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!
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≴ਾ⼯睏敮䥲ੑ慶彟楯影捰⁴‽〵晩 彟楯影捰㹴ㄽ〰簠⁼慍桴昮潬牯䴨瑡慲摮浯⤨ㄪ〰⠯〱ⴰ彟楯影捰⥴ ‾‰ 慶潟煩ⁱ‽潟煩ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䉥慲摮Ⱗ䰧捹獯崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䍥瑡Ⱗ䤧瑮牥敮⁴‾敗獢瑩獥崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影摡偤条䱥晩捥捹敬Ⱗ䤧瑮湥❤⥝潟煩異桳嬨漧煩摟呯条崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠瘊牡漠煩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩漠煩琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧漠煩愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥漊煩献捲㴠搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣⼧瀯睯敮楲敮⽴瑳獡猯氯捹獯獪㬧瘊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漨煩⥳⥽⤨⼊⼯⼯⼯䜠潯汧湁污瑹捩ੳ慶束煡㴠张慧ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䅴捣畯瑮Ⱗ✠䅕㈭㐱㈰㤶ⴵㄲ崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥愧杮汥楦敲挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗㄠ洧浥敢彲慮敭Ⱗ✠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴Ⱗ㌠⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠 瘠牡朠‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠獡湹‽牴敵†慧献捲㴠⠠栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㼠✠瑨灴㩳⼯獳❬㨠✠瑨灴⼺眯睷⤧⬠✠朮潯汧ⵥ湡污瑹捩潣⽭慧樮❳†慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧⥳⥽⤨⼊⼯⼯ 祌潣湉瑩慩楬慺楴湯⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯瘊牡氠捹獯慟‽牁慲⡹㬩瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽∢慶祬潣彳湯潬摡瑟浩牥瘊牡挠彭潲敬㴠∠楬敶㬢瘊牡挠彭潨瑳㴠∠湡敧晬物祬潣潣≭慶浣瑟硡摩㴠∠洯浥敢敲扭摥敤≤慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥湟浡‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥≩慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥灟条‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩慓汶偩慬散慎敭瑨汭㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲牟瑡湩獧桟獡‽ㄢ㐴㘸ㄷ㤰㨹ㅣㄲㅢ〸戲㌸つ㜵㈳昶捦㤳搶敦て愲㬢ਊ慶祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯⁹‽≻浤穯㨢猢捯敩祴⽜敧敮污杯≹∬湯慴杲瑥㨢☢䅃㵔慦業祬㈥愰摮㈥氰晩獥祴敬≳∬楦摮睟慨≴∺畂汩潹牵圠扥楳整索瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤‽㔢⸴㔱⸹㘲㘮∹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≫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ⴡ敓牡档䈠硯ⴠ㸭㰊ⴡ㰭潦浲渠浡㵥猢慥捲≨漠卮扵業㵴爢瑥牵敳牡档瑩⤨•摩✽敨摡牥獟慥捲❨㸠 †††††㰠湩異⁴祴数∽整瑸•汰捡桥汯敤㵲匢慥捲≨猠穩㵥〳渠浡㵥猢慥捲㉨•慶畬㵥∢ਾ††††††椼灮瑵琠灹㵥戢瑵潴≮瘠污敵∽潇∡漠䍮楬正∽敳牡档瑩⤨㸢 †††††㰠是牯㹭 †††††㰠瑳汹㹥 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲††††††††楷瑤㩨㤠㘱硰††††††††慭杲湩›‰畡潴㠠硰††††††††潰楳楴湯›敲慬楴敶††††††ਊ††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵笠 †††††††栠楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †††††††映湯楳敺›㐱硰††††††††楬敮栭楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †††††††瀠摡楤杮›‰瀸㭸 †††††††戠硯猭穩湩㩧戠牯敤潢㭸 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠㑆㉆㥅††††††††潢摲牥›瀱⁸潳楬䈣䉂䈸㬸 †††††††琠慲獮瑩潩㩮戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬〳洰慥敳漭瑵ਬ††††††††††††††潣潬〳洰慥敳†††††† †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢笠 †††††††眠摩桴›〱┰††††††††††††潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣††††††††潢摲牥挭汯牯›䄣䐲㔰㬴 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †††††††戠硯猭慨潤㩷〠〠硰ㄠ瀲⁸㐭硰⌠㉁い㐵††††††ਊ †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽畢瑴湯崢笠 †††††††瀠獯瑩潩㩮愠獢汯瑵㭥 †††††††琠灯›瀱㭸 †††††††爠杩瑨›瀱㭸 †††††††漠慰楣祴›㬱 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠䙄䍄䙃††††††††潣潬㩲⌠㘴㜳㐳††††††††楷瑤㩨ㄠ㔲硰††††††††畣獲牯›潰湩整㭲 †††††††栠楥桧㩴㌠瀸㭸 †††††††戠牯敤㩲渠湯㭥 †††††素 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶Ⱳ †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥笠 †††††††戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㕁䕃㘵††††††††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †††††素 †††††映牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮⁝††††††††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›㔣䄲䑅㭆 †††††††挠汯牯›昣晦†††††† †††††㰠猯祴敬ਾ †††††㰠捳楲瑰ਾ††††††畦据楴湯猠慥捲楨⡴笩 †††††††ਠ††††††††⼯搠瑥牥業敮攠癮物湯敭瑮ਠ††††††††慶敳牡档敟癮ਠ††††††††晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢摰∮ ‾ㄭ †††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵瀮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †††††††素攠獬晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢慱∮ ‾ㄭ †††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵焮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †††††††素攠獬†††††††††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档㈵氮捹獯挮浯愯✯†††††††† †††††瘠牡猠慥捲彨整浲㴠攠据摯啥䥒潃灭湯湥⡴潤畣敭瑮献慥捲敳牡档⸲慶畬⥥ †††††瘠牡猠慥捲彨牵‽敳牡档敟癮猫慥捲彨整浲††††††楷摮睯漮数⡮敳牡档畟汲㬩ਊ††††††敲畴湲映污敳 †††††素 †††††㰠猯牣灩㸭 †††㰠ⴡ攭摮猠慥捲潢⁸ⴭਾਊ††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ㄹ瀶㭸㸢 †††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯∯琠瑩敬∽湁敧晬物潣㩭戠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††㰠浩牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥灪≧愠瑬∽楓整栠獯整祢䄠杮汥楦敲挮浯›畂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•㸯 †††㰠愯ਾ††††猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴 †㰠搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊℼⴭ⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ⴠ㸭㰊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猧楬敤❲⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴ਊ㰊楤⁶摩∽祬潣䙳潯整䅲≤猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺扡㙥㙦※潢摲牥琭灯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠〵愷㜸※汣慥㩲潢桴※楤灳慬㩹潮敮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹㤹㸢㰊楤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㘳硰∻ਾ㰉楤⁶摩∽晡楬歮桳汯敤≲猠祴敬∽汦慯㩴敬瑦※楷瑤㩨㠱瀶㭸㸢 †††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯∯琠瑩敬∽湁敧晬物潣㩭戠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∰ਾ††††††椼杭猠捲∽愯浤愯⽤湡敧晬物ⵥ牦敥摁⸲灪≧愠瑬∽楓整栠獯整祢䄠杮汥楦敲挮浯›畂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•㸯 †††㰠愯ਾ††††搼癩猠祴敬∽整瑸愭楬湧挺湥整≲ਾ††††㰉灳湡猠祴敬∽潣潬㩲㌣㌹㌹ℹ浩潰瑲湡㭴映湯楳敺ㄺ瀲ⅸ浩潰瑲湡㭴瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※潴㩰㘭硰㸢 †††††ठ灓湯潳敲祢 †††††㰠猯慰㹮 †††††ਠ††††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷楬瑳湥挮浯搯獩祴椯摮硥樮灳昿潲㵭祬潣≳琠牡敧㵴弢汢湡≫ਾ††††††††椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯祬潧挮浯搯琯潯扬牡猯潰獮牯⽳桲灡潳祤江杯灪≧愠瑬∽灳湯潳潬潧•楴汴㵥刢慨獰摯≹㸯 †††††㰠愯ਾ††††⼼楤㹶 †㰠搯癩ਾ††椼牦浡摩∽祬潣䙳潯整䅲楤牆浡≥猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫映潬瑡氺晥㭴栠楥桧㩴㘹硰※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮瀠摡楤杮〺※楷瑤㩨㔷瀰≸㰾椯牦浡㹥㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊਊ