καὶ ποταμοὺς τινας διαβάντες ἐν μεγίστῃ παρεγινόμεθα κώμῃ → and having crossed some rivers we reached a very large village

[monteleone1]

The text is from 5th century Byzantine writer
(Priscus, History)

κία  ποταμούς τινας  διαβάντες   έν  μεγίοτη  παρεγινόμευα κώμη

My question is, what are some alternative translation? Could the author be referring to a ditch or trench?

Any help from you experts would be greatly appreciated.
PS I know nothing about greek so any other info you might need please let me know.

Sincerely,
Gene Monteleone

[wings]

Hi Gene.

You have the text. Is there any indication of ditches or trenches? The Greek ποταμός is 99% a river or at least a stream or torrent and towns were commonly located next to rivers. If it were for a ditch or trench, the word "τάφρος" might be used.

By the way does your text say "κία" or "καί" ????

[monteleone1]

Hi Vicky,

To give you some insight this is from Priscus's journy to Attilas villiage. I've been trying to trace the steps.
Depending on where he crossed the Tiza river (in earlier text), it could refer to trenches dug by the Romans in third and fourth century. Or it could refer to small rivers if Priscus crossed at a higher point along the Tiza.

Knowing if what the possibility of the text referring to trenches or ditches would help in finding the exact city.

I hope this makes sense. If not let me know.

Gene

[banned8]

There is no way ποταμός could have been used for anything artificial like a ditch, a trench or a moat (τάφρος, όρυγμα).

[monteleone1]

Sincere thanks Nickel

Gene

[wings]

I can only think of the river's affluents - but then, they are rivers again.

[monteleone1]

Vicky,

having "καi" in front, is hat unusual, it's done several plaes in the textbut when stating the actual river name. What does καi mean.

Gene

[banned8]

I believe the correct Greek here is:

και ποταμούς τινας διαβάντες εν μεγίστη παρεγενόμεθα κώμη = and having crossed some rivers we reached a large unfortified city

[wings]

I agree with Nick.

"Kαι" means "and".

[monteleone1]

Well this helps and hurts a lot.

Priscus never mentions crossing the Roman trenches they were a considerable landmark on the Hungarian Plains up until last century. And it would be impossible to get to where most historians have placed Attila's village without crossing the trenches. Priscus goes into great detail describing his journey so for him not to mention the trenches would have been almost impossible

So now I can start looking in another direction.

Sincere thanks to both of you

Gene