Let’s go back to Pliny the Elder for a moment.  Pliny wrote the following in his “Natural History:” (4.27) as follows (from the John Bostock translation):

“We must now leave the Euxine to describe the outer portions of Europe.  After passing the Riphæan mountains we have now to follow the shores of the Northern Ocean on the left, until we arrive at Gades.  In this direction a great number of islands are said to exist that have no name; among which there is one which lies opposite to Scythia, mentioned under the name of Raunonia, and said to be at a distance of the day’s sail from the mainland; and upon which, according to Timæus, amber is thrown up by the waves in the spring season.  As to the remaining parts of these shores, they are only known from reports of doubtful authority.  With reference to the Septentrional or Northern Ocean; Hecatæus calls it, after we have passed the mouth of the river Parapanisus, where it washes the Scythian shores, the Amalchian sea, the word ‘Amalchian’ signifying in the language of these races, frozen.  Philemon again says that it is called Morimarusa or the “Dead Sea” by the Cimbri, as far as the Promontory of Rubeas, beyond which it has the name of the Cronian Sea.  Xenophon of Lampsacus tells us that at a distance of three days’ sail from the shores of Scythia, there is an island of immense size called Baltia, which by Pytheas is called Basilia.  Some islands called Oönæ are said to be here, the inhabitants of which live on the eggs of birds and oats; and others again upon which human beings are produced with the feet of horses, thence called Hippopodes. Some other islands are also mentioned as those of the Panotii, the people of which have ears of such extraordinary size as to cover the rest of the body, which is otherwise left naked.”

The source of the confusion

“Leaving these however, we come to the nation of the Ingævones, the first in Germany; at which we begin to have some information upon which more implicit reliance can be placed. In their country is an immense mountain called Sevo, not less than those of the Riphæan range, and which forms an immense gulf along the shore as far as the Promontory of the Cimbri.  This gulf, which has the name of the ‘Codanian,’ is filled with islands; the most famous among which is Scandinavia, of a magnitude as yet unascertained: the only portion of it at all known is inhabited by the nation of the Hilleviones, who dwell in 500 villages, and call it a second world: it is generally supposed that the island of Eningia is of not less magnitude.  Some writers state that these regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri, and the Hirri, and that there is a gulf there known by the name of Cylipenus, at the mouth of which is the island of Latris, after which comes another gulf, that of Lagnus, which borders on the Cimbri.  The Cimbrian Promontory, running out into the sea for a great distance, forms a peninsula which bears the name of Cartris.  Passing this coast, there are three and twenty islands which have been made known by the Roman arms: the most famous of which is Burcana, called by our people Fabaria, from the resemblance borne by a fruit which grows there spontaneously.  There are those also called Glæsaria by our soldiers, from their amber; but by the barbarians they are known as Austeravia and Actania.”

A number of things are interesting about this passage.  But before we can say anything of relevance let us start by noting what Pliny is talking about.  He says that he wants to “follow the Northern Ocean on the left” until he comes to Gades – which most think means the Spanish port of Cadiz.   And indeed the first above paragraph appears to take the view of a traveller on the “left” side of the ocean, i.e., where the coast is on the left and the ocean/water on the right as you move forward.  For that reason, it may be thought that the Amalchian Sea (Morimarusa) – consistent with Tacitus’ stagnant northern sea – is the northern Baltic. Perhaps the Gulf of Bothnia or of Finland or of Riga or some combination of these.  Continuing with this line of thinking we have the Cronian Sea as, perhaps, the Curonian Lagoon.  Whether the Amalchian Sea and the island of Baltia have anything to do with the Gothic ruling houses of the Amali and Balti, we leave up to the reader.  As also the question of whether the island of Raunonia could somehow refer to the Rani tribe.  We will note, however, that, after the above description Pliny deviates into the land of myth where some people have horse hooves and others have huge ears.

But what happens then?

Pliny says that “[l]eaving these however, we come to the nation of the Ingævones, the first in Germany; at which we begin to have some information upon which more implicit reliance can be placed.”  This is odd in that the “first” nation in Germany should have been the Istævones – at least if one were coming from the East, i.e., from Scythia.  The Ingævones dwelt on the fringes of the Northern Ocean, yes, but probably roughly around Belgium and Holland/Frisia.  At least that is where Tacitus places them.

So what is going here?

Of course, we can’t be sure for certain but it appears that Pliny has jumped to the coast of the North Sea – to, perhaps, somewhere near to the coast of Holland – and is now moving eastwards.

Let’s keep reading.

If we leave Mount Sevo (Suevus?) for another time and proceed on we hear about Pliny telling us about the Codanian Gulf – a gulf that is “filled with islands the biggest of which is Scandinavia.”  Here the “Co-danian” Gulf could be interpreted to mean, roughly, the Danish Gulf.   And indeed the Danish coast is full of islands that today constitute Denmark and it is also the coast closest to Scandinavia.

Here Pliny meanders describing Scandinavia and its Hilleviones before noting that some writers state “that these regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri, and the Hirri.”

Point 1: If indeed we are moving West to East then the words of regions “as far as the river Vistula” suggest that some form of Sarmati, the Veneti and the Sciri plus Hirri would have lived – likely moving from the southwest towards the northeast – up to the river Vistula.  If Vistula is the river we call today the Vistula* then we have the Veneti west of the Vistula.

But what about the report of the Sarmati?  Don’t they live in Sarmatia?  And don’t we know that Sarmatia is east of the Vistula?  Well, Sarmatia may be east of the Vistula but the people of Sarmatia do not become non-Sarmatians should they be found elsewhere (see the complaints of the writers of late antiquity about the invading Sarmatians (e.g., Alans) in Gaul, Italy, Spain, etc).  Indeed, the “Sarmatian” Iazyges did not live in Sarmatia but rather south of Pannonia – which also points to us beginning with the Sarmatians in the south and working our way up – past the Veneti – north to the Sciri and Hirri.

Incidentally, the Hirri are not known elsewhere, whereas we find the Sciri in the most ancient times – apparently in the west first and then rather eastwards and then somewhere around Pannonia – one can only say that they were all over the map (e.g., the Verona list from the early 4th century mentions them alongside the following peoples: “… Vandali Sarmatae Sciri Carpi Scythae Gothi Indii (!) …”).  Whether the Sciri were also related to the Finnic peoples is another mystery (Scrithifinni? – whether these have anything to do with the Polish word “skryty” as in “hidden” is yet another one).

* Although even if the Vistula were really the Oder, the above supposition could still prove correct (though it certainly would get tight in there!).

Moving on.

Then Pliny describes the “Cimbrian Promontory, running out into the sea for a great distance, [which] forms a peninsula which bears the name of Cartris.”  Now, the Cimbrian Promontory is commonly understood to be the Jutland Peninsula – forming the greater part of Denmark.  When Pliny then says that “passing” this coast, there are 23 islands known by the Roman arms could he possibly be talking precisely about the islands on the East side of Jutland?  If so, then his “most famous” isle of Burcana (aka Fabaria) could not be the island of Borkum.

But, you say, “Borkum” fits – it kind of sounds like Burcana.

It does.

Point 2: But so does Arkona.

If in the past Arkona were the name of the entire island of Ruegen – and not just the name of the Cape on Ruegen.

Which raises a question.  What does “from the resemblance borne by a fruit which grows there spontaneously” mean?  Does it mean that the island looks like a fruit?   Or does it mean simply that the island is known by the “fruit” that is grown there?  It would be strange if an island were both a hotspot for “fruit” production and also were to look like that fruit  – but hey stranger things have happened.

And what is that “fruit”?  That “fruit” is supposedly the bean but this is not certain.

Did beans grow on Borkum?  Did they on Ruegen?  Not recently but 2,000 years ago!

And if we go with the second version of this interpretation – the visual one – what looks more like the “fruit” after which Burcana was also named Fabaria – Borkum or Arkona?  Well, is this a reference to a bean or to something else?

This is how they look – today (!); the challenger:

the current champion:

and the real thing (if that is the thing!):

On the “looks” Borkum probably takes the prize but let’s not be so shallow…

In fact, it is also here – on the Baltic – that we would find the island Austeravia/Actania aka Glæsaria – so named for its amber.  That Austeravia should be on the Baltic can be argued either based on its Germanic etymology – pointing towards the “East” – or its Slavic one – pointing towards “ostrow”, i.e., “island” (supposedly only a “river” island but why that limitation?).  Furthermore, the same follows from the mention of amber.  (Although – as a matter of fact – amber may be found on the North Sea (and indeed in Sweden, the Netherlands and England), its primary “washing” grounds in antiquity were thought to be in the Baltic).

Pliny continues by noting in the next chapter: “The whole of the shores of this sea as far as the Scaldis, a river of Germany, is inhabited by nations, the dimensions of whose respective territories it is quite impossible to state, so immensely do the authors differ who have touched upon this subject.”  Thus, it seems impossible to use what follows to help us gauge the veracity of our musings.

PS we refuse to so much as even touch Pliny’s “Cylipenus”.  And, for more on Pliny and the Veneti see here.

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

We’ve already discussed the strange place names in Bretagne.  In fact, more than once.  But things get stranger yet.

That Breton is not a Slavic language is not something that is up for discussion.  And yet, we do have these strange signs:

That div means two as against the Slavic dva should not be surprising given the Indo-European nature of both types of languages.  But yezh means language as compared with, e.g., the Polish język is strange.  As per the infallible Wikipedians, the latter is derived from the Proto-Indoeuropean *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s whereas the former comes from the Proto-Celtic *yaxtī.  Presumably the Proto-Celtic should be derived from the Proto-Indoeuropean.  Yet, the Celtic descendants of  *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s are more on the “tongue” side, e.g., Old Irish tengae or, in fact, the Breton teod.  So where did the yezh come from?  

Incidentally, the -ek is an adjectival suffix – meaning it turns a noun into an adjective – in this case the noun yezh (language) into an adjective yezhek (lingual).  The addition of div (two) as a prefix turns this into divyezhek, meaning, of course, “bilingual”.  What is bilingual?  Well, in the above example the classes (Klasou).  The Slavic equivalent would be -owy/-owa/-owo.  And yet, even given all that, it is strange to see

• klasou divyezhek
• klasy dwujęzyczne or klasy dwujęzykowe

Compare that with bilingues.  Which of these look more related with one another?

Nor are these the only examples.  Take for example the phrase “what will you have to eat?”  In Breton it seems that “petra az po da zebriñ?” means “what would you like to eat?”  That is, to eat  in this case is zebriñ.  Now, in every Western Slavic language this word is reminiscent of “panhandle” or, to “beg for alms”, e.g., the Czech žebrat.  Of course, one can also beg for food.  (Brueckner derives all these from the German seffr meaning “wanderer” but is he right?  A “sufferer”?)  Another connection may be to “collect” or “take”, e.g., Polish zbierać.

Or take this genitive case example:

And what of this:

as compared with this:

Hardly a perfect match and yet, there is something to be said for this.  For the full map see here.

There are many such examples that are difficult to explain either geographically (the Germanic languages and the Latin French separate Slavic languages from Breton) or by reference to common Indo-European roots (see above).  Were the Veneti cloven asunder and all that remains in the West are these few words/phrases?  Or are the “true” Veneti the ones in Bretagne and what we are seeing in the East are merely the remnants?

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

For the proposition that Slav-Teutonic relations were not always just hostile (or at least not any more hostile than intra-Teutonic and intra-Slav relations we have to look no further than the Greater Poland Chronicle (end of the 13th century) where we read the following passages.  They also contain an interesting (if rather unlikely) interpretation of the name germani – later fully appropriated by the “Teutons”:

“It is worth knowing that Slavs and Teutoni are said to descend from two brothers, John and Russ [or Kuss] [themselves] descendants of Japheth, in accordance with what Isidore says in the first volume of his Etymologies and what Martin says in his Roman Chronicle.”*

(Scire autem dignum est, quod Slavi et Theutonici a duobus germanis, Japhet nepotibus, Jano et Russz, dicuntur habuisse originem, prout Isidorus in primo libro etymologiarum, et Martinus in Cronica romana videntur declarasse.)

* These names come from Genesis.  As for Isidore he says nothing about Slavs or Germans in volume I of his Etymologies.  The various nations are discussed first in volume V – where, however, Isidore does not mention Slavs.  He does mention the Sarmatians, the Alani, Alemanni, Lombards and Vandals before discussing the “Germanic” nations including, in their own section, the Suevi. (Book IX, 2, 98).  The reference to “Martin” is to Martin of Opava or Martin of Poland (Martinus Polonus) and his Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum.

“And now also to explain the name Germanorum.  The name comes from “german” because the one and the other is bound together with the blood of brotherhood [i.e., is related].  For “gerzmo” is a certain type of tool, in which two cattle are united pulling behind them a plough or a wagon.  And so too the Teutoni who have countries neighboring the Slavs, frequently interact with them and there are in the world no other nations who are so pleasant and friendly to one another as the Slavs and the Teutoni.  So too, from the Latin speakers comes the name Ducz [Deutsch], from which later comes Teutoni and Slavus from which comes the name Slavs, and then germane, that is brothers.”

(Item alia interpretatio Germanorum.  Dicitur a german, quia unus alterum fraternitatis consanguineitate attingebat.  Nam gerzmo est quoddam instrumentum, in quo duo boves simul juncti trahendo aratrum seu plaustrum incedunt.  Sic et Theutonici, cum Slavis regna contingua habentes, simul conversatione incdent, nec aliqua gens in mundo est sibi tam communis et familiaris, velut Slavi et Theutonici.  Sic etiam per Latinos Ducz a quo Theutonici, et es Slavus a quo Slavi, germani qui et fratres, sunt appellati etc.)

Of course, Venäjä in Finnish refers to Suavs (supposedly by way of the Teutons: “from Proto-Germanic *winidaz“). Curiously, though, in Estonian, the words for “brother/brothers” are vend/vennad. In Finnish, this is veli/veljet which, of course, sounds like Veltae/Wieleci/Veleti.

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

Michał z Janowca (Michaele de Janoviec) a monk at the monastery in Trzemeszno (Tremesno) wrote the following in his Polish sermons:

“And we strongly warn you not to walk around “with a mare” [i.e.,] with “kobylica” and if they should come to you from other parishes, do not give them quarter [in your parish/village] under penalty of excommunication.  And we prohibit most firmly that no one should dare walk [to get?] “dyngus” because so many people are soaked [drowned?].  And [as to] Holy Wednesday they may be admonished, not to burn [“candles” called] “gromadki“, in accordance with the pagan custom [and] in commemoration of souls of their loved ones.  And as to those who lie, who say that the souls go to such fire and there [they] warm themselves, [we may say] truly, no one leaves [such heresy], who has once gone there.”

(Item monemus vos firmissime ut non ambuletis per equam po kobylicy, Sz kobylicza et si de alijs parochijs ad vos veniunt, nolite eis quartenses dare et hoc sub anathemate iubemus.  Item depectationem po dynguszom prohibemus firmissime ut nullus audeat ambulare quia ita multi submerguntur.  Item feria quarta magna admoneantur, ne crement focos grumathky ardentes secundum ritum paganorum in commemorationem animarum suarum cariorum.  Item qui mentiuntur, qui dicunt quod anime ad illum ignem veniant et se illic calefaciant.  Nullus namque egreditur, qui semel ibi intraverunt).

Sermones Polonici a fratre Michaele de Janoviec scripti (towards the end of the XVth century).  The language of this version comes from Aleksander Brückner, Ueber die älteren Texte des Polnischen in Archiv für slavische Philologie, Volume 10, p. 385.

What can we say?  Old habits die hard!

Kobylica

Dyngus

Grumadki/Gromadki

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

Saskia Pronk-Tiethoff has recently published her study on “The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic”.  Despite some quibbling we have had with her concepts of a Proto-Slavic homeland, her book is very interesting and recommended to anyone interested in the topic.  One of the curious aspects of her work is what emerges once you tabulate some of the results as regards one categorization of each word.  Namely, assuming that Pronk-Tiethoff is correct that a particular word is in fact a borrowing from some Germanic language into Slavic, Pronk-Tiethoff’s work includes a designation of the source of such word.  In general, the designation is either a West-Germanic (WG) or Gothic (East Germanic or GO) or unknown Germanic (UG).

“Welcome to Europe Slavs! – here is what we call a radish”

We have no view on whether a particular word is a borrowing or whether it is correctly classified as either WG or GO or UG.  (e.g., she assumes that no borrowings exist from or into Proto-Germanic because no contacts existed between Slavs and Germanics until after the break up of the Proto-Germanic community – for present purposes we are willing to along with that assumption).  What we would like to highlight is what emerges.  We have followed her designations tallying the words as above plus two additional categories of “probable WG” and “probable GO”.  Where Pronk-Tiethoff vacillates we’ve made the call that seems to have been closest to her heart.  We did not include words that she considers as of uncertain origin (ones that “cannot be regarded as certain Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic).

Here is what we get:

• Uncertain Germanic (UG) – 19

• West Germanic (WG) – 21
  • probable WG – 12

• East Germanic/Gothic (GO) – 13
  • probable GO – 5

This (to us) seems strange.  If Gothic was really the first Germanic language that the Slavs came into contact with and, as Golab asserts, if the Slavs lived under Gothic domination or at least in contact with the Goths for about 600 years then one would have thought that the vast majority of the borrowings would be from GO not WG.

But maybe this reflects the fact that Slavs (after the freed themselves of Goths) lived a much longer time alongside of WG speakers?

• Except that, remember, we are talking about borrowings into Proto-Slavic, i.e., before the breakup of the Slavic linguistic community which would have been, at the latest, about 600 or so. 

But maybe these WG words represent concepts that did not exist during the Gothic-Slavic cohabitation?

• Except that it is difficult to claim that the types of WG words as are found in Slavic languages are the kind of words that naturally must have been borrowed after Slavs settled in their destination countries (e.g., redka – radish (originally from Latin into Germanic) or pila – saw).  One can see how words representing concepts obviously unknown to pre-medieval societies could not have come from Gothic but radishes?

Finally, were we to ask mainstream historians how Gothic words ended up in Proto-Slavic the answer they would produce is (given their assumptions) perfectly logical – all Slavs are posited by them to have been dominated by the Goths up to 400s-600s.  The much more difficult question is how words that are WG borrowings spread from WG dominated areas into all of Slavdom and done so sufficiently early to have made their way into Proto-Slavic (pre-600s).  No one amongst mainstream historians claims that all Slavs ever lived next to WG tribes.  So what’s the answer?

And then there is the question whether there is any variation among Slavic languages today between the West and East Germanic groups (note all those words are posited to have been present in Proto-Slavic but they are not all attested in all Slavic languages).

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

We have previously discussed the “Gallic” or Western Veneti here.  Earlier, we remarked on the fact that certain of the town names in the area sounded vaguely “Slavic”.  Looking at the map of Europe we also noted that – what is thought to be – the Slavic place name ending -in or -yn seems to be concentrated in that area as well.

So, we decided to look at some of those names in more detail.  We picked a name that was not only Slavic “sounding” but one whose meaning seemed potentially clear – Bubry.  Now, the word for “beavers” is the following in the following languages:

• bobr – bobři (Czech);
• bobor – bobry (Slovak);
• бобер (bober) – бобри (bobri) (Ukrainian);
• бобр (bobr) – бобры (bobry) (Russian);
• бабёр (babior) – бабры (babry) – Belarussian;
• bóbr (pron. ‘bubr’) – bobry (Polish);
• bober – bobri (Slovenian);
• бобър (bobŭr) – бобри (bobri) (Bulgarian);

The only versions that are significantly different are the following:

• dabar – dabrovi (Croatian);
• дабар (dabar) – даброви (dabrovi) (Serbian);

Mr. Beaverski, we presume?

What about other Indo-European languages?

The Baltic versions are:

• bebras – bebrai (Lithuanian);
• bebrs – bebri (Latvian);

The Germanic ones are also similar but they are different from the Slavic and Baltic versions (and are, naturally, more similar to one another):

• Biber – Biber (German);
• bever – bevers (Dutch);
• bæver – bævere (Danish);
• bäver (Swedish);
• bever (Norwegian);
• bifur (Icelandic);

Then there are the Latin versions which all somehow relate to the legend of Castor and Pollux:

• castor – castors (French and Catalan);
• castoro – castori (Italian);
• castor – castores (Spanish and Gallician);
• castor – castori (Romanian);
• κάστορας (kastoras) – κάστορες (kastores) (Greek);

Albanian and Basque are similar versions of Castor.

The other European (but not Indo-European) names are different:

• majava – majavat (Finnish);
• kobras – koprad (Estonian); (this one seems to be a borrowing from Latvian or Lithuanian)
• hód – hódok (Hungarian);

Bubry

Michèle Bourret’s  Le patrimoine des communes du Morbihan, Volume 1 gives the following etymology of the town name Bubry:

“Bubry, dit Beubri en 1282 et Buibry en 1454, dérive du breton bod-bri signifiant « bois sur une éminence » ou du gaulois beber signifiant « castor ». Une troisième hypothèse fait dériver Bubry du gallois buddoc et bri signifiant « victoire » et « célèbre ».”

“Bubry, called Beubri in 1282 and Buibry in 1454, derived from the Breton bod-bri meaning “wood on a hill” or the Gallic/Welsh beber meaning “beaver”.  A third hypothesis derives Bubry  from the Gallic/Welsh buddoc and bri meaning “victory” and “famous”.

So the Breton and the second Gallic/Welsh forms do not work for us but the Gallic/Welsh could work.*

* The actual Welsh/Welsh version is afanc.

Except that Bubry looks and sounds more like the Slavic versions of the same than like  beber (that form is similar to the Germanic versions of “beaver”).

There are at least three reasons for this:

• the “u” is found in the Polish singular ó;
• the “r” immediately follows the “b” just like in all the Slavic plurals of the word (this is also true for the Baltic versions);
• the final letter (sound?) “y” is matched in the Polish, Slovak, Russian and Belarussian versions indicating the plural form;

So what does this mean?  Maybe nothing.  We should ask what is the Indo-european etymology of this word?  We were lazy so we just looked at the Online Etymology Dictionary which can be found at http://www.etymonline.com.  It is a reasonable compendium of several sources.  So what does it say about beavers?

“Old English beofor, befer (earlier bebr), from Proto-Germanic *bebruz (cognates: Old Saxon bibar, Old Norse bjorr, Middle Dutch and Dutch bever, Low German bever, Old High German bibar, German Biber), from PIE *bhebhrus, reduplication of root *bher- (3) “brown, bright” (cognates: Lithuanian bebrus, Czech bobr, Welsh befer; see bear (n.) for the likely reason for this).”

(There are other gynecological explanations of this word but we assume that they carry no relevance for the present question).

So maybe some of this can be explained by common Indoeuropean source for the Slavic and the, dare we say, Western Venetic versions of “beaver”?

Maybe.  But…

it is – at the very least – interesting that the Slavic (followed by Baltic) should provide the closest match for – what may have been derived from – the “Western Venetic”.

Of course, more than likely these musings amount to nothing.  Perhaps Bubry, in fact, does mean something unrelated to beavers?  Perhaps that wooded hill or something like that?

Although there is that other word.  What was it? Podaile?

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

The so-called “Prague Document” is not actually a document.  It is a description of an alleged document supposedly issued in 1086 by Emperor Henry IV confirming the boundaries of the Bishopric of Prague.  The confirmation, however, refers to the state of things as of the year 973. Whether such an original document existed and whether Henry IV “reconfirmed” it, we do not know.  It is possible that Cosmas, a Czech patriot, made the story up.  On the assumption that he did not, however, and that such a document actually did exist or that, at least, Cosmas’ Chronicle is correct in the general description of the boundaries of the Prague Bishopric, we have a situation whereby Cracow is part of the Prague Bishopric – at least as of 973.  If this is true, it is also possible that Cracow was not conquered by Mieszko I or Boleslaw Chrobry until later (of course, it is also possible that the bishopric boundaries did not match the political boundaries).  The document also lists various tribes (including Croats) that, allegedly, lived in the area of Bohemia and, apparently, southern Poland at the end of the 10th century.

In any event here it is.  This version is from the Lisa Wolverton translation (pictures are from the Budišínský rukopis (Budisin/Bautzen manuscript) of the Cosmas Czech Chronicle, from the manuscriptorium).  We have circled the actual “document” in red and the text of the same is also in red.  The boundaries’ description of the bishopric of Prague are in bold red.  We also include the Latin version of the description.

“With the august Emperor Henry III ordering it and carrying it out, a great synod was celebrated in the burg of Mainz.  With four archbishops and twelve bishops (whose names we will tell later) in residence there, together with abbots of monasteries and the rest of the faithful, they confirmed in writing many decrees concerning the status of the holy church.  At this assembly, with all the leading men of the empire – dukes, margraves, satraps, and bishops – agreeing and praising it, the caesar set Vratislav, duke of the Czechs, over both Bohemia and Poland.  Placing the royal crown on his head with his own hand, Henry ordered the archbishop of Trier, named Egilbert, to anoint him king in his seat, the metropolis of Prague, and place the diadem on his  head.

At this same council, Bishop Gebhard of Prague produced written documents of his ancient complaint concerning the aforesaid Moravian bishop, John.  Although John had already departed this world that same year, taking care nevertheless for the future, the aforesaid Bishop Gebhard, acting through friends, beat on the emperor’s ear so that another bishop might not find himself in the same position.  He unrolled before everyone the privilege from Bishop Adalbert, his predecessor, confirmed by both Pope Benedict and Emperor Otto I.  Moved by the entreaties of Duke Vratislav, the brother of Bishop Gebhard, and on the advice of Archbishop Wezilo of Mainz and other good men, the emperor, who supported justice, added a new privilege of almost the same tenor as the old one.  He confirmed it with his imperial sign, as will be shown in the following.  We do not consider it superfluous if we insert the form of this privilege here in our work.  It contained this text or something like it:

‘In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity.  Henry III [really IV], with divine mercy supporting him, august emperor of the Romans.  We know it to befit the royal title and imperial dignity for us, helping to benefit of God’s churches everywhere, to ward off their damage and injury wherever necessary.  Therefore, we wish it to be known to all those faithful to God and our realm, both resent and future, how our faithful Bishop Gebhard of Prague has often to his confreres and fellow bishops as well as the rest of our princes, and most recently to us complained that the bishopric of Prague, which was established from the beginning singular and whole throughout the duchy of Bohemia and Moravia, having been confirmed as such by both Pope Benedict and Emperor Otto I, was later with the consent of his predecessors and by the poet of tyranny alone divided and diminished by the enthronement of a new bishop within his boundaries.  At Mainz, before legates of the apostolic see, and with us and many of the leading men of our realm present, he raised the same complaint.  By Archbishops Wezilo of Mainz, Sigewin of Cologne, Egilbert of Trier, and Liemar of Bremen, Bishop Dietrich of Verdun, Conrad of Utrecht, Ulrich of Eichstatt, Otto of Regensburg, and with the assent of the laymen Duke Vratislav of the Czechs and his brother Conrad, Duke Frederick, Duke Lutold, Count Palatine Rapoto, and all those gathered there, it was judged that the original diocese within the full extent of its borders pertains to the see of Prague.  

Its boundaries to the west are these: Tuhost, which extends to the middle of the River Chub, Sedlec and Lucane and Decane, Litomerice, and Lemuzi to the middle of the forest which delimits Bohemia.  From there to the north, these are the boundaries:  Psovane, Charvati and the other Charvati, Slezane, Trebovane, Bobrane, and Dedosane to the middle of the forest where the boundaries meet the Milcane.  To the east, it has three rivers as boundaries: namely the Bug and the Styr with the burg of Cracow and the province whose name is Wag with all the regions pertaining to the aforesaid burg, i.e., Cracow.  Expanded, it proceeds to the boundaries of the Hungarians, up to the mountains whose name is Tatra.  Then, in that area that looks to the south, having added the region of Moravia up to the  River Wag and to the middle of the forest whose name is More, that same diocese extends to the mountains of Bavaria is bounded.

(Termini autem eius occidentem versus hii sunt: Tugast, qui tendit ad medium fluminis Chub, Zelza, Zedlica, Liusena, Dasena, Liutomerici, Lemuzi vsque ad mediam sylvam, qua Bohemia limitatur. Deinde ad aquilonalem hii sunt termini: Psouane, Chrouati et altera Chrouati, Zlasane, Trebouane, Boborane, Dedosese usque ad mediam sylvam, qua Milcianorum occurrunt termini. Inde ad orientem hos fluvios habet terminos: Bug scilicet et Ztir cum Krakouia civitate, provinciaque, cui Wag nomen est, cum omnibus regionibus ad praedictam urbem pertinentibus, que Krakou est. Inde Ungarorum limitibus additis, usque ad montes, quibus nomen est Tritri, dilatata procedit. Deinde in ea parte, quae Meridiem respicit, addita regione Moravia usque ad fluvium, cui nomen est Wag, et ad mediam sylvam, cui nomen est Mudre, et eiusdem montis, eadem Parochia tendit qua Bavaria limitatur.)

 And so, with us mediating and he common vote of the princes favoring it, it was ordered that Duke Vratislav of Bohemia and his brother, Conrad, should return to the aforesaid bishop of Prague, their brother, the diocese requested in its entirety and reendow it by judicial order.  Accordingly, rationally persuaded by the request of the same bishop, we confirm for him and his successors the reintegration of the diocese of Prague by proclamation of our imperial authority and fix it inviolably, decreeing that no person of any condition and no society of men should later presume to alienate from the church of Prague any rights within the aforesaid boundaries.  In order that the authority of this reintegration and confirmation remain firm and unchanged for all time, we ordered this charter drawn up and sealed with the impression of our seal, confirming it by our own hand, as it appears below.  Given on 29 April 1086, in the eighth indiction, in the twenty-second year of Lord Hnery’s reign as king, and his third as emperor.‘

I saw the caesar write this sign himself with his own hands on the privilege of the Prague episcopate.

Likewise in the same year, with Emperor Henry mandating it and Archbishop Wezilo of Mainz intervening through the papal legates who were present at the same council, Lord Pope Clement corroborated by his privilege the bishopric of Prague with the aforesaid boundaries.  (Bishop Gebhard was also urgently asking and suggesting it htroygh his chaplain named Albinus, whom he had sent with the papal legates from Mainz to Rome on this same matter.)In the same yea, on 9 June, Duke Otto of Moravia, the brother of Duke Vratislav of Bohemia, died.

Meanwhile, Archbishop Egilbert of Trier, obeying the emperor’s orders, came to the metropolis of Prague on 15 June.  Among the holy solemnities of the Mass, he anointed Vratislav, dressed in royal bands, as king and placed a diadem on both his head and that of his wife Svatava, wrapped in a royal robe – with the clergy and all the satraps crying out three times: ‘Life, health, and victory to Vratislav, Czech king as well as Polish king, great and peaceable, crowned by God.  On the third day after this, enriched with an immense weight of gold and silver and endowed with other gifts and presents (in accordance with royal grandeur), the archbishop went home happy and with great honor.”

 Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

Before we go back to our puzzle, we wanted to take a quick look at Ptolemy’s description of Sarmatia.  Ptolemy says:

“The Greater Venedae races inhabit Sarmatia along the entire Venedicus bay; and above Dacia are the Peucini and the Basternae; and along the entire coast of Maeotis are the Iazyges and the Rhoxolani; more toward the interior from these are the Amaxobi and the Scythian Alani.  Lesser races inhabit Sarmatia near the Vistula river.  Below the Venedae are the Gythones, then the Finni, the the Sulones;”

One way to approach the above paragraph would be to say that all of the above tribes are Venedae.  The main objection must be that the tribes listed above are not “along the entire Venedicus bay” if by that we mean the Bay of Gdansk or even the Baltic Sea.  In fact, many are nowhere near either of those locations.  And yet this reading seems natural.

Ptolemy then comes back to the Venedicus bay saying:

“Back from the Ocean near the Venedicus bay, the Veltae dwell, above whom are the Ossi; then more toward the North the Carbones and toward the east are Careotae and the Sali; below whom…”

Another way to look at this is to say that these are the Venedae (the list continues after the Sali to include many other tribes).

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

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?

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved