Talk:Venetic theory

Protochronism
How can venetic theory be considerred an example of protochronism, when even dr. Pleterski considers proto-Slavic to be "a veneticised form of proto-Baltic"?

Pleterski, Andrej (1995). Model etnogeneze Slovanov na osnovi nekaterih novejših raziskav / A model of an Ethnogenesis of Slavs based on Some Recent Research. Zgodovinski časopis = Historical Review 49, No. 4, 1995, p. 537-556.

The absurd thing is, despite all the attacks on venetic theory, the Carpathian theory is - in its own way - also a "venetic theory".

89.142.61.226 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although Pleterski is not a linguist (and I don't know how correct his statement is), it is clear from the context that he meant that the proto-Slavic language emerged when the old Proto-Baltic language was submitted to the influence of Baltic Venetic. Now, the Venetic Theory claims sth. completely different. For them, the Venetic language was already a Slavic one, since the very beginning, and it spred in the 13th century B.C from Lusatia aouth- and east-ward. As you can see,both claims have virtually nothing to do with each other. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but this is not the point. The point is - what is the justification behind giving a monopoly over the use of the phrase »Venetic theory« to the thesis put forward by Bor, Šavli and Tomažič? Clearly Pleterski's model is no less a Venetic theory, just a different kind of Venetic theory. Btw Pleterski is citing Bezlaj, who was a linguist.


 * Otherwise with regard to the sixth century Slavic arrival the interesting issue about Pleterski’s thesis is that (according to his model) there were three main "ingredients" of Proto-Slavic in North-Eastern Europe: Venetic, Baltic and Sarmatian.


 * Two were present also in the Balkans prior to sixth century (Venetic and Sarmatian), whereas regarding the third one, the isoglosses between Baltic and Thracian were advocated by such scholars as Trubačev. 89.143.34.39 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Names are conventions. And it is a well established convention than when one speaks of "Venetic theory", one means Bor&Šavli&Tomažič's theory. If there is any other with the same name, you can insert a disamguition page.
 * You write "With regard to the 6th century Slavic arrival the interesting issue about Pleterski’s thesis is that there were 3 main ingredients of Proto-Slavic in North-Eastern Europe: Venetic, Baltic and Sarmatian." So?
 * There is no proof whatsoever that the Baltic Veneti and the Adriatic ones were of the same origin and/or language. But in any case, this is all beyond the point, since the article deals with a theory and its reception in academic circles: we will not and cannot ague here to establish is veracity. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Venetic is another nationalistic methodology to promote the idea Slovenians are descendants of Alpine peoples, whether they are partially Celtic, Germanic and even Indo-Iranian (like the Croatian namesake from "Hrvatii" or the Serbs' were named after "Sarboii") or Finno-Turkic (Ural-Altaic) origins is a matter of ethnopolitical debate for some time. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging the article with Protochronism
I see no reason for merging the two articles. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * you are right that this can be expanded further. It could become part of a wider Slovenian nationalism article. We have other articles on Slavic nationalism, such as Illyrian movement. --dab (𒁳) 13:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But why? The Venetic theory is not about Slovenian nationalism (although it is of course in some ways conected to it), it is even less about Slavic nationalism and it has nothing to do with the Illyrian movement. (Šavli has explicitly and strongly criticized Romantic nationalism, not to mention Pan-Slavism.) I think the V.Theory is relevant enough to have its own article. Why do you insist on merging it with other articles, to which it is either very loosely related or not related at all? I don't know if this qualifies as conflict of interests or anything, but I have actually written my MA thesis about the issue (of the theory itself, not its content, which has of course already been refuted by scholars): it should be available online soon. I'll post the link when it is. It's not that I'm trying to do some self-promotion or push forward "my" particular issue (as you can see, I didn't create the article), it's just that as far as I know that thesis of mine is until now the only thorough analysis of the phenomenon of the Venetic theory available in English. I would hate to have to quote myself, but people can then use it to expand the article if they feel the need to do so. About the relevance: it defenitely is relevant, since it has been very influential and sparkled a controversy which raged for almost a decade. I agree however that this relevance should be more pointed out in the article itself. I still however haven't seen your arguments why should the article be either deleted or merged? I would urge you to provide them or otherwise cancel the deletion/merge template. Thanks, Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * why? because it isn't notable on its own merit. WP:NOTE. By your own admission, it is notable because it "sparkled a controversy which raged for almost a decade". Let's pass over the fact that the article doesn't present any sources at all for the moment and take your claim for granted -- it's still an issue of nationalism in 1980s to 1990s Slovene society, so we should discuss it as such. I would ask you to provide solid references if you want to keep the article: such are the rules. I'm sorry, but if you are really an university-trained historian, why do I have to point this out to you? why isn't the article already knee-deep in scholarly footnotes? --dab (𒁳) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article, so please don't accuse me of not having provided the footnotes. I'll however do that soon, because I think it's worth keeping (and I can still see no reason why should it be deleted or merged). What does it mean that the subject "is not notable on its own merit"? If an issue or idea becomes influential, it's notable. I see it as simple as that, and I really cannot follow your logic.
 * Your claim that's an issue of nationalism is already your assesment (with which I wouldn't completely disagree), but you cannot force your (legitimate, but one-sided) opinions unto others. By the way: from your own implicit admission, you don't know much about the subject - I myself wouldn't feel so comfortable with passing apodeictic judgments on the content of a theory I don't know. But hey, people are different, right? Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If anybody is talking about deleting this article, that's ludicrous. Merging would be okay, but it can also be a separate article. I first came across the Venetic theory in 2004 when I was editing the Venetic language article in Wikipedia. I remember removing sentences that were promoting the so-called Venetic theory. I recognized it as pseudohistory, pseudolinguistics, pseudoscience, fantasy. But it may merit its own article, it is different from the Illyrian movement, though they are close. A is putting the smack down (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Only one remark: the Venetic theory is quite different from the Illyrian movement - the latter was a Pan-Slavic political movement in the early 19th century (mostly centered in Croatia), the focus of which was not at all asseerting the Slavic origin of the Illyrians (or the Illyrian origin of the Slavs), but the cultural-linguistic unification of all south Slavs (the Illyrian name was more of a rhetoric move, sanctioned by a long tradition of applying names of ancient peoples to modern nations). The political implications of the Venetic theory (which were initially not at all manifest, at least not in Matej Bor) are rather the very opposit : trying to show the Slovenian "uniqeness" and difference in relation to other south Slavic peoples. I repeat though that I see no real argument for merging it with other articles (or at least not with the ones suggested). Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

well, thanks for the references in any case. It's beginning to look much better. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment that the "national identity" part is "secondary" in this. It is the hallmark of pseudohistory that the thing you want to conclude is primary, and the "theory" brought up to support the foregone conclusion is in fact secondary. The primary motivation here is "we want to be Veneti, not Slavs", and the secondary part is the cobbling together of a theory to that effect. It's a topic of national identity all the way. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If some Slovenian Nationalists are vocally calling themselves "Venetians", would they want to be included in the Italic peoples? The Venetians of northeast Italy are Romance speaking not Slavic speaking and by the Venetian theory on the Slovenian ethnogenesis: the Venetian people are of the Mediterranean, not Alpine variety of the European "white" race. The theory of Venetians settled the Slovenian Alps region and to entered the Slavo-Austrian peoples' genetic makeup, the Slovenians wouldn't been heavily Slavic but of Germanic descent. Slovenians are equally a Slavic people just as much they may have Teuton, Celtic, Baltic, Magyar, Turkic, Greek and Latin blood.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Some would claim that the slavic blood would be the least in the slovene populations. Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)