Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history

There's been much discussion on the Venetian theory of Slovenian origin on this page. Somebody who wasn't directly involved should make a digest of it. I will not go into this discussion anymore because it won't make any difference - people don't agree on it in real life, so how could we here?

Therefore, I will just present my key arguments for choosing the Slavic theory as basis for this article and moving the Venetian theory to the "some people claim" section. I will also ask the oposing camp to do the same lest the lengthy discussion goes forever. Zocky 19:06 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Key arguments for the Slavic theory of Slovenian origin:

It's mainstream - most historians support it and it's what's taught in schools.
There is no conclusive proof for the Venetian theory - use common sense and stick with the current theory.
Slovenes are a language nation - the definition of a Slovene is "Somebody whose first language is Slovene". The identity of actual genetic forefathers of present day Slovenes is therefore completely beside the point. The language is definitely Slavic and has come from behind Carpathians.

Key arguments for the Venetian theory of Slovenian origin: I've put part of the article under the NPOV dispute until further notice (--XJamRastafire 09:47 28 May 2003 (UTC))

"It's mainstream - most historians support it and it's what's taught in schools." -- In? To še ne pomeni, da teorija resnično drži. Tudi komunizem je bil v učbenikih nekoč opevan, zadnje čase pa izkopavamo tisoče trupel - zgodovina oz. pogled nanjo se pač spreminja in z njo knjige.
"There is no conclusive proof for the Venetian theory - use common sense and stick with the current theory." -- Dokazov za zakrpatsko teorijo ni. In kmečka pamet zato izbere Venetsko teorijo.
"The language is definitely Slavic and has come from behind Carpathians." -- Mnoga geografska imena na širšem območju vzhodnih Alp (tudi tam, kjer Slovenci ne živimo (več)) so slovenskega izvora, za popoln seznam glej knjigo Veneti naši davni predniki. Ponavadi novoprišleki prevzamejo že obstoječa krajevna imena in jih le zapišejo po svoje (npr. Gradec v nemški Graz itd.) - to se na poselitvenem območju Slovencev večinoma ni zgodilo. Zocky, praviš, da "jezik je definitivno slovanski in je prišel izza Karpatov". Seveda je jezik slovanski, temu nihče ne oporeka. Prosim postrezi pa mi z dokazi, da je jezik res prišel izza Karpatov. Takšnih dokazov ni. So pa dokazi, da se je na območju vzhodnih Alp že pred več kot 2.000 leti govoril in pisal jezik, katerega preostanek je slovenščina, skupaj s svojo arhaično dvojino. Venetskih napisov, torej materialnih dokazov v obliki arheoloških izkopanin, je mnogo: od atestinskih tablic, do napisov na orodju in nenazadnje na situli iz Škocjana na Krasu (OSTI JAREJ). Napise se da razumeti le z uporabo slovenščine in sorodnih slovanskih jezikov. A "mainstream" zgodovinarji trdijo, da takrat na tem območju ni bilo Slovanov. Seveda so bili - imenovali so jih (Slo)Veneti oz. po grško Enetoi.
Karantanija, neizpodbitno slovenska država (oz. država naših prednikov) iz 6. stoletja se ujema z mejami Notranjega Norika in ga je nasledila. Kako bi novoprišleki lahko zavzeli natančno isto območje kot je bil Notranji Norik pod Rimljani? Bilo bi res čudno naključje. V resnici gre za kontinuiteto življa.

Zocky: še vedno čakam, da mi predstaviš dokazov, verjamem, da jih imaš mnogo, ko tako vehementno trdiš, da so naši predniki prišli izza Karpatov in to teorijo podpreš, venetsko pa sesuješ v prah. Slednje še nikomur ni uspelo, a naj ti to ne vzame volje.

Nekaj povezav / Some links:

Lep pozdrav, Simon

Opomba to Timeline of Slovenian History by B. Jezovnik

V zgodovinsko praznino ne verjamem... Timeline of Slovenian History Published by Wikipedia, the free Enciclopedia External Links:

Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia, Washington, DC, History Timeline: http://www.embassy.org/slovenia/more3.htm

Some recent new theories about Slovene (Veneti) origins: http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/default.htm

V verigi zgodovinskih dogodkov je vsiljena zakarpatska teorija, ceprav ni del Caranthe.

Iz tega seznama zgodovine so izlocene letnice 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

To pomeni zgodovinski falsifikat. Zato v nikaksem slucaja ne dovolim URL: http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/ in blatenje naslova Caranthe, in tudi ne zelim da ima Carantha kakrsen koli delez z tako zgodovino.

Note: I am not associating myself with this kind of history, because it tries to conceal the years between 1950 and 1990. Carantha is a Web Page that deals with true Slovenian history.

Note: The correct above sentence zelim da ima Carantha kakrsen koli delez z tako zgodovino is with a proposition ..s tako zgodovino. --XJam

Most of the early timeline was taken out of "Veneti" historical theories, which are BY NO MEANS mainstream history and are regarded by virtually all historians as either romanticism or patent nonsense. Mainstream history regards Slovenes as descendents of Slavic immigrants in 6th and 7th centuries and sees no connection to Venets.

All of this is thus NOT NPOV and SHOULD NOT be in an encyclopaedia. Zocky 19:01 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Zocky: Do you have any idea of what "osti jarej" could mean in slovenian? Think about it... It means "stay young" and it was written on a situla found in Skocjan (Kras). The jar is more than 2.000 years old, for God sake! Tell me, who do you think wrote this text, if not our ancestors?! "Mainstream" history will have to adopt new proofs, or it will become just a bad joke...

Osti jarej!

Simon, Ljubljana, 08 May 2003

Simon, do you know what 'bed' means in one of the Iranian languages? It means 'bed'. Wow, the English must be from Iran. Incidentaly, the French word 'prestige' must come from Serbo-Croatian 'prestici' - to overtake, which makes the French either Serbian or Croatian... Phrase fragments with similar words mean absolutely nothing.

Another example: "Se drajvam v karu po stritu in turnam na trefiklajtu v rajt." - All meaningful words are phonetic English, but the sentence is absolutely and recognizably in Slovenian, because the grammar is Slovene. (For English speakers - "I voz in an avto down ulica and zav at the semafor to desno" - you may not know what any of this means, but can tell that the sentence is in English).

Generally accepted view is what "mainstream" means. You can write about the Veneti theory if you like, you are welcome to write a whole article about it, but be sure to include the NPOV: It's a theory mostly advocated by romantic nationalists with less than 10 historians supporting it - main advocates are a couple of writers and a monk. Zocky 13:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky good examples for mixed Slovene-English-like sentences. On the other side you've said the article is written mainly from the above mentioned URL. (A res -- really?) Since I am the author of a stub and some extensions I must say this is not true. I have right to literary copy that URL in my own words. But I did not do that in this way as it may seem. So, please, your accusation that it is not NPOV is pretty much filed up (napiljena/napihnjena). Mainstream history. I would like to believe it, really. I am not a priori in that group of 10 historians. Other 90 historians were teached from German or Austrian histrorians as they say. Times before 600s are pretty much unclear, so Veneti or anykind theory can most likely be true. I can say I am still young, and I do believe that not much was changed from let us say the year 1848 or from the times Urlik was killed in Belgrade. Just look to the Kozler's map from the perspective of one Slovene. Živjo. Se še oglasim - po potrebi. --XJam 14:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Addition 1: I also believe in rastafarian 'theory' of 12 tribes but I won't post it in Wikipedia, since I think I know that I distinguish what is NPOV and what is not.

One Love, one Destiny,

one Heart. One Slovene history...

Let's get together and feel alright

as deep and fresh is my sight... --(nasled'n komad od the Murat & Joseov prirejen od Boba Marleja) --XJam 14:50 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

It's not just about one phrase... The one that I quoted is perhaps most obvious to almost every Slovenian. Hundreds of Veneti texts were found in eastern Alps area. You see, this is archeological proof that Slovenian ancestors Venti lived here more than 2.000 years ago. On the other hand, there is NO archeological (or any other) proof that Slavs moved from the Carpathian marshes around 600 a.d., and that they settled in the aree of what is nowaday Slovenia. In fact, even the first Slovenian state of Karantania (Korotan) was formed a few decades before the year 600! Now, have you ever checked Austrian history schoolbooks? They do not mention that state, even if its center was in what is today Austrian Carinthia, but that is not a surprise, to say at least. In Slovenian textbooks Karantania is mentioned though, but only a few sentences are dedicated to it... I suggest anyone interested in Veneti to read an excellent book called: Veneti - Naši davni predniki (Bor, Šavli, Tomažic). The book is also available in German, Italian, English and Russian. It is a serious history book dealing with Veneti and their inscriptions, which were translated (or just transliterated in some cases as with "osti jarej") for the first time by a Slovenian linguist Matej Bor. Give it a try.

Osti jarej!

Simon, Ljubljana, May 9 2003

Hey, Simon well written. But Zocky is a tuff one. Read his note and *Veneti (we even do not know how they are properly named -- as far as I know), related with Slovenes will wanish in a minute. I've read (in my opinion) even more interesting book of Anton Berlot and Ivan Rebec "So bili Etruščani Slovani?" ("Were Etruscans Slavs?"), Lipa, Koper 1984, which is I think earlier than Šavli's one. Can you also please give me a hint how can I reach you to talk some of these topics in Slovene /best via the net/. You are also welcome to participate and add to Wikipedia, since these topics are not well covered yet. Let me just ask why do you use adjective Slovenian as Slovene is more 'common' in British English? I am very much interested in my own nation's history in a whole and my logic and thinking correspond, I would say, best to mathematician or physicist's one and not to politician's one. I won't check Austrian history books either. If we are already here -- we should also check some Italian history books (or even Croatian and Serbian ones). Let them check that on their own, ha, ha. After all I think that we [ Slovenes ] are not a 'salt of the World' in vain..... And if you ask me which language is most beautiful in this planet, you know what I shall answer you. But not because it is my native.... Best regards to the capital. --XJamRastafire 23:54 May 9, 2003 (UTC) Celje.

Zocky, please see below another opinion on Veneti. The author is Charles Bryant-Abraham, PhD, FSO - just another "romantic nationalist"?

I will leave Mr. Bryant-Abraham's opinion below to facilitate discussion. As far as I can see, we're talking about two different things here.

One is, are Slovenes descendents of Veneti? But what does that question mean? Is it:

Did a people called Veneti live in present-day Slovenia in prehistoric and early historic times? Probably yes.
Were some of the persons who are the direct ancestors of persons who now consider themselves "Slovene" members of the ancient ethnic group called "Veneti"? Undoubtedly yes.

But does that make Slovenes descendants of Veneti any more than of any other ethnic group who moved through this parts? Not really. So what is it that's supposed to make Slovenes collectively descendents of Veneti. The suggested answer is language. So here we have new questions:

Are the words "Vendi", "Wends", "Anti", "Vindišarji" cognate with "Veneti"? Quite possibly and utterly irrelevant. The French are named after a Germanic tribe, Russians are named after a Swedish tribe, Macedonians are named after their country which is in turn named after a ancient people related to Greeks.
Are there similar words in ancient Venetian and modern Slovene? Very probably yes. So what? The reasons for this could be: pure chance, onomatopoeia, borrowing of words from neighbouring languages and lending them to others, common ancestry and finally, one language being the descendent of the other. It is very difficult to prove the last option, though - in a hundred generations languages can completely change their grammar and with no records of intermidiate phases, the whole discussion is purely speculative.
Is Slovene a member of some other language family than Slavic? If you answer yes to this one, don't bother me with your further thoughts. Everybody who's not entirely blinded by preconceptions can see the continually falling similarities to Slovenian from Kajkavian abnd Chakavian, then Shtokavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian and then to other Slavic languages. We're not talking about similarity in vocabulary here, but rather about grammar.

So, if you agree with my arguments, there's no alternative in the language questions - Slovenes are Slavs and have come from behind Carpathians with other south and western Slavs.

Of course, there are other possibilities - all Slavs descending from Veneti, or Veneti being the first Slavs to come to Western Europe, etc. etc. Even so, the great time differences make all this hugely difficult to prove and, in my opinion, entirely non-interesting - we all ultimately come from Ethiopia and our exact paths along the way are not that important to me. But the proponents of the Veneti theory talk about it with a near-religious fervor, which is by itself a warning signal that makes the whole theory suspect.

So yes, I agree, it may even all be true. OTOH, writing an encyclopaedia article about the Timeline of Slovenian history is a whole another question. The fact is that the whole currently presented B.C. timeline is, as far as generally accepted view goes, completely unrelated to Slovenes and, let me add, hugely suspect. I'm pretty sure that most historians of Italy, Turkey and Iran won't agree with it. So no, the information that's in the article now, is definitely not NPOV and should be changed. I'd just delete the BC sections and optionally moved them to another article and note that the whole theory is contested by the mainstream - including the school system in Slovenia and other countries, encyclopaedias, history atlases, history books and very many historians - sort of like Atlantis. Zocky 15:08 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky said: "Slovenes are Slavs and have come from behind Carpathians with other south and western Slavs."

I am still waiting for you to disclose any proof (archeological or documents from that time) supporting the Carpathian theory. Until then, I repeat: there is NO proof to support such a theory at all, even though it is called "mainstream".

Not only "romantic nationalists", but other people also, are realizing the lack of such proof - and you can not blame them for this. Take for example the Slovenian Identity Card or Passport: on both a Veneti horseman (from the Vace situla) is printed. Just a coincidence? Do you really think there would have been such a figure printed on our ID cards, if situla was of a Celtic origin? I doubt.

Even more, I present here an excerpt from a short publication on history of Slovenian army, published by Slovenian Ministry of Defence, Government of the Republic of Slovenia:

"[b]The origin of Slovenians is explained by two historical theories. One (supported by Romance and Germanic historic sources) claims that after the downfall of the Roman Empire and the mighty migration of peoples in the 6th century the territory of today’s Slovenia was emptied. Then the whole area was taken by Slavonic tribes coming from behind the Carpathian Mountains.

The other theory says that Slovenians are an autochthonous nation, which was subjugated by newly-settling invaders. Archaeology – offering many material proofs of continuity – has made it evident that the territory of Slovenia was inhabited at all times in history.[/b]"

Source (As you can see, the document is published on a government server.)

Best regards,

Simon

Ljubljana, Slovenija, May 21st, 2003

Zocky, please see below another opinion on Veneti. The author is Charles Bryant-Abraham, PhD, FSO - just another "romantic nationalist"?

"It is an honor and privilege to be invited to share with you a few modest thoughts on the present and future of Venetology, an emerging field promising to cast a new light on mankind's understanding of European prehistory.

First, a few introductory words about my own background are in order. I am a sixth-generation Texan and there are relatively few of us on earth. My family first came. to the Virginia Colony in North America in 1653. You will find few individuals who are as authentically American as I am. I was awarded a Ph.D. in Linguistics by the Université de Montreal for my work in Medieval Castilian philology. All of which is to say that I, at least for one, have no hidden agenda or political axe to grind about the importance of Slovenian dialectology in deciphering the Venetic inscriptions. I truly am simply an innocent academic bystander whose only interest is to learn a little more about early European pre-history. If I'm a chauvinist at all, I must be faulted as one of those proverbial insufferably-braggadocious types from the Lone Star State of Texas, a “John Wayne” cowboy, if you please.

But indeed I do suspect that history is about to be written, or rather rewritten. We stand on the threshold of a new world of insight into the prehistory of Europe and of the Mediterranean.

Prior to entering into my exposition before this august assembly, I must issue a preliminary disclaimer, for the timeless epistemological remains ever in front of us. How can the "truth" of a given moment in history every really be known? Historian A may assert the reality of a fact and historians B, C, and D may successively quote the assertion of historian A in recounting their own stories of how things must have happened. But in every case where historians are not elaborating primary and direct evidence created at the time an event occurred, subsequent students of history will be coping with varying levels of credibility. The presupposition underlying any historical assertion doggedly remains, "It is believed that..." All that the most successful of historians ever achieve after that is a rearrangement of extant records lending strength to the probability of an assertion. In linguistic history, just as in social, military, literary, musical, or artistic history, there is simply no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Every "fact" we posit can only be based upon the preponderance of evidence found to date. At every step we must ask: "What does the preponderance of evidence now lead us to conclude?"

In the case before us, I must ask: what is all of this hue and cry about lack of scientific method in reexamining inscriptions which no one heretofore has been able to decode or make any significant sense of whatsoever? Do we now possess a preponderance of evidence permitting us to begin drawing some justifiable conclusions about these inscriptions, despite faulty methodology, or rather despite the lack of appropriate technical jargon to express the results obtained? Forgive me, but the analogy is obvious. It looks all the world like the proverbial, insecure, pedantic teacher who marks a correct math answer “wrong” just because the student derived the correct answer without recourse to the precious method the teacher had so painstakingly taught. Clearly the integrity of a method or system is at best secondary to the accurate solution of a given problem.

Likewise, a satisfactory solution to any problem must preempt every system of instruction designed to lead to that solution. But in recent Venetic research a number of instances have come to remind us of the adage: "There is no sound as painful as a scientist groaning under a collapsed theory." The question, however, will just not go away: What inescapable conclusions must be drawn from the preponderance of evidence to date? Thanks to a precious few, undaunted Slovenian scholars, for the first time inscriptions heretofore indecipherable are at last being meaningfully read.

MateJ Bor, may he rest in peace, was a courageous pioneer who ventured forth into uncharted waters. All future Venetic scholarship will forever remain indebted to him. Like the work of every pioneer, the field of inquiry he so thoughtfully advanced will necessarily see many refinements in the years to come. But it must always be remembered: he was an intellectual father of Venetic studies.

Now, to the eyes of this sixth-generation Texas, it does seem that Matej Bor did manage to come to enough conclusions to make just about everyone on God's green earth angry at him. To be so decisively iconoclastic about one sacred assumption is daring enough, but the weighty implications of Bor's deductions were so broad and deep that much of the subsequent opposition would not have been difficult to predict.

Still, to streamline out and systematize three simultaneous rivers, which he let flow, might now prove useful to future directions of Venetic scholarship.

I. Undoubtedly the most intensely incendiary of Bor's findings is that Slovenian had heretofore been inaccurately classified as a South Slavic language, where in fact it is to be ranked among the West Slavic languages. This question continues to deserve all the attention it can bear, but for quite different reasons than those germane to the Venetic inscriptions. To sift out the objections of those decrying Venetic research as chauvinistically motivated, this entire issue should be reassigned to a specialized subcommittee for future development and redirected out of Venetic research altogether.

II. The evidence of past Venetic presence in any given area, which can be marshaled from inherited place names, will necessarily always be speculative and cannot be allowed to detract attention from more decisive evidence. Nevertheless, Venetic topology must be pursued, especially in areas where inscriptions do independently attest to earlier Venetic settlement. Anton Ambrožič, in his book, Journey Back to the Garumna, has shown the validity and usefulness of Venetic topology in the territories of pre-Roman Gaul. Likewise, the identity of the pre-Greek Pelasgians, who had widely spread over the coasts and islands of the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean, may well be established through future Venetic topology, even in the dearth of reliable inscriptional evidence, as we shall come to see.

III. The overwhelming importance of the Venetic runic inscriptions themselves must lead to the development of a separate and distinct scientific discipline, commanding the keenest focus of all Slavicists, for it does constitute the cultural patrimony of all Slavs. Indeed the high value of the ultra-conservative Slovenian dialects in the decipherment of these inscriptions has the potential of so enhancing the appreciation of Slovenian linguistics that those alpine dialects may yet come to be collectively hailed as the "mother of Slavic languages." My sincere advice is that research into these inscriptions should proceed "full steam ahead" to produce credibly deciphered texts which can then later be analyzed by linguistic specialists who will write their descriptions in the conventional jargon of the trade."