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
Pliny
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.

Zusammenfassung
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.

Povzetek
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.
|