnicity… The existence of Romans, Germans or Slavs in the 5th or 7th centuries became important arguments [sic] in an endless series of national struggles, culminating in the bizarre revival of the fair and reckless Germanic hero that lured an entire people into the Nazi holocaust [not capitalized by the author because why?].”

Now, putting aside that many of the “tragedies” that he talks about were brought about not by nationalists (putting aside as well what exactly constitutes a nationalist in his mind) but by self-avowed internationalists… An ethno-nationalist state is what everyone wanted after all but it was a single ethno-nationalist state that brought about WWII (its citizenry was apparently more easily “lured” to use the author’s vaguely exculpatory language). Nor did the multi-national Austro-Hungarian Empire just sit out WWI. He also fails to understand that it is not nationalism or, for that matter, internationalism or religion that creates “tragedies” but rather extremism in pursuit of almost any idea. And that extremism is fostered by a lack of checks and balances on the ruling class which goes to the importance of institutions. Indeed, the Weimar construct that preceded the Nazis used rhetoric and postulated goals with respect to Germany’s borders, very similar to those of its successor but only its successor, unbound by any constraints, was able to set in motion what the preceding republic could not.

This gentleman tells us he is experiencing “sadness” – we can, like, totally understand, as our forefathers experienced a similar “sadness” when his ancestors brought us some wacky sadness over from his country (of course his people were “lured” into all that as he says) – his polemic, errr “article” is, of course, addressed partly at us – the first saddened, then saddled people who spent 50 years behind the Iron Curtain while he warmed his behind in “neutral” Süd Deutschland  (or is it really West Slavland?) protected by cushy government-paid stipends and the might of the surrounding NATO countries (i.e., US)?

He thinks Suavic nationalism could be just like his so now that his people have stopped killing us, he thinks it’s the right time to start to lecture us…

But let’s put that aside and look at what he actually says above:

“This situation explains the crucial importance of Early Medieval studies for the conceptions and preconceptions of ethnicity… The existence of Romans, Germans or Slavs in the 5th or 7th centuries became important arguments [sic]…”

There it is – he is saying history should be a tool of current politics and new identity formation – forget wie es eigentlich gewesen [ist/war] – that’s irrelevant to an over-eifrig armchair-warrior on a crusade to ensure the Slavs do not cause another holocaust… wait, what!? (note that he wrote holocaust and not Holocaust which may also raise some eyebrows).

So, you see, if in fact you come across claims that the Veneti are not Slavs or that something “definitely is not Slavic” or similar stuff, take them with a grain of salt – not because the opposite must be true (we should lways freely admit our doubts) – but because the person making such a claim may not be guided by truth at all or at least not as much as by certain “secondary” considerations – he may just be an ideologic propagandist who tailors his work to fit his preconceived and, here above explicitly stated, political needs.

Not with a tinge of irony we note that in the 19th century the Slavic-Veneti connection was questioned by German nationalists – now it seems the very existence of Slavs prior to some period is being questioned by German “citizens of the world”. (Someone asked whether we thought this individual was a covert German nationalist – we do not like that description as it has been too often abused and, in any event, even accepting this wording, we do not think so – we take his beliefs to be sincere – sincere lunacy though is no less problematic).

Well, as was once said, if people never did silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done.  And with that we take heart.

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

We present here some of the earliest Slavic names (as the title suggests) along with their sources.  Since these names appear both in the description of Slavs and in the description of the Antes we mention both groups of names under separate sections.

The Slavs 

Ardagastus – (source: Theophylact Simocatta’s History) – first known “Sclavene” chieftain known to conduct raids into Byzanthine territory.  He was engaged by Comentiolus at Adrianople/Ansinon and retreated with the Byzantines freeing a lot of their prisoners.  Later forced to flee another Byzantine general – Priscus – on an “unsaddled mare;” then when that mare was caught by the “Romans” (i.e., Byzantines) he fled on foot; but then fell on a tree stump only to escape in the last minute across a river.  Meanwhile, his Slavs were taken as captives to Byzantium in “wooden fetters”.

Musocius – (source: Theophylact Simocatta’s History) – another Sclavene leader (“rex”) who sent out a scouting party that was caught by the Byzantines by reason of a betrayal by a certain Gepid.  The Gepid first helped the Byzantine Alexander to catch the scouting party then was enticed by Priscus to draw Musocius into a trap which he did claiming that he wanted to get boats to help those left from Ardagastus’ party who had been trapped on the other side of some river (Paspirius? presumably a tributary of the Danube).  Musocius fell for this and sent one hundred fifty boats and thirty oarsmen came to the other side of the river.  At which point the Gepid went back to Priscus and brought a force back with him led by the same Alexander.  They caught the Slavs unawares (sleeping and/or drunk) took their ships and crossed the river with a much larger force.  There it seems they found Musocius (actually it’s not clear whether Musocius had crossed first or just sent the ships) who was sleeping/drunk (apparently as a result of funeral festivities or commemorations for his just passed away brother).

The Romans (i.e., Byzantines) were victorious but then they started drinking and the Slavs, apparently, got back on their feet and attacked them – the Byzantines would have lost but for one Gentzon who carried the day – the next day the officers of the watch were impaled by Priscus’ command and some of the other soldiers “severely flogged”.  It is unclear whether Musocius himself survived.  As we’ve already noted here, Musocius’ name is reminiscent of the name Mieszko from a few hundred years later.

Peiragastus – (source: Theophylact Simocatta’s History) – leader of a Sclavene raiding party.  Apparently he was letting his horses rest at a river crossing and came upon a patrol of Byzantine soldiers capturing them in the process (they were asleep as they had been riding all day and were preparing for night scouting duties – apparently with no sentries).  Then his force was camouflaged at the river bank and when the main body of the Byzantines began to cross the Slavs were able from their hiding places to kill a thousand of them.  When the Byzantines realized what was happening they attacked all at once and with arrows from their rafts driving the Slavs away from the river.  Peiragastus himself was killed by an arrow and his troops then surrounded and partly slaughtered but the Byzantines, lacking horses, were unable to pursue.

(So the end tally Theophylact Simocatta is: Ardagast – escaped; Musocius – may have escaped; Peiragastus – terminated).

Dauritas/Daurentius – (source: Menander the Guardsman, The History of [the same]; this is a work that now exists only in the collections De Legationibus and De Sententiis from the 10th century) – Apparently, he had “insulted” the Avar khan Baian by refusing to become the Avar’s tributary.  Specifically, Dauritas and his fellow chiefs reply to the Avars’ envoy was “What man has been born what man is warmed by the rays of the sun who shall make our might his subject?  Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs.  And so it shall always be for us, as long as there are wars and weapons.”  The Avars boasted likewise and then came the usual “abuse and insults” as well as a “shouting match.”  The Avar envoys miscalculated in the short run (and for those specific envoys the short run was all they had it turns out) and the Slavs “unable to restrain their rage” slew the envoys.

In the long run (about the year 578) this proved to be a bit of a mistake as the ever scheming Byzantines via the emperor Tiberius II started chatting up Baian and convinced him to attack the Slavs as part of the Byzantine strategy of divide and conquer (in fairness the Slavs have been raiding the Byzantine lands and, in fact, part of the Avars desire to get at the Slavs was to get their hands on the gold that the Slavs had apparently stolen from the Byzantines).  The Avar envoys requested boats from Tiberius to cross the Danube from Pannonia to Scythia Minor in order to attack the Slavs.  Although Tiberius was apparently suspicious that the Avars really wanted to get at the Byzantine city of Sirmium, he ultimately did agree and ordered the governor of Illyricum, John to assist the Avars.  About sixty thousand (!?) “armored horsemen” were transported into Byzantine territory (including Baian himself) who crossed Illlyricum, crossed Scythia and prepared to recross the Danube (?).  Once on the other side Baian “immediately fired the villages of the Slavs and laid waste their fields, driving and carrying off everything, since none of the barbarians there dared to face him, but took refuge in the thick undergrowth of the woods.”  It is not clear what happened to Daurentias and his “fellow chiefs”.

The Antes

Boz – (source: Jordanes, Getica) – the story of Boz has its own entry here.

Dabragezas – (source: Agathias of Myrina, Histories) – this was the name of an Antian officer in the service of the Byzantines – apparently in command of the Byzantine fleet in the Crimea.  Another officer  by the name of Leontios may have been his son (it is thought).  Be that as it may, since Leontios is a Greek name, we do not separately create rubric for Leontios. This was circa 582. (note that Slavs and Antae were in the service of the Byzantines as well as fighting them – for example, in 537 most of the about 1,600 horsemen sent to relieve Belisarius’ campaign against the Ostrogoths in Italy were Slavs and Antae as per Procopius).

Mezamer/Idariz/Kelagast  – (source: Menander the Guardsman, The History of [the same]) – the Avars had been pillaging and ravaging (not necessarily in that order) the lands of the Antae (circa 582) forcing the latter to send an embassy to the Avars appointing as the main ambassador one Mezamer, the son of Idariz and brother of Kelagast so as to ransom some of the Antae who had been taken captive by the Avars.

But Mezamer was a “loudmouth braggart and when he came to the Avars he spoke arrogantly and very rashly.”  There was at the Avar court a Kutrigur (apparently the Gepids and Kutrigurs have noxious effects on the Slavs and Antae respectively) who noted to the Khagan who suggested that Mezamer was the most powerful of the Antae and that, therefore, killing him would make the Antae fold with fear.  The Avars did take up this helpful suggestion and thereafter were able to ravage the land of the Antae “even more than before, carrying off prisoners and plunder without respite.”

[Chilbudius] – (source: Procopius, Gothic Wars) – this one is not certain; Chilbudius was a magister in charge of Thrace who launched attacks against the barbarians north of the Danube but fell in one of his expeditions.  Apparently, an Antian prisoner of the Slavs either had the same name (which might be interesting for our purposes) or pretended to have the same name (which would be less interesting) and, therefore, claimed to be the same person as the magister who was thought dead.  Specifically, when the Antes bought back the man from the Slavs (yes, they were known to fight one another too), the buyers were approached by a Byzantine prisoner of theirs (i.e., of the Antes) who convinced them that they had the real deal here or at least that they ought to be able to get some cash for the pretender.  In any event, at some point the Antes figured out that this was not the “true” Chilbudius and the bought back Antae (Ant?) fessed up (supposedly) but the Antes went ahead with the plan anyway and sent him to Constantinople (apparently as part of a plan to convince the Emperor Justinian to have Chilbudius govern them at Turris, a city that Justinian wanted to give to the Antae in exchange for their protecting the imperial frontier from the Huns).

However, the whole thing was revealed when the Chilbudius or not Chilbudius was taken prisoner by a Byzantine named Narses who saw through the ruse or whatever else this was – our head is spinning and so should yours about now.  The year was [circa] 545.

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

We have been reluctant to take a definitive position on the question of the relatedness of the Slavs to the (Baltic) Venethi/Veneti/Venedi.  The reason for this is simple.  The connection is one which it is impossible to definitively establish with the information we have at thus far. Absent new data or new methodologies, it is unlikely that anyone will ever know the truth of he matter “for sure”.  But, that said, we can confess that we are leaning towards admitting a connection.  There are several reasons for this and we enumerate them here:

1) Jordanes – he makes the connection clear and, given his background as an Ostrogoth (or maybe an Alan) living close to the time when the Slavs would have separated themselves from the larger Venetic group, he is of all those who have offered an opinion on the topic, the one best qualified to do so; that his conqueror of the Antes is named Vinitharius also seems to bolster the argument (while it has been argued that this was really Vithimiris, the name Vinitharius is separately attested in the letters of Cassiodorus which, unlike his Gothic History, did survive);

2) Peutinger Map – the map which was put together prior to Jordanes’ Getica (two or three centuries earlier) clearly indicates a group of people named the Venethi at the mouths of the Danube where Slavs are “later” found.  At the very least this indicates yet another place (in addition to the Vistula basin) where we first see the Venethi and then see the Slavs.  Were that a coincidence, it would be a strange one indeed.  The same  map, of course, also shows the Sarmatian Venethi up in the North;

3) Wends – numerous Western European authors, none of whom are known to have relied on Jordanes, refer to the Westernmost Slavs as Wends.  Another coinicedence?  While some say that this is merely a case of a name transferred, it is an odd transfer if true.  The Germanic transferors namely are not “old” east Germanic tribes but relative newcomers to the area, the Franks, the Saxons and the Bavarians.  But these peoples would, if the common telling of the story is correct, have never shared a boundary with the Wends.  They would instead have bordered the east Germanic Goths, Vandals and others.  Thus, one may ask whether they should have instead referred to the Slavic “newcomers” as Goths and Vandals instead? (they did later refer to them as Vandals at least but this sems to hav be inspired by Slavic historiography rather than anything coming originally out of their own German tradition.  Moreover, the Bavarians and Longobards referred to the Carinthian Slavs as the Windische.  But this too is strange as the Venethi, in the usual telling of the story, were found on the Baltic not in the Alps so whose name was being transferred to them and why?;

4) Location, location, location – to put it simply, this is where the Venethi were and this too is where the Slavs now are.  While this may seem simplistic, the burden of proof is on those arguing that the Venethi were not Slavs to show that otherwise is the case.  While certain Germanic tribes may have stayed in and passed through, e.g., Poland, the fact of an army passing through a territory does not equal the automatic complete displacement of the population.  Thus, both Napoleon and Hitler conquered large swaths of Russia but, in the end did not replace the indigenous population.  But, you might say, they lost.  Ok, but what of the Golden Horde or the Lithuanians?  They actually did conquer and hold Russia.  Were the Russians gone then from Kiev?  Of course, not.  The Gothic and other armies were likely just that – marauding bands of warriors like the Vikings much later on (incidentally, no one has located their landing site – Gothiscandza – though logic would suggest that rather than crossing the wide Baltic Sea to land at the Vistula, they would have gone via island hopping over the Danish Jutland peninsula; th ‘three mouths’ of the Vistula suggests rather the Oder than the Vistula).  They may have even taken Slavic (and other) women as wives but in all likelihood they were mostly male marauders at least at the bginning of their journey.  This view is also consistent with today’s approach to the Volkerwanderung which stresses a rather limited role for the “Volk” in such a Wanderung;

5) Where are the Venethi? – anyone arguing for the nonautochtonous nature of the Slavs must also account for what happened to the Venethi, a nation described as “populous” by Jordanes and one which Ptolemy already divided into greater and lesser races suggesting, again, their copiousness;

6) Are they Slavs or rabbits? – many a commentator has over the years pointed out the demographic difficulty of Slavs taking over wide swaths of Europe in such a short timeframe.  This is, of course, possible (that is, this is not a mathematical and biological impossibility) but it is unlikely;  Moreover, it is worth pointing out that there is very little to show for the most famous of the Slavs, those of Procopius – it cannot be even shown that these Slavs are the ones that settled the former Yugoslavia without even looking at the Czech lands, Poland and Pomerania/Polabia; in fact, as we have discussed already earlier, it is likely that all of the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia as well as Poland and eastern Germany were settled by the Slavs from the North); the most that can be said of the southern Slavs is that they assimilated the Bulgars but otherwise dissolved themselves in the Greek speaking population of Greece; as pointed out before, if this is so then the group of Slavs responsible for the settlement of all the other Slavic lands would have had to come from an even smaller subgroup of the whole;

7) Furtive conquerors? – outside of the Balkans we do not have any contemporary records of Slav migrations.  This lack of documentation of Slav arrival is in obvious contrast to the arrival of just about any other group in Central and Eastern Europe including the Germanic tribes of all stripes, the Huns, the Alans, the Avars, the Hungarians, the Mongols, the Lithuanians and the Turks.  In fact, the Byzantines never mention the Slavs as arriving on the borders – they seem unsurprised that the Slavs are where they are complaining only about Slavic raids into Byzantine territory.  This is in stark contrast with their description of the arrival of the Avars at about the same time.  In fact, in several places, Byzantine authors (for example, Theophylact Simocatta) call Slavs Getae – a nation well known to the eastern Romans.  Of course, it’s possible that poor recordkeeping in the medieval, post Roman space and the relative remoteness of the Slavic lands are to blame but be that as it may this seems to be  another one of those not entirely convincing but highly suggestive pieces of information;

8) Genetics – recent genetic studies also seem to support an autochtonic concept of the Slavs (also of Indo Europeans generally but that is a separate discussion).  Although we have generally shied away from discussing genetics here as its application in historiography is in its infancy and virtually all the studies conducted involve rather small sample sizes, we again feel that what’s there now should be mentioned, if only tentatively (most of these studies look solely at the male-only or female-only line, leaving all the other stuff “in between”);

9) Heruli – in about 509-512, the Heruli remigrated from the Balkans back to Scandinavia (to Thule).  As per Procopius (Wars), they went first through the lands of the Slavs (before hitting some empty territories – we think in today’s eastern Germany since they then arrive among the Rugii – although it is possible that they passed through portions of Poland too, that seems a rather out of the way way to go – not to mention more mountainous).  This suggests that already then – only 60 years or so after the fall of Attila – the Slavs occupied lands north of the Danube; if they spread after the outmigration of the Germans, the Slavs did so very fast);

10) River Names – contrary to what had beeen asserted by some authors, it appears that the various river names in, e.g., Poland have a stronger Slavic connection than a Germanic one; take, Vistula; the Roman authors call it, in places, Vistla or Viscla – the Slavs Viswa (Wisla) but the Germans Weichsel; of course, this does not suggest tha the name is Slavic but it does suggest that the Slavs got the name right but the Germans did not; even if the Slavs would have gotten the name from the remaining Venethi, this raises the question how is it possible that th Slavs being newcomers were able to get that but the Germanics who lived next to the Venethi for centuries never appropriated the Venetic name; this is in addition to the curious fact the Roman spelling with the -st, -sc seems reminiscent of the same sound “w” found in Viswa (Wisla) and also in Greek sources in “Sclavenoi”; incidentally, Wisla has been derived from a Slavic word for bog (but also, e.g., ‘wiosla’ – paddles);

11) Other Place Names – We have a rather extensive etymology of many place names in Germany that clearly date back to the Wendish period.  The Germans (or Franks and Saxons really) came into these areas and assimilated the local population.  No one questions that.  And yet, all of that assimilation notwithstanding, we can easily show where the Obotrite, Veleti and Lutizi tribes lived just by opening up a modern map.  One might think, therefore, that a similar process would have taken place in Poland and the Czech/Slovak lands – indeed in Russia.  But that is not the case – we are not aware of any place names that have a Germanic etymology and that are dated to the era preceding the Frankish expansion.  None.

If the Germanic tribes (as opposed to bands of roving males and their slavegirls) lived here and left, they left in their entirety and in a major hurry.  But then how did the Slavs inherit the various hydronyms that supposedly do not have a Slavic etymology?  Were the Venthi the ones hiding in the forests as the Germanics roved the countryside? Then they suddenly came back only to run into Slavs?  Someone has to be hiding somewhere for this story to be true it seems.

12) Slavs – the name Slav deserves a separate blog post but we will say only this here – as of now we are not aware of any other ancient tribe name that would contain the VEN of the VeNEthi other than Zlovene (i.e., Slavs) with the Antes possibly picking up the NT of the VeNeThi.

Were the Slavs the Zlovenei? I.e., the ones that got “caught”?

But what about the fact that:

i) Water – Slavs did not possess an extensive maritime vocabulary as would be found with seafaring peoples?  This argument is made by Antoine Meillet (others seem to parrot him with or without attribution but with no analysis in any event).  He bases his entire argument on three words (grebac, ostrov and something else)… Strangely, for Meillet already Pliny describes an island called “by the natives” Austrovia and it is not a river island it seems.  But undoubtedly it is an island of the East or where Eostre was worshipped or something like that…  He also does not show  which of the various peoples who were known to be seashore dwellers did possess a rich maritime vocabulary; that is there is no base case;  he appears dismissive and unconvincing in his rejection of various proposed Slavic water-related words;

As far as the amber/Bernstein argument is concerned (not something he discusses), all that proves – if even that – that a certain portion of the amber trade came to be dominated by Germanic speakers and that others may have adopted the successful German word (e.g., the Polabian Slavs had fallen so far as to use the Germanic word for ‘father’ yet no one (we think) would seriously suggest that the Polabians did not know the concept of fatherhood prior to meeting Germans);  we will return to this subject in the future;

Incidentally, in the Balkans, the Slavs were apparently seen as excellent mariners even if their ships were not large…

ii) Trees – Slavs did not know certain trees that grew in Germania? – objections to this claim were previously addressed in our prior posts (click here) and we will not revisit those at the present juncture;

iii) Tongues – Venetic is a centum language whereas Slavic languages are of the satem variety?; this is misleading.  No one knows what language was spoken by the Sarmatian Veneti (technically, we do not even know what language the Slavs spoke before the first written Slavic records began appearing at the end of the first millenium); the reference here is solely to the Adriatic Venetic which has had some words reconstructed on a limited set of inscriptions, i.e., no one even knows whether it was a centum language (although such a theory has been proposed by some scholars);

iv) Romans did not know of Slavs? – perhaps they did not; but if the Venethi were Slavs then this statement is misleading too – the Romans may not have known the term Slav or known Slavs by that name but that certainly does not prove that they did not know of people who – only later after the fall of the Empire – became known to the world as Slavs – which itself may have been merely a result of one of the Venethic tribes being the one stumbling into the Byzantines (as previously observed, in Western Europe, the alternative ‘Wends’ was used for a few hundred years more;

v) Those Slav Others – the word Venden/Venethen is Germanic for the generic “others”? – actually, that word is Walch or Wallach or Welch and that word certainly was used to describe various peoples at the edges of German influence (e.g., Wallachs in Moldavia or the Welch in Britain);

On the other hand, the etymology of Venethi is more than uncertain with Germanic, Celtic and Slavic being proposed – perhaps the most obvious is a connection with the Baltic languages, e.g., in Old Prussian (wundan) and Lithuanian (vanduo) refers to water such that the Venethi would mean simply those who live by the water; see the following (wasser = wundan) from the Elbing Dictionary:

So maybe the Venethi were Balts?  (Note that the Lithuanians, for example, refer to Belorussians not as Wends but as gudai, suggesting at the very least that some Goths have passed through Belorussia at some point).

However, “wedzic/vendzic” means to get rid of water (i.e., to smoke, e.g., fish) in Slavic – see also “wedka/vendka”, i.e., fishing rod.  We leave that for you to noodle on;

We note also that all the Venethi out there, i.e., the Adriatic Venethi, the Gallic Venethi, the Welsh (?) Venethi, the Paphlagonian Venethi, the Illyric/Macedonian Venethi and the Baltic Venethi seemed to have dwelt on one shore or another.  One might say that in Europe that is easy to do but surely there were plenty of tribes located inland as well.  Was this perhaps a designation, in some ancient tongue, of all such tribes that were coast dwellers?

Incidentally, it has been claimed that it was Safarik who first suggested the Venethi were Slavs.  This is not true – the first known connection comes from Martin Kromer, the Bishop of Warmia/Ermland who argued that the Slavs were not Vandals (the prevalent theory till then) but rather that they were Sarmatians and brethren to the Veneti.  He also came up with the idea that various tribes may well have passed over Venetic/Slavic lands while the locals just kept their heads down and went about their business – again, this is not therefore a 20th century invention by any means.

Finally, and this is important – no one is claiming that the Venethi were Slavs – quite the opposite – the argument is rather (consistent with Jordanes) that the Slavs were one of the tribes of the Venethi.  A tribe that was known to the Byzantines who were the cultural super power of the day and who then extended the Slav name to other Venethic tribes further away – see, for example, how the name Alemanni or Schwaben or Saxons became – for different people in different places – a name for all the Germans.  One might say, however, that the name Slav was also a name given by the Slavs to themselves in various geographies – this is fair but one also has to admit that all of those geographies were ascribed by chroniclers like Jordanes to the Slavs proper – what about central and northern Poland or north east Germany?  See for example the recent discussion of the Sukow-Dziedzice culture and its supposed differences with other “Slavic” cultures.

PS Some people have brought our attention to sources regarding the Enetoi that are older than the ones we have, thus far, discussed.  We are aware of those and will cover them at some point in the future – do not worry!

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

It is common knowledge that much of the place names in eastern Germany are of Slavic origin.  In general, such names are characterized by endings such as -in (e.g., Berlin), -en (e.g., Dresden, Bremen), -an (Doberan), –ow (e.g., Guestrow) or -itz (e.g., Chemnitz). [1]  Here is a map of northeastern Germany:

So even in this small area we have: Berkenthin, Dobbertin, Kroepelin, Tessin, Penzlin, Murchin, Rambin, Warin, Dahmen, Demen, Gnoien, Goeren, Bad Doberan, Lassan, Buetzow, Ducherow, Krakow (!) am See, Neubukow, Rastow, Marlow, Malchow, Wustrow, Sassnitz, Zinnowitz, Crivitz, Ribnitz, etc.

And, of course, there are others of different types, e.g., Jatznick, Woldegk, Blowatz, Velgast or, in the south, Leipzig or Cottbus, etc.

None of this is surprising given the Slavic presence in those parts since, at least, the middle ages.

Since we were talking about Paphlagonia the prior time, let’s move to the opposite side of Europe now and ask a question.  This is the question.  Let’s say there were Slavic settlements in France and let’s say their endings would have been the same as the above types in Germany, i.e., -in, -en (call these group 1), -ow (call these group 2) and -itz (group 3), what would they look like in French?

We, of course, can’t be sure but we can guess.  Here are our guesses and you can tell us, of course, that we are way off.  We think the suffixes are likely to be the following: -in, -en  or -an as the first group; –off or -iff as the second group; and -ic or -ec corresponding to the third group.  Here is a map of a portion of France, specifically a part of Bretagne west of Vannes:

Here are some group 1s: Primelin, Plomelin, Goulien, Esquibien,  Plovan, Pluguffan;

Group 2: Plogoff;

Group 3: Plouhinec, Landudec, Plogonnec, Pouldreuzic;

And what of Douarnenez, Plozevet, Pouldergat, Guengat, Treogat (-gast?).  (Throwing in -on, you also get Gourlizon and Mahalon.  Adding in -oc, you get Tremeoc).

This pattern continues throughout Bretagne, particularly in its southern and southeastern portion (though not exclusively).  E.g., Meslin, Treffrin, Naizin, Credin, Quintin, Gourin, Penestin, Plerin, Goudelin, Lesneven, Pleven, Pleslin, Goven, Seglien, Plaudren, Pledran, Lehon, Guiscriff, Quistinic, Pourdic, Pornic, Binic, Briec, Ploubazlanec, Plouezec, Tredarzec, Landrevarzec, Locquirec, Severac, Plouagat, Pleumergat, Langast, Plouguenast. We also get other places that have vaguely Slavic names. E.g., Bubry, Bieuzy, Plesse, Plesidy, Plouisy, Plouha.  And near the town of Fougerges we have Vendel.  Much further south we have a few others.

Some of these suffixes are, occasionally, found outside of Bretagne (e.g, Hourtin) and there are many other names in Bretagne.  We must also point out that many of the above names ought to have clear French or Celtic etymologies.  So, of course, we are not suggesting that Bretagne is some sort of lost Slavic colony…

Though you will notice the Namnetes (Nemcy?) nearby.  And, of course, there are the Ossismi – they are, apparently, also known as Ostimioi – a name meaning “the last” – see, ost, last?  Of course, that name is actually closer to, e.g., the Polish ostatni (the last).   We could not resist…

Nevertheless, given the mention of the Venethi there during Ceasar’s times (after whom the town of Vannes is named) we must point out that nowhere else in Europe do we find so many Slavic-like (let’s call them that) names outside of areas that had previously been clearly settled by Slavs (i.e., Slavic countries and portions of Germany and Austria).  We must also remember that it has been two thousand years since the days of Ceasar…

When the Venethi with their neighbors fought the Romans they were referred to as Gauls.  What was that rebel leader’s name again?  Oh  yes, Viridovix say the learned books – Viridovix of the Venelli.

Except, funny, that the below says Viridovic…  maybe it’s just the particular case …or maybe it’s his Croatian brother…

“Multae res ad hoc consilium Gallos hortabantur: superiorum dierum Sabini cunctatio, perfugae confirmatio, inopia cibariorum, cui rei paum diligenter ab iis erat provisum, spes Venetici belli, et quod fere libenter. homines id quod volunt credunt. His rebus adducti non prius Viridovicem reliquosque duces ex concilio dimittunt quam ab iis sit concessum arma uti capiant et ad castra contendant. Qua re concessa laeti, ut explorata victoria, sarmentis virgultisque collectis, quibus fossas Romanorum compleant, ad castra pergunt.”

(Ceasar, About the Gallic War, Book 3).

We gently remind our readers (even the ones with term papers or dissertations coming up) of the below copyright restrictions.

[1]  Other Slavic suffixes are also present in Germany though less commonly, e.g., -ast or -ost (e.g., Velgast).  And, of course, there are other Slavic places that do not contain any such suffix (e.g., Leipzig, Luebeck, Rostock).

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

There are lots of Zagoras (literally “beyond the mountain”).

Some are in Poland.

Others in Croatia.

Yet others in Bulgaria (e.g., Stara Zagora).

There is one in Greece, where Slavs likely reached.

(Strangely, there is even one in Morocco (there it is likely a Berber name, see, e.g. Sahara although stories of a Moroccan Nekur/Nukur/Nakur/Nekor where the royal guard was composed of Slavs (though perhaps just slaves?) have come up in the past and it is told that after a rebellion they set up their own “village of the Slavs” though some argue it was just a “village of the slaves”).

However, what is interesting is that a Zagora has been in at least four different sources mentioned in Paphlagonia – a place where lived yet another tribe of the Venethi.  One of them is Arrian  of Nicomedia (c. AD c. 86 – c. 160) (Zagora).  The other Marcian of Heraclea (4th century) (Zagoron, p 73).  Ptolemy has his own version (Zagorum in Galatia).  Finally, the Peutinger Map shows a Zacoria.  There is also a local river, Zalecus mentioned in some of these sources (though as Halega in the Peutinger Map).  Zagora is likely the later Gazuron or Calippi.

Here is a nineteenth century version/imagining on a map by the geographer Heinrich Kiepert:

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

Jews in Spain

Hasdai bin Shaprut was a vezir and maior domo to a local caliph Abd ar-Rahman in Cordoba.  The legends of his wisdom and learning are, well, legendary.  He was instrumental in curing the Christian King Sancho and helping him win back his crown (in exchange for a few border castles that went to the caliph).  He was involved in receiving embassies of Constantine Porphirogenetus (helping translate a tome of Dioskyrides) and Otto I, at that time not yet emperor (helping the ambassadors not insult the caliph).

Lastly, and in keeping with our theme here, we note that it was during Hasdai’s time in office that the famous four rabbis on the way from Bari to Sebast got themselves captured (or really the ship they traveled on was captured)  by admiral Romahis (aka Damahas) with the result that they got sold off in different ports – one, Moses, being sold in Cordoba.  It is likely that Hasdai was then Moses’ protector and sponsor.

All of which is irrelevant for our purposes here.

Except one thing.  Hasdai being in the thick of it all at the Cordoban court came across some traders who mentioned to him that there was in the East a Jewish state run by a khagan named Joseph.  Yes, it was the Khazars.  This piqued his curiosity (apparently he was tired of hearing that only the Jews can’t have their own state because they haven’t accepted Jesus as Christ – an assertion aid doff the mark in its very foundations even at the time as many stateless Slavs could testify, e.g., close to the events in question the Slavs of the Rus where the Rus ran things).   So he decide to send an emissary with the letter to the Khazars.

The first attempt was unsuccessful at Constantinople as the Byzantines likely fearing some sort of alliance between the Khazars and the caliphate sent the embassy back on the apparent pretext that it was not safe to travel between Constantinople what with all the bandits, robbers and the generally deteriorating road conditions given the late season, etc, etc, etc.

Pissed, Hasdai sent another embassy but this time through the middle of the European continent.  It turned out that there were at that time in Cordoba as part of another embassy of a  two Jewish travelers – Joseph & Saul.  They came from the “country of Gebalim” who, we learn earlier from his letter, “of the Slavs” [al-sequeliba].  They told Hasdai that “iz no problem.”

“We will give your letter to the King of the Gebalim.  He will send the letter to the Israelites that live in Hungary.  Who will send it to the Rus who then will send it to the Bulgars [presumably Volga Bulgars even if those had already been driven towards the Danube by the Khazars] and from there the letter will be sent to where you want it to be sent.”

Who was this “King of the Gebalim”?  We will likely never know though there are some papers on the topic.  Perhaps a Croat king or one Serb?  But maybe a Czech potentate?  That would certainly be the simplest explanation for the path being suggested by the ambassadors.   (whether the letter and/or the response were opened and read by the Gebalim is not mentioned in the literature but it seems improbable that they would not be).

And no the letter was obviously not in German.  We are showing a German translation from 1840 by Joseph Zedner in his “Auswahl historischer Stuecke aus Hebraeischen Schriftstellern (2Jh – Gegenwart)” (Selection of historical pieces of Hebrew writers from the 2nd century to the present).

PS The source documents were apparently discovered in the year 1562 by Isaac ben Abraham (ben Yehuda Akrish) on his trip from Constantinople to Egypt. He then published a 32 page book in Constantinople about the year 1577.  The book has four parts with the Hasdai letter and King Joseph’s reply being on pp 16-23 and 23-26, respectively.  (We are not currently in possession of it).  A reprint in Latin followed in 1660 in Basel by Johann Buxtorf.  A printing in Cracow also occurred.  After Zedner a French version was published by Carmoly in Brussels in 1847 and a German one (different from Zedner apparently) came out by Seeling Cassel in Berlin in 1848 (this one with the reply only).

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

Of all the theories of Slavic origins none has been so convoluted as the “beech” theory and none has proven more resilient.  We will consider it in a few separate postings.

The beech theory goes back to the speculations of Jozef Rostafinski in his 1908 article “O perwotnych siedzibach i gospodarstwie Slowian w przedhistorycznych czasach” (or “About the Prehistoric Dwellings of the Slavs”).

Rostafinski was neither a linguist nor an archeologist nor a historian but, appropriately for the theory, a botanist.  Undeterred by the apparent lack of relation between his chosen pursuit and the question of the Slavic homeland, he proudly decided to stake out a claim for the botanists in this debate.

We might begin by stating that he started off rather ambitiously by first taking a position on the name “Lach/Lech” and its etymology.  Having firmly established where that was from (we will not bore you with that part except to say he claims it is from “lenda” or “lyada” which meant an empty space later for cultivation – perhaps due to fire farming), he proceeded to locate the Slavic homeland by analyzing bushes and shrubs.  That was, however, not enough for him so, now really reaching, he stepped onto the ornithologists’ feet (claws?) and also analyzed bird names (vultures, storks, egrets).  With that done he proceeded to analyze the etymologies of the Slavic names for iron (concluding it had a Scythian origin but that that was ok because even the Greeks learned some iron making from the Scythians).  He then concluded that the name of the turnip has a Slavic root (repa) and that turnips made their way to the Greeks from the Slavs about five centuries before Christ (which, among other things, according to him, demonstrates conclusively that the Slavs were way ahead of the Germans at that time civilizationally).    Then it was onto grains and cereals (conclusion: initially Slavs did not know rye or wheat).  Then a discussion of the pastoral lifestyle of the Slavs and the circle the wagons origin of the stable (conclusion: Slavic stables were freestanding – Germanic part of the house).  In between Rosafinski threw in an etymology of the word “vend” – he claims it meant smoking (as in fish) (e.g., Polish word “wedzenie”).

Oh, we almost forgot, as to those shrubs and bushes.  Rostafinski was of the opinion that the Slavs did not know (originally) the following trees: beech (fagus silvatica), larch (larix), fir (abies) and yew (taxis baccata) (or at least some of their subtypes).  Incidentally, he makes the same claim about Balts.

Since, he reasoned, these trees did not (at his time) extend east past the so-called (made up) Koeningsberg-Odessa line and since the Slavs did not have their own names for these trees, they must not have originally lived in the areas where those trees grew.  Therefore in his map he places the Slavs east of this line. The map follows:

Rostafinski, based on other evidence (see above), specifically places the Slavs at the edge for the steppe-forest zone somewhere in Russia – in contact with the Greeks until the Scythians came in between them.  Note that most of the other points that Rostafinski made to support his thesis (see above) has been ignored but the tree stuff entered the mainstream of Slavic homeland research.  (All other beech theories are derivative of Rostafinski’s).

The argument is thus based on a number of premises (one might venture, principally, that a few tree names can be highly instructive in establishing the origins of entire peoples but let’s let that one lie).  Let’s list some of the more obvious ones:

1) The beech zone in antiquity was the same as the beech zone today.

That this is not true was supposedly shown already by Henrik Birnbaum in 1979 who placed the reach of the beech, so to speak, only up to the Elbe.

On the other hand, Bukovina is a historic country in Ukraine and Moldova.  What that specific part of the world was called during Roman times, we do not know nor do we know whether there were any beeches growing there.

More recent studies show that the current reach of the beech was reached only between 500-1000 A.D. (Giesecke, et al.).  This would be possibly consistent with Birnbaum.  (On the other hand, beech pollen has also been found in the Pripyet area – which would, no doubt, suggest to some that the homeland of the Slavs is in Siberia…)

2) The etymology of the above tree names is not Slavic and, in fact, is Germanic.  For example, the Germans must not have borrowed the name from the Slavs.  Nor can this be a common Indo-European name (or at least not one that the Slavs could partake in).

However, the reasons for asserting this word as German are less than clear.  The Gothic word is posited to be bok or boka.  It has been stated that, in some cases, the German o, corresponds to the Slavic u (e.g., Donau <> Dunaj).  This is obviously true except that (A) it is true in some cases only, (B) this argument says absolutely nothing about the necessary direction of the borrowing (if there were any) in the general case nor in the specific case of buk.

Alternatively, it has been stated that the old German word was buohha, i.e., with a u and that the k (as in book) shows that the Slavic is a borrowing (the u is not a problem here because the Slavic and the AHDeutsch both feature a u – now the h vs k is the problem).  In this context, it is worth noting that, as per the Elbing dictionary, the old Prussian name for the tree was bucus or bukus.  Now the old Prussians lived within the Kaliningrad-Odessa line so the question would have to be asked whether these forest dwellers also learned the name buk (maybe some late borrowing?) or whether they learned from the Slavs who first learned it from the Germans… (BTW German authors actually make this claim for Lithuanian – but a bit harder to do so for Old Prussian).

Incidentally, the beech is also part of an argument made by Johannes Hoops that Indo-Europeans originated in Germany precisely because the beech does not grow east of the Kaliningrad-Odessa line and because they had their own word for it.  It is not clear if that would make Slavs live next to the Germans or simply not Indo Europeans (we suspect the latter).

3) The Germans lived in the “beech zone” throughout antiquity.

We can assume that this is true for some though, possibly, not all Germanics (e.g., Goths in the Ukraine).

4) Had they been able to, the Slavs would have (before they met the Germans) taken their time to distinguish and name these trees.

The German-Polish historian Brueckner, however, claimed that the Slavs have called the beech tree grab, i.e., the hornbeam.  That is they either did not differentiate between the two trees or transferred grab to the hornbeam from the beech.

5) The Slavs did not, for example, have their own names for these trees which they then only changed to the German names.

See above.

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved

Travelers from far off places, if they manage to have their travels recorded, are a real boon to historians.  Thousands of gallons of ink have been spilled and many an academic post obtained and maintained thanks to a fortuitous turn at a fork taken by a few strangers from a strange country or by a couple of sailors way out of their depth.  We tell now some of their stories as they relate (perhaps) to the story of the peoples discussed here.

Indian (?) Sailors in Gaul 

“…there is Cornelius Nepos, who is more dependable as an authority because he is modern.  Nepos… adduces Quintus Metellus Celer as witness of the fact, and records, that Metellus reported it as follows.  When Celer was proconsul of Gaul, certain Indians were presented to him as a gift by the king of the Boii.  By asking what route they had followed to reach there, Celer learned  that they had been snatched by storm from Indian waters, that they and traverse the intervening region, and that finally they had arrived on the shores of Germany.“

This is from Pomponius Mela‘s Description of the World Book 3, par 45 – section on Scythia (written about AD 43).  Mela was using this anecdote (as related by Nepos c110 BC – c25 BC originating from, ultimately, proconsul Celer c103 BC – c59 BC) to illustrate that beyond the Caspian Sea there was also the same Ocean as surrounded the rest of the world (since Indians came from that direction) and not some frozen land instead (“without a border and without end”).  Later some Slavicists used the same story to argue that these Indians were really Vindians or Venethi.  Others argued against that interpretation.  It seems to us that the story is more likely to refer to the Venethi than true Indians from India (although it’s more likely to refer to a number of peoples than to Indians).  On the other hand, Celer was consul in Cisalpine Gaul (Italy, really), not even Narbonensis (the province in the south of France) and that is presumably where he met the Celtic (?) Boii gift givers of humans (the Boii who gave their name to Bohemia were also at times located in Cisalpine Gaul) so where these gentle sailors got caught, where they came ashore, where they were from and, ultimately, who they were, is anyone’s guess.  Nonetheless, whatever the truth as to that matter, such a truth bears no light on the question of the identity of the Venethi as nothing more is said by Mela of these travelers, their customs, their language or anything else relating to them for at all that matter.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that Pliny retells the same story but with Suevi as the gift givers of the “Indians”.  Does that mean that the Boii were Suevi? (like Bohemians are now Slavs?)

Slavic Hippies (?) in Constantinople

“Three men, Sclavenes by race, who were not wearing any iron or military equipment, were captured by the emperor’s [Heraclius’] bodyguards.  Lyres [or, perhaps, the Slavic gusle] were their baggage, and they were not carrying anything else at all; and so the emperor enquired what was their nation, where was their allotted abode, and the cause of their presence in the Roman [i.e., Byzantine] lands.  They replied that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the boundary of the western ocean, the kagan had dispatched ambassadors to their parts to levy a military force ad had lavished many gifts on their nation’s rulers; and so they accepted the gifts but refused him the alliance, asserting that the length of the journey daunted them, while they sent back to the kagan for the purpose of making a defence these same men who had been captured;  they had completed the journey in fifteen months; but the kagan had forgotten the law of ambassadors and had decreed a ban on their return; since they had heard that the Roman nation was much the most famous… for wealth and clemency, they had exploited the opportunity and retired to Thrace; they carried lyres [or gusle?] since it was not their practice to fire weapons ohm their bodies, because their country was ignorant of iron and thereby provided them with a peaceful and trouble free life; they made music on lyres because they did no know how to sound forth on trumpets.  Because for whoever finds war foreign, it is said that such a person should take up musical exercises.  Listening to this the sovereign, liked this nation, welcomed them warmly, and them alone among all the other barbarians who came into contact with him, admiring their height and the bountifulness of their members, he sent on to Heraclea.”

The story comes from Theophylact Simocatta‘s Histories (at 160).  A substantially similar tale is relayed also by Theophanes in his Chronographia (226) except that here the trip took place in 18 months, the Slavs never made it to the kagan but went straight to the Byzantines and the emperor admired their age/youth (?) (not their height) and their bodybuild (not their members). The story seems curious on a number of levels.

For one, if the Slavs were not familiar with ironmaking, why bring them in as allies as the kagan intended apparently?  Further, whether the trip to the kagan was 15 or 18 months, it seems exceedingly long unless the Slavs were traveling  from Ireland or Siberia.  That any people, hippies, beatniks, peaceniks or whatever, would willingly travel to anyone styling himself a kagan (the etymology proposed being that of “khan of khans”) to tell him basically “Here we are to give you word from our leaders.  Ok, you ready?  Here it is: fuck off”, seems slightly doubtful (though stranger things have, on occasion, happened; on this at least Theophanes seems more convincing since in his telling the Slavs went straight to the Romans).

One thing is, of course, for sure: Byzantine emperor Heraclius (reigning in 610-640) was way flaming gay (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Rus Spies (?) in the Frankish Lands

“[Emperor Theophilius] sent with them some men who called themselves, that is the people to which they belonged, Rhos; according to them, their king, called kagan, sent them to [Theophilius] in friendship.  [Theophilius] asked in [his] letter that the emperor graciously give them permission and help to return to their country through his empire because the roads by which they had travelled to Constantinople fell into the hands of barbarian and exceedingly wild trines and would not wish to expose them to great danger.  Having diligently investigated the reasons for their arrival, the emperor [Louis the Pious] established that they belonged to the people of the Sueoni [Swedes].“

This little juicy tidbit comes from the Annals of Saint Bertin and describes a Byzantine embassy out of Constantinople to the Franks bringing with it these “Rhos”.  The Byzantine emperor is  Theophilus (ruling 829-842) and the Frankish emperor is Louis the Pious (in power 814-840) with the incident taking place in the year 839 at Ingelheim on Rhein (where Louis held court).

It seems, at least from today’s perspective (thus far), strange that such a long detour would have been advisable to return the Rhos back to the “kagan”.  Of course, much here is rivetingly strange.  First, again the kagan (see the story of the Slavenes above)?  What’s up with that guy?Why did the kagan send these tokens of his friendship to the Byzantine emperor?  Did they have any special talents?  Why did the emperor decide to send them back?  Why is the Rhos leader called a kagan?  Were the Rhos under the Khazars then?

The French/German emperor was also confused it seems.  Seeing as Germany was at the time being raided by Vikings, knowing that such Vikings were Swedes and suspecting these ones may well be spies, the Frankish emperor thought better of aiding these particular Rhos and decided to keep them around explaining to the Byzantine embassy that he would aid them should they turn out to be ok.

However, Louis the Pious died the next year at Ingelheim and the Frankish country fell into a civil war resulting in the creation of future France, Germany and an in-between land (disputed territory).  It is not clear, whether the poor (or not so poor) Swedes were able to make it back home or whether they perished of hunger in some dungeon once their jailer fell in the fighting.

So that’s for Part 1 of this mini-series.

Next up, Histories of the World Part 2, the long-awaited, much-demanded, Jews in Space!

Oh, wait, actually Jews in Spain but it’s almost as good!

But this blog is about Slavs!?  What gives?  Stay tuned!

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved