Category Archives: Religion

Arkona’s Jasmund

PublishedMarch 8, 2019 Post authortorino

On the East side of Cape Arkona, lies Jasmund, the site of Jasmund National Park.

For those wanting to identify the Polabian Svantevit (worshipped at Arkona) with the Polish Jas, this presents a golden (or rather silver) opportunity. What is the origin of the word Jasmund?

Vasmer thought that the name Jasmund was of a Scandinavian origin with a Suavic overlay. Specifically, he thought the root was Norse comparing it to a name – Asmundr – that he was aware of. The “J”, however, he took for a Suavic addition. This may or may not be the case. There is no specific reason and Vasmer did not suggest such a reason why the cape should have anything to do with some guy by the name Asmundr. However, there is a connection to Svantevit, who rode out by night, if we explain the as- with a jas- that is as a reflection, so to speak, of light – jasny – just means light or bright in Suavic.

Moreover, although the word mund may mean “mind” or “mouth”, the Mond is also the German word for the “moon”. (Incidentally, why the same word may be used for both “mouth” and “moon” should be obvious to anyone who looks up at the moon anytime other than when there is a full moon…) In Polish, the word księżyc means the moon. That word, however, translates as the “little prince.” The original Suavic word seems to have been something like miesiąc (misyats compare this with the Ukrainian місяць) which today means “month” for obvious reasons. Whether these terms reflect the concept of a “man in the moon” (Mensch – compare this with the Suavic mąż which later in Polish at least turned into through a Russianism became mężczyzna.

The first mention of Jasmund is in 1232 – where see in Yasmunt curiam – as can be seen from the Pommersches Urkundenbuch:

Then in 1249 we have the same name under the term terre Yasmndie.

Whether Sagard, a nearby place has anything to do with Asgard is another question although given the history of Sagard, this is unlikely.

Altaian Lunar Nights

PublishedMarch 5, 2019 Post authortorino

An interesting tidbit comes out of a relatively new book from which we learn that in the Altai region the moon is called “Aidin” and the Keeper Lord of the Altai is Altaidin eezi. Obviously, the Polish Jaś comes to mind as does the Rugian Svantovit – whose Arkona temple was opposite from Jasmund (terra Jasmundia) both of whom had “moon” functions. But so does Odin the ǫ́ss or áss. Or, more remotely, even Osiris whose “moon” connection was already touched upon by Frazer.

On Agricultural Text(st)iles

PublishedFebruary 4, 2019 Post authortorino

Here is a spindle whorl (Polish przęślica) from Lithuania which seems to be called verpstė (whether that Lithuanian term better corresponds to kądziel I do not know). This is undated but probably comes from the 19th century.

And here are a few Latvian versions.

This is a Schwingelbrett from the island of Ruegen. A Schwingelbrett (aka Flachsschwinge) is what is used to willow, bat or scutch flax (but also cotton) to make linen. You can see the date 1855.

Here is another one from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern from around 1880.

Here is an early Polish variation from Pomerania.

And here another example along with an interesting observation from an ethnographic magazine:

Similar spinning wheel whorls and willow bats have been popular throughout Central and Eastern Europe including Romania. (In Russia the spinning wheel is called прялка which, in Polish, means “washing machine”. In turn, the spinning wheel is called kołowrotek).

Herbert on the Lizecho Church, Gouuen Donation and Those Pesky Suavic Pagans

PublishedJanuary 28, 2019 Post authortorino

The Brandenburg diplomata contain this important piece of information regarding the activities of Herbert, the titular bishop of Brandenburg in the year 1114. Hartbert apparently cruised through his province rotting out pagans and destroying Suavic idols. In the former cultic area, at the town of Leitzkau (called Lizecho, Lezka or in some versions Litzeka – a few miles east of Magdeburg), he built a wooden church. This was the same town at which in 1005 the Henry II the Illiterate assembled an army to move against Poland. When he returned again in 1017 to once again set out against Bolesuav of Poland, he found the town had been destroyed by the Suavs and the Frankish Teutons had been driven out. Interestingly, the name Lizecho/Litzeka/Lezka hints at the leader/founder of the town being Leszek (Lizeka would thus mean literally “Leszek’s”).

The town name may have something to do with Lestek, the son of Siemovit who was the great-grandfather of Bolesuav though that is not necessarily the case, of course. Perhaps the reference is to another Lestek. On the other hand, the fact that Henry assembled an army there may indicate that the choice of place was deliberate to send a message that he was coming for Bolesuav having first “defiled” Bolesuav’s ancestors’ ancient home. Of course, the name may also be connected with the earliest name recorded for the undisputed Poles, that is, Licikaviki (as per Widukind of Corvey).

The description below also mentions a “donation” by Hartbert to the church of a nearby town of Gouuene. This too is, of course, a Suavic name cognate with such words as gowin. Bruckner identified this with the town of Göbel although there is also the nearby town of Gommern. The curious thing about this name is that it appears in many places. It is present in Poland (Gowino in Wejherowo area – Gòwino in Kaszubian) but also in Western Europe. Thus, for example, we have Gwynedd in Wales but we also have Govan (the former Gouuen) on the Clyde in Scotland which “is believed to be among the very oldest of all the continuously settled sites in the entire length of the great river and is thought to reach back to Neolithic times…” That town sits just west of Glasgow. Curiously, Glasgow (earlier, perhaps, Cathures) features a typical Suavic suffix -ow. That Vikings raided Scotland is well known. That in their ranks were sometimes found Suavic mercenaries is suspected. Will leave it at that.

Year 1114

“In the name of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, I Herbert, the humble servant of the Brandenburg church, want this known by all the faithful of Christ, both those absent and those present [that], for the salvation of my soul and [for] all the Christian faith, I have persecuted the pagans in the hope of propagating and strengthening the Christian religion and [that] together with a few of my close companions, namely the monk Adalbero of the now established, divine mercy willing, Magdeburg church [?], in so far as we could, we destroyed many [and] countless idols for the glory of the Holy Mother of God, Mary and of the apostles Peter and Paul, and of all apostles, of Saint Steffan, the first martyr, and of all holy martyrs and of the holy bishop and confessor Martin and of all the holy confessors, of the hermit monks and of Cecilia, the holy virgin and martyr and of all the holy virgins and widows and of all the fearful nuns [of Christ] and of all the other saints, [and that, in accordance with] our abilities, in the capital place by the name of Lizecho* in the province called Morschene [that is] between the Elbe on the border of Saxony and the Havel, we built a church. To this aforementioned wooden church dedicated to God we have donated the town that was called Gowen, with the consent of Avellon – who held it as fief – [with the purpose of] the salvation of his soul, those of his ancestors and those of his progeny…”

* note: originally, Lezka

“In nomine sancte et individue Trinitalis. Ego Herbertus, ecclesie Brandenburgensis minister humillimus, omnibus Christi fidelibus tam absentibus quam presentibus notum esse cupio, qualiter pro remedio anime mee et omnium cristianorum ritum sum persecutus paganorum in spe propagande amplificandeque religionis cristiane una cum familiaribus meis admodum paucis, scilicet monacho cuidam michi subsistenti Adalberone animi devotione ac nunc magdeburgensi concessus ecclesie divina fauente clementia, prout potuimus, multa atque innumerabilia destruximus idola et in honore sancte Dei genetricis Marie et apostolorum Petri et Pauli atque omnium apostolorum Sancti Steffani protomartyris et Sanctorum martyrum omnium Sancti Martini confessoris atque pontificis nec non et omnium sanctorum confessorum Monachorum Heremitarum et in honore beate Cecilie virginis et martyris et omnium sanctarum virginum viduarum monialium timentium [Christi] et omnium sanctorum secundum facultatem nostram in loco capitu[a]li qui Lizecho* nuncupatur in provincia quae Morschene vocatur, inter Albiam et Hauelam situs, in confinio terre Saxonice templa construximus. In predicto autem loco ecclesiam ligneam Deo dicatam villa que vocatur Gouuene dotavimus Auellone consentiente aduocato, quia sui ex beneficio suerat, pro animabus suorum omnium predecessorum quin etiam sua ac successorum…”

* Lezka

Religions of the Suavs and the Even More Religious Historiographical Methodology

PublishedDecember 29, 2018 Post authortorino

A reader sent me a copy of a relatively new (written in Polish) book “The Religions of Ancient Suavs” (Religie Dawnych Słowian) by Dariusz Sikorski, a Polish medievalist who, among other achievements, helped to rehabilitate portions of the Chronicle of Adémar of Chabbanes. I had it read and have to say that I found that process rather wearisome.

The book is deconstructionist in a tiresomely extreme manner. It is Alexander Brückner without the acidity but also without the faux-erudite panache – par for the course, and, I confess, probably for the slightly better (less annoying but more boring – take your poison). Indeed, if you want to understand why Sikorski wrote this book, you just need to skip to the ending (which I dare suspect he wrote first), where the author fesses up as follows:

“It may seem, perhaps, to the reader that the vision presented in this book is one-sided and that the author exaggerates in many of his assertions, that his vision of Suavic religion is very limited. Perhaps, indeed, I overemphasize many of the problems and set too categorical a theses but please take note that in the entire contemporary literature there prevails the opposite trend: of an extensive sacral interpretation of all possible source testimonies. Please, therefore, take heed of my voice as a presentation of the position of the opposite side of the argument regarding the pre-Christian Suavic religion…”

Sikorski’s description of what he seems to perceive to be his reality is a description of a reality that is warped so as to be unrecognizable. What contemporary literature is he referring to where the prevailing trend is to overinterpret Suavic religious sources? Sure, people may overinterpret things, particularly if they think they found something new, get excitd and want to write a paper on it. But in terms of synthetic, comprehensive literature, which this book aims to be a part of, there is nothing recent (at least in academic literature) i know of that builds any sand castles around Suavic religion. The biggest problem of Suavic comprehensive religious literature is that there is relatively little of it (of any kind).

Presumably, he addresses his book to a Polish audience. What compendia of Suavic religion have we seen recently? Aleksander Brückner wrote his “Suavic Mythology” in 1918 and a variation, “Polish Mythology” in 1924. After that no one seriously touched the subject until Henryk Łowmiański’s “Suavic Religion and it Downfall” in 1979 and Aleksander Gieysztor’s “Mythology of the Suavs” in 1982. That’s basically it. Of those only Gieysztor’s can be seen as an attempt at some sort of positive synthesis – the other books are basically negativist. (In fact, Sikorski seems to be having an argument with Gieysztor – albeit over a quarter century after that author’s publication). You really have to live in an alternate reality to think that the deconstructionist, negativist “side” is in retreat – as far as I can tell it is about the only “side.”

No, it isn’t

Which brings me to another point. Sikorski speaks of an “opposite side of the argument.” But what argument? There was no Gieysztor – Łowmiański argument even if they took slightly different tacks on the topic. The only person arguing seems to be Sikorski – he tries to manufacture the very conflict that he obviously “feels” already exists. Even more importantly, he is a professor and, presumably, wants to be seen as a scholar. So why does he have to take any “sides”? (Not that I am that naive about the pettiness of modern academia). Why not just set your views as they are – in a more balanced way – rather than write so übercritical a book that exaggerates to such an extent that you have to come clean at the end and admit that you overexaggerated (but did so for the oh so very noble a reason of taking the “other side” in a conflict that seems to play out only in your head)? The book is over 300 pages long – did he enjoy writing a book that points out little human foibles apparent here and there of people eager to shed some more light on their ancestors’ past? Does spending hours over tiny sins of other people’s (mostly amateurs) over interpretations make him happy and pleased? Is that what he wants to be remembered for? The book does not quite rise to the level of a troll job but in a number of places the writer’s arguments certainly strike me as overly petty (Didn’t some Byzantine writer say that the Suavs were conflict prone? Maybe it’s the weather).

Finally, exaggeration is one thing as a rhetorical device (though, again, why debate at all rather than try to help synthesize?) but writing inaccurate statements is quite another. Right before the above cited paragraph Sikorski categorically proclaims:

“From most of the lands settled (!) by the Suavs, including the lands of Poland, we have no sources [on Suavic religion].”*

* note: He make exceptions for Polabian Suavs and Eastern Suavs except that for the latter he claims the beliefs described are primarily those of the Scandinavian ruling class.

So what of Jan Długosz’s Polish Pantheon? He does mention it. He agrees that Długosz “did not just make [these Gods] all up” but then concludes (well, he does not conclude but rather uses the passive (or passive aggressive) voice “it is thought”) that the “Polish Olympus” is “merely a reflection of Długosz’s learned imagination.” I, frankly do not understand the difference between “making things up” and using your “learned imagination”. Perhaps the intended subtlety represents an agreement that there is something there but then Długosz went with that something to a conclusion beyond any that that something could have justified. I am unconvinced. Once you admit that Długosz did not make it all up then you have to ask what was the nature of that “real it”.

For example, the question of the interpretatio romana is absolutely secondary. If Yassa was the highest God of the Polish pantheon then He was equivalent to Jove – in that much. And to that extent Długosz would have been justified in linking Yassa with Jove – which is, incidentally, all he did. Whether Yassa also possessed all the attributes of the Roman Jove/Jupiter is absolutely irrelevant to the point that Długosz was making. Indeed, he was writing for an educated, Latin reading audience – of kings who, at that point, were already non-Polish and, perhaps, for the broader European elite public. I do not see any better way to relate Polish Divinities to such people’s experience than to use Latin equivalents (or, as equivalent, as they get). The fact that he also mentioned those Deities that did not (to him) seem to have a Roman equivalent (Pogoda, Sywie/Zywie) seems rather to bolster the veracity of Długosz’s account.

Moreover, the reason that Sikorski thinks that Długosz did not make it all up is because Sikorski is quite aware of the existence of earlier sources that mention the same Deities. He cites, for example, Lucas of Great Kozmin. But Sikorski does not seem to have read what that preacher wrote. To quote:

“I recall that in youth I read in a certain chronicle that there were in Poland Gods and from those days to our times such rites come that, young women [in his time] dance with swords, as if in offering to the pagan Gods, and not to [the] God, as well as [dances of] young men with swords and sticks, which they then hit about… “To this day they sing and dance and name their Gods “Lado, Yassa” and others – surely not references to the Holy Father so can anything good come of this? Certainly not… One does not receive salvation through the names of Lado, Yassa or Nia but rather through the name of Jesus Christ… Not Lada, Yassa or Nia , that incidentally are the names of the gods worshipped here in Poland as will attest certain chronicles of the Poles.”

So Lucas claims to have read in his youth about Polish Gods in chronicles (or at least “a” chronicle) with names that matched the names of the Deities that he himself claims to have heard being uttered during the ceremonies described above which he may well have witnessed. Thus, he testifies to what he has (yes, “probably”) seen (but then others have seen the same) and testifies to what he has read. He interprets (quite logically) the former by means of the latter.

I ventured to guess previously that, had Brückner been aware of Lucas’ sermons, he would have discounted them the same as he did Długosz. As any child does (or any good, or at least persistent, barrister), we can always ask “but how did he know?” If you assume that Poland became Christianized in one fell swoop in 966 then, no amount of post-966 evidence can ever convince you (same as if you assume that no Suavs lived in Poland before, say, the 6th century then, by definition, every artifact found in Poland and dated to earlier times must, necessarily, be of non-Suavic provenance).

Sikorski is not as one-sided as Brückner (though, to be fair, few could be) and does not discount Lucas’ testimony. He mentions it but then ignores it and is thus able to reach the above false conclusion by ignoring the evidence he himself acknowledges exists. (I strongly suspect this is because he wrote that conclusion – at least in his head – before he wrote the section on Długosz’s Olympus and never went back to soften the language).

Is there anything positive in the book? I feel I have to answer this question positively lest I be accused of doing the very same thing the author did.

Nevertheless, I can honestly say, “yes, sure”. The book does go on to describe some (if hardly all) sources of Suavic paganism and, due to the fact, that it is far newer than the prior “comprehensive” studies, does address new sources and findings. But that, by itself, would not justify reading it since there are, scattered in other places, better sources for that updated material.

More importantly, the book does, in places, demonstrate quite ably the weakness of over interpreting sources and does show the reader what we know and what we really do not know and, thus, where we could be letting our “learned imagination” travel far beyond where it is logically justified to go. My pet peeve of interpreting Svarog and “Perun” (Piorun really) as definitely Polish Deities, may serve as an example. Neither name made any ethnically Polish Pantheon/Olympus compendium so all we have to go on is some place names in Poland. But the author accurately notes that place names cannot with any reasonable certainty serve to reconstruct the cultic history of the locals who lived there to the extent such place names may also, even more likely, refer to other things. Thus, Sikorski observes that the Polish town of Swarorzyn is unlikely to have anything to do with any Svarog Deity. He also correctly points out that any “Piorun” place names may simply refer to those places where, a piorun, that is, “thunder” struck.

On the other hand, of course, we do know of Perkunas (and Lada, incidentally which is also a place name) being worshipped in Lithuania where the Varangians did not loiter so some such place names may have something to do with the Suavic/Baltic God of Thunder. It is here, of course, where the book fails by being overly one-sided. (Indeed the author, like Brückner, also manages to take a few digs at Baltic Prussian religion).

Even if you do not want to be faced with the “glass is 1% empty” method of synthesis (or anti-synthesis), to the extent you’re overenthusiasic about Suavic religion or, assuming you really believe that there is an “argument” here, and you want to know all the aces of the “other side,” you should read the book (assuming you read Polish) because it will show you the strongest (?) arguments that that “side” purports to make. And that itself is a positive learning experience.

I do hope that the author will in the future use his not inconsiderable talents to write something creative with a rather nobler intention of actually presenting a vision and elevating discourse as opposed to merely sounding the trumpet of the naysayers. If that’s too much to ask then at least writing something more balanced would produce a better use of everyone’s time. No one enjoys the morose pronouncements of a Debbie-downer even if, once in a while, those happen to be quite right.

P.S. For someone who purports to represent a deconstructionist trend, I find it curious that the author would agree to place a picture of what is, evidently, an effigy of Odin on the cover of the book. I have long suspected that Odin may be a variation on Yassa/Iasion/Jason but Sikorski does not try to make any such connections which makes me think this is (hopefully) just an example of the unfortunate laziness of the publishers.

Christmas Is, Of Course, Here To Stay

PublishedDecember 25, 2018 Post authortorino

It has always been suspicious why Christmas – the celebration of the birth of Jesus – should take place in December. A rather obvious suggestion (or what should have been an obvious suggestion) was made by James Frazer in his “Golden Bough,” that Christians/the Church appropriated an earlier holiday. This would have been done mid-4th century, as the then Church was about to take over the Roman Empire.

Such a move would have made sense since if people were going to have a celebration anyway, one might just celebrate the “right way” (i.e., the Christian way). My guess is that this was initially a “competing” holiday designed to provide an alternative to earlier celebrations and eventually, with the help of the state, it took over as the sole holiday of that season. On the plus side, the people could still celebrate during a time they would have celebrated anyway. On the downside their holy time was appropriated by another set of beliefs. (An accommodation to earlier pagan polytheism may also have been the concept of the Trinity and, earlier, of the Three Wise Men). In the same way the Church routinely appropriated “pagan” worship places. Idols were destroyed and replaced – in the same location – with Christian crosses and churches. You could look at it as either allowing the previously non-Christian population to continue to come to the same place for worship or, in a less benevolent way, as denying access to the holy cultic area by having it appropriated for Christianity. Thus, did the Church likely take over the earlier holy times/rites and places. (Most successful religions, like most successful ideas, attract their “consumer” with something to offer and, if they want to thrive, have to be flexible. Christianity survived so long for precisely these reasons).

But what came before? Well, Frazer gives a rather convincing answer that the Europeans celebrated various Deities that were connected to the yearly (north hemispheric) agricultural cycle and the consequent fertility. He finds this fertility God to be Osiris, Aton, Adonis and Dionysos. Each of these may be associated with the Sun (and the Moon perhaps even more so! Of course, the portfolios of Osiris and others varied somewhat over the millennia of Egyptian history) and with rebirth. The story of Iasion and Demeter is very similar. For Osiris you, of course, have Isis. For the Polish Jassa, you, possibly have Lada and so on.

The Church fathers suggest as much of the identification of the pre-Christian beliefs as well as validate the suspected mechanism for taking over the pagan beliefs for the Church. For example, Ambrose speaks of Jesus as being the true and only Sun. Or was that Tertullian? (“[pagans] …believe that the Christian God is the Sun, because it is a well-known fact that we pray turning towards the rising Sun, and that on the Sun’s day we give ourselves to jubilation.” (Ad Nationes, 1, 13).

But, I suspect, this design did not just first appear in the 4th century. It would not be surprising to learn that Christianity was, from the (almost) get go purposely set up in this way.

After all, the followers of Jesus saw their Lord die and made their way fast out of the country most likely not to share in the same fate. They may have been depressed to see their way of life crushed and themselves exiled. But, Paul was resilient enough and smart enough to repackage the concept and take his revenge – in the form of a giant middle finger – on the Jewish priest class (and on the Romans). Paul as well as his acolytes would have been aware that there were more liberal Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean at the time. To what extent they took to the new Messianic faith I do not know (I am sure there are books about that) but it is possible that the evangelists also noted the possibility of going beyond the niche market of local pre-kabbalah and making the message universal.

They would certainly have known of the popularity of Dionysos, Bacchus, Osiris and the like. The existence of the local Indo-European fertility/rebirth cults also made Christianity’s transition to a true universal religion easier by making the concepts understandable to the non-Jewish Roman population. And here the evangelsits had their own Dead God available. What a perfect marketing opportunity for an upstart religion. So, it seems, with Jesus’ death, a new Christ-figure was born (Jesus had to be reborn because you obviously can’t kill a God but also to better match the Reborn God story), packaged in a (then) New Age way for the more liberal Jewish groups outside of Palestine and their non-Jewish fellow cosmopolitans. Since Judaism, already then, had a claim to antiquity as well as an aura of sophistication, this latter Roman group may have well taken to Christianity as a way of getting in on the action. Once the upper classes became involved the game was won and paganism was relegated to, well, the pagus where the “deplorables” clung onto their unreformed ways.

A related question is whether Esus/Iasion and others have anything to do with the Jewish God Yehova (the namesake of Yehoshua, that is Jesus). Some have claimed that Jesus escaped and taught in France. While one can apparently make money peddling this kind of nonsense in the form of bestselling books, there is zero actual proof to prop up this idea.

Nevertheless, I suspect that there may, in fact, be a slightly more subtle connection. There have been rather suggestive connections between the Middle Eastern and the Indo-European world. This is unsurprising. After all, one sits next to the other. What can such proximity result in? Some folks – most recently Theo Vennemann – have suggested that – before the Indo-Europeans – Europe had been settled by Basque and Semitic speaking peoples. The proof, apparently, is in various place names which also appear in the Middle East. While the Phoenicians did in fact travel up and and down European coasts , their presence there did not seem to translate to a lasting, material influence. Neither are there significant signs of other Semitic travelers. Are these plac names really Basque or Semitic (see the discussion of some Suavic words below) or is there so ething else going on?

The interaction is, no doubt, much more complex and likely ran both ways, but I strongly suspect that the story should be examined by looking at it from rather the opposite angle – that of an IE influence on thr Middle East.

The potential connections of Indo-Europeans with Mesopotamia and the Levant reach far back into antiquity. Proto-Euphratean anyone? Gutians/Guti? Mushki/Moschoi/Muški/Meshech/ Mosoch? Names like Lugal-anne-mundu? Deity Ištaran of the “bright visage” (“stretching out a hand to Ištaran of the bright visage being taken away on the barge”) who is also associated with a dragon? (Incidentally, it is not that difficult to imagine people gazing at the sky and thinking of, for example, the Milky Way, as akin to a giant “glowing” serpent and even pre-Freud the connection between a snake (if not ncessarily a lizard) and a fertily/agricultural Deity/rite ought have been obvious).

These above are speculation and some of them are probably stretches but we do know that Indo-Europeans eventually established a presence in the North of Mesopotamia and may have penetrated as far as Egypt. In fact, they seem to have done this in multiple invasion waves.

Take, for example, the Hyksos and the Hurrians. Perhaps some of these were not IEs (Hyksos just means “rulers of foreign lands”) but an IE component seems firmly present among them. As regards the Hurrians, their most famous kingdom is that of the Mitanni whose Gods’ names, listed circa 1380 B.C., include Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya. Take the name of some of the various Deities of north Canaan. In Palmyra one of the principal Gods was Yarhibol. He was “depicted with a solar nimbus” and called the “lord of the spring“. The connection to Yarillo, Gerovit/Yerovit/Yarovit or Yassa is obvious. Another local God was Bel (not Baal) whose name sounds very much like that of Belobog.

Take the name of the city of Jericho which is derived from the Canaanite reaẖ meaning “fragrant” (the Arabic may be derived from the same). This is obviously connected with the above-mentioned Yarhibol though a somewhat alternate explanation connects the name of the city with the local lunar Deity (the Canaanite word for the moon was Yareaẖ. That the moon was often worshipped in the context of “fragrance” (morning dew) is rather well shown. Compare this too with the Suavic town name of Jerichow an der Elbe (apparently, not named after ancient Jericho).

Incidentally, both Osiris and the Polish Jassa may have an even stronger connection to the Moon than to the Sun. Compare this too with Swiatowit (Morning Lord? hence Rana?), whose white horse roamed free at night throughout Rugia only to return for the morning when his mane was found to be rather “sweaty” – again, like the morning dew – in the horse’s case apparently a result of his nightly excursions).

What should give us all pause is the similarity of these “Canaanite” words and their patent IE counterparts like “jary” “yarki” or “year“. The Online Etymological Dictionary has this uncontroversial entry for “year“:

year (n.) Old English gear (West Saxon), ger (Anglian) “year,” from Proto-Germanic *jēr “year” (source also of Old Saxon, Old High German jar, Old Norse ar, Danish aar, Old Frisian ger, Dutch jaar, German Jahr, Gothic jer “year”), from PIE *yer-o-, from root *yer- “year, season” (source also of Avestan yare(nominative singular) “year;” Greek hōra “year, season, any part of a year,” also “any part of a day, hour;” Old Church Slavonic jaru, Bohemian jaro “spring;” Latin hornus “of this year;” Old Persian dušiyaram “famine,” literally “bad year”). Probably originally “that which makes [a complete cycle],” and from verbal root *ei- meaning “to do, make.”

On the south side of the Levant, a little later, we have the infamous Sea Peoples, most of whom, likely were Mediterranean or Anatolian IE raiders with names such as Pelesset, Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Denyen and others. The Pelesset, once resettled by the pharaohs in south(ish) Canaan, may have become the Phillistines. It is certainly plausible that these groups, while initially IE, contained many “locals” and hangers on who swelled their ranks and, in time, may have become thoroughly Semitized, if you will. (Could the Hebrews themselves have come from Caucasian Iberia?) But the story may well be the same as the story of the Varangian Rus who, in time, became Suavicized but produced rulers for the East Suavs for years to come (and, arguably, brought or at least rekindled the worship of Thor/Piorun).

In fact, to bring this back to Jassa and Jehova, there are intriguing hints in the Bible itself that this is the same God in original conception – an Indo-European God of the agricultural lifecycle (perhaps associated with both the Sun and the Moon). The Bible, of course, does not deny that the Bible’s variant – Jehova or YHWH – had been worshipped throughout the world before appearing to Abraham (obviously so given the adventures of Adam, Cain and Noah with his children). Abraham, moreover, is Abram before he (or God) throws in Ham into his name. He is married to Sarai who becomes Sarah (can it be Šarrat – queen?). Yet, the match of Abram and Sarai is suspiciously close to that of Brahma (which, for example, in Polish to this day means as much as “gate”) and Sarasvati.

Curiously, Moses (whose name is probably Egyptian in origin) does not know the Name of God. He finds out the name when cavorting with Jethro whose name suggests an IE root as well as connection with Yahwe. And Jethro is, supposedly, a priest. He is a “priest of Midian.” But what kind of a priest is he? Scholars have for a number of years suspected that he was a priest of Yahwe and that it was from him that Moses (assuming historicity) learned of Yahwe’s worship. Midian is in the SE of the area – towards Arabia (but East) but the MIdianite name is suggestive of IE roots. After all, we have the Medes who are known to ancient writers as residing east of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (We also have Media and Jason).

Even the name Yahwe (apparently with no certain etymology so far in any Semitic language), seems to be explainable through IE as in the Polish jawa (java) meaning “consciousness/awareness/reality.” Alternatively, a connection could be made to the Suavic – chować – “to hide” or “to protect.” (Brückner is confused in assuming that ch < sk). Perhaps, Jaś hides or Is Hidden or it is a prayer for protection. The Name appears in the Levant about the same time (roughly – not to overstate it) as the Sea Peoples’ invasions.

Incidentally, I have never been a believer that Jove comes from Deus. Deva in Suavic has a female connotation and Devus/Zeus might simply mean the “Womanizer”. Just think of Thor. The fact that a Thunder God is a womanizer could be explained by an association of lightning strikes against the Earth with, well, you know what. More likely, we have here two separate Deities – of the Sky (Jove/Sol Indiges/Jassa/Odin, perhaps too Janus) and of Thunder (Zeus/Piorun/Thor). The fact that the Romans over hundreds of years screwed this up in their panoply of Deities should not confuse the issue. (Whether the Thunder God was originally an aspect of the Sky God, I leave to others). Some signs of this may, arguably (ok, very arguably, all this is, of course, rather major speculation), found in the Bible. For example, we have the strange mention that “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran.” Contrary to the monotheistic interpretation, this suggests Two separate Persons. Looking at Suavic mythology (and IE more generally) what this looks like is God – Jassa – Iasion – Esus and another Deity. The name of the other Deity is suggested by the name of the mountain – Paran meaning as much as Piorun/Peron (living in the Pyrennes) – the IE Storm God. That is Jassa/Piorun, Odin/Thor, Esus/Taranis.

Putting the dual character of the Sky and Storm Divinity aside, there is, in fact, a whole series of books designed to suggest that Yahwe – at least as originally brought into the ME region – was a Sun (but also maybe a Moon?) God and did have a consort or, at least, a (female) counterpart – Ashera (Astarte/ Aušra/ Aušrinė/ Ostera/ Isis/ Demeter/ Lada?). Of course, each people will develop their Gods to their liking and, of course, the later (especially Deuteronomistic/2nd Temple) monotheistic (monopolistic) Yahwe may well be different from the initial conception.

The name David itself could be interpreted as “Gift of God” or of the Lord with the IE “da” to give and “vit” as in vitas (Baltic). One could also explain Isra-el with the genitive, that is, El (God) of Iser. This is, of course, a major stretch and huge speculation. Nevertheless, the words issa/issera appear throughout Europe and it is hard to believe that they reflect any Semitic Exodus into Europe. A more likely correct theory is that they are IE. In Suavic, for example, you have jezioro/ozero meaning “lake”. This word also appears in Anatolia. Krahe referred to these hydronyms as Old European but that just means he did not know what to do with them. Others have used the term “Illyrian” – another placeholder for our ignorance. (This hypothetical influence on the Levant, if in fact true, is IE – not Suavic per se, of course, as there likely were no Suavs back then, at least as we understand them today).

(Similarly rooted words designate eating (jeść), being (jest) or mouth (usta). Other curious connections can be drawn to “egg” (jajo/jajko – itself a strange connection to the idea of the “origin” – at least of a “lizard/bird” type of origin) and ride but also, in effect, move/flow (jechać). These are all ancient and I suspect predate the 2nd millennium B.C.)

To be sure the influences could have been mutual. For example, the river Ister is also known as the Donau/Danube which, like the much more eastern Don (a source also of words like the Italian “don”) is sometimes derived from the same root. Now, we do know that Adonis/Adonai have a Semitic etymology and refer to a (or the) Lord. We further known that IEs (Suavs being one well known example) worshipped rivers and so here you have an “Ister” the Don (compare Tamissa and other similar names; remember too Isaac). So does this mean that the word “don” is really IE or, does it mean that some Semitic speakers were up north by the Danube (and Vennemann is right) or, does it mean that the concept behind the word don was incorporated (along with Adonis) into the Greek and then other IE vocabulary?

(Other interesting examples exist; there is a chronic IE (Vedic) Deity called Yama (the origin of which Deity may be a word like the Polish jama, meaning “cave” or “opening”). In the Canaanite religion there is a somewhat comparable Yam or Yamm who is a water/sea God).

A connection may also exist from genetics. The haplogroup R1a was discovered in large proportions in some Jews. This, of course, immediately got politicized into the so-called Khazar hypothesis whose primary purpose seemed to be (or at least quickly became) to delegitimize Israel. A more in depth analysis seems to have revealed that the R1a version found was not, in fact, European. So the Khazar crap is gone but the question still remains – who were these people? After all, R1a did not originate in Judea and Samaria. Maybe it came from the Exile in Babylonia but maybe it arrived much earlier – note that the type of R1a is of the same (general) branch (Z93) that the Indian Brahmins (and others in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) sport and we do know that India was at that time invaded (or, if you prefe, immigrated into) by at least some Pontic-Caspian steppe dwellers.

Modern historians generally believe that the Exodus was a myth and that most of the ancient Israeli population was, in fact, local. While this counter-biblical narrative may suit the current political needs, it is, perhaps, also correct. However, that does not mean that there is no kern truth to the story or that, if such story were in some aspect correct, that the people who set out as part of this exile group were, in fact, the same people that later became part of the Israeli kingdoms – the vast majority of whom may well have been local – again, the Rus conquest of the Suavs may be suggestive of the possible answer. (Tacitus mentions a story of Jewish origin in Crete which by mid 2nd millenium B.C. would almost certainly have been IE).

In other words, I suspect that not only was Esus not Jesus but that Jesus was named for a Deity of the Sun/Moon/Rebirth – perhaps originally a human hero such as Jason – introduced, perhaps, into the Levant – in different forms – by polytheistic Indo-European marauders (either from Egypt (“Sea Peoples”) or from the North) – a Deity whose worship/memory kept on going on the Continent in the form of Esus in Gall, of Iasion (Jason too perhaps) in Greece, of the Aesir in Scandinavia and of Jassa in Poland.

Thus, neither the Suavs nor any other northern tribe are any “lost tribe of Israel” which would have been a much more recent post-Exilic concept (that is from the 2nd Temple time; putting aside the notion that such tribes would likely not have existed by the time of Babylonian Captivity). More likely, unless, of course, Vennemann is right, the origin of all three of Levant’s religions is to be sought away in the North – perhaps in Mycenae, perhaps in Anatolia (the north part of which – incidentally, the “Venetic” part – was “Ashkenaz”), or even further north. The fact that Mycaneans used the hexapetal rosette – later identified with Esus – a few hundred years before any possible Exodus, is, at the very least, suggestive.

Naturally, the locals subsequently shaped their religions as they saw fit/appropriate for their circumstances and needs. Yahwe may have initially been a fertility/rebirth/Sun God as conceived by the IEs, may then have become a war God and, as Jews were exiled, Yahwe’s characterisics may have changed again to fit the requirements of the moment. That reworking served also after the fall of the Second Temple. Similarly, Jassa/jasion the rebirth/fertility/Sun/Moon Deity of the Suavs also, with the advent of the Frankish/Saxon wars, seems to have been forced into an Ares/war God form under the later name Gerovit.

Of course, this may all just go back to Osiris. (I leave the question of an earlier Egyptian – Mesopotamian connection to others).

Signs of Lada Part VIII – Back to Lycia

PublishedDecember 18, 2018 Post authortorino

This comes from the Yearbooks of Friends of Antiquity Society in the Rheinland (Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande), volume 7.

I discussed the same inscription some time back here along with others mentioned by the society:

MINERVAE CVR LADAE (above)
IMPLE O LADA
P.VAL.LADA

Minerva is, of course, the same as Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom, courage, war, law, etc. She is given the epithet Pallas, a word that is derived either from πάλλω (to brandish [a weapon]), or from παλλακίς (also an interesting fact – note that in Russian palyanka meant a brave woman) and related words, meaning “youth” that is a “young woman.” She is also the protector of the palace and the king. She was the daughter of Zeus.

Lada is, as we know, has been called “Mars” by Długosz who also, elsewhere, called her a Mazovian Goddess. These statements are reconcilable if you interpret the Goddess as a warrior Goddess. In other words, Długosz would not have been saying that Lada was Mars but merely that Mars was the closest analogy to Lada in his interpretatio romana of the Polish Pantheon.

Of course, Brueckner objected that Lada was just a Slavic name for the “betrothed” or “wife.” The interesting thing is, as I pointed out some time back that Lada in Lycian (!) (Lycia in Anatolia) meant the exact same thing (see here).

What escaped my notice that the author of the above (L.J.F. Janssen) also made the claim that not only was Lada the word for a “wife” in Lycian (that is what Gemahlin that is Ehefrau, Ehegattin, Gattin, Frau means in this context) but that – in Lycia – Lada was the wife/betrothed of Jupiter. The source of this assertion, he does not give.

Długosz claimed that Jesse or Jassa was the equivalent of Jupiter (though not that Jassa was Jupiter) in the Polish pantheon. If so, then the matching of both Jassa and Lada by him as well as by earlier writers makes complete sense. Lada is the Athena female wife-protector of Jassa – a bit of an Amazon warrior princess from Mazovia.

Of course, Athena had a complicated relationship with Zeus to say the least. But, again, there is nothing to indicate a similar relationship between Jassa and Lada. If Jassa corresponds better to the Greek Iasion then Lada would have been his companion/consort/female protector. Perhaps a bit like Demeter. Note too that in Polish and a number of Suavic languages the names of the seasons correspond to the above Names:

wiosna (pron. vyosna) – spring – to Iasion
lato – summer – to Lada
jesień (pron. yesyen) – fall – to Iasion, again

It is worth noting that Iasion’s namesake, Jason, was also assisted on his quest by Athena. For similar connections between Jove and Lada from Spain see here. For an English connection (?), see here. For more on the Amazonic connection see here.

Egyptian Dziady

PublishedDecember 14, 2018 Post authortorino

To come up with elaborate theories based on the following would be foolish and premature but, upon finding it, it is difficult to view this description as not remarkable.

Erman

This comes from Adolph Erman’s Aegypten und Aegyptischenes Leben im Altertum. Similar descriptions were made in Karl Heinrich Brugsch’s Religion und mythologie der alten Ägypter and they made they way to James Frazer’s “The Golden Bough”.

Frazer

Here we have ancient Egyptian rites culminating with the erection of a pillar which was referred to as Tatu, Tat, or Ded. This was, seemingly, according to Frazer, very much like a Słup Majowy – a Maypole.

Frazer makes an interesting observation about all this by noting that these Egyptian rites for the dead Osiris took place in the month of Athyr. This month corresponds to November. Since Frazer views this as a harvest festival he has to explain how a harvest festival could be celebrated in November when it is known that – in Egypt – the harvest falls in April. Of course, the harvest in the North, such as in Poland, falls between the middle of June and the middle of August. But… when did the harvest occur in Poland back 4,500 years ago? In any event, we all know that the festival of the dead, Dziady, falls on or about All Saints Day, that is November 1.

For more wacky Egyptian “Slavic” stuff see here and here.

Northwestern European Rosettes

PublishedDecember 6, 2018 Post authortorino

If you thought these rosette posts neat (see here (rosettes of Esus), here (Osnabrück), here (Polish rosettes) and here (rosettes in Kemathen, Zamość, Zagorzyn)), there is more.

For those interested in ornamental hexapedal rosettes, here is another example from Vermand in northeastern France (in the department of Aisne – so named after a river; whether this has anything to do with the Slavic jasna, meaning “light” is a matter at least of some interest; there are several such rivers in the West of Europe).

Two articles on this topic are easily accessible on line:

The Vermand Treasure: A Testimony to the Presence of the Sarmatians in the Western Roman Empire by Deborah Schorsch

The Vermand Treasure by William H. Forsyth

Here is the whole thing:

Here is a buckle with a hexapedal rosette:

And here is a “Star of David” with a rosette inside (and on top):

Now compare these to the Treasure from Corelaine, Northern Ireland:

Finally, take a look at this belt buckle from Caerwent, Wales – dated to the 4th century:

Note that the Corelaine rosette is octapedal but the rosette inside the Star of David is pretty much the same as above. The hexapedal rosettes bear striking similarities to the treasures found at:

Kemathen
Zamość
Zagorzyn

Kemathen also featured a very similar umbo or shield boss.

Bavaria on top, France on the bottom

And here is another “Star of David” from Ejsbøl moor or bog (Ejsbøl Mose) near Haderslev in Denmark. This in addition to the Stars of David from Vermand, France and Corelaine, Northern Ireland.

Another similar find comes to us from Zakrzów in Wrocław (Sackrau) where, among other artifacts, we find these eight-pedaled rosettes.

All or most of these artifact sites are dated to the fourth or fifth century. Note further that Deborah Schorsch connects the Vermand find with the Sarmatians. This actually makes a lot of sense. But they do not have to have been “Iranian” Sarmatians from the far away steppe. Suffice to note again that the Iazyges lived in Pannonia from at least the second century B.C. What’s more these Sarmatians may well have been Slavic speaking and have interacted with the Suevi. In fact, the biggest origin stories of the Poles were at first Vandalic (Suevic?) and then Sarmatian. Vermand was, apparently, sacked by the Vandals and their companions in 406 though the archeological site where this treasure was found (assuming , of course, that this is not a fake), perhaps, predates that. On the Tabula Peutingeriana the Baltic Veneti are described as Veneti Sarmatae (as, apparently, are the Lupiones who may well be the Lugii).

Similar umbos from southeastern Polish lands

It is also interesting whether these “rosettes” have anything to do with the rosalia celebrations/feasts (see, for example, Balsamon complaining about the post-paschal celebration of the ῥουσάλια.

Similar hexapetal rosettes appear in other treasures. For example, in Sösdala in southern Sweden.

The Rune “A”

PublishedDecember 2, 2018 Post authortorino

If you compare the below “a” rune from the Soshychne “TILARIDS” inscription, you will see that, unlike the ansuz rule normally given, this version looks left. What is curious about the rune is the similarity it has in form to a much later Polish coat of arms – the Jasieńczyk. Although that is not the only way Jasieńczyk has been portrayed, it is the primary way. Jasieńczyk is, of course, a diminutive of Jasion. Ansuz, of course, comes back to the Aesir and, perhaps more fundamentally, to the Sanskrit ásu meaning life force. The Slavic jezioro as well as usta have the same “flowing” derivation.

This is from Kasper Niesiecki’s 1738 “Polish Armorial” (Korona polska przy złotej wolności starożytnemi rycerstwa polskiego i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego klejnotami ozdobiona, volume 2):