Mommsen was a giant (Avar?) in his field, recognized as such even by other giants themselves (e.g., Mark Twain). \u00a0We will not delve into his interpretations of\u00a0Getica<\/em> here for that is not the time but we do bring him up because he is representative of a certain attitude that has, shall we say, infected, the topics we are studying here. \u00a0With that said, let us briefly look at Mommsen’s persona before looking closer at the words and arguments of his spiritual\u00a0Nachfolger<\/em>\u00a0as relates to Jordanes and the Venethi.<\/p>\n Mommsen\u00a0was, of course, like all methodical German (though he was Danish) scientists of the time, an unbiased,\u00a0scientific,<\/em>\u00a0source on all things ancient and this, very much in contradistinction to the various Czech and other Slavic hysterio-nationalists. \u00a0His unbiased views were best expressed by the master himself\u00a0in\u00a0the Vienna Neue freie Presse <\/span>on October 31, 1897, when he called the Czechs \u2018\u2018apostles of barbarism<\/strong>\u2019\u2019 who would swamp German cultural achievements in \u2018\u2018the abyss of their Unkultur<\/span><\/strong>.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n At this opportunity, he also provided some useful advice – to be taken up by\u00a0future Viennese – by noting that the German response to the Czechs had to be tough, because \u2018\u2018the Czech skull is impervious to reason, but it is susceptible to blows<\/strong>.\u2019\u2019 It is unclear, whether Mommsen\u00a0reached this conclusion relying purely on his formidable deductive powers or whether actual experimentation was\u00a0conducted.<\/p>\n Be that as it may,\u00a0this incident reveals Mommsen as proudly belonging not merely to\u00a0the “wie es eigentlich gewesen” <\/i>school of\u00a0history\u00a0writing\u00a0but also to\u00a0the “wie\u00a0es mit dir geshehen wird, wenn du eben nicht…<\/em>” school of futurology. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n His multiple talents unquestioned, let us leave Mommsen to his proper due and look at some of the Mommsense<\/em> that cannot be laid on the shoulders of the master but rather has to be placed with his current disciples.<\/p>\n Theodor Moominsen – winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature (1902) – facing the demons of his own Unkultur<\/p><\/div>\n At the beginning, we note that\u00a0there seems to be an inverse relationship (and a logarithmic one at that) between time passed from the drafting of Getica<\/em> and the number of brave academicians willing to assert that they know better\u00a0wie es eigentlich gewesen<\/i>\u00a0ist<\/em>\u00a0than the people who lived in those days. \u00a0We understand, of course, that to exist, even if for only the alloted fifteen minutes and, even if only in academia, one has to publish.<\/p>\n And we most certainly ascribe these (in our view) biases to the world of academia and most certainly not to the fact that some publishers of this kind of stuff may or may not be German (or, err… Austrian) with names like the Oesterreichische\u00a0Akademie der\u00a0Wissenschafen<\/em>, Franz Steiner Verlag<\/em>, etc, etc, etc. \u00a0Certainly no one has shown that any such publication houses or their authors are or have ever taken any monies from or were given any tax-breaks by the German (and related) government(s) (though, let’s be honest, if they have, so what, really?).<\/p>\n On the other hand, matters being discussed here being important, it would seem prudent to take greater care with facts, sources and, especially, interpretations. \u00a0 In discussing, any of this it is important most of all to honestly say what we do know and what we do not know. \u00a0We do know what Jordanes wrote. \u00a0The list of what we do not know is far longer.<\/p>\n On the Detraction of Jordanes<\/strong><\/p>\n Up front let us note something. \u00a0It is certainly true, as some would have it that the fact that the Venethi are found where later the people now called the Slavs are found does not mean that the latter are the descendants of the former (note, again, we do not care about linguistic descendants here – just real ones).\u00a0However<\/strong>, given that we all agree they do occupy the same space just at different points in time, it then seems to us that the burden of establishing that they are not<\/em> the same people should shift to the proponents of the allochtonous theories. \u00a0It is\u00a0incumbent on these folks\u00a0to show both:<\/p>\n 1) what happened to the Venethi – where did they go, these “populous tribes”? and also<\/p>\n 2) where did the Slavs come from to replace them (these also so populous tribes)?<\/p>\n While many attempts have been made to establish the second point, the academic literature is completely silent on the very first question (though, of course, Jordanes does provide hints).<\/p>\n Now let us examine the claims against Jordanes.<\/p>\n We are told that Jordanes\u00a0is generally “unreliable.” \u00a0This is quite a claim given that Jordanes posits\u00a0to be related to the Amal house of Theodoric and having his own grandfather (and possibly father) serve this Gothic house. \u00a0Indeed an Ostrogoth (or Alan in some tellings) such as Jordanes telling this story adds credibility to his claims. \u00a0For one thing he would have had inside knowledge and understanding (certainly compared to Procopius) both as a result of his\u00a0ethnos<\/i>\u00a0and, more specifically, as a result of his family’s connections. \u00a0But also, as\u00a0an\u00a0Ostrogoth – whose people \u00a0had conquered the Venethi (and plenty of others it seems) – Jordanes would have had no reason to sugarcoat anything related to the Venethi or to try to establish an “ancient past” for them – his entire attitude towards them seems to be quite neutral and unbiased. \u00a0Short of having an actual Slav or Antae come forth and tell us the story, any reasonable person will have to agree that Jordanes is the best one could wish for.<\/p>\n We are told that Jordanes’\u00a0Getica<\/em> is based on the Cassiodorus longer Chronicle. \u00a0In his preface, Jordanes, however, mentions only a book belonging to a certain Senator as being a source of much of Getica<\/em>. The word Cassiodorus does not appear in the Getica at all. \u00a0Therefore, discussing the faults and abilities of Cassiodorus in the context of\u00a0Getica<\/em> is mere speculation. \u00a0This speculation comes from Mommsen and is based on the reference to “written records” of the Goths. \u00a0The fact that Ablabius (note the name – think Laba\/Elbe)\u00a0is cited as being one of the Gothic authors seems to not have mattered to Mommsen.<\/p>\n We are told, on the other hand, that it be likely that certain passages of Getica<\/em> are simply Gothic oral tradition or have been just made up. \u00a0But for this there is also no proof other than speculation. \u00a0In fact, we know written sources were involved and we know some were oral and we also know that Jordanes filled in some blanks – we know all this because he comes out and says so – and not after water torture but right up front. \u00a0The question of which passage is attributable to which source, however, is the kind of thinking that people in the real world do not spend\u00a0time on,\u00a0for they know that any answer must necessarily be composed of high quantities of hot air.<\/p>\n We are told that, as to the Venethi, Jordanes used two different sources (at least). \u00a0Whether that should matter or not (isn’t more better, at least sometimes?) is here beside the point. \u00a0The current point is that the only evidence of this is that the “same” river (pol<\/em>)\u00a0Wisla is referred to as Vistula, then Viscla, then Vistula again in the same paragraph (elsewhere it’s Visclae). \u00a0 This, however, assumes that Vistla\/Viscla and Vistula in fact were the same river in the Romans’ minds. \u00a0But were they? \u00a0(Pliny says only that Visculus sive Vistla)<\/em> Further, were they\u00a0the same in\u00a0Jordanes’ mind? \u00a0(One also ought to ask about the minds of the scriveners since we only have late copies of the Getica<\/em>). \u00a0If so, then he seems to have been rather sloppy. \u00a0If not, then regardless of the names, what does that tell us? \u00a0There is, however, no easy and clear line here to concluding that Jordanes used more than one source for this passage. \u00a0(See below regarding maps – we are not discussing that here since a coup d’grace<\/em> this early on would not be as delicious as it ought to be).<\/p>\n We are told, recently, that somehow Jordanes wrote in opposition to Procopius. \u00a0The discussion of the Venethi seems to have become wrapped into this interpretation. \u00a0 But there is nothing to suggest that Jordanes’ stature (and the stature of his sponsor we can only guess at) was anywhere near that of Procopius – or that Procopius who was a senator would even have noticed . \u00a0The Venethi, Slavs and Antae of Jordanes and the Slavs and Antae of Procopius are side stories, at best. \u00a0If one were to want to have an argument with Procopius, it would seem strange to have one on such a side issue. \u00a0It is also unclear whether Procopius (or anyone) would have even noticed what Jordanes wrote (he was not a bishop or at least there is no proof of his position as other than that of a monk).<\/p>\n We are told that Jordanes is not consistent (and, therefore, either ignorant, making things up or ill informed) by first discussing the Antae and Sclavenes as two separate categories of the archetype Venethi but then referring to each of the three names as separate peoples. \u00a0But this is just silly. \u00a0Jordanes is clear that there was one group called the Venethi before, the new people are\u00a0chiefly<\/em> called Sclavenes and Antes. \u00a0But that implies that\u00a0there are\u00a0also others. \u00a0This is no different than the practice of medieval scholars who, once these identities have crystallized, would describe Czechs and Poles as separate peoples of the Slavs but would refer to the other Slavs who seemed to lack a permanent polity, simply as Slavs (or Wends). \u00a0In fact, the progression is visible since the initial Frankish authorship discusses Slavs (including Mieszko and Boleslaw in Poland) only as Slavs but later German scholars speak of Czechs, Poles, Carinthians, Russians and other Slavs with the Slavs now acting basically as a residual category. \u00a0That there were other tribes of the type “Slav” at the time is attested to by Procopius who, in discussing the return trip of the Heruli<\/em> states that they went back through the lands of the various tribes of the Slavs. \u00a0These other Venethi may have had other specific names that Jordanes was not aware of or they may have just called themselves Venethi. \u00a0This seems hardly surprising. \u00a0(And to be clear, we are not<\/em> claiming that the Venethi were\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0“Ur-Slavic” tribe as opposed to one general designation for a whole bunch of separate groups).<\/p>\n We are told that the name Venethi was not in then current\u00a0“common”\u00a0use (in the 500s) the way that Jordanes states it was. \u00a0This is a bizarre claim and one only needs to read\u00a0Getica<\/em> to see that… Jordanes at least used the term. \u00a0But seriously, Jordanes does not say that the Venethi was to be applied to the people raiding Roman territory. \u00a0A normal reading of his Venethi passage suggests a rather unremarkable conclusion. \u00a0Venethi were the progenitors of Antae and Slavs. \u00a0There may be other people Venethi whose names Jordanes does not know. \u00a0Such other Venethi may be smaller tribes attached to Antae or Slavs but the umbrella group Venethi are also\u00a0people who may\u00a0currently (in the 500s) be living back in the old Venethi haunts on the Baltic. \u00a0(Further, whether they do or not, is irrelevant since the claim that they do is entirely separate from the claim that the Slavs and Antae derived from the Venethi). \u00a0To be more blunt, how many other authors of the sixth century do we have that discuss Slavs in any level of anthropological detail including their background? \u00a0Other than Procopus and Jordanes, none. \u00a0So, 1\/2 of those authors discussing these topics used the name Venethi, the other 1\/2 used the name Spori. \u00a0To talk about “common usage” of a term\u00a0when the topic itself is at best obscure and talked about by a sample size of two authors is to waste everyone’s time.<\/p>\n We are told\u00a0that somehow and for some reason Jordanes wanted to attach the currently relevant tribes of Slavs and Antes to the Venethi. \u00a0 But the question is why would that have mattered to Jordanes? \u00a0And, if this was a major point, why make it as a side reference in the book on Goths? \u00a0If it really mattered to Jordanes to show that nothing changes beyond the frontiers of the Empire, he certainly could have written more about that.<\/p>\n To claim that\u00a0the Venethi were of\u00a0any<\/em> interest to Jordanes is to leave the realm of reality and enter a twilight zone of speculation. \u00a0Everything that Jordanes wrote suggests that the Venethi were, to him, a minor reference in a minor paragraph in one of his works concerning itself with an entirely different topic – the Goths (vide<\/em> the title of the book) – he was not focused on the Venethi except as related to the Antes and Slavs and, he wasn’t very focused on the Antes and the Slavs either. \u00a0It is also for that reason, that there does not seem to be any reason for him to have lied or misstated facts related to the Venethi. \u00a0Would he have called the victor over the Antes,\u00a0Vinitharius <\/em>just to spice up his lies?<\/p>\n Moreover, in his other work Romana<\/em> which does not deal with the Goths he limits himself only to discussing Slavs and Antae but if he were interested in stressing this connection why not throw it in, in Romana<\/em> as well?<\/p>\n Of course, it is also possible that Jordanes was an entirely faithful compiler of partially\u00a0untrustworthy sources. \u00a0The problem with saying anything about this, however, is that we are now speculating about the veracity of sources not only not in our possession but ones whose identity or even whose very fact of existence is, to put it generously, uncertain.<\/p>\n We are told that the episode of Boz comes from oral tradition applied to the Antes. \u00a0But there is no basis for this assertion. \u00a0We are alternatively told that it must have had a Greek source (as opposed to Cassiodorus) because of the Anti<\/i> spelling used there by Jordanes is Greek and there is no evidence that Cassiodorus spoke Greek. \u00a0But Jordanes spoke Greek and there is no reason not to think that he could have switched back and forth between Latin and Greek as regards personal names. \u00a0Moreover, as per above, we do not even know whether Cassiodorus’ chronicle was a source used by Jordanes. \u00a0Even if it was to speculate now as to what languages Cassiodorus spoke seems rather silly – we do know, or at least we think we know, that he went to Constantinople at some point after the collapse of Theodoric’s kingdom – would he have done so, had he not known how to communicate with the appropriate social strata?<\/p>\n Who knows.<\/p>\n All we know is that Jordanes says what he says. \u00a0And we do not even know that because no original autographed manuscripts exist – the most ancient one seems to have burned down in Mommsen’s house and the other ones may well have been written by Greeks.<\/p>\n What about\u00a0the title Vinitharius<\/em>, “conqueror of the Venethi” as applied\u00a0to Boz and the Antes?<\/p>\n We are told that the Boz episode Jordanes (or others, in turn, copied by Jordanes) have copied from the account of Ammianus Marcellinus’ discussion of Vithimiris’ war on the Alans, thereby giving the Antes a “pre-history”. \u00a0(Incidentally, a discussion on “Gothic” names may well be in order soon too). \u00a0 However,\u00a0Jordanes, who did not seem to have had much pride in authorship (listing elsewhere several sources he used), at no point claims to have used\u00a0Marcellinus<\/em>. \u00a0Moreover,\u00a0there is no evidence that Vithimiris was Vinitharius. \u00a0But let’s say we are taking about the same person.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Vithimiris may well have fought both the Alans and the Antes (the crucifixion was not in Marcellinus<\/em> and neither is the name Boz<\/i>). \u00a0Or maybe the Alans were also of the Antes or the Antes of the Alans (see, e.g., “Slavs who were previously called Alans” or the claims that Antes may not have been Slavs sensu stricte <\/em>whatever that means).<\/p>\n Further, at a minimum Jordanes (or someone before him) would have had to have invented the title\u00a0Vinitharius <\/em>and,\u00a0likely, also the name Boz <\/em>(BTW if Boz is not a Slavic name then we can conclude rather safely that not only\u00a0Slavs were\u00a0not Venethi but also that Slavs never existed and continue not existing to this day [3]).<\/p>\n We have even seen people claim that Vinitharius was a real title but seeing the Antes (and not the Venethi) and needing to explain the inconsistency of their whooping at the hands of Vinitharius, Jordanes went back and\u00a0fabricated the earlier section on the Antes, Slavs and Venethi.<\/p>\n When asking as\u00a0to why Jordanes (or someone prior to him) would have had an interest in such petty fabrications\u00a0we ought\u00a0expect no answers and we receive none.<\/p>\n And this is quite aside from the fact that, as per Jordanes, he had about three days to summarize the entire chronicle he was copying. \u00a0Perhaps he could think quickly on his feet and make up the most elaborate contortions but (there is a reason why police interrogators want to get a suspect talking ASAP\u00a0after his capture) it is just as likely that, strapped for time, he copied more than he made up.<\/p>\n We are, finally, told that he must have used multiple maps – one “normal” and one being of the Peutinger<\/em> non-projection type. \u00a0This is because the Slavs were, according to Jordanes, bound by the Vistula on the North and also because different spellings of Vistula were used by our noble author. \u00a0We are then told that Jordanes\u00a0was a good Christian and respectful of past authority (but, apparently a fibber or, at least, a slob) and, faced with irreconcilable inconsistencies in his maps, his brow sweating with confusion and steam coming out of his ears like an android on instruction-overload kept repeating “error, error, error” while writing nonsense in his pages of the Getica<\/em>.<\/p>\n Jordanes, though not in the best of health, never suffered from any documented\u00a0cases of exploding head<\/p><\/div>\n There is no evidence for any of this, however. \u00a0We know exactly nothing<\/strong> <\/span>as to what maps (if any) Jordanes used.<\/p>\n An actual case of a Delusiosa\u00a0Grandiosa Explosiosa<\/p><\/div>\n Moreover, the reference of the Sclaveni’s domains extending as far north as the Vistula is entirely consistent with a “regular” map being used. \u00a0Vistula, both lower and upper, is north of something. \u00a0That something (which happens to be Moravia\/Pannonia) in turn is where Jordanes locates his Slavs. \u00a0A sideways, “east is up” map is entirely unnecessary for this statement to make sense. \u00a0Neither is a Peutinger<\/em>-type map necessary. \u00a0Moreover, for the claim of Jordanes’ being confused to work, one would also have to argue that not only did Jordanes use an east is up or Peutinger map but also that he did not appreciate the fact that on such a map north was really “left”. \u00a0We do not know who Jordanes’ taskmaster was but, if all of that were\u00a0true, one has to seriously question the judgment of this unfortunate patron.<\/p>\n It is, of course<\/em>, possible that Jordanes used one, two or a billion\u00a0maps of entirely different projections but to derive such a conclusion from the word Vistla versus Vistula and the statement that the Venethi were bound by a river on the north, seems, to us, a bit much.<\/p>\n But this stuff actually does raise an interesting point…<\/p>\n Venethi on the Peutinger Map<\/strong><\/p>\n The Peutinger<\/em>\u00a0Map has been alleged to be based on an early fifth century or maybe even early third century map. \u00a0We will not quibble with such eminently sagacious assertions. (Of course, such versions could have been changed over time, etc). \u00a0Instead,\u00a0let’s take a look at what we have…<\/p>\n And look we can – now – because the Peutinger<\/em> Map, being item 324 in the Codex Vindobonensis<\/strong> \u00a0(named after Vienna aka Vindobona, an ironic nomen omen<\/em>\u00a0name, it seems to us, given this current exercise) has been generously (and recently) digitized and placed on the Internets<\/em>. \u00a0This, we think, will have a healthy, democratizing effect on the state of the research in this area…<\/p>\n So what does the Peutinger<\/em> Map show regarding the Venethi?<\/p>\n First, there are at least three Venethi tribes shown on the map. \u00a0We will ignore, for now, the Venethi of Gall (and Wales) whose ships fought Ceasar (see 1A2 on the map) . \u00a0This leaves us with two other Venethi.<\/p>\n These include the Venethi of the Danube (Venedi) (7A4):<\/p>\n But they also include the Venethi of Sarmatia (Venadi) (7A1):<\/p>\n![\"momsense\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.jassa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/momsense.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n