Who were the old-settlers Veneti
Inspired by the book by Savli-Bor-Tomazic : Veneti First Builders of European Community
Author : Igor Pirnovar


Who were they - Introduction

Herodotus, Polibius and the confusion about the Illyrians

Julius Caesar

Titus Livius

Metallurgists - The South Slavs are the descendants of Veneti

The origin of the name Veneti.

The name Slovani

How some foreigners allow themselves to interpret the name Slavs



Who were they
Inspired by the book by Savli-Bor-Tomazic : Veneti ...

Introduction by the owner of this web site: Many historians and other researchers attempted to give answers to this question, however, due to the prehistoric origins of this enigmatic peoples we should not be too surprised, that there is no consensus among anybody not only on this question, but on this entire front of research. It seems that Veneti represent a harder nut to crack than any other nation. This is mainly due to the gradually evolving evidence about them, which in time drastically changed the early perception of the researchers and scientists about the awesome Veneti from an obscure little European tribe scattered over some parts of the Baltic coasts, in addition to those mentioned in Homer's Iliad from Asia Minor in Paphlagonia from where they set out to colonize a few square miles of Northern Adriatic coast and founded a clusters of settlements in central Italy from which the city of Rome and great nation of Romans sprang into immortal existence. As hinted above, gradually it became obvious, that Veneti were much more formidable and for many millennial enduring civilization that spanned over two continents from the North sea and European Atlantic coast all the way to the eastern most foothills of Himalayas. I believe the true story about them is not yet widely known due to the silly disagreements about their ethnic makeup or affiliation to the current day European nations. Unfortunately, the established science and academics still cling to the mostly dismissed and scientifically unsound 19th century Indoeuropean theories which were built on the idea of the superiority of the western cultures that sprang out of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, that is 19th century ideas in which those who Veneti resemble the most were treated as inferior.

To this day in the dubious Indoeuropean theory scientists have not managed to accommodate a space or a rational for the inclusion of Veneti, however, they for over 200 years without any hesitation maintains there exist extraordinary similarities between the European languages in the exactly the time and space which matching that where Veneti lived. Indeed, the dubious theory, does not attribute the similarities to Veneti controlling the vast territories that span two continents, but rather to a phantom homeland somewhere around the Caspian sea from which all different nations slowly emerged. First the Hittites, then the Celts, and shortly after that the Germanic tribes and finally the Slavs. Of course this is a rather incomplete list shortened just so we can see the general markers by the IE suggested time line. There are many reasons why this IE proposition is utter nonsense, but the main one is the idea of a small Asian homeland, where different nations, who first spoke a similar language, but then for some reason on their journey to Europe decided to change their speech, were mass produced or generated to colonize Europe.

To this day the dubious Indoeuropean theory has not managed to accommodate a space or a rational for the inclusion of Veneti, however, it for over 200 years without any hesitation maintains there exist extraordinary similarities between the European languages in the time and space which exactly matches both the time and wide spaces where Veneti lived. Indeed, the dubious theory, does not attribute the similarities to Veneti controlling by means of trade and commerce (Amber road, Tin road or route) the vast territories that span two continents, but rather to a phantom homeland somewhere around the Caspian sea from which all different nations slowly emerged. First Hittites, then Celts, and shortly after that the Germanic tribes and finally the Slavs. Of course this is a rather incomplete list shortened just so we can see the general markers suggested by the IE time line. There are many reasons why this IE proposition is utter nonsense, but the main one is the idea of a small Asian homeland where different nations who first spoke a similar language, but then for some reason on their journey to Europe decided to change their speech, were "mass produced or generated" to proliferate and colonize Europe.

Until in 1920 Czech researcher B. Hrozný deciphered Hittite cuneiform, scientists apart from ancient Greek, Latin and Sanskrit did not have a true sense of how would a prehistoric language of a ruling class sound or look like. Indeed, they did not have any clue how individual ancient nations came to existence. All this was for the first time in history revealed to us by the Hittite texts. It is important to notice that we are talking about a ruling class here, namely the kings, aristocracy and those belonging to the the state religions and priesthoods, who as their own records tell us, were due to the intermarriage between the nobility coming from very distant and different places multilingual, and indeed, culturally very different from the local populations. These were the times, when by founding a settlement a palace or a city an embryonic new nation emerged - the occurrences that started to take place and shape much earlier than Greek or Roman cultures ever existed. Hence before the decipherment of Hittite syllabic writing and language, I like to think a linguistic vacuum existed, showing only the end product namely the Greek and Latin languages - no true linguistic samples or knowledge from the earlier times in terms of language evolution existed until the decipherment of cuneiform was almost complete. Without the appreciation of prehistoric language and nation development, which the Hittite texts as well as some of the later ancient writers, for instance Livy's paragraph: How the ancient founders of cities populated their cities (opens in new window //SORRY NOT YET TRANSLATED), it is almost next to impossible to understand, not only the origins of Greek and Latin languages, but also the origins of Greek and Roman, as well as, most of the modern European nations and languages, in the lieu of the nonsensical IE theories.

In the above mentioned linguistic vacuum the Indoeuropean theory was born, which based on the similarities between the languages spoken from Atlantic all the way to India, built a linguistic model for all European languages in which astonishingly they neglected to incorporate Slavic languages (up until the 6th century AD) despite the fact that in ancient Indian Sanskrit not only a significant Slavic lexical imprint can be found, but, unlike for any other European language group, in Sanskrit remarkably obvious Slavic grammar patterns and similarities exist. Such arrogance and ignorance on the part of Western academics was only possible in the turn of the 18th century when romantic adventurous explorations of the wilderness of the new worlds may have influenced some researchers to support the imperialistic ideology nurturing the idea of western superiority. Unfortunately, the brainchild of this era is the pseudo scientific concoction called Indoeuropean theory, despised not only by many contemporary Indian scientists, but also some of us on the west, who realized our academic infrastructures still maintain the same on racism and western superiority based, though rather well masqueraded, positions. The so called traditionalists are adapting slowly, so no longer you will hear direct claims that Slavs arrived into Europe from behind the Carpathian mountains in the 6th century AD, but instead as the invisible groups intermingled between the Huns and Goths. Whereas they totally ignore even the possibility they had been around as Veneti long before anybody knew Huns and Goths even existed. [see: Who are the true Barbarians in Europe (opens in new window)].

Traditionalists are still elaborating and building their arguments based on "phantom historic constructs" like that of Illyrians and dare I say Guals without even mentioning the Continental Celts, who if their true story were told, would turn European history and linguistics upside down. Though it is hard to find many scientists who are openly admitting the past mistakes with regards to the unacceptable IE theories, we should focus on the new discoveries, regardless of these old outdated views. So for instance, the scientists still holding old Indoeuropean theory dear, had managed to transcribe most of the Hittite clay tablets, found only Germanic patterns in the ancient language. However, if we carefully study them we will discover a significant Venetic imprint, moreover the resemblance between ancient Germanic and Slavic can be inferred from the language of the Hittites. All this obviously point to the fact that even before the Hittites Veneti were around, which obviously runs in the face of Indoeuropean theory which claims Hittites were at the top of Indoeuropean family tree!

Since the above facts clearly defy the theory of a common Indoeuropean homeland of which the 19th century pan-Slavic "Carpathian theory" is merely an extension, and which is recently only cleverly masqueraded behind the 5th and 6th century AD Barbarian invasion of Europe, the "Venetic theory" appears to be a much more plausible alternative. It is not surprising, that there exists such a strong resistance to the newly emerging interpretations of European history, which not long ago viewed Germanic populations of Europe as direct descendants of the "Arians", who after all proved to be "Veneti" and who seem to be much closer related to Slavic than Germanic peoples.

However, we should not venture too far away from our main concern, namely, our question who Veneti are. Though there are many recently discovered and more reliable facts than are the antique records and quotations mentioning Veneti, the later really were our initial pointers in the right direction. Let us "enumerate" these ancient sources. We can see that they come from three different kinds of people - antique writers and poets, historians or scholars, and political or military leaders:

Historians or scholars:
  • Herodot ( Greek historian: 484 - 425 BC)
  • Polibius ( Greek historian: 200 - 118 BC)
  • Strabon ( Greek historian and geographer: 63 BC - 24 AD)
  • Claudius Ptolemeus ( astronomer, mathematician and geographer: 100-170 AD)
  • Titus Livius ( Roman historian: 59 BC - 17 AD)
  • Tacitus, Cornelius ( Roman historian: 55 - 117 AD)
  • Jordanes ( Gothic historian: 6th century AD)
Antique writers and poets:
  • Homer (c. 8th century BC)
  • Sofokles (Greek playwright: 496 - 406 BC) [LV-p129]
  • Euripid (Greek playwright 480 - 406 BC)
  • Strabon (Greek writers 68 BC - 20 AD)
Political or military leaders:
  • Alexander the Great (356 - 323 BC)
  • Julius Caesar (100-44 BC)

Lacus Venetus
As alluded earlier we owe it to these ancient men, that we have even started to search for Veneti in all the right places.

Their writings confirmed what the toponyms and different etymological characteristics encountered in the pertinent areas were suggesting. Thankful to these ancient authors, we can now be sure that Veneti lived in Baltic next to the North Sea coasts, in the lands next to the Atlantic coast, in Anatolia, in the lands at the top of the North Adriatic, throughout the Balkans, on the coasts of the Lake Constance (Bodensee) which Romans used to call Lacus Venetus (Northeast of Zurich Switzerland). With this information in hands, we were able to discover that these lands were an integral part of an important Venetic trade-route system passing from Baltic, through Lusatia, Bohemia to the North Adriatic and the Black sea and Anatolia. Archaeological finds of amber "storage places" on the famous "Amber road" confirmed a long anticipated trade route hinted only by ancient Greek literature and mythology. The Hittite texts have reviled there existed a similar "Tin road" from Bohemia down the river Danube to the Black sea and to Anatolia, returning to the north via the Adriatic coast and back to Bohemia along the established "Amber road" through the river valleys of the Eastern Alps. Obviously these trade-routes existed for many millennial before Roman times. It is only after the entire jigsaw puzzle came together, that we could truly appreciate the directions that these antique writers provided us with.

Titus Livius the contemporary of Julius Caesar, as well as Caesar himself, bequeathed to us a wealth of information and personal accounts about Veneti, which we will tap into shortly. But before that let's first check out two earlier Greek historians the famous Herodotus and Polibius and through their contributions the confusion ancient Greeks introduced into later search for historical truth some odd 2000 years later.




Herodotus, Polibius and the confusion about the Illyrians
Motivated by the book by Savli-Bor-Tomazic : Veneti ...


Sorry from here on parts of this page are still under construction

V naslednjih odstavkih bom vključil nekaj podatkov iz članka Kdo so Veneti Lucijana Vuge avtorja knjig Jantarska pot in Davnina govori. Iz omenjenega članka bom tukaj citiral predstavitev Ilirov z namenom, da bi pokazal, kako je ime Ilir za takratne severne sosede starih Grkov zgolj slučaj, ki razen tega, da to ime predstavlja ljudstvo guslarjev ali igralcev instrumenta, ki so ga takrat imenovali lira, ta beseda nima prav nič skupnega s pravim etnosom skupine narodov, ki jih grško "poetično" ime označuje.

Članek omenja knjigo Zgodovina človeštva, ki jo je izdal UNESCO in jo imamo tudi v slovenščini. V njej ugledni zgodovinar Luigi Pareti v poglavju Ilirski narodi in narečja na kratko spregovori tudi o Venetih. Med drugim piše:

Iliri, indoevropski narod -- vendar ni jasno, ali je spadal k vzhodnemu ali vmesnemu tipu -- so morali začeti svoje prodiranje na severo -zahodni del Balkanskega polotoka najpozneje v 14. st.pr.n.št. Tračane so potiskali na jug in na vzhod, ta pritisk pa so posredno čutili tudi Grki, ker jih je gnal v isti smeri... Nemalo sodobnih avtorjev pa misli, da nam pri dokončni obnovi stare ilirščine ne more pomagati samo albanščina, ki je nastala iz mešanice ilirskega in traškega jezika.

Tako si morda lahko razložimo razliko med tako imenovanimi starim kolonijami Ilirov v Italiji: venetske kolonije naj bi nam dale pravi severnoilirski jezik, kolonije v Apuliji in Mesapiji pa hibridno južno narečje, ki je bilo mešanica med traškim in ilirskim jezikom

To zadnje pa je v resnici formula po kateri je nastala albanščina. Res je, da je danes v omenjenih krajih zajetna Albanska manjšina, vendar le kot posledica albanske migracije v Italijo in ne kot nas tukaj skuša Luigi Pareti prepričati, ostanek neke starodavne hibridne narodnosti trakijskega in ilirskega porekla katerih obeh obstoj je prej plod domišljije in grške mitologije kot pa zgodovinsko dejstvo.

(Trakija je področje današnje vzhodne Bolgarije).

Pareti nato ugotavlja, da je bila beneška pokrajina v Italiji naseljena najpozneje v začetku železne dobe, ko je vzklila značilna "atestinska" civilizacija, a da sta Herodot (I, 196) in Polibius (II, 17) izrecno ugotavljata, da so bili Veneti Ilirci; Polibius je pri tem celo poudaril, da se venetščina močno razlikuje od, keltščine čeprav sta si bili civilizaciji podobni.
Pri vsem tem se mi zdi zelo zanimivo to, da se ti ugledni zahodni znanstveniki večinoma sklicujejo na dvomljive, in na grški mistiki sloneče polresnice kot recimo so Iliri in tudi Tračani, da bi razložili stvari, ki so, če jih kritično izluščimo iz skrivnostnega ali izmišljenega konteksta polresnic, v resnici dokazi za prav nasprotno od tistega kar skušajo "ugledneži" dokazati. Pa se prepričajmo na primeru, kako skušajo s pomočjo Ilirov, Tračanov in celo Venetov pojasniti izvor Latincev.
Pareti opominja, da so selitveni tokovi v južno Italijo z Balkanskega polotoka svojevrstni spričo tega, da so bili že pod močnim vplivom Tračanov. Ta Paretijeva teza o ilirskem oz. venetskem elementu pri stapljanju z jezikom ne-indoevropskih staroselcev na Apeninskem polotoku, pri čemer naj bi nastala nova tvorba -- prvotna latinščina, močno spominja na vztrajne in poglobljene trditve znanega italijanskega zgodovinarja Giuseppa Sergija, ki pa niso osamljene, saj stoje za njimi tudi nekateri nemški in drugi zgodovinarji. Toda Sergi je pri tem še bolj določen, govori, da so bili Indo-evropejci, ki so prišli v Italijo, kar Praslovani.
Poznavalcu je jasno, da je tem Paretijevim zmotam danes, poleg citiranja Giuseppe Sergija, mogoče zelo resno oporekati tudi na osnovi novih spoznanj in odkritij, ampak v Unescovi Zgodovini človeštva je vendar po vsem svetu razširjena prav ta Paretijeva zmota. Zmota pravim zato ker, če bi upoštevali nova spoznanja po katerih so tako Tračani kot Iliri-Veneti in ne Iliri-Albanci, nasprotno od grške pravljice, ki jih ima za skrivnostne ne-Slovane, nič drugega kot Veneti to je Slovani. Prepričan sem, da bi se to stanje moralo neoporečno in nedvoumno odražati v latinščini.Na žalost pa takoj, ko kdo od odkrije v tem jeziku kake slovanske prvine to sproži le val zasmehovanja in mahanje z akademskimi jezikovnimi simboli!

Moj namen ni toliko razlagati teorij o Ilirih kot pa pokazati kako zmešnjavo so povzročili Grki s tem, ko so takratne Južne Slovane (Venete) imenovali Ilire.

Ko pravim Južne Slovane to povzemam po poznanem italijanskem raziskovalcu zgodovinarju in jezikoslovcu z imenom Mario Alinei, ki Južne Slovane istoveti s Slovenci. To je širše opisano v članku: Metalurgi - Južni Slovani so potomci Venetov
Kot vidimo so Grki svoje severne sosede presenetljivo poetično poimenovali guslarji t.j. Iliri, kar je dosti bolj spoštljivo kot se je zgodilo vsem drugim narodom, celo Etruščanom, katere so Grki brez izjeme klicali barbari. Prepričan sem, da ta spoštljivost do svojih severnih sosedov ni slučaj, saj o njih ali o njihovih vzhodnih sorodnikih Trojancih zelo spoštljivo poje Homer in ne nazadnje so prav ti severni sosedje, tokrat imam v mislih Makedonce, Grčijo v takratnem svetu proslavili kot mogočno velesilo.

Sicer pa so oboji, tako Grki kot Etruščani priseljenci med venetske staroselce in pri obeh jezikih, tako v etruščanščini kot v grščini, so jasno vidni sledovi staroselskih jezikov Venetov oz. Slovanov. Te tematike se bomo dotaknili še na večih mestih - recimo pod tematikami o Grkih, Etruščanih, Makedoncih, Hetitih, Egipčanih in drugih, ko bomo obravnavali izključno vsako od izbranih civilizacij ali etnosov.

Ampak moj namen sedaj ni ponovno prikazovati vseh teorij o Venetih, to je zelo obširno in veliko bolj celovito v svojem članku Od kod Veneti ? (novo okno) opravil Lucijan Vuga. Sam tukaj, v tem članku skušam le opozoriti na antične in druge starejše vire, ki tako ali drugače omenjajo Venete, Ilire in včasih celo Slovane v zvezi z njimi.

Seveda pa najdemo tudi povsem drugačna stališča, ki uvrščajo venetščino med germanske jezike, česar se uvodno lahko dotaknemo ob naslednji temi, ki govori o Juliju Cezarju možaku, ki se je imel za potomca legendarnega junaka iz Troje - Eneja in njegove mame grške boginje Atene. (Pa recite, da to ni pravljica)


Julius Caesar
Motivated by the book by Savli-Bor-Tomazic : Veneti ...

Julij Cezar, je v zvezi z Veneti pomemben zato ker o njih obširno piše v svoji knjigi De bello Gallico v kateri opisuje kako so Rimljani pokorili Galce, ki jih sam imenuje Veneti! Galija je pokrajina ob atlantski obali na severo zahodu Francije, ki se imenuje Bretonija, obala sama je poznana pod imenom Armorik.

Galski Veneti so na obali Bretanije nudili rimskim legijam tak odpor, da je sam Cezar pisal o njih zelo spoštljivo, čeprav je bil dobesedno razkačen nad njimi zaradi njihovega trmastega branjenja svoje samostojnosti. Cezarju ni ostalo nič drugega, kot da se temeljito pripravi na spopad. Med drugim Cezar piše :

Veneti so daleč najbolj močno pleme na tej obali. Imajo izjemno močno floto, ki obvlada morje do Britanije. Njihovo znanje in izkušnje na morju prekašajo vse kar poznamo.

Ker je obala tukaj izpostavljena odprtemu morju in je vzdolž obale zelo malo pristanišč, katera pa so vsa pod Venetsko kontrolo, lahko zato Veneti počno kar hočejo in vsakogar prisilijo, da jim plača voznine ali dovoljenja za plovbo.

Medtem ko je bila Venetska flota zelo močna, mi (Rimljani) nismo imeli na razpolago nobenih ladij; še manj pa smo vedeli karkoli o globinah morja, ali pa o lukah in otokih ob obali kjer smo se morali bojevati.

Plovba po odprtem morju je vse nekaj drugega, kot pa plovba ob dobro zaščitenih in utrjenih Mediteranskih obalah.

Tukaj je primerno omeniti, da o Venetih velikokrat slišimo kot o zelo dobrih pomorščakih. Obvladovali so tako odprto morje kot tudi kopenske vode. Najdemo jih na Bodenskem Jezeru sredi Evrope, ter vzdolž vseh pomembnejših rek Evrope in Rusije tja od Črnega morja in Jadrana, do Atlantika, Baltika in severnih voda Evrope. Zelo verjetno je, da so kasneje Vikingi, sami tudi pomorščaki severnih morij, gradili svoje ladje po Venetskem vzorcu, in prav tako pluli po reki Dnjeper vse do Kijeva in še naprej do Črnega Morja in Carigrada.
Cezarjev opis armoriških Venetov na Atlantski obali je še toliko bolj pomemben, ker Venete identificira v krajih, za katere mnogi zahodni zgodovinarji trdijo, da so bila pod kontrolo Keltov in ne Venetov. Tako recimo po mnenju Francoza Martineta ni mogoče dvomiti, da so bili armoriški Veneti z atlantske obale Kelti. Ne samo to, ta zelo ugledni jezikoslovec Martinet se nadvse trudi dokazovati, kako so na zahodu iz Venetov po zlitju z osvajalci vse do obal Armorika nastali Kelti medtem, ko so preostale Venete na vzhodu in jugu Evrope, v začetnih stoletjih prvega tisočletja (po n.št) iztrebili izza zakarpatskh močvirij prodirajoči Slovani.
Kogar zanima več o tej Martinet-ovi   "močvirniški zgodovinski šoli" naj prebere že prej omenjeni članek Lucijana Vuge "Od kod Veneti ?".
Arheologi so v zahodni in srednji Evropi odkrili veliko keltskih predmetov in nemalokrat so v zanosu prehitro sklepali, da so najdbe keltske. Najbolj zgovorno o tem priča več kot 60 v kamen vklesanih napisov, ki so jih našli v Galiji na severu Francije, kot tudi na jugu in v sosednji severni Italiji. Seveda so imeli napise za keltske. Poglejmo kaj je o njih zapisanega v Britanski enciklopediji (Encyclopedia Britannica - knjiga:4, stran: 437)
O galščini nam pričajo napisi iz Francije in severne Italije, vendar je današnje poznavanje tako glasov kot besednega zaklada tega jezika skopo. Prav tako niso jasne relacije do keltskega jezika v Britaniji in na Irskem. Članek v podaljšku nadaljuje: Na področju antične Galije, ki sedaj pripada Franciji, so našli okoli 60 v kamen vklesanih napisov iz časa 300 let pred in 300 let po n.št. Starejši napisi so vklesani v grškem črkopisu, kasnejši pa v latinici.

Vidimo, da se na Venetih strastno lomijo kopja, na žalost v veliki večini primerov znanstveniki, za svoje trditve nimajo nobenih oprijemljivih dokazov. Ta situacija se je bistveno spremenila potem, ko je na prizorišče stopil Anton Ambrožič, avtor knjig

v katerih je s pomočjo slovenskega jezika uspel razvozlati venetske napise, katere je uradna zgodovina pripisovala Keltom, Grkom in etnično neopredeljenim Frigijcem v Anatoliji. Kljub temu, da raziskovalci, čeprav so trdili, da vedo čigavi so, napisov vsemu niso uspeli razvozlati, so dosledno zavračali vse, ki so predlagali razširitev raziskav v smeri slovanskih jezikov. V zvezi z galskimi napisi je bilo že veliko rečenega, poglejmo kaj pravijo o njih tisti, ki so se z napisi intenzivno ukvarjali tudi sami: Prepričanje nekaterih uglednih strokovnjakov, da so Celinski Kelti govorili slo/venetsko, je povzročilo veliko težav večim generacijam keltskih jezikoslovcev. Tako je poznani keltski raziskovalec Léon Fleuriot po leto dni raziskovanja keltskega napisa na plošči z imenom "Lezoux-Plate" izjavil:
Zaradi odlomljenih in manjkajočih delov plošče imamo le necelovit napis. Vendar pa najbrž ne pretiravam, če rečem, da bi kar je od napisa ostalo, verjetno povprečni Slovenc brez težav prebral in prepoznal.

Na hrbtni strane plošče je lista nasvetov najmlajšemu sinu družine. Sledeče je zelo enostavno prepoznati:

JES TI AN KON ti ješ konja
GOR JO SED vstani
SAMO BIJ MOLATUS samo udari molitev
PAPEJ BOVDI, NE TE TU (TAM) jej tukaj, ne tu in tam
NUGNATE NE DAMA GUSSOV ugnanim ne damo poljubov
VE ROV NE CURRI v rov ne curi (žorgaj)
SIT BIO, BER TO če si sit to beri

Od kakih 75 napisov, za katere so menili, da so v galščini, je komaj kakih 12 verjetno v keltščini. Najbolj razvpit je tako imenovani Druidski koledar iz Coligny (Text Inscription 53 of Dottin's La Langue Gundoise). Preostalih 65 pa je nedvomno slo/venetskih ali pravilneje venetskih to je proto -slovanskih, od katerih jih je Anton Ambrožič prevedel 44 in so objavljeni v knjigah: Adieu to Brittany in Journey Back to the Garumna.

Keltski - venetski napis Na koncu pa si oglejmo še en tako imenovani galski napis, ki ga lahko beremo s pomočjo slovenščine. Črkopis na teh napisih Angleži v svoji enciklopediji imenujejo grški, v resnici so si venetski, etruščanski in stari grški rokopisi zelo podobni.

V mokrem poletju sekira rjavi
Voz je obrnil tako ostro, da je ostal (samo) s konji

Julij Cezar je po venetskem porazu Galijo praktično izpraznil. Vse ujete moške je odgnal kot sužnje, žene in otroke pa so izselili na Britansko otočje, kjer naj bi jih asimilirali tamkajšnji staroselci in tako naj bi tam nastala keltščina, prednica današnje irščine. To verjetno delno osvetljuje današnji keltski paradoks, ki je kot tak upravičeno vzrok, da ugledni keltski raziskovalci nimajo uspeha pri razvozlavanju stare keltščine na osnovi današnje irščine katera je, kot smo maloprej videli verjetno jezik britanskih staroselcev.

Ne da bi širše govorili o Germanih, na katerih ekspanzijo (spomnimo se primera iz Bavarske), so odločilno vplivali prav Rimljani s svojimi kazenskimi pohodi proti Venetom in Keltom, ko so na zelo podoben način, kot tu v Galiji, izselili staroselce in nato na njihovo mesto pripeljali izgnance ali pa kako revnejše prebivalstvo od kod drugod. To je rimska oblika etničnega čiščenja, za kar danes po svetu uporabljajo izraz "ethnic cleansing".

Naj na tem mestu vendarle še omenim, da se je v zahodni Evropi preko Venetov in posredno Keltov ta črkopis ohranil v obliki runske pisave, ki je tamkaj poznana kot germanska pisava.


Titus Livius
Motivated by the book by Savli-Bor-Tomazic : Veneti ...

V zvezi s Titusom Liviusom, bi rad začel s svojo anekdoto. e prej pa naj osvetljim Liviusov zapis, ki je vzrok za nastanek le te, anekdote namreč.

Ko sem drugič bral knjigo o Venetih, sem se ob Liviusovi izjavi, ki opisuje kako so od boja pri Troji izmučeni Veneti (v 12 stol. pred n. št.), prispeli do obal Jadrana zamislil: "Ne glede na to ali je tisto o čemer Titus piše res ali ne, njegove besede, še posebno ime reke Timave, potrjujejo, da so tod živeli Veneti že davno pred njim in Kristusom!"

Moje pravo navdušenje pa se je začlo pri Homerju, ki je kakih 800 let pred Juljem Cezarjem v Iliadi pisal o Enetoih (Venetih) kot zaveznikih Trojancev. Kdor ima problem z besedama Enetoih (Venetih), naj si ogleda odstavke z naslovom "Od kod beseda Venet ?" .

Livius iz Padove, ki je baje sam bil potomec Venetov in je mogoče zato po lastni želji pridal Venetom nekaj trojanske glorije, pravi: Po padcu Troje, so Veneti, ki so se borili na strani Trojancev, po naporni plovbi ob ilirski obali končno prispeli vse do reke Timave in se naselili severnjeje od nje.

Kot sem že rekel je ključna beseda ime reke Timava. Če je Titus Livius res uporabil to ime Venetskega izvora, potem so morali v teh krajih že zdavnaj pred njegovim časom, t.j. pred Titusovim časom, ki je živel v 1. stol pred n.š., tod res "kraljevati" Veneti. Le tako bi Titus Livius lahko poimenoval reko, ki teče skozi kocjanske jame s slovanskim izrazom za "reko teme" - Timava!

To pa totalno demantira zakarpatsko teorijo o prihodu Slovanov na zemljo kjer so se Rimljani potrudili poimenovati reke in kraje v Venetskem jeziku, da bi prišlekom bilo bolj domače v novih krajih! Ta moj argument zgubi vso težo, če bi Titus Livius imel kako neslovansko ime za to našo reko podzemlj. Seveda, sem to zapisal preden sem začel sumiti, da so tudi Grki tesno povezani z Veneti in tudi preden sem odkril grško besedo τιμαω, ki pomeni ponos; vrednotiti. V resnici pa je zelo dvomljivo, da bi nam Grki poimenovali reko s svojo besedo, ki bi tudi v našem jeziku imela ravno pravi pomen!? Vendar pa, če so ti Grki v resnici bili Veneti, potem stvari lahko postanejo izredno zanimive.

Sicer pa lahko najdemo še dosti podobnih argumentov tudi za druge kraje in toponime po vsej Evropi. Naj omenim delo "Kraljestvo Slovanov", staro hrvaškega zgodovinarja Mavra Orbina, iz leta 1601, v katerem Mavro piše:
Bilazora na vhodu iz Dardanije v Peonio
Nekateri dokazujejo, da se je slovanski jezik uveljavil v Dalmaciji in drugih ilirskih pokrajinah šele po letu 606, ko so prišli Slovani, pred tem pa naj bi v Dalmaciji govorili latinsko ali grško. To ni res.

Mavro potem nadaljuje, da so v Dalmaciji govorili slovanski jezik celo v "antični dobi". To dokazujejo tudi imena krajev v Dalmaciji, ki jih omenjajo antični pisatelji. Tako na primer Titus Livius omenja Bilazoro, Korita (Korint), Grapso, itd., sama slovanska imena.

Bilazora je po antičnem grškem zgodovinarju Polibiju (200-118 pred n. št.) bilo največje peonsko mesto. Ležalo je ob Vardarju, med soteskami, na samem vhodu iz Dardanije v Makedonijo oziroma Peonijo.

Leta 117 pred n. št. ja mesto skupaj s Peonijo prišlo pod oblast Makedonskega kralja Filipa V. Za Makedonsko državo je bilo mesto strateško izredno pomembno za obrambo severnih meja pred Dardanci. Bilazora je ostala v rokah makedonskih kraljev, dokler ni prišla pod oblast Rima. Zadnjič je mesto omenjeno 168 ored n. št., v času bojev makedonskega kralja Perzeja proti Rimljanom.

Ko sem bral o poreklu toponimov na tem področju sem naletel na nemškega slavista Reinholda Trautmanna (Akademiker Verlag, Berlin 1956), ki omenja besedo korito in številne druge toponime. Čeprav naj v opomin sarkastično dodam, da je izpod peresa nekega berlinskega slavista prišla tudi razlaga toponima za vspetino "Višnja", kot "Vspetina zrelih višenj", sem tudi sam mnenja, da je beseda Korint res nastala iz naše besede korito, ki v prenešenem pomenu prav lahko pomeni tudi ozek zaliv.

Črnomorski Veneti in Hetitsko kraljestvo
Že pred leti sem zapisal, da kadarkoli zadenem ob jugo -vzhodne Slovane, Makedonce in Trakijske Venete si ne morem pomagati, da ob tem ne bi pomislil na potvarjanje zgodovine v imenu mogočne antične Grčije. To pa še toliko bolj odkar je postalo jasno, da so južne obale Črnega morja resnično bile poseljene z Veneti, ter da ni več nobenega dvoma o številnih povezavah Venetov ne le z Etruščani ampak tudi s Hetiti in Indijci.

Najprej me je motilo ime reke Vardar, ki nosi grško ime Axios komaj v dolžini kakih 70 km. Kmalu zatem pa sem se začel spraševati kako je mogoče, da je tako veličasten narod pustil sledove na tako majhnem celinskem ozemlju in na drugi strani zasedel tako obširna morska prostranstva, medtem pa nam zgodovinarji zatrjujejo, da so Grki v Grčijo v več navalih prodrli iz severa od katerih prvi val je bil na začetku 2. tisočletja pred n. št. zadnji malo manj kot tisoč let kasneje. Ti celinski Grki naj bi na enkrat postali pomorsko ljudstvo, ki je ob prvem kontaktu z morjem uspelo poseliti vse egejske in vzhodne sredozemske otoke?! Prvi sum o izvoru ali nastanku Grkov in mogoče tudi Albancev sem izrazil v izjavi o umetnem rojstvu naroda vladajočih slojev, ki je nastal s postopnim oddaljevanjem od podrejenih kast in od staroselcev ter istočasno s sprejemanjem premožne aristokracije iz vseh koncev in krajev, neglede na pleme, barvo kože ali "krvi", katerim identifikacijo pomeni parola "jaz nisem" namesto "jaz sem".

Kje so sorodniki Grkov in Albancev, ali pa Angležev če hočete. Vsi ti narodi so nastali s preseljevanjem in združevanjem klanov ali kast ali ekonomsko in politično različnih plasti, ki so našli skupne interese, predvsem premoženje, moč in oblast, neglede na to iz katerega plemena so prišli, edino s čemer so se odlikovali je različnost od manjvrednih kast (moja teorija o nastanku evropskih narodov iz pra -Evropejcev (Venetov). Ta kastni sistem so Veneti (Arijci) prenesli v Indijo, sledovi te povezave so jasni iz Sanskrta!

Povedati moram, da so to le ugibanja in, da nimam nobenih dokazov, razen tega kar omenjam v člankih. Prepričan sem, da je na tem področju potrebno na novo odpreti zgodovinske knjige in jih temeljito raziskati v luči nove venetske teorije, še posebno sedaj, ko smo razbili tisočletje in več staro skrivnost o skrivnostnih Etruščanih, Hetitih in ne nazadnje nas Venetih to je Slovanih ter pisavah in jeziku vseh teh starodavnih narodov. Veneti so staroselci na stari celini Evropi, ki so očitno spoštljivo starejši od marsikaterega antičnega naroda!


Metallurgists - The South Slavs are the descendants of Veneti

Veliko teorij obstaja v zvezi z izvorom Venetov v Srednji Evropi. Poleg vseh nevzdržnih teorij, ki slonijo na zelo dvomljivih velikih selitvah narodov, je v sklopu novejše Teorije Kontinuitete (TK) avtor Mario Alinei razvil zelo zanimivo "metalurško teorijo južnih Slovanov (Slovencev)". Od vseh drugih, se mi Alinei-jeva teorija zdi najbolj verjetna in celo komplementarna s teorijo zadnje ledene dobe, ki jo tudi sam brez vsakih zadržkov sprejemam in, ki trdi, da je edino z njeno pomočjo mogoče razložiti presenetljive genetske, etnične in jezikovne podobnosti Evropejcev. Vemo, da se je zadnja ledena doba končala pred dobrimi 10,000 leti in je takrat potisnila vsa evropska ljudstva proti jugu. V balkanskem bazenu naj bi takrat nastala največja proto-venetska skupina, ki naj bi kasneje poselila vso Anatolijo in končno prodrla vse do Indije.

Pa končno še poglejmo kako si prihod Slovanov na področje Srednje Evrope v sodobni Teoriji Kontinuitete razlaga poznani zgodovinar Mario Alinei. Kot lahko preberemo v člankih Luciana Vuge (upam, da mi ne bo zameril, ker sem tukaj prepisal nekaj njegovih vrstic):

Mario Alinei pravi, in z njim se tudi strinja večina zgodovinarjev, da ni nobenega dvoma, da je začetek metalurgije v Mezopotamiji in Anatoliji, od koder do Balkana ni daleč... Gorati Balkan je imel s svojimi izjemno bogatimi rudnimi ležišči srečo, da se je znašel v neposredni soseščini z metalurškimi središči Male Azije. Posledično se je začela bakrena doba na Balkanu veliko pred ostalo Evropo. Ko se je v Padski nižini in po dolinah centralnih in centralno -vzhodnih Alp še iztekalo življenje poznega neolitika, je bila bakrena doba na Balkanskem polotoku že v polnem razcvetu. Eno poglavitnih središč tega najzgodnejšega evropskega halkolitika je bilo npr. Ljubljansko barje v Sloveniji, nedaleč od severovzhodne Italije... Meja med halkolitikom in neolitikom je tekla prav med Slovenijo in Julijsko Benečijo.

Luciana Vuge skuša tukaj predstaviti Alinei-jev odgovor na lastno vprašanje namreč: "... kdo so bili, kakšen jezik so govorili seleči se metalurgi, ki so dali življenje centralno-alpski bronasti kulturi?" Tako v nadaljevanju lahko preberemo naslednje:

...da so jezikovne spremembe tega področja posledica prihoda metalurgov z Balkana prek Slovenije. Predvidoma so ti izvedenci iskali baker po južnih alpskih dolinah vse do Grigione, obenem pa so s seboj gnali črede na ondotno pašo. In kakšen jezik so govorili? Po teoriji kontinuitete, v njeni minimalni različici z 'mikenskega vidika', na Balkanskem polotoku v 3. in 2. tisočletju pr. n. št. lahko projiciramo, vzporedno z mikenskimi Grki v Grčiji in Italidi v Italiji, tudi Slovane na področju bivše Jugoslavije in Ilire v Albaniji. Od tod sledi, da došli metalurgi iz Slovenije v južne alpske doline in Grigione niso bili nihče drug kot južni Slovani, ob svojem času genetsko pod vplivom Ilirov, Grkov in vzhodnih skupin, od katerih so prevzeli metalurgijo in kakšno tisočletje pred tem tudi poljedelstvo. Ti južni Slovani - verjetno Slovenci –--so se pridružili italidskemu ljudstvu na južni strani centralno -vzhodnih in centralnih Alp ter prispevali s svojim jezikovnim sistemom tisto posebnost, ki ga imenujem faktor L, ki je tipičen za ladinščhino in je rezultat slovanskega superstratuma (seveda starejšega od rimske latinščine) na italidsko osnovo, ki je že bila pod keltskim vplivom.

Skratka, Alinei z obsežno argumentacijo zagovarja prisotnost Slovanov-Slovencev na področju, kjer žive danes Furlani oz. Ladinci po vseh vzhodnih Alpah do vice, že najmanj dve to tri tisočletja pr. n. št.; on misli, da celo še pred tem.

Z zgornjim izvajanjem se skoraj v celoti strinjam, ostro bi protestira le proti naslednjemu: ... južni Slovani, ob svojem času genetsko pod vplivom Ilirov, Grkov in vzhodnih skupin, ....

Da v slovanskih jezikih še predvsem pa v slovenščini razen, če so nam to naši jezikoslovci doslej zamolčali, nimamo skoraj nobene ilirske tj. albanske besede, je že dolgo znano. Prav nasprotno pa vemo, da v Albanščini obstaja cela vrsta slovanskih besed, ki jih je najti že v najstarejših albanskih slovarjih.

Kot bomo videli v drugih člankih tukaj, je grščina nastala z mešanjem jezika azijskih in afriških prišlekov ter venetskih staroselcev, ki so jih Grki imenovali Pelazgi. Torej tukaj govoriti o vplivu takratne grščine na takrat ne le po vsem Balkanu, ampak po večjem delu srednje Evrope, Anatolije in severne Indije večinske Venete, po vsej verjetnosti ni tako enostavno, kot je to razumel Mario Alinei. TK nedvomno zasluži vso našo pozornost predvsem pa pozornost na novo osveščenih slavistov, ki so že spoznali možnosti potencialne zmote zahodnoevropskih jezikoslovcev, ki še vedno ignorirajo vse pokazatelje o slovanski prisotnosti že vsaj iz pred Grških ali bolj splošno predzgodovinskih časov.


The origin of the name Veneti.

Many linguists and historians have attempted to explain the origin of the name "Veneti". However, none of their analysis has ever been truly accepted by those who are aware about some of the unresolved issues related to the history of Veneti. I see at least three reasons for this, namely:
  1. The first is the familiarity with Slavic or dare I say the Slovenian language.
  2. The second is related to a political or rather a view that is greatly obscured because some people can not refrain from certain nationalistic sentiments.
  3. The third is the result of the double linguistic transformation the word undergone first in Greek and then in Latin both of which have no way of dealing with certain Slavic/Venetic sounds.
  4. But one could easily add some Western academics of a rather dubious linguistic competency, as the fourth reason.
We can tackle the first and the last items from the above list simultaneously, so let's start our investigation with the accusation mentioned as the last item number (iv) above. Certain "competent professionals" have borrowed the idea behind their concoction in Gothic language, which, by the way, is an artificial academic construction, from live Slavic languages. This is the reason, we should at the beginning review how Slavs explain their name "Slovan" (a Slav) not in one but in all Slavic languages.

In Old Slavic and in Russian the word "slovo" stands for the meaning "word", which is indirectly indicating a speech, or those who use "words" to communicate between themselves. Let me reiterate that in all Slavic languages the word for the name Slavs is similar to the generic Slavic term "Slovan" derived from the "Old Slavic" word "slovo" which in English means "word" (noun). The verb form of the word with the same root is "sloveneti" which in English would mean "to speak, to use words" (verb). However, Slavs have another word for those who "can not speak" i.e. those who are "mute". In all Slavic languages the word "nem" means "mute" and "Nemci" are "Germans". This therefore are the grounds on which Slavic semantics is found for the names of the people belonging to the peoples or tribesmen who can understand each other, namely for "Slovani" or Slavs, and on the other hand for the peoples or tribesmen i.e. the foreigners who can not speak or communicate with the locals "Nemci" or "the mute ones".

In order to better understand these issues, one should take into consideration that in ancient times when the term "nation" did not exist yet, the tribesmen that spoke the same tongue were spread over very large geographic distances.
Need I remind you about the article Organization of languages (opens in new window), where these concepts are rather systematically and methodologically dealt with, and also very well support what we discuss here.
Indeed, Veneti are the prime and the best example to prove and illustrate this historical phenomenon, which is backed up by the undeniable linguistic evidence that their presence persisted for many millennial, over two continents from Atlantic to the eastern most foothills of Himalayas. Ironically, all these concepts most of the established Western historians and linguists have not comprehended yet, hence there are many that fall in to the fourth category in the list above, whom I consider to be rather linguistically challenged.
But, there were a few Western academics, who had the courage to groundlessly claim they found evidence for exactly the same semantics patterns, as were those we mentioned existed in Slavic languages for the "mute" or "neme">"Nemce" i.e. Germans in Slavic languages in ancient Germanic, that is Gothic language, however, seen or interpreted in reverse. Namely, they claim Goths also called Slavs "the mute ones", but for this to be plausible they first had to invent the word "mute"! Of course, they are missing half of the semantic model here, namely the part that would designate the Goths or Germans as "those who can speak", that is, unless they are counting that some dilettante will come around and declare that word "German" derives from the word "grammar"!??

These Western researchers clearly got inspired by the Slavic semantics explained above, which evolved over many millennial before any of the known ancient languages existed, and turned it around with their invented Gothic words. This blunder is then exploited further by the etymologists such as A. Stender-Petersen, Masing and others, who claim that the word "Slovani" is derived from Greek word "Sklabeoni" or from Latin "Sclavoni". But as I said they go even further and claim all this is related to the invented Gothic word ["slawan < *slawoz"], which apparently in Gothic language means "mute".

I mean, how far will the Western academics go to appease or tolerate such nonsense as is this Gothic invented word "*slawoz"? Previously explained Slavic pattern to name the locals and the foreigners, is broadly supported by two large "semantics trees" in all Slavic vocabularies (1) one with the root meaning "slovo" (a word) and its derivatives "slovo, slova, sloven, sloveni, sloveneti, slovenet,..." "word, words, the speaker, speakers, to speak, to sound,..." for the local tribesmen and finally the nation of Slavs (Slovan), and (2) the other "semantic tree" with the root meaning "nem" in English "mute" and derivatives all referring to the same family of meanings, namely "mute": "nem, nemo, nemi, Nemec, Nemci, onemeti,...", from which of course today's Slavic meaning of the nation of Germans "Nemci" is derived, and means in exact translation, not in one but in all Slavic languages the mute people. It is obvious to anybody who knows any Slavic language, that the Western academics are parading their "phantom discovery", for which no consistent semantic proof, whatsoever, can be found in Gothic language, except for the fraudulent introduction of the word ["slawan < *slawoz" = "mute"], which was simply invented for this purpose alone.

Even if there were any verifiable ancient Gothic texts available in which this word could be proved to have existed with the required meaning, this argument would still be rather pale in comparison to the one supported by the deeply nested Slavic semantic trees in their vocabularies exhibiting impeccably consistent semantic patterns. This Gothic equivalent of our Slavic patterns has the characteristics of dubious academic ethics, as well as, equaly dubious academic conduct written all over it! Moreover, unlike the etymology for the word "Slovan"   the word ["slawan < *slawoz"] does not fit in to the etymology for the main word in question here, namely, the word Veneti (or sgould I say Goths or perhaps Germanic nations).

Now that we have seen what are the origins for the general name for all Slavs, let's see if we can understand why the Slavic words such as "Sloven", "Slovenec" (Slovenet), "Sloveneci" (Sloveneti) and at last also "Slovan" became synonims with the words "Venet" and "Veneti" An astute reader will have noticed that in fact all these words are one and the same. However, the fact that the name "Sloveneti" was first deformed by ancient Greeks and after them the Romans complicated the matters so much a disconnect appears to have formed between the ancient and the contemporary versions of one and the same name. Based on this we may conclude, that two versions of the name a native Slavic and a foreign (non-Slavic) formed, and either evolved and / or deformed even further over the millennial they were used by different people the natives and mostly Latinized European rulers. Hence, in our explanations we need to take into account ancient and contemporary developments. From the ancient times both the native Slavic as well as the foreign, mostly Greek, Latin and Germanic influences have to be considered. In contemporary times some attempts to alter history by some Western academics should also be considered, as we have discovered in the case of suspicious discoveries of that Gothic version of the name, namely, the construct ["slawan < *slawoz"], which by the way, I consider more emotionally than scientifically driven occurrence. But we already know that when tackling the above linguistic problem that also deals with the issues of ethnology, we encounter three different kinds of obstacles. Let's have a look at them separately.


RETURN     (1) Knowledge of Slavic and the Slovenian language

Every Slovenian six-grader knows that the words Sloveneti and in Slovenec are of the same root. However, some other Slavs of non-Slovenian descent often incorrectly interpret the word Venet as a part of the word "slo-venet". Contrary to the Slovenian version of this article, here I am not going to explain the grammatical details. Let me just say that Slovenian more than any other Slavic language retained archaic grammatic forms, and particularly some of the the endings which most distinctly point to original archaic forms in still alive Slovenian dialects. BTW, this enabled the famous Slovenian Venetologist Matej Bor to successfully decipher the famous Venetic/Etruscan inscription [Es-25] and reveal the earliest known "grammatic reference table".
It is also interesting that in Russian language there are also many archaic Slavic words, that are identical to their Slovenian siblings, however, only the Slovenian language retained the oldest Slavic grammatic patterns. At this point I need to repeat, that Russian language of all the Slavic languages became the most polluted, with the influences from the West European languages, which resulted as a side-effect of the popular intermarriages between the Russian nobility and West European nobility.
Such archaic word is word "slovo" which means "a word", in fact it is used in "Old Church Slavic" (OCS), as well as in Russian. In modern Slovenian, however it also means a letter character. Here it is important to understand that "slovo" is or used to be the root meaning in the "semantic tree" in any older Slavic the vocabulary. In its noun form the meaning as we know is a "word", however in verb form it means "to speak, to sound". Knowing the Slovenian language one will notice, that the part "-venet" is simply a grammatic operator or a grammar suffix in verb form indicating the participle for which the Slovenian grammar term is "deleznik na -t" (participle) and in noun form it is the declination case suffix indicating nominative form meaning "a person who speaks, who sounds, who is loud".

There is yet another meaning hidden in the above root meaning, which is not so obvious, but nevertheless related to the original archaic Slovenian version of the word, namely, the words related to celebration, partying, pride which are semantically related to the above through the words "prepevati, rajati, slaviti, vpiti" with the meanings "to sing, to party, to celebrate, to shout", which in all modern versions of Slavic languages is seen in the following forms:

  1. "renown, glory"={(sloves, ugled, slava)},
  2. "solemn"={(svečan, slovesen, vzvišen)},
  3. "solemnity"={(svečanost, slovesnost)},
  4. "solemnization"={(slavljenje, praznovanje)}.
In the above list the most popular interpretation of the meaning of the word "Slovani" is that associated with "glory"=(slava). However this interpretation is very late and indeed, has beside the possible semantic relationship to the original meaning "to speak", very little in common with the origins of our ancient name Sloveneti. The contemporary interpretation of the name "Slovani" is the result the 19. century romantic "European national awakening period", which as a countermeasure to the "pan-Germanic movement" emerged into a "pan-Slavic movement", and was artificially spruced up in order to downplay a subversive intention nurtured by the 19th century West European superiority ideology, that Slavs were always only slaves.
It is this affiliation with the negative connotation, that is lurking behind the 19th century interpretation based on "glorified celebration of us Slavs", which after the collapse of the Berlin wall and communism, resulted in a new Slavic national awakening, that can not but wish to distance itself from the communist inter-nationalistic packaging of the pan-Slavic idea!

What truly matters is that there is absolutely no doubt the word Sloveneti originates in prehistory and is a derivative of the word "slovo", which literally means "a word". For instance in all Slavic languages the word for a "dictionary" is "slovar", which means a collection of words, indeed.

It is very important to comprehend the significance of the semantics of the the two words metaphorically defining meaning "us and them" or "natives and foreigners", i.e. "those who understand each other" and "mute ones, those who can not speak". In this respect the words "Sloveneti" (Slovenians) and Nemci (Germans) can be thought of as "antonyms". This is yet another semantic link that confirms our theory, which by the way is lacking in the theory for the Gothic interpretation of the word ["slawan < *slawoz"].

Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that we are talking about the times when there were no nations, no borders and no countries yet. the word nemec "the mute one" did not apply to any particular ethnicity, it simply designated all the foreigners, be it Greeks, Romans or Babylonians. Of course gradually the names for particular ethnic groups or subjects of a foreign King started to form, so for instance from the "Hittite clay tablets" we know that they called themselves "Nesi", which by the way is eerily similar to Slavic word "naši" whith the meaning "our, ours, those of our creed". Similarly, from another "Hittite clay tablet" we know that Greeks (Achaeans) were called "ah-hi-ya-wa" which is Venetic or Slavic Slovene:"uhayavi, uhayati, odhayavi, uhayavi", Rus: "uhodit (уходить), uhodya-" for "those fleeing to the islands before the Hittite's armies". If you are interested in details - click: Venetic name for Greeks (new window /// NOT YET TRANSLATED). Also the name for Macedonians hides not one but a few Venetic or Slavic etymologies. For instance: the one bringing (carrying) something, or one to whom a sword is entrusted -- [Greek:"mach, mhira, ma[k/g/h]ira"] = [Slavic: "meč mahati = (a sword, to swing); - Slavic:"donos"="nositi" ... (to bring, to carry) "one who caries a sword", ect.
Of course also the meaning of the word Slovenet gradually became a synonym for the ethnicity of a group or a family of tribes that understood each other, and first became the name for all those across Europe who spoke the Slovenian language. There were quite a few of such tribes back then and who still share many ancient commonalities in their modern and now different languages. Astonishingly, one of the oldest tribes from this family is today a minority in Russia in the area of Novgorod. They call themselves Slovineni. Of course Central European Slavs were all at one point united in one of the oldest European states called Karantania that spanned over the the territories of modern day Northwest Croatia, Slovenia, parts of Austria and Hungary, Slovakia and Czech republic.

The last thing we have to clear out is the fact that the word "Slovene-t-i" gradually became "Slovene-c-i", and at last "Slovenci". This is due to a regular voice transformation [t>c] which is not only common to Slovene but is also observed in Greek. Also the injection or a drop of a vowel "e" in the cases when such transformation takes place is common not only Slovene but also in Greek, Sanskrit, and the Etruscologists claim in Etruscan too.


RETURN     Nationalistic sentiments help keeping of the some issues unresolved.

The above rather clean and scientifically sound argument can easy evoke emotional response on the part of those whose nations in Europe traditionally were believed to be either the original bearers, or the immediate descendants of those who introduced to us the so called "western culture". Fuelled with the spills of this emotion were also some of the earlier responses of Slavic scholars who created a phantom image of a "proto-Slavic" nation. Not that this is far from the truth, since today we all more or less believe that Veneti are indeed the ancestors of all Slavs, but the early idea of "proto-Slavs" was built on a political premise and desire of uniting the diverse Slavic family" under a "Slavic mother nation". From this in different regions different Slavic states claimed to be that "mother nation", and more or less, during the communist era succeeded in creating more distinct Slavic blocks.

The old antagonisms inherited from this division persist to this day, particularly in academic circles, who by the way were at the sunset of the European communist era fighting a fierce battle with the then aspiring nationalist movements who rediscovered the "true Slavic history" which revealed the old "proto-Slavic theory" as a deception used to melt (destroy) all different Slavic nations. Former communist academics were suddenly faced with an enormous embarrassment since they used to build their historic and linguistic theories based on the "Communist Utopian fairytale", which happened to support outdated 19th century "West European" theories from which a "pseudo-scientific Indoeuropean theory" emerged. Naturally, when the "Berlin wall" fell, universal rejection of these twisted "pan-Slavic" aspirations resulted in tensions between the academics, who were fighting for their survival and also to maintain their comfortable positions in the social standings of the newly emerging independent European states.

But the revival of the interests in "true Slavic history" threatened also to bring on even bigger embarrassment to the "Western academics", hence, a strong lobby in support of old communist historians emerged on the West, which by flexing the EU financial muscle managed to keep the old corrupt academic apparatus of those the most "academically challenged new independent Slavic" states in Europe intact to this day. Hence there are equally fierce battles going on still today in the academic arena between the "historians and linguists traditionalists", and the so called "dissidents" or the "historians and linguists" who demand a new look at history as well as linguistics. This battle is largely unnoticed by the public, because the main combatants employed modern technology which is known to be agent friendly. Hence in the fight such agents are employed as nationalist, political and even religious zealots, that mainly strive to control the mass media. Due to the economic recovery in Russia, after the Yeltsin fiasco, nationalists in all "Slavic" states have the upper hand. They are promoting narrow-minded local and provincial ideas and do not even shy away from Nazi and Fascist methodologies trying to destroy their opponents and proponents of truth.

Throughout this article we can see, that the names "Veneti, Sloveneti", and indeed, "Slovani" when viewed through the Slavic semantics reveal the ancient history not only of the peoples that spoke the language but also the intrinsic relationships between the semantic trees of the constituent words within the vocabularies of the pertinent languages, from all of which emerge the historical and etymological facts not only about a particular point in time but of an entire era in which the language in question was evolving as a result of the historical evolution of the earliest embryonic states, later kingdoms and consequential evolution of nations and of the nationhood, long before ancient Greece and Rome emerged in history.

Though, the discussions about the origin of the name of the entire "Slavic family of nations" seem to be a hot potato more between our neighbours "Balkan Slavs", who for the longest resisted the idea of "indigenous Veneti", because it shattered their idea of South Slavs being one of the forementioned "Slavic mother nation", as the linguistics and etymology are no longer only in the domain of a few pundits, the very same ills South Slavs suffered from gradually infected most of the European historians and linguists. We saw testimony to that in the rather suspicious discovery of the Gothic word "*slawoz". Perhaps, highlighting the fact that even the West European academics took notice, and charge is a good thing to wake up some of our sleeping academics, to realize there may be fire, where there is smoke!


RETURN     Greek and Latin deformation of the word Sloveneti

We encounter the word "Venet" (singular) for the first time in human history, perhaps more than 800 BC, in Homer's Iliad, as Ένετόί (Enetoi), which is plural, likewise "Veneti" with the final (-i) is plural in Slavic languages. So why "Enetoi" and not "Slovenetoi"? As the term deformation in the paragraph title above suggests, this transformation of the original name refers to the fact that in both Greek as well as in Latin languages the name of indigenous Sloveneti was mispronounced due to the fact that neither Greeks nor Romans could properly pronounce the first syllable (slo-) of the forementioned name. In order to fully understand the above transformation we have to look at both variants as they occurred in time, first in ancient Greek and then in Latin:
  1. In Greek language there is no "V" sound.
  2. But also in Greek a word can not begin with the "slo" syllable
The above is the reason that Greeks wrote the word "Sloveneti" as "Enetos" in singular form, and as "Enetoi" in plural.

  1. In Latin on the other hand there exists the sound "V"
  2. However, just like in Greek a word can not begin with the "slo" syllable.
Since in Latin there exists the sound "v", Romans only dropped the "slo" group of letters but retained the "v", as it was used by the natives, that is by the "Sloveneti". Beside the initial consonant group "slo" in the name for the native Sloveneti, who at the times Rome was formed lived on the outskirts of the new city, Romans should have no trouble at all correctly pronouncing their neighbours name, since some of Sloveneti must also have been among the founders of the city of Rome, as ancient Roman historians tell us, for instance Livy's History of Rome [1,8-lvy-hR]:
...It had been the ancient policy of the founders of cities to get together a multitude of people of obscure and low origin and then to spread the fiction that they were the "children of the soil"...
Hence Latin version of the word became "Veneti", that is the word from which all other West European variants, such as {"Vends, Wenedi, Windish, ...} gradually emerged. After everything we've seen so far, it is safe to conclude that the word Veneti is actually Latinized name of the native "Sloveneti", or as we have discovered on the Etruscan text known as "Pyrgian tablets" "[S|C]luveni". At the beginning of our era, Pliny the Elder wrote the name Slovenci as "Solvense", where we can see how he inserted the letter "o" between the prohibited pair of consonants (sl) in Latin. Some odd 100 years BC, also Veneti in Italy adopted Latin language and with it they also accepted Latin version of their own name which to this day remains a hallmark of Northern Italy in the province of Venetia and the name of the famous city of Venice. From ancient Roman documents we know that before that, they called themselves "Slavon" or "Sloven" the testimony of which is found in commonly and often used toponomy "Sclavon", the name which ancient Greeks wrote as "Sklabeoni". Yet again we see a conflicting evidence and its interpretation as erroneously used by the Germanic researchers who wish to tie this ancient Greeks word with old Gothic in ["slawan < *slawoz"] (most likely invented variant). There exists yet one more piece of information about the name we are discussing here, that is worth mentioning. I found it in Paul the Deacon's History of Lombards.


Paul the Deacon's explanation of the Greek name for Veneti.

When Paul the Deacon talks about the Veneti lands, he also explains their Greek name. I find this interesting not only because of the name but because this text provides evidence, that already in the time of this Lombard historian it was known that the the province of Venetia and Noricum (present day Slovenia and lower Austria) was a coherent geographical entity most likely settled from the don of times by ethnically homogeneous Venetic population, and that even back then this population remained enigmatic to the most knowledgeable writers and historians. Let's see:

Paul the Deacon: [k-02c14]
Veneti=( Ένετόί (Enetoi) ... "praiseworthy")
Then Alboin took Vincentia (Vicenza) and Verona and the remaining cities of Venetia, except Patavium (Padua, Padova), Mons Silicis (Monselice) and Mantua. For Venetia is composed not only of the few islands which we now call Venice, but its boundary stretches from the borders of Pannonia to the river Addua (Adda). This is proved in the books of annals in which Pergamus (Bergamo) is said to be a city of Venetia and in histories we thus read of lake Benacus (Lago di Garda): "Benacus, a lake of Venetia from which the river Mincius (Mincio) flows. "The Eneti, indeed (though a letter is added among the Latins), are called in Greek the "praiseworthy". Histria is also joined to Venetia and both are considered one province. Histria is named from the river Hister which, according to Roman history, is said to have been broader than it is now. The city of Aquileia (Oglej) was the capital of this Venetia, in place of which is now Forum Julii (Cividale, Čedad), so called because Julius Caesar had established there a market for business.
In the above paragraph from the History of Lombards by P. Diaconus, in addition to what interests us here we can find a plethora of other also very interesting etymological information. Most interesting of all are the Latin names of the cities that have absolutely no meaning in Latin or any other Romance language, however we can find in then, i.e. in Latin originals, Slavic semantics. How could that be, if in accordance with the claims of the historians "traditionalists" Slavs arrived there almost simultaneously with the powerful Lombards? If Veneti on the other hand were of Italic origin, how comes they allowed Slavs, who only recently arrived, to change their city names so, history would record them in Slavic incarnation?


The contemporary name for Slavic family of nations "Slovani"

The name "Slovani" (Slavs) is also a derivative from the ancient name Sloveneti, or Veneti. In the process there have also been involved the intermediate, or as I like to call them, the drifting foreign words, as they were used throughout the middle ages in Greek and Latin texts. However, you should know that the original name "Sloveneti" existed more than a millennial before the Greek and Roman cultures even existed. If you have difficulties with what was just said, perhaps you should for a start consult the beginning of this article above following its title "The origin of the name Veneti". In the second phase, a considerable time after the foreigners with the use of their deformed versions of our original name such as for instance are { "Veneti, Vindi, Vendi, Wenedi, Windish, ...}, pushed the name Sloveneti into oblivion even among Veneti (Slavs) themselves, after many centuries the worst treatment of by then almost totally destroyed once formidable Venetic nation, out of desperation a new name "Sloveni" for Slavs gradually appeared, as we will see shortly, revitalizing the new semantics, timidly announcing a much brighter future for by now all but forgotten Karantanians in the middle of Europe. In this process, as hinted earlier, foreign i.e., Greek and Roman incarnations of the original name (Sloveneti) were used, whereby the Greek version was Sklabos, Sclabos (singular) and Sklaboi, Sclaboi, Sklabeoni (plural), and finally the Latin incarnation is Sclaborum, Sclavi, etc. These names persisted throughout the middle ages in the written form mostly in foreign non-Slavic texts.
That is not to say that there were no Slavic texts throughout the middle ages. Quite the contrary, there exists a large body of liturgy in so called "Old Church Slavic" (OCS) language, that shows a much higher early literacy which survived to this day, between the Slavs than any other European nation who then were all writing only in Latin. It is only after the Norsemen introduced or better said spread the writing, which originally used to be a cultural hallmark of Veneti, and with whom proto-Germanic Goths lived side by side after their arrival from the East to Scandinavia, among then evolving Germanic kingdoms in Europe. If you object to the above, perhaps I should direct you to the article: The Vends in Scandinavia (new window).
So we, Slavs, can among other things, one of which clearly is our naturally assimilation resisting ancient language, be thankful to the foreigners who colonized our lands and strove to wipe us out, but certainly prevented the true story about us to be recorded in the history, that through the long process of denationalization after all, helped us, to preserve our original ancient name, albeit in an almost unrecognizable deformed linguistic creature they created in the lieu of it, and dare I say, contemptuously used it to call as as they deemed fit for over a millennial. Out of this foreign deformity emerged, for at least partially oppressed and after their former glory yearning peoples, a semantically a more suitable name "Slovani" which actually meant "renown, glory, solemn, solemnity". These meanings actually also derive from the same root as our ancient name Sloveneti, which gives it not only a true legitimacy, but in addition miraculously reflects our glorious past as well as projects confidence and hope far into the future. For those who missed out on the explanations how could it be that our ancient name "Sloveneti" and the contemporary "Slovani" both derive from the same "root meanings", I suggest you peak into the article immediately preceding this one entitled "The origin of the name Veneti".

Unfortunately, appalling as it may seem to be, there are many Slavic linguists who in the past failed to see the relationship between our ancient name and the contemporary name for all Slavic nations. This situation persists even today, due to the dark forces lurking between the embarrassed academics who for far too long clung, and indeed would like to continue to clench to the old communist ideology supporting also, for the Western academics, much more acceptable Austrian and German views about the ancient history in the area of Central Europe, and indeed, particularly in the area of the Southeastern Alps.

This last statement may seem an oxymoron, however, the truth is that the communists appreciated German theories denying existence of ancient Veneti, Noricum and Karantania which run in the face of pan-Slavic theories of common Slavic arrival into Europe in the 6th century AD from some phantom Slavic ancient homeland behind the Carpathian mountains. Their attempts to destroy individual Slavic nations, which as such showed up in many neighbouring non-Slavic states as minorities, would cease to exist should a new artificial Slavic nation be formed.

Though one may argue there is no relationship between the contents of this topics so far, and what I am about to introduce, I am convinced there is a logical relationship between Russian word for a "peasant" and the ancient Noricum and Karantania. Namely, Russians call a "peasant", or a "small farmer" krestjanin, (крестьянин). This word obviously is related the word for cross = krest, (крест, распятие) and clubs = kresty, (кресты). Karantanians were one of the first among the old Slavs, formerly known as Veneti who accepted the Christianity, and by the time Christianity reached Russia, the church authorities there must have heard and indeed must have had physical contacts with their southern brothers in Karantania. In fact there is a famous record from the 11th/12th century AD written by old Russian monk and chronologist from Kiev called Nestor, confirming the above thinking. Namely, he speaks of Noricum and we can find the following statement in his texts: "The Noricians - these are Sloveni"! The significance of this statement is twofold, first the fact that he ties the the Karantanians, Noricum and the "Sloveni", and the second is the invisible fact that at the time in the area of today's Novgorod thrived the nation called Slovieni. One does not see this relationship immediately relevant, however, knowing that Novgorod's Slovieni are proved to have been related to Veneti from Noricum makes this argument somewhat relevant, especially if they too, namely the Slovieni represented an early bastion of Christianity in the early Russia. But let me go back to the Russian word krestjanin, (крестьянин) (peasant). I have mentioned that the semantics of this Russian word clearly shows the affinity to the word "cross". I do not think that this is the coincidence, though it may be next to impossible to prove otherwise. Namely, it was always a distinct folklore feature of Karantanians, and indeed, contemporary Slovenes to find a crucifix hanging in a corner of the living quarters of every and I mean every farmhouse or, for that matter, in any kind of a village house in the lands where Slovenians lived! Russians from the times of Nestor must have known about this habit Norician peasants had, and indeed, the peasants among the Slovieni in Novgorod may have exhibited the very same folklore and religious habits and features.

And finally, we should address the two different Slavic versions of the name, namely one spelt with the letter "A" and the other with "E", ("Slovani" and "Sloveni"). In fact I believe that talking about this difference is a waste of time, since the differences are the result of recent political divisions between Slavs whereby language became a tool or a weapon in the fighths between zealots on all sides. The fact is that there is no linguistic ground to deny the fact that either version is derived from the ancient Venetic word "slovo", and that all the names, namely {Sloveneti, Veneti, and Slovenci, Slovieni, Slovani} are derived from it too. Discussing this issue is only as a distraction, from academically and morally questionable conduct of some of the "reputable Western scientists", such as those mentioned the ridiculous ["slawan < *slawoz"] debate, who are still due to such immaturity as is this insignificant "A" / "E" squabble looked up instead of down, all of which is really masquerading the true problem of "pseudo scientific Indoeuropean theory.


How some foreigners allow themselves to interpret the name Slavs

There is yet another, though rather suspicious possibility, perhaps only because we all are avoiding to expose it, but even more importantly, neglect to clear it up. It has a rather negative connotation, because one can interpret the name for Slavs as being related to "slavery". This, many will argue, is just a coincidence, and quite appalling that one should even suggest such a possibility. But as I have already alluded to, the new meaning of "glory, renown, solemn, solemnity,..." in the name for Slavs, forged during the romantic national awakening in the 19th century, may have also suggested the emergence of new high spirits of those forgotten and oppressed Slavic tribes, which yearned not only after their well known former glory days of Karantania, or their centuries lasting and equaly famous resistance to the invading Turks, but also longed to be finally able to express their ancient pride which for millennial was suppressed deep down in their ancient Venetic roots.

But if we return to the language, we will see the mirror image of things just said. Namely, we are talking about the Latin word servus, which in English dictionary is related among other things to the word slave. The relationship is not obvious but the suggestion of some kind of the relationship can not be overlooked if one cares to look for it. True the main reason to dismiss this claim is by sticking to the language rules whereby one word is capitalized and has no silent "e" at the end of the word, and the other lacking all this linguistic paraphernalia. However, the relative physical resemblance and semantic proximity is obvious and striking, and no academic mumble-jumble will convince me otherwise. We are talking at least about an embryonic relationship between the two, though, admittedly it would be hard to prove my claim. Regardless of this there exist other unrelated hints suggesting there may be some truth in such a view. For instance look at the words servus, serbus and Srb. Coincidence? I do not think so! I have devoted an entire chapter to this darker side of the issue, entitled "History and Linguistics", and the paragraphs under subtitle Misunderstanding of Slavic inferiority complex (new window) are a good place to start reviewing it. But for those of you who remained unconvinced let me give you a more down to earth example of such pretended oblivion in my Canadian English dictionary, where the word slave is explained in the following manner:

slave:    a person who is the property of another, ...

          -v. work like a slave. [ME < OF Med.L-Sclavus Slav (captive)
          LGk. Sclabos, ult. < Slavic slovo. Cf. SLOVENE] -- slave like

In the final two lines from the above entry are where we find the history of the word, or its evolution from the native Slavic through Greek and finally Medieval Latin, Old French, and finally Medieval English. Here clearly there is more than just a suggestion of the above semantic relationships. Moreover, risking a chance to be accused of read-hearing, I would like to point out that the entry "Cf. SLOVENE" is totally meaningless as it is written, and only shows two things: either the authors have no clue of what they are talking about, or they are just cluttering the entry in order to obfuscate their hidden suggestion. However, for this situation I blame our own Slavic linguists, who either are not confident enough in their own linguistic competency, or fear addressing the problematic issue head on, and once and for all explain the matter to the oblivious westerners!

But this is only a part of the bad news, namely the decline of Veneti did not happen over night, and during that time many ethnic groups and newly emerging societies rose above them. I believe, there are valuable lessons to be learnt about them even in these times of decline, and in many cases may be a vital link back to a more glorious times, for which additional supporting facts may be helpful. I attempted to do just that in the chapter called "History and Linguistics", however I do believe, with the help of linguistics we could do much better than that.





Main Menu ; (Home)       Main Menu (Home)


©2005, 2007 Igor H. Pirnovar
Last Updated: