Category Archives: Vandals

Jaryło

PublishedApril 26, 2020 Post authortorino

Although information about Jaryło, under that name, comes from rather late sources – 18th and 19th centuries – the feasts of the East Suav Jarilo (Polish Jaryło though that specific name is not attested in Poland – rather we have Jasza or Jesza or Jasień) are easily recognizable in earlier recorded festivities. Perhaps the best Western source on the topic is Felix Haase and his Volksglaube und Brauchtum der Ostslawen. I’ve already previewed here – when discussing Svarozic – a passage from a Jaryło story told by Old Believers that Haase put in that book. Now let’s include more of Haase’s musings on the subject and the rest of the story. Also included are the cites of Haase’s to the Russian authors who actually collected the stories of these customs and beliefs.

Haase’s Jarilo Interpretation

“…Originally, there stood Jarilo in Kupalos place. While he is first mentioned first in the year 1763 in the instruction (poucene) of Saint Tichon Zadonskyi. He had suppressed the old celebration which he labeled idolatrous and devilish and declared it illegal. There had once been an old statue that people had called Jarilo and he [Tichon] had heard from old people that one had called this celebration igrisce (Polish igrzyska) [and] it began on Wednesday or Friday after the Green Holidays and ended on a Sunday. The name is probably derived from jar meaning spring or jaryi meaning bright, strong, tempestuous, young. And also the grains were called jarovyi or jare [compare this with the Polish jarzyny meaning “greens” as in “vegetables”]. In the Cernigov department one speaks of a Jariloviga. In Kostroma there is a Jarilovo pole (Jarilo’s field); in the department Orenburg, a Jarilo annual market [Jahrmarkt or jarmark with a double meaning]. In certain regions of Russia, there were two holidays involving Jarilo, at the end of April and on the last day of the year. Young people played the role of Jarilo. There is the Ivasko Jarilo, the Moscow marksman, known from a 1605 document and Ivasko Jarilo who lived in Astrakhan (mentioned in 1672).”

“In Voronez one celebrated the games of Jarilo till 1673 [lasting] from the last day before the Great Fast/Lent, before Peter’s Fast till the Monday of the Fast [?]. A man was adorned with flowers, ribbons and little bells, and on his head there was a flower decorated hat. His face was painted red and white and in his hand he held bells. Using the name Jarilo he went majestically through the city, followed by youth who laughed at him but also kept him fed with sweets. The feast ended with fistfights, drunkenness and frequently with killings.”

“In Kostroma, where the celebrations were held till 1771, an old man would toss a doll – featuring male genitals – into a grave. Drunk wailing women would accompany him and then the doll was buried. In governorate Tver the celebrations took place on the first day of the Apostles’ Feast on the River Lazur until the year 1805. The youth danced a blanza – a round dance in pairs of eight). In the governorate Penza and Simbirsk, they buried the gorjuna during the Green Holidays; and in Murom on the first Saturday after the Green Holidays. A straw doll was carried out of the village with singing and finally thrown into a river. The custom degenerated into a game: in such children’s games an old woman called Kostroma was declared dead and then suddenly she jumped up and frightened the children. In the governorates Ryazan and Tambov this celebration is called: the burying of the prince. This is portrayed by a young boy who is wrapped in a towel and his sickness is wept over. When the prince has ‘died’ he is laid down in a cornfield and people sing their lamentations. In central Russia the holiday was celebrated with the first or last sheaf collected. In Vladimir on the Kljazma, in Suzdal, Penza, Simbirsk it was celebrated on the Green Holidays or on the eve of the Green Holidays as the funeral of Kostroma or Kostrobowka; in Murom it was celebrated on the first Sunday after the Green Holidays; at Nizniy Novogorod and Vjatka on Saint Peter’s Day [June 29 which in the Gregorian calendar of today is July 12]; in the governorates Novgorod and Kazan, prayers we held during the Green Holidays on collecting rye or summer cereals and there were dances to honor Jarilo. The fields and the livestock were sprinkled with holy water. In Nizniy Novogorod and Tver there it was common to hold a bridal show on this day and young people were permitted to kiss and hug.”

“From the fact that the holidays were celebrations on different days and in different ways, one can deduct that the meaning of the holiday had changed. In the governorates Penza and Simbirsk a girl was chosen to play the part of Kostroma. The other girls bowed before her, placed her on a plank, tossed her singing into a river and washed her. Then all jumped into the water and bathed. Then one went back to the village and concluded the day with games and dances. In the region of Murom the Kostroma was portrayed using a straw puppet; people danced around her, threw her in water and lamented her death.”

“The Jarilo week held a special potency for love spells. The following spell was especially used: ‘I, God’s servant, stand up and go into the clean sea. There come towards me fire, polynja? [these days this means something like a watery polana, that is a clearing, amongst ice (as opposed to trees)] and a stormy wind. I bow down before them deeply and say: hail [Haase uses Heisa] fire and polynja.'”

“Since this spell was used precisely during the Jarilo week, we can infer from this that Jarilo was a God of Love. Yet this that this was a love spell can only be shown by connecting this data with other information. From the Old Believers we learn that: ‘the Jar goes by during the nights that are called chmelevyja.’ In certain areas Jarilo is called Ur Chmel’ and the chmelevicy nights are treated by village youth as the merriest. The Jar goes through the nights wearing a white silk fabric with gold and silver patterns, on His head a wreath with red poppies, in His hand ripe ears of corn of all different kinds of grains; where the God Jar steps on the chmel‘, there grains grow high unseeded. He touches with the golden ear a young man in his sleep and ignites his blood; Jar chmel’ touches the sleeping girl with the red flowers and sleep escapes her, resting becomes difficult and she dreams of her beloved.”

“Thus, here we have the proof that Jarilo stood for Eros. Other customs also remind us of this. As already mentioned, there was the custom of putting a puppet in a grave, a man with his member which was often portrayed as a giant phallus. The accompanying women sang during this procession ‘obscene’ songs. Allegedly, during these celebrations ‘male seed’ was released into a bucket [of water?] which was then drunk. And when we have already heard the complaints of the Christian preachers about the shameless practices that were connected with the festivities, these may refer precisely to the Jarilo celebrations. Jarilo is here without a doubt portrayed as a God of love and fertility. But that is still not the original [function of his]. Jarilo is not originally simply the God who gives people love and fertility, he is the Sun God who celebrates his wedding with Mother Earth, embraces her with love and through this embrace creates fertility for the Earth, even produces man therefrom. We have proof of this here from an old tradition of the Old Believers by whom the old customs have been preserved more purely since they did not concern themselves with the prohibitions that came from church and government places, and since they retained the old customs and ideas consciously in opposition [to the established religious and state order].

A legend of the Old Believers tells of how Jarilo loved the wet Mother Earth:

“Mother Earth lay in cold and darkness. And the always young, always happy Jar of the light spoke so: ‘let us look at the wet Mother Earth, [to see] whether she is pretty, whether appeals to us.’ And the flaming look of the light Jar in one moment cut through the unending layers of darkness which lay over the sleeping Earth. And there where Jarilo’s glance filled the darkness, there the red Sun began to shine. And the hot waves of Jarilo’s light poured out by means of the Sun. The wet Mother Earth awoke from sleep and in her youthful beauty she stretched herself out like a bride on the marriage bed. Eagerly she drank the golden rays of the invigorating light and from this light there spilled out hot life and the bliss of craving into her limbs. And the Sun rays conveyed the sweet words of the God of Love, of the ever young God Jarilo: ‘Oh you wet Mother Earth! Love me, the God of light, as my beloved I shall decorate you with blue seas, with yellow sand, with green grass, with red and blue flowers. By my you shall give birth to an unending number of dear children.'”

“And Mother Earth liked the speech of the God Jarilo, she loved the happy God and thanks to his hot kisses she became pretty and decorated herself with grasses and flowers, with dark woods and blue seas, with light blue rivers and silver lakes. She drank the hot kisses and from her bosom there flew birds, from the caves there there ran out forest and field animals, and in the streams and seas there swam fish, in the air there whirred about the little flies and mosquitoes… and lived, all loved, all sang praise hymns to the father Jarilo and to the wet Mother Earth.”

“And once again there sounded from the light Sun the love words of Jarilo’s: ‘oh, hey you wet Mother Earth! I have adorned you with beauty, you have given birth to many dear children. love me some more and you will give birth to your love children. Mother Earth liked these words. Eagerly did she drink the life-giving rays and she gave birth to Man… and as he rose from the Earth’s bosom, the God Jarilo hit him on the head with his golden leash, his lightning. And from this blow, there arose reason inside of Man… And the God Jarilo greeted his dear Earthborn son with heavenly thunder, with rays of lightning; and these thunder rumbles shook all living things on the Earth… little birds fled into the heavens and wild animals hid in the holes, only Man raised his head towards the sky and answered the speech of the thunder God with eternal words. And as they heard this word and saw their king and ruler, so bowed before him all the trees, all flowers, all grasses, all animals, all birds, all of living creation and they became his servants.”

“And Mother Earth exulted in luck and happiness. She felt that Jarilo’s lover was no mere fortune and that there was no limit to it. But after short time, the Sun began to lower itself, the long days became shorter, the cold winds were blowing, the singers, the little birds fell silent, the wild animals howled and there shuttered from the cold the kong and the ruler of the entire living and inanimate Creation… And the countenance of Mother Earth changed and from grief and worry she washed her face with bitter tears… and so cried Mother Earth: ‘o wind, o wind, why do you blow so ice cold on me? You, eye of Jarilo, you light Sun, why do you not warm me and shine on me as before? Does the God Jarilo not love me anymore? Shall I lose my beauty? Shall my babes go into the ground? Shall I again lie in darkness and cold? Why have I then gotten to know the light? Why have I experienced life and love? Why have I gotten to know the bright rays, the hot kisses of the God Jarilo?’ Jarilo was silent. ‘I do not cry for me,’ complained Mother Earth shuddering from the cold, ‘my heart mourns my dear children.’ Then spoke Jarilo: ‘Cry not, mourn not, wet Mother Earth, I left you not for long. Had I not left you then you would have burned down under my kisses. To protect you and our children, I lessen the warmth and light for a while. The leaves will fall from the trees. The flowers and grasses will wilt. You will dress yourself in a snow garment. You will sleep till my return… And when the time comes, I will send you a messenger, the happy spring and right after spring, I will come myself.'”

“But Mother Erath cried further. ‘Don’t you feel sorry for me Jarilo? Do not the cries of your children reach you? Have mercy at least on your love child, who answered your thunder speech with eternal words. It is naked and weak, it will shortly perish if you take away heat and light from us.’ And the God Jarilo struck a stone with lightning, his flaming blitz hit the trees. And he said to Mother Earth: ‘Now I have brought fire to the stones and the trees. I myself am in this fire. With his mind will Man figure out how to take light and fire from wood and stones. This fire is my gift for my love son. For the entire living Creation will this gift be a fright and terror. Only for him alone will be of service.’ And so the God Jarilo left the Earth. Terrible winds blew, dark clouds covered Jarilo’s eye, the red Sun [and] white snow felt and enveloped Mother Earth like a pall. All froze, all fell asleep, only Man slept [but] did not slumber. He had the great gift of Father Jarilo and with it light and warmth.”

“Here Jarilo is clearly referred to as a Sun God, who brings love and fertility by means of his domain over fire, which causes nature to grow and bloom and gives magical powers to plants which [in turn] benefit people. For this reason is the fern to be explained as the mysterious fire plant, which only flowers on the day of Kupalo; out of this we have explanations for the fire worship associated with Kupalo-Jarilo, for the jumping through fire, for the wheel as symbol of the Sun wheel. The water in the sea and the lake and the streams owes its existence only to Jarilo; it is a element given to the moist Mother Earth that increases fertility. The constantly repeated expression ‘moist Mother Earth’ indicates a natural connection of the Earth with water so as to preserve fertility. We find the above description the idea of the dying of the Sun and of Nature. And so are explained the customs of burying of the originally majestic, possessing the full strength of youth, Jarilo, of that fertility God and love God, [customs] that morphed into obscene pleasures and mocking games, when people had forgotten the original meaning of the festivities. Now it becomes clear why the man who stood in for Jarilo in Voronez was all made up in white and red. Red is the color of the glowing Sun and of the fire. When girls playing the role of Jarilo were bathed or buried by the river, it may still have been the memory of Mother Earth as Jarilo’s beloved.”

Lathander may be the gaming world’s version of Yarilo – at least in concept

Interestingly, Man is the son of Yarilo but can be analogized here also to the fruit of the land, the bounty, the harvest, that is to say, the birth/rebirth has a human but also agricultural aspect. This is further described below when the same cognates/concepts appear in connection with agriculture and growth – ultimately, “wealth” we ought to remember is what is associated with Plutus, the wealth of the soil and the son of Iasion and Demeter. As discussed below, it seems that Iasion/Jasień/Jasion/Jason (?) and Yarilo are the same Deities.

Some Cites for Jarilo

Note that the earliest mention of Iarilo appears to be from 1765 when the Russian Orthodox Church forbade the Iarilo holiday in Voronezh. In Kostroma (see above discussion by Haase) a straw effigy with an enormous phallus was being burned as late as 1771. Since actual mentions of Jarilo are somewhat difficult to find in primary sources here are some cites to secondary sources given by Haase:

Golubinsky, Yevgeny Yevsigneyevich (or Evgenij E. Golubinskij, Голубинский Е.) История Русской Церкви or Golubinskij, E. Istorija russkoi cerkvi I 1. 2 1902 II 1 1900; I 2; 2. 855
Sobolevsky, A. (or Sobolevskij): Velikorusskija narodnyja pesni 7 Bde 1985-1902; 267, 269
Zabylin, M. Russkij narod, ego obycai, obrjady, predanija, sueverija i poezija 1880; 83
Zabelin, I Istorija russkoi zizni s drevneiscich vremen 1879
Trudy 24, 1 (1883) Nr.10, 292
Zapiski: Zapiski russkogo geograf. obsc Etnografija I (1871) ff.; II 85, 87/88

Other cites relating to Jarilo:

Melnikov, The Complete Collection of Works (or Collected Works) Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Полное собраніе сочиненій) by Pavel Ivanovich Melnikov (alias Andrey Pechersky, Russian: Па́вел Ива́нович Ме́льников (Андре́й Пече́рский); hence Melnikov-Pechersky) volume 4, pages 202-203.
Anickov, Evgenij Vasilevic, Vesennaja obrjadovaja pesnja na Zapade i u slavjan.
Shpilevskiy, Pavel Mikhailovich (Павал Шпілеўскі or Павел Михайлович Шпилевский or Paweł Szpilewski (1827-1861) was a Belarussian ethnographer who wrote a study of Belarussian folklore – Belarussian Folk Traditions (Белорусские народные предания). The first two volumes were written under a pseudonym – Pavel Drevlyanskiy (П. Древлянский). The first volume saw print in 1846 as part of the Supplements to the Journal of the Ministry of Education (Прибавления к Журналу Министерства народного просвещения).
Pogodin, Mythologische Spuren in russischen Dorfnamen.
Kulisic, Petrovic & Pantelic, Srpski Mitoloski Recnik; 156-157.
Ivanov, V. V. & Toporov, V. N. Issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskih drevnostej, 1974; 215.

Other Related East Suavic Sources

Although Jarilo/Iarilo only appears in the above cited sources, similar names pop up in various other places.

In the Laurentian Codex, we have a mention in the Chronicle of Novgorod, under the year 1216 of a commander by the name of Yarun/Jarun/Iarun (compare with Peron/Perun; compare this pairing too with Jason/Paron or Iasion/Pareantus): “And Yarun had shut himself up in the town with a hundred men and beat them off. And Mstislav [Mstislavich the Daring] went and took Zubchev and they were on the Vozuga; and thither came Volodimir Rurikovitch with men of Smolensk. They were coming along the Volga, making war, and said to him: “Knyaz, go to Torzhok.” Mstislav and Volodimir said: “But Mstislav and Volodimir said: “Let us go to Pereyaslavl; we have a third friend.” And there was no news where Yaroslav was, whether at Torzhok or in Tver. And Yaroslav’s guards attacked Yarun behind Tver, and God helped Yarun and they killed many, others they captured, and others escaped to Tver.” [from the Mitchell/Forbes translation]. Jarun is also a neighborhood of Zagreb in Croatia as well as the ancient Greek name of the Iranian island of Hormuz (yes, from the Straight of Hormuz).

Note that though the above name as used in the Chronicle may not have overtly religious connotations, such connotations can be inferred from other sources described here. Indeed, Oskar Kolberg, in his ethnographic description of Chełm area (in eastern Poland, east of Lublin – it seems in Ukrainian villages) says that “the oldest devil is called Jarynec and he lives on a tall mountain and from their he issues orders to his subordinates, the lesser devils who dwell in the hills and bogs.”Jarynec” is a diminutive form of Jarun/Yarun.

In the Chudov codex (16th century) we have the Saint Gregory’s Sermon, where it is said that the ancient pagans worshipped a Yadrey: “…and other pray to the God of the Household, to the Goddess Vela, to Yadrey…” [the below is from Mansikka’s Die Religion der Ostslawen]

Incidentally, the “d” is not problematic here. Note that there are many similar words in Suavic languages that have approximately the same meaning and are cognates with the yar and yas forms:

jędrny (firm, youthful)
jądro (kernel)
Jędrzej (form of Andrew)

Incidentally, the nasal “ę“ is clearly cognate with the “en” form and hence jędrny is also cognate with jendry which is clearly cognate with Indra.

Likewise the consonants that follow the y sound are aplenty, again though, with similar meanings. Compare, for example, the above “a” and “e” with the “u” sound in: jurzyć się (to be lustful) or jurność (virility). Check out Aleksandr Nikolaevich Afanasyev’s Поэтические воззрения славян на природу [typically, though awkwardly translated as “The Poetic Outlook on Nature by the Slavs”].

Musings on “Jar” the Green

What else can we say here? Well, apparently, Jarilovo appears four times as a village and there is also a Jarilovic near Great Novgorod. In the Laurentian Codex we hear of a Jarun (compare this form with Perun).

We note that Shpilevsky portrays Jarilo as a man on a white horse or as a woman wearing a white cloak. Apparently, if he was a man, he would appear naked. His head was covered by a wreath of spring flowers and in his hands were cereal ears/spikes. Jarilo was shown as young, with light eyes and curly, blonde hair. Wherever he walked by the harvest would be good. Whoever he glances at, that person falls in love (though not necessarily with Jarilo!). In many folk songs, people would ask him for a hot summer and a great harvest. Haase weaves this into his theory as shown above.

The Belarussian description is interesting in that the Jarilo songs would be sang by groups of walking women, one of whom was sitting astride a horse that was tied to a pole. Obviously, the a horse tied to a pole cannot get far so how could these women be walking anywhere? A solution would present itself if the horse were walking around the pole, perhaps simulating the revolving Sun. The women apparently sang the following song:

Jarilo wandered / The world whole / Birthed rye in the field /
Sired people’s children / And wherever he took a step / There came rye aplenty /
And wherever he’s on the seeds / There a rye ear blossoms

We have this summary from Jerzy Strzelczyk‘s dictionary-like list entitled “Myths, Legends and Beliefs of Ancient Suavs” (Mity, podania i wierzenia dawnych Słowian):

And Max Vasmer says the following regarding the Suavic word jar:

Obviously the word is the same as the English year or German Jahr and refers to vegetation. As shown in the Vasmer dictionary above, jar also means a “canyon” but not just any canyon; instead, referring to a vegetation covered canyon that had been carved out by a stream.

A jar

In Polish the various yar/jar cognates also include jary – meaning “rushing” or “swift” as in “a rushing river” and jarki – meaning “fast moving”; (compare this with the English verb “to jerk”). Apparently, jarowanie may refer to preparing seeds or prepping a horse for a race.

Along the same line of reasoning, it is important to note also that there was a Thracian Divinity, that these days is commonly referred to as the Thracian Horseman. He was known simply as “hero”. Now, the Thracian language expert Dimiter Detschew speculated (in Die thrakischen Sprachreste, Vienna, 1957) that the Thracian for hero was *ierus or *iarus... (of course you have to be careful some of the stuff in CIL that he cites to support that proposition may actually say IFRU not IERU). This nicely ties into words such as horse or Horsa (Hengist and Horsa) or, for that matter, hero and Chors. For more on the Horseman see here and here.

If you want to get an even bigger kick out of this, note too that the related Dacian Riders were apparently derived from the Thracian Rider. Now, these Dacian horsemen are sometimes shown with a Goddess holding a fish. There is a stone sculpture of such a figure at Ślęża Mountain (see here).

There also a ridiculous number of agricultural connections. For example, you have the Polish (and other Suavic) jarzyny for “vegetables.” A young wheat is in some places called jarkisz and the hordium grain, jarzec.

Finally, an interesting piece of trivia is that in Hebrew the word for “green” is ya-rokh (יָרֹוק) which (interestingly too, “white” is pronounced, lah-vahn). That rok means “year” in Polish/Czech (Ukrainian, rik and in Russian… god) seems a rather interesting coincidence (?). Of course, we could go further. Take the name Jerusalem – Yerushalayim. Though this is far from clear (and is claimed to be a later development), the ending -ayim indicates the dual form in Hebrew. Since the city has two hills some have suggested that the name may refers to those two hills (rather than a local god Shalem). If so the city name could mean something like “Green Hills”… (For that matter, the Greek ἱερός (hieros) means “holy”).

More Than a Sun Deity or Pure Lunacy?

As already mentioned here, ya-ra-ti (jarać) refers to “burning.” We are a step away from the “Burning Bush”… BTW This is the same concept as the Russian yarkiy (яркий) meaning “flamboyant” or “bright.”

That Jarilo had solar connections Haase proved in sufficient detail above. The lunar connections of the deity are interesting as well, however. Let’s turn to that.

An interesting connection may be drawn from Egypt and the Levant. The Egyptian Moon was referred to as Yah which name later also came to signify a Moon Deity. Of course, we all know that Ra was the Egyptian Deity of the Sun. So, put together, what we already alluded to before, we mention again because the Y-r form of Jarilo or Yarilo practically invites drawing this connection.

Focusing on Moon Gods, with similar names to Jarilo we have the Moon Deity Yarikh in Canaan (mentioned in the Ebla texts before 2000 BC and another – Yarhibol – at Palmyra.

And then there are these Hittite texts (Johan de Roos translation/edition).

Of course, Osiris too was as much or perhaps more a Moon Deity as a Sun Divinity. The person who noted this earliest in modern times was James Frazer when he wrote the following:

“There are far more plausible grounds for identifying Osiris with the moon than with the sun:

1. He was said to have lived or reigned twenty-eight years; Plutarch, Isis et Osiris, cc. 13, 42. This might be taken as a mythical expression for a lunar month.

2. His body was rent into fourteen pieces (ib. cc. 18, 42). This might be interpreted of the moon on the wane, losing a piece of itself on each of the fourteen days which make up the second half of a lunation. It is expressly mentioned that Typhon found the body of Osiris at the full moon (ib. 8); thus the dismemberment of the god would begin with the waning of the moon.

3. In a hymn supposed to be addressed by Isis to Osiris, it is said that Thoth

“Placeth thy soul in the bark Ma-at,
In that name which is thine, of God Moon.”

And again,

“Thou who comest to us as a child each month,
We do not cease to contemplate thee,
Thine emanation heightens the brilliancy
Of the stars of Orion in the firmament,” etc.

Records of the Past, i. 121 sq.; Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter, p. 629 sq. Here then Osiris is identified with the moon in set terms. If in the same hymn he is said to “illuminate us like Ra” (the sun), this, as we have already seen, is no reason for identifying him with the sun, but quite the contrary.

4. At the new moon of the month Phanemoth, being the beginning of spring, the Egyptians celebrated what they called “the entry of Osiris into the moon.” Plutarch, Is. et Os. 43.

5. The bull Apis, which was regarded as an image of the soul of Osiris (Is. et Os. cc. 20, 29), was born of a cow which was believed to have been impregnated by the moon (ib. 43).

6. Once a year, at the full moon, pigs were sacrificed simultaneously to the moon and Osiris. Herodotus, ii. 47; Plutarch, Is. et Os. 8. The relation of the pig to Osiris will be examined later on.

Without attempting to explain in detail why a god of vegetation, as I take Osiris to have been, should have been brought into such close connection with the moon, I may refer to the intimate relation which is vulgarly believed to subsist between the growth of vegetation and the phases of the moon .See e.g. Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 221, xvi. 190, xvii. 108, 215, xviii. 200, 228, 308, 314; Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. iii. 10, 3; Aulus Gellius, xx. 8, 7; Macrobius, Saturn. vii. 16, 29 sq. Many examples are furnished by the ancient writers on agriculture, e.g. Cato, 37, 4; Varro, i. 37; Geoponica, i. 6.”

Importantly, as seen above, Frazer saw Osiris not as the Sun and not just closer to being a lunar Deity but as the God of Vegetation. He goes on:

“In the course of our inquiry, it has, I trust, been made clear that there is another natural phenomenon to which the conception of death and resurrection is as applicable as to sunset and sunrise, and which, as a matter of fact has been conceived and represented in folk custom. This phenomenon is the annual growth and decay of vegetation. A strong reason for interpreting the death of Osiris as the decay of vegetation rather than as the sunset is to be found in the general (though not unanimous) voice of antiquity, which classed together the worship and myths of Osiris, Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, and Demeter, as religions of essentially the same type…”

Now the connection of Jaryło to vegetation is obvious from the above and is further discussed below. In the meantime it remains to show the connection to the Moon.

Here we can be helped by one of the best webpages on Polish pre-Christian beliefs (unfortunately, thus far, only in Polish), appropriately named Polish Gods: Bogowie Polscy.* According to an essay on this page by Kazimierz Perkowski:

“The most direct and popular (other than biblical) in the pool of connotations that appears around the name Jaś are those connotations, we stress that come from rituals, connected with brightness and with a person that is widely respected and, we can say, luminescent. For Jaś as well as Jasień are the names given to the bright moon, the maker of storms and rain, a flying persona of a brave warrior, a wanderer, unmarried, a suitor, a groom as well as of a Polish folk name of a devil and a partner of the Goddess Marzanna, which we will write about more extensively in subsequent parts of this piece. Finally, we note that the name Jaś is not any diminutive [of John] but rather a folk name in and of itself. If that were not enough, in one of the traditional Christmas carols from the region of Greater Poland, the name Jaś appears in place of… Jesus and the other way around…”

*note: the site bogowiepolscy.net has been subsumed into something called Weneda which seems an inferior project; many of the essays and posts have been removed.

It may also be relevant to note here that, aside from Dionysos or Osiris, another deity that may have something to do with the Thracian/Phrygian Sabazios (Ancient Greek: Σαβάζιος) whose name may be pronounced Savázios (Sovi?) or Sabadios (Boda?) who is also referred to as the Thracian Rider and who was also associated with Father Liber and with Dionysos. Not to mention that the Sabazios hand possesses obvious phallic connotations. Sabazios may also have given the name to sobótki, the fires lit by the Suavs in their celebrations of the arrival of summer. Of course Sabazios also has lunar connections (compare the sabattu or sabpattu which has been dated to 2,000 BC and means full day, that is full moon day; note too the similarities between pattu “day” with pater or father).

Jaś – the Master of the Moon’s Power

“In Coats of Arms, legends and old myths” [Herby, Legendy i dawne mity], one of the most important publication dealing with the topic of Polish mythology, its authors, the professors Marek Cetwiński and Marek Derwich observe that the primary Gods of the Western Suavs were most likely Gods with lunar connections. The most telling example here remains the Rugian Svantevit, which according to the sources, was a God on a white horse who constantly travelled at night (like the Moon) fighting the enemies of the Rugians. Attention can be drawn too to the most important attribute of Svantevit, the horn of plenty filled with mead, an object with an obvious lunar symbolism. And among many Polish family legends a main motif features the battle of a hero – aided by the light of the moon – with an enemy possessing chthonic attributes. At the same time, as noted by professor Aleksander Gieysztor, the persons of Svantevit, Jarovit, and Jarilo appear as thunder Gods, the hypostases of the God Piorun. So are all of these research positions presented here inconsistent and the thunder and lunar characteristics mutually exclusive? Absolutely not. The Moon as much as thunder deities were connected after all with rain and the sky water [Wodan] – and these ensured (or took away) fertility and prosperity. We could also point out the East Slavic report about a lunar (as per a common hypothesis) deity Chors, called in some notes “the thunder angel” as well as, most importantly for this essay, Polish folk beliefs. These last ones treat the lunar and thunder ideas interchangeably. Our Jaś appears connected with the Moon:

“Ponad lasejkiem czarna chmurejka,
ponad to chmurejko jasny miesiączejko.
Nie jest to miesiączek, Jasio wojowniczek,
wywojował sobie sto złotych jabłuszek.”

[A carol from the Lublin region, Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych, vol. I, part 3, 2012, p. 111]

“Jasna nieba, jasna słońca, jasień miesiąc
i jasne gwiazdy, i święta Trójca, i Matka Boża,
stań do pomocy, jak we dnie, tak i w nocy.”

[a charm asking help from a rose, Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych, vol. I, part 1, 1996, p. 171]

„A u miesiąca dwa rogi,
a u Jasieńka dwa braci”

[Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych, vol. I, part 1, 1996, p. 162]

“Jedzie Jasieńko do dziewki,
Jako miesiączek do Zorzy […]
Herny (pyszny) Jasieńku kozacze,
Gdzie się mi bierzesz przeciw nocy?”

[Wisła, vol. VII, part 4, 1893, p. 691]

“We see here a solid connection between the folk-preserved persona of Jaś and the Moon. I would warn, however, against assuming the first is the literal personification of a heavenly body. For the Moon [księżyc], frequently called miesiąc or miesiączek [today meaning a “month”], in old Polish folk beliefs was filled with a number of male and female characters. He is a kind of a transporter or a steed allowing travel to and from the netherworld. The Polsh name for the Earth’s natural satellite – księżyc – is curious. This name, as noted by professor Mikołaj Rudnicki, could have originally been connected with a Lechitic [West Suavic] lunar Deity, only later coming to mean the actual Moon. We should add that the Polish association of the Moon [with a male prince] are rather unique in the European context. Hans Biedermann in his “Symbols Lexicon” notes that the Moon is typically associated with female characteristics, just as “the names of the Moon in European languages are female, the exceptions being the German der Mond and the Polish Księżyc.” It is possible that the rural Jaś, described in tens of Polish songs as “serving the lord”, could have been that księżyc – the son of książę [the former is either a diminutive of the latter or the “son” of the latter – much as Svarozic – Svarog]. Another element connecting the image of Jaś with the Moon is the attribute of the golden crown… “

“Jedzie Jasiek z Torunia,
Złota na nim koruna;
Konie z góry stąpają,
Srebrem, złotem brząkają.”

[Wisła, vol. III, part 4, 1889, p. 750]

“Miesiącowi złota korona,
A mnie szczęście i fortona;
Miesiącowi cześć i chwała,
A mnie zdrowie!”

[Wisła, vol. XIV , part 4, 1900, p. 468]

“We will now move on to the mentioned interchangeability of the thunder and lunar portfolio. In Polish myths the Moon battles, similar to a thunder deity, with chthonic beings, and even uses for this purpose the typical weapon of a thunder god – the stone. In a number of variations of this tale, there is an attack that takes place during a full moon and it is against a villain, perhaps a thief in the fields, but most often a water spirit or drowned person (a memory of a chthonic deity) or against smaller female water divinities…”

“…In the syncretic folk traditionalism, the bright and warm season, originally connected with a thunder deity who opens and closes vegetation, begins in the spring on Saint George’s day [April 23] and ends in the fall on Saint Martin’s day [November 11] (in the Catholic tradition) or Saint George’s day (in Orthodoxy). On Saint Martin’s day, the original manifestation day of the thunder deity – we find preserved to this day an important element of lunar symbolism: the famous Saint Martin croissants. Baked to this day in Greater Poland, they represent, it is believed a memory of a vicarious offering in place of the earlier ox sacrifice. The context is completed by a whole series of Polish riddles wherein the roar of an ox – an animal associated with the Moon (for example the folk bald ox) as well as the animal of the thunder divinity – is identified as a far off sound of thunder…”

“…If Jaś the suitor was perceived as the cause of a storm, was he also, in light of the above, connected to the Moon? Such beliefs have been preserved particularly in Eastern Poland, where in songs and tales, the Moon remains associated with the young groom, a single man. He marries or seduces the bride – the Sun, or rather the “solar sister” – the Zorza/Jutrzenka, the morning Venus (in old Polish tales Lela/Dziedzilela). This motif is visible in a number of wedding songs:

“Jedzie Jasieńko do dziewki,
Jako miesiączek do Zorzy”

[Wisła, vol. VII, part 4, 1893, p. 691]

„A gdzie słoneczko wschodzi,
Młody Jasieńko chodzi…”

[Lud, year 9, 1903, p. 226]

…In the above part of this essay, we took a look at a number of supernatural attributes in the folk image of Jaś. He turns out to be the ritualistic causer of the storm and bringer of rain, as well as the eternal wanderer and sky warrior. Simultaneously, Jaś like the Moon “runs against the night” and illuminates its darkness. Finally, Jaś is a suitor seducing Jutrzenka-Zorza…”

[the authors cite another interesting tale:]

“Jasio chodzi po drobnej leszczynie,
Orzechy szczypie, w kieszonkę sypie
Nadobnej Marysi, swojej dziewczynie.”

[Polish folk song]”

This obviously suggests a connection between Jaś and Marzanna, potentially the frozen Earth. Also note the nuts are again a motif connected with Jarilo/Iarilo in Rybakov’s listing of songs mentioned below. Some of the above is not necessarily entirely convincing but the essay does contain a number of interesting suggstisons/clues.

The author, of course, notes the similarity of Polish Jaś with the East Suavic Jarilo/Iarilo (particularly, in the attribute of the horn – cornucopia) so let’s bring this back to Iarilo.

Back To Jaryło/Jarilo/Iarilo

The first step is to recognize that Jarilo, as indicated by the above, is either the same Deity or a closely related Deity to the pagan Gods found among other Suavic tribes and Balts.

Take for example, this Ukrainian book, written much like Strzelczyk’s listings, includes entries for:

Jarilo,
Jarowit, that is Gerovit and
Jasion/Jasień

Further, Jasza/Jaszer is the form promoted among others by Boris Rybakov who provides these creations:

So there sits, sits Yasha under a nut bush (there is that bush again):

Сиди-сиди, Яша, под ореховым кустом,
Грызи–грызи, Яша, орешки каленые, миломю дареные.
Чок–чок, пяточок, вставай Яша, дурачок,
Где твоя невеста, в чем она одета?
Как ее зовут? И откуда привезут?

In another version we have Yasha sitting on a golden chair: (this version from Perkowski is a little different than Rybakov’s above):

Сидит наш Яша
На золотом стуле,
Ладу, ладу, ладоньки,
На золотом стуле.
Щелкат наш Яшенька
Калены орешки…
Калены-калены,
Девушкам дарены…
Бабам посулены…

Roughly speaking the geographic attestation, therefore, is as follows:

Western Lechitic tribes (Veleti) – Gerovit (pronounce Yerovit or, if you will, Yarovit)
Eastern Lechitic tribes (Poles) – Jasień or Jasion (ash) or Jasza/Jesza (pronounce Yasien or Iasion orYasha/Yesha)
Belorussians – Jarilo (pronounce Yarilo)
Ilmen Suavs/North-Eastern Russians – Jasza or Jaszer (pronounce Yasha or Yasher)

Of course, one group of northern Suavs is not clearly reflected in the above list: the Ukrainians. And here we have another hint regarding the nature of this Divinity. Among the Kievan Polans, that is Ukrainians, the most obvious candidate for the portfolio of the Sun God and Moon God and, therefore, maybe also Vegetation God, is, it seems, Dadzbog Chors (though, it is also possible that Chors is the son of Jasień – certainly the Osiris-Horus similarities is of interest).

The God of Vegetation and Fertility, Life, Light and Motion

So Haase is not wrong that Jarilo was a Sun God. In fact, Haase was right that Jarilo is, in fact, more than that – in that he is also a God of Love (or at least lust!) and, therefore, vegetation. But beyond that Jarilo is a Lunar Deity. This is the hypothesis of the “one rider” – perhaps akin to the Latvian Ūsiņš. Most generally, perhaps, Yarilo is a God of Life, Virility and, ultimately, Motion.

It is, of course, possible to view this slightly differently. For example, looking to Lithuanian mythology, we can ask whether there were in fact two Deities: the Sky Twins or Ašvieniai. Perhaps their names were Yas and Yar? If you want to spin this out further, a connection can be drawn to the Vandalic Assi and Ambri though this is obviously a major leap.

And another thought, were these “twins” always both men or, to bring this back to “Mother Earth/Father Jarilo/Iarilo” or “Sun/Moon”, was one of the twins perhaps a woman?

Interestingly, also Mars (though seemingly not Ares) had an agricultural beginning before becoming a god of war. If so, the suggestion that Gerovit may have been the same as Mars may actually have been more accurate than the writer of the Life of Otto of Bamberg may have suspected.

To view some other posts on Jaryło you can take a look here as well as here and here.

Martin’s De Correctione Rusticorum

PublishedDecember 26, 2019 Post authortorino

Martin of Braga (circa 520 – circa 580 AD), in addition to mentioning the early Suavs, also made contributions to discussing the religion of the pagans of Hispania. His De correctione rusticorum (“On the correction of rural people”) contains useful hints about the nature of the religious beliefs of those “rustics” who, in addition to the Hispano-Romans, would by then have included the Vandals, Suevi and Alans – all those who flooded the peninsula in the beginning of the fifth century. Because this work was written in Gallaecia – the northwest part of the peninsula – it may be also especially reflective of the religion of the Suevi who then occupied the area.

The below are portions of the missive that relate to the pagan practices of Spain. The translation is that of Hélio Pires.

Part 7

“Then the Devil or his ministers, the demons, which had been brought down from Heaven, seeing men’s ignorance, forgotten of their creator, wondering through the creatures, began manifesting to them in different ways, speaking and influecing them, making them offer them sacrifices in the high hills and in the leafy woods and considered them as gods, calling themsleves names of bandit men, which spent their lives in crimes and evilness. Thus, one called himself Jupiter, which was a magician and had tarnish himself with so many adultery, daring to have as wife his own sister, named Juno, corrupting his daughters Minerva and Venus and vilely dishonouring his grandchildren and all his family. Other demon called himself Mars, which was the instigator of the litigation and of discord. Another named himself Mercury, the inventor of all the theft and all the deceit to which greedy men offer sacrifices, as if he was the god of profit, forming piles of rocks when passing through the crossroads. Another also called himself Saturn, which, living in all his cruelty, devoured even his own children, as soon as they were born. Other pretended to be Venus, which was a woman of ill life.”

Tunc diabolus vel ministri ipsius, daemones, qui de caelo deiecti sunt, videntes ignaros homines dimisso Deo creatore suo, per creaturas errare, coeperunt se illis in diversas formas ostendere et loqui cum eis et expetere ab eis, ut in excelsis montibus et in silvis frondosis sacrificia sibi offerrent et ipsos colerent pro deo, imponentes sibi vocabula sceleratorum hominum, qui in omnibus criminibus et sceleribus suam egerant vitam, ut alius Iovem se esse diceret, qui fuerat magus et in tantis adulteriis incestus ut sororem suam haberet uxorem, quae dicta est Iuno, Minervam et Venerem filias suas corruperit, neptes quoque et omnem parentelam suam turpiter incestaverit. Alius autem daemon Martem se nominavit, qui fuit litigiorum et discordiae commissor. Alius deinde daemon Mercurium se appellare voluit, qui fuit omnis furti et fraudis dolosus inventor; cui homines cupidi quasi deo lucri, in quadriviis transeuntes, iactatis lapidibus acervos petrarum pro sacrificio reddunt. Alius quoque daemon Saturni sibi nomen adscripsit, qui, in omni crudelitate vivens, etiam nascentes suos filios devorabat. Alius etiam daemon Venerem se esse confinxit, quae fuit mulier meretrix. Non solum cum innumerabilibus adulteris, sed etiam cum patre suo Iove et cum fratre suo Marte meretricata est.

Part 8

“Here is what were, in those days, these lost men, whom the ignorant rustic honored for their terrible inventions and whose names were used by demons so that they would worship them as gods, would offer them sacrifices and imitate the actions of those whose names they invoked. Equally, those demons were also capable that temples were built to them, that in them images or statues of bandit men were set and altars erected, in which they would sacrifice them blood, not only of animals, but of humans as well. Besides this, many demons among those that were expelled from Heaven preside to the rivers, the fountains and to the forests and to them in the same way do men, ignorant of God, worship them as they were gods and offer them sacrifices. And in the sea they call them Neptune, in the rivers Lames, in the fountains Nymphs, in the forests Dianes, which are no more than demons and evil spirits damaging and tormenting the infidel men which no not to defend themselves with the sign of the cross. However, they cannot harm without the permission of God, for they have angered God. They [men] do not believe with all their heart in the faith of Christ, but carry their doubts to such a point that they give the name of the demons to each one of the days, saying the day of Mars, of Mercury, of Jupiter, of Venus and of Saturn, whom didn’t make any day, but were terrible and criminal men among the Greeks.”

Ecce quales fuerunt illo tempore isti perditi homines, quos ignorantes rustici per adinventiones suas pessime honorabant, quorum vocabula ideo sibi daemones adposuerunt, ut ipsos quasi deos colerent et sacrificia illis offerrent et ipsorum facta imitarentur, quorum nomina invocabant. Suaserunt etiam illis daemones ut templa illis facerent et imagines vel statuas sceleratorum hominum ibi ponerent et aras illis constituerent, in quibus non solum animalium sed etiam hominum sanguinem illis funderent. Praeter haec autem multi daemones ex illis qui de caelo expulsi sunt aut in mare aut in fluminibus aut in fontibus aut in silvis praesident, quos similiter homines ignorantes deum quasi deos colunt et sacrificant illis. Et in mare quidem Neptunum appellant, in fluminibus Lamias, in fontibus Nymphas, in silvis Dianas, quae omnia maligni daemones et spiritus nequam sunt, qui homines infideles, qui signaculo crucis nesciunt se munire, nocent et vexant. Non tamen sine permissione dei nocent, quia deum habent iratum et non ex toto corde in fide Christi credunt, sed sunt dubii in tantum ut nomina ipsa daemoniorum in singulos dies nominent, et appellent diem Martis et Mercurii et Iovis et Veneris et Saturni, qui nullum diem fecerunt, sed fuerunt homines pessimi et scelerati in gente Graecorum.

Part 9

“When He made Heaven and the Earth, omnipotent God created also the light that, by the distinction of the works of God, manifested it self in seven days. Because, in the first day God made light itself, which as called day. In the second, the firmament of the sky was made. In the third the earth was separated from the sea. In the fourth the Sun, the Moon and the stars were made. In the fifth, the quadrupeds, the birds and the fishes. In the sixth, man was made. To the seventh day, completing all the world and its ornament, God called rest. Indeed light, which was the first among the works of God, manifested seven times by the distinction of the same works, was called week. What alienation isn’t then that men, baptised in the faith of Christ, honours not the day of Sunday in which Christ resurrected and says to honour the day of Jupiter, of Mercury, of Venus and of Saturn, which have no day, but were rather adulterous and iniquos, and died ignominiously in their land! But, as we’ve saying, under the appearance of these names is the worship and honour given by the foolish to the demons.”

Deus autem omnipotens, quando caelum et terram fecit, ipse tunc creavit lucem, quae per distinctionem operum dei septies revoluta est. Nam primo deus lucem fecit, quae appellata est dies; secundo firmamentum caeli factum est; tertio terra a mare divisa est; quarto sol et luna et stellae factae sunt; quinto quadrupedia et volatilia et natatilia; sexto homo plasmatus est; septimo autem die, completo omni mundo et ornamento ipsius, requiem deus appellavit. Una ergo lux, quae prima in operibus dei facta est, per distinctionem operum dei septies revoluta, septimana est appellata. Qualis ergo amentia est ut homo baptizatus in fide Christi diem dominicum, in quo Christus resurrexit, non colat et dicat se diem Iovis colere et Mercurii et Veneris et Saturni, qui nullum diem habent, sed fuerunt adulteri et magi et iniqui et male mortui in provincia sua! Sed, sicut diximus, sub specie nominum istorum ab hominibus stultis veneratio et honor daemonibus exhibetur.

Part 10

“In the same way it was introduced among the ignorant and the rustic that mistake of thinking that the year has its beginning at the Calends of January, which is entirely fake. For, as the Holy Scripture says, the first year of the year was at the equinox of the 25th of March. In fact, this is what one may read: And God divided light from the darkness. As in all strait division there is equalness, so at the 25th of March as many hours has the day, so has the night. And that is why it is false that the beginning of the year is at the Calends of January.”

Similiter et ille error ignorantibus et rusticis subrepit, ut Kalendas Ianuarias putent anni esse initium, quod omnino falsissimum est. Nam, sicut scriptura sancta dicit, VIII Kal. Aprilis in ipso aequinoctio initium primi anni est factum. Nam sic legitur: et divisit deus inter lucem et tenebras. Omnis autem recta divisio aequalitatem habet, sicut et in VIII Kal. Aprilis tantum spatium horarum dies habet quantum et nox. Et ideo falsum est ut Ianuariae Kalendae initium anni sint.

Part 11

“And with what grief must we refer to that foolish error of honoring the day of the clothes moths and of the mice? And is it allowed to say that a Christian worships the mice and the clothes moths instead of God? If they close to these animals the locker or the chest, if they hide from them the bread and the clothes they will spear nothing of what they find. The miserable man believes in these mistakes without any basis, just as he believes that, if he is fed up and joyful in the first day of January, thus he shall kept himself throughout the year. All these observations are from the heathens and inspired by inventions of the demons. But beware he who has not God propitious and sees not in Him the cause of the abundance of bread or the safety of life! Thus you observe the vain superstitions, hidden or in public, and never put an end to these evil sacrifices! And why do they not protect you so that you will be always fed up, safe and joyful? Why, when God is angered, the vain sacrifices do not defend you from the locust, the mice and of many other plagues, which, when He is angered, God sends you?”

Iam quid de illo stultissimo errore cum dolore dicendum est, quia dies tinearum et murium observant et, si dici fas est, homo Christianus pro deo mures et tineas veneratur? Quibus si per tutelam cupelli aut arculae non subducatur aut panis aut pannus, nullo modo pro feriis sibi exhibitis, quod invenerint, parcent. Sine causa autem sibi miser homo istas praefigurationes ipse facit, ut, quasi sicut in introitu anni satur est et laetus ex omnibus, ita illi et in toto anno contingat. Observationes istae omnes paganorum sunt per adinventiones daemonum exquisitae. Sed vae illi homini qui deum non habuerit propitium et ab ipso saturitatem panis et securitatem vitae non habuerit datam! Ecce istas superstitiones vanas aut occulte aut palam facitis, et numquam cessatis ab istis sacrificiis daemonum. Et quare vobis non praestant ut semper saturi sitis et securi et laeti? Quare, quando deus iratus fuerit, non vos defendunt sacrificia vana de locusta, de mure, et de multis aliis tribulationibus, quas vobis deus iratus immittit?

Part 12

“Don’t you clearly understand that the demons lie to you with these practices that you in vain follow, and that they delude you frequently in the auguries to which answer? Indeed, just like the most wise Solomon: Vain are the auguries and the foretellings. And the more men will fear them, the more their heart will weaken. Give them not your heart for many they lead astray. This says the Holly Scripture and thus, in truth, it is, for so many times do the demons persuade the unfortunate men to be aware to the singing of the birds that they end up losing their faith in Christ by these frivolous and vain things and risk themselves to an unfortunate death. God did not allowed men to know the future but, instead, that he would live in fear of Him and of Him expected the government and help for his life. It is exclusive of God to know things before they happen. However, the demons delude the vain men with several arguments until they lead them to offend God and drag with them their souls to hell, like they did in the beginning, for envy, so that man would not enter in the Kingdom of Heaven, from which they, the demons, were expelled.”

Non intellegitis aperte quia mentiuntur vobis daemones in istis observationibus vestris quas vane tenetis, et in auguriis quae adtenditis frequentius vos inludunt? Nam sicut dicit sapientissimus Salomon: divinationes et auguria vana sunt; et quantum timuerit homo in illis, tantum magis fallitur cor eius. Ne dederis in illis cor tuum, quoniam multos scandalizaverunt. Ecce hoc scriptura sancta dicit, et certissime sic est, quia tamdiu infelices homines per avium voces daemonia suadunt, donec per res frivolas et vanas et fidem Christi perdant, et ipsi in interitum mortis suae de improviso incurrant. Non iussit deus hominem futura cognoscere, sed ut, semper in timore illius vivens, ab ipso gubernationem et auxilium vitae suae expeteret. Solius dei est antequam aliquid fiat scire, homines autem vanos daemones diversis argumentis inludunt, donec illos in offensam dei perducant et animas illorum secum pertrahant in infernum, sicut ab initio fecerunt per invidiam suam, ne homo regnum caelorum intraret, de quo illi deiecti sunt.

Part 16

“Here is your bail and confession by God! And why do some of you, that renounced to the Devil and to his angels, his worship and his bad doings, now return again to that evil worshipping? Indeed, to light candles by the rocks, the trees, the fountains and in the crossroads of the paths, what is this if not evil worshipping? To take notice of the fortellings, auguries and of the days of the idols, what is this if not evil worshipping? To take notice of the Volcanes and of the Calends, to garnish to tables, to lay laurel, to enter with the right foot, to shed in the fire place, over the burning timber, food and wine and to throw bread into the fountains, what is this if not Devil worship? The fact that women invoke Minerva at there looms and chose as wedding day the day of Venus [Friday] and to remark in what day one should travel, what is this if not evil worshipping? To make enchantments with herbs to damage and to invoke the names of demons when you do it, what is this if not evil worship? And many other things that that would take time to tell. Here is that you do all these things after Baptism and the renouncing of Satan! Returning to demon worship and to the bad doings of the idols, you have spoken to your word and broke the pact you have made with God. You have abandoned the sign of the cross that you received at Baptism and consider sings of the Devil the little birds, the sneeze and many other things. What’s the reason that to me or to any other sincere Christian the augury doesn’t harm? Because, where the sign of the cross stands, nothing is the sign of the Devil. And why does it harm you? Because you have despised the sign of the cross and fear what you have taken as a sign to you. In the same way, you have forgotten the sacred enchantment, the symbol you received at Baptism, which is I believe in God Omnipotent Father, the dominical prayer, which is our Father thou are in Heaven, and practice evil enchantments and verses. He who, therefore, disdaining the sign of the cross of Christ, takes for him other signs, has lost the sign of the cross he received at Baptism. In the same way, he who practices other enchantments invented by magicians and other evil ones, lost the enchantment of the holy symbol and of the dominical prayer, which he had received in the faith of Christ, trampled at his feet that same faith, because one cannot serve God and the Devil at the same time.”

Ecce qualis cautio et confessio vestra apud deum tenetur! Et quomodo aliqui ex vobis, qui abrenuntiaverunt diabolo et angelis eius et culturis eius et operibus eius malis, modo iterum ad culturas diaboli revertuntur? Nam ad petras et ad arbores et ad fontes et per trivia cereolos incendere, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli? Divinationes et auguria et dies idolorum observare, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli? Vulcanalia et Kalendas observare, mensas ornare, et lauros ponere, et pedem observare, et fundere in foco super truncum frugem et vinum, et panem in fontem mittere, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli? Mulieres in tela sua Minervam nominare et Veneris diem in nuptias observare et quo die in via exeatur adtendere, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli? Incantare herbas ad maleficia et invocare nomina daemonum incantando, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli? Et alia multa quae longum est dicere. Ecce ista omnia post abrenuntiationem diaboli, post baptismum facitis et, ad culturam daemonum et ad mala idolorum opera redeuntes, fidem vestram transistis et pactum quod fecistis cum deo disrupistis. Dimisistis signum crucis, quod in baptismum accepistis, et alia diaboli signa per avicellos et sternutos et per alia multa adtenditis. Quare mihi aut cuilibet recto Christiano non nocet augurium? Quia, ubi signum crucis praecesserit, nihil est signum diaboli. Quare vobis nocet? Quia signum crucis contemnitis, et illud timetis quod vobis ipsi in signum configitis. Similiter dimisistis incantationem sanctam, id est symbolum quod in baptismum accepistis, quod est Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem, et orationem dominicam, id est Pater noster qui es in caelis, et tenetis diabolicas incantationes et carmina. Quicumque ergo, contempto signo crucis Christi, alia signa aspicit, signum crucis, quod in baptismum accepit, perdidit. Similiter et qui alias incantationes tenet a magis et maleficis adinventas, incantationem sancti symboli et orationis dominicae, quae in fide Christi accepit, amisit et fidem Christi inculcavit, quia non potest et deus simul et diabolus coli.

Part 18

“Therefore we praise you, brothers and dearest sons, that you keep in your mind these precepts, which God has deign to transmit it to you trough us, quite humble and small, and think on how you should save your souls, so that you will not only take care of this present life and of the passing utility of this world, but remember what you promised to believe in the Creed, that is, the resurrection of the flesh and eternal life. If, indeed, you have believed and believe in the resurrection of the flesh and the eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven among God’s angels, just like we have told you, think truly on that and less in the unhappiness of the world. Prepare your life with good doings. Go to the church or to holy places to pray to God. Do not despise but keep with respect the Dominic day [Day of the Lord], by which it’s called Sunday, because the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, resurrected from the dead in that day. Do not work at Sunday, in the field, in the meadow, in the vine or in other labours considered heavy, unless to satisfy the feeding necessities of the body as it is to prepare food or a long journey. You may travel to nearby places at Sunday, not with evil purposes but with good ones, that is, to got to the holy places, to visit a brother or a friend, to comfort he who is ill, to take an advice to the troubled ones or help to a good cause. This is how the Christian man must honour Sunday. How innocuous and shameful it is that those who are heathens and ignore the faith in Christ, worshipping their evil idols, keep the day of Jupiter or of any other demon and abstain themselves from working when the demons haven’t created nor have any day and we, who worship the true God and believe that the Son of God resurrected from the dead, now keep the badly the day of Resurrection, that is, Sunday! Do not insult the Resurrection of the Lord, but honour it and respect it with reverence, in the name of the hope that we in it keep. For, just like our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, which is our head, resurrected from the dead at the third day, so we, that are his limbs, hope to resurrect in our flesh at the end of the centuries, so that each one will receive the eternal rest or doom, according to the acting it had, with his body, in the present life.”

Rogamus ergo vos, fratres et filii karissimi, ut ista praecepta, quae vobis deus per nos humillimos et exiguos dare dignatur, in memoria teneatis et cogitetis quomodo salvetis animas vestras, ut non solum de praesenti ista vita et de transitoria mundi istius utilitate tractetis, sed illud magis recordetis quod in symbolo vos credere promisistis, id est carnis resurrectionem et vitam aeternam. Si ergo credidistis et creditis quia carnis resurrectio erit et vita aeterna in regno caelorum inter angelos dei, sicut vobis supra iam diximus, inde quam maxime cogitate, et non semper de istius mundi miseria. Praeparate viam vestram in operibus bonis. Frequentate ad deprecandum deum in ecclesia vel per loca sanctorum. Diem dominicum, qui propterea dominicus dicitur, quia filius dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, in ipso resurrexit a mortuis, nolite contemnere, sed cum reverentia colite. Opus servile, id est agrum, pratum, vineam, vel si qua gravia sunt, non faciatis in die dominico, praeter tantum quod ad necessitatem reficiendi corpusculi pro exquoquendo pertinet cibo et necessitate longinqui itineris. Et in locis proximis licet viam die dominico facere, non tamen pro occasionibus malis, sed magis pro bonis, id est aut ad loca sancta ambulare, aut fratrem vel amicum visitare, vel infirmum consolare, aut tribulanti consilium vel adiutorium pro bona causa portare. Sic ergo decet Christianum hominem diem dominicum venerare. Nam satis iniquum et turpe est ut illi qui pagani sunt et ignorant fidem Christianum, idola daemonum colentes, diem Iovis aut cuiuslibet daemonis colant et ab opere se abstineant, cum certe nullum diem daemonia nec creassent nec habeant. Et nos, qui verum deum adoramus et credimus filium dei resurrexisse a mortuis, diem resurrectionis eius, id est dominicum, minime veneramus! Nolite ergo iniuriam facere resurrectioni dominicae, sed honorate et cum reverentia colite propter spem nostram quam habemus in illam. Nam sicut ille dominus noster Iesus Christus, filius dei, qui est caput nostrum, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ita et nos, qui sumus membra ipsius, resurrecturos nos in carne nostra in fine saeculi speramus, ut unusquisque sive requiem aeternam sive poenam aeternam, sicut in corpore suo in saeculo isto egit, ita recipiat.

#streberfail

PublishedOctober 17, 2018 Post authortorino

A reader had sent me a copy of the Barbarian Tsunami booklet regarding “migrations” in Poland. I haven’t had a chance to go through this in detail but a cursory glance at some of the nonsense described therein is not encouraging. Aside from the poor translation of the Polish, the writing is that of ideologically-constrained dilettantes.

Basically, the theme is that during the Communist times, the political mantra was that Poland had been occupied from times immemorial by Slavs and the organizers of this project resented that. Now, that Poland is democratic, the organizers are free to spread their own theories which – they claim – are based on facts. Those theories suggest the presence of Germanic tribes in Poland and that the Slavs came from somewhere else. These new theories are also based on facts and are politically unbiased because we live in a world where we have democracy and truth, politics does not exist and truth can finally emerge from its hibernation… yadda yadda yadda.

I will have more to say about that but here are some pearls of fancy that were made up by the drafters of this silliness. (Note that these guys are much more cavalier in identifying every object they find with a very specific ethnic group than any archeologist in the West would dare now do):

“A much less known fact and one that we find very exciting is that the peoples involved the most in the upheaval – Goths, Vandals, Herules, Gepids and Burgundians – had issued from the lands between the Odra and the Vistula.”

Not one shred of evidence about any of this – at least as regards Vandals, Herules or Gepids. By the fourth century, all these people are recorded in Ukraine – not Poland. With the possible exception of some portion of the Goths who likely landed from Scandinavia somewhere around Gdansk (or just maintained an emporium there?) and, if you believe Ptolemy, Burgundians, none of these peoples can be placed in Poland.

“Among the best known materials are those discovered within the complex of settlements at Gąski-Wierzbiczany in Kuiavia, a central place of the Vandals. Some of these are discussed below by Marcin Rudnicki.”

I am curious how these guys know that these were “Vandal” sites (and central sites no less!). I mean, they could just as easily have been Japanese or Aztec “sites”.

“The same year, the Vandals settled in southern and central Poland, and on the upper Tisa River, the Alans and Suebians living on the middle Danube, burst into Gaul, which they cruelly plundered for a full three years and then moved to Spain.”

This run-on sentence is pure bullshit. First of all there is no evidence of any tribes that could be called Vandals anywhere in Poland with the – possible – exception of very southern Poland. The only, and indeed, the first, place that any Vandals are actually recorded is the Tisa. I understand the reference to the “upper” as trying to “move” the Vandals closer to Poland.

Secondly, there is zero evidence from whence the Vandals, Alans and Suevi that entered Gall came from other than, presumably, somewhere east of the Rhine (since they had to cross it).

Third, we don’t even know who exactly crossed the Rhine but it seems it was a hell of a lot of different peoples. Jerome gives the following list:

“Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians, Alemanni and the armies of the Pannonians”

Fourth, putting aside that the above list does not actually list any Suebi, if we were to include Suebi, we probably should write (like the ancient writers) Suevi and not Suebi (like the ossified 19th century Prussian historians).

Fifth, “cruelly plundered” seems like a bit of rhetoric better fitting a Christian or Roman eyewitness of the events rather than a detached scientist.

“Having issued from the lands in the Odra and the Vistula drainage basin the Germanic Goths, Vandals, Gepides, Herules and Burgundians would go on play an important part in the emergence of a new, medieval Europe. It would be incorrect to say that the Migration Period brought destruction only; it was also the beginning of a new order on our continent.”

“Having issued from the writer’s feverish imagination” would have been better said.

“The Przeworsk culture people were mostly Vandals, but presumably included some Lugians, a group which a few centuries earlier had established a powerful organised society which contributed to the emergence of the Przeworsk culture.”

This is an almost verbatim plagiarism of Herwig Wolfram’s failed attempt to reconcile the fact that Poland was, in fact, occupied by the Lougi/Legii with his enormous desire to place the Vandals there instead. Wolfram’s attempt was pulled out of his ass. Now it looks like we have someone trying to make a carbon copy of that watery turd.

“There is evidence from archaeology as well on the presence in the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland (Polish Jura) in late 4th and early 5th century of the Vandals (the Przeworsk culture people) but also, of Gothic immigrants from the territory of present-day Ukraine.”

Again, how is Przeworsk “Vandalic”? I’d really like to know. Artifacts? Even assuming these artifacts were Scandinavian in (ethnic) origin, it’s a far cry to suggest that they must have been Vandalic given that Vandals are not recorded in Poland… But, if, as I suspect, the idea is to inculcate Poles with the notion that they are immigrants in their own homeland, then why not skip the Vandalic middleman and go straight to the heart of the matter? After all there are tons of Arab dirhams found all over Poland. Why not declare that this is evidence of massive Arab presence in Poland in the middle ages? (rab > rob > worker?)

One thing about that paragraph does deserve some attention. The author suggests a (presumably return in his telling) migration of Goths to Poland from Ukraine. It would behoove scientists to look at the question (particularly given the centum character of Tocharian and recent R1b finds among Sarmatians) of whether the Goths and other Scandinavians may indeed have come – relatively late – from the Pontic Steppe.

“Recent finds from western Lesser Poland suggest the arrival in late 4th and early 5th century to this region also of a group of Goths from the territory of present-day Ukraine. Finds displaying Hunnic traits, like burials excavated at Jakuszowice and Przemęczany, show that in the early Migration Period the western region of Lesser Poland was under the control of the nomads and their allies. Presumably, this situation was accepted by groups of Vandals still living there.”

Again, no Vandals. But if there had been Vandals there, then, yeah, I am sure they would have “accepted this situation.” Assuming they desired to continue living there (or just living). The author seems almost apologetic in explainng why and how his übermensch Vandals “accepted” the overlordship of “nomads and their allies.”

“Echoes of these events are to be found in the written record. The bulk of the population of the Przeworsk culture may safely be identified with the Vandals.”

Whenever I see phrases such as “there is no doubt” or “may safely be assumed” I get this gnawing feeling that nothing could be further from the truth. But, hey, maybe it’s just paranoia…

“Presumably, the Vandals who remained in their homeland in Poland, are those immortalised by Procopius of Caesarea. He noted that in 439–477, the reign of king Geiseric, the Vandals in Africa received an embassy of their compatriots still residing in their ancestral abodes come to sure that the former had no intention of returning North. In this context highly intriguing are some references which recur in the early medieval written record. In his hagiography of Saint Ulrich written in 983–993, Gerhard of Augsburg repeatedly refers to Mieszko I as the duke of the Vandals (dux Wandalorum, Misico nomine). What could be the source of this piece of intelligence recorded in the late 10th century? Could it be that the descendants of the Vandals had actually survived in central Poland, or – as some historians claim – had the provost of the Augsburg Cathedral simply misspelt the German name Wenden (Slavs)? For an answer to this and many other questions we have to look to the future.”

As I’ve written before… assuming that such an embassy did in fact take place and Procopius did actually find out about it, the “ancestral abodes” of the Vandals would much more likely have been in places such as:

Spain
France
Romania/Hungary (even Czechia)

All places in which Vandals had been living for over 2 centuries before. But, if we must look further in time and, if in fact there was such a thing as Vandals back then, then I would look in Scandinavia – not Poland.

As regards the fact that half a millennium later Gerhard of Augsburg thought Poles were Vandals (and others thought they were Goths or Sarmatians or Illyrians), well, I would refer these fine archeologists to Roland Steinacher’s Phd thesis or his little write up Wenden, Slawen, Vandalen. Eine frühmittelalterliche pseudologische Gleichsetzung und ihr Nachleben ~~bis ins 18.~~ bis ins 21. Jahrhundert.

In any event, it seems to me that the Vandals may well have been named after the Wends whose territories – likely in East Germany – they may have occupied.

Were There Vandals in Poland? – Part VII

PublishedAugust 19, 2015 Post authortorino

We have examined the Vandals (even though this is a blog about Slavs) just to see if there could be any connection. Maybe there was. But it is not apparent to us (about the best that can be said is that Kadlubek speaks of the legend of Wanda…).

So what do we discover on this topic if we look around? What does the academic profession write about this?

Looking at Wikipedia is most dangerous but why not start there. Here we came on materials describing the connection between the Vandals and the Lugii. These included:

the Germania treatise written by John Anderson in 1938 – given the title’s reference to Tacitus, we decided it was unlikely to say much about Vandals;

the more recent (2006) Encyclopedia of European Peoples published by InfoBase Publishing by Carl Waldman and Catherine Mason – a derivative work where neither of the authors is a scholar of the matters in question and,

much more interestingly, The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples (original: Das Reich und die Germanen – no, not that Reich, don’t worry! – published by the University of California Press – a work by the German (Austrian, technically, but we prefer not dealing with abstractions) historian Herwig Wolfram, a professor emeritus (now) at the University of Vienna.

Wolfram had written the History of the Goths and so this seemed like a natural choice to compare and contrast.

Primus inter bullshitters?

The section on the Vandals pre-405/406 is, unsurprisingly, short but we were nevertheless struck by how much it is inundated with supposition and wishful thinking. The author appears to have abandoned his critical faculties and entered the land of fancy. As Wolfram appears to be one of the leading scholars of the era, this is, of course, a most lamentable, result. We were so disappointed that we did not bother to read the rest of the book (we hope to go back to it after the initial shock wears off).

With a heavy heart, we present what the author has to say about the pre-405/406 Vandals. Commentary, obviously, in red.

Wolfram: The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples

The Vandals

Wolfram: “The history leading up to the great Vandal assault, in which both Hasding and Siling Vandals crossed the Rhine along with other peoples and thus stepped into the bright light of history , can be reconstructed only in rough outline.”

Yes, and that very rough outline we gave in the prior posts here. What follows in Wolfram’s writing is not a reconstruction but a wholesale construction “from the ground up.”

Wolfram: “Already the Tacitus speaks in the same breath of the central Vandili cult site (“a sacred grove of ancient worship”), which was presided over by a priest dressed like a woman, and of the Alci-Alces, two deities he equates with the Dioskouroi Castor and Pollux.”

Either an outright lie or Wolfram is a crappy historian. Tacitus does not speak of any “central” or other “Vandili” cult site (in the “same” or many breaths). He speaks of a Naharnavali cult site. Wolfram assumes that Naharnavali are Vandals and attributes the Naharnavali site to the latter. The mention of a grove should probably point us towards the Lugi (given one Slavic meaning of the word “lug” – on that see here). This would fit in nicely with the fact that the Naharnavali were listed by Tacitus as a member group of the Lugii.

Wolfram: “The Vandals, who had originally formed one large ethnic group (like the Suevi), bore “a genuine and old tribal name.”

Leaving the Suevi aside, Tacitus does not claim that a the Vandal name was a “genuine” one and an “old” one. Rather he says that:

Some people assert “with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity” that the people living in Tacitus’ “Germania” (or a subpart of them?) had several names and that, on that list, there was a Vandili name (last on the list); and that

[some people assert] that “these are genuine old names” (not genuine and old), i.e., meaning simply, “some people say that the name was “old, really!”

Put differently, Tacitus is careful not to say the same but rather to point out that others are saying something about these Germanic tribes. He asserts that they are guessing (conjecture) but given how long ago all of this was (antiquity), perhaps their guessing is worth something, or they are entitled to more leeway, so he is going to include this information in his ethnographic text.

The notion that the Vandals were a group of smaller tribes/peoples (?) comes solely from Pliny. The notion that they were an ethnic group (as opposed to, say, an alliance of tribes of different ethnicity) cannot be derived from ancient authors and represents a “construction” of Wolfram’s.

Wolfram: “The Longobards arose in the struggle against the Vandals.”

The only source for this is Origo (Paul the Deacon is derivative). This may well be true but one ought to note that the Origo was written several hundred of years after the “arising” of the Longobards and only after the Vandals had gotten their fearsome reputation, i.e., where the notion of struggling and winning against the Vandals would actually mean something impressive.

Wolfram: “The Gothic tribal saga too reflects centuries of conflict between Goths and Vandals. True to its bias the saga celebrates the very first class as a Gothic victory. In reality, what took place was probably not a singular incident but a longer process that freed the Gutones from dependence on the Vandals. Pliny the Elder still knew the Gutones as a subgroup of the Vandals-Vandili.”

Pliny, as we noted was the only one and even with Pliny we have to assume that the Gutones are the later Goths – a possibility but not a certainty. And even if the Goths of Cniva (not to mention the later Goths) were related to the Gutones, that does not mean that the first came from the second – as opposed to, say, some parallel migration along the Daugava, as described in the Gutasagan.

Moreover, the notion of “centuries of conflict” appears misleading. Jordanes’ text suggests several skirmishes probably over a few centuries but the Vandals are presented by him, not as the “ur-enemies” of the Goths but rather as one of many tribes being beaten by and fleeing from the Goths.

Nevertheless, this seems to be the most accurate group of sentences in this passage thus far.

Wolfram: The Gutones are also mentioned in connection with the Lugians,”

The Gutones are mentioned by Tacitus as living past the Lugii. But Tacitus does not know any people then living by the name of Vandals and certainly does not claim that the Lugii were Vandals. Moreover, given the number of Goths’ victims, one might just as well claim that the Lugii were the Spali or some other tribe (allegedly) defeated by the Goths (the list is impressive).

The French and Americans were, no doubt, listed several times “in connection” with one another in WWII histories but that does not mean that the Americans were French or French were Americans. And the Germans and Russians are also, of course, mentioned “in connection with” one another in works discussing the same time period. Is this supposed to be some sort of “we’re all out of Africa” theory?

Ptolemy also mentions a Gotini people and a Lugii people but does so in two different sections of Geography – the first are in Sarmatia, the second in the earlier chapter on Germania. Hence no evident connection exists except that they, along with hundreds of others, are in the same book.

Wolfram: “and even Tacitus speaks of Lugians and the Vandals in one breath.”

Huh!? We were puzzled by this clause. Unless, Wolfram knows something about Tacitus’ and his breathing that we do not or unless Wolfram has come into possession of a document unknown to us (a possibility!), we have to admit we know of no text of Tacitus that mentions the Lugians and Vandals other than Germania (which is the only time he mentions the Vandals). Of course, in Germania the Vandals are mentioned as an “appellation” of some/all (?) of the “Germans” in chapter 2, whereas the Lugii are mentioned as an actual tribe in chapters 43 & 44 – good luck holding your breath.

As discussed before, Tacitus in his Annals (12, 29 & 12, 30) notes that during the reign of Claudius an army of Lugii (the other time the Lugii are mentioned by Tacitus and the only other time they are mentioned by him) confronted Vannius of the Suevi who were being aided by Iazyges. But where are the Vandals?

The clause is obviously false.

The question is who did Wolfram mean? Or is this just totally made up? The only thing that we can come up with is Zossimus (the much later- 5th-6th century writer) who says in his Historia Nova:

“The emperor [Probus] terminated several other wars, with scarcely any trouble; and fought some fierce battles, first against the Logiones, a German nation, whom he conquered, taking Semno their general, and his son, prisoners. These he pardoned upon submission, but took from them all the captives and plunder they had acquired, and dismissed, on certain terms, not only the common soldiers, but even Semno and his son. Another of his battles was against the Franks, whom he subdued through the good conduct of his commanders. He made war on the Burgundi and the Vandili. But seeing that his forces were too weak, he endeavoured to separate those of his enemies, and engage only with apart. His design was favoured by fortune;”

[Zossimus also claims the Burgundi and Vandili were then resettled in Britain – a topic to which we will come back]

Now, one could read that in one breath but that would be an impressive breath and the reading not very clear by the time one got to the Vandili.

In any event, measuring the closeness of ethnic relationships described by a writer by the ability of the reader to engage in some pulmonary gymnastics (even if especially impressive ones) seems an unusual way of establishing such affinities (this is the second such “breath” reference in this text). If you think Zossimus thinks of the Logiones and the Vandili as the same people, based on the above text, more power to you.

Tacitus was also known for his free diving skills (BTW what is it with Austrians and their long breaths?)

Is Wolfram reinterpreting Strabo‘s Vinde-lici?

Is it a translator mistake?

Or is he just making it all up and no one checks this stuff before it goes to print? No, that… couldn’t be it. There must be systems in place that prevent that, right?

If readers have any other ideas, please let us know.

Wolfram: “In all likelihood the Lugians and the Vandals were one cultic community that lived in the same region of the Oder in Silesia, where it was first under Celtic and then under Germanic domination.”

“In all likelihood” is one of those subjective phrases that is intended to seem as a model of objectivity. It implies a carefully balanced decision making process where the author, after sweating over the topic for years, comes to a difficult but inevitable conclusion that something is true. The phrase in “all” likelihood suggests something more than “it is likely”, “it is probable” or “it is more likely than not”). It suggests that, by implication, in “no likelihood” could matters have been different. But is that the case?

Why are the Lugians or Vandals a “cultic” community now? So are they of a different ethnicity but worship the same Gods? We assume this statement is based solely on the mention of the poor Naharnavalis’ rites – but what that statement has to do with Vandals, is beyond us, unless one, a priori, assumes that Tacitus’ description of the Naharnavali as Lugii is correct (let’s assume that) and that the Lugii, or at least the Naharnavali, were Vandals.

But maybe one does not have to do that – maybe we can just call them all a “cultic community”? (This suggests interesting possibilities for the worshippers of the Roman Catholic Church – perhaps now Paraguaians are ethnically related to the Bavarians? Through a “cultic community”, of course – not to mention Alfredo Strößner).

Ehhh, academics…

Wolfram: “What was for the most part considered “Celtic” around the time of Christ’s birth was considered “Germanic” a century later.”

This is a perplexing statement. Presumably, Wolfram means “considered” by Romans since they were the only literate ones in the area (or at least the only one who left relevant records). If so, is he suggesting that the name changed by the people did not? Did their language change?

Now, interestingly, Wolfram does say something curious about the Slavs in his book – we will return to that later.

Wolfram: “The Lugian name was preserved, and so Tacitus could simultaneously recognize the importance of the Vandals, locate the Gutones – from the perspective of the Danubian frontier – “beyond the Lugians,” and include many Lugian subtribes among the Vandals.”

This sounds like an explanation/rationalization of something that Tacitus wrote. But it isn’t that because Tacitus didn’t write anything of the sort.

Tacitus could have included “many” Lugian sub tribes among the Vandals – had Tacitus agreed with Wolfram’s view of the Lugii that the latter were Vandals. Then Wolfram could have written the above sentence, telling us why Tacitus wrote such a thing – a thing not immediately obvious to the rest of us.

But Tacitus did not include “many” or any Lugian sub tribes among the Vandals. As noted above, Tacitus’ list of the peoples of Germania does not even describe any tribe by the name Vandals existing in Tacitus’ own time. So Wolfram is explaining why Tacitus did something that Tacitus did not do.

Perhaps the above should have read “Tacitus could have had written”? Or “should have written”? Maybe it is the translator’s fault?

Of course, in that case Wolfram is just telling Tacitus how Tacitus should have written his Germania set in Tacitus’ own time, to fit with Wolfram’s views – views shaped by a perspective nearly two millennia distant from Tacitus’ own time. In any event such a sentence would belong in a late night prayer to Tacitus not in what purports to be a history book.

Wolfram: “At the end of the first and the beginning of the second century, the Gutones separated from the Lugian-Vandal community and moved from Pomerania to the Vistula.”

Let’s see, there is no evidence that:

there was a Lugian-Vandal community (putting aside the confusing hyphen, i.e., were Lugii Vandals or not?);

the Gutones moved east (south?) to the Vistula;

Easily granting that Jordanes speaks of the Goths moving from Scandinavia to present-day Ukraine (?), he is less than clear on how they got there. Did they migrate over Finland? Did they land in Estonia? On the Daugava? On the Niemen? Were they at the Vistula or at the Oder?

And there is no evidence when that (whatever their itinerary) happened.

Wolfram: “The Vandals (assigned by archaeologists to the Przeworsk culture) meanwhile expanded southward from what is today central Poland.”

For the Vandals to have “expanded southward from what is today central Poland” they must have been in central Poland in the first place. Of course, this is not per se impossible, but, as we have seen, the evidence as to the Vandals’ path (if indeed they came from Scandinavia) or the Vandals’ formation (if they did not) points mostly to the territories of today’s East Germany.

On the Przeworsk culture see here.

It is also noteworthy that elsewhere Wolfram says: “…in the Wielbark culture, where the Gutones belonged to the Lugian cult league, which was originally dominated by the Celts.”

Basically, Wolfram acknowledges the archeologists’ typology of “Przeworsk” and “Wielbark” and associates the former with the Vandals and the latter with the Goths. His problem is that the ancient writers label these areas as belonging to the Legii or Lugii or Lygii but not the Vandals and, except for portions of Pomerania, not the Goths. So Wolfram confabulates away by connecting the Vandals and the Goths with an entirely made-up Lugic “cultic community” or “cult league” – even though neither such connection nor such “cultic” community is reported anywhere… For good measure (and presumably to anticipate any suggestion that the Lugii were Slavs), he also labels the Legii/Lugii/Lygii with the neutral name of “Celts”.

We are thus presumably to believe that these territories were covered by Vandals and Goths and if there were any people before them there, they were “Celts.” Wolfram does not even mention the Veneti (why is the Baltic, the Sarmatian Sea? What of the Veneti dwelling at the Veneticus Sinus?). And, as for the Lugii/Legii/Lygii, well, their attested presence in Poland is, of course, unfortunate for Wolfram but he disposes of that issue by making up one large Lugo-Vandalo-Gothic community (of Celtic origins of course). The fact that the Lugii/Legii/Lygii were seem to live in Suevia and the Polish Lechites live in the same space later as “Slavs” does not seem worth exploring to Wolfram (presumably the explanation would be that the incoming Slavs stole the Suevic name, and, for good measure, probably also stole the Lugii/Legii name).

Wolfram: “The Sudeten Mountains became the “Vandal Mountains” and demarcated the land of one of the Vandal sub tribes, the Silesian Silings.”

This is a mixture of partial BS and pure BS (call it 75% BS). The Sudeten Mountains may have been called the Vandalic Mountains. However, there is only one such reference and that reference of Cassius Dio’s is hardly dispositive as to the question of which mountains bore such name.

One would also have to ask who lived in the territories that the Vandals moved from and moved to…

That’s the partial-BS part.

The total BS part is the suggestion that the the Vandal Mountains demarcated the land of a Vandal sub tribe of the Silesian Silingi. This is because:

there is no evidence that the Silingi lived in Silesia;
- even assuming that the Silingi deviated eastwards at some point and traveled through Silesia that hardly would make it their land and hardly a land with any (this sounds so statist and formal) need for officially “demarcated” borders.

there is evidence that the Lugii lived in Silesia and that the Silingi lived west of the Lugii and, therefore, west of Silesia;

the combining together of the adjective Silesian with the Silingi (actually Silingae) looks like a parlour trick designed to force a connection where there is likely none – the Silingae probably derive their name from Zeeland of Denmark and are never shown as being in Silesia; (incidentally, any honest examination of the Silingi should begin with their mention in medieval sources, where, e.g., a people named Silendi are named in Royal Frankish Annals, e.g., under the year 815 as being Norsemen north of the River Eider)

even if the Silingi became Vandals later, the Silingi are not described as Vandals (or a “sub tribe” thereof) by the only source before the 5th century (Ptolemy) that mentions them at all;

Wolfram: “To their east we can make out the other Vandals, the Hasdingi, the “long-haired,” whose ancient customs and instituions probably reach back into the Lugian period.”

At this point, we began to suspect that Wolfram, immediately prior to writing this chapter, had consumed substances considered illegal in most countries and that the effects of said substances – perceptible to the reader’s eye only weakly at first – had become, shall we say, “preponderant”.

“We” can’t “make out” anyone to the East of the Silingi that is called the Hasdingi. Ptolemy, the only author mentioning the Silingi says nothing of the Hasdingi. And Ptolemy lists a LOT of tribes.

We “are told” that in the second half of the second century a tribe named Hasdingi did in fact appear in Dacia. That Hasdingi tribe was, in fact, later referred to as Vandals.

There is no suggestion anywhere that the Hasdingi were related to the Lugii or that they had any “ancient customs and institutions”.

Wolfram: “For example, the first three generations of their royal line are pairs of military kings: Ambri and Assi (“alder” and “ash”) resist the Longobards, Raus and Rapt (“beam” and “reed”) request permission in 171 to enter Trajan’s Dacia, and even two hundred years later Hasdingi warriors invade the Roman Empire under the leadership of two kings whose names are unknown to us.”

As to the names, this is true if one believes Jordanes and Paul the Deacon to have written accurately the names of Vandalic leaders in their founding myths of the Goths and Lombards, respectively. As to the interpretation of names, several come to mind.

Wolfram: “The Hasdingi in the narrower sense can be compared to the Gothic Amals, who were also considered to be Aesir: for one thing, both names represent the ethnic group from which “the kings are chosen”;

They represent family or clan names but a whole ethnic group? Is Wolfram saying here that there were other ethnic groups within the Vandals/Goths? On this he may be write but it is not clear what he means here.

Wolfram: “for another, the name of the Amal Aesir probably means the same as the names of the Vandal dual kings Raus and Rapt, namely, a log or tree from which stake idols were carved.”

We have said a lot of things on this site and engaged in a lot of speculation but we would never suggest that such a thing was “probable”. It is Wolfram’s freewheeling interpretation and he is entitled to it but he should declare it as such.

Wolfram: “While the majority of the Silings remained beyond the Sudeten Mountains, Hasding groups and already crossed the Carpathian Mountains southward by the time of the Marcomannic wars.”

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Once again, the only time that the Silingae appear before the year 400 A.D. is in Ptolemy’s Geography, in the 100s and probably around the town of Leipzig. As to the Hasdings, we have no idea how or from where they came to Dacia – or whether they coalesced out of the natives of the surrounding countryside.

Remember, the Dacians were previously known as Getae and may have birthed the Goths and if so why not the Vandals too? (yes, we know the Getae may not have been the Goths and yet the latter first appear on history’s pages precisely where the former lived – a surprising alleged coincidence).

Wolfram: “We are told that they joined the great Gothic military King Cniva around 250; in 270 they penetrated from the upper reaches of the Tisza River all the way to Pannonia. Just as the Saxons backed the Franks, the Vandals backed the Goths in the conflict with Rome.”

So not mortal enemies after all (though, to be fair, “joined” is probably a euphemism). The sources of all these statements are in our prior postings. Here, where he has to write history and not speculate, Wolfram is at his best.

Thoughts

We had previously enjoyed Wolfram’s History of the Goths but now the question arises whether we will have to revisit that as well. Hopefully not, as there are too many Slavic topics that merit review.