Talk:Adriatic Veneti

Anon's text added to article

I moved it here, so that someone could make sense from this (although now I think it would be hardly possible).

Dear reader, we must first distinguish VENETS from VENETIANS. The Venets are ancient central European pre Slovans and the Venetians were citizens of republic of VENICE (Italy). It is a significant difference in between. The word VENETI derives from a noun “SLOVENCI” The Greek translation was “ENETOI” because in Greek it’s not common at all to have the letter group “SLOV” as much as letter group “CI” The letter group “TOI” is pronounced “TI” which is similar to “CI”. Rather the same is with Latin. So the Latin version of “SLOVENCI” was “VENETI”. The Venetian findings are all over the central Europe. The most remaining are names of rivers, mountains, volleys… The Slovenian grammar has duality. The most known language with duality is “SANSCRIT” It is more than sure that this two languages are related. Sanscrit is more than 5.000 years old. The earliest finding of written “VENETIAN” – “SLOVENSKI” language are from 100 BC. Now days only words written in bronze, wood or stone were preserved. The most famous found slogan is: “OSTI JAR” which mean “stay jung“ and the grammatical tables with the word cry “JEKATI”. It is really more than exciting all this.< by user:195.210.245.211>

I also added "see also" for Venedes article, which seems to address the same issue. mikka (t) 19:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.veneti.info/en HAVE A LOOK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.165.43 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The anon text is, I think, referring to the theory that the Veneti were a Slavic people related to the Slovenes (now mainly in Slovenia). The dual grammatical number alledgedly used by the Veneti is indeed also fully employed in Slovenian grammar. The theory is more fully described in the website for the Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria, Australia, but I cannot otherwise vouch for its academic respectability. A readable description of the theory would probably not be completely out of place in this section. However, I can imagine it might come with some nationalistic political baggage. The "see also" link for Venedes mentioned by mikka above would seem to be appropriate, however I note that it has already been removed. ralphb 129.129.152.74 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-added the Venedes link in "see also" as it still seems relevant. ralphb 129.129.152.74 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Euganeo 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) NOTE: Please read my post as carefully as possible as I have made every attempt to reference all my material and to provide any relevant links within Wikipedia. I am an anonymous academic (due to the main reason that in the past I have been vilified by nationalists and fascists for my criticism of their elitist and racist attitudes).

The theory put forth by user:195.210.245.211 is a complete mess. It is good to see that moderators are cleaning up these politically charged pseudohistorical entries on Wiki. As for the so-called "Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria" it is really just another site that links to a pro-Slovenian nationalistic group involved in the publication of a number of books purporting the strange (and heavily flawed) theory of the Veneti being ancient Slavs of some sort. It is disregarded by the academic community. Anyone wanting a genuine assessment of current theories on the Venetic language and people can read an article by Rex Wallace from the University of Massachusetts Amherst which was published in the 2004 book: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, pp. 840–856. It is the official (and most recent) publication accepted by established academia on ancient languages and was produced by the University of Cambridge.

The word Veneti comes from the Ancient Greek word Enetoi which is present in a number of texts by ancient authors including Homer and Strabo. Indeed the Modern Greek language pronounced ]OI (or omega and iota) as an I but not in all cases with Ancient Greek, however that is another matter. The Enetoi were a tribe of Paphlagonians who, according to legend (and the ancient texts), left after the Trojan War to settle in North-eastern Italy in the modern Veneto region. Xenophon in his text Anabasis (Xenophon) (known as Anabasis III in the Loeb Classical Library edition) also makes reference to the Paphlagonians from Asia Minor.

As for the dual grammatical number allegedly used by the Veneti, it was also used by the Ancient Greeks from whom the Veneti absorbed a reasonable amount of culture and lexiconographic influence. The fact that Slovenian also utilises the dual grammatical number is about as relevant in this context as the fact that Arabic, Hebrew, Old English and Old Russian do also, see: dual grammatical number for further details.

For further refereces, the head of Pre-Roman Archaeological Studies at the University of Padua in Italy, Dr. Loredana Calzavara-Capuis has published over 72 articles and books on the ancient Veneti being the Italic peoples we know them to have been.

See: http://www.istitutoveneto.it/iv/presentazione/soci/biografia_socio.php?id=252

Others include: Prosdocimi, Chieco-Bianchi, Pellegrini and Lejeune (googling any of these names will provide proper references that you can research for yourself in libraries to judge the authenticity of what I am typing here).

It is of utmost importance that a resource such as the Wikipedia maintains reasonable standards in what sort of content is published. The internet has unfortunately become a haven for pseudohistorians who attempt to subvert public opinion. It is good to see moderators ensuring this.

Euganeo 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that you, Noam?

Euganeo 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Noam? Sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone else. You didn't sign your message though. I've registered now as Euganeo but I had previously been editing from an unregistered IP address which was on a large network at a company. Euganeo 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Euganeo 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you TShilo12, I completely forgot that the re-directs would not necessarily go from say, Hebrew, to the "Hebrew language" which is what I intended. Thanks for the fix-up on that, I appreciate it. Euganeo 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a stub

Hi folks. A lot of activity on this talk page. But don't forget that the Adriatic Veneti article is a stub and needs to be expanded. Alexander 007 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Safeguarding a useful list of historical references (not all are to these Veneti; some are to other Veneti) from User_talk:Wetman#History_Wiki-troubleshooting. --Nantonos 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies but that list has been deleted because it was the point of a political debate in which a number of right-wing debators attempted to expound pseudohistorical theories upon this particular topic, the Veneti. You will notice in the history of the discussions on Veneti that there is much abiguity and many of the poorly constructed arguments come from those attempting to identify the Ancient Veneti with Slavs. You will also notice that the list posted here, towards the end, became increasingly Slavicentric, to the point that the final points were written in Cyrillic! Many of the references and poor English spelling are due to the fact that it was largely lifted from pro-nationalist Slovenian websites in no way affiliated with academia. This same list was posted on the Veneti page in the form of vandalism, but was immediately deleted. Please be careful of the sorts of unaccredited and pseudohistorical writings that pop up on this topic. We do not want another disaster as we have had in the past with strange, politically motivated people posting bizarre theories with clearly immoral appropriation of the ethnic archaic identities of other cultures. As noted earlier, the Wikipedia is for the discussion and transmission of information of academic integrity that is accepted by the mainstream and concurred upon by the academia. Euganeo 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't help it, got to nitpick here. As far as I know, the whole Veneti ancestry debate is restricted to Slovene nationalist discourse. So it seems odd that you would mention Cyrillic script here, since Slovenes don't use it, nor did they ever. Most Slovenes nowadays can't even read Cyrillic (having only been exposed to its Serbian variant during the time of Yugoslavia - a time during which any Slovene that wasn't a politician, journalist or bussinesman could do full well without it), let alone formulate their opinions in it. What's more, Slovene nationalists positively resent it. So it would seem that if Cyrillic was used in the article or on the talk page, that it was probably meaningless, non-related vandalism.

Having said that, as a Slovene and a linguist, I feel insulted by the petty and pretentios crap these nationalists spew. A place in France is pronounced the same as it would be if it were Slovene? Well, golly, that's gotta mean them French are really just undercover Slovenes! Heck, I bet if we searched hard enough we could find similar examples for, say, Chinese or Cherokee, proving once and for all that all of the human race is in fact of Slovene descent. Yep, yep.

Nevertheless, I think the article could probably do with a short but well limited mention of the Venetian theory. The whole ordeal is certainly note-worthy enoguh, IMO. Maybe a line in the Notes section? 213.172.234.159 02:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, yes indeed I do agree with you on the pretentiousness of nationalism. In-fact, I have a number of Slovenian colleagues who detest the uneducated ultranationalism of some Slovenians (and other Slavic groups).

As for the Cyrillic, I am aware that Slovenians do no utilise this script, however if you read my comments you will notice that I was merely pointing out the Slavicentricism of the vandalism which was posted on this original page. This did in-fact include a number of paragraphs written entirely in a Cyrillic script (regardless of whether the authors where Slovenian or not). I am also aware (and have discussed with Slovenian academics who do not agree with pseudo-historical or ultranationalist versions of Slovenian history) that many of the proponents of Slavicentric propaganda on the Wikipedia are from other Slavic minority groups (which would account for the fact that large portions of the original vandalism being written in a Cyrillic text, most probably Serbian or Macedonian.

In this case it is most probably Macedonian fascist literature, as they have also attempted to cross-pollinate pseudo-historical conjecture with Macedonian nationalism (in essence mixing Slovenian and Macedonian nationalism under the banner of pan-Slavonic propaganda-infused reworkings of history). They have attempted to assert that Alexander the Great spoke ancient Venetic and that somehow the histories of the Veneti and the (Hellenic) Macedonians are all intertwined with proto-Slavic pseudo-history to convey right-wing ideological Slavonic bias with regards to the history of the Veneti and the people of the ancient region of Macedonia.

It upsetting to know that some Slovenians pander to this kind of biased politicisation of history - but it is always good to see someone such as yourself, who has enough education and understanding to see through the propaganda and question his fellows.

As for Venetian history, this has been relegated to another section of the Wikipedia, as this particular page deals only with the specific history of the Ancient Veneti, which is categorised with the pre-Roman and Italic branches of Classical Archaeology. Venetian history on the otherhand is part of Medieval History. Same location and people, only a different time frame.

Kind Regards Euganeo 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is simply contrary to reason to claim that the Latin pair of ethnonyms Veneti/Carni referred in ancient times to a completely different ethnos as the German pair of names Windisch/Kärnten from early medieval times onward. Clearly the two pairs of names Veneti/Windisch and Carni/Kärnten are of the same etymology and therefore it is inconceivable, how it could be the case, that in German language these two names both signify Slovenes on the one hand, but on the other hand in Latin language one name (Veneti) supposedly referred to a unique Indoeuropean ethnos (closest, surely, to Italians, since, as we all know, Italians live not only along the Adriatic, but also along the Baltic), while the other (Carni) to an ancient Celtic tribe, as is claimed by mainstream science, despite the fact that both in German as well as Latin the territory in question is just about the same geographical triangle of Eastern Alps-Western Pannonia-Northern Adriatic. If it was indeed the case that Slovenes took the names Karantanija (Carinthia, Kärnten), and Krajnska (Carniola) from the Celtic Carni, how is it then, that Ukraine carries the same name as Krajnska/Carniola? Did Ukrainians receive their name from the same Celtic Carni also, although they live some one thousand miles away from the Alps? It is not science, but science-fiction to claim that the ancient Carni were Celts. They were Slavs, and their name comes from the Slavic word ‘krajina’, which was corrupted in Latin and turned into Carnia through metathesis (Krain(a) > Kranj(a) > Karni(a)). To claim that ancient Carni and Veneti were not Slavic is just about the same, as if one was to claim that in Latin language the name Germania meant something completely different as the name Germany in modern English (perhaps as a result of “the scientific fact” that the Deutsch people arrived no sooner than the sixth century AD from their ‘Carpathian motherland’ in Dacia – i.e. ‘Dačia’, the land of the Dutch, the Deutsch; I am very much interested, how one could prove that the exonym German signified the same as the autonym Deutsch already in the antique; it is simply assumed so by science, when ancient Germans are concerned, but not, when Slavs/Veneti are concerned; so clearly double standards). The two names Veneti and Carni refer to the same ethnos, but one is the general, while the other is the special (particular) name within the Latin language just like within German. Veneti means the same as ‘Sloveni’ (Slavs), while Carni means the same as ‘Kranjci’ (Carniolans) and ‘Karanti’/’Korotanci’ (Karantanians/Carinthians).

All articles speaking of Veneti are far from being of neutral point of view. This is perhaps best shown by the choice of words in the disambiguation page, where it is said: “The Adriatic Veneti, Enetoi in Greek, a bygone people of north-eastern Italy who spoke an Italic language”. Italic? Even Prosdocimi does not claim they were speaking Italic. According to him they were speaking an independent Indoeuropean language. Rubicon was where Italic territory ended, for this reason it became famous. Or take a look at the sources for this article: Chieco Bianchi, Pellegrini, Prosdocimi, Lejeune, Wallace. Five authors, of which three are Italians, zero are Slavic. As if Matej Bor (Vladimir Pavšič) never existed. He did exist. He interpreted inscriptions of Veneti through Slovene and other Slavic languages. His reading (from upside down) of the Alphabetical tablets from Ateste is far more convincing than the reading of these same tablets from downside up. Do Italians read from downside up? Reading these tablets from upside down gives one and the same word with different grammatical endings, most of which can be found in modern Slovenian: o-(j)ekaje, o-(j)ekah, jekab, jekat, jekais, jekar, jekaš, jekap, jekal, jekam, jekan, jekak, jekaj, jekad, jekav. The word ‘jek’ exists in such Slovene verbs as ‘ječati’, ‘odjekniti’ or in nouns ‘jek’, ‘ječa’, etc., while in English in the noun ‘echo’. The above mentioned scientists instead read these tablets from downside up, which they say is due to the absence of (what they claim to be) a diphthong ‘OE’ from other inscriptions of Veneti; and thus such reading gives the “magical” word AKE(O), but not prior to ignoring the letters from the bottommost line of the tablets. That this “magical” word AKEO likewise is not found in other inscriptions of Veneti doesn’t appear to be a problem. Without ignoring the bottom line, however, reading from downside up in reality gives, not AKEO, but: eake(o), hake(o), bakeo, takeo, siakeo, rakeo, šakeo, pakeo, lakeo, makeo, nakeo, kakeo, jakeo, dakeo, vakeo. It would appear Veneti were speaking Polynesian, which is probably the reason, why the bottommost line is ignored by Italian linguists. Clearly, reading from upside down is more credible, since all Europeans read from upside down, but this destroys the whole grammatical reconstruction as envisioned by authors taken as sources in this wikipedia article.

No article dealing with Veneti that fails to mention the completely legitimate indications of their Slavic ethnic character, no matter how much in opposition to the established paradigm of Slavist linguistics, these indications are, can EVER be considered neutral. Paradigms rise and paradigms also fall. Clearly all Slovenian nationalists abuse the Veneti issue for their particular goals, as nationalists always do, but in essence it is not about nationalism at all (Matej Bor was no nationalist, if anything, a leftist and a member of Slovenian Academy of Science and Arts), but rather it is about the emancipation from a stupefying historical lie, according to which all ethnic Slavs, with the symptomatic exception of Russians, are considered descendants of the people, responsible for the largest genocide of European history. A genocide not at all mentioned in primary historic sources, and opposed to by several ancient toponyms and ethnonyms of Slavic origin. Because it never happened! There was no Slavic ‘motherland’ in Russia. There was no mass migration of Slavs in the sixth century, only the settlement of some Northern Slavic tribes in the areas already populated centuries earlier by Southern Slavs. Genocide did indeed happen in the 18th century, a crime of revolutionary France against the people of Vendee, in all likelihood the descendants of Atlantic Veneti. 58.75.254.130 10:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European R1a Y chromosome haplogroup was a carrier of Slavic languages from the northern Asia to Europe. Original Slavs were N haplotype in Asia. R1a was gradually invading EE and SEE starting through Neolitic. Slavic migrations from 5th to 7th century were rather small. Stokavians came in the teritory already possesed by Slavic speaking populations of older (still existing) dialects: Kaikavians, Chakavians and Ikavians whose culture, according to the archeologists, was equivalent or nicely mixed up with culture of pre-Indo-Europeans in the area. It's really possible that a variance of pre-Slavic language was spoken in the northern Adriatic. Usage of the term "Slavs" was mostly connected to "Sclavens" of Greek writers, who were invading "Illyricum" led by Avars in 6th and 7th century. There is no proof that these Sclavens were an ethnic group. They were rather a few several different ethnic groups but probably using the same (dominant as always) language for communication. Also recently many scientists claim that old-Glagolitic alphabetics are older than Latin. 78.3.3.191 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)I suggest that a link to the Ancient Scythian Culture would be worth while to explore.So many artifacts of that culture have been documented, of special interest would be the gold jewelry work,types of burial tombs constructed,if evidence exists of buckles and bridles manufactured for the nomadic horse culture.If all roads led to Rome.Veneto was the door way where east and west intermingled. Joseph

Map source and explanation

The description of File:Italie -800.JPG claims that the map is inspired on User:Dbachmann's File:Iron Age Italy.png. However the two maps are different, and neither cites the source of the information. This should be fixed... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin and Greek terms

Someone deleted the Latin and Greek terms claiming that "they do not refer to the Adriatic veneti". However my recollection was that the classical sources cited in the article do refer to the Adriatic Veneti by those names (although some of those sources already warn about possible confusion with the Gallic Venety, due to coincidence of names). I have restored the names, pending justification for the deletion. If those ineed are the wrong L./Gr. names, then we should put the right ones instead. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

Congrats, now the Slovenian and Croatian completely biased, ridicolous, FASCIST, NATIONALIST AND JINGOIST EDITS appear EVEN on ANCIENT history. Congratulation, English Wikipedia. --95.251.8.69 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adriatic Veneti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20050806081832/http://www.istitutoveneto.it/iv/presentazione/soci/biografia_socio.php?id=252 to http://www.istitutoveneto.it/iv/presentazione/soci/biografia_socio.php?id=252
• Added archive https://archive.is/20050806081832/http://www.istitutoveneto.it/iv/presentazione/soci/biografia_socio.php?id=252 to http://www.istitutoveneto.it/iv/presentazione/soci/biografia_socio.php?id=252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical sources: removed sentence and references

The section discusses how scholars have moved from an assumption of Illyrian origins to other views.

In an edit from 18 September 2016, 79.106.109.168 (talk · contribs) added the following, which was later edited by users filling out the references and is offered here in its final version:

"Scholars mostly believe that Veneti were probably Illyrian, but there are some other hypothesis about their origin:"

I removed the sentence. The claim contradicts the otherwise apparently well-referenced surrounding text by restating the view that the Veneti were illyrians etc. with no attempt to incorporate it properly into the discussion. I don't know what is correct but the previous text seems more nuanced and better written, and the addition looks like a dogmatic reiteration of an 19th century view. The references are unimpressive: Gary is a non-specialist book seeminlgly repeating a traditional view in passing with no attempt at discussion (I can't see the footnote). Jacques merely references Mommsen from 1874 without any attempt to take any newer research into account. He was apparently a Protestant missionary in Albania in the 1930s who published this book in his old age, and nothing else that I can find, not a specialist in classical studies. Waldman & Mason: a wide-ranging work that just mentions the Veneti briefly in a few places. The final, misshaped link is to a book from 1841 by James Cowles Prichard, which obviously has little to say about current research. --Hegvald (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving here an article on the Venetic people and their possible etymology: Bader Françoise. Le nom des Vénètes et leur expansion. In: Autour de Michel Lejeune. Actes des journées d'études organisées à l'Université Lumière Lyon 2 – Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2-3 février 2006. Lyon : Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 2009. pp. 31-77. (Collection de la Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen ancien. Série philologique, 43) [www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0184-1785_2009_act_43_1_2653]