De Origine Successibusque Slavorum 1532

[Pelister]

If the historical record of the region is accurate regarding the term and its earliest uses then we can be confident that, prior to referring to Getic populations as Sklavenes, Eastern Romans informally referred to Gothic populations as Sporoi, a term whose root has specific meaning in the Achaean creole language. It literally meant scattered or dispersed people, as in people driven from their lands. As a term which defined a condition (status) and not an ethnicity, we can then put forth the assertion that Sklavene, as another slang word that came into use for Getic populations, did not truly define them in an ethnic sense, which was already represented by the Getae term, but a word which came into use out of contempt, given the armed conflicts occurring in the region. Without a specific definition from the Ancient Period, I don’t think we’ll ever truly understood what it meant, only who the term was originally applied to and the circumstances which apparently gave rise to the generalization. I currently hold the view that it meant “they who are presently drilling us a new one”, as I’ve never come across a term in the Eastern Roman language that could be reasonably regarded as an adapted form of an existent word within that particular language.

The notion that "Slabenoi" referred to a condition rather than an ethnic group, is insightful.

You know about a year ago I was reading "Marcellinus" (6th C.??). I don't exactly recall. It is Marcellinus who associates the "Sklavenoi" with the "Getae". The book in the local library is useful because it has the original Greek, and the English translation of it alongside it. One thing I noticed, back then, was how words were translated. The same Greek word appeared about six times throughout the work, with just a slight vowel variation of presumably the same word. The English translator, found that the word meant "Goths" on five occasions, and "Getae" on one occasion. The term "Getae" is an exact translation from the Greek, while the other terms a slight variations of this word, to which he designates "Goths". Strange stuff.

Let me do a bit of asking around. I know a few people who are fairly knowledgeable about the period who might have access to a microfiche of the Latin original.

If you want bibliographic details and location about the book I can provide them for you.

Very insightful. What about the presence of the Illyrian languages in the region prior to the 6th Century AD? How should the research that Max Vasmer conducted be regarded in an age where the human genome has been unraveled, demonstrating quite a different path out of prehistory?

Or the presence of Thracian languages ? Establishing a connection between Illyrian and/or Thracian to "Slavic" (as we know it today) would from a scientific point of view go a long way to hurdling all the political jargon, the vague analogues, colonial classifications, misinterpretations and shifty designations in describing ancient and moden balkan people. I mean millions of ancient people spread across the balkans do not just dissappear in a century or two, leaving no trace. It has nearly been 100 years and the Greeks have planted over half a million nationals in a part of Macedonia to change its ethnic structure - yet the Macedonians are still there. In the 6th,7th and 8th centuries, there was no forced deportation on a mass scale, no assimilation practices ...etc. As we wade through the colonial garbage floating at the surface of history in this region, I think we will find the human genone project revealing what we have always known, and many suspected.

[Pelister]

Pelister, if you have the German translation feel free to post it, I could translate it for you!

But as I recall, there was a copy around in Serb as well. Although to read the Original is the best thing to do. But Latin is a problematic.

I would like to, but I do not have a scanner. Perhaps I could photo-copy the pages and send them to you when I am done ?

[makedonin]

I would like to, but I do not have a scanner. Perhaps I could photo-copy the pages and send them to you when I am done ?

Do you mean per Email? That won't be a problem. I think you can go in a Copy shop and make a scan of the pages you need.

Let me know how it goes.

[Daskalot]

Pelister, if you have the German translation feel free to post it, I could translate it for you!

But as I recall, there was a copy around in Serb as well. Although to read the Original is the best thing to do. But Latin is a problematic.

Is this the one you are talking about?

Mavro_Orbin-Kraljevstvo_Slovena

[Daskalot]

Here is the republished edition of Mauro Orbini's great work, it is from 1968 and it is in Serbian.

Mavro_Orbin-Kraljevstvo_Slovena.pdf

I will quote myself from the first page, the book has been here all along....

[Sovius]

RE: Pelister

You know about a year ago I was reading "Marcellinus" (6th C.??). I don't exactly recall. It is Marcellinus who associates the "Sklavenoi" with the "Getae". The book in the local library is useful because it has the original Greek, and the English translation of it alongside it. One thing I noticed, back then, was how words were translated. The same Greek word appeared about six times throughout the work, with just a slight vowel variation of presumably the same word. The English translator, found that the word meant "Goths" on five occasions, and "Getae" on one occasion. The term "Getae" is an exact translation from the Greek, while the other terms a slight variations of this word, to which he designates "Goths". Strange stuff.

I believe Marcellinus recorded and interpreted historical events for the Roman Empire during 4th Century AD. Do you happen to recall which book/section he referred to the sklavenoi in? Regarding the Getae, I believe this author also made mention of the Odrysian political sphere during this period, as well. There might be some important details concerning the history of the term.

This is an excellent example of a set of transitional distortions, more evidence that Germanic translations from a prior age tried to Germanize European history rather than interpret it objectively. Toponymic evidence indicates that Getic populations (Geats) in Southeastern Sweden came to adopt a Nordic language, not that they were a Germanic tribe to begin with. Visby (wyspy) on Götland Island, etc.?

If you want bibliographic details and location about the book I can provide them for you.

That’d be great! Thanks.

Or the presence of Thracian languages ? Establishing a connection between Illyrian and/or Thracian to "Slavic" (as we know it today) would from a scientific point of view go a long way to hurdling all the political jargon, the vague analogues, colonial classifications, misinterpretations and shifty designations in describing ancient and moden balkan people. I mean millions of ancient people spread across the balkans do not just dissappear in a century or two, leaving no trace. It has nearly been 100 years and the Greeks have planted over half a million nationals in a part of Macedonia to change its ethnic structure - yet the Macedonians are still there. In the 6th,7th and 8th centuries, there was no forced deportation on a mass scale, no assimilation practices ...etc. As we wade through the colonial garbage floating at the surface of history in this region, I think we will find the human genone project revealing what we have always known, and many suspected.

Or the Pelasgian languages for that matter. Yes, the idea of population displacement is regarded as a fairly primitive notion these days.

The high Y-STR diversity observed throughout populations defined by Haplogroup I2a2 in relation to its high frequency demonstrates the indigenous nature of most Southeastern European populations in relation to populations carrying other less diverse markers into the region from the Middle East and North Africa. So there is already the biological certainty that modern Croatians, Macedonians and other culturally similar populations arose out of this indigenous population stratum, taking on minor migration waves from other regions in Europe and elsewhere over various periods in time. Where there is biological continuity (from one generation to the next) there is archeological and cultural continuity, as well, and where there is cultural continuity there is typically linguistic continuity. This is not to say that languages and cultures don’t change over time, but rather, changes observed in this region did not result in any sort of discernable discontinuity. Cultures are always changing, but do these kinds of changes constitute breaks in the essence of a culture or even a set of similar cultures? It has long been established that the Caledonian, Italic, Germanic and “Greek” languages resulted out of what was termed interference (now amalgamation) in relation to the more conservative IE languages. This now has to be explained in a way that does not contradict genetic evidence or Europe’s archeological record.



I think the best example of Macedonian cultural continuity, beyond genetic evidence, is the fact that so many Macedonian (Illyro-Sarmatian) words remain preserved in the Achaean language. Think about ‘stoisko’ and ‘stoicheo’. The Polish word simply means ‘stand’, while the Achaean word meant ‘stand at attention in a uniform line’ and was even associated with marching, if I’m not mistaken. The semantic transformation indicates either adoption or innovation through multi-culturalism. This body of evidence supports the treatment of languages like the Macedonian (Phrygian?) language as parent languages of the Achaean language.

Sergei Starosin of Russia was another linguist, similar to Alinei, who was comfortable with the fact that what came to be classified as the western and eastern branches of the Slavic language group arose out of the southern block, rather than the typical political interpretation of a linguagenesis out of the East. Only this haplogroup can reasonably define such an occurrence within the regions where these languages continue to be spoken. Its not that I2a2 is the “Slav” gene; its that its expansion runs parallel to archeological and linguistic evidence and can account for differences between the Baltic and Illyrian linguistic groups and the similarities found between the southern block and old Iberian languages like Basque.

[Pelister]

Lost in Translation / Sklavenoi

The book "The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare" (1988) by Michael Whitby is interesting because throughout the book he refers to the "Slavs", even though the original sources he refers to do not mention the "Slavs" or even use that word. The origional Greek and Latin sources use the terms "Sklavenoi" and "Sklavoi". Both these terms were used throughout the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries in the original Greek and Latin sources. Whitby's "translation" of these original terms is appalling, and we immediately associate early Byzantine invaders with people of eastern Europe today.

There are two direct references (possibly more) where the term "Getae" is used as a synonym for "Sklavenoi".

1. Theophylact Simocatta (iii. 4.7)

"As for the Getae, that is to say the hoardes of Sclavenes, they were fiercely ravaging the region of Thrace". The thing to be noted here is that the English translation of this text does not use the exact original term "Sklavenoi". In the English translation, the 'k' is replaced with a 'c' and the ending changed, so that the English term is "Sclavenes" - again, a slight variation of the original, but significant.

. It would be interesting to find out who first translated the term "Sklavenoi" to the term "Sclavenes" ??

2. Theophylact Simocatta (vii. 2.5)

"The Romans drew near to the Getae, for this is the older name for the barbarians, but did not dare to come to grips, since they were afraid of the javelins ..."

3. Marcellinus Comes (Cover period 378-548)

The Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes with Translation and commentary by Brian Croke (with a reproduction of Mommsen's edition of the text), Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney, 1995 (Should be a copy of this at Sydney University, Australian Catholic University and the Australian National University).

3. Original Latin [note: He is describing a "Sklavene" invasion here, but the English translation of the original Latin uses the term "Goths"(English) for the term "Getae" (Latin)]

Anastasii Et Agapiti

X

Olla illa, quae in Hieremia vate ab aquilone adversum nos nostraque delicat saepe succenditur, tel ignita fabricavit maximamque partem Illyrici iisdem iaculis vulneravit. duae tunc Macedoniae Thessaliaque vastatae et usque Thermopylas veteremque Epirum Getae equites depraedati sunt. mille tunc librarum auri denarios per Paulum Anastasius imperator por redimendis Romanorum captivis Iohanni praefecto Illyrici misi: defiicente pretio vel inclusi suis cum domuniculis captivi Romani incensi sunt vel pro muris clausarum urbium trucidati

Translation (p.39)

517

1 Sept 516 - 31 Aug 517
10th Indiction, consulship of Anastasius and Agapitus

That famous woman, who in the prophet Jeremiah is often enkindled by the north wind against us and our sins, forged weapons of fire and with the same weapons damaged a very great part of Illyricum. At that time both Macedonia and Thessaly were ravaged and the Gothic cavalry plundered as far as Thermopylae and Epirus Vetus. Through Paul the emperor Anastasius sent on thousand pounds of gold denarii to John, the prefect of Illyricum, to ransom the Roman's prisoners. Because that was not enough the Roman prisoners were either burnt while shut in the dwellings or killed in front of the walls of the enclosed cities.

Latin / English

At 505

Getam / Goths

At 517

Getae / Goths

Commentary: p.124

... In 529 Mundo was sent against the Getae (Slavs) - 'Goths' according to M. - in Illyricum and was immediately successful, as Marcellnus explains ...

What is wrong with this commentary ? Marcellinus is describing an invasion of "Sklavenoi" and he uses the term "Getae" to describe them. The English commentary, uses places the term "Slav" in brackets after "Getae" [Getae(Slav)]. If we are talking about the Sklavenoi here, then the use of the term "Slav" is simply wrong. Secondly, the English commentary "assumes" that Marcellinus is referring to "Goths" (which is contradictory) to the earlier discription.

The translator "assumes" that the term "Getae" = "Goths"

At 530

Getis / Goths

Concluding comments:

The name "Getae" is used by the translators as a synonym for Goths, even though Marcellinus uses it directly (at least in one case) in relation to an invasion of Sklavenoi.

The second error the translator makes it to use the term "Slav" in reference to "Getae", when clearly it is referring to in the original "Sklavenoi".

[makedonin]

Is this the one you are talking about?

Mavro_Orbin-Kraljevstvo_Slovena

Yep Daskalot, it is the book, but it is on Serb. I have more interest to older translation of it, say German, as I already said in this thread, so let me quote my self:

But as I recall, there was a copy around in Serb as well. Although to read the Original is the best thing to do. But Latin is a problematic.

So the next to the original is German, so it might be more accurate, or may not be the case...

And as we know, not for anyone is the Serb a language of choice or intelligible.

[Pelister]

Is this the one you are talking about?

Mavro_Orbin-Kraljevstvo_Slovena

Daskalot,

Sorry for the confusion. I have found a German translation of the Latin writings of "Phillip of Bergamo" who wrote his history of the Macedonians in 1491. Orbini cites Bergamo as a source for his information about the ancient Macedonians speaking a Slavic language.

Makedonin

I can't scan Bergamo's book, but I can photo-copy it if you like and send you the pages. Its in early renaissance German, which I am told almost identical to German used today. Sorry, I don't have the scanning equipment. Let me know if a photo-copy will do. My work load has eased up over the coming month, so I should have plenty of time to do it.

This source (Phillip of Bergamo) as it pertains to the Macedonians of his day and the ancient Macedonians, has not been explored by anyone before, so I think it is worth investigating. (What really interests me more than his comments that the ancient Macedonians spoke Slavic, and the sources Bergamo may reveal for his information. Now that would be a coup !)

[Daskalot]

Very interesting Pelister, do you have a digital camera perhaps, or you might be able to borrow one? Digital pictures of the pages will suffice.

[Pelister]

Very interesting Pelister, do you have a digital camera perhaps, or you might be able to borrow one? Digital pictures of the pages will suffice.

I'll give it a go.

[Sovius]

Some excellent passages to reflect on Pelister. Thank you for taking the time to collect them. There is clearly a historical record and then there is the distorical record. As with other lapses in translational authenticity, following one path leads to a certain set of conclusions that can be seemingly validated by one set of criteria and following the other leads one in quite a different set of directions.

Could Marcellinus have simply been describing an uprising of Getic slaves that spilled over into other provinces? This could have given rise to the later use of two different terms to apparently describe the same people in relation to the chronology laid out by Simocatta. Could Sklavenas have simply been lands that came to be controlled by populations of former slaves or populations previously targeted for slavery, to further refine our understanding of the use and actual meaning of this term during the late Ancient Period within the collective Roman mindset (and not our own)?

As far as I know, the 'goth' term is simply a Germanic adaption of the proper noun Getae, which came to be used by German nationalists such as Mommsen during the 19th Century to establish the myth of Gothic ancestry among Germans in contradiction to what was common knowledge during the Renaissance Period. I’ve never seen any primary source documents that use the Goth term, nor have I ever come across any sources from that period that implied or specifically stated that Goth and Getae referenced two different populations or that the Getae were of a presumed Nordic ethnicity (not that Germanic populations mentioned by Tactitus were Nordic, either). I’ve seen plenty of books, translations and “professional” historical studies on these supposed ancestors of the Germans based on Mommsen’s work, but, without proof, I believe the belief must remain a product of 19th Century Subjectivism until proven otherwise, a modern development that provided a people from a certain period in time with an explanation of the past that sought to fictitiously establish their supposed superiority over other cultures.

19th Century Subjectivism allowed for assumption to be conveyed as actuality, which, I believe, explains a lot of the confusion contemporary researchers have regarding the past.

No luck on getting a hold of a microfiche yet.