VENETI WERE AUTOCHTHONOUS IN CARINTHIA
† Stjepan Pantelić
Before we try to answer the question as to whether the Veneti were autochthonous in Carinthia or not, we first have to answer two other questions. One of them is whether the term Veneti refers to Slavs. The other question concerns where the first traces of the Veneti were found and where their original homeland was. Only after these two questions have been answered can we talk about the Veneti in Carinthia.
Should the Veneti be considered as Slavs? Several scholars did not and do not believe that the Veneti should be considered as Slavs. The author of Vita s. Columbani (530-615) testifies to the fact that the Veneti were Slavs: "... Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur"1, which means that the Veneti referred to themselves as Slavs. Jordanes (in the 6th century) confirmed that the Veneti were Antes and Slawens.2 In another chapter, he wrote that the Veneti originated from one tribe, but they had three names, the Veneti, Antes and Slawens.3 Fredegar (in the 6th century) said that Slavs were Winedi "... Sclavi cognomento Winedi ...".4 From these sources, it follows that the Veneti were Slavs, and opponents have difficulty in proving the contrary.
With regard to the second question concerning where the first traces of the Veneti were found and where their original homeland was, several scholars believed that the Veneti were first mentioned at the time of Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy and came from the region of the lower Vistula, and they traced the original homeland of the Slavs to that area.
This is a general fallacy, since Homer mentioned the most ancient Veneti, respectively Slavs, in the 12th century BC at the time of the Trojan War. Herodotos, Euripides, Sophocles, Polibios, Strabo, and other classical writers also mentioned them later. All of them talk about the Veneti in the basin of the river Danube. Therefore, when speaking about the original homeland of Slavs, the essential question is not whether they came from the east or west or north or south, but where they came from to help Troy. Troy is the starting point to find the answer to the question of the original homeland of Slavs.
J. Šavli admitted that it was Homer who mentioned the Veneti for the first time. He quoted Homer who mentioned the Enetoi (i.e. the Veneti, resp. Slavs) in Paphlagonia on the northern coast of Asia Minor, but he did not investigate where they came to Paphlagonia from. He asked himself whether it could be true that the Veneti came from Paphlagonia to help Troy and that Antenor, their leader, led them to the northern coast of the Adriatic after their defeat and he concluded that this question could not be thoroughly investigated at that particular time.5 It is precisely this question which is of crucial importance. Several scholars failed because they considered that, in addition to the basin of the river Vistula, the oldest traces of the Veneti are to be found in Paphlagonia. But this consideration is false. The statement that the Veneti came to Troy from Paphlagonia can be found in no written source. It was stated that the Paphlagons came to Troy from the land of Venets.
In the 13th part of the Iliad, Homer says that King Pilaimen lead the Paphlagons to the Trojan war from the land of Eneti.6 Homer also says that Pilaimen was accompanied to Troy by his son Harpal and that he never returned to the land of his ancestors,7 i.e. the land of Eneti resp. Slavs.
Where was this mysterious land of the ancestors of the Slavs? J. Šavli and M. Bor disappoint us, because, in spite of admitting that the oldest mention of the Veneti is in Troy, they try to put the original homeland of the Veneti in the region between the Baltic Sea and the rivers Vistula, Danube, and mid Dnieper.8 Šavli adds that no scholar of European prehistory is against this view in principle. We state precisely the opposite, i.e. that the original homeland of the Slavs was not in Eastern Europe. Any scholar who knows anything about classical writers must agree that the Veneti did not come to Troy from the region around the river Vistula and especially not from the region of the river Dnieper. The Eastern Slavs are the most recent Slavs and there is no continuous record linking them to the Veneti mentioned at Troy. In the dilemma as to whether the original homeland of Slavs was around the Vistula, the Dnieper or the Danube, we have to decide for the Danube.
The most ancient Veneti could only have come to Troy from the river basin of the Danube. Homer mentions the Panonians in the Trojan War, a synonym for the Veneti. He tells us about the Dardans on the river Morava, where the Veneti lived and finally about the Trakians, who, according to the Armenic Geography (around 450 AD), consisted of 25 tribes of Slavs.10
All this data clearly indicates that the Veneti could only have come to Troy from the river basin of the Danube and their original homeland is to be looked for there. The Crannog Culture, the Amber Culture and the Urn Culture, which are most apparent in Slovenia, support this view.
As for the Veneti and also for the Slovenes, the question can be asked about their most ancient traces. The majority of scholars still do not believe that the ancestors of the Slovenes were the Veneti. They do not accept that the Slovenes are autochthonous in the Slovenian territories. They think that the Slovenes originated in Eastern Europe, somewhere around the Dnieper. Until recently, nobody considered the Veneti in Carinthia to be the ancestors of the Slovenes. The Slovenian scientists J. Šavli and M. Bor deserve praise for taking the first step in the new direction. While scholars have hitherto believed that the settlers in the Eastern Alps in Carinthia before the arrival of the Slovenes were Romans and before them, Celts, Šavli and Bor consider that the Veneti, the ancestors of the Slovenes, were autochthonous in present-day Slovenian territories11, that they are the indigenous people.12 This would be a turning point for the Slovenian scientific view of the origins of the Slovenes if Šavli and Bor did not try to embed their hypothesis into the obsolete opinion that the original homeland of the Slovenes was the original homeland of all the Slavs in Eastern Europe around the river Dnieper in West Russia. Until the October Revolution in 1917, it was taught that the original homeland of Slavs was in the basin of the middle Danube. After 1917, and especially after 1945, it was officially asserted that the original homeland of the Slavs was West Russia. This fact was the reason for asking the question as to whether the Slovenes are autochthonous in present-day Slovenian territories in the true sense of autochthonism or whether they are immigrants from the Dnieper region in West Russia and they are the result of their later development in present-day Slovenian territories.
With regard to autochthonism, we can consider two different views on this concept. One of them is autochthonism in the true sense and the other one is autochthonism as a consequence of development in a certain territory. With regard to the autochthonism of the Slovenes, the Slovenian historian B. Grafenauer did not represent the autochthonism of the Slovenes in the true sense but autochthonism as a consequence of development in this territory. According to him, a nation was formed from different indigenous people and different immigrants, and it is autochthonous not because it was the first one there, but because it developed there.13
We stand for autochthonism in the true sense of the word, i.e. no other nation existed in a certain territory in the past than the one, which we consider indigenous or autochthonous. If J. Šavli and M. Bor accept autochthonism in the sense of B. Grafenauer, which is not autochthonism in its true sense, this type of autochthonism cannot be accepted, since this would mean that the ancestors of the Slovenes first lived in the regions of western Russia, later in the region of Lusatian culture in Central Europe, and then moved to the present-day Slovenian territories where they later became autochthonous. This type of autochthonism is not acceptable. On the other hand, no source whatsoever mentions the Veneti in the regions of Eastern Europe, so this false belief about the original homeland of Slavs is to be rejected.
While J. Šavli writes about the original homeland of the Slavs and therefore also of the Slovenes in Eastern Europe on the one hand, he stresses on the other hand that the Slovenian language belongs to the western Slavic group of the Veneti, ancestors of the Slavs,14 who had settled in the Eastern Alps by the time of the Urn Culture.15 This statement indicates that the Slovenes are not autochthonous in the Eastern Alps in the true sense of the word, but that they immigrated there from the west, and that their autochthonism derives from their immigration. We cannot agree with this view.
It is true that the Veneti, an ancient Slavic people according to Šavli and Bor, established the Urn Culture. However, we do not agree that they descended from western Slavs, the founders of the Lusatian Culture in southeastern Germany around 1200 BC, because the founders of this culture were the Veneti in the river basin of the Danube, where this culture is much older then in the west.
The Slovenes are autochthonous in present-day Slovenian territories in the true sense of the word. They did not immigrate from the east or west. Their original homeland is in their present-day territories. This is the essence of the new historical concept (paradigm).
We have proved the existence of the Veneti in Dalmacia, in Pannonia, around the river Morava in Serbia, in the territories of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Macedonia as well as in Montenegro; so allow me to present proof of the existence of the Veneti in the present-day Slovenian territories.
Our research has shown that the Veneti in the territories of present-day Slovenia were called the Vindelici, and it is the Vindelici who were the ancestors of the Slovenes. They were indigenous in these territories, they were the aborigines here, and they did not arise through the mixing of different aboriginal peoples and different immigrants. The Veneti were not only called the Veneti but were also known by several other names. K. Zeus considered that their denomination had several forms, e.g. the Veneti, Veneli, Venienii, Venicontes.16 Some other authors agree with this consideration, e.g. O. Marti when writing about the river Lech in present-day Bavaria, where the Veneti were known as the Vindelici in pre-Roman times, with their capital at Augusta Vindelicorum (now Augsburg).17 K. Sicha considered the Veneti and Vindelici to be Slavs.18
Several classical writers mention the Vindelici in the Alps. The Roman poet Horace (65 - 8 BC) mentions that the Vindelici were defeated by Nero Claudius Drusus, the brother of Tiberius, below the Raetian Alps. The Vindelici were armed with Amazonic axes, but Horace did not examine the origin of this use.19
Tacitus (55 - 116 AD) writes that the Romans were fighting the Raetians, Vindelici and Celts by the time of Germanicus.20 He mentions the winter quarters of the Romans in the town of Vindonissa.21 The XXI legion was stationed there.22 This is now the town of Windisch on the borders of present-day Germany and Switzerland.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (around 70 AD) wrote that Raetians, Vindelici and Salasi were alpine nations.23 He repeats this in another place where he writes: " ... Vindelico gentis Alpinas".24 He writes that Tiberius conquered Pannonia, Dalmatia including the whole of Illiricum, as well as the Rhaetians, Vindelici, and Salasi, the alpine nations.25 During the Rhaetian and Vindelician War (in 15 BC), he subjugated the alpine nations, whereas in the Pannonian War (12-9 BC) he subjugated the Breukes and Dalmates.26
Lucius Annaeus Florus (around 120 AD) describes the Roman war against the Vindelici and other alpine nations in detail: When their wives ran out of things to throw at the Roman soldiers, they threw their own children at them.27
Pseudo Aurelius Victor, who wrote the history of the Roman Emperors up to 360 AD, wrote that Tiberius annexed the provinces of the Cantabres, Aquitans, Rhaetians, Vindelici, and Dalmati for Rome.28
Strabo wrote that the Vindelici and Helveti lived up to the Pannonians.29 The territories between Lake Constance up to the land of the Pannonians were in the possession of the Rhaetians, Vindelici, Helveti, and Boii.30 The Rhaetians and Norici lived in the direction of Italy.31 The river Rhine flowed into a great lake where the Rhaetians and Vindelici, who belonged to the alpine people on the other side of the Alps, lived.32 Elsewhere in his writings, Strabo says that the southern and eastern parts of Alps were inhabitated by the Rhaetians and Vindelici. Among the Vindelici, he listed the tribes of the Likati, Calutenati, Vennoni, Estioni, and Brigantii. Their towns were Brigantium (Bregenz), Cambodunum (Kempten), Damasium and the fortress of Licatia.33 The lake is thus present-day Lake Constance, called "lacus Veneticus" by Pomponius Mela.34 According to Strabo, the Vennonetes, Venoni (Ouenonnes), and Venosti lived to the north of this lake in present-day Vintschgau.35 In the lake, there was an island used by Tiberius as a military base during the war against the Vindelici36
At the time of Emperor Valens (364-378 AD), Eutropius wrote the overview of Roman history Breviarum ab urbe condita where he states that Tiberius also subjugated the Vindelici and Salassi in the Alps, amongst other peoples: "Vindelicos et Salassos in Alpibus".37
The Roman poet Claudianus (375-404 AD) mentions the forests of the Vindelici and the fields of Noricum occupied by the Roman army leader Flavius Stilicho (365-408 AD).38
Dio Cassius said that Venii (Ouenones, Ouennioi) were alpine peoples.39
wrote about the Alpine trophy of Emperor Tiberius in which, besides other nations,
the Venosti, Vennoneti, and Vindelici are also mentioned.40 He also
mentioned Carnes in Alpes Carnicae, where the river Drava flows from Noricum
and the river Sava rises in the Carnian Alps.41 In another section,
he mentioned Histria and Carnia when describing Italy towards the Alps.42
Velleius Paterculus wrote that Tiberius subjugated the Rhaetians, Vindelici, Norici, Pannonians and Scodisci.43
All these classical writers indicate that the Vindelici are to be regarded as the ancestors of the present-day Slovenes and that the territories where the Vindelici lived were much wider than previously thought, i.e. from the Eastern Alps to Lake Constance and the rivers Lech and Inn on the northern borders of the Alps. Ptolomey set the western border of Noricum on the river Inn, to the north partly on the Danube, to the south with Upper Pannonia, and to the west with Histria, while the Karavanke mountains are in the middle.44 Ptolomey (100-160 AD) says that the river Lech separated the Vindelici and Rhaetians. The Northern Vindelici were known as the Runicati, Leuni, Consuanti, Benlauni, Breuni, and by the river Lech, the Licati. The towns in Vindelicia were Boiodurum (Passau), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Carrodunum, Abudiacum (Epfach), Cambodunum (Kempten), Medullum, and Inutrium.45
Writing about the towns in Noricum, which do not exist any more, Pliny mentions the town of Noreis at Taurisces: "Tauriscis Noreia"46 Noreia was a town in Noricum, in present-day Neumarkt in Carinthia. Pliny clearly wrote that the people once called the Taurisci were now Norici: "Taurisci appelati, nunc Norici."47 This means that the Celtic tribe of the Taurisci, who lived between the Vindelici in the region of Noricum, started speaking a Slavic language before the time of Pliny, which means that the ancestors of the Slovenes in Carinthia are older than the Celts. Polibius wrote about goldfields at Taurisci in Noricum.48
This short survey confirms that K. Sicha, O. Marti, K. Zeuss, and others were right when they saw in the Vindelici the Veneti, who inhabited the Eastern and Central Alps, and for this reason, we can speak about the autochthonism of the Slovenes in present-day Slovenian territories. The best proof of this are two archaeological cultures, the sub aquatic Crannog Culture and the Amber Culture.
Present-day research into the most ancient inhabitants of Europe derives from the knowledge that the most ancient people were the Liguri on the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean in present-day western France, as well as the Veneti in the Danube basin. These people were more ancient than the Indo-Europeans. Because of this, there is no reason to search for the ancestors of the Slovenes outside the present-day Slovenian territories and outside southeastern Europe.
The Crannog Culture, which is not mentioned by J. Šavli, provides the best proof of this. This culture stretches from the Eastern Alps to Lake Constance and dates from 5000 BC, and the Veneti or the Vindelici, as the ancestors of the Slovenes, did not settle here during the time of the Urn Culture around 1200 BC but were much more ancient in present-day Slovenian territories, because the Veneti were the founders of the Crannog Culture.
Crucial proof for the Crannog Culture in Slovenia is to be found on the river Ljubljanica in Smrečica, Blatna Brezovica, Za mežnarijo, Bistra, Zornica, Šivčev prekop, Kamnik pod Krimom, Zamadvonice, Roja, and Notranje Gorice as well as on the river Ižica in Parte, Maharski prekop, Veliko mostišče, Resnikov prekop, and Špica.49 The first research was carried out on the river Ižica near Ig and Parte by K. Deschmann of the National Museum in Ljubljana from 1875 to 1878. J. Korošec excavated at Blatna Brezovica and later at the Resnikov prekop in 1953.50 T. Bergant and Z. Harej excavated elsewhere in Ljubljansko barje, at Maharski prekop, Notranje Gorice, Parte, etc. It is very significant and confirmed by H. Parzinger and J. Dular that most finds date from several periods of the New Stone Age (Eneoliticum) and the early Bronze Age.51 The period of the New Stone Age (Eneoliticum) was between 5000 and 2500 BC and the Bronze Age between 2500 and 800 BC. P. Korošec and J. Korošec presented the items found in Ig in 1969 and divided them into two epochs, an older one that corresponds to the late Copper Age of the Vučedol culture, and a later one from the early Bronze Age, which was termed the Ljubljana Culture by S. Dimitrijevič.52 The founders of the Crannog Culture were the Veneti, since everywhere the Crannog Culture appears in prehistoric times, the Veneti appear in historic times. This pattern is seen best in Slovenia.
The second culture, which indicates the autochthonism of the Slovenes is the Amber Culture, which appeared during the Stone Age, especially during the New Stone Age after 5000 BC. Pliny says that the Germans transported the amber to Pannonia, where it was accepted by the Veneti, who lived in nearby Pannonia and on the Adriatic: "Adfertur a Germanis in Pannoniam maxime provinciam, et inde the Veneti primum, quos Enetos Graeci vocaverunt, famam rei fecere proximique Pannoniae et agentes circa mare Hadriaticum".53
The amber was handed over at the town of Carnuntum, present-day Petronel near Vienna, and transported on a ship, the Argo, along the river Danube, then along the river Sava to Ljubljana and the river Ljubljanica up to Vrhnika (Nauportus). From there, the ship was taken across land to the river Soča and then along the Soča to the Adriatic. This was the source of the story among the classical writers that the river Danube flows into the Adriatic and that the Istrian peninsula got its name from the river Ister (i.e. Danube), since the Argo appeared at the Adriatic near Istria from the Danube. The conclusion was fully logical, but false.
The Crannog Culture, the Amber Culture and the Urn Culture provide conclusive evidence that the Slovenes are autochthonous in their territories. One has to stress again that the Slovenes were not the product of some development in the Slovenian territories. They did not develop from an amorphous mass through the mixing of different indigenous parts and different immigrants. They did not immigrate from Eastern Europe or from Central Europe at the time of the Urn Culture. The Slovenes themselves are indigenous in their present-day territories.
Our research has shown that the Veneti appear in prehistoric times, they had already founded the Crannog Culture and the Amber Culture around 5000 BC along the whole right-hand bank of the river Danube, where the Vindelici, respectively the Veneti, the ancestors of the Slovenes, appear in historic times.
Additional research into the original homeland of the Slovenes is needed without doubt. The present contribution indicates the direction where the sources of the original homeland of the Slovenes are to be looked for. These sources are in the present-day Slovenian territories. This view must be corroborated by additional research into the Crannog Culture, the Amber Culture, and the Urn Culture, but we will surely come to the conclusion that the ancestors of the present-day Slovenes were the indigenous settlers and that they were autochthonous in present-day Slovenian territories.
The authors who speak about the immigration of the Slovenes to present-day Slovenian territories should not be neglected. But one should not forget that these immigrants were not some non-Slovenes but a small part of refugees from their original homeland of Slovenia who had fled from the Celts and Romans.
Due to all these facts, those who talk about the immigration of the Slovenes have to admit that the indigenous ancestors of the Slovenes had already lived in present-day Slovenian territories in prehistoric times and that the Slovenes are autochthonous there.
References and Notes
1. Fontes historiam saeculorum septimi et octavi illustrantes. Ioane vitae Columbani. Ed. B. Krusch et A. Hofmeister. Darmstadt 1982. Lib. I, 27
2. "ab ortu Vistulae fluminis per immensa spatia Venetharum natio populosa considet quorum nomina licet per uarias familia et loca mutentur principaliter tamen Sclaueni et Antes nominatur".Corpus testimoniorum vetustissimorum ad historiam slavicam pertinentium. Volumen primum (I-VI saecula). Mosqua 1991. V/34.; Jordanis Gotengeschichte. Ausgabe M. Tangel. Leipzig 1913.. V/34.
3. "Venethos... tria nunc nomina ediderunt, id est Venethi, Antes, Sclaveni". Jordanes, De origine actibusque Getarum, hg. Th. Mommsen in: Monumenta Germaniae histoirica, Auctores antiquissimi 5,1.IV/119.
4. Wattenbach, W., u. Levision W. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karolinger, 1, 1952. IV, 48.
5. „Inwieweit es stimmen könnte, daß die Veneter aus Paphalagonien Troja zu Hilfe kamen und, nach dessen Sturz, unter dem legendären Anführer Antenor in das Küstengebiet an der Nord-Adria gelangte, kann an dieser Stelle nicht eingehend erörtert werden.“ J. Šavli – M. Bor., str. 107.
6. Homer Ilias, 5, 576-578.
7. Homer Ilias, 13, 643-645.
8. „Alles deutet darauf hin, daß die Urheimat der Veneter im Raum zwischen dem baltischen Meer und der Weichsel, der Donau und des mittleren Dnjepr war, wo sie von Tacitus und Ptolomäus als großes Volk erwähnt werden.“ Šavli, J., - Bor, M. Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter. Wien 1988. S. 216.
9. „Dem widerspricht im Prinzip kein Gelehrter, der die européische Urgeschichte erforscht“. Isto Šavli J. – Bor M., S. 216.
10. Géographie de Moise de Corène d’après Ptolémée, texte arménien, traduit en français par le P. Arsène Soukry, Venise 1881.
11. „Für die slawische Herkunft der in den Ostalpen alteingesessenen Veneter und zugleich auch für die Bodenständgikeit der Slovenen....“ Šavli J., - Bor M., Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter, Wien 1988. S. 30.
12. Šavli, J., - Bor, M. isto, str. 149.
13. Grafenauer, B., Književni listi, Ljubljana, 3.X. 1985.
14. „Das Slowenische gehört seinem Ursprung nach den westslawischen Sprachen an, d.h. dem urslawischen Stamm der Veneter“. J. Šavli – M. Bor., str. 100.
15. „Die Slowenen gehören, wie schon erwähnt, dem urslawischen Stamm der Westslawen an, die sich in die Ostalpen in der Urnenfeldzeit niederließen.” Isto, J. Šavli – M. Bor., str. 102.
16. “mit Ableitung kommen vor Veneti, Venelli, Venienii, Venicontes“. Zeuss, K. Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme. Heidleberg 1925., S. 229.
17. „Nach dem Gesagten berechtigen sowohl sprachliche als auch geographische Gründe dazu, in den Vindelicen, die schon in vorrömischer Zeit um den Lech herum saßen (ihr Hauptort in römischer Zeit war Augusta Vindelicorum, heute Augsburg), ebenfalls ein Wendenvolk zu erblicken.“ Marti, O., Die Völker, str. 21.
18. Sicha K., Namen und Schwinden der Slawen, Leibach 1886,
19. „Videre Raetis bella sub Alpibus Drusum gerentem Vindelici, quibus mos unde deductus per omne tempus Amazonia securi dextras obarmet, quaerere distuli, nec scire fas est omnia“. Q. Horatius Flaccus, carmina 4,4, 17-22 . Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 188.
20. „Raetorum Vindelicorumque et Gallicae“. Tacitus, Annales 2,17,4.
21. Tacitus, Historien 4, 61,3. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B.III., S. 63.
22. Tacitus, Historien 4, 70,2. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B.III., S. 71.
23. „Raetiam et Vindelicos ac Salassos, gentes Inalipanas“, Sueton, Augustus 21,1
24. Sueton, Tiberius 9,2.
25. “Pannoniam, Delmatiam cum Illyrico omni, item Raetiam et Vindelicos ac Salassos, gentes Inalpinas“. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Augustus 21. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 189..
26. “Raetico atque Vindelico gentis Alpinas, Pannonico Breucos et Dalmatas subegit“ C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Tiberius 9,1-2. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. III., S. 191.
27. „quae fuerit Alpinarum gentium feritas, facile est vel per mulieres ostendere, quae deficientibus telis infantes suos adflictos humi in ora militum adversa miserunt“ Florus, 2,22,5.
28. „Iste Cantabros et Aquitanos, Raetos, Vindelicos, Dalmatas provinciarum numero populo Romano coniunxit“. Aurelius Victor 1,7,. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B IV., S. 156-157.
29. Strabo 7,1,5, Griechische und lateinische Quellen. B. 1. S. 237.
30. Strabo 5,1,5. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 237 .
31. Strabo 7,1,5. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 237.
32. Strabo 4,3,3. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 219.
33. Strabo 4,68-9. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 227-228.
34. Pomponius Mela, Chorographia III 24.
35. Zeuss, K. Die Deutschen..., str. 237.
36. Strabo, 7,1,5 Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B.I., S. 237.
37. Eutropius 7,9. Griechische und lateinische Quellen..., B. III. S. 468-469.
38. Vindelicos saltus et Norica rura tenebant“. Claudianus De bello Gildonico 365. Griechische und lateinische..., B. 4. S. 182-183.
39. Dio Cassius, Römische Geschichte, B. IV. Ausgabe O. Veh. Zürich-München 1986. Buch 54,20 (1).
40. Plinius, Nat. hist. 3,137.
41. „Draus e Noricis violentior, Saus ex Alpibus Carnicis“. Plinius 3, 147.
42. Plinius. Naturalis Historiae. Lib. VI. Demensuratio - Divisio 15.
43. „Raetiam autem et Vindelicos ac Noricos Pannoniamque et Scordiscos novas imperio nostro subiunxit provincias“. Velleius Paterculus 2,39,3. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B. I., S. 227-228.
44. Ptolomaios Klaudios, Geographie, 2,13. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B.III., S. 231.
45. Ptolomaios Klaudios, Geographie, 2,12. Griechische und lateinische Quellen...B.III., S. 229-231.
46. Plinius, Naturalis histariae. III,131.
47. Plinius, III,133.
48. Polibios, II, str. 1274.
49. Deschmann, K., Die Pfahlbauten aus dem Laibacher Moore. Verhandl. k. k. Geolog. Reichsanstalt 15,1875, 275 ff. Parzinger, H. u. Gular, J., Die Pfahlbauten des Laibacher Moors (Ljubljansko barje), in: Pfahlbauten rund um die Alpen, Hrsg. H. Schlichterle, Stuttgart 1997, S. 71.- 75.
50. Korošec, P.,/Korošec, J., Fundgut der Pfahlbausiedlungen bei Ig am Laibacher Moor. Arh. Kast. Slovenija 3 (Ljubljana 1969).
51. „Die bislang endeckten Materialien stammen überwiegend aus verschiedenen Abschnitten der Jungsteinzeit (Äneolithikum) und der frühen Bronzezeit.“ Isto Parzinger, H. u. Gular, J., Die Pfahlbauten des Laibacher Moors, str. 72.; Parzinger, H., Die Stellung der Uferansiedlungen bei Ljubljana im äneolitischen und frühbronzezeitlichen Klutursystem der mittleren Donauländer. Arh. Vestnik 35, 1984, 13 ff..
52. „Deschmann selbst verfaßte nur kurze Berichte über diese Arbeiten. Eine monographische Darstellung des Fundstoffs legten Paola und Josip Korošec dann im Jahre 1969 vor. Sie definierten zwei Zeitstufen Ig I und II, von denen die ältere der spätkupferzeitlichen Vučedol-Kultur entsprechen sollte, während sie die jüngere an den Beginn der Frühbronzezeit datierten (sog. Ljubljana-Kultur nach Stojan Dimitrijevič).“ Parzinger, H. u. Dular, J., Die Pfahlbauten des Leibacher Moors (Ljubljansko barje), in: Pfahlbauten rund um die Alpen. Ausgabe H. Schlichterle. Stuttgart 1997. S. 71.
53. Plinius, Naturalis historiae 37,43.
Noch im 19. Jh. galt für die europäischen Wissenschaftler die Urheimat der Slawen der breite Zusammenfluß des Donaugebietes. Mit dem Einbruch des 20. Jh. durch die Oktoberrevolution 1917 und besonders nach 1945 entstand eine neue Lehre, die Urheimat der Slawen sei in Westrussland zu suchen. Diese Lehre galt und gilt noch heute für die ganze slawische Welt als Dogma.
Stjepan Pantelić steht als freier Wissenschaftler öffentlich gegen diesen Irrtum auf und lehrt, dass die Urheimat der Slawen im breiten Zusammenfluß der Donau war. Für ihn stellt sich nicht die Frage ob die Slawen nach Süden aus Osten, Westen oder Norden gekommen sind. Massgebend ist die Frage woher die Slawen nach Troia im 12. Jh. v. Chr. gekommen sind. Diese Slawen sind nicht nach Troja von der Weichsel oder Dnieper gekommen, sondern von der Donau. Die wesentliche Stütze dafür findet er in den historischen Beweisen bei Homer, Herodotus, Euripides, Sofokles, Polibius, Strabo und anderen antike Schriftstellern. Weitere Stütze dafür sind archäologische Kulturen: Pfahlbaukultur, Bernsteinkultur und Urnenfelderkultur, deren Träger die Veneter oder Slawen waren.
Diese Kulturen werden insbesondere im Ostalpengebiet in der alten römischen Provinz Karantanien sichtbar. Deswegen kommt der Autor zum Schluss dass die heutige Slowenen nicht aus der Weichsel oder Dnieper in das Gebiet des heutigen Sloweniens gekommen sind, sondern auf dem heutigen slowenischen Boden autochthon sind. Die Pfahlbaukultur, Bernsteinkultur und Urnenfelderkultur, deren Träger die Veneter als Vorfahren der Slowenen waren, werden wie in einem Bilderbuch auf dem slowenischen Boden sichtbar. Deswegen kann nur die Lehre richtig sein, daß die Slowenen auf dem heutigen slowenischen Boden autochthon sind.
Še v 19. stol. so evropski znanstveniki menili, da je bila pradomovina Slovanov v porečju Donave. V začetku 20. stol., po oktobrski revoluciji leta 1917 in zlasti po letu 1945, je nastal nov nauk, da je treba iskati pradomovino Slovanov v zahodni Rusiji. Ta nauk velja še dandanes v celotnem slovanskem svetu kot dogma.
Tej zmoti nasprotuje svobodni znanstvenik Stjepan Pantelić, ki uči, da je bila pradomovina Slovanov v porečju Donave. Zanj ni ključno vprašanje, ali so prišli Slovani na jug z vzhoda, zahoda ali severa. Odločilen je odgovor na vprašanje, odkod so prišli Slovani pred Trojo v 12. stol. pr. Kr. Ti Slovani niso prišli pred Trojo s porečja Visle ali Dnjepra, temveč s Podonavja. Oporo za to trditev najde v zgodovinskih pričevanjih pri Homerju, Herodotu, Evripidu, Sofoklu, Polibiju, Strabonu in drugih antičnih piscih. Dodatna opora temu so arheološke kulture: koliščarska, jantarska in kultura žarnih grobišč, katerih nosilci so bili Veneti oz. Slovani.
Te kulture nastopajo zlasti v vzhodnih Alpah na ozemlju nekdanje rimske province Karantanije. Zato avtor sklepa, da sedanji Slovenci niso prišli na področje sedanje Slovenije s porečja Visle ali Dnjepra, temveč so na sedanjih slovenskih tleh avtohtoni. Koliščarska kultura, jantarna kultura in kultura žarnih grobišč, katerih nosilci so bili Veneti, predniki Slovencev, so vidne na slovenskih tleh kot v slikanici. Zato je lahko pravilen samo nauk, da so Slovenci na sedanjih slovenskih ozemljih avtohtoni.