{"id":4156,"date":"2015-09-25T20:00:39","date_gmt":"2015-09-25T20:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jassa.org\/?p=4156"},"modified":"2020-07-14T12:35:36","modified_gmt":"2020-07-14T17:35:36","slug":"4156","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jassa.org\/?p=4156","title":{"rendered":"Batavian Veleti – Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

We previously discussed<\/a><\/span> Dutch references to the Veleti or, more precisely, Wiltzi, as they were known to the Franks. \u00a0Such\u00a0mentions were made by the Venerable Bede and, perhaps, if you believe Safarik on this, by an even earlier source (to be discussed later). \u00a0The notion that there had been Slavs in Holland, however, continued after Bede and into the Middle Ages and beyond.<\/p>\n

\"worcum\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, during the late Middle Ages, we have the famous\u00a0Chronographia<\/strong>,\u00a0<\/i>Jan Beka\u00a0<\/strong>(or\u00a0Jan Beke<\/strong>)’s (Johannes de Beke or Beka) chronicle of “counts of Holland and the bishops of Utrecht” (or\u00a0Chronicon episcoporumTraiectensium et comitum Hollandiae<\/em>). \u00a0Beke who some think was a monk at the Egmond\u00a0Abbey (alternatively a canon at the Utrecht cathedral, or both) wrote his chronicle in (written in\u00a01343-1346<\/strong>) as a call to reconciliation between Utrecht<\/strong> and Holland<\/strong> (those were different back then) and, therefore, dedicated his work to\u00a0to Jan van Arkel, bishop of Utrecht (1342-1364) and William V of Bavaria, count of Holland (1346-1358). \u00a0The chronicle starts back in Roman times and continues until his day (i.e., through 1346). \u00a0Historians believe the chronicle to be a compilation of other material including the Melis Stoke (circa 1235 -circa 1305) chronicle of Holland (Rijmkroniek<\/i>, or the Rhyming Chronicle which was, in fact, written, in rhyme just as, e.g., the Dalimil Chronicle a sign of the times)\u00a0<\/i>and others (perhaps,\u00a0also Bede’s work).<\/p>\n

The Latin version of the chronicle was edited by other authors and parts were added to it up until 1393. \u00a0Antheun Janse states that it was translated into the Dutch vernacular about the year 1395. \u00a0It was then supplemented by additions\u00a0into the 15th century. \u00a0It proved popular since there are 20 known manuscripts in Latin, 21 in Dutch and seven\u00a0in French.<\/p>\n

Beka’s Story (& Where It Came From?)<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The\u00a0story that Beka tells us is one of a Roman town called Antonina<\/strong>. \u00a0 Antonina was founded by as well as named after Antonius, a refugee from Nero’s Rome. \u00a0According to Beka, the place was run by Antonius’ heirs up until various barbarians invaded the area coming from the Sea of Azov and Scandinavia. \u00a0Among the barbarians were the Slavs named Wilti\/Wiltzi who conquered\/lay waste all of Holland. \u00a0After some time, the Wiltzi conspired with the Frisians to conquer all of Gall. \u00a0However, the emperor Valentinian defeated them and cast down the castle of Wiltenburg. \u00a0Later the Frankish king Dagobert rebuilt the castle and had it called \u00a0Traiectum (Utrecht) in the Latin language.<\/p>\n

The most recent thorough interpretation of how this story came about is presented in the Czech historian’s Libu\u0161e Hrabov\u00e1<\/strong>‘s article\u00a0WIltenburg und der hollaendische Mythus von den Anfaengen <\/em>in\u00a0The Medieval Chronicle III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle (edited by Erik Kooper) (the conference was held in 2002 in, of course, Utrecht). \u00a0 We set out\u00a0what Libu\u0161e Hrabov\u00e1 discovered here below.<\/p>\n

First, she speculates that Jan Beka could have known that several miles east of Utrecht there were ancient Roman ruins. \u00a0The ruins had been subject to archeological most recently in 1994 (by Van Es en Hessing). \u00a0The archeologists had assumed the name of the town had been\u00a0Fectio<\/em>. \u00a0The reason for this assumption lay in the fact that, already in 1869, so writes\u00a0Hrabov\u00e1, an altar to Jupiter was found\u00a0in the area dedicated by Tungrian boatmen “who made up Fectio” (qui Fectionem\u00a0<\/em>consistuunt<\/i>). \u00a0The town nearby is called\u00a0Vechten<\/strong>\u00a0to this day.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Fort Vechten – site of the former Slavic Wiltenburg?<\/p><\/div>\n

However, the archeological digs in the area also discovered a civilian town – west of the Roman fortress. \u00a0It was there that in 1991 another altar was found dedicated to the Goddess\u00a0Fortuna\u00a0<\/em>by one Antonius Priscus:<\/p>\n

FORTVN(A)E<\/strong>
\nSACRVM<\/strong>
\nANTONIVS<\/strong>
\nPRISCVS<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a side note, we note that the reference to\u00a0raises another curious connection to the Wiltzi that Hrabov\u00e1 does not seem to have been aware of, namely the statement in William of Malmesbury<\/a><\/span>\u00a0Chronicle of the Kings of England: \u00a0“But the\u00a0Vindelici<\/strong>\u00a0worship fortune, and putting her idol in the most prominent location, they place a horn in her right hand, filled with Greek term we call ‘hydromel’.”\u00a0(Vindelici<\/strong>\u00a0vero Fortunam<\/strong> adorant;\u00a0cujus idolum loco nominatissimo ponentes, cornu dextrae illius componunt plenum potu illo quem [variant: quod] Graeco vocabulo, ex aqua et melle, Hydromellum vocamus.)<\/p>\n

Getting back to the matter at hand.<\/p>\n

Hrabov\u00e1 speculates that Jan Beka could have visited the ruins and could have seen this inscription since, as per the archeologists (Van Es en Hessing, p. 206), the ruins of the Roman fortress were even in the 16th century still recognizable above ground. \u00a0He, therefore, may have invented his Antonius from that inscription and Antonina from Antonius. \u00a0Of course, one could also view the inscription as some proof of his story – but for the name\u00a0Fectio<\/em> as found on the other altar. \u00a0Thus, Hrabov\u00e1 concludes that the Roman fortress did in fact exist but its name is questionable.<\/p>\n

Beka could also have learnt the name WIltenburg from the locals as\u00a0Hrabov\u00e1 surmises. \u00a0But he did not have to. \u00a0As she notes,\u00a0the name appears first before 732 in the work of the Venerable Bede – a topic we already discussed previously<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

The reference to the Wiltenburg appears again in the\u00a0Deeds of the Abbots of Fontenelle<\/strong> (Gesta abbatum Fontanellensium<\/em>)\u00a0from the 9th century – a fact which we mentioned earlier<\/a><\/span> as well. \u00a0Hrabov\u00e1 notes too that later chronicles (which we will mention later) – from the 9th -11th centuries – also note that Utrecht was earlier called Wiltenburg. \u00a0However, these\u00a0do not refer to the tribe of the Wiltzi anymore. \u00a0Hrabov\u00e1 notes that the first mention of the tribe again comes from the Chronicle of Sigebert de Gembloux<\/strong> (1030-1112)\u00a0who wrote that Bishop WiIlibrod’s (Willibrod’s story was the story told by the Venerable Bede) \u00a0seat was “in a place called Wultaburg that nowadays is called Wultrecht, composed from the name of the tribes Vultari and Traiecti” (“in loco Vultaburch dicto, qui nunc Vultraiectum dicitur, a nomine gents Vultarum et Traiecto compositum<\/em>“). \u00a0As\u00a0Hrabov\u00e1 observes, however, none of these references mention the Wiltzi as a Slavic<\/em> tribe.<\/p>\n

She notes that the Wiltzi (or Wilzi) appear as a Slavic tribe in the annals of the 8th-10th century – for the first time in 789. \u00a0(You can read all about that here<\/a><\/span>\u00a0– “From Aachen a campaign was launched with the help of God into the land of the Slavs who are called Wilzi”, etc.). \u00a0She then speculates that the name Wilti cannot be Slavic and may be a reference to the “Wild Ones” – in a Germanic language and that the Wilti called themselves Wilci – which may mean “wolves” or Veleti meaning many peoples – Wiele-ludzi (viele-leute) – which brings up the Vidivarii to mind. \u00a0Or the name may mean something similar to volot <\/em>which, in Russian, means a\u00a0giant. \u00a0And, here Hrabov\u00e1 notes something that we already suggested earlier<\/a><\/span>, the name is similar to the Celtic\u00a0veldt<\/i>\u00a0meaning “prophet”. \u00a0She also notes that, starting in the 11th century the name of the tribe was known as the\u00a0Lutici<\/em> meaning – supposedly – as much as “the fierce ones” – see, e.g., the Polish (but maybe also Saxon?) name for February – Luty<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0another\u00a0side note, the Croatian<\/em> name for February is Velja\u010da<\/em>\u00a0<\/b>– suggesting\u00a0\u00a0that the “fierce” etymology is correct even for the Veleti\/Wilzi name but that two words existed for the same concept – perhaps even simultaneously or perhaps Velja\u010da<\/em> is older. \u00a0Or perhaps the source is different…<\/p>\n

In any event,\u00a0Hrabov\u00e1 then proceeds to speculate how the name of the Slavic<\/em>\u00a0 Wiltzi\/Wilti\/Wilzi could have been transferred back to the Netherlands in time for Jan Beke to make it clear that these Wiltzi were Slavs. \u00a0She looks at a number of possibilities.<\/p>\n