Lives Journal 13

Milan Shtruc




1. Introduction


The theory of the Slovenian immigration into today’s territory in the 6th century AD from the distant Zakarpatian swamps represents one of the greatest forgeries in the world’s history. While there is no convincing evidence for such a theory, new discoveries are emerging, which prove that such immigration at that time did not happen.

Evidences against such an immigration theory include numerous local and other geographical names, which in Slovenian language still describe their local and topographic characteristics.1 When compared to those from the time of the Roman occupation, in many cases, it can be concluded that they are only a Latinized form of Slovenian names and, therefore, they have no meaning in the Latin language. This confirms that when the Romans arrived on the new territories, many already existing names were only Latinized, and often even incorrectly translated into the Latin form. The large number of such cases therefore makes it possible to claim that the territories later occupied by Romans were already inhabited by Slovene-speaking people prior to their arrival.2

The latest genetic research and findings of population genetics also prove that there was a long lasting continuity in the settlement of these territories. For a long time to many renowned world scientists this has been regarded as the only scientifically correct theory. On the other hand some historians also in our country still strongly support the »immigration« theory.

Similarly, the myth of the Slovenian immigration in the 6th century is rejected also by ancient inscriptions from the Roman and pre-Roman times, which can only be understood in Slovenian language. The proposed new interpretation of the inscription on the Negau helmets can also be understood as such a proof.



2. The Negau Find


Negau helmets represent an outstanding archaeological find not only in this part of Europe, but also significantly broader. According to the original estimates, there were twenty-six helmets stacked together, representing a unique example in the world both by their number as also by other characteristics.

Since the site of the find was located on the Negau estate, the principle was adopted, that the helmets from the mentioned find are called Negau helmets (Figure 1), and all other similar helmets found at other sites belong to the group of Negau type.3

In the framework of the Negau find, the helmet number 22, or Negau B, has a special place in the Museum of Art and History in Vienna.4 On this helmet there is an inscription, which is, according to most of the world's researchers, the oldest German inscription in history. Although it is believed that the inscription has long been explained, however, there are still dilemmas, as to who was the writer, when the inscription was made, what was its purpose, and whether the transcription of symbols to the Latin script was correct.

The story of the Negau helmets began a little over two hundred years ago when in November 1811 Jurij Slachek in Zhenjak in Slovenske gorice was excavating tree stumps for winter heating (or by deep plowing), encountered a large set of bronze helmets stacked into each other. Until recently, it was believed that he had found 26 helmets. Because he thought he had discovered a golden treasure, he immediately broke one of the helmets. When realizing that it was not gold, he rejected it and the trail behind it was lost. Other helmets were then »sold« to the arms dealer Denzel in Maribor for the bagatelle price.5

The important historical find quickly diverged and the story about Negau helmets began. As a rule, the find was first transferred to Gradec, of course at a significantly higher price. When the news about the find came to Vienna, the helmets were immediately sent there.



3. Past interpretations of the Negau inscription


Since its discovery the world fameous find has been explored in detail by many world-renowned scientists. The German historian and researcher of the Bronze Age chronology Paul Reinecke numbered the entire Negau find and his numbering is still in effect today. On some of the helmets there are short notes or just a few characters. The most important inscription is on the helmet with number 22 by Reinecke that is also known as the helmet Negau B (Figure 3).

The significance of this find in science is proven also by the extreme number of discussions about the find, as well as the inscription on helmet Negau B. Thus, the Dutch linguist Felicien de Tollenaere published a book of more than 120 pages with bibliography of over one hundred bibliographical titles, dealing just with this inscription.6

In 1925, the Norwegian linguist Carl Marstrander7 labeled this writing as the first German inscription in history. The same explanation was also adopted by the Italian linguist Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi and Austrian historian-archaeologist Rudolf Egger, and most of the foreign researchers still insist on such interpretation. Despite the widespread claim that the name of the German army officer Harigasti appears in the inscription, no one has yet succeeded in proving that Harigasti was a German name or even that the name Harigasti appears on any other hitherto found inscription.

Due to the belief that the inscription was German, during the Second World War German occupying authorities renamed the place Zhenjak, where helmets were found in 1811, into Harigast,8 the alleged German army commander. They also established an international group of »independent« experts, which confirmed that the inscription was indeed the first German writing in the history, and this belief is still valid today. The site of the find is now marked only with a small stone (Figure 2).


A large number of Roman graves were also discovered near the site.9

More precise verification of the interpretations showed a lot of obvious mistakes, so they should be reviewed again.



4. Basic principles for ensuring credible interpretation of old inscriptions


Any serious research of old inscriptions should take into account some basic principles that could in any language ensure minimum of credibility. To this end at least the following principles should be considered:

1. Any derogation from generally accepted transcription should be logically justified by similar examples in other inscriptions or in other similar cases.

2. In any case, all signs in the inscription should be strictly observed. Omission of any sign that exists in the original inscription implies unauthorized encroachment, and the interpretation thus obtained is not credible.

3. No characters that are not present in the original inscription should be added. Any interpretation that is obtained by adding non-existent characters means that the interpretation thus obtained is not credible.

4. Different signs in the inscription should be assigned to different letters. Transcriptions in which the signs of different form are transcribed into the same letter are unreliable.

5. The same signs in the inscription must be transcribed equally. All interpretations, in which the same sign is transcribed into different letters, are unreliable.

6. In the case that a sign in the inscription is written with a different angle of inclination, this particularity must be taken into account, or it has to be explained why this is not necessary.

7. If a part of the inscription is assumed to present an abbreviation, this should be justified by a generally accepted and established principle for such abbreviations, or at least should be justified by similar examples in some other cases.

8. When by interpreting the inscription a word is assumed to represent a name, this can only be accepted if such a name is already used in the interpreting language or this name appears at least once again in some other inscription. Otherwise, the interpretation can not be considered credible.

9. Text, obtained by the transcription, must in itself enable us to understand what the author wanted to say. Additional explanations, which are not based on the transcribed text, or are even interpreted in contradiction with this text, are unreliable.

Since these are simple and logical principles, any deviation should also raise questions about credibility.

5. Verification of past interpretations


After Marstrander had labeled the inscription as the first German inscription and Harigasti as the German name, A. L. Prosdocimi and Rudolf Egger also joined this interpretation.10



A. L. Prosdocimi after placing spaces between words read the inscription as:


According to his interpretation the inscription means that a German army officer named Harigasti sacrificed helmets to the god.11 HARIGASTI is supposed to be a German name, TEIVA is supposed to mean a god or donate in an unknown language, and the word HIL(M), as it is similar to the German word Helm, means helmet. In order to get the word HILM, he added a non-existent letter M to the inscription without justification.

The transcription was therefore not interpreted in accordance with the required principles. Thus, in contradiction to the principle 8 he assumed that the word Harigasti in the inscription was a name which, however, is not known as a Germanic name, nor does it appear in any other of the old inscriptions found so far. In this name he recognized a »great Germanic military leader«, although no historical evidence is available that such a person existed. Contrary to the principle 4 he transcribed the first and the fifteenth sign into the same letter H, although they are so different in their form that the error can be identified at first glance. In contrast to the 3rd principle, he added a non-existent sign at the end of the writing which should represent the letter M.



Rudolf Egger was among those rare researchers who consistently followed all the written signs. He assumed that the fifteenth sign that was written in a different angle does not mean a letter, but a number, namely Roman numeral III. Since this number was followed by the letters IL, Egger understood them as an abbreviation for the word »Illyrian«. This corresponds to the generally established method of marking military units in Roman times: first, the unit number and then its abbreviated name. The inscription therefore refers to the III IL(lyrian) military unit.

Egger12 inserted five spaces into the text and in this way he got letters V and A, which he assumed to be abbreviations. Then he read the inscription as:



Egger succeeded in removing some of the errors in Prosdocimi's transcription, but insisted on his transcription of the first sign, and hence on the fictional »German« name »Harigasti«. This is followed by another fictional name »Tei«, that he supposed to be the name of Harigasti’s »Roman« father. Both of them are contrary to the proposed principle 8 of quoting names that can not be verified.

The names were than followed by letter V as abbreviations for vexillatio (department) and A for alarum (wing). Egger placed the inscription in the time of the Roman occupation of the area at the beginning of the 1st century AD.

Of course, the writing of the military unit's identification on the equipment has been of fairly frequent occurrence in the past, as well as today, which increases the likelihood of such understanding of the inscription being correct. Since he included a Roman father and his German son, he received his interlocutors both among German and Italian historians.

He interpreted the inscription as »Harigasti, the son of Tea, who served in the III department of the Illyrian military unit«. Despite the use of fictitious names and his opinion that there was a Roman-German family relationship, Egger was the first to realize that the fifteenth sign represents number three, and that IL means the abbreviation for the Illyrian military unit. In this way he avoided the mistake of translating a completely different first and fifteenth character into the same letter H.

He dated the inscription in the beginning of the first century AD, when two bloody rebellions against the Roman authorities took place, what he supposed to be the cause for burial of helmets.


Museum of Art and History in Vienna displays the famous Negau B helmet in a specially protected case. It also presents the recent interpretation of the inscription as:



Their explanation reads as follows: »The inscription »harigastiteiva« states the alleged German name Harigast(i) and counts as one of the oldest Germanic language monuments. »Teiva« probably means another name of the same person«.13

Since the name »Teiva« is placed behind the name Harigast(i) the inscription therefore means something as the name and surname. As both of them are unverified the interpretation is contrary to the 8th principle. Similarly, the last three characters (15 to 18) are omitted as they are meant to be »fill only«, which is contrary to the 2nd principle that all signs in the inscription must be considered.


Thomas L. Markey, American linguist, understood in 2001 the inscription as:


For him Harigasti is no longer a German army officer, but rather a priest,14 as he supposed that this is the meaning of the word »teiwaz«, but he never explained in which language this word had such a meaning. He also transcribed the first sign to the letter H. He did not believe Egger’s transcription that three parallel lines represent number three, and transcribed them into Z. Then contrary to principle 2 he omitted last two characters in the inscription. His opinion that a priest appears in the inscription is in accordance with the latest beliefs of large number of scientists that the helmets from the mentioned archaeological find were in the Roman times no longer used in combat, but only as cult objects in some pagan ceremonies.15

Most researchers of the Negau inscription, except from our linguistic space, do not understand Slovenian language. The lack of understanding the language of the area where the Negau helmets were found is justified by the controversial claim that Slovenes at that time did not live there. In case that a single inscription from the period prior to the 6th century AD could be understood in the Slovenian language, the so-called »immigration« theory would be rejected completely.



6. Researchers of the inscription from our area


Archeologist Stane Gabrovec concluded his article on Negau helmets published in the year 1984 with the hope that once new facts will confirm that the inscription was made in the language, spoken by the members of the Slovenian Hallstatt culture in this area, and therefore it was not a »German« text.16 Perhaps this suggestion was the cause for a true flood of amateur researchers who tried to read the German inscription »readily« in the Slovenian language.

Among Slovenian researchers we must mention Matej Bor, who, besides other old inscriptions, interpreted also the inscription of Negau B.17 He read it as:


He assumed that the word HARI means “hariti” that is to harass or plunder, GASTI to host (“gostovati”), and VAI as warring (“vojevanje”). So he interpreted the inscription as »Plunder, host, and also fight«. Bor accepted the generally used Prosdocim's transcription of signs together with all errors, and thus equated himself with those foreign researchers who did not recognize obvious transcription inaccuracies. He also did not take into account that the word HARASS could only be linked to the significantly later Turkish incursions. »TE I« would mean »and and« (“ter in”), and »VAI« would mean »warfare«. Then, in contrast to principle 2, he omitted last two signs in the inscription.

Among the interpretations of the old inscriptions it is also necessary to mention the extensive work of Vinko Vodopivec. He published several books on old inscriptions and tried to read them in the Slovenian language.18 Among others, he read the Negau B as:


He interpreted the text as »He grabbed these aliens and won« (that is “Grabil tujce te in zmagal”). He used the generally accepted transcription, including all the mistakes, and then interpreted it in some way even differently from what he supposed to be written.19

Among others, also Anton Berlot tried to interpret the inscription.20 Although he himself states that Mommsen and Corsten transcribed the first sign into M, he then turned it into D, the fifth sign Y into H, the seventh sign S into Z, the fifteenth sign III into J, and the seventeenth sign L into G. Then he presumed that the inscription is talking about some Silva Jug donating something to somebody named Tito. Similarly, Dusan Shkrlep changed the generally accepted transcription for so long that he received the »Slovenian« inscription »Ga 11 + 15 ja shield gval«.21

In addition to the above examples there are cases, where transcriptions are used without explanation, signs are added and taken away, and already slightest similarity to some Slovenian word is used to consider the entire inscription as Slovene. Such omission of scientific methods enables advocates of »immigration« theory to consider even serious interpretations in Slovenian language as unscientific.



7. New interpretation of the Negau inscription


In attempt to obtain a new interpretation in full compliance with the proposed principles, the image of the inscription on the helmet Negau B is presented (Figure 4). In the next row schematic representation of all signs is shown, then they are numbered taking into account the direction of writing signs from right to left (0). Follow the transcriptions of Prosdocimi (1), KHM in Vienna (2), Egger (3) and the proposed new transcription (4). Similar to other inscriptions from that time the writing runs continuously, which means that no spaces exist between words. Therefore, the proposed separation of words as suggested by individual authors is presented.

In the case of Prosdocimi the controversial transcription of characters is marked with red color (1), at KHMW museum the missing characters are shown with red dashes (2), Egger’s corrections of Prosdocimi are marked with green (3), and with the same color the corrections used in the proposed new transcription are marked (4).

In order to ensure credibility of the proposed transcription it was necessary to replace the controversial transcription of the first sign that most researchers regard as H with another letter. For this purpose the transcription of Theodor Mommsen and Thomas Corsten is taken into account where in other similar cases they transcript the controversial sign into M. Mommsen, a German historian, lawyer, politician, archaeologist, and recipient of the 1902 Nobel Prize for Literature, is well known for his research of Roman history, and is particularly recognized by the experts for his extreme methodological consistency. He carefully explored the old Rhaethic inscriptions and considered that of Negau to be written in the »Styrian script«.22

In the well-known inscription on the vessel from Idrija at Bacha, the disputed sign appears six times and represents therefore an adequate basis for determining the most suitable way of transcription. Since also in this case many researchers transcript the disputed sign into H, they usually have to interpret the inscription with fictitious names. This is however the simplest but, of course, the wrong solution. If we transcript the disputed sign into M, this text is also easily understood in the Slovenian language.23 Therefore, according to the system used by Mommsen and Corsten, the most adequate transcription is the letter M.

The researchers mostly transcript the sign Y into letter G like it is pronounced in the Greek language before letters A, O, and U. However, the Y sign also in Greek before E and I correspond to the Latin letter J. Besides, in Cyrillic script Y corresponds to the Latin letter J, and in English language the letter Y is usually pronounced as J. Therefore, it is more appropriate to transcript character Y into the letter J.

Letters ST are in many cases pronounced as ŠT (SHT) as it is easier to pronounce. Franc Mikloshich wrote about the typical use of ŠT instead of ST in the dialect of Pannonian Slovenes.24 Also in German language, the letters ST at the beginning of the words are always pronounced as ŠT. Therefore, in this connection the most appropriate transcription for letter S is Š.


After the fifteenth character, i.e. number III, is by spaces divided from the rest of the text, another space is placed between the sixth and seventh character. So, the text reads:



Although this inscription originates from the time of the Roman Empire, it is not a text in Latin, but in the Slovenian language. It was most likely created in the Illyrian military units of the Roman army, in which Illyrian was defined as their »official« language.25

First the name MARIJA (Slovenian name for Mary) is mentioned, and to her the writer of the inscription is also addressing. The word ŠTIT is an old Slovenian word for today’s word ŠČIT (Shield in English), which in the form ŠTIT still exists in some Slavic languages (Slovakian, Croatian). From this the word ŠTITEIVA (in English: let us protect) is derived, and it is the imperative form in dual (Priest and Mary), as dual is a special feature in the Slovenian language.

The words III IL are a typical form of marking Roman military units, where their name or its abbreviation, in this case IL, stays for Illyrian. The name of the military unit is preceded by their sequence number III. In our case, it may be III Illyrian legion, cohort, or auxiliary unit (auxilia, auxiliary regiment). The presence of Illyrian military units in the area of the find is documented in a number of sources; including the descriptions of the Roman protection wall (Claustra Alpium Iuliarum).26

However, this also proves what in that time was the meaning of Illyrian language.

This inscription, translated into English, can be understood as:

Mary, let us protect the III IL(lirian)


The writer of the inscription turns to Mary, asking her for the protection (of the Illyrian military unit), what is even today a most common form of praying. The writer of the inscription was most likely a priest, as this was presumed by T. L. Markey in his interpretation (»Harigasti priest«). The writer puts himself into an active role as it is written in the specific Slovenian dual. It means that he (as the priest) together with Mary shall jointly protect “III Illyrian” military unit. Only a priest was able to write in such a way, and also writing was for a long time mostly in their domain. This fully corresponds to more recent studies, which presume that at the time when these helmets were deposited, they were used only as cult objects, carried by the priests. Moreover, the place of the find was understood and even used as a sanctuary at the time of the German occupation during the World War II.27

Today it is still generally assumed that the inscription on the Negau helmet must be connected to some pagan priest. The reason why a Christian priest was not considered as a writer is due to the fact that the role of Christian religion in the Roman army was until now mostly neglected. Only more recent researches prove that the Christianity in the Roman army was a crucial factor in the Christianization of the Roman world.28

Comparing to numerous non-existent and fictitious names and not credible texts only by correcting two obvious mistakes in the transcription it was possible to obtain the understandable text, written in Slovenian language, that is the language of the environment where about two hundred years ago the helmets were discovered.



8. How many helmets were actually found or still another not understandable inscription on the helmet Negau B


In fact, the so often researched and analyzed inscription on the helmet Negau B is in reality not the only inscription on this helmet. There are namely also two additional short records that are mostly overlooked by researchers, or they were translated as text (Figure 5).

Vinko Vodopivec was one of the few researchers who tried to explain the inscription. He read it as »Ks je ks, ks je ks«,29 as he did not take into account that the signs were written in a different angle, meaning that they represent numbers.

In this short inscriptions the numbers were written once from right to left and then from left to right. Such a way of writing was very common during the transition from the older direction of writing from right to left into the newer way of writing from left to right. This method of two-way writing of the same text was also used by the inscription on the vessel from Idrija at Bacha.30

By analyzing the inscription on the helmet Negau B we can see that the Roman positioning system of writing numbers was not used. Instead the system of the ancient Egyptians and probably also of the Old Slovenes was used. By attributing the corresponding numerical values to the signs 1 for I and 10 for X, we can calculate 1 + 1 + 10 + 1 + 1 + 10 = 24, and 10 + 1 + 1 + 10 + 1 + 1 = 24. Thus the inscription IIXIIX and XIIXII present the same number twenty-four written twice in both directions.

It is difficult to believe that by all the extensive research of the helmet Negau B no one has ever read these two short inscriptions as twice the number 24, nor did it consider to be connected to the find. Even KHMW still considers the inscription to be unclear, meaning that these are »signs indicating numbers, marking the owner or the manufacturer«.31

After the helmets were found in 1811, the finder Jurij Slachek was questioned and according to the record, he »admitted« that he had excavated twenty-six helmets. He had immediately broken one, thinking that it had been gold. He then sold the rest of the find, so twelve of them were held in Vienna, eight in Graz, museums in Munich, Berlin and Ljubljana retained one helmet each, and two were »lost«. It could also be possible that the investigating authority forced the finder to admit a larger number than actually excavated. In this case he would be no longer entitled to additional payment. So there still remains an unresolved issue that the finder had perhaps actually excavated twenty-four helmets as it was stated on the helmet Negau B.

However, until recently also the so »reliable« number of twenty-six is no longer valid. In 2011, on the 200th anniversary of the discovery, new data were published that in KHMW there were twelve helmets; six were in the Universal Museum Joanneum in Graz and one in the National Museum in Ljubljana. All other attributes to the treasure of Zhenjak are supposed »no longer necessarily to be true«.32

It means that only nineteen helmets from Negau were reliably preserved, and after two helmets were lost and one destroyed only twenty-two were excavated. So, it would be interesting to find out, where did two helmets, previously recorded to be in museums, suddenly disappear, and what the real cause was. Perhaps, from the original 26 and today's 22 excavated helmets, we will finally be able to claim that there were 24 of them, as stated by the inscription on the helmet Negau B.

It seems that nearly two thousand years ago there was a significantly better evidence of property than it is now as during the last two centuries of exploration, we have not been able to answer this simple question of how many helmets were really excavated. Besides, there is no prospect that the exact answer could be found soon.



9. When the inscription was written


By using the currently available methods it is not possible to determine when the most important inscription on the helmet was made. Thus, some researchers still equate the time of writing with the time of manufacturing the helmets. This, of course, is absolutely incredible, as the find consists of very different bronze helmets, and the time of their manufacture lies within a period of as many as 200 years (from 550 to 350 years BC).33

Assuming that the total number of the deposited helmets was written on the helmet Negau B, it is impossible for the inscription to appear at the time of their manufacture, but when they were already united for some kind of common purpose. It is the fact that this type of helmet has long been out of use in battles, but was rather used as a cult object at religious ceremonies. A number of researchers from around the world recently came to the same conclusion, and the same was the result of the study, prepared by the museum in Graz for celebrating the 200th anniversary of the find.34 One of the reasons why these helmets were supposed to be used in pagan, and not in Christian rituals, is most likely the fact that the very important role of Christian religion in the Roman army was not properly taken into account.

Paul Reinecke dates the time of writing to the period of Roman occupation of Alps between the years 12 and 15, and Rudolf Egger during the Illyrian-Pannonian uprising, between 6 and 9 AD. So, the estimated time of the inscription differs from one to another for more than half a millennium, considering that some researchers still insist that the inscription was made at the time of their manufacturing. This opinion is today more and more obsolete, and thus the timing of the inscription will have to be determined by the contents of the inscription.

The proposed interpretation now allows a much more precise estimation of the time of writing, since it could be dated only in the time when a strong role of Christianity prevailed in the Roman army. As we can see (Figure 6), Christianity in our area existed already before 325 AD and the time when holly Mary received her place in the prayers of the army belongs to this period.

The Gnostic Berlin Codex (Berlin Codex)35 from the earliest Christianity, which also includes the Gospel of Mary, originates to the time before 160 AD. Thus, the name of Mary as a protector could reliably appear in the inscriptions after that time.

The gospel was originally written in the Coptic script and was later translated into Greek. As military units often moved between Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe, the legions were well acquainted also with the beliefs of the Christian religion. The fragments of the codex were found at the end of the 19th century in Egypt, the first translation of the text into the German language was published in 1955, and the latest updates on the find were published in 1983. Regarding the time in which we place the inscription, Mary could already appear in the prayers. Professor Ivan Zika believes that Christianity in the towns on our territory has already been expanding in the 2nd century AD and at the end of the 4th century it already covered most of the population.36 Also historian Bogdan Kolar concludes that Christianity on our territory was present long before the proclamation of religious freedom in the Roman Empire, that is, before 313 AD, what is confirmed also by »material remains and some written sources«.37 Finally, same are the results of archaeological excavations in the year 2018 on Gosposvetska cesta in Ljubljana.

Among other, the inscription could be dated in the time of Emperor Traian Decius,38 who ruled from 249 to 251, and was considered as the protector of Illyrian army.39 The transition of marking Roman legions of naming them by their names and numbers I, II and III,40 together with cohorts and auxiliary units (auxiliary regiments), could be also taken into consideration.41 In any case, the inscription was made at a time when Christianity already had a decisive role in the Roman army and thus in the entire Roman Empire.

The burial time of the helmets could be associated with the dangerous barbaric intrusion on the territory of the find, as well as with religious conflicts within the Roman Empire frequently associated with the exchanges from Christianity to worshiping of ancient Roman gods and vice versa, that were often connected to bloody internal wars. In any case now we can firmly conclude that the Slovenian inscription was made long before the 6th century AD, when the »primitive Slavic tribes« allegedly immigrated to their present territory.





Slika 1. A Negau helmet 42





Slika 2. Today’s marking of the site in Benedikt




Slika 3. Helmet number 22 or Negau B







































































































Shtevilke v oklepaju pomenijo:

(0) oshtevilchenje znakov

(1) prechrkovanje po Prosdocimiju

(2) prechrkovanje po KHMW

(3) prechrkovanje po Eggerju

(4) prechrkovanje po avtorju (M. Shtruc)

Meaning of the numbers in brackets:

(0) Numbering of the symbols

(1) Transcription by Prosdocimi

(2) Transcription by KHMW

(3) Transcription by Egger

(4) Transcription by the author (M. Shtruc)


Slika 4. The inscription on the helmet Negau B/





Slika 5. Additional short inscriptions on the helmet Negau B





     Razshirjenost krshchanstva do leta 325 n. sht. Spread of Christianity to AD 325

     Razshirjenost krshchanstva do leta 600 n. sht. Spread of Christianity to AD 600

Slika 6. Razshiritev krshchanstva do leta 325 in 600 n. sht.

Spread of Christianity until AD 325 and until AD 600 42




1 After Christianity became dominant religion, many toponyms, that originally described their characteristics, and thus for centuries facilitated the orientation of the population in the space, were replaced by names of Christian saints.

2 Milan Shtruc: The greatest Error in European History, SRP Magazine, No. 135/136, pp. 172-180

3 Janez Shvajncer: Helmets, Posavski Museum Brezhice, Brezhice 2008, page 20.

4 Kunsthistori sches Museum Wien (KHMW)

5 Stane Gabrovec: Helmets from Zhenjak in Slovenske Gorice, Celts and their contemporaries on the territory of Yugoslavia, National Museum in Ljubljana, 1984, page 26.

6 Gabrovec (1984), page 26.

7 Karl Johan Sverdrup Marstrander (1883-1965) was a Norwegian linguist and explorer of Celtic and Etruscan culture.

8 V. M.: Secrets of Benedict, Democracy, 50/2004.

9 »In northern Slovenia, we can thus find out that most of the burial sites of the prehistoric and Roman period lie north of the road from Celea - Poetovio - Savaria, and the density of the piles is the largest in the heart of Slovenske gorice.« Ivan Tushek: Archeology in the municipality of Benedikt, Footprints of life, Proceedings of the Municipality of Benedikt, 2004, p. 46. »We can conclude that, according to preserved finds, most of the burial sites belong to the Roman period«. Same, page 59.

10 Rudolf Egger: Die Inschrift des Harigasthelmes, R.M. Rohrer, Vienna, 1959

11 Gabrovec (1984), page 26.

12 Gabrovec, (1984), page 27.

13 »Inschrift “harigastiteiva” nennt den vermutlich germanischen Namen Harigast(i) und zählt damit zu den ältesten bekannten germanischen Sprachdenkmälern. “Teiva” ist wahrscheinlich als zweiter Name desselben Mannes zu deuten.« Negauer Helm mit Harigast-Inschrift; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien,, 27 November 2017, at 23:50. The helmet with the inscription is displayed in the 3rd space of the Antique collection (Antikensammlung, Raum 3).

14 Negau helmet, Wikipedia,

15 The opinion that the helmets were used as cult objects in pagan rituals was presented also by the group of Austrian researchers in the film, prepared at the 200th anniversary of the find (Ans Licht gebracht, Universalmuseum Joanneum, Graz, 2013).

16 Gabrovec (1984), page 28.

17 Matej Bor: A language that speaks to today's Slovenes, Delo, 22.8.1985

18 Vinko Vodopivec: Old Slovenian Ethnogenesis, 2010, Linguistic Foundations of the Early Slovenian Ethnogenesis, 2010 and Slovenes, the Europe’s inhabitants, 2012, all published by Jutro Publishing House, Ljubljana

19 Vinko Vodopivec: Language bases of older Slovenian ethnogenesis, Zalozhba Jutro, Ljubljana, 2010, page 167

20 Anton Berlot: Were the Etruscans Slavs? Lipa Publishing House, Koper, 1984, page 167

21 Dusan Shkrlep: Vojnozgodovinski zbornik no. 34/2009, page 4.

22 »His work is distinguished by great methodological care. ... Mommsen succeeded in correctly discriminating between different alphabets, among them a “Swiss alphabet” in the West, an alphabet of Padua / Este, as well as a “Styrian alphabet” on the Negau helmets«; Modern research on the Raeti and Raetic,;

November 30 2017 at 13:30.

23 Milan Shtruc: New interpretation of Negau inscriptions, Vojnozgodovinski zbornik, no. 32, Logatec, 2008, page 13. Instead of fictitious names, also in this case we get a relevant Slovenian text: “Materi v gomilo”, English translation: “To mother in the tomb”.

24 Franc MikloShich, Ancient Slavonic Metrology in Paradigms with Texts from Glagolitic Resources, Vienna, 1874, Our Lady of the Order, Collection of papers, edited by Peter Amalietti, Ljubljana, Amalietti & Amalietti, 2017, page 37.

25 List of Roman auxiliary regiments, List of auxilia ethnic regimental names: »Name: Illyricorum; Native language: Illyrian«;

26 »According to Vegeta, plumbatae were supposed to be special weapons of two Illyrian legions (Legio I Iovia, Legio and Herculia) who, as elite units, were engaged in various parts of the empire. With their movements, archaeological finds are also largely covered. The highest concentration is in northeastern Italy, western Slovenia, the UK ... « Claustra Alpium Iuliarum, Ivan Michler Institute, Ljubljana, 2014, Jure Kosetič: III. Topographic and archaeological survey, page 95

27 »Helmets of the Negau type were typically worn by priests at the time of deposition of these helmets, so they seem to have been left at the Zhenjak site for ceremonial reasons. The village of Zhenjak was of great interest to German archaeologists during the Nazi period and was briefly renamed Harigast during World War II”; Negau helmet,, last edited on 7 October 2018, at 09:21; In the new Light / Ans Licht gebracht; Catalog, Universalmuseum Joanneum, Gradec, 2013.

28 »This new study argues that the religious attitude of the Roman army was a crucial factor in the Christianization of the Roman world. Specifically, by the end of the third century, there was a significant Christian presence within the army which was ready to act in the interests of the faith.« J.F. Shean: Roman State, War, And Military Service, The important presence of Christianity in the Roman army can be seen also through Constantine’s apparition before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD »In this sign thou shalt conquer«, Source: In hoc signo vinces, Wikipedia, last edited on 28 May 2019, at 08:15 (UTC). Of course, Roman army did not turn into Christianity suddenly during the night of his vision, but it must have been of such faith already long before the battle.

29 Vodopivec (2010), page 167.

30 Milan Shtruc (2008)

31 »An zwei weiteren Stellen an der Krempe sind die Zeichenfolgen “IIXIIX” eingeritzt. Die Bedeutung ist unklar, vielleicht handelt es sich um Zahlzeichen oder Eigentums- bzw. Herstellermarken.« Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Antikensammlung, Raum 3.

32 According to recent findings, the initial conviction of twenty-six helmets was an unreliable claim. »Today twelve helmets are at the Museum of Art and History in Vienna, six helmets at the Universal Museum Johanneum in Graz and one helmet in the National Museum in Ljubljana. All other attributes of the helmets to the Zenjak find are not necessarily true.« In a new light / Ans Licht gebracht; Catalog, Universalmuseum Joanneum, Archaeological Heritage of the Slovenian Styria from the Universal Museum Joanneum, Editor: Barbara Porod / Translation: Blazh Slana / Gradec, 2013

33 The Museum in Vienna dates the Negau B helmet in the first half of the 5th century BC, the time of Hallstatt Culture, Negauer Helm mit Harigast-Inschrift; »Prähistorisch, Hallstattzeit, 1. Hälfte 5. Jh. v. Chr.«;; the helmet is displayed in the 3rd space of the Antique collection (Antikensammlung, Raum 3). Source: Kunsthistoririsches Museum, Wien, 27 November 2017 at 23.50.

34 In a new Light (2013)

35 Berlin Codex,

36 Ivan Zika: 750 Years of the town Kamnik, page 25

37 Bogdan Kolar, The roots of the Christianity at Celjsko, Druzhina, 1 January 2017, page 8

38 Traian Decius, Genius Exercitui Illyriciani, Traian Decius, the protector of the Illyrian army, Göbl, Robert: Die Münzprägung des Kaisers Aurelianus (270/275), Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 1993


40 Legions of the Imperial Roman Empire;, updated 12 August 2004

41 Bogdan Kandus: Coins of the Roman Legions, Numizmatični vestnik Sht. 34, NDS, Ljubljana, 2008, page 219

42 History of Christianity, Wikipedia, last edited on 11 June 2019, at 09:27



Translated by author



Slovenian (gajica)

Slovenian (bohorichica)