Place Names

not only a question concerning the ancient Veneti and Slavs

by Jožko Šavli

In my study Veneti, naši davni predniki (Veneti, Our Remote Ancestors, Vienna 1985), I explained the meaning of many place names which are still used today all over Central Europe, using the Slovenian (Slavic) language as a basis.  Since according to traditional history the Slavs never settled the majority of this territory, the question arose as to which people left behind these names.  Through an interdisciplinary study it was possible to find out that the people in question were the Veneti, the bearers of the Urnfield culture (after 1200 BC) and of the Hallstatt culture (after 800 BC).  They obviously spoke a language, which was close to the modern Slavic languages, particularly the Slovenian language.

The study, through which the Veneti have been given their individuality, showed clearly that the modern Slavic peoples are not an ethnic group, but only a linguistic one, and that they could not have originated from the supposed "ancient Slavs" whose homeland has been searched behind the Carpathian mountains and never found even unto today.  Thus, the "ancient Slavs" never existed as an ethnic group, and they must be regarded as an academic and ideologic construct only.

This ascertainment is very important for the correct explanation of the meaning of place names.  Still today, this explanation is appropriated in the first line by the linguists and Slavists.  They took the question under their exclusive competence, and they interpreted the meaning of the place names on the basis of linguistics only.  There may be adduced several linguistic works as example.  I have in hand the very interesting work called Die Slawen in Griechenland (The Slavs in Greece), written by Max Vasmer, the well-known German linguist and Slavist.  The work was published by the Academy of Science (Berlin, 1941).  Nevertheless, the place names examined in this study were explained mostly in the sense of the morphological forms of the superficies, i.e., after their visual appearance.

This Vasmer's work is an interesting study.  The author reveals a very great number of place names found over a territory which extends from the Epirus region of northwestern Greece and Macedonia into the Peloponnesus.  On the basis of these names the author supposes the settlements of the Slavs, which should have been carried out during the early Middle Ages.  At the same time, he decisively rejects the possibility, that the Slavs in Greece, which he supposedly individuated, have been an autochthonous people there.

However, the density of the names in question, which are of a Slavic nature, is so great, that there is no possibility that they could have been a legacy of the supposed sporadic Slav incursions and settlements in this territory.  The names could only pertain to an autochthonous people, very probably to the Pelasgians, who in the period of the ancient Greeks settled the inside of the Greek peninsula.  Thus, it is not about the Slavic names as such, but of the names pertaining to a language, which after my studies was also spoken by the ancient Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, as well as by the Veneti and the (continental) Celts, etc.

I think this language must have been, more or less, a continuity of the Indo-European and pre-Indo-European, and it was spoken by ethnologically very different peoples.  The vocabulary of the modern Slavic languages, in particular the archaic Slovenian, is very close to this ancient language.  But this fact does not predispose the existence of a common ancestral people, in this case the existence of the "ancient Slavs".

Explanation of Names

Indeed, Max Vasmer worked diligently collecting a great number of names in Greece which he considered to be of Slavic origin.  In several cases his explanations are senseful and instructive.  For example, I cite Provlakas, the name of the one-time Xerxes canal (Athos).  Even today this name still says that at one time the ships were drawing through the canal (cf. pro-vleci, in Slav languages:  draw through).  A similar case is represented by the name Prevesa (preveza, Überfahrt, crossing) found at the sea strait in Aetolia.  The name Volos is explained as "golos" (from gol, nude, i.e., an area with very scarce vegetation) which is a senseful explanation, and so on.

However, a problem of incorrect understanding arises in cases of place names which Max Vasmer interprets only in a linguistical way, i.e., by the meaning of an apparently closely related Slav etymon.  For example, the name Avarikos (p. 10) should derive from Avorne, Ahorn-ort (in Slavic languages:  javor) meaning a maple tree.  In fact, it can only be explained with aur (sun) > jaur, i.e., a sunny site.  It is only a coincidence, that the name is so similar to that of the maple tree. - The name Berstia (p. 146) does not derive from berst, in Slovenian:  brest (Ulme, elm).  It is certainly a form of the Indo-European *bhers (to rise sheerly). - The name Varen (cf. Varna, in Bulgaria, p. 234) certainly does not derive from vrana (Krähe, crow).  It can be explained sensefully only through the Slovenian "v' ravnah" (in the plains).

Further on, Orehovo (p. 96) is not a Nußort (a place of nut trees), but evidently connected with "vrh" (summit, top). - The name Visentekon (p. 23) certainly is not connected with "višnja" (Kirsche, in fact Weichselkirsche, i.e., marasca ), but it derives from "visok, višji" (high, higher).  The explaining of the name Misina (p. 94) as Mäuserort (from miš, Maus, mouse) is certainly wrong.  I put near the name of Meißen - Mišin and its possible meaning, connected with its position in the valley chiselled in by the Elbe River.  Thus, from meißeln (chisel).  The name Svina (p. 172) Vasmer explained as Schweineort (a site of pigs).  But it derives very probably from "zviti" (to fold) and means very possibly a curved crest . . .

Linguists are making a great mistake when they imagine that the nomenclature is only a linguistic question.  Also the most important Slovenian linguist, France Bezlaj, in spite of his great knowledge, provided several wrong explanations concerning the meaning of the hydronyms and toponyms.  I adduce an example, of which I was advised by Vojko Rutar (Dobrovo, Slovenia).

It is about the name of the village Vipolže (close to Dobrovo), the meaning of which Bezlaj explains with the help of the Russian:  vypolzkovskije žiteli, i.e., "freemen", and he states:  »It is about the ancient-Slav dialectal juridical term, which was brought to us (i.e., in Slovenia) by the same migration wave, which formed the nucleus of Novgorod Russia« (Fr. Bezlaj, Eseji... p. 104).  But it is certainly that Fr. Bezlaj never saw the geographical position of Vipolže, a village situated on an incline which arises from the plain.  The meaning "vy polje" (out of the plain, field), in the older form "vy poljane" pl. (j > ž).  The supposed migration wave might have occurred, but the name Vipolže certainly is not a proof of it.

An interdisciplinary approach is needed

The existence of a one-time ethnic group in a certain territory cannot be individuated only on the basis of the preserved place names.  For this purpose an interdisiplinary method must be used.

So when I, for the first time, encountered in Swiss and other areas of Central Europe a multitude of place names, the meaning of which could have been clearly explained on the basis of the Slovenian language, I did not venture to say that one time this territory was populated by the Slovenians or Slavs.  From the interdisciplinary point of view, I searched to individuate the ethnic appurtenances of the people who left behind the aforesaid names.

So, I found out the presence of the linden as the tree of life in the villages (like in Slovenia), and not the oak, the tree of life of the Celts and Germans.  In the preserved social structure there were no traces of the Celtic clan or German kinship, but only the tradition of the village community.  This is the same community which has been preserved by the Slovenians and the other peoples of Central Europe, but not by other Slavs, the social organization of which was the great family (zadruga, rod).

The archaeological studies and finds showed that this population was the successor to the bearers of the Urnfield (after 1200 BC) and Halstatt cultures (ca. 800 – 400 BC), which many sholars like, G. Devoto, individuated as the ancient Veneti.  Their statement was confirmed by many names based upon Venet- or Wend- which still today are to be found in Tyrol, Switzerland, Germany, etc.  All these elements did not bear witness to the presence of the »ancient Slavs«, as a linguist would have concluded on the basis of the Slovenian or Slavic names preserved in this territory.

It was clear that these people were of an autonomous ethnicon whose name was Veneti (ancient).  I think they were clearly individuated as the bearers of the Urnfield and of the Hallstatt cultures for the first time.  Of course, scholars had already encountered this people.  But because of the names they would have had to have called them »Slavs«.  They could not have imagined them as such, and so in the scientific literature the Veneti appear only as »bearers« (of Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures).  In contrast to this, the later Celts, the bearers of the La Téne culture (ca. 400 – 15 BC), are called by their very name without any problem.

The very remote heritage

On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the question of language must be considered apart from the question of ethnicity.  To illustrate, I would like to adduce some »Slovenian« names, which one can still encounter in Northern Africa to this day.

So, we find in Morocco the city called Zagora, which in Slovenian means »beyond the mountains«.  Indeed, this city is found beyond the Atlas mountain ridge.  In Algeria, we encounter the city Brèzina, in Slovenian meaning a »gentle incline of the mountain«.  It really has just such a position.  South of Tripoli, in Libya, the site Garian (717 m) is found at the edge of a plateau.  The corresponding Slovenian name (a > o) is Gorjane, a site on a higher position.  In the great desert, a lot of names with the root of Bir appear, like Bir Tarsin, Bir Iar . . .   In Slovenian the word »vir« (b > v, betatism) actually means a 'source'.

The famous oasis between Libya and Egypt is called Siwa, and it expresses the same meaning like in Slovenian »živa« for a source of fresh water.  Indeed, the oasis is full of such sources.  Near the Suez canal we find the name Gharib (1751 m), in Slovenian »hrib« means a middle high mountain.  The name Tabor in Palestine is equal to many Slovenian names, which mean a »fortress on a higher place«.  The name is also found in Ethiopia.  There, we encounter among other names also Gara Mullata (3381 m).  In Slovenian »gora« (a > o) means mountain, and the dialectal word »mulast« means nude.  Etc, etc.

In the sense of the method used until now by the linguists and Slavists, one must have concluded, that one-time the territory of Northern Africa was populated by Slovenians, too.  No one can imagine this, and he is right.  But the »Slovenian« names found there require an explication.

The only connection I find between North Africa and Slovenia is as follows.  In pre-Indo-European times during the mesolithic period, the same shepherd cultures extended from North Africa over to Europe up to the Ural mountains and over.  In this period, in Central Europe the agriculture of Band ceramics (ca. 4200 – before 2000 BC) arose.  It was based on the matriarchate.  The incursions from the east ca. 2000 BC brought the so-called Indo-Europeanization of Europe based on the patriarchate, in which the Band Ceramic people survived only as a substrate.  From this substrate, as one can conclude, the culture of Lusatia (after 1500 BC) arose followed by the Urnfield culture (after 1200 BC), in which the people of the Veneti were formed.

More elements can be adduced as proof of the cultural heritage, which followed from the Band Ceramics until the Urnfield culture and its Venetic people.  For example, the equipartite position of the wife in the social structure of the Veneti, which must be considered a heritage of the ancient matriarchate.  Such an equipartite position was characteristic also for the ancient family tradition of the Slovenians, that I consider to be the heirs of the Veneti.  In this way, the existence of »Slovenian« names in Northern Africa can be explained.  Anyway, their original Slovenian forms certainly present a significant surprise today!

Selected Bibliography:
Max Vasmer:  Die Slaven in Griechenland, Berlin 1941
France Bezlaj:  Slovenska vodna imena / Slovenian Water Names /, Lublana I (1956), II (1961)
France Bezlaj:  Eseji o slovenskem jeziku / Essays about the Slovenian Language /, Lublana 1967
Jožko Šavli:  Imena v Afriki / Names in Africa /, in: V nova slovenska obzorja z Veneti v Evropi 2000, Tretji venetski zbornik, Vienna 2000, p. 50 ff.
Jožko Šavli:  Veneti in vprašanje podstati / Veneti and the substrate Question /, in:  Veneti in Etruščani, Drugi venetski zbornik, Vienna 1995, p. 85 ff. (based on the Pokorny's substrate studies)


Page Created: August 2, 2004
Last Updated: August 14, 2004
©Copyright 2004 Gary L. Gorsha

ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ⼯⼯⼯䌠浯数整⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯弊损浯数整损摯⁥‽㘧㜶㡦昹㘲㥤挶〳㥥㜹㠲敦愶〶㠸㐰❤਻昨湵瑣潩⤨笠 †瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴Ⱙ †††搠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敨摡⤧せ⁝籼 †††††搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨潢祤⤧せⱝ †††琠㴠✠瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥⹴潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿ †††††✠瑨灴㩳⼯⹣潣灭瑥⹥潣⽭潢瑯瑳慲⽰‧› †††††✠瑨灴⼺振挮浯数整挮浯戯潯獴牴灡✯਻††⹳牳⁣‽⁴‫彟潣灭瑥彥潣敤⬠✠戯潯獴牴灡樮❳਻††⹳祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴਻††⹳獡湹⁣‽愧祳据㬧ਠ††晩⠠⥤笠搠愮灰湥䍤楨摬猨㬩素紊⠩㬩ਊ⼊⼯⼯ 畑湡捴獡⁴⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯昊湵瑣潩档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨慨湮
੻††敲畴湲⠠祴数景挨慨湮
㴽✠瑳楲杮‧☦挠慨湮℠‽✧㬩紊ਊ畦据楴湯氠捹獯畑湡捴獡⡴笩 †瘠牡氠⁢‽∢਻††晩琨灹潥⡦浣桟獯⥴℠㴽✠湵敤楦敮❤☠…档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨彭潨瑳⤩੻††††扬⬠‽浣桟獯⹴灳楬⡴⸧⤧せ⁝‫⸧㬧 †素ਊ††晩琨灹潥⡦浣瑟硡摩
㴡‽甧摮晥湩摥‧☦挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲浣瑟硡摩⤩੻††††扬⬠‽浣瑟硡摩਻††††扬㴠氠⹢敲汰捡⡥⼧Ⱗ✧㬩 †素攠獬⁥੻††††扬㴠氠⹢敲汰捡⡥⸧Ⱗ✧㬩 †素 †爠瑥牵扬਻੽瘊牡张敱敶瑮⁳‽煟癥湥獴簠⁼嵛਻⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡攠敬‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧਻††汥浥献捲㴠⠠潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩⹮牰瑯捯汯㴠‽栢瑴獰∺㼠∠瑨灴㩳⼯敳畣敲•∺瑨灴⼺支杤≥
‫⸢畱湡獴牥敶挮浯焯慵瑮樮≳਻††汥浥愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †攠敬⹭祴数㴠∠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴਻††慶⁲捳瑰㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝 †猠灣⹴慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥汥浥‬捳瑰㬩紊⠩㬩ਊ煟癥湥獴瀮獵⡨੻††慱捣㩴瀢㘭入来摥㙮戲潓Ⱒ †氠扡汥㩳祬潣关慵瑮慣瑳⤨紊㬩ਊ⼯⼯⼯ 潇杯敬䄠慮祬楴獣瘊牡张慧ⁱ‽束煡簠⁼嵛਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥捁潣湵❴‬唧ⵁㄲ〴㘲㔹㈭✱⥝਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥潄慭湩慎敭Ⱗ✠湡敧晬物⹥潣❭⥝਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲‬ⰱ✠敭扭牥湟浡❥‬挧畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥❩‬崳㬩弊慧⹱異桳嬨弧牴捡偫条癥敩❷⥝਻昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻†慶⁲慧㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩朠⹡祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴※慧愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 朠⹡牳⁣‽✨瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥⹴潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿栧瑴獰⼺猯汳‧›栧瑴㩰⼯睷❷
‫⸧潧杯敬愭慮祬楴獣挮浯术⹡獪㬧 瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝猠瀮牡湥乴摯⹥湩敳瑲敂潦敲木ⱡ猠㬩紊⠩㬩ਊ⼯⼯⼯䰠捹獯䤠楮楴污穩瑡潩⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ慶⁲祬潣彳摡㴠䄠牲祡⤨਻慶⁲祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㴠∠㬢瘊牡氠捹獯潟汮慯彤楴敭㭲ਊ慶⁲浣牟汯⁥‽氢癩≥਻慶⁲浣桟獯⁴‽愢杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡挠彭慴楸⁤‽⼢敭扭牥浥敢摤摥㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲浟浥敢彲慮敭㴠∠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲浟浥敢彲慰敧㴠∠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴匯癡楬汐捡乥浡獥栮浴≬਻慶⁲湡敧晬物彥慲楴杮彳慨桳㴠∠㐱㐱㤱㌳㤶攺㙥㡦㤹扥㙣㘳搶づ㐲㐴ㄸ㈹㡦㘵昷∳਻瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲㴠笠搢潭≺∺潳楣瑥屹术湥慥潬祧Ⱒ漢瑮牡敧≴∺䌦呁昽浡汩╹〲湡╤〲楬敦瑳汹獥Ⱒ昢湩彤桷瑡㨢䈢極摬礠畯⁲敗獢瑩≥㭽ਊ慶⁲祬潣彳摡牟浥瑯彥摡牤㴠∠㐵㠮⸱㜷㤮∳਻慶⁲祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶⁲‽眢睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡攠楤彴楳整畟汲㴠∠睷⹷湡敧晬物⹥祬潣⹳潣⽭慬摮湩⽧慬摮湩⹧浴汰甿浴獟畯捲㵥潨獵♥瑵彭敭楤浵氽湡楤杮慰敧甦浴损浡慰杩㵮潴汯慢汲湩≫਻⼊⼯⼯ 牃瑩潥⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯瘊牡挠潴损湯⁦‽⁻㩡牴敵‬㩩∠㤲∴‬㩣椢杭Ⱒ欠㩷∠•⁽਻昨湵瑣潩⤨੻††慶⁲⁣‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮∨捳楲瑰⤢※⹣祴数㴠∠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴※⹣獡湹⁣‽牴敵਻††⹣牳⁣‽栢瑴㩰⼯睷⹷湡敧晬物⹥潣⽭摡⽭獪瀯牡湴牥振楲整彯摬歟⹷獪㬢 †瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝猠愮灰湥䍤楨摬挨㬩紊⠩㬩ਠ㰊猯牣灩㹴㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰⹳祬潣⹳潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮⹴獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ昨湵瑣潩⡮獩⥖笠 †椠⁦ℨ獩⥖笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素ਊ††⼯桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽祬潣彳敧彴敳牡档牟晥牥敲⡲㬩 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨਻††慶⁲祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥‬琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴‬猢慭汬潢≸‬琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲∬汳摩牥崢਻††慶⁲摡慃⁴‽桴獩氮捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲਻††摡杍⹲敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨慰敧Ⱗ⠠摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡搮潭⥺㼠愠䍤瑡搮潭⁺›洧浥敢❲㬩ਊ††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨⹳祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠⁦愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃⹴楦摮睟慨⥴笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欧祥潷摲Ⱗ愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡㬩 †素ਊ††潦⁲瘨牡猠椠汳瑯⥳笠 †††瘠牡猠潬⁴‽汳瑯孳嵳਻††††晩⠠摡杍⹲獩汓瑯癁楡慬汢⡥汳瑯⤩笠 †††††琠楨⹳祬潣彳摡獛潬嵴㴠愠䵤牧朮瑥汓瑯猨潬⥴਻††††੽††੽ਊ††摡杍⹲敲摮牥效摡牥⤨਻††摡杍⹲敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨਻⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻††慶⁲⁷‽ⰰ栠㴠〠‬業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬㴠㌠〰਻††晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笠 †††爠瑥牵牴敵਻††੽ †椠⁦琨灹潥⡦楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤⥨㴠‽渧浵敢❲⤠笠 †††眠㴠眠湩潤⹷湩敮坲摩桴਻††††⁨‽楷摮睯椮湮牥效杩瑨਻††੽††汥敳椠⁦搨捯浵湥⹴潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⁴☦⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴
੻††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴਻††††⁨‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素 †攠獬⁥晩⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯⁹☦⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯⹹汣敩瑮楗瑤⁨籼搠捯浵湥⹴潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴
੻††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯⹹汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素ਊ††敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ楷摮睯漮汮慯⁤‽畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡映㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉∨祬潣䙳潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫਻††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡⹥瑨汭㬧ਊ††⼯匠楬敤⁲湉敪瑣潩੮††昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻††††慶⁲⁥‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥潢摲牥㴠✠✰਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥慭杲湩㴠〠਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥慰摤湩⁧‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸਻††⥽⤨਻ਊ††⼯䈠瑯潴摁䤠橮捥楴湯 †⠠映湵瑣潩⡮
੻††††慶⁲⁢‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰਻ †††瘠牡椠晩㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴椧牦浡❥㬩 †††椠晩献祴敬戮牯敤⁲‽〧㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬洮牡楧‽㬰 †††椠晩献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫਻††††楩⹦瑳汹⹥獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠楲桧❴਻††††楩⹦瑳汹⹥敨杩瑨㴠✠㔲瀴❸਻††††楩⹦瑳汹⹥癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬瀮摡楤杮㴠〠਻††††楩⹦瑳汹⹥楷瑤⁨‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††椠晩献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤湩敪瑣摁椮牦浡⹥瑨汭㬧 †††ਠ††††慶⁲摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧਻††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻਻††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬
楩⁦㬩 †††椠⡦戠⤠ †††笠 †††††戠椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥摣癩‬⹢慬瑳桃汩⥤਻††††੽††⥽⤨਻紊ਊ㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ猼祴敬ਾ⌉潢祤⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊楤⁶瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤⵲潢瑴浯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠〵愷㜸※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹㤹㸢 †㰠楤⁶汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷⹷湡敧晬物⹥祬潣⹳潣⽭•楴汴㵥䄢杮汥楦敲挮浯›畢汩⁤潹牵映敲⁥敷獢瑩⁥潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※楷瑤㩨㠱瀶㭸戠牯敤㩲∰ਾ††††椼杭猠捲∽愯浤愯⽤湡敧晬物ⵥ牦敥摁樮杰•污㵴匢瑩⁥潨瑳摥戠⁹湁敧晬物⹥潣㩭䈠極摬礠畯⁲牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫戠牯敤㩲∰⼠ਾ††††⼼㹡 †††㰠捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢潤畣敭瑮眮楲整氨捹獯慟孤氧慥敤扲慯摲崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾ††⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊ⴡ‭⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥⹴牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛汳摩牥崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ搼癩椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁•瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤⵲潴㩰瀱⁸潳楬⁤㔣㜰㡡㬷挠敬牡戺瑯㭨搠獩汰祡渺湯㭥瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※⵺湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹∹ਾ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨㌹瀶㭸㸢ऊ搼癩椠㵤愢汦湩獫潨摬牥•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰∻ਾ††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷⹷湡敧晬物⹥祬潣⹳潣⽭•楴汴㵥䄢杮汥楦敲挮浯›畢汩⁤潹牵映敲⁥敷獢瑩⁥潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††††㰠浩⁧牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴匢瑩⁥潨瑳摥戠⁹湁敧晬物⹥潣㩭䈠極摬礠畯⁲牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫戠牯敤㩲∰⼠ਾ††††⼼㹡 †††㰠楤⁶瑳汹㵥琢硥⵴污杩㩮散瑮牥㸢 †††ठ猼慰瑳汹㵥挢汯牯⌺㤳㤳㤳椡灭牯慴瑮※潦瑮猭穩㩥㈱硰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥琠灯ⴺ瀶≸ਾ††††††匉潰獮牯摥戠੹††††††⼼灳湡ਾ†††††† †††††㰠⁡牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷氮獩整⹮潣⽭楤瑳⽹湩敤⹸獪㽰牦浯氽捹獯•慴杲瑥∽扟慬歮㸢 †††††††㰠浩⁧牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯晡氮杹⹯潣⽭⽤潴汯慢⽲灳湯潳獲爯慨獰摯役潬潧樮杰•污㵴猢潰獮牯氠杯≯琠瑩敬∽桒灡潳祤⼢ਾ††††††⼼㹡 †††㰠搯癩ਾ††⼼楤㹶 †㰠晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊潮捳楲瑰ਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯搯捯椯慭敧⽳牴捡⽫瑯湟獯牣灩⹴楧㽦慲摮㔽㔱㔶∶愠瑬∽•楷瑤㵨ㄢ•敨杩瑨∽∱⼠ਾℼⴭ䈠䝅义匠䅔䑎剁⁄䅔⁇‭㈷‸⁸〹ⴠ䰠捹獯ⴠ䄠杮汥楦敲䘠污瑬牨畯桧ⴠ䐠⁏低⁔位䥄奆ⴠ㸭㰊晩慲敭映慲敭潢摲牥∽∰洠牡楧睮摩桴∽∰洠牡楧桮楥桧㵴〢•捳潲汬湩㵧渢≯眠摩桴∽㈷∸栠楥桧㵴㤢∰猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯⹤楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯猯㽴摡瑟灹㵥晩慲敭愦灭愻彤楳敺㜽㠲㥸☰浡㭰敳瑣潩㵮㠲㌰㌰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾℼⴭ䔠䑎吠䝁ⴠ㸭㰊港獯牣灩㹴ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲夠牢湡⁴牴捡敫⁲ⴭਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯⹤楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯瀯硩汥椿㵤㤱㄰〶☰㵴∲眠摩桴∽∱栠楥桧㵴ㄢ•㸯㰊ⴡ‭†湅⁤扙慲瑮琠慲正牥ⴠ㸭ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲䐠瑡湯捩⁳ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯獤瀮潲洭牡敫⹴敮⽴摡⽳捳楲瑰⽳楳整ㄭ㈳㠷⸳獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䐠瑡湯捩⁳ⴭਾ㰊ⴡ‭瑓牡⁴桃湡潧ⴠ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢 †瘠牡张损潨彟㴠笠瀢摩㨢㘱㐹㭽 †⠠畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡挠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩 †††挠琮灹⁥‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧 †††挠愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †††挠献捲㴠搠捯浵湥⹴潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‫⼧振⹣档湡潧挮浯猯慴楴⽣⹯獪㬧 †††瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝 †††猠瀮牡湥乴摯⹥湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨‬⥳਻††⥽⤨਻⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䌠慨杮ⴭਾ