Cultural division of Europe along language lines.
Slavic inferiority complex.

Author: Igor Pirnovar


Introduction   . . .   (linguistic issues).

Introduction to the contents beyond linguistics.
Linguistics augments history.
  1. Are we not allowed to talk about the age of Veneti?
  2. The Linguistic war-games.
In history neglected may be hiding the important.
  1. Superficial awareness of ones own history.
Who are the true Barbarians in Europe.

Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex.
  1. Roots of Slavic inferiority complex.
The Linguistics reveals the proof that Slavs are not a nation of slaves,
but are instead descendants of 'always' free and independent Veneti.
  1. Important question about Veneti and cast system.
  2. Nastanek grščine in etruščanščine skozi jezikovno prizmo

Decline of Veneti.

Word "vindication".
Antique languages and Venetic or Slavic languages.

The Etruscan newcomer, newcomers Latins,
and the origin of the name Servus.
  1. The word morena
The son of the King of Langobards and a slave.



(linguistic issues)

It was not easy to formalize the idea, that to the large extent Slavic inferiority complex is the main reason western academics have for so long mistreated, misrepresented, falsified and abused Slavic history. At first it looked, that the mistreatment perpetrated by the western academic apparatus was only effecting those who were deliberately mistreated, but the truth is, that it is also the reason for the overblown and unrealistic science on the side of the perpetrators, whose intention was to paint the West in an unrealistic naturally superior position. The situation is so bad, because we the Slavs did not stop the bad science and unaccepted conduct of western academics, hence, one could say that we Slavs are more than anybody responsible for the incompetency of western historian, linguists and etymologists. I believe, that only by addressing the history in a more realistic way, i.e., not avoiding unpleasant, embarrassing, or items considered to be the taboo, in the name of political correctness and / or public approval, we will finally come to a more objective truth.

IE wildcard allows fraudulent falsification of language interpretation. It is not always possible to say things of this nature without evoking emotions, and linguistics is a good tool and medium to use when one needs to steer clear of in the science undesirable and unnecessary human sentiments, since it is very hard to get emotional about language elements that can not be tweaked in the manner IE theories were designed to twist our language with their wildcard character which by definition can be substituted for any of a defined subset of all possible characters, ideas or concepts. My reason to use linguistic is not to build pseudo scientific theories but instead to avoid doing just that!

Let me explain in the spirit of the title of this introductory article (History and Linguistics) that one does need some special knowledge of linguistics in order to understand my writing, nevertheless it should be pointed out, that my articles benefit greatly from the synergy of the two disciplines. Though my main interest always was on the side of history it tilted significantly in the direction of linguistics. At first I only was able to appreciate the problem of interpretation and comprehension of linguistic issues from the writings of other professionals. However, as I too started to write bilingual articles dealing with linguistic issues most of the time closer to just one of the two languages in which I was trying to communicate to my audiences, I started to appreciate the differences between the languages even more, which I believe, in turn helped me to address the problems even better and more sharply. But most of all being an immigrant myself now for over a quarter of a century, whereby I experienced first hand the linguistic aspects of foreigners in nonnative environments, helped me even more to devise very effective research methods that deal with the evolution of languages in antique "melting pot" (multicultural) environments of Greece, Etruria and Rome. I was also lucky, I dedicated most of my professional carrier to the state of the art technology and methodology dealing with the management of complex systems. The methods I developed for my work with the issues that span linguistic and history domains clone the forementioned methodologies aka "Object Methodology" [OM], or sometimes "Object Technology" [OT].

With the help of these methodologies, one can effectively hide numerous details and complexities of linguistic issues behind a few very simple [OM/OT] abstractions or concepts. This drastically reduces the need for extensive knowledge of linguistics for both the researcher as well as the reader of the texts produced with the aid of this methodologies. Of course for all this to be possible to materialize and work, one needs to become familiar with these methodologies. But not to worry, we will only employ a tinny fragment of a much larger and powerful OM methodology. The most important for us will be to learn the concepts dealing with two different and yet related systems of organization. Through understanding the two organizations one has to learn about their differences, that are as important as understanding the two individually. The differences of the two systems of organization are very much the binding part of the relationship between the two. This relationship can be described as a permanent tension between universally opposing polarity that exists between everything that defines the two organizations and their structures. For instance if an element in one structure points "up" the corresponding element in the other system will point "down", or if the most prominent property of one is its flatness, the respective property of the other will be a highly structured hierarchical pyramid. This relationship of permanent opposition between the two systems is called "orthogonality".

We do not use the term "oposite" instead of "orthogonal", because, not all things may always be seen as opposite in a true empirical sense, but rather can be defined within any given system with a set of internal rules, that apply only within the defining system. For instance red color may mean the color of "rednecks" and "blue" may be the opposite in that very system, this is not to say that "red" is "black" and "blue" is "white", or is it? Beside understanding the above concepts, in order to fully appreciate the benefits this methodology brings us, one should also understand the transitioning of the polarity into its opposite, which happens by the rule, when elements in two systems switch places, or when the underlying systems change so the elements find themselves under the new regimes or systems; i.e. if a redneck joins the other party all the rules also change, we can say that the "blue" becomes "red" and the "red" becomes "blue". In other words one should clearly see that there exists a particular dynamics of transitioning between two "orthogonal" systems! As it turns out at the early stages of the development of contemporary societies and cultures, the organizations of the early societies gravitated towards the flat organizations, whereas the languages they spoke were deeply structured and hierarchically organized. As the societies became hierarchically structured, the languages they spoke began to change and their structures became rather flat. This behavior is typical for the organizations between which we find the relationship to be "orthogonal".

This all may look very complicated, however, it is rather straight forward and unlike the learning curve for the original OM/T methodology / technology which is very steep indeed, is anything but! All the necessary information you need to digest, in order to feel comfortable using, applying or testing this methodology out yourself is written on a single web page and contains less than 7500 words. You may check it out in a new window here: Organization of languages. Regardless of whether you are a seasoned professional or a laymen, I strongly recommend you do at least skim the forementioned link, because it does reveal a few contemporary and very well proved concepts of at the beginning described contemporary methodology, which is in IT used to manage even multiple parallel systems and is known to be a sibling of what is in mathematics known as "The Mathematical Theory Of Chaos".

Introduction to the contents beyond linguistics:     Though one intent of this article is to reveal, how we could greatly benefit from the synergy between history and linguistics, the other is immediately trying to reap the benefits of this very synergy in an attempt to confront one of the most neglected and avoided interpretations dealing with the origins of Slavs, which on the curve depicting historical development of Slavic nations usually lies on the intervals of convergence towards the minimums, scattered across the middle sections of that graph, actually ignoring the true and glorious beginnings much earlier in time. These intervals do not always coincide with the true historical events, but only reflect the the surviving historical records. For instance it is anticipated that during the Etruscan times or at the time Rome was founded, Veneti were a force to be reckoned with, however, the historical records of that time were mostly destroyed, and what survived paints a very distorted, and in fact, quite the opposite picture, indeed. Beside a minor comment about a small patch of Veneti land in the North East (between the sea and the Alps) found in Livy's "History..." [lvy:1.1], and some rather convincing archaeological evidence about Veneti from Aeste (now Este) and Villanova cultures, there are almost no historical records mentioning strong Veneti establishments in those times. However, as we will see in the continuation here, in the very same records that lack even the evidence of the existence of Veneti, we can find numerous indirect references to them.

Here we are mostly concerned with the interpretations of those, who historically and to this day continue to view Veneti and later their descendants Slavs first as conquered and latter as the subordinate peoples, i.e. the interpretations that for a very long time projected a rather negative image about them and which still lurk neglected in the darkest corners of history. But an old saying goes: "Where there's smoke there's fire", and if nothing else we need to check things out, and not only pretend those are clouds of dust or fog. Regardless of how some would like to interpret these records, they certainty confirm Veneti's omnipresence all over the Apennines at the times when they were apparently subdued and converted to Romans by then emerging new powers. Indeed, this is the smoking gun, the official scientists and academics neglect to acknowledge!

The continuity of Veneti since the prehistory throughout the ancient Greek, Etruscan and Roman eras, all the way to the times of Karantania, and indeed to the present time Slavic nations, who apparently descended from Veneti, poses many questions and requires answers, the official science and particularly the historians and linguists just do not seem to be willing to tackle! The situation is further aggravated due to the naivety, immaturity and the fact that we, Slavs, are not prepared to confront this problematics head on, and from which many flee to hide their shame, and others arrogantly dismiss it, as if they believed the famous "Situla from Vače" was a kind of Aladdin's lamp from which our medieval greatness sprang out, almost a thousand years after Veneti introduced it, namely the "Situla", to our lands.

Though the void was filled by many courageous dissident researchers, their work so far focused only on the more glorious bright side of the new body of evidence. So far Slovenian researcher Dr. J. Savli has most extensively defended the idea of Venetic continuity from the times of the middle 2nd millennial BC all the way to the present times. And, indeed, one can hardly object to the claims that ethnically the "Karantanians" are the closest to middle European Slavs i.e. Slovenes, Slovaks, Czechs and even Ukrainians, especially since the genetics and etymology support it too. Nevertheless, we should not pretend, it is merely possible to accept the fact that over 2700 years ago in the heart of Italy next to the lake Bracciano some 30 miles from Rome Veneti left their mark in Villanovan culture in a vacuum, or even more unbelievable in some proto-Italic ethnic sea, of which, by the way, there is absolutely no evidence at the time! Therefore, naturally there should be many additional questions about the continuity of Veneti on the southern wings, spreading deep into Apennines as well as into Balkans just as much prior to the times Rome was founded, as during both the time of the Roman Republic as well as latter during the times of the Empire.

There exist numerous missing parts in the newly evolving picture, which I believe, can be illuminated by those so far neglected albeit distorted negative images we've just mentioned. This represents a multi-layered problem, which I believe should be carefully studied and explained. In my current writing I attempted to start doing just that, for instance in the topics entitled "Rome and Romans" in the article: Veneti could not have vanished during the Roman times (opens in a new window), or under the topics "Etruscans (Rasens)" in the article: Etruria at the time Rome was born (opens in a new window).

With the above we reached the core problem, which prompted me to write this article on the first place. As the title of the article reveals, it first appeared to me as a linguistic and historical problem, however, through this unlikely partnership of linguistics and history emerged the true contents of this article, which is closely related to the millennial of misrepresentation of the presence of Slavs in Europe, and which to this day is still incorrectly reflected both in European history as well as linguistics. Oddly enough, though it will soon become clear not surprisingly, even the Slavic researchers avoided to look for clues from the perspective explored here, which can best be understood by considering the opening title in to the problematic area below, namely, "Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex". However, we will do grave injustice to the topics described here by interpreting the above title literally. The best thing to say here is another controversial thing, namely: "where there's smoke there's fire". It is more in the spirit of both just mentioned "controversies" above that we should interpret the true challenge of this article which attempts to prove the smoke is actually a false alarm! But before we continue let set the stage.


Linguistics augments history

I have mentioned this chapter emerged as the result of my search for related words in different languages, which is one of the activities I like to refer to as the linguistic archaeology. In fact I was searching for the origins of the English word "deceit, deception". Unexpectedly, I ended up in the darkest corners of our (Slavic), history, which at the end with the help of the linguistics I was able to brighten up, so my day turned into a pleasant and rather inspiring sunny one, which in turn was responsible for this writing, when I started to make my notes, you can find in the paragraph bellow entitled: "The Linguistics reveals the proof that Slavs are not a nation of slaves, but are instead descendants of 'always' free and independent Veneti.", which grew into the chapter you are reading now.

Particularly when studying prehistory and antiquity, as well as to a lesser degree, a more recent history for which unlike for the former, we can find, albeit not always reliable, evidence in written documents, we will notice that the linguistics and history as scientific disciplines overlap much more than we would have originally thought. A language often can reveal an existence of some ethnicity, and even historical events in times for which absolutely no other records exist. I have not paid much attention to this linguistic aspect of history until I started to seriously study Veneti, whom the traditional science consistently ignores, whereby as far as the supporting evidence goes, I was often forced to turn to the only remaining thing that might be helpful, namely, the Venetic language itself. If you have ever seriously entertained an idea to come to the bottom to certain prehistoric facts about Veneti or even Slavs, it is very likely that you had to resort to the linguistics. Some however, would like to push the language out of the realm of history into a rather different ethnological category, despite the fact that all these categories, including etymology, at one point intersect and bind so very tightly, that in fact it is not easy to separate them from each other. In the introduction into the topics called "Who Are Etruscans" in an attempt to expose the relationship between Veneti, Etruscans, and indeed Slavs, I referred to the language relating to the very concerns central to this chapter. It seems appropriate to repeat here those few rather enlightening statements not only because they are an excellent example in which we can see how a language can reveal otherwise anonymous participants and creators of history, but also because the message expressed in those statements fits right into this place. Let's see:

Finally we can appreciate a more or less acknowledged anonymous presence of Slavs from the times of Karantania (Carantania) and its King Samo on, when also through the OCS (Old Church Slavic language) and the famous, but to OCS unrelated, Freisinger Manuscripts, we can see the evidence of highly evolved Slavic culture in times when most of other European nations beside Romans, Greeks, and few scattered Celtic monasteries, were still mostly illiterate and as an extension of the Roman Empire used only Latin as their language, which leaves West European indigenous languages and ethnic identity, i.e. communities, out of the loop. All this is a solid testimony supporting a much greater, and indeed, much more glorious prehistoric presence of Slavs in Europe, than was, and still is, acknowledged by the established Western academics elites. However, even less is known about our brightest times in post-Venetic era during the time and in the space of the Etruscans, in which there are numerous indisputable archaeological and also the earliest examples of European literacy in the form of over 7000 Etruscan inscriptions, among which there are quite a few, which clearly confirm the Veneti to be the predecessors of Slavs; [Click for an excellent example: Veneti - predecessors of Slavs (opens in new window)].
There is plenty of evidence that Veneti and Etruscans writing originates from over 7000 years old Vinca culture, and that the Phoenician theory is wrong. Click: Where did Greeks learn to write (opens in new window).
Moreover, from these Etruscan inscriptions we can see, Veneti as an ethnic and cultural group standing on equal footings with the Etruscans, and who could be identified also in the highest spheres of then evolving new societies or nations. I have elaborated on this in the topics "Etruscans (Rasens)" under the title: Etruscans and Venetic spirituality (opens in new window).

Though Venetic imprint can also be found in Greek and Latin languages, so far the strongest proof of Veneti not only being a constituent part of Etruscans society, but perhaps even one of the original founders of that society, exists in Etruscan inscriptions. Though on the one hand it would be hard to convince the world audience that large part of either Greek or Roman names and toponyms throughout the ancient Greek world and entire Italy originate from a "Slavic relative", namely the Venetic language, I believe it should not be hard to prove, that our predecessors, Veneti, not only lived among, but at the beginning of the 1st millennial BC, even considered themselves to be the Etruscans (Rasenes, Russians).

As you know, we are dealing here with the times, when with the advent of linear writing the first literacy started to appear in Europe, which in its apparent crudeness of its infancy through linguistics reveals a truly unbiased image of those times. So you can see why in my search for the prehistoric truth about Europe, I place such a huge importance on the linguistic issues, hence, all my mayor topics are equipped with a subtopic called "Language". The fact of the matter is, in preparations to my writing, I have spent much more time studying language related issues, though my main objective and goal always was to talk about history instead.
Are we not allowed to talk about the age of Veneti? Perhaps I owe an explanation for the term used above from the article "Who Are Etruscans", namely, when I refer to the "post-Venetic era" in the statement:
even less is known about our brightest times in "post-Venetic era during the time and in the space of the Etruscans ..."
Why, do we talk about a "post-Venetic era", were not the Etruscans and Veneti contemporaries, and the neighbours in Italy?

And the answer is yes, indeed they were, however the term "post-Venetic era" above designates the time well after Veneti's decline and after they actually ruled the world over two continents, which was more than a 500 or even a 1000 years earlier! Ironically we know more about them from this later times, when Etruscans were at their peak, hence this truly is a "post-Venetic era".

"The true Venetic times" go very far back into prehistory, and lasted much longer than what we are used to, for almost every other known historical era, with a notable exception spanning the times of ancient Egypt. Also the Venetologists rarely venture that far back in history, though there exist beyond a doubt, a rather convincing evidence of their existence from Atlantic almost all the way to the Pacific! This evidence indeed, exists mostly in ancient languages and toponyms throughout the mentioned areas spanning two continents. The trouble is, neither linguists nor historians truly understand this linguistic evidence, or refuse to deal with it, because it clearly points to many potential and rather serious problems in the accepted linguistic and historical theories revolving around very shallow and superficial, to put it mildly, IE (Indoeuropean) theories!

For quite some time I am of the opinion that also the Venetologists are avoiding the times before the Etruscans, and that they seem to be perfectly happy, by occasionally mentioning the "Lusatian Urnfield culture". For this situation we can partially blame the inactivity that has lasted for far too long in this area also in other supporting and parallel disciplines. The bunt of the blame, I believe, goes to the linguistics, which as I try to show, has been ignoring so much interesting and potentially useful material, that it would be capable of not only opening many new doors, but could also for a foreseeable future lead the way. Let me point out again, that so far only linguistics has the evidence of Veneti existence prior the advent of Sanskrit, which also supports the idea about "the true Venetic era" many millennial earlier than what we are currently considering. In this ancient language we can discover words from many European languages, however, its grammar not only resembles but in many ways is a copy of the grammatic patterns found only in the Slavic languages. The imprint of Sanskrit in all other European languages pails in comparison to the similarities found between Slavic languages and Sanskrit.

It is not surprising, that there were only a few very superficial analysis ever done about the origins of this ancient language. It is safe to say that not a single competent linguist had ever done an extensive study of the language, whereby a thorough study, employing devices of comparative linguistics, would be carried out, not with a single language at the time or with just a group of a few western languages which the researcher happened to be familiar with, but rather with all those whose linguistic imprint is above certain minimal threshold. It seems appalling that so much emphasis is put on the English language when it comes to Sanskrit, despite the so obvious, and indeed, a much larger Slavic linguistic intersection with the ancient language. Not only is the linguistic overlap between any given Slavic language and Sanskrit much larger lexically, than is the overlap between any other European language and Sanskrit, but we can also almost exclusively find a true grammatic reflection only of Venetic, hence Slavic grammar in Sanskrit.

I wander, why one gets an impression, such a comprehensive linguistic study of Sanskrit would not be in the interest of the established West European linguists? Nevertheless, Sanskrit is not the only ancient language which proves Veneti existed before the times of "Lusatian culture". It is, however, by far the easiest to prove! I do believe, when the things will start to move, an entire avalanche of new discoveries will follow. Until then we have to contend with many nuisances, and quite a few dilettantes who are trying to undermine our efforts to get the truth out.

The Linguistic war-games: However, to the amusement of the established West European linguists, and indeed, historians to whom the work of the well known Slovenian dissident academics and researchers Venetologists is a thorn in their flesh for quite some time, the advent of rather laughable pseudo linguistic theories about the Venetic as well as Etruscan languages, are a welcome "dilettante alternatives" and natural allies in their fight to discredit "Slavic branch of the Venetic theory" clearly undermining the scientific work of of the distinguished Slavic Venetologists. There are numerous books about "The Etruscan language" written by the Etruscologists, and of course the latest book "The Venetic Language" by Andres Pääbo published in 2006, which all fit into this category of "dilettante alternatives". You may read the critical commentary by clicking: Commentary on A. Pääbo's book The Veneti Language. (opens in new window), and my critique of the Etruscologists' linguistic work you will find scattered throughout all the articles under the topic called "Etruscans (Rasens)::Language".


In history neglected may be hiding the important.

Linguistics can many times help to reveal things from the past, that would otherwise remain in the dark, and hence triggers a wave of new historical research, which may subsequently lead to new archaeological as well as other empirical discoveries. It would be hard to find a better example of synergy between history and linguistics, than are the examples of European prehistory research and the research of Veneti culture, where only linguistics provides clues and, indeed, the evidence that the Veneti existed even before the Sanskrit was formed, which is before the Hittites became an item in history. However, as we will learn in this chapter, the ancient vocabularies may confirm even more concrete historical facts, as for instance, are those seen from the story about a Roman slave with the name Vindiciusu [livy-2.5], or the story about a freedman by the name Vediusu Polliu [kasDio-54.23], who himself became a brutal master, throwing his slaves for the smallest trouble they may have caused into his pool with deadly lampreys in it.

As I have announced initially in the above paragraphs entitled: "Introduction to the contents beyond linguistics" here we are going to look into the darkest corners of the history of tribes and peoples living throughout the Apennines, Southeastern and Eastern Alps as well as in the Balkans, that potentially are the descendants, and indeed, in most cases are the Veneti themselves, later known as Slavs. It is no secret that history and historians treated, or more adequately put, "mistreated" them greatly by denying their over three or even more millennial lasting existence. In the lieu of these truly indigenous peoples in the area, the historians following the example of ancient Greeks, who in order to hide the true Venetic identity of the indigenous populations invented another nation called Pelasgi. Of course originally the Veneti, or as I like to call them when talking about them, i.e. Veneti, in Grece or Rome the "True Pelasgi", were not known by their current name as Slavs, but rather as Sloveneti, Sloveneci, Veneti, Venedi, Vindi, Wendes and alike.

Some Slavs more than others simply identify with them. I do not wish to engage in the discussion of the origin of their name here, you can check it out, however, by clicking The origins of the name Veneti. (opens in new window).
By digging through the "history dirt", I hope we could also touch issues such as the question of the statehood for both the Veneti as well as their successors Slavs. Though in this article the issue of Venetic statehood will hardly be mentioned, I hope we can set the stage for further explorations in topics about Greece, Etruria and Rome which have in effect replaced the indigenous Venetic order.

Vendic settlement in Lusatia  7/8 AD. As the images here on the left of the reconstructed Venetic settlements in the area of Lusatian culture near the German - Polish border suggest, there exists more evidence of strong Venetic social and economic structure in Central Europe, however, there are many good reasons that we should believe the Greek, Etruscan and Roman cultures were built on the earlier Venetic foundations. The official history does not address these issues in a straightforward manner, primarily because they deal with issues of subordination to the stronger nations from the perspective of the subdued. Of course the time-frame here spans the centuries from about 800 BC, which is almost a millennial before the brief existence of Karantania (Carantania) and also after that, all the way to the 19th century AD. We now know, that Veneti (Slavs) lived in Central Europe, Northern Italy and throughout the Balkans from before the antique times, which is over two millennial earlier than what the historians traditionalists claim. This means we can for a few millennial see Veneti without any political power or statehood. Indeed, there are exceptions such as the brief existence of free Venetic province of Noricum in the first and second century AD, the brief existence of Karantania (Carantania) and also a few centuries earlier just as brief reign of the King Vokk (Volk) over the Norici in the lands of Norikum. However, even the Norici were by the "official historians" declared as the Taurians i.e. Celts, which also is only a half truth, but moreover a major misconception about the relationships between Veneti and Celts, who by the way spoke the same language as Veneti.

We are not exploring here the known facts about some apparently free Venetic enclaves in Italy prior and during the times of Roman republic such as Villanova, Venetia, Noricum,... (see the book Veneti, First builders of European community by Savli, Bor, Tomazic; pages:48-170).
It should be said here that the ancient Venetic presence which continued throughout the reign of Austrian monarchy (empire), better known as Slavic presence is indisputable. Who is unfamiliar with these facts can check quite a few things out by clicking on: Carantania (opens in new window). Though the official historians and especially politicians would like to hide it, there is plenty of evidence, that Veneti, Carantanians and as we know them today Slovenians are indeed present in European history for a very long time even when nobody talked about us. Here is a quick review of just one such an account lasting for more than a thousand years:
The one-time Carantania was a Slovenian medieval principality which extended over the Eastern Alps. It is mentioned already in 595 AD. Over the centuries, German language was introduced in Carantanian territory without changing its political structure. When the Habsburgs took over the Carantanian lands, in 1282 and 1335, the name Austria gradually diffused all over the Carantanian lands. Anyway, as sign of the political tradition, the installation of the dukes at the Prince's Stone and then the judicature at the Duke's Throne in Slovenian language was preserved until the 18th century.

(It is interesting to note that both contemporary Austrian politicians and those in former Yugoslavia did not allow this information into the curriculum and so prevented it to become public knowledge.)

Superficial awareness of ones own history: It is indeed the Carantania, that best supports the claim that Veneti or as they became later known Slavs, who according to the linguistic and ethnic similarities noticeable even today between once constituent parts of of the medieval principality, must have belonged to the same ancient Sloveneti tribe, could not have appeared in the territory of the Southeastern Alps over night! There exists plenty of supporting evidence for the above claim, however, the bright shining star of Carantania seems to have overshadowed everything else including the important foundation on which it so proudly stands. Its roots are very deep, but this would only matter if they were not ignored, however, due to the discovery of its glorious and shinning tree crown or canopy the roots hardly seem to matter any more. After newly gained Slovenian independence almost two decades ago, the awareness of our Carantanian past, which became the public knowledge mostly due to the diligent work of our researcher Dr. Josko Savli, had an intoxicating effect on those Slovenians conscious of national feelings, who during the time of suppression of true Slovenian history fought for it to be acknowledged and most of all preserved. While I do share the joy of final recognition of the brightest Slovenian star on the European history skies, I believe that we should not get too complacent celebrating just yet. Namely, it is noticeable, that not much attention is payed to dilettantes attacks against Veneti, which are designed to undermine the Venetic and Slavic continuity with regards to Carantania. Not that these attacks represent a serious scientific threat to the efforts of uncovering the truth about Veneti and Slavs in European history, but they do show that our academics are still in deep hibernation, and that there are just a few of us who care enough to see a potential danger lurking in such complacency.

Venetsko utrjeno naselje za časa Lužiške kulture. I have already mentioned a book by A. Pääbo, but there is even a more conspicuous book in Slovenian language in which the author in a fantastic way describes the contents of Venetic / Etruscan "Atestine tablets", of which best preserved tablet is known as [Es-25], to consist of numerals instead of Venetic/Etruscan letters, and the inscription itself to represent a tabulated astronomic numeric only data. Beside the fact that this adventurous concoction regrettably shares the same spotlight as the publications of Slovenian researcher Matej Bor which only emerged as a result of over a decade lasting research work, the most shocking is the main message of this pseudo scientific text, namely, that in history there never was a Venetic language?! Though, texts like this most likely nobody who knows a tidbit about Venetic and Etruscan inscriptions ever takes seriously, it is a perfect example how today anything can fly. To back this up, let me mention that someone published the preposterous claims from this book in a history forum that specializes on topics of this nature and that there was practically no true opposition to the fantastic claims. Instead a few charlatans and zealots who claimed they were the true authorities on the subject, had totally missed the point when commenting on the publication about the Venetic - Slavic semantic hidden in the words Moon & Month (opens in new window), which talks about the understanding of celestial mechanics before the languages have developed, never mind the writing systems, of which the true numerals - different than mere pictographs, supporting more advanced mathematical concepts starting with division were the last to appear millennial after the first pictographs and many centuries after the letters in linear writing systems, as a specialized abstraction. (By the way, "roman numerals" represent the last, though rather abstract, remnants of the pictographic writing.) Based solely on this later observations the book about the Etruscan astronomy is in serious trouble, and we do not even have to mention the 8000 Etruscan and Venetic inscriptions and their contents conveyed to us in almost 30,000 words, which the dilettante author in effect declared to be numbers.

As soon as one dives a bit deeper into the history, it soon becomes obvious how superficial is the interest as well as the knowledge about our past, and I want to underline that academics are not excluded here! Let me just mention few of the areas where obviously there's lack of interest and knowledge: (1) Not only is in the public eye the relationship between the origins of Carantania and the venetic continuity totally overlooked and utterly neglected, (2) there are few capable to defend our claims that Carantanis and indeed Central European Slavs are autochthonous nations in Europe, few are up to the task of rejecting the attempts of West European and Balkan academics who influenced by ideology are pushing Celts and Franks into Carantanian space. (3) The question is who sees through the attempts of Balkan ideologists who are in the disguise of the newly dressed theory of migrations promoting the idea of mass migrations of South Slavs among the invading Huns and Goths, whereby they apparently managed to colonize Venetia, Istria, Neorthwest Panonia and Eastern Carantania, de facto denationalizing ancient indigenous populations. (4) This idea was immediately accepted by the perverse extremist nationalists who declared Slovenes to be "Slavicized" Veneti, not understanding the fact that the word Slavs and Veneti derive from the same language and the same root.

It is no surprise that the academics from the south, as well as the Slovenian academics who continue to maintain their to crouching position as if Belgrade was still breathing down their neck, religiously follow the outdated history model and IE migration theories, still vigorously promoted by West European academics, since these IE theories are the only remaining means by which the claim that Veneti i.e. Slavs are true autochthonous population in Central Europe can be invalidated. (5) And last but not least, since it clearly reviles the fact that Slavic linguists everywhere are still in deep hibernation even after the societies they are part of got rid of the yokes of totalitarianism, we can ask the question who is capable of dealing with the fact that western linguists high-jacked the "Slavic semantic name pattern", claiming that in proto-Germanic Gothic language the word Slav means mute?

However, beside the Europe, Veneti (Slavs) left their mark also in Anatolia, Greece, Rome and Etruria more than 2000 years ago, and despite that, the official history and linguistics managed to completely ignore them until the time of Barbaric invasion of Europe, though the science and linguistics not compromised by ideology and politics tell us about Veneti as the major if not the only "world power" in prehistoric times! The question is how was that possible, namely one would expect it should not be possible to miss or ignore a civilization that persisted over many millennial and over the territories of two continents, unless we are dealing with a deliberate and concerted effort to do so. It should not be a surprise, that the latter is one of our premises here too.


Who are the true Barbarians in Europe.

Graph of Venetic visibility throughout the last 5000 years
The slope of Venetic historical peaks throughout last 5000 years.
Red colour marks the acknowledged and visible history. It mainly shows a few peeks prom the time of the fall of Troy on, then in the time of Noricum, and finally a peak in the time Carantania. The blue colour represents things that are still hidden and perhaps will one day be better understood and/or additionally discovered.

Undeniably the graph shows that Veneti had a rather low visibility in the eyes of history. However, it also very convincingly points out, that this is a rather distorted view and that the largest part of their presence is unaccounted for in the history books. We, can be thankful to a handful of the most diligent Slovenian researchers who in the course of the past 40 years managed to uncover so much of magnificent historic evidence about Slovenian past for a relatively short period of time, which is not only significant for the territories of the Eastern and Southeastern Alps but for all the Slavs as well as for the more general European history, and which makes the historic importance of our western neighbours much less significant than what the official historians have been telling us for so long. Of course, they set up the stage whereby Slavs invaded their space and their "highly developed European culture" as Barbarians, and metaphorically speaking, to this day the offended Slavs are trying to prove just the opposite, namely, that the westerners are the true Barbarians who invaded Venetic i.e. Slavic space and culture. Undoubtedly this is an extreme idea, but it in fact is not that far off, indeed, Greeks, Romans and Getmanic nations are the true invaders of Europe, who over the past three millennial occupied and colonized Europe. Greeks, Romans actually did not even exist outside of Europe, they were born in their homelands by mixing and assimilation of different newcomers and indigenous tribes. In fact Greeks to a larger extent than Romans do have an imprint of an invader, albeit a peaceful one, known also at the time by the Hittites as Ahhiyawa (Achaeans) sometimes referred to also as "Sea Peoples", who over a period of a millennial migrated westwards from southeastern islands of Anatolia as the ruling cast or class which slowly subdued indigenous Veneti, or as I like call them "the True Pelasges" in order to distinguish them from the Hellenistic concoction blindly accepted by the western academics, namely, the "Pelasges", who might as well have come from Mars.

It is worth saying here, that the lack of characteristics that would identify the Latins as invaders by no means should be interpreted that their origins are very much different from those of Greeks. Their language and culture that became dominant in Italy are just from a different place, further away from Egypt, linguistic imprint suggests areas between India and Anatolia, as opposed to Greeks and Etruscans where Egyptian imprint is clearly identifiable.

It is also important to understand that Greeks, Etruscans and Latins did not invade as nations or with large armies but rather they migrated to new lands as wealthy upper class, who by means of building their palaces and the settlements for the indigenous populations, which they hired as workers and soldiers, slowly evolved into new nation.

To learn more about our prospective on the origins of Greeks click: Three Greek eras and three Greek nations (opens in new window /// SORRY NOT YET TRANSLATED).

Getmanic tribes on the other hand are the true Barbarians from behind the Ural mountains who arrived to Scandinavia by the middle of the first millennial BC [see: The Vends in Scandinavia (opens in new window)], and then spread slowly southwards as Goths, Lombards and others, with the final help of even more wild and barbaric Huns. Who would have expected that among these Barbarians were also such warriors who, after they put down their swords, became highly skilled craftsmen and farmers, and who over night developed governing system that later Germanic states in Scandinavia and in Austria would adopt it as their own. Of course I am talking about the investiture of the dukes at the Prince's Stone and the judicature at the Duke's Throne. Obviously, the impact of Venetic or Slavic Carantania was far from negligible for the further development of European history and culture, and moreover, it is very unlikely, it was introduced to Europe by the invading Barbarians.

Nevertheless, one would think it is time we also started to pay attention to the whole picture, that is to the part that was for such a long period hidden from an observer and history scholars (the blue area on the graph). In order to find things that are not visible, we have to look in places that were so far not yet carefully scrutinized. It is hard to imagine that any historian would intentionally avoid any part of historical record. Nevertheless, I think if one looks for the right thing such places in historical documents can readily be encountered. They are mostly those places that victors viewed as unworthy of any attention since they have already done everything in their power to diminish and degrade anything that remained standing out from the depth and misery of the defeated party, and on the other side, those places that any potential survivors who managed to raise again from their defeat looked upon in shame. In other words the records describing the bottom part of social structure may very well be still hiding valuable information and things missing from our understanding of the ancient history.

I had, long before I have became interested in history through the ancient culture of Veneti, been aware of the concepts, whereby our common name, namely, Slavs was by some associated with slavery and salves i.e. Slav(e)s, servus, Serbus, the later being the name for Serbs. Therefor, it is possible that my first inspiration to get interested in history, beside the obvious curiosity about Veneti, was the anxiety to prove to the world, that the downgrading and the contemptuous meaning associated with what linguistically has a completely opposite meaning, namely: "renown, glory, celebration, solemn, solemnity, ..." is totally incorrect! Though what I mentioned here about the word Slavs, exposes only the less significant half of the semantics of our name, and though I have, indeed, devoted to it more attention elsewhere, today there is hardly any of that initial emotion driving my research and work; [see: The origins of the name for Slavs (opens in new window)]. Now I am much more interested in exposing the truth which I and many other dissident Slovenian researchers discovered, and which is dramatically different from that to which I alluded to above, as well as from what the official history books are telling us! As the above graph entitled Venetic visibility throughout the last 5000 years suggests, the historians so far have done excellent job explaining the short visible parts, however, in order uncover the secrets that lay hidden from our eyes (the blue area on the graph), I believe we need to shift focus to the unexplored, and by most considered unimportant items. In the rest of this article I wish us to start exploring those areas of the Venetic past to which I have alluded to above as "lurking neglected in the darkest corners of history".


Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex.

Other Slavic and in particularly the Serbian historians, who under the influence of their "big Serbian project" most vigorously opposed the idea of ancient Veneti, often accuse Slovenian Venetologists of inferiority complex. All these were symptoms of for a long time suppressed and more general Slavic problems created in the earlier millennial due to the downfall of once great Venetic culture, which were even further exacerbated by the emergence the early 19th century IE theories which supported the idea of western superiority, whereby, with a few exceptions, Slavs could hardly see themselves on equal footings with the rest of the West European nations. These were the fertile grounds for pan-Slavic ideologies where stronger and more aggressive nations viewed themselves as those under which umbrella others should unite and form bigger united ethnic states. However, some of the 19th century western arrogance survived, and after the walls between the East and the West no longer prevent people to travel and mix, became exposed and felt, particularly among those Slavic nations that recently adopted more democratic ways of life, and who find newly discovered nationalistic feelings exuberantly refreshing.

We can all see, that Slavic world has disintegrated into an overwhelming number of minute Slavic states, where so called local nationalism has greatly obscured the bigger picture. Suddenly we have multiple nations who claim to be the descendants of our earliest common ancestors and heirs of their achievements and inheritance. So when it comes to the famous Old Church Slavic (OCS) language in which 7th and 8th century liturgies are written, it is not the question whether that language is ancient Serbian, Slovene, Macedonian or perhaps even Bulgarian, but rather how was it possible, that as the western historians are telling us, Slavs who only recently arrived among the Barbarians in 6th century AD, developed such a magnificent literary body of work, that could not have been matched for few more centuries by then newly evolving dominant western nations.

The fact that in the 1st millennial AD European and even more so Slavic nations were not yet formed is in the eye of the most zealous nationalists ignored, and their preposterous claims on the one hand are used to discredit the dissident historians who never even suggested such a thing, and on the other inspire the disgruntled youth who are quick to join flag waving extreme nationalist ideologies that exploit the pseudo scientific and distorted national history. From all this the benefits go to those who are happy to see disunity among truth seeking Slavic historians and those who themselves engage in keeping compromised 19th century theories alive, and promote the idea that in Gothic language the word "slawan < *slawoz" means "mute", or even worse that perhaps words Slav and slave are related. Our academics ignore both these insults, claiming they are either exaggerated and claimed by dilettantes on either side disregarding the fact that in some English dictionaries the above mentioned relationship between the words slave and Slav are indeed suggested. Except for the ridiculous Gothic interpretation, I am not suggesting a condemnation, but rather an unbiased and objective discussion about a possibility that where there's smoke there might be fire, after all one can not ignore also the similarity between the words servus serbus and Seb.

Though the following explanation of the name for the family of Slavic nations is not complete or even accurate, it is sometimes viewed as a a rather representative an generally accepted. But it should be noted that the ancient or original meaning derives from the word "slovo, sloveti" in English "word, to speak", from where through the meanings such as "slaviti" "to party, to celebrate" the 19th century interpretations, under the influence of romantic national awakening that sprung up in Europe, as "pan-Slavic" in response to a similar "pan-Germanic" movement. In those exciting times the name was first used in this in former Czechoslovakia and rapidly spread allover the rest of the "Slavic" world. In English it means: renown={sloves, ugled, slava};   solemn={svečan, slovesen, vzvišen};   solemnity={svečanost, slovesnost},   solemnization={slavljenje, praznovanje}. For to see the correct and the complete explanation check out: The origins of the name Veneti (opens in new window).
Nevertheless, there are quite a few items available to us to defend our historic grounds of the past few millennial against the strong and powerful, undoubtedly our language and its age stands out as the most formidable one. However, the weak point in our arguments using the language is a rather poor state of affairs in linguistics, which due to lack of competency in this field, seldom can be successfully applied. For instance, though linguistics is capable to identify similarities between ancient languages, Venetic and Slavic languages, not a single reputable linguists had officially acknowledge those facts. Subsequently there are few who truly understand the arguments against the late arrival of Slavs into Europe, never mind the interpretation of ancient history which calls for their inclusion. Instead the ancient Greek concoctions called Pelasges, Illirians and Tracians were blindly adopted by the modern day historians. So Pelasges is thought to be the name of the aborigines in Apennines and Peloponnese, like the Illirians and Tracians were declared the natives throughout the Balkan peninsula and north of Greece and western coast of the Black sea respectively. On the other hand the Veneti are not at all considered to be related to Slavs but rather to Italic and Germanic tribes, and are not even mentioned in IE theories.

It is impossible to miss the formidable age of Slavic languages. Contrary to the English language, which has in the past 1500 years undergone drastic changes but still retained some ancient words, the Slavic and even more so the Slovenian language retained not only the obvious semantics trees in the vocabulary, but also the supporting ancient language structure. The antiquity of a language can be proved by studying the depth of the semantic trees, as well as the depth of the grammar structures. On both accounts all Slavic languages beat every single west European language, including Greek and Latin hands down! I have written about this more extensively in an article called "Organization of languages" under the topics "Languages in general". I do believe language plays a very important role in history studies. I am convinced that the language structure and organization in a profound way convey not only social and historic information but also information about efficiency and vitality of the society. I will not discuss these issues at length here, but I do wish to mention the importance language plays in a society.

I am confident that the language and its structure became the dividing line along which European civilization broke into a dominant western in which the languages are easier to be learnt but harder to master, and into subordinate eastern where the languages are harder to be learnt but are much easier to use.

It is easy to prove these concepts with the analysis of language structures by which we can distinguish older and mew / modern language organizations. The older language organizations with their deeply structured organizations help the speaker to speak effortlessly, however the complicated grammar structures make it very hard to learn the language anew. On the other hand the simple flat grammar organization of the modern languages are easy to learn enabling rapid expansion over foreign territories, however their flatly organized vocabularies are very memory intensive and are hence much harder to master. As such modern languages become a tool by which not unlike the principle "natural selection" the society is hierarchically organized into casts where the selection criteria become the mental abilities of individuals.

These divisions are rather effective but nevertheless very superficial, since one organization is based on memory but the other relies more on logical thinking, and for well rounded individuals both are required. Perhaps this explains why the best chess players are from the east and best businessman from the west, and indeed, there are well known exceptions. However, it is not hard to see why these theories in the hands of politicians become the worst possible evil projects.

We have seen that based on lexical and grammar structures we may discover the degree of development of the society in which a language originally developed. I have pointed out that Slavic languages retained the semantics and structure from the early rather primitive phases in human speech development. The question arises whether this is something to be proud of. The answer is definitely an affirmative one, since languages develop constantly. If that is the case the indication of antiquity can only be an added bonus. Of course today we can proudly conclude that Slavic languages are just as good as the most modern ones, with the added bonus which speaks volumes about the language as well as our antiquity [see: Semantics of venetic word for Moon (opens in new window)]. However, there was a time when other western languages leaped ahead and temporarily left the language development and growth in Slavic languages lagging behind for quite some time. This first happened during the time of antiquity and lasted for far too long until in the early 16th century Primož Trubar, a consolidator of the Slovenian language and the author of the first printed book in Slovenian, put us back on the map between the literate nations of Europe, where we used to be almost two millennial earlier as one of the first European nations who mastered the art of writing. However it should be pointed out that ancient Greeks and Romans were not able to silence our literary tradition totally, and the proof of this we find in a large body of liturgy and religious texts written in what is today called OCS (Old Church Slavic language). Indeed, I would not be surprised if Greeks learnt how to write from Veneti i.e. Etruscans, and not the opposite as the historians would like to have us believe. There is plenty of evidence that this indeed may be the case. Though some claim Hellenistic contents found among late Etruscan art and inscriptions may speak against such an eventuality, the fact that Etruscans and Veneti may very well predate both Greek and Rome, coupled with the fact that the alphabet used in Etruscans and Venetic inscriptions are more likely to have originated from a few millennial older "Vinca script" than from Phoenician writing, in my opinion are strong counter arguments. Beside, Hellenistic contents on Etruscan inscriptions could be attributed to Venetic origins of the indigenous populations in both Greece and Etruria and migrations from Peloponnese to Etruria (see: [Lvy-hR-1.34] Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (616-579 BC) was a Corinthian immigrant in Etruria, who moved to Rome and finally became roman king. Note, Venetic name for Corinth may have been Korito).

The enviable age of Slavic languages which unlike any other West European language including Greek and Latin retained both the semantics tree structures in vocabularies as well as the supporting grammar and language structures from the earliest time of language development, long before any kind of writing evolved, is the basis for the theory according to which Veneti spread vast territories from Atlantic on the west to the eastern foothills of Himalayas, but which in turn is the reason we can claim Veneti are the autochthonous population throughout the entire European continent from the possibly middle but certainly late Neolithic times on. At this time the biggest challenge with regards to the above underlined statement is the inability or unwillingness of professionally competent linguists under the financial and survival threats, to support the facts that as the immediate descendants of the Venetic language, the Slavic languages, are among the oldest European languages, and less important here also among the oldest surviving World languages.

The decipherment of Venetic language is possible with the help of Slavic languages, which retained old forms grammatic organization. While it is true that we can find relationships between some Venetic and German, Latin and Greek words, but as already mentioned, not a single West European language retained both old semantic and the supporting grammatic structures, which on the other hand is so prominently true for Slavic languages. We find an excellent example of this in Hittite word "vaTar"= "voda" (water), which western linguists consistently transcribe from cuneiform exclusively with the letter "T", never mentioning the possibility that the same Hittite sign could as well be read as "D" ("vaDar"). The letter "T", obviously lends itself better as anglicized or germanized form of otherwise very Slavic word "voda" (water). Besides, in Sanskrit we find (avoda, avodeva, bhavodhi, bhAvodaya) as well as in Greek (udro, udOr) on that exact spot in the word is the letter "D" and not the "T". If we look in any Slavic language we will find a semantic tree similar to the Slovenian: vod, voda, voditi, povod, vodja, prevodnik, prevod,..., which resembles what we saw in Sanskrit. This clearly shows how western linguists "conveniently" forget to mention even Greek and Sanskrit evidence in their analysis, should there be any chance that additional evidence would remind us of a possible relationship with Slavic languages.

Roots of Slavic inferiority complex

The fact that Veneti are indigenous Europeans suggests their downfall: My research is not burdened with morally incompetent academic conduct as is the case with for their existence fighting marginal European historians and linguists, who depend on financial assistance of those European academic elites whose past wrongs should be corrected. The only inconvenience for me is the danger, that because I deviate from the official academic line, I may be loosing some of otherwise thoughtful and diligent readers. However, this can not change the facts and discoveries nor the resulting conclusions to which I arrived subsequently. For this reason let me reaffirm my intention to stand by my convictions and defend the undeniable facts that Slavic languages are the direct descendants of the Venetic language, which in turn through these Slavic languages can be seen as one of the oldest surviving ancient European as well as world languages.

The fact that in all the Slavic languages which are spread over so vast and diverse territories as are the areas bordering Anatolia, the entire Balkan area, all the way to the Central and Eastern Europe, retained so impeccably consistent original ancient semantics as well as the language organization reinforcing that very semantics since the times of the language inception, supports the idea that in these territories, indeed, Veneti were the aborigines, and not the newcomers, whose language tend to be assimilated or mixed due to the struggle between the numerous ruling class groups, clans and tribes arriving over a relatively short period of time. One has to keep in mind here, that we are not talking about invading armies or mass migrations, but rather about wealthy newcomers who in order to build their palaces befriended and employed the indigenous populations. Wars and rivalry between neighbouring settlements and palaces built by very likely ethnically different rulers are the source of linguistic diversity and the reason Greece, Etruria and Rome developed as three different ethnic entities and yet in a very similar setting, to which a common denominator in all cases were the indigenous Veneti or if you prefer the "True Pelasges", who survived to this day as the fourth ethnic entity or group with the common name Slavs.

However, this covers just the territory of southern Europe. In order not to be distracted too much, we will not mention neither northern nor western parts of the continent, though the evidence and facts from there would only strengthen our positions here. Hence, as we see, the languages of the newcomers in the situations described above tend to change, and loose the original characteristics, particularly are destroyed the semantic trees in the vocabulary, which hold the strongest evidence of the times when language was in the early phases of development. The newcomers and the founders of late Bronze age settlements were quickly outnumbered by the rapidly growing populations of "converted" indigenous people who were becoming new citizens. Contrary to the changing and newly evolving language of the newcomers the language of the indigenous population in the countryside remained untouched, which allowed old semantic and language structure to survive intact. Such was the case with Veneti and we have the surviving Slavic languages to prove this fact. Let us remember the things as the following: "mesijac" / "menesijec" = "menjajoča-luč", which was discussed in the article about the Moon & Month (opens in new window), or toponyms "Bilazora, Bizanec, Beligrad, Gradec, Padova,...", or the Hittite's word for "water", which in Sanskrit clearly resembles the semantic forms also found in Slavic languages (avoda, avodeva, bhavodhi, bhAvodaya), which is not far from the following Slovenian semantics structures vod, voda, voditi, ..., to mention just a few. Feel free to explore other topics on the left side, where the main index of this web page is located. Unfortunately those marked with the sign are not yet fully implemented or translated into English language.

The new nation and language building processes clearly took place in newly evolving cities, which gradually became kingdoms and finally new nations. Taking into account that these cities first started to appear in the coastal areas of Mediterranean which is only a part of the European continent, and throughout which for many millennial Veneti most likely were the major and most numerous if not the only indigenous population, it is not hard to explain that in the rest of the prehistoric Europe we find predominantly Venetic i.e. Slavic populations. Also as newly evolving Mediterranean kingdoms became stronger and started to subdue the neighbouring areas populated by the indigenous Veneti or the so called "True Pelasges", undoubtedly Veneti started to move towards north, where familiar and friendlier continental Veneti lived. They also moved to the nearby mountainous areas and mountains, which since their encounter with Himalayas they continued to worship as the godly place of Trinity, represented by their most famous God "Triglav" Triglav (Trihead, Trinity) (opens in new window), the evidence of which is in the name of the highest and most impressive peak in Slovenian Alps, and indeed, in numerous temples all over Europe with the same name, where the warship of the three-headed Deity also bearing exactly the same name, and representing three spiritual universes was documented and preserved in early 12th century chronicles, written by the Christian authorities who destroyed those pagan temples. The Veneti group that ventured the farthest to the northeast reached the areas in Russia near the city today known as Novgorod. The group was clearly related to the Veneti from Noricum and the later Carantania. [See: Slovieni - Veneti in Russia (opens in new window)].

The Venetic language, unlike all the major West European languages in comparison did not change very much from the early times of its inception. This proves the fact, that from the Bronze era on, which represents an important milestone marking a radically different new period in the evolution of new languages and nations, the ancient Veneti, with a few noticeable exceptions, did not play a significant role any more. This, indeed, marks the beginning of the long lasting Venetic decline, which I believe hides many skeletons in the closet and which call for a thorough forensic investigations.

Processes responsible for potential emergence of new languages and nations were only happening in newly founded and evolving cities. The countryside remained untouched and there the language and the dialects of the old settlers were preserved, which in the remote areas deep inside the continent, (do not forget that Veneti were the indigenous population throughout the entire Europe) remained unchanged, mostly due to the fact that the peoples speaking the language, after new more aggressive and more dynamic antique Mediterranean powers started to rule the old continent, did not play a significant historic role any more. This was the cause for the initial European divisions between the ruling and the subdued along the language lines. It can not be denied, that on these divisions the 19th century theories about the superiority of western culture and nations were based. These theories became a taboo, since they were also the basis for the unacceptable and defeated Nazi ideology. It seems that our collective psyche still did not recover enough, to allow any reasonable debate or an objective analysis of this phenomenon. Consequently, any hint of differentiation based on the prehistoric events, even when suggested by the linguistic theories, which would as the a result manifest itself on the one side as a culture of the superior West Europeans and on the other as a culture of the subdued East Europeans became officially the forbidden subject, regardless of how sound the historic evidence! However, is it not ironic that this situation again serves best in the WW-II defeated Western sentiments as well as their make-believe European history, since should these European historic divisions be true, there should be no doubt at all that Veneti, indeed, were the major indigenous population on the entire European continent, however, this more than anything also suggests there is a new category we need to explore, namely, their decline of which the evidence is their "subordinate" role they emerged in over the last millennial before CE. So we can see such a view can be a catalyst for steering up all kinds of negative emotions and hot air on both sides of this "historic European division", and undoubtedly, the academic elites as well as those in power have been utilizing these facts silently to maintain their untenable and unacceptable positions. Those, though, that should finally, once and for all deal with these issues by studying and explaining them have their heads in the sand, which is exploited by the extremists and can be seen in the form of paradoxical neo-Nazi movements between those for whom this very same ideology was invented to enslave or annihilate them.

In order for us to be able read all this and much more than what was alluded to here from a language, one needs to learn the language of the language. Yes, this is not a mistake, the language's language is something we can "decipher" and / or "read" from the language, which contains the information about itself and its existence since it was first created. This should be helpful to all, who in one way or another utilize the linguistics as an aid to study history, however it should be particularly helpful to the Westerners studying Eastern cultures and v.v. Of course, if one understands both of these languages i.e., the language used by human beings to communicate between each other, and the language that is commonly exploited by the linguists to study the language it would help to discover things language tells us about itself more efficiently. There exist a way to understand this almost linguistic jargon of the language as a tool with a minimum effort, bypassing the fact that we are not linguists. We can accomplish this by resorting to the methodology we keep hearing about here, and which we use to first systematically decompose and then assemble huge complex systems. Not that we are going to decompose or assemble here anything, this is merely what this methodology was developed for, but instead we will only use some of the strict rules that apply to complex systems between which relation of orthogonality exists and which typically can be seen as flat and pyramid systems. Language, social and history systems fit this criteria very well. Those of you who did not yet have a chance to get acquainted with this methodology and methods, take a moment and check it out: Organization of languages (opens in a new window).

But in accordance with the main title of this paragraph ("Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex") we need to return our focus to what I originally wanted to discuss here. So far I was not too successful in my effort to touch the mostly neglected and ignored problematic dealing with the European history from the perspective on the opposite side of the well known, famous, glorious and also overestimated and overblown Western view. I believe this is necessary to finally arrive to some kind of a reasonable conclusion and to get rid of all the suggested or anticipated but officially only denied hints about the dark theories of the less fortunate and not so rarely seen as also less developed and / or less civilized part of Europe, which with the help of linguistic is so innocently defined as the Satem group, to masquerade what as the matter of fact, with a few corrections is nothing else but East European or Slavic side. However, let me point out what I believe is the crux of this under studied, unexplained and misunderstood problem:

I would dare to say that languages with their structure can be seen as the dividing line along which the European civilization had split into the dominant Western, in which it is easier to learn a language a new, but it is harder to master it, and into the subordinate Eastern, where it is harder to learn languages spoken there anew, however, it is much easier to use the language efficiently. Hence the language in hierarchically organized societies becomes an additional mechanism not unlike a Darwin's natural selection, whereby the more successful and able people end up in the upper spheres of the social hierarchy, and the less able and less fortunate end up at the bottom. On the other hand, in the society of equals where we find the social organization to be flat there is no need for such social dynamics and frictions, which as a consequence makes for a more peaceful and more harmonious as well as slower but most likely much longer development and growth.

(In order to understand these relationships one needs to take into account the rules and laws governing the two orthogonal systems such as are the flat and pyramid structures or organiyations.)

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to realize that all the above can be an inviting playground for all sorts of negative and dark interpretations. Nevertheless, I see it as empirical facts, that need to be further explored, analyzed and, indeed, properly explained. I firmly believe, however, that under no circumstances these issues should be ignored, because doing so will cause much greater harm than good. We have to approach these unpleasant and sometimes painful issues frontally, and define them rather than by sweeping them under the rug provide material to the ghosts from the past. At last I arrived at my initial thoughts, which caused me to start writing this article. The above rather extensive introduction proves that the subject matter is very delicate and it is not easy to start talking about. Therefor, in the rest of this article I hope to start seeking the answers to or at least define the questions, where the answers can not be immediately found.


The Linguistics reveals the proof that Slavs are not a nation of slaves,
but are instead descendants of 'always' free and independent Veneti.

Since we are going to dive into a much darker corners of our "Slovenetic" (Slavic) history, let me tell you that this is a result of a completely different set of circumstances, namely, the realization that from prehistory exist numerous indicators and, indeed, undeniable proof that "Sloveneti" were around before Greeks or Romans and that their past must have been as glorious as anyone could imagine. Such a glory in moments seems not only unbelievable, but also impossible, hence, the doubts set in, and one embarks on a search for truth. Not everyone is happy to see raising clouds of dust and quickly such digging into the past is interpreted solely as the intention to rock a boat. However, according to the Venetic theory they, namely, the Veneti once represented a formidable civilization, and there exist plenty of evidence that this, indeed, were the case. The strongest evidence is that revealed to us by linguistics, for instance the claim that both the ancient Greek and Latin languages obtained many language features as well as words from the language of Veneti.
A good example is the Latin word "semen", for which in Slavic languages and particularly in Russian we find an astonishing ancient semantic relationship or a semantic tree, where one branch is related to the meaning - "seed, grain", and the other to the "family, origin, descent": "семья, семейство (род)" [family] < "семя, семечко (зерно)" [seed, grain] > Latin "semen". As the "professionals" are telling us Slavic languages along with some other West European languages had received this word from the Latin, despite the fact that in Slavic languages exists such a natural ancient semantic relationship between the words with the meaning "family" and the meaning "seed"? We therefore should ask ourselves, how is it possible to find such reach semantic structures as those just shown from the Russian and also in other Slavic languages, whereas in Latin there exists only a lonely, single word with only a half of the meaning in Latin vocabulary? Should not that be seen as a perfect linguistic evidence of just the opposite, namely, that the Latin language picked up the word from the indigenous Veneti (Pelasges)?
You may remember that this article came to existence by chance, when I was trying to trace the origins of some English words, which brought to light the fact that these words did not exist in Slavic languages. From the perspective of a historian, this is always an interesting circumstance, especially if the words can be classified as those related to government and/or affairs dealing with statehood. One may say that the word I was investigating, namely, "receipt" hardly qualifies, however, as soon as one starts investigating, the semantics discovers the word deals with the social relationships which, indeed, are interesting from a historical prospective. When a language lacks words in this area, it is indicative that people speaking the language did not engage in the activities described by the words. When I was about to record and file away these unpleasant thoughts, I noticed there was more to it than disappointment. One needs to look at both sides, namely also to the one, told by the language that does contain the word. The word must have an age, which brings us to the circumstances in which it evolved. Considering both sides it is possible to show the bright side of this fact, which as usually only confirms "there was life before ancient Greeks and Romans".
We can find out two things (1) first the English word "receipt" most likely originates from the second half of the previous millennial, when the terminology of the newly evolving capitalist system was emerging. Its form must have evolved from the model seen in "perception, perceive, reception,..." Indeed, the base for all this words is Latin, however, also in Latin the word "receipt" does not exist. This is why the English word "receipt" is so interesting too, namely, it proves, that English language evolved from a post-antique form. At the time when this English word emerged, we can assume Slovenian and indeed Slavic languages in general were in a state of hibernation, hence we do not have this word in a Slavic incarnation. And (2) second, in their ancient vocabularies Slovenes (Slavs) did not have the word "receipt" because in prehistory in Venetic flatly organized society of equals, where prestige and power were not measured by collecting wealth, there was no need to protect the honour with devices that served as "the proof of returned debt".
In the ancient society of equals the concept of debt simply did not exist, which explains the fact that in the prehistoric vocabularies we do not find words for such non-existent concepts. This became the basis of my conclusion, which also inspired me to write this article, namely, the idea that "Veneti the predecessors of Slavs were not a nation of slaves"!

It was the idea behind this last sentence that started to resonate so strongly it was impossible to ignore, and as the result I am still searching for English words to express the delicate issues which caused one's thoughts to evolve into a statement like this in the first place. This time, when updating my file of unpleasant records, the opposite action was suddenly initiated, I decided to expose all there was in my filing cabinet under this category. So I started to seek for all the associations of the name "Slavs" with the meaning "slave" or "slaves", as well as for other historical facts that may be related to this association. Some mostly linguistic "marvels" of this kind I have already mentioned above under the title "Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex". For instance, it is my belief, that our academics as well as those interested in our history and linguistics in a more general way, neglect to see the historic importance of the suggested association between our name and slavery, or about the interpretation of the origin of our name as seen by the "inventors" of the Gothic language ["slawan < *slawoz"], which apparently means "mute". Just as well, the obvious interpretation "Servus" (Srb) requires a much more attention than it was given in the past. And not last but least one should pay attention to the reputable English dictionaries where we can find things like: {{ Lat:"Sclavus" - Slav (captive) < LGk. Sklabos, ult. < Slavic slovo. Cf.(SLOVENE) . }} Further we can ask, whether it is truly a coincidence that the word delo - δουλος, which in Slovenian means the/to "work" in ancient Greek means slave, slavery, just as in Serb, Russian and other Slavic languages, the words robiti, robotat also mean both to slave and to work. Linguistics points to not immediately obvious, nevertheless strikingly similar relationships between slavery and work in the way "working men", "slaves", "Slavs" named the week and week days. Namely in Slovenian language the day of rest is literally translated as "non-work" (nedelja), and so is the first day of the week semantically related to the day after the rest. Even the meaning of the word for "days of the week" (delovnik) are literally translated as "working time". This indeed is indicative that in Slavic (Slovenian) languages the days of the week are central to labour, or dare I say slavery, and the fact that people using the language were celebrating the day of rest so much it became the marker of time. However, it is interesting that other Slavs have lost their feeling for just mentioned semantics, mostly because only in Slovenian language the word delo retained the ancient meaning the/to "work".

If we do not ignore the facts as are the above, it should be clear we can not rest only on a few decades lasting glorious periods in our history, such as were the times of Noricum and Carantania. The two could not have existed in the forms as we know them without the preexisting historic base, which in time was so severely eroded that not many see or, indeed, are willing to acknowledge, since it is hidden behind the period in which not much else but the facts of meagre existence can be found. Only because some have decided it was better to bury their heads in the sand than to see the truth, it is not necessary to hide the excitement and pleasure in realization that "Veneti the predecessors of Slavs were not a nation of slaves"! Especially, this should be the cause for joy, because the statement is supported by certain undeniable empirical facts revealed to us by linguistics, and which collaborate the idea that those who built the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations did so on the foundations set by our predecessors Veneti.

It is important to take into account that Veneti, even during the times when they were considered the "world power", are not seen as a hierarchically organized society where there we could find a privileged ruling class. We can consistently think of Veneti as a flatly organized society.

Important question about Veneti and cast system: Since we repeatedly encounter statements claiming that the Veneti society was not hierarchically but instead flatly organized, sooner or latter we need to ask ourselves about the apparent relationship between Veneti and the Indian Brahmanism very well known for its philosophy as the basis for the famous Indian hierarchical - Cast system. Considering the obvious contact between Veneti and Brahmanism, is it not possible that part of Veneti was influenced and perhaps even governed by the ideas of hierarchical organization? This represents an important question, that requires a more serious investigation, since the linguistics clearly reveals to us that according to the orthogonality rule the Venetic language must have been developed in a flatly organized society of equals, much earlier than we can anticipate the above contact between Veneti and Indians. In fact, I do believe that this represents a solid piece of evidence suggesting that the time-frame of Venetic existence should be significantly extended into the past!
Let me reiterate that here we are talking about the prehistory, at least 1500 years before the ancient Greece and Rome, however, as the linguistics suggests, even this could be a few thousands of years short. In the times when new languages such as the Etruscan, Greek and Latin started to evolve as the result of long lasting migrations of those reach newcomers from North Africa, Asia Minor and with Pirates populated Mediterranean Islands, the society organization started to change from flat towards hierarchical. Contrary the new languages which were emerging through the merger and assimilation of different languages were evolving from more elaborate pyramid structures of relatively well developed languages of the indigenous populations into simpler flat organizations, which undoubtedly were also spoken in royal palaces from India to Egypt. Here we see the principles of orthogonality at work on both the social and language systems.
Those of you who got acquainted with the topics about language structure and about orthogonality in the article Organization of languages (new window) may recall, that we found in the past the orthogonal relationship to have existed between the structure of the languages and the organization of the societies speaking the languages. Unlike the evolution of languages with flat organizations, which emerge by merging multiple vocabularies and simplifying grammar and which could happen in a relatively short periods of time, an elaborate structured grammar and semantics evolve over a much longer time period. In this respect one can not object to the fact that the prehistoric Venetic civilization according to today's standards apparently lasted for an extremely long period of time. As we can see, the linguistic evidence seems to collaborate this historic requirement, how else could we account for such a wide geographic as well as linguistic Venetic imprint as the historians and linguists are encountering.
It is not surprising at all, that in accordance with the orthogonality principle in ancient civilizations, which emerged at the beginning of the evolution of the civilizations for which we know were hierarchically organized, i.e. Greece and Rome, they actually spoke the languages with flat language structure. However the organization of previous Venetic society, which was gradually being replaced by the hierarchical Etruscan, Greek and Roman societies, was flat but Venetic language on the other hand had a hierarchical structure. We also said that languages with flat structure are instrumental in segmenting the society, hence in Greek and Roman societies those with the best command of their languages, represent the creme of their society, indeed, we know that most of their famous politicians were well educated and well versed in rhetoric. At the bottom of their social hierarchy, in the extreme, were those who barely understood the language, the "Barbarians". These are not really new concepts to us, as the matter of fact, these principles were the model on which the western society, and arguably also western social ethics was based on, for a rather long time, and which only more recently has been seriously questioned, and rightfully denounced, as well as noticeably revised.
Evolution of Greek and Etruscan languages through the linguistics prospective. Let me try to express the above in a simpler way. While the structure of Venetic society of "equals" is flat, the structure of their language is organized in just the opposite way as a hierarchical - pyramid structure. When later during the antique times evolved the hierarchical Greek, Etruscan and Roman civilizations by assimilation and mixing with the aborigines - Veneti (Pelasges), relatively well developed vocabularies and grammars of the languages spoken by all, the newcomers and of the indigenous populations, merged into a simpler less structured flat language organization.
Where this relationship and the orthogonality principles exist, they behave very consistently. For instance we know, that when the society with a flat organization is in power, the ruling class speaks a language with the opposite hierarchical organization. When this situation is reversed it is reversed completely. This after all is the principle of orthogonality. It seems natural that the language would follow the speakers when they move up or down the social ladder, but the rule is far more strict than that, in theory it is universal. It implies that those at the bottom will eventually raise to the top and v.v. Looking back into the history, we find that this is a long lasting process, it takes millennial before the situation is actually reversed. This process, however, is eternal, and represents an ever lasting oscillation, much like what we encounter in nature and universe. When comparing it with how we described our language and social organizations alternate, we seem to have a problem due to the ever more obvious amalgamation of world languages under the influence of omnipresent mass-media and virtual shrinking of the distances between all cultures (globalization and internationalization). Nevertheless, this does not diminish the importance of the relationships we discovered between the linguistics and history or other social sciences, particularly not in the prehistory when we can see the languages as time capsules which in fact are the only true link back to the times when these languages were evolving and first spoken.

Today it seems this orthogonal relationship between the societies and their languages is no longer valid. However, as we just saw above, as well as from the impeccable consistency always manifested when these [OT] methodologies and methods are properly applied to the linguistic or social analysis, this relationship in the past, before the contemporary processes known as "globalization" or "internationalization" started to interfere, was always present. For instance, we would be wrong, if from what was just said, we superficially concluded that the transitions from hierarchical, pyramid organizations to the flat ones started with the flat organization of the society of equals, for which the best known is the reconstructed Venetic society. It is the principle of orthogonality itself, which requires that before that a hierarchically organized society existed. Theoretically, the process is consistent and infinite. It only ends when it outgrows itself i.e., when different societies and languages ceased to exist. Those of you who may be wandering, how could a less developed society be hierarchically organized, I suggest we look back into the nature. For instance, a pack of wolves is hierarchically organized, a flock of fish is a typical flat organization, ... Hence, we really are talking about an infinite process of oscillation, where the relationship of orthogonality represents the tension between the required bipolar systems and in which the two organizations are the opposing poles.

So we do not wander to far away from our main topics, which also happens to be somehow related to a kind of swinging, namely, the alteration of of the dominant and the subordinate civilizations, cultures, nations, tribes, hordes or groups, etc., let us, in the next segment, return to Veneti in an attempt to finally tackle the problem of the fictitious Slavic subordination to the dominant European nations in the past millennial or perhaps a few hundred years more.

Sorry from here on the page is still under construction


Decline of Veneti

Po tem uvodu se sedaj vrnimo v antični čas, ko so Veneti že v zatonu in se tokrat, gledano skozi prizmo tradicionalne zgodovine in jezikoslovja začenjajo pojavljati obrisi neke njihove podrejenosti, ki kot sem že nakazal, lahko celo vodijo do interpretacij o Slovanih - sužnjih, kar smo že videli v prej omenjenih navedbah kot so: "Servus"=Srb in [Ang. slovar Lat:"Sclavus" - Slav (captive), "slovanski"=slave: suženj] , itd. Naj še enkrat poudarim resnost takega sklepanja, ki ni le nekaj s čemer bi zgolj skušal ohraniti budnost prisotnih v priložnostnih diskusijah, ampak so te misli prisotne večino časa, kadarkoli človek išče naše mesto v zgodovini vse od antičnega časa naprej med "mogočnimi" Grki, Rimljani in enigmatičnimi Kelti ter seveda kasneje med Germani, pa vse do renesanse ali do časa prebujanja narodov v 19. stol., ko se Slovanov končno v svetu ne da več ignorirati, kot vse dotlej. Toda tukaj ne bom še enkrat ponavljal jezikovnega vidika, ampak bom raje pokazal nekaj zgodovinskih dejstev, ki podpirajo sliko o zatonu Venetov in malo poznanem in v glavnem neobdelanem relativno bolečem ponovnem prebujanju nove etnije Slovanov.

Ob tej priliki se mi zdi vredno omeniti, da nekateri vidijo v Slovanih neko umetno akademsko abstrakcijo. To ne more biti bolj izkrivljeno kot ideja, da so edino Slovenci potomci Venetov. Res je, da je boljševistična filozofija bivšega balkanskega režima povzročila veliko zla, vendar se je to zlo, ki so ga v imenu antikomunističnih gibanj še dodatno napihnili fanatiki iz vseh strani kar preveč zasidralo med nami. Čas bi že bil, da se stopi na prste tistim, ki ne znajo ločiti plevela od zrnja in trobijo bedarije kot je ta, da Slovanov nikoli ni bilo, ali pa, da razlagajo panslavizem kot neko boljševistično propagando. Res je da, pokvarjeni in v preteklosti živeči akademiki večinoma še vedno skušajo obarvati vsake vrste nacionalno zavest in v isti sapi tudi delo venetologov v luči nacizma in fašizma vendar to ne bi smel biti razlog, da se je nekaterim tako pomračilo pred očmi, da bi na eni strani radi Slovence definirali kot Nemce in ne Slovane, na drugi pa ekstremisti z druge strani dokazali, da so Karantanci Srbi in Celjski grofi predniki jugoslovanske kraljeve dinastije Karadjordjevićev. Če tudi je v teh tezah nekaj atomčkov možnosti za špekulativna izkrivljanja ali teorije, jih smatram za navadne provokacije, ki nas lahko kvečjemu spravljajo v smeh in dobro voljo. Ne morem pa skriti svojega neodobravanja za take ideje.
V "zgodovinskem" delu tega sestavka, ki se začne z naslovom "Zaton 'vedno' svobodnih Venetov" sem prvotno imel v mislih številne navedbe, ki govorijo o pomembnih dogodkih v katerih so sužnji igrali glavno vlogo in, ki nas, kot jih opisujejo antični avtorji, na tak ali drugačen način spomnijo na v ozadju vedno prisotno idejo o delitvi zahodne in vzhodne evropske zgodovine vzdolž mejnika med svobodnimi in podrejenimi ali celo zasužnjenimi. Čeprav so vse te navedbe lahko zelo zgovorne in razen redkih izjem, kjer je protagoniste mogoče nedvoumno identificirati vzdolž prej omenjenih zgodovinskih in še bolj skelečih evropskih etničnih razdelitev, jih vendarle večinoma lahko označimo le kot zelo subjektivne in brez neke večje vrednosti pri analizi teh dogodkov. Prav subjektivna komponenta problematike povezovanja delitve vladajočih in nadrejenih ter podrejenih v evropskem prostoru na osnovi etničnih karakteristik je vzrok, da je ta tematika povsem izrinjena iz vidnega zornega kota in, de se je vsi dosledno izogibajo. Tudi iz stališča raziskovalca je to sila nehvaležna tematika, ker je običajno vsaj v enem taboru vselej deležna vztrajnega oporekanja in neodobravanja. Kljub vsem tem nevšečnostim, pa je vsaj kar se Venetov in Slovanov tiče, resnična zgodovina dosti bolj bogata kot tisto kar priznavajo ali pa poznajo, uradni in Slovanom že stoletja nenaklonjeni, zgodovinarji in jezikoslovci, kateri so se seveda omejili le na poznejša obdobja, v katerih so nastale danes prekomerno opevane in spoštovane zahodne kulture, ki so v resnici zrasle na dosežkih malo poznanih prejšnih kultur, od katerih so se najbolje ohranili prav sledovi Venetov kot prednikov Slovanov.

Čeprav sem večino navedb dogodkov navezanih na posamezne "slavne" sužnje ali pa na dogodke, v katerih so sužnji igrali pomembno vlogo malo prej označil kot potencialno neobjektivne, so že zato ker jih navajajo poznani antični pisci kot so recimo Livy, kot Kassius Dio, ali pa Pavel Diakon lahko izredno poučni.

Če verjamemo, ali vsaj poizkušamo verjeti v pred-antično veličino Venetov, potem jih moramo pogrešati v času antike, ko jih zgodovina razen v zanemarljivih oblikah in obsegih dobesedno ne vidi. Če nič drugega, bi se morali ohraniti vsaj v neki podrejeni vlogi! Severnoitalijanske Venete, ki jih skoraj romantično opevajo slovenski venetologi sicer drugi zgodovinarji skoraj ne vidijo. Tudi Liviy jih le bežno omenja na dveh mestih v svojem delu kot neko izredno majhno skupino na severu Italije. Že res, da nam "med vrsticami", predvsem v nekem mitološkem smislu prav Liviy odkriva možnost obstoja dosti bolj mogočnih Venetov na veliko širšem geografskem področju, toda zaradi nezanesljive narave teh navedb, v katerih venetsko veličino lahko vidimo le skozi domišljijo interpretacij, je raziskovalec prisiljen brskati tudi v najbolj skritih in na prvi pogled ne tako zavidljivih dejstvih, kot so ta, katera raziskujemo tukaj. Tako je na primer mojo pozornost pritegnil tudi odstavek v Kassius Diu, kjer je zapisano, da je v 5. stol. pred Kr., ko je nastajala rimska republika "sovražnik živel na podeželju"!? Poglejmo original:

[kD-04-00-(14)]:   And the populace was all the more provoked to revolt. As for the money-lenders, by insisting in the case of debts upon the very letter of the agreement and refusing to make any concession to the debtors, ... For poverty with the resulting desperation is a grievous curse, and is, if shared by a large number of people, very difficult to combat. Thus the uncompromising attitude at this time of the rich toward the poor was responsible for very many ills that befell the Romans... in frequent hopes frequently entertained, and the debtors were repeatedly abused and maltreated by the money-lenders, they became inflamed to such a pitch of fury that many of the destitute abandoned the city or withdrew from the camp, and like enemies lived on the country.
Da bi v antičnem času morali Venete iskati na drugi strani hierarhij takrat nastajajočih družb, nam narekuje tudi princip ortogonalnosti o čemer, če se še niste seznanili lahko to storite tukaj na povezavi v novo okno v članku z naslovom Organizacija jezikov. Seveda do preobrata v katerem so začele nastajati mestne kraljevine ni prišlo preko noči. Dlje v preteklost kot pogledamo, daljša zgodovinska obdobja posameznih kultur bomo odkrili. Hierarhične družbene organizacije so začele nastajati že v času Mezopotamcev, Egipčanov in Hetitov, preden so se razvile uspešne hierarhične družbe v Grčiji in Italiji. To prehodno obdobje je trajalo nekaj tisočletij in v njem so stara venetska, grška, etruščanska, in druge italske civilizacije morale biti bolj ali manj enakovredne. Da bi torej odkrili karkoli iz tistega časa moramo pogledati tako v čase pred antiko k Hetitom in v čase nastajanja vseh dobro poznanih sredozemskih antičnih kultur, predvsem začetkov grške in rimske. Zadnja se na začetku tako močno prepleta z etruščansko, da ju je težko ločiti. Etruščanska kultura pa se prvotno tudi na isti način do neprepoznavnosti prepleta z venetsko. Prav take podobnosti najdemo tudi na vzhodu tako v Anatoliji kot v Grčiji kjer je zelo jasno viden dobro prepoznavni venetski arheološki in jezikovni pečat.

O tem sem se na široko razpisal v drugih temah kjer se lahko poleg nekaterih neoporečnih dejstev kot so v kamen vklesani venetski napisi, ali arheološke izkopanine v pelasgovsken venetskem mestu Volos na vzhodu Grčije, ali pa jezikovne analize hetitskih klinopisov in sanskrta in ne nazadnje tudi mikenske grščine, bralec včasih bolj včasih manj upravičeno vpraša, če vendarle ne gre le za interpretacije. Za razliko od prejšnjega, bi se tukaj raje lotil navedb antičnih piscev, ki so se posvetili zgodovinskemu prostoru in času, v katerem so istočasno bivali Veneti, Etruščani in Rimljani ter delno tudi grški kolonisti. Vendar pa se tukaj ne bomo poglabljali celotni zgodovini tistega časa, ampak le navedbam, ki jih lahko koristno uporabimo v okvirih tukajšnje tematike, v kateri skušamo osvetliti slabo poznano in namenoma zamolčano delitev vzdolž jezikovno etnične ločnice, ki je v preteklosti prefinjeno ali pa pretkano razdeljevala evropske narode v dominantne zahodne in bol ali manj podrejene vzhodne.

Iskanje kakršnegakoli venetskega odtisa v zgodnji evropski zgodovini ni enostavno. To je pričakovati, saj lahko predvidevamo, da se na novo nastajajoča hierarhična družba verjetno ni preterano trudila beležiti in povzdigovati dosežkov stare (ploščato urejene) družbe, ki jo je izrivala. Istočasno pa lahko pričakujemo, da kadar so o stari družbi ali o njenih pripadnikih govirili kot gospodarji ali oblastniki, tudi niso ravno skrivali identitete svojih podrejenih in se je verjetno v tej obliki ohranilo marsikaj zanimivega, ter se kot tako mogoče celo izmuznilo kasnejši "cenzuri" in potvarjanjem zgodovine, kar (potvarjanje) si je lahko privoščila edino neka "zmagovalna" oz. "dominantna" evropska kultura. Da je temu res bilo tako dokazuje arogantnost zahodnoevropskih akademikov, ki se temu stanju niso uprli in so s svojo podporo trendom, ki so jih narekovale tedanje imperialistične oblasti, omogočili razcvet nacizma in rasizma - torej ideologij, ki so se tudi opirale na to prikrito evropsko in podobne, na človeških rasah in razvojni stopnji, temelječe delitve. Zaradi te prikritosti je dodatno v Evropi še težje iskati zgodovinske resnice, saj uradna zgodovina zelo taktno, praktično ne priznava obstoja neke podrejene evropske skupnosti kljub temu, da lahko najdemo dokaze za njen obstoj v njenem imenu, namreč slave, Slave ali pa Servus, Serbus, Serb, kar pa obe strani zanikata in se zgovarjata, da gre le za naključje. Sprenevedanja na obeh straneh te delitve so tako močno zasidrana med nami, ker je manj boleče zanikati obstoj podrejenih, kot pa sprejeti zgodovinska dejstva, ki so sramotna za obe strani.

Je pa vendarle zanimivo, da že v prvih nekaj stavkih Liviy-evie Zgodovine Rima, ki je ob enem tudi ena od najstarejših zgodovinskih knjig o evropski zgodovini, najdemo omembe Venetov. Vendar pa razen neke simbolike, ki postavlja Venete med prve omenjene Evropske narode, samo na osnovi tega res, da ni mogoče prav veliko graditi. Poleg tega pa nekateri strokovnjaki celo dvomijo v venetsko avtentičnost, predvsem jim je problematična venetska etnična pripadnost. Sicer pa smo doslej zbrali toliko dokazov, o njihovem obstoju kot tudi o njihovi identiteti, da skepticizem ni več upravičen. Najbolj zgovorni od vseh dokazov glede njihove identitete so jezikovni odtisi, ki so jih pustili ne le v slovanskih ampak tudi v vseh v antičnih kot tudi drugih evropskih jezikih, ter jih ovekovečili na številnih venetskih napisih. Nekateri sicer na osnovi napisov, ki so nastali po prevladi Latincev v Umbriji severozahodno od Rima in na osnovi jezikov, ki so se je ohranili v Benečiji in med nekaterimi retoromanskimi skupinami v Alpah vse do Švice trdijo, da je venetski jezik bil romanski. Vendar vsaka malo resnejša analiza vseh teh jezikov vselej razkrije afiniteto s slovanskimi jeziki.

Prav zaradi "venetske (slovanske) podrejenosti" v evropskem prostoru o kateri smo začeli govoriti v tem članku, pa je pričakovati, da so si v zadnjih 2000 letih govorniki retoromanskih jezikov prizadevali znebiti se vseh elementov, ki so jih identificirali kot podrejene Venete, Slovane (sužnje) in je danes verjetno dosti lažje dokazovati, da so antični Sabinci in Umbrijci bili sorodni Venetom kot pa, če to poizkusimo dokazovati za njihove današnje potomce, kateri se verjetno tej ideji upiralo zelo podobno, kot se Slovenci, Hrvati in Srbi morda nekaj manj upravičeno, upirajo ideji o skupnih prednikih.

Zanimivo je, da je s pomočjo jezikoslovja mogoče povsem nepristransko razjasniti vse pravkar omenjene nejasnosti, zablode in razprtije. Drugo vprašanje je, koliko je za to zanimanja. Zgleda, da je v evropski psihi ideja o razdelitvi na superiorni zahod in inferiorni vzhod še vedno med nami in nam bo še nekaj časa onemogočala objektivno govoriti o naši preteklosti. Do takrat nam ne ostane drugega kot upanje, da z brskanjem po 2000 let starih spoznanjih in mnenjih antičnih piscev odkrivamo doslej spregledane sledove do zamolčane preteklosti. Za začetek začnimo z zanimivim Livy-jevim navedkom [livy-2.5], v katerem preko venetskega imena odkrijemo jezikovno povezavo do verjetno več kot 2500 let stare "suženjske" zgodbe, katera se je ohranila ovekovečena v latinskem jeziku in preko francoščine ter angleščine postala mednarodna.

Word "vindication". [livy-2.5] : V prvem tisočletju pred. n. št. se je v Italiji začela sreča Venetov nagibati v nasprotno stran kar vidimo tudi med vrsticami prej obljubljenega Livy-jevega navedka, kjer opisuje dogodke približno iz leta 500 pr. n. št. V tem odstaveku nam Livy namigne nekaj zelo zanimivega. Pravi namreč, da latinska beseda "vindicio" angleško vindicate izvira od sužnja, ki mu je bilo ime "Vindicius". To pa je ime pod katerim poznamo Venete (Vinde) v "zahodni Evropi". Dogodek, ki ga pripisujejo sužnju "Vindicius-u" je tudi iz sredine prvega tisočletja pred Kr. Poglejmo Livy-jeve besede:
[livy-2.5]:   He is said to have been the first to be made free by the "vindicta". Some suppose this designation to have been derived from him, his name being Vindicius. After him it was the rule that those who were made free in this way were considered to be admitted to the citizenship.
V latinskem slovarju najdemo naslednje razlage:

Latin Slovene English
vindicio braniti; oprati čast; rešiti, osvoboditi; ([glej:livy-2.05] vindicate, lay legal claim; save, preserve, free; ([see:livy-2.05])
vindicta Slovesnost v kateri razglasijo krivično zasužnjenega človeka kot svobodnega in polnopravnega državljana Rima; ([livy-2.05] beseda izvira iz časa, ko so osvobdili sužnja Vindicius-a, ki je razkrinkal pripravo državnega udara, ki bi kralja Tarquinija vrnil na prestol.) The ceremonial act of claiming as free one who contends he is wrongly held in slavery; ([livy-2.05]: originates from the ceremony when slave Vindicius reported the plot to help the exiled king Tarquin to return and retake the throne.)

Kot vidimo, ne gre le za besedo "Slovani" (Slavs / slave), ali "Srb, Serb" (servus), celo beseda Vindi (Veneti) ima povezavo v te neprijetne pomenske zveze, ki na tak ali drugačen način lahko vodijo do tolmačenja naših imen iz podrejenih družbenih plasti ali kast od antike naprej.

V zgodovini Rima je mogoče odkriti številne dokaze o prisotnosti Venetov (Slovanov). Dejstvo, da jih odkrivamo že v najbolj zgodnjih obdobjih pa potrjuje teze venetski kontinuiteti v Evropi. Ker pa so Veneti v antičnem času že bili v veliki meri podrejeni in s strani zgodovine v glavnem tudi že zanemarjeni ter večinoma neomenjeni se je z namenom, da odkrijemo potencialno venetske protagoniste in zgodbe, smiselno posvetili iskanju omemb podrejenih in seveda tudi zasužnjenih. To sicer ne pomeni, da v zgodnji zgodovini Rima ni bilo venetskega vladajočega sloja in plemstva ampak, da nas tukaj ne zanima toliko pogled "z vrha", kot tisti "z dna" takratne družbene lestvice. Aspekte tedanjega venetskega vladajočega sloja in plemstva, katerega predstavnike najdemo med mitološkimi osebami kot sta Enej in Antenor, lahko najdemo v temi Etrurija ob rojstvu Rima. Prav tako se tukaj ne poglabljamo v bolj ali manj svobodne Venete na severu Italije Venete v Alpah, v Noriku ter drugod. Če naj bi bilo karkoli na tem, da je je tudi venetski jezik eden od ustanovnih jezikov iz katerega je s spajanjem nastala latinščina, potem morajo o tem obstajati sledovi tudi v najstarejši Rimski zgodovini v času rimskih kraljevin in vojn, ki jih zgodovinarji razlagajo ali kot vojne med italskimi plemeni ali pa rimske vojne z Etruščani in vojne z Galci. Iz našega stališča v zgodovinskih omembah teh dogodkov manjkajo Veneti, kar je sicer bolj natančno obdelano v temi "Etruščani" pod naslovom Etrurija ob rojstvu Rima medtem ko, tukaj brskamo med omembami zgodovinskih dogodkov in osebnosti, ki so se takrat znašli na dnu družbene lestvice.

Antique languages and Venetic or Slavic languages. Naj navedem še dva Livy-jeva odstavka, v katerih omenja dogodke na dnu družbene lestvice, kamor so nedvomno v tistih časih zdrknili tudi venetski staroselci (Pelasgi) širom Apeninskega polotoka in kateri so verjetno bili večkrat napačno imenovani za Italce, kot so recimo { Carni, Caeni, Antemnai, Crustumerii, Sabini, Samniti, Gabii, Aequi, Fidenae, itd. }
[0108-lvy]: Že starodavna taktika ustanoviteljev novih mest je bila, zbirati in privabljati najrazličnejša ljudstva nepoznanega izvora in pripadnike nižjih slojev med katerimi so potem razširjali fiktivno idejo ter govorice, da so "otroci zemlje"!

[0201-lvy]: Ni dvoma, da če bi kakor je sedaj Brutus, ki si je pridobil slavo s pregonom Superbus-a (Tarquinius-a), kdorkoli kdaj poprej poizkusil kaj podobnega s katerimkoli od predhodnih tiranskih kraljev, bi s tem povzročil nepopravljivo škodo rimski državi, če bi na tak način odvzel suverenost kateremu od predhodnih tiranov, pa čeprav z namenom vrniti svobodo potlačenim, preden so za kaj takega bili zreli. Rezultat take akcije bi bil popolni kaos med hordami pastirjev in priseljencev, t.j. beguncev iz svojih rodnih krajev, ki bi se podivjani lahko zatekli pod okrilje prevratnika,...     ... v mestu v katerem so se zmnašli kot tujci, preden bi preteklo dovolj časa, da bi se udomačili ter, da bi se jim razvil čut rodoljubja ...     Mlada država bi se ob notranjih sporih sesula.

V zgornjih dveh navedbah lahko vidimo, kako so v pred-antiki nastajala nova ljudstva katerim poreklo ni mogoče določiti ter, da je tako nastalo celo večinsko prebivalstvo Rima. Nedvomno so v času nastanka Rima, ko v novi tvorbi še niso imeli dovolj velike lastne vojske, ki bi v mesto lahko privedla vojne ujetnike in sužnje, bili najbolj množični predstavniki ustanovnih ljudstev in plemen prav bližnji in daljni staroselci. Kot vidimo ni prav nič čudno ali neverjetno, da v tistih pogojih ni nastajal le novi narod Latincev (Rimljanov) ampak tudi njihov jezik. Če so Pelasgi resnično bili podobni ali morda celo sorodni z Veneti, bi se to dejstvo moralo odražati v takrat nastajajočem latinskem jeziku. Tukaj se sicer z jezikom ne bomo ukvarjali, vendar pa je vzpodbudno dejstvo, da na osnovi analize Livy-jevih izjav lahko sklepamo, da obstaja dovolj razlogov, da Venetov in Slovanov ne izključujemo iz jezikovnih analiz antičnih jezikov!
V naslednjem razdelku ne bomo našli ničesar kar bi bilo direktno uporabno v kontekstu tega sestavka, vendar pa je na zelo prefinjen način mogoče odkriti številne zanimivosti, ki kažejo na situacijo v zgodnji rimski zgodovini, ko ni mogoče govoriti o neki rimski etniji. Predvsem želim poudariti, da kljub temu, da so o takratnih dogodkih poročali kasnejši rimski in grški pisci, se je vendarle ohranilo dovolj dokazov o ustanovnih elementih novo nastajajoče skupnosti, ki nam kažejo dosti več kot priznavata uradna zgodovina in jezikoslovje. O vsem tem boste našli več v prej že omenjenem članku Etrurija ob rojstvu Rima, ki je obvezno dopolnilo omembam na tej strani. Če ne drugega vas bo tam pritegnila razlaga imen, ali bolje kritika razlag prvih latinskih imen, med katerimi se pojavi tudi ime "Prisci Latini" - (Prišleki Latinci).

The Etruscan newcomer, newcomers Latins,
and the origin of the name Servus.
Tako pri Livy-u, kot v "Rimski Zgodovini" drugega antičnega zgodovinopisca Kassius Dia, najdemo obsežni opis Rimskih kraljev "Lucius Tarquinius Priscus-a" etruščanskega oz. grškega porekla in "Servius Tullius", ki je po Kassius Diu bil sin prvega, namreč "Tarquina Priscus-a" in sužnje medtem, ko Livy ugiba, da je bil sin v vojni poraženega in ubitega kralja sosednega mesta, in se je rodil zasužnjeni kraljici ubitega kralja v suženjstvu, katero je iz suženjstva rešila rimska kraljica (žena "Tarquina Priscus-a"). Glavni razlog tukaj, za omembo teh dveh zgodnjih rimskih dinastij ("Tarquin Priscus" je po legendi peti rimski kralj po Romulus-u), je predvsem "Servius Tullius" katerega ime odseva dejstvo, da je sin "sužnje". Omenja ga tudi rimski cesar "Tiberius Claudius", ki je tudi avtor Etruščanske zgodovine. Claudius zatrjuje, da je etruščansko ime "Servius Tullius-a" bilo Macstrna. Pod tem imenom ga najdemo na freski v znameniti etruščanski grobnici imenovani "François Tomb" v mestu Vulci.

Vendar pa je zanimiv tudi Tullius-ov predhodnik Tarquin, katerega premožni oče je emigriral v Etrurijo iz Grčije. Poleg tega, da je Tarquin iz Etrurije prinesel svoje ime "Priscus", kar je podobno našemu Prišlek, je zanimivo tudi, da je rimski kralj postal Etruščan grškega porekla, ki nato za prestolonaslednika ni izbral nobenega od svojih sinov ampak sina "sužnje", katerega ime (Servus) v prevodu pomeni prav suženj.

Čeprav ne moremo trditi, da te omembe tukaj na kakršen koli način omenjajo Venete v kontekstu podrejenih ali pa sužnjev, pa vendar menim, da ni zanemarljiva možnost, da je premagani kralj mesta Corniculum - Tullius-ov oče bil po rodu Venet ali pa Etruščan. Tarquin-ov oče je bil po rodu iz Korinta (Korita), od koder so anatolski prišleki - gusarski "Ljudje morja" izrinili grške Pelasge (Venete), ki so odpluli "s trebuhom za kruhom" in našli zatočišče v "sorodni" Etruriji. Za nas tukaj je pomembno dejstvo, da Livy omenja bogatega begunca iz grškega Korinta (tj. venetskega Korita), ki konča na dnu družbene lestvice v Etruriji in se povzpne na vrh v Rimu kot premožni in izobraženi tujec.

[kD-54.23]   Osvobojeni suženj (freedmen) Vedius Pollio [Eng:lamprey=morema, Latin:murena, muraena < Greek:muraina]: Še enega sužnja najdemo pri Kassius Diu, ki pa razen možne slovanske/vedske interpretacije imena (Vedius Pollio="pozna polje") ni zanimiv iz stališča Venetov ali Slovanov na dnu družbene lestvice, čeprav pokaže, v tem primeru sicer, upravičeno rimsko vzvišenost nad ljudmi nižjega sloja, katerih življenske in etične norme so nižje od norm takratne rimske aristokracije. Zgodba je tudi zanimiva zaradi besede (imena) morilske ribe "morene", ki skozi to zgodbo postane jezikovno zanimiva za nas, saj se pred tem marsikdo najbrž ni zavedal morilske karakteristike te ribe, katere ime opisuje to lastnost.

Vzdevek Vedius Pollio je ta osvobojeni suženj verjetno dobil od drugih sužnjev, s katerimi kot nam pove zgodba, ki je sicer tukaj ne bom omenjal, je ravnal skrajno kruto in ga zato v zgodbi očrnili celo sam rimski cesar Augustus. Če je interpretacija imena tega primitivnega mogotca, ki se je povzpel iz dna takratne rimske družbe, pravilna, se v njej lahko skriva dejstvo, da so na dnu govorili venetski - slovanskim jezikom podobni jezik! Moja interpretacijo vzdevka Vedius Pollio ("pozna polje") sloni zgolj na zanimivi podobnosti besed s slovenskim pomenom kateri tudi ustreza osebnosti tega karakterja in okoliščinam v katerih lahko vidimo sužnje iz katerih se je v njihovega gospodarja povzpel eden od njih in postal bolj krut kot katerikoli od bivših gospodarjev. Vendar pa tudi, če upoštevamo dejstvo, da moja razlaga tega imena ni najbolj zanesljiva, je vendar statistično gledano veliko več latinskim imenom in tudi besedam mogoče najti pomene s pomočjo slovanskih imen kot pa v sami latinščini. Poglejmo recimo besedo "morena".
The word morena: V zgornjem navedku iz Kassius Dia, kateri govori o osvobojenem sužnju Vedius Polliu je omenjena beseda "morena" [Eng:lamprey=morema, Latin:murena, muraena < Greek:muraina], ki je izvrsten primer v katerem s pomočjo jezikoslovja lahko pokažemo, da je venetski jezik starejši od latinščine. Res je, da najdemo tudi latinske besede "mortuus, mortalis, mortifer", ki tudi pomenijo smrt, vendar pa nam že hiter pogled v latinski slovar pokaže, da so te besede tuje latinščini sami, saj so pomešane z drugimi besedami, ki se začno s korensko osnovo "mor-" in imajo popolnoma druge pomene. Poleg tega pa je tudi oblika besede "morena" smiselno slovanska pridevniška oblika, ki v latinščini nima drugega smisla in služi le kot končnica ženskega spola.
Jezikoslovci se že dolgo praskajo za ušesom v zvezi z besedami kot so "morje" in "mrtev". To so očitno stare besede in preko Keltov, ki so itak govorili venetski jezik, kot si lahko ogledate s klikom na naslednji povezavi, bi jih "zahodni jezikoslovci" radi pogermanili Meddling with the name Pomerania (opens in new window).
Namen zgornjega kratkega ovinka v jezikoslovje je bil na primeru demonstrirati, da neglede na ugibanja in prikazovanje smiselnih in drugih jezikovnih podobnosti med posamičnimi primeri kot je bil Vedius Pollia, [ki pozna polje] je v latinčšini toliko takih primerov, da je že samo na osnovi statistične metode mogoče zaključiti, da ne gre za slučaj. Jezikovna analiza pa nam pokaže, v kateri smeri so besede vplivale na nastanek novih besed, torej kateri jezik je v glavnem sprejemal besede iz drugega jezika, in s časoma izgubil originalno semantiko izvornega jezika!

The son of the King of Langobards and a slave [Diakon:k-04c45-51:46]: Končno pa se ustavimo še pri Pavlu Diakonu. Tudi pri njem v je mogoče najti zanimiv primer sina sužnje in langobardskega kralja Grimualda po imenu Romuald, ki se dvigne na vrh družbene lestvice in katerega ded knez Raduald je celo govoril Slovensko!

Ali sužnji živijo na deželi (slave=Slovan - Venet); [Diakon:k-05c01-04:02] : V odstavku kjer Diakon opisuje kako je suženj pomagal pri pobegu langobardskega prestolonaslednika Perctarit-a jasno navaja, da "sužnji živijo na deželi" ( if he were a slave from the country...)

Primerjajmo to z odstavkom iz uvoda tega razdelka zgoraj, ko omenjamo navedek iz Kassius Dia [kD-04-00-(14)], kjer je zapisano, da je v 5. stol. pred Kr., ko je nastajala rimska republika "sovražnik živel na podeželju"!?

Podeželje tako v Grčiji kot v Rimu je bilo zelo dolgo poseljeno z Veneti, ki se jih je sicer bolj prijelo ime Pelasgi. Za polovico te trditve v Italiji najdemo potrdilo tudi pri Livy-ju, ki omenja staroselsko italsko pleme po imenu Rutuli in, ki jih današnji poznavalci ali "strokovnjaki" smatrajo za potomce Umbrov in Pelasgov. Njihovo glavno mesto je bilo okoli 30 km jugovzhodno od Rima. Da bi bilo na nekaj kilometrih ozemlja okoli Rima toliko različnih narodov, kot nas prepričujejo zgodovinarji je zelo neverjetno. Že večkrat sem nakazal, da smatram, da narode kot so { Carni, Caeni, Antemnai, Crustumerii, Sabini, Samniti, Gabii, Aequi, Fidenae, itd. } in, ki so večinoma bili poljedelci, šivinorejci in pastirji pomotoma imenujejo "Italce". Tudi sam Diakon v [Diakon:k-04c45-51:46] potrjuje, da so Samniti (Samnites), ki so bili agrarno ljudstvo še v 6. stol. po Kr. živeli na podeželju. (Kot zanimivost naj le omenim, da imajo v svojem grbu kravo ali bika.) Sam močno sumim, da je večina podeželskega prebivalstva v Italiji v davnini, morda kar tja do sredine zadnjega tisočletja bila sorodna Venetom. Tudi v Panoniji odkoder imamo veliko Rimskih vojskovodij in celo cesarjev in nekaj poznanih mislecev "barbarskega" porekla, ki jih zgodovinarji kasneje radi prikazujejo kot "Gote" so verjetno potomci staroselskih agrarnih Venetov.

Veneti so že na začetku prvega tisočletja pred Kr., pod pritiskom njim nenaklonjenih družbenih sprememb začeli migrirati proti severu, kjer so že od konca neolitika naprej živela druga njim sorodna venetska plemena, ki so obvladovala jantarsko in kositrovo krožno pot iz Anatolije do severnega Jadrana in Baltika ter so prodrli vse do osrčja Rusije, ker so po rečnih poteh tudi povezali Baltik s Črnim morjem. To zadnjo tezo podpira tudi dejstvo, da v okolici Novgoroda najdemo "Sloviensko" manjšino, za katero je značilen izrazit Slovenski pečat.





Main Menu ; (Home)       Main Menu (Home)


©2007 Igor H. Pirnovar
Last Updated: