Quiz

PublishedSeptember 15, 2015 Post authortorino

Which Indoeuropean (or other) language are these names from?:

Miranta
Ganzava
Cussa
Redanta
Chaianta
Belina
Vissima
Jes
Domasca
Mancossa
Chomesa
Prozina
Sobanta
Digoma
Radenta
Boranta
Mantina
Carnes

You may assume that the names are written in Latin but do not google these, just guess. The point here is that the guess should be made without any preconceived notions that may arise as a result of knowing the source document.

(Of course, if you just know this then you can sit on the side and let others play).

Was it obvious?

On “Frankish Cosmography”

PublishedSeptember 14, 2015 Post authortorino

A poem discovered by H. Pertz in the 19th century became known (thanks to the title that the discoverer gave to his edition of it – see below) as the “Frankish Cosmography”. Much like Widsith it is a list of tribes and places (though, in this case, not individual names) in Europe and abroad. It exists in several manuscripts, each of which is slightly different. Since most are available online, we give the list after Pertz:

French – (discovered by Pertz in 1827) – an 11th century manuscript – number 5091 in French National Library;
French – (discovered by Pertz in 1827) – a 10th century manuscript- Versus de provinciis parcium mundi;
Würzburg – (discovered by Pertz in 1833) – a 9th century manuscript- de globo mundi et coniecturae orbis versus – only last 21 verses;
Universitaets Bibliothek zu Leyden – (discovered by Pertz in 1833?) – a 9th century manuscript – versus de asia et de universi mundi rota – Codex Vossianus 69 in Quarto;

Finally, the oldest manuscript known is the following:

Saint Gallen number 2 – middle of 8th century;

The reference to the Slavs and to the Wends is in the context of the Danube (it immediately follows a reference to the Suevi but the two are clearly treated as separate):

Danubius currit per longum inter gentes maximas,

Fluvios largos ministrat et Sclavis pabulat,

Chunis pergit medianis, Winidisque satiat.

Danube runs its length among [to the needs of] great nations,

[this] generous river ministers and [it] nourishes the Slavs,

[it] runs,cuts through the Huns satiates the Wends.

The language in the Saint Gallen version is a little bit different but conveys the meaning:

And here is the poem in full in Latin. The electronic version is from Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Poetae Latini nevi Carolini, 4, 2.3 (IV)). The pdfs are from Pertz’ edition. The differences are due to different manuscripts, the various emendations and to the free spirit of the scriveners (e.g., one manuscript says “camels” another “griffins”!).

Cosmography

Asia ab Oriente vocata antiquitus

A regina, cuius nomen funxit in imperio;

Hec in tertiaque parte orbis est disposita.

Ab oriente orto solis, mare a meridie,

Ab occiduoque mare Tyrreno coniungitur,

Septentrione fluviale Tanieque cingitur.

Habet primum paradisi ortorum dilicias,

Omni genere pomorum consitus qui graminat,

Habet etiamque vite lignum inter medias.

Non est estus neque frigus, sincera temperies ,

Fons manat inde perennis fluitque in rivolis.

Post peccatum interclusus est primevi hominis.

Circumseptus est undique rumpheaque ignita ,

Ita pene usque celos iungitque incendia;

Angelorum est vallatus Cherubin presidia.

India habet in ipsa, opulenta patria,

Gentes plurimas que gestat atque magna oppida;

Insula quoque Taprobane elefantes nutricat.

Auro, argento est fecunda, atque pluras gemmulas,

Crisolitos et berillos, adamantis, carbunculos,

Leonitas, margaritas, unionis pullulat;

Septacum mirandam avem et in canto nubile,

Unicornus atque griffas et dracones cimeras;

Ibi sunt aurei montes, quos custodunt bestias.

Partia et Aracusa, simul et Asiria,

Media iuncta est prope communisque Persida,

Babillonia, intra que sunt confuse linguas.

Arabia thure ornata et in saltis cinnama;

Nascitur ibique mirra et sardonix gemmula;

Fenix nuncupatur aves, que renascit mortua.

Palestina et Judea, simul et Samaria,

Pentapolis et Galilea, Egyptus et Scytia,

Bactriana et Archana, candescit Albania.

Armenia sicque consurgit, iuncta est Hiberia

Cappadociaque, minor oriturque Asia,

Galatia nuncupatur, nectit prope Frigia.

Lidia sedis antiqua cum torrentes aureas,

Et Ysauria salubris, prominet Cilicie,

Et Licia inter ipsas montem gestat Cimeras,

Cuius ignis flammas mittit et nocturnis estibus,

In Sicilia ut Ethna, Vesulis Campania,

Ita flagrat flamina iugis vivensque per tempora.

Ad Euruppa properemus, Agenoris filia,

Quam Jovis raptam adsumpsit duxitque in Grecia,

Et aurum corrupit primum, nomen dedit patrie.

Scitia vocata prima Euruppe provincia,

Meotidis paludes iuncta sistitque Alania;

Vertitur exinde locus, nuncupatur Dacia.

Unde Gotia emanat adversus Dalmatia,

Pannonia, a Penninis nomen que conglomerat,

Cispitem uberem ferens iumentis ad pabula.

Germania nuncupatur iuncta Reno flumine,

Ubi sunt gentes amare et grandevi corpore,

Obdurati corde, seve celi partis incole.

Animo feroci sistunt semperque indomiti,

Rapto vivunt et venato per venena toxice;

Plurime in ipsis locis variantur lingue.

[Tolerantes , Samsivari , Quadi , Tungri , Chamasi ,

Marcomanni et Tubantes , Blangiani, Bructeri:

Frendentes …. verba contabescent labiis.]*

* this does not appear in the Pertz edition, only in MGH.

Suevorum parsque inter quos aquilonis vindicant,

Quorum pagos centum narrant simul et familias .

Mons Suevus est vocatus, a quo nomen inchoat.

Danubius currit per longum inter gentes maximas,

Fluvius largus,ministrat et eSclavis pabula ,

Chunis pergit medianis Winidisque sociat .

Interfuso ociano ibi manent Saxones ,

Agiles et cor durati et in armis validi ,

Scridifinni et Frisones valentque piratici .

Franci demum a Francone nomen prius sumpserunt,

Animati et feroces regna plura ceperunt,

Modo tenent christiani cum divino munere.

Gallia Belgica est dicta infra Rino et Sigona,

Ubi sunt villas regales et venusti principes.

Ad bellandum fortes viri, pugnando terribiles.

Lugdunensis est vocata Gallie provincia,

Quam insidunt Burgundiones cum ingente gloria;

Rodanus fluit per ipsam tendens in eSpania.

Neustria vocatur inde ultra ripa Sigone ,

Iuncta litus ociani pertingens ad Ligere ,

Patria fecunda nimis, coniuncta ad Brittones .

Aquitania consurgit, maxima provincia,

Ligeris limbo exorta usque in Dornonia,

Et Garonna circumfusa currit per planicia .

Gabirus sicque Adurus exilent de montibus ,

Wascones incolent terram per divexa vallium ,

Septimania interque pertingens ad Alpibus .

Spania ab Hibero prius dicta est Hiberia,

Spalo postea vocata, unde nunc eSpania;

Tercioque nomen vertit, narratur eSperia.

Inter Africa est sita et Gallia patria,

Conclusa undique mare et montium cacumina,

Salubris et fecunda frugis simulque et vineas.

Copia gemmarum magna, metallis ditissima ;

Flumina currunt per ea Hiberus et Mineas ,

Tagus aurum gignit multum simul atque Pactolus .

Africa nascitur inde, tertia particula ,

Marmorem mirum diffundit, exornantur platee ,

Trecentorum sexaginta tribus pollet oppidis .

[Mauritania est vocata a colore populi

Semiusti , denigrati per solarem circulum;

Habens flumen magnum Malvam , que currit per Africa.]

[Silvas magnas secus flumen plenas circum bestiis

Gignit , feras et dracones , strucciones , simias ,

Olim simul elefantes cum ingente corpora.]

[Ethiopia est dicta …..

……. iuncta a meridie .

Ethiopum cutis dira , atramento similis.]

[…….

Unicornos et camelos , basiliscos nutricat ,

Pardos simul et dracones , fronte gestant gemmulas.]*

* this does not appear in the Pertz edition, only in MGH.

Italia olim a Grecis obsessa adquiritur,

Deinde autem a Saturno nomen tali censetur;

Longa est in circuitu, lata minus panditur.

Habet lacumque Venacum, Avernum et Lucrinum

Fluviumque Eridanum et Tiberim maximum;

Sic tepentes manat fontes Baias , gemmas tribuit.

Tuscia atque Etruria iuncta finem Tiberis,

Ubi Romola est sita et est civis nobilis;

In imperio est caput cunctisque provintiis.

Tracia atque Hiberus, Hilladas. Dalmatia,

Peloponensis et Thessali, iuncta Macedonia,

Achaia atque Archadia, nectitque Pannonia.

[Pertz also has another verse here re: Africa]

Sicilia a rege Secano vocata antiquitus,

Premontoria Pirorum, Pacinum et Libenum,

Ab Italia disiuncta fretumque exiguum.

Terra fructum multum (gignit), aurum habundantius,

Per cavernas penetratur ventorum espiritus,

Sulphureum habet odorem ignemque perpetuum.

Clauditur ambitus trium stadiorum milium,

Narrat scriptura ut puta Salustius

……

…….

In Sicilia 〈 ut 〉 Ethna novem ardent iugiter.

Britannia in ociano, mareque concluditur

Quadragies octies quinque septuaginta milibus;

Uberes emanat fontes, terraque fructifera.

Taratus insula, Tyle et Archadis plurimas;

Hibernia maxima floret multa sapientia,

Vermiumque sic purgata, apium aculia.

Huc usque in ociano repperuntur insule;

Multe sunt in sino maris, quas ignorant homines;

Si quis vellit perlustrare, multum habet pergere.

Yassni & Yesen Glosses in Mater Verborum

Published Post authortorino

Here are the glosses in Mater Verborum (Glosa Salomonis) from the manuscriptorium on the topic of Yassni or Yesen. As you can see they are right above (and refer to) Isis, i.e., the Egyptian goddess (see above lingua egipti). The Mater Verborum does contain genuine Slavic (Czech) glosses. However, as it been in the hands of the notorious forger Hanka, many of the glosses are believed to be his additions. Telling the genuine glosses from the fake ones, however, has proven difficult. Adolf Patera undertook this task and concluded that, among the fake ones, was also the above one referring to Yassni/Yesen, i.e., that this was an addition by Hanka. Nevertheless, the Hanka forgeries are themselves a story of great interest and, therefore, we include this gloss here. Prior glosses referring to Slavic gods (not all of them from Mater Verborum! (though virtually all are believed to be forged)) are shown here.

The corresponding Patera list is here:

On Plaumorati

PublishedSeptember 9, 2015 Post authortorino

Saskia Pronk-Tiethoff in her very interesting book “The Germanic Loanwords in Protoslavic” discusses also the word “plough”. This word appears in all Slavic languages in the following forms:

pług – in Polish (pronounced pwoog in English in English pronounciation);
pluh – in Czech, Slovak and Ukrainian;
płuh – in Upper Sorbian (pwooh);
pług – in Lower Sorbian (pwoog);
plaug – in Polabian;
plug – in Russian (ploog), Serbo-Croatian and Slovene (accent differs);

Of course, in Cyryllic alphabets the word is written плуг.

The same word appears in Germanic languages, e.g.:

pflug – German;
plough – English;
ploeg – Dutch;
phluog – Old High German;
pfluoc – Middle High German;
plog – Old English – in the meaning of plough of land!;
plöch – Old Frisian;
plovum – Langobardic (see Edictus Rothari, chapter 288; also Leges Baiuwaiorum);

The word is not Germanic or, at least, not proto-Germanic (if such a language existed) since it is not attested in Gothic. On the other hand, Gothic has the word hoha for plough which seems to correspond to the Slavic socha/sokha. Finally, in addition to plug and soha, Slavic also has radło/rádlo which corresponds to the ard plough. In general, these instruments are understood to be slightly different. Thus:

radło (rádlo/pа́ло/орало) – ard plow – the most ancient of “ploughs” (note the Germanic/Slavic ard/rad shift, e.g., Ardogast/Radogast);

socha (sokha/cохa) – ard plow with two ards (or rads);

plug – plough, much heavier, using metal and typically equipped with wheels;

Where Did Ploughs Come From?

The first mention of the word is quite ancient and seems to have been made by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History – a veritable almanac of knowledge. The form given by Pliny is plaumorati. The passage follows:

Pliny, Natural History 18,48 (or 18, 172 by lines)

“Ploughshares are of various kinds. The coulter is the iron part that cuts up the dense earth before it is broken into pieces, and traces beforehand by its incisions the future furrows, which the share, reversed, is to open out with its teeth. Another kind—the common ploughshare—is nothing more than a lever, furnished with a pointed beak; while another variety, which is only used in light, easy soils, does not present an edge projecting from the share-beam throughout, but only a small point at the extremity. In a fourth kind again, this point is larger and formed with a cutting edge; by the agency of which implement, it both cleaves the ground, and, with the sharp edges at the sides, cuts up the weeds by the roots. There has been invented, at a comparatively recent period, in that part of Gaul known as Rhætia, a ploughshare with the addition of two small wheels, and known by the name of “plaumorati.” The extremity of the share in this has the form of a spade: it is only used, however, for sowing in cultivated lands, and upon soils which are nearly fallow. The broader the plough-share, the better it is for turning up the clods of earth. Immediately after ploughing, the seed is put into the ground, and then harrows with long teeth are drawn over it. Lands which have been sown in this way require no hoeing, but two or three pairs of oxen are employed in ploughing. It is a fair estimate to consider that a single yoke of oxen can work forty jugera of land in the year, where the soil is light, and thirty where it is stubborn.”

“Vomerum [“spades”] plura genera: culter vocatur inflexus praedensam, priusquam proscindatur, terram secans futurisque sulcis vestigia praescribens incisuris, quas resupinus in arando mordeat vomer. alterum genus est volgare rostrati vectis. tertium in solo facili, nec toto porrectum dentali, sed exigua cuspide in rostro. latior haec quarto generi et acutior in mucronem fastigata eodemque gladio scindens solum et acie laterum radices herbarum secans. non pridem inventum in Raetia Galliae duas addere tali rotulas, quod genus vocant plaumorati. cuspis effigiem palae habet. serunt ita non nisi culta terra et fere nova. latitudo vomeris caespites versat. semen protinus iniciunt cratesque dentatas supertrahunt. nec sarienda sunt hoc modo sata, sed protelis binis ternisque sic arant. uno boum iugo censeri anno facilis soli quadragena iugera, difficilis tricena iustum est.”

Plaumorati

(On the Plaum)

The word plaumorati has caused a rather long discussion as to its meaning and origin. Most people think it’s a compound word and that the first part is simply “plow”. But is it?

Plough or plug has a “g” in it. Not an “m”. In this respect it has been asserted that the form plovum was the original form.

However, it is our understanding that:

the combination of “pl” is unusual in Langobardic;

several explanations have been given for the shift from “g” to “v” and, obviously, if that is true, then there is really no question that plug or plog came before *plovum (and, If so, there may have been a plug even at the time of the plaumorati; and, if so, then plaumorati would not even refer to a plough); and,

in any event, today’s cognate words may, apparently, be derived from other “original” forms (not just plovum) – even following the linguist’s own rules;
- forms such as *ploda and plodum; such forms existed in Latin and, interestingly, in the region of Trentino which just happens to lie right next to the region of Veneto;

What is even more interesting in Trentino, the word *ploda meant harvest (see W. Foerster Der Pflug in Frankreich on page 12; Schneller, Die romanischen Volksmundarten in Suedtirol, page 165).

Remarkably, plon/plony means the same thing in Slavic languages (or płód/płódy which may have meant the same thing before it meant “fetus”). That is one Slavic similarity.

Another may be seen if we look at the “m” – where does the “m come from? One suggestion could be lemiesz meaning the piece of the plough that actually cuts the soil:

Yet another if we ignore the “m” may be plewa/plewić meaning weed/get the weeds out.

All this fits better if we con side that Pliny is not talking about ploughs but rather about ploughshares.

Whether a lemiesz used to be a plemiesz we do not know. However, plemie means tribe and plemnik means, ahem, seed. Consequently, it would not be unreasonable that the “p” dropped at some point.

Plaumorati

(On the -Orati)

As to where the division should take place and what the second part of the word means, there is much disagreement. Here are some common theories as to the origin of the word – they are basically divided into two groups:

The first is a “wheeled plough”:

plograt – the ancient Gallic for a plough-wheel; as in Geraet/grat;

plaustra rati – Latin;

plaum radt – Belgic plaum (a plough) and rat or radt (a wheel);

plaum ratum – more generally Celtic plaum, plovum (plough) and ratum (wheel);

plaugorati – although no such form has been recorded, some German scholars “created” or emendated a Germanic form plaumgorati – meaning, along the same lines, a wheeled plough (whether the name Much was itself, in this case, an emendation of the Slavic mucha, i.e., fly, we do not know (the word appears too in French… and in Swabian));

The second group is the “Raetian plough”:

ploum Raeti – Raeitian plough – Who were the Raetians? We are told either Celts or Illyrians.

Both of these make sense since wheels and Raetia seem to be involved here. And yet, another suggestion has also been made, as follows:

plaustrum aratri, plaustrum rastri, plaum aratri – that is a plough wagon in Latin where the aratri/rastri is the plough/rake and plaustrum is the wagon; that is, the aratri is referring to the raking or ploughing action.

But, should it then be aratrum?

And here is the thing…

Can the orati refer to anything other than wheels and Raetians?

Oddly enough, orać or orat, i.e., with an “o” is a Slavic verb for “to plough” (e.g., orka – the act of ploughing, oracz but also (!) rataj – ploughman or tiller) (same as, e.g., Spanish arar) and orati could be either:

an adjective for the kind of device, i.e., a ploughing device; or

genetive plural for whose device this is, i.e., tillers’ device.

Now, we are not suggesting that Raetians were Slavs but, one would think, that the above facts would, at least, merit mention in academic literature. But they do not. Why? Conspiracy? We think not. We think the reasons are quite mundane:

conservatism – historians who occupy themselves with such topics do not even admit the possibility of Slavic speakers in Raetia at the time; and

dilettantism – the same people are ignorant of the above fact – for one thing, to the extent, they have any familiarity with Slavic words at all, they are typically familiar with Russian and in Russian the word does not really exist in this form;

Let’s note another interesting fact.

Piast of the Plough or Piast of the Wheel?

The Polish archfather – Piast – was said in the early tellings of his legend to have been an oracz, i.e., a ploughman.

Piast in a plaumorati featuring the traditional Venetic red-white color scheme

But in later tales he becomes a wheelwright.

Piast the Wheelwright working on a large order for the Tonka Corporation

Was this an intentional “ennobling” of Piast’s heritage? Or was there some sort of a mistake or misreading of the word “rat” or “rad” (as in wheel)?

(He is referred to Ckosisconis which suggests either that his father’s name was Choscisco (whom some Germans historians tried to connect with the Hasdingi on account of the long hair…) or, perhaps, that it was Kosisco, meaning something to do with the kosa, i.e., scythe).

And then there is palluchos in Accadian…

On the Paphlagonian Veneti Take 2

PublishedSeptember 7, 2015 Post authortorino

We’ve previously posted on Paphlagonia here. An earlier and more detailed map came up and we post it here. This is Pierre Mortier’s “Paphlagonia Heroicis Temporibus Henetorum Populorum, etc” published in Amsterdam in 1700.

The source of all this, of course, is the same, i.e., ancient cartographers like Ptolemy and others. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that this map is more historically accurate. Nevertheless, it is bigger and clearer and shows all the interesting names such as:

In the West of Paphlagonia, the reference to the Paphlagonian Heneti or Eneti and, more interestingly, in the East:

our favorite, Zagora (together will all the alternate spellings);
Zalichus (Zalichus?) (za lasem?);
the River Zaliscus;
the River Halys (!);
the town of Germanopolis (just north of the province of Galatia – see below) – for Germani see here;

We have noted several other interesting names. Whether this means anything is, of course, less than certain. Nevertheless, it is, as we wrote, interesting.

We also note that Paphlagonia is East of the province of Bithynia. Bithynia was named, apparently, for the Thracian tribes of the Bithyni and Thyni – at least so claims Herodotus (7, 75). We do not know what language these people spoke.

A few interesting things present themselves, however:

the name sounds similar to Herodotus’ Budinoi;

one of the earliest rulers of the province was Bas (perhaps a shortened form of the title basileus) (but perhaps then Boz was also such a title?);

they lost their independence to a king of Lydia named Croesus – the notion that Kadlubek could have thought that Croesus when mentioning his Crassus is, of course, preposterous, or is it?;

two kings of the Bithynians were named Prusias (!);

according to the same Herodotus, the place in Thracia where the Bithyni and Thyni came from was around the river Struma in, today’s Western Bulgaria; this, of course, is the Indo-European stream – except that, curiously, the form mentioned by Herodotus is Str(y)imon(as) – a form with an “n” which, form, appears only in Slavic languages (e.g., Polish strumień);

Finally, we note that one of the (many) stories about the origins of Poland, however preposterous, makes the origin of the country to be the Georgian Colchis – further East from Pahplagonia; Colchis is, of course, where the Argonauts headed for their Golden Fleece as we already discussed; and, argonauts were led by one Jason – whether Jason is “Chasson sive Jassen” is Jassa of “ash” mountains is another interesting question.

And speaking of the “ash” mountains, we note that the above area lay close or was part of the Biblical Ashkenaz. As Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 1, 6) reports: “those whom the Greeks now call Galatians were then called Gomerites”. He then notes that of Gomer came:

“Aschanaxians, who are now called by the Greeks Rheginians”;
“Ripheans, now called Paphlagonians” (Mount Rip!? Rippean Mountains?);
“Thrugrammeans, who, as the Greeks resolved, were named Phrygians”;

Note also that, it is commonly believed that the Galatians were Galls (!) (see, e.g., Schenker, The Dawn of Slavic). That is to say that one and the same people (at least in terms of language/culture) lived both in Ireland, across Europe and in Turkey. This does not seem to be a problem to any historian. However, to suggest that the Veneti included Paphlagonians, the Adriatic Veneti, the Gallic Veneti and the Slavic Veneti somehow is a problem. Why?

We may laugh at Kadlubek’s stories but why did he pick Galls, Romans and Macedonians as the Poles’ ancient enemies? If he were going for the most outrageous reach in terms of antiquity, why not Greeks, Scythians, Egyptians or Assyrians?

We will return to these questions later and to:

the Paphlagonians and their role in the Trojan War;

the question of the similarities between (1) the legend of Lech, Czech & Rus and (2) the tale of Hrvat or Khoryv, Shchek or Sczech & Kij or Kyi & (3) the tale of the Armenian writer Zenob Glak.

On the theory of a Balkan origin of (at least?) some Slavs see Heinrich Kunstmann’s Die Slawen.

On Tryglav in Brandenburg

PublishedSeptember 6, 2015 Post authortorino

We have previously made reference to a Leibniz’ edition of Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium, a book that is a compilation of various documents of out of the Duchy of Brunswick. There we discussed the mention in volume I of the same of the Polabian Gods Hammon, Swentebuek, Vitelubbe and Radegast. Well, Hammon, is a questionable one even though mentioned there.

In any event, the same compilation also mentions – in volume II – the Pomeranian three-headed God Tryglav as part of the Fragmentum genealogiae ducum Brunsvicensium et Luneburgensium (that is, the genealogical fragments regarding the dukes of Brunswick and Luneburg). Here, however, he is mentioned as a God worshipped in Brandenburg. We now include that other reference here with a translation, of course.

“Huius temporibus fuit in Brandenburg rex Henricus, qui Slavice dicebatur Pribezlaus, qui Christianus factus, Idolum, quod in Brandenburgh fuit, cum tribus capitibus, quod Tryglav Slavice dicebatur, et pro Deo colebatur, et alia Idola destruxit, et idololatriam et ritum gentis sue detestans, cum filium non haberet, Adelbertum Marchionem, dictum Ursum, haeredem sui instituit principatus.”

“At this time, there was in Brandenburg King Henry, whom the Slavs called Pribislav, who became a Christian and he destroyed the idol that had three heads and was worshipped as a God in Brandenburg and that the Slavs called Tryglav and other idols and idolatries and rites among his peoples that he detested; when he did not have a son, Albert called the Bear inherited [the March of Brandenburg].”

Pribislav was the last Slavic duke of the Hevelian Wends. Henry was likely his baptismal name. Without an heir he gave the Brandenburg area to his son-in-law in 1129. That son-in-law’s father was Albert the Bear who subsequently took over the area after Pribislav/Henry died in 1150.

The same story appears in Tractatus de urbe Brandenburg and in the Brandenburg Chronicle. These mention the three headed god but not his name. Whether it be true that the Saxons too worshipped Tryglav, whether the Polish duke Iaszon/Jaczon/Jacze has anything to do with Jassa and who the Zucham were we leave to the readers.

On Widsith and Its (Few) Wends

PublishedSeptember 2, 2015 Post authortorino

Since we have been discussing Anglo-Saxon contributions to Slavic history with the work of King Alfred we decided to continue on that path and mention “Widsith”. The Old Anglo-Saxon poem from the Exeter Book has been preserved in only one manuscript copy – the tenth-century, so-called, Codex Exoniensis (Exeter Cathedral Library MS 3501). We include the entire poem here. Here are some interesting points:

The poem contains a reference, or maybe two, to the Wends amongst its list of European peoples that the traveller in question claims to have visited.

It also contains a reference to the River Vistula where the Goths, allegedly, fought the Huns (a topic found also in Hervarar Saga og Heiðreks and in the tale of Ossantrix which we will discuss later).

It contains references to what may be the tribes of Wiolane ond Wilna which smacks of Wolin or Wislane (not to mention Vilnius!)

Finally, it is noteworthy, we think, that:
- the Hreðcyning sounds awful like Horodcyning, i.e., in the sense of gard, grod, horod in the Ukrainian language and of Gardarike (as opposed explaining this with “riding” (!) Goths) (see also the Czech hrad “castle” in Prague) and that
- the greatest “getter” of things and honors is a guy named Hwala – the same word literally at least as the Polish word for “honour” or “glory” (i.e., chwała – though, Alexander Brueckner believes chała or fała to have been the older forms – we did not follow up on this (yet)). (this is actually Wala in the text but, most people think it has been correctly emended to Hwala).

Widsið maðolade,      wordhord onleac,
se þe monna mæst      mægþa ofer eorþan,
folca geondferde;      oft he on flette geþah
mynelicne maþþum.      Him from Myrgingum; Widsith spake, unlocked his word-hoard,
He who among men had travelled most in the world,
through peoples and nations; he had often in the hall earned valuable treasures [rewards]. He came [of] from the Myrgings [tribe?]

[5]; æþele onwocon.      He mid Ealhhilde,
fælre freoþuwebban,      forman siþe
Hreðcyninges      ham gesohte
eastan of Ongle,      Eormanrices,
wraþes wærlogan.      Ongon þa worn sprecan:; of noble blood. He together with Ealhhilde,
the friendly weaver [webber] of peace, went for the home [the seats]
of the Hrethan [=horod = gard = gród?] King [Hreðcyning] he sought
[from?] east of the Angles, Ermanaric,
wrathful oathbreaker [?]. He began to speak:
10: ‘Fela ic monna gefrægn      mægþum wealdan!
Sceal þeodna gehwylc      þeawum lifgan,
eorl æfter oþrum      eðle rædan,
se þe his þeodenstol      geþeon wile.
þara wæs [H]wala      hwile selast,; ‘I have queried [fela = viel, wiele] many men [who] ruled [wielded] many tribes [?]
Each ruler should       live according to custom,
to be ruler after others    his [countries/wisely?] rule [rædan = rada]
if he, his ruler’s throne [þeodenstol = Stuhl, stołek] wants [wills] to get
There [in that] was Hwala       for a while [=chwile] the best [of all],
15: ond Alexandreas      ealra ricost
monna cynnes,      ond he mæst geþah
þara þe ic ofer foldan      gefrægen hæbbe.
ætla weold Hunum,      Eormanric Gotum,
Becca Baningum,      Burgendum Gifica.; and Alexander the richest [greatest] ruler
of the clans of man, and he got the most [throve the most]
of [all] those [that] I over the world have queried
Ætla [Attila] ruled [weold=wield=władać] the Huns Ermanaric [ruled] Goths,
Becca [ruled] Banings, Gifica [ruled] Burgundians; 20; Casere weold Creacum      ond Celic Finnum,
Hagena Holmrygum      ond Heoden Glommum.
Witta weold Swæfum,      Wada Hælsingum,
Meaca Myrgingum,      Mearchealf Hundingum.
þeodric weold Froncum,      þyle Rondingum,; Caesar ruled Greeks and Celic [ruled] Finns,
Hagena [ruled] Holmrygas and Heoden [ruled] Gloms.
Witta ruled Suevi, Wada [ruled] Hælsings [Helsinki!?],
Meaca [ruled] Myrgings Mearchealf [ruled] Hundings.
Theodric ruled Franks Thyle [ruled] Rondings,; 25; Breoca Brondingum,      Billing Wernum.
Oswine weold Eowum      ond Ytum Gefwulf,
Fin Folcwalding      Fresna cynne.
Sigehere lengest      Sædenum weold,
Hnæf Hocingum,      Helm Wulfingum,; Breuca [ruled] Brondings, Billing [ruled] Werns [Warni?]
Oswine ruled Eows Ytas/Yts [were ruled by] Gefwulf,
Fin [ruled] Folcwaldings Frisian [?] clans.
Sigehere longest [the] Sea-Danes ruled,
Hnæf [ruled] Hocings Helm [ruled] Wulfings,; 30; Wald Woingum,      Wod þyringum,
Sæferð Sycgum,      Sweom Ongendþeow,
Sceafthere Ymbrum,      Sceafa Longbeardum,
Hun Hætwerum      ond Holen Wrosnum.
Hringweald wæs haten      Herefarena cyning.; Wald [ruled] Woingas,      Wod [ruled] Thuringians,
Saeferth [ruled] Sycges,      Ongendtheow [ruled] Swedes [?],
Sceafthere [ruled] Ymbres,      Sceaf [ruled] Langobards,
Hun [ruled] Haetwares,      and Holen [ruled] Wrosnes.
Hringwald was called      the king of the Herefarens.; 35; Offa weold Ongle,      Alewih Denum;
se wæs þara manna      modgast ealra,
no hwæþre he ofer Offan      eorlscype fremede,
ac Offa geslog      ærest monna,
cnihtwesende,      cynerica mæst.; Offa ruled Angles,      Alewih Danes,
That was of those men   the bravest of all,
however [but] he [could] not over Offa    obtain rule [earlship],
and Offa won [in battle, i.e., geschlagen] the first of men
while still being [wesen] a boy [Knecht]   the greatest of kingdoms.; 40; Nænig efeneald him      eorlscipe maran
on orette.      Ane sweorde
merce gemærde      wið Myrgingum
bi Fifeldore;      heoldon forð siþþan
Engle ond Swæfe,      swa hit Offa geslog.; No one [Nænig = nikt] of the same age as him [even-old] honored earlship
in battle. [With] one sword
[he] marked the border against [the] Myrgings
by Fifeldore; held forth hence [since]
by Angles and Suevi as it Offa won.; 45; Hroþwulf ond Hroðgar      heoldon lengest
sibbe ætsomne      suhtorfædran,
siþþan hy forwræcon      wicinga cynn
ond Ingeldes      ord forbigdan,
forheowan æt Heorote      Heaðobeardna þrym.; Hrothwulf ond Hrothgar held longest
peace together uncle and nephew [or nephew & uncle]
after [since then] they drove away [forth] [the] Viking kin [peoples]
and Ingeld’s spearpoint [vanguard] humbled [?],
forced at Heorot Heathobards’ trim [i.e., cut them down to size]; 50; Swa ic geondferde fela      fremdra londa
geond ginne grund.      Godes ond yfles
þær ic cunnade      cnosle bidæled,
freomægum feor      folgade wide.
Forþon ic mæg singan      ond secgan spell,; So I fared [wondered] much [viel, wiele] [in] foreign lands
through wide countries [grounds* – Earth] Good and evil
there I got to know of my people impoverished [=bieda!]
[from my] free kinsmen far I followed [served far and] wide
Henceforth I’d like to sing and tell [my] tale; * the fact that the Earth here is titled “grund”, inclusive of “rund”, “round” is reason enough to think about things anew!; 55; mænan fore mengo      in meoduhealle
hu me cynegode      cystum dohten.
Ic wæs mid Hunum      ond mid Hreðgotum,
mid Sweom ond mid Geatum      ond mid Suþdenum.
Mid Wenlum* ic wæs ond mid Wærnum      ond mid wicingum.; To speak before a multitude in the mead-hall
how me noblemen [generosity] showed/gifts bestowed
I was with the Huns and with Hreth[an]goths
with Swedes and with Geats and with South-Danes.
With Winnuli I was and with Warnians and with vikings.; * Unclear, perhaps people from Vendsyssel in Denmark or the Winuli as in the later Langobards; 60; Mid Gefþum ic wæs ond mid Winedum      ond mid Gefflegum.
Mid Englum ic wæs ond mid Swæfum      ond mid ænenum.
Mid Seaxum ic wæs ond Sycgum      ond mid Sweordwerum.
Mid Hronum ic wæs ond mid Deanum      ond mid Heaþoreamum.
Mid þyringum ic wæs      ond mid þrowendum,*; With Gifthas I was and with Wends and with Gefflegs.
With Angles I was and with Suevi and with aenenas.
With Saxons I was and with Sycgs and with Swordsmen.
With Hronas I was and with Deans and with Heatho-Reams.
With Thuringians I was and with Throwends,; * Your guess is as good as ours; it has been suggested that there are the people of Trondheim but this seems just a guess as the “d” is nowhere to be found and why they should be -wendum is unclear; 65; ond mid Burgendum,      þær ic beag geþah;
me þær Guðhere forgeaf      glædlicne maþþum
songes to leane.      Næs þæt sæne cyning!
Mid Froncum ic wæs ond mid Frysum      ond mid Frumtingum.
Mid Rugum ic wæs ond mid Glommum      ond mid Rumwalum.; And with Burgundians, there I got wring/crown
me there Guthhere gave me a glittering jewel [?]
to pay for [my] song [he was] not [a] sluggish king!
With Franks I was and with Frisians and with Frumtings.
With Rugians I was and with Glommas and with Romans [Rome-Welsh]; 70; Swylce ic wæs on Eatule      mid ælfwine,
se hæfde moncynnes,      mine gefræge,
leohteste hond      lofes to wyrcenne,
heortan unhneaweste      hringa gedales,
beorhtra beaga,      bearn Eadwines.; Likewise I was in Italy with Aelfwine*
he had of all mankind, that I queried [i.e., met on my journeys]
the lightest hand glory to work
the most generous heart rings [booty] to give out [geteil = divide, give out]
brightest trinkets [bracelets jewels] the bear cub [bairn] of Eadwine’s.; * the Langobard king who went with his people from Pannonia to Italy in 568; 75; Mid Sercingum ic wæs      ond mid Seringum;
mid Creacum** ic wæs ond mid Finnum      ond mid Casere,
se þe winburga      geweald ahte,
Wiolane ond Wilna,*** ond Wala rices.
Mid Scottum ic wæs ond mid Peohtum      ond mid Scridefinnum;; With Saracens [?] I was and with Serings*;
with Greeks** I was and with Finns and with Caesar,
he [who] vineyards had ruled,
Wiolane and Wilna and the riches of the [Welsh or Romans]?
With Scots I was and with Picts and with Scridefins****; * Syrians?
** This typically is translated as Greeks although (as in Orosius) the temptation of Cracow beckons – above the poem talks about Caesar (if that is who Caser is) ruling the same so presumably this means the Byzantine Emperor
*** No one knows what these words are and whether they are tribal names or other nouns – one suggestion has been that they are Wallachs Walach-girls, i.e., Welsh as the Romans were called by the Scandinavian tribes
**** These appear in many, many sources (e.g., Ravenna Geography, Procopius, Jordanes, Paul the Deacon).; 80; mid Lidwicingum ic wæs ond mid Leonum      ond mid Longbeardum,
mid Hæðnum ond mid Hæleþum      ond mid Hundingum.
Mid Israhelum ic wæs      ond mid Exsyringum,
mid Ebreum ond mid Indeum      ond mid Egyptum.
Mid Moidum ic wæs ond mid Persum      ond mid Myrgingum,; with Lidvikings [peoples’ vikings!?]* I was and with Leonas and with Langobards
with Heathens and with Herethas** and with Hundings.
With Israelites I was and with Assyrians [?],
with [H]ebrews and with Indians [?] and with Egyptians.
With Medes I was and with Persians and with Myrgings,; * e.g., Ludvig
** because sometimes emendated to Hæreþum – perhaps the Haroudes of Ptolemy; 85; ond Mofdingum      ond ongend Myrgingum,
ond mid Amothingum.      Mid Eastþyringum ic wæs
ond mid Eolum ond mid Istum      ond Idumingum.
Ond ic wæs mid Eormanrice      ealle þrage,
þær me Gotena cyning      gode dohte;; and Mofdings and against Myrgings
and with Amothings. With East-Thuringians I was
and with Eols [?] and with Esti and Idumings.
And I was with Ermanaric all the time,
there me Goth king goods gave/with goods benefitted me/did well for me;; 90; se me beag forgeaf,      burgwarena fruma,
on þam siex hund wæs      smætes goldes,
gescyred sceatta      scillingrime;
þone ic Eadgilse      on æht sealde,
minum hleodryhtne,      þa ic to ham bicwom,; he gave me a bracelet/ring, ruler of town peoples
on them six hundred was [it’s worth was?] [in] hammered/forged/molten gold
coin treasures reckoned by shillings;
That I [to] Eadgils as property [present] gave,
my lord protector when I came [bicwom] home,; 95; leofum to leane,      þæs þe he me lond forgeaf,
mines fæder eþel,      frea Myrginga.
Ond me þa Ealhhild      oþerne forgeaf,
dryhtcwen duguþe,      dohtor Eadwines.
Hyre lof lengde      geond londa fela,; a present to my sire, for he had given me land,
my father’s home, ruler of Myrgings.
And me that Ealhild a second [bracelet/ring/treasure] gave,
a noble queen of many hosts, daughter of Eadwine.
Praise of her spread through many lands,; 100; þonne ic be songe      secgan sceolde
hwær ic under swegle      selast wisse
goldhrodene cwen      giefe bryttian.
ðonne wit Scilling      sciran reorde
for uncrum sigedryhtne      song ahofan,; Then [when?] I in song should say
where I under the sky* I knew the best
gold bedecked queen giving out gifts.
Then with Scilling with clear voices
before our lord we raised a song,; * compare swell (then too Vogel = bird) with Slavic swar (heat), Swarozic, but also Schwartz (black as in burned) or Tschernobog]; 105; hlude bi hearpan      hleoþor swinsade,
þonne monige men,      modum wlonce,
wordum sprecan,      þa þe wel cuþan,
þæt hi næfre song      sellan ne hyrdon.
ðonan ic ealne geondhwearf      eþel Gotena,; loud by the harp   the words sounded,
then many men,   of golden spirit,
spake words,   that they [who] well [should] know
that they never [such a] song   performed nor heard.
then I speedily wandered   through the lands of the Goths,; 110; sohte ic a gesiþa      þa selestan;
þæt wæs innweorud      Earmanrices.
Heðcan sohte ic ond Beadecan      ond Herelingas,
Emercan sohte ic ond Fridlan      ond Eastgotan,
frodne ond godne      fæder Unwenes.; I sought company   there of the best;
that was [of] the house   of Ermanaric.
Hethca I sought and Beadeca   and the Herelings,
Emerca sought I and Fridla*   and Ostrogotha,
wise and worthy**   father of Unwen.; *these two – Emerca and Fridla – are the afore-mentioned Herelings or Harlungs
** or good (compare Polish godny with which we went here as, somehow, better-fitting); 115; Seccan sohte ic ond Beccan,      Seafolan ond þeodric,
Heaþoric ond Sifecan,      Hliþe ond Incgenþeow.
Eadwine sohte ic ond Elsan,      ægelmund ond Hungar,
ond þa wloncan gedryht      Wiþmyrginga.
Wulfhere sohte ic ond Wyrmhere;      ful oft þær wig ne alæg,; Secca sought I and Becca, Seafola and Theodric,
Heathoric and Sifeca, Hlithe and Incgentheow.
Eadwine sought I and Elsa,        Aegelmund and Hungar,
and the splendid fate(s)      of the With-Myrgings.
WuIfhere sought I and Wyrmhere;       full oft there war [did] not cease,; 120; þonne Hræda here      heardum sweordum
ymb Wistlawudu      wergan sceoldon
ealdne eþelstol      ætlan leodum.
Rædhere sohte ic ond Rondhere,      Rumstan ond Gislhere,
Wiþergield ond Freoþeric,      Wudgan ond Haman;; then the Hraeth army, [with] harsh swords
about the Vistula wood [or spear-tip?] they had to defend
old country’s seat against Attila’s people.
Raedhere sought I and Rondhere, Rumstan and Gislhere,
Withergyld and Freothric, Wudga and Hama;; 125; ne wæran þæt gesiþa      þa sæmestan,
þeah þe ic hy anihst      nemnan sceolde.
Ful oft of þam heape      hwinende fleag
giellende gar      on grome þeode;
wræccan þær weoldan      wundnan golde; Nor were they comrades there the worst to me [they were not bad]
though them I [as] the last should name
Full oft of that host [heap] [there] whining/whistling [did] fly
[a] yelling/screaming spear/javelin on fierce/furious* peoples
wonderers there ruled by wounded gold [?]; * Grome – presumably, the same original as the Slavic grom as in “thunder”; 130; werum ond wifum,      Wudga ond Hama.
Swa ic þæt symle onfond      on þære feringe,
þæt se biþ leofast      londbuendum
se þe him god syleð      gumena rice
to gehealdenne,      þenden he her leofað.’; husbands and wives, Wudga and Hama.
So I that ever found on these voyages,
that he is loved the most by landspeople
to whom God gives [the] rule [over] men
to hold, while he here lives.’; 135; Swa scriþende      gesceapum hweorfað
gleomen gumena      geond grunda fela,
þearfe secgað,      þoncword sprecaþ,
simle suð oþþe norð      sumne gemetað
gydda gleawne,* geofum unhneawne,**; So wondering [and traveling about are] destined
the people’s [men’s] singers [and] to travel/walk [through] many lands
speaking [their] need, saying a word of thanks,
ever south or north meeting someone
knowing in songs [as in, a connoiseur] of gifts unsparing/generous; * interestingly, “wise”/”knowing” here is similar to the Slavic word for head, i.e., “glova”
** un-hneaw – curious if there is a relation to hovat (i.e., hide) in Slavic (someone who does not hide stuff, i.e., generous); 140; se þe fore duguþe wile      dom aræran,
eorlscipe æfnan,      oþþæt eal scæceð,
leoht ond lif somod;      lof se gewyrceð,
hafað under heofonum      heahfæstne dom.; he who before his men wants his fame [?] to air
rulership to achieve, until all scatters,
light and life together; glory he achieves,
has under heaven, the most lasting fame.; Go see the original at the Exeter Cathedral

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

On Ukras

PublishedAugust 30, 2015 Post authortorino

This is the river Wkra (pronounced Vkrah) in Mazovia, Poland:

This is the river Uecker in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany:

The German river Uecker is, nowadays, called Wkra in Polish. The reason for this appears to be that:

A) the assumption is that the Uecker does not have a Slavic etymology,

B) the river Uecker, however, must have had a prior Slavic name, and

C) as noted above, there is a river Wkra in Poland (i.e., Wkra to the rescue!).

So, it seems, in search of a Slavic name, Polish geographers, at some point relabeled the Uecker as Wkra in Polish. The result of this too has been that the Slavic tribe which previously lived in the area and which was previously named Ukrani in literature, has now also been relabeled (in Polish literature) as Wkrzanie – at least in Poland (if you can’t pronounce that, you’re not the only ones).

But the tribe was never called Wkrzanie before nor the river Wkra. Historical sources list them as Ukrani or Wuucri. They also list the German river as Ukra…

So why do this? Or, to put it differently, what’s wrong with Ukra?

It has been suggested by German historians too that the Uecker was the original name which preceded the Ukrani so that the arriving Slavic tribe derived its name from the existing, presumably Germanic, river name Uecker. Presumably, in response to this claim, i.e., that the source of the Ukra name was a German name (Uecker) and that, since Slavs lived in that area in the middle ages, the name could not have been Ukra but must have been something “Slavic” sounding, the river was renamed (again, by Poles only) into Wkra.

Silliness

What is astounding about “Slavicizing” the name Uecker into Wkra (to match the Mazovian river Wkra) now (since 19th century) is that it effectively ignores the quite real previous name of the river, i.e., Ukra or the quite real prior name of the tribe, i.e., Ukrani – never Wkrzanie.

What’s more, this process is not just astounding but also quite silly. There are at least two reasons for that.

First of all, if Polish Slavicists do not feel like defending the Slavic nature of the name Ukra (because of Uecker) then they should just accept the name as Germanic and move on – after all weren’t there some Germanic tribes in that area?

Second, there is no reason to think that Ukra was not the original name or that it is not Slavic. Rather, the Uecker seems to have been an adaptation of the earlier Ukra.

Third, what makes all this even sillier is that the Mazovian/Polish river Wkra may not have been called that originally… And it gets better! Some etymologists appear to claim that the river Wkra in Poland was previously also called the Ukra! If so, then it is likely that Ukra or something along these lines was the name for all these rivers. (Despite the fact that locals apparently believed (?) that the Mazovian Wkra was named that way because it meanders so much (“wkręcić“)). These folks claim that the name was Ukra and referred to the Polish (or Slavic) word “kra“, i.e., a “floe” or floating ice. “Krai” may also mean “to cut”.

Whichever the answer to this riddle, it certainly is the case that Slavic languages contain plenty of “ukr” sounds.

Thus, for example, U-kraine… Hmmmm, perhaps Ukrainians moved from East to West! But is there an Ukra river in the Ukraine? Nothing apparent. But maybe they named the rivers they encountered Ukras after their old homeland? But we know that can’t be right because the name Ukraine is far younger and denotes “borderland”, does it not? Except that the “u” does not really fit or make sense – something that could perhaps be more easily understood if there had been an Ukra in the Ukraine or if the Ukrainians had come into Ukraine from a country containing the river Ukra… (i.e., Ukrani > Ukranzi > Ukrainzi)

The reason for the “ukr” or “ucr” sounds in Slavic is because the “u” is a de facto prefix for a whole host of words beginning with “kr” – or “cr”, if you will. No similar combinations are apparent in Germanic languages (of course “kr” and “cr” are frequent, e.g., Kramer). And that is why Uecker does not seem to be the original but rather a German attempt to deal with the pronunciation of Ukra.

By the way, the same may be said for “o” as in “Okra” (on the Slavs, Suavi and the German River Ocker or Slavic Okra see here).

Digressive Intermission

Now, if you allow a digression, we would like to point out that one of the first things that surprises anyone researching pre-Slavic antiquities is that, while the suffix -mir may be Slavic, the names ending with -mer or -mar are not considered Slavic but Germanic. This should not be that surprising, however, because all Indo-European languages contain some levels of similarity. But the situation is worse than that. The suffix -mir may also be Germanic. Thus, for example, we have the Ostrogothic Pannonian Kings Theodemir, Valamir and, even, that most Slavic “sounding” Videmir. With all this we begin to question whether “Boromir” is Slavic either! (Gondor does not sound Slavic, even if Bor-o-mir does!).

The reason why one can reject the Slavic derivation of these names is not only because they were Goths and Goths spoke an East Germanic tongue but also because the prefixes of these names – at least in the case of Theodemir and Valamir – cannot be explained in any Slavic language. (Videmir could be but, after all, they were Goths!).

Which Brings Us to the Point

What is the Germanic etymology of the following name: Ukromir of the Chatti or Batti (in which case he would have been Batavian)? Mind you, the sources speak of Ukromir – not of Ueckermir or of Ueckermar or, even, as the table below shows and as Dahn would have it – Ukromer.

The table is useful in that it also presents Ukromir’s daughter – Ramis – the etymology of whose name is “uncertain” as you can see. Further, it shows the names of some very interesting relatives of our Ukromir.

For Ukromir/Ucromir, see, e.g., Strabo (Geography, 7, 1):

“In dealing with these peoples distrust has been a great advantage, whereas those who have been trusted have done the greatest harm, as, for instance, the Cherusci and their subjects, in whose country three Roman legions, with their general Quintilius Varus, were destroyed by ambush in violation of the treaty. But they all paid the penalty, and afforded the younger Germanicus a most brilliant triumph — that triumph in which their most famous men and women were led captive, I mean Segimuntus, son of Segestes and chieftain of the Cherusci, and his sister Thusnelda, the wife of Armenius, the man who at the time of the violation of the treaty against Quintilius Varus was commander-in‑chief of the Cheruscan army and even to this day is keeping up the war, and Thusnelda’s three-year‑old son Thumelicus; and also Sesithacus, the son of Segimerus and chieftain of the Cherusci, and Rhamis, his wife, and a daughter of Ucromirus chieftain of the Chatti, and Deudorix, a Sugambrian, the son of Baetorix the brother of Melo. But Segestes, the father-in‑law of Armenius, who even from the outset had opposed the purpose of Armenius, and, taking advantage of an opportune time, had deserted him, was present as a guest of honour at the triumph over his loved ones. And Libes too, a priest of the Chatti, marched in the procession, as also other captives from the plundered tribes — the Caülci, Campsani, Bructeri, Usipi, Cherusci, Chatti, Chattuarii, Landi, Tubattii. Now the Rhenus is about three thousand stadia distant from the Albis, if one had straight roads to travel on, but as it is one must go by a circuitous route, which winds through a marshy country and forests.”

And here is the “probable” explanation. (BTW doesn’t Much come from mucha? (incidentally, that is the Suevic/Swabian name for a fly – well, Mugg (see, e.g., Muggeseggele), but so is it in French too la mouche or Latin – musca))

unwahrscheinlich

Once More on Parkosz’s Nya

PublishedAugust 29, 2015 Post authortorino

We’ve previously mentioned Jakub Parkoszowic and his Orthography Tractatus which includes a reference to the Goddess Nya. We’ve noticed that the Tractatus has since been published (in 1985), which publication includes a facsimile so here are the relevant lines from that facsimile:

“Every time there was a soft ‘n’ to be written, it was always written with the help of a double ‘y’ before the appropriate vowel… This writing method was, however, inadequate to differentiate [from other situations], because between ‘Nya‘ which was the name of a [god/goddess/]idol and ‘nia’, a syllable found in the word ‘gniazdo’ [nest], there was no difference in writing).”

And here is a more recent version of the same:

Presumably, for this reason the word nÿabozhensthwo which is in one of the manuscripts does not cause us to rethink the meaning of nabożeństwo or “worship ceremony”.

Not Even Wrong

PublishedAugust 25, 2015 Post authortorino

Piotr Kaczanowski, was the head of the Jagiellonian University’s history department (though himself an archeologist – we guess, he was a man of many interests).

He was a student of the unlamented Kazimierz Godłowski and the apple did not fall far from the tree. In one of the more recent articles whose translation was forwarded to us, Kaczanowski wrote the following about a recent archaeology conference designed to prove, once and for all, that Slavs (Poles and others) must have come from somewhere else and that Poland was previously populated by Vandals… Given our recent investigation of the matter, we found such a definitive conclusion to be troubling. It appeared to be based on no evidence known to us (or anyone else, it seems). So we were curious about this article. We review portions of it here.

Vandalizing Polish History

We give voice to Kaczanowski (commentary, as always, in red):

“The Lugii are identified [by whom he does not say] with the Przeworsk culture which existed in southern and central Poland for over 600 years…”

Not sure where he got the 600 years but let’s not quibble – so far so good…

“The name of the Lugii is assumed [by whom?] to come from the Celtic language because of Celtic names of towns such as Lugudunum, Lugidunum or the Celtic God Lug.”

But where were these towns? Also, why is “dunum” an exclusively Celtic name? Was Go-dunum, then a Celtic town? Do we have Celts at the Baltic? Or did the Goths live in Celtic towns? Or, are we simply dealing with a situation where the name of the town is known second-hand from another tribe?)

And why stop there! There is always the Russian river Luga – were Celtic Lugii all the way up there too?

Also, what is the evidence for the existence of the Celtic God Lug? Well, there is the God Lugh – a trickster (Loki?) – in Ireland. Is there any reason to believe that the Celtic God Lugh was worshipped in Poland? Would it not be simpler to assume that Lugii simply meant what the word still means in Croatian – groves?

And if we assume Celts in Poland and Celts in Ireland, why can’t we assume, as the same people, Veneti in Poland, Veneti on the Adriatic and Veneti in county Gwynedd? (one might be a touch snide and point out that Wales is closer to Poland than Ireland…)

But then he says what he really wants to say (i.e., the Celts are not really good enough for him):

“The Przeworsk culture, however, cannot be seen as a Celtic culture. It arose, it is true among other cultures based on their contributions [really!?], but its people were certainly part of some other, non-Celtic ethnic group. The written sources mention too other peoples, which lived in the basins of the Odra and the Vistula in the first two centuries after christ. Based on the information conveyed by Ptolemy one can judge that, in the basin of the Odra there lived the Burgundians. Their presence in the Polish lands is confirmed by a later author, the sixth century Ostrogoth Jordanes, in a passage, probably relating to the events of the third century.”

Ptolemy does place the Burgundians somewhere along the Oder – possibly extending to the Vistula. But Jordanes does not mention where the Burgundians lived. The incident that Kaczanowski is referring to is (we think) the incident of the attack on the Burgundians by the Gepids who, as per Jordanes, dwelt on an island at the mouth of the Vistula. But no such islands currently exist so it is not clear what this means. And, as we have argued before, it is at least possible, that the names of the Vistula and Oder have been mixed up by ancient writers. And, elsewhere when discussing the Gepid embassy to the Goths, Jordanes states that the Gepid king complains of the need for more Lebensraum since he is “hemmed in by rugged mountains and dense forests.” No such mountains exist anywhere near the Baltic. Were the Gepids claiming all of Central Europe then, hemmed in by the Carpathians? The Alps?

All that notwithstanding, Jordanes does not say anywhere where the Burgundians then dwelt when they were attacked by the Gepids. Or who the Burgundians were (though apparently not kin to the Gepids or Goths – and Romans, apparently, also used this term in a non-ethnic sense of “city dwellers”).

Not to mention that Jordanes may have been of Alan not Goth heritage, ahem – but why quibble.

“According to other information of Ptolemy’s one can assume that, there lived along the Oder, most likely in Silesia, another Germanic tribe, the Silingae.”

As we have repeatedly stated, Ptolemy does not say anything of the sort. Kaczanowski wants Ptolemy to say that but that is about it. Also, Ptolemy does not say anywhere that the Burgundians were a Germanic tribe in the sense that Kaczanowski is using the name. Unless, of course, one thinks that the Amerikaner are also a Germanic “tribe” because their name comes from Amerigo Vespucci.

“Archaeology delivers data indicating that, within the Przeworsk culture, there existed also Vandalic tribes. And written sources confirm that around the year 170, during the Marcomannic Wars… Vandal tribes of Hasdings, Lacrings and Victofals, journeying somewhere from the North, reached the borders of Dacia.”

This is just BS with, likely, a healthy mix of “untruths.”

First, archaeology is not a Goddess – it is an academic discipline. Archeologists may or may not believe something but, if they do, they should own up to their beliefs rather than pretending that some unbiased “Archeology” necessitates some findings. Moreover, on the archeology of Przeworsk see here.

Second, there is nothing Vandalic about pots and pans discovered in Poland or Moravia. And, if there is or should be, Kaczanowski does not say what it is. Nor does he say what he means by that statement. Who are his Vandals? Would he answer: “the people who made this pottery”? If so then the circle closes. If not, then we need something more to designate these as “Vandalic”.

(Note also that people have problem questioning whether a pot is “Slavic” but if the assertion is “it’s Germanic” – no one questions that. After all, Germanic tribes lived in those areas so these pots must be Germanic. And how do we know that Germanic tribes lived there if we do not have any written evidence of it? Why, it’s the pots and pans of course! Didn’t we just say they were Germanic!?)

Third, the written sources, say nothing about a “journey” of the Vandals or about the Vandals “reaching” Dacia. They merely state that certain tribes – some (not all) of whom were – centuries later – “identified” as Vandals invaded the Roman province of Dacia (and not around 170 but in 171… but ok).

(Note that here we move from BS to what seem to be Kaczanowski’s ‘untruths’ (we would say ‘lies’ although we admit the possibility that, notwithstanding him being the head of Jagiellonian University’s history department, he was ignorant of the written sources – maybe their history department is just not very good)).

On the Veneti

After having concluded that the Celts – but especially the Vandals – most assuredly did live in Poland, Kaczanowski goes on also to inform us that the Veneti, were – maybe – located in northern Poland, on the lower Vistula, but, “most probably” were not Slavs. Instead, they were:

“some other Indoeuropean people whose expansion must have covered enormous parts of Europe, the witness to which fact may be the names of that people strewn among greatly separated lands. Further, the written sources of the first and second century clearly indicate, that in Central and Eastern Europe there were two separate peoples called by the name Veneti/ One, according to Pliny and Ptolemy on the shore of the Baltic, representing probably a people of Western Baltic stock, that is the future Prussians. The second, known from Tacitus, located by this author to the East of our [oddly, he seems to mean “Polish” by this] lands.”

“The Slavs appear on the pages of history relatively late. For the first time they are mentioned, without a doubt, by Jordanes who lived in the sixth century. His report deal with events occurring in the fourth century when the Slavs had been conquered by the Goths. This fact allows us to assume that they lived somewhere in Eastern Europe…”

The problems with this half-assed argument are so huge that one could write an essay just on these few paragraphs.

Enormous Spaces

Kaczanowski seems to assume that the Slavs could not have been the Veneti because there were different mentions of the Veneti all over the map of Europe, i.e., Venetis’ expansion, in Kaczanowski’s words, “covered enormous parts of Europe.”

Assuming, however, that the Veneti were a single people, and that single people did cover vast swaths of Europe at a time one has to ask why must it follow that this could not have been Slavs?

(BTW this is not, a priori, necessary, a single wandering people could also pop up in different places – the English were in India and in Gibraltar but not everywhere in between).

Indeed, just below that paragraph, Kaczanowski actually quotes Jordanes’ to assert that the Slavs themselves covered “enormous spaces” – but assumes this was only in really, really Eastern Europe.

So it seems, as a matter of logistics, the Slavs, like the Veneti, could, in Kaczanowski’s view, have covered “enormous spaces” – just not in Western Europe. Even if one believes that, that belief hardly follows from the sources Kaczanowski cites.

Single People or Many Peoples

Kaczanowski asserts that these “other Indoeuropean” Veneti people must have been a single people (and, as per above, that they were not Slavs).

Why all the Veneti must have been a single and same people is left unclear – elsewhere, for example, some historians have argued that the Veneti name was a German appellation of all Eastern European dwellers (if true, this would mean such people were not necessarily of the same ethnicity but itself has the problem of not accounting for Veneti in Paphlagonia, the Adriatic or Bretagne).

Indeed, a paragraph below that assertion, Kaczanowski goes on to say that there were two different Veneti in Eastern Europe – a portion of the Balts (the Ptolemaic Veneti) and, what he seems to think, were the Slavs (the Tacitean and Jordanian Veneti – but these were really, really East he thinks!). Thus, he seems to then argue that the Veneti did not, in fact, mean a single people… even though a paragraph earlier he argued the opposite.

What this looks like is someone for whom the Ptolemeic Veneti of the Baltic were not East enough but the Veneti of Tacitus (and Jordanes – again, see below) were – or could be.

To the extent Kaczanowski relies on Tacitus and Jordanes against Ptolemy, such reliance is misplaced.

To give just a few regarding Tacitus:

it is absolutely unclear where Tacitus locates the Veneti – we know that they are located “where Suevia” ends. Where Suevia ends for Tacitus is itself not clear (that could mean as far West as the Elbe and the Oder) and it is possible that Tacitus did not know where the Veneti actually were.

there is zero evidence that the Veneti of Tacitus were different from the Veneti of Ptolemy.

the Veneti of Ptolemy, whose Geography is far more detailed – in matters of geography (vide name of the book) – than Tacitus’ ethnographic study, are located squarely on the Baltic Sea – e.g., he mentions the Venetic Bay – which, by the way, one could argue was the entire Baltic Sea.

Jordanes, on the other hand, describes the Veneti as being all over Central Europe, north of the Danube, but says little about how far North they reach (source of the Vistula at least). What’s more, if the Musian Lake really is Lake Constance/Bodensee then we would have his Slavs – in the sixth century – pretty much where they were in the centuries following.

The statement that written “sources clearly indicate” that there were two Veneti peoples in Central-Eastern Europe is BS of the smelliest kind.

And creating two people out of one is hardly the simplest solution and why that should be the case is left unclear – other than the fact that Ptolemy has the Veneti on the Baltic Sea, where Kaczanowski does not want them to be…

Kaczanowski points to the Stavanoi, Suebenoi and Serbs of Ptolemy as people that could be “with high likelihood” (where that high likelihood comes from is unclear) “connected” (whatever that means) with the Slavs. However, the information about such peoples comes from Ptolemy and neither Tacitus nor Jordanes says anything about the Veneti being any of these people or any of these people being Veneti. On the other hand, Ptolemy – Kaczanowski’s source for this information – locates the Veneti on the Baltic.

The silliness continues, of course:

Why are the Slavs of Jordanes “without a doubt” current Slavs?

Were the names of these Slavs really Slavic (whatever that means)? What language did they speak? The truth is that one can just as easily argue that these people were not the Slavs who live in most of Europe today. They appear to have come from Eastern Europe and may have been the offspring of Eastern Slavs – but were they related to Western Slavs? To Southern Slavs? For the most part they seem to have colonized the approaches to the Byzantine Empire and then, largely, been absorbed into the local population. Thus, even if they were – possibly – “brothers & sisters” they were not the ancestors of the vast majority of modern Slavs (though may have been the ancestors of some modern Greeks, Turks, Romanians and, of course Bulgarians).

Why does the assertion by Jordanes that the Veneti were conquered by the Goths mean in Kaczanowski’s view that this must have happened far away from the Baltic?

Weren’t the Goths on the Baltic before they spread to the Ukraine? And does not Ptolemy locate the Veneti on the Baltic? Or, if Kaczanowski really believes that the Baltic Veneti were not Slavs, why are the Veneti conquered by Goths the “Slavic” Veneti and not the Baltic ones?

There is only so much dishonest and stupid we can deal with so we won’t test the reader’s patience with the remaining portion of his writing (including an archeological survey of Vandalic trinkets).

In any event, Kaczanowski concludes that:

“the run of the [archeological] conference, the discussions that took place there, as too the substance of the published excerpts from it, indicate uniformly, that the opponents of the so-called “allochtonist” “Kraków School” do not possess any actual arguments that would speak against the Eastern European [i.e., somewhere in the Pripet Marshes?] cradle of the Slavs.”

Left to Right, Godłowski, Kossina and Kaczanowski – as they looked in better days

The only thing that can qualify as even worse junk science that we came across recently is Herwig Wolfram’s description of the origins of the Vandals. (We guess, the Vandals, even after all these years, bring out the worst in people).

The Perp’s Other Affiliations

Kaczanowski was a member of the Board of an organization about whose mission, we wrote previously – let us recite what they say about themselves:

“There is urgent [sic] need for a thorough new study of the cultural, social, ethnic, demographic and environmental transition observed in Central Europe during the Migration Period… Input from our Project is expected to essentially alter views commonly accepted in archaeology, late Antiquity and early medieval history, palaeodemography and palaeobotany, especially, on the causes and course of settlement in Central Europe on the turn of Antiquity and Middle Ages, demographic and ethnic processes, the extent of colonisation, destruction and regeneration of the natural environment. We expect a significant impact on the public in and outside Poland, particularly, their sense of identity which has its roots in the Migration Period, the time of the first medieval states established over the ruins of the Roman Empire and its periphery. The fictitious “proto-Slav past” of Poland will now be replaced with hard facts. By broadcasting the research results, both in traditional form (conferences, publications and exhibitions) and especially, in an interactive form (e.g., presentations on the web, including social networking sites, and also, during themed picnics), and through mass media, we expect to promote interest, especially of the younger generation, in past changes in civilisation for a better understanding of the modern age.”

(this is from the National Center for Science – this center is located in Poland but which “nation” it refers to is a matter of debate)

And Why That Matters

As per today’s New York Times, the “German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, took the unusual step of publishing a 10-point action program for Europe to avoid an open rift on migration policy. Brussels is not at fault, a senior German government official said Monday. Rather it is up to individual governments in the 28 European Union member states to persuade their publics to take in refugees and treat them well.”

Members of the Krakow School of Polish archeology attend a meeting with their boss

In other words, the European governments are not supposed to serve their own people but rather to take on new people (the same people that other European governments do not want). Or, put differently, the low-breeding German establishment with its Lügenmedien (German compound words are second to none!) do not want anymore migrants because they fear social upheaval and plan to dump them everywhere else, including, in Central Eastern Europe. Of course, these migrants do not really want to be in the poorer parts of the continent but once you put them in shelters and provide government assistance, the whole thing will be institutionalized. If Polish assistance could be made higher than German, a further incentive could be created. Of course, Central Europe can’t afford this but the German government may be willing to pay.

Given the relative birthrates and wealth gaps, was this not foreseeable? And if it was did not the Germans foresee it (this is a rhetorical question – people have been talking about these kinds of issues for decades). And if they have, have they acted to soften up Central European publics’ resistance to the concept? And, if so, when did they start acting? 1989? How was such softening done? By putting influential historians, archeologists, etc, on the bandwagon? How?

Reports are being made public wherein European agencies admit they cannot cope with the number of nutcases in their countries… Hardly surprising. Central Europeans have the distinct advantage – this time – to have gotten a clear warning. If experience of Western Europe is not something that can teach them to take care of themselves, nothing will. And they will, likely, not get another chance.

Final Thoughts

To be clear, we are not offended by the notion of the Slavs coming from somewhere East (in fact, we have recent posts such as this one suggesting some “Eastern” connections), from America or from Mars – but – this must be based on honest review of sources and not on the perceived needs of current politics, considerations of international relations, personal biases, axes that people want to grind or other, even less savory causes.

May Lugh or Loki have mercy on Kaczanowski’s soul.