1. Introduction
A great number of publications deal with the origins, the languages and the territories of the ancient Illyrians (I.). Because they did not left written documents, the conclusions of both classical and contemporary scholars concerning I. matters are normally divergent (Wilkes, 1992). In essence, it is possible to say that the entity constituted by the ancient I. is rather uncertain. The approach to acquire information about the I. through I. anthroponyms was object of some publications. One of them (Krahe, 1929) listed I. anthroponyms systematically according to their appearance in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (C.I.L.) without providing their etymology. Purpose of this article is to deepen the knowledge about the I. by considering the etymology of the I. personal anthroponyms. This article follows a similar one dedicated to the etymology of Venetic (V.) personal anthroponyms (Stein & Tomezzoli, 2020) and inter alia provides a reply to the question set out in a recent publication (Pigozzo, 2020): “the I. belonged to the paleo Slavic family and, consequently, were they related to the ancient V.?”
2. Illyrian Personal Anthroponyms
The above mentioned publication (Krahe, 1929), on pages 1-131, lists I. personal anthroponyms. We considered them one by one and only those having Slavic roots were retained in alphabetic order in Table 1.
Each record in Table 1 comprises: Re, the progressive record number, I. Anth, the I. anthroponyms sharing the same Slavic root, R. Mean, the root meaning, Sl. Lexem., the corresponding lexemes in present surviving Slavic languages from which the root meaning was inferred, C.I.L., the corresponding C.I.L. entry if available, p, the page in said publication where each I. anthroponym resides and V.T1.n, the I. anthroponyms correspondence, if any, with V. anthroponyms in Table 1 in the corresponding publication (Stein & Tomezzoli, 2020). Table 1 should be read bearing in mind the conventions of Table 2.
3. Discussion
The C.I.L. is a continuously updated Latin inscription catalogue covering the Roman Empire period and its provinces, therefore, it is not surprising that Table 1 I. anthroponyms are deeply latinised and graecized. The Slavic root for each I. anthroponym was identified by comparing it with corresponding lexemes in the present surviving Slavic languages (Table 2), this because ancient Slavic documents are rare (Ambrozic & Tomezzoli, 2003) (Ambrozic, 2005) (Ambrozic et al. 2006) (Šavli et al., 1996) (Serafimov, 2006) (Serafimov, 2007a) (Serafimov, 2007b) (Serafimov & Tomezzoli, 2009) (Serafimov & Tomezzoli, 2012) (Tomažič & Tomezzoli, 2003) (Tomezzoli, 2001) (Tomezzoli & Čudinov, 2002) (Tomezzoli, Serafimov & Vodopivec V, 2009) (Tomezzoli & Serafimov 2013) (Vodopivec, 2008) (Vodopivec, 2009a) (Vodopivec, 2009b) and normally contain few lexemes, insufficient for meaningful comparisons with I. anthroponyms.
3.1. Initial Considerations
Similarly to what already observed in considering the V. anthroponyms (Stein & Tomezzoli, 2020), the following is observed.
The concept of nature is present in: T1.1 hell T1.5 reality, T1.9 white, T1.10 birch, T1.11 spring, T1.14 pine, T1.15 shore, T1.20 mud, T1.21 stone, T1.23 carp, T1.25 hour, T1.27 root, T1.28 mountain, T1.35 day, T1.42 urchin, T1.43 fir, T1.44 nucleus, T1.51 hornbeam, T1.52 buckwheat, T1.59 hole, T1.60 clear, T1.61 reality, T1.64 deer, T1.65 lion, T1.67 hole, T1.68 weasel, T1.69 ice, T1.70 lion, T1.75 moon, T1.76(2) onion, T1.79(2) copper, T1.80 chalk, T1.81 blizzard, T1.84 sea, T1.93 sky, T1.101 sheep, T1.105 burnt, T1.107 vapour, T1.112 stretch of river, T1.118 salt, T1.122 hay, T1.130 sulfur, T1.135 thorn, T1.137 gold, T1.138 salt, T1.142 marmot, T1.148 darkness, T1.150 blackthorn, T1.156 aurochs, T1.157 mulberry, 158 wave, T1.164 top, T1.166 whole, T1.171 crow, T1.173 sunset, T1.174 rabbit, T1.176 sunrise.
The concept of person is present in: T1.3 quick, T1.6 without, T1.16 go away, T1.33 to oppress, T1.36(1) robust, T1.36(2) soul, T1.40 friends, T1.41 spirit, T1.46 to go, T1.47 face, T1.49 lived, T1.50 head, T1.53 dream, T1.56 to remain/to stay, T1.57 to go, T1.71(1) front, T1.71(2) personal, T1.73 breast, T1.74(1) love, T1.74(2) forehead, T1.77 small, T1.78 vagina, T1.83 my, T1.86(2) throe, T1.91 people, T1.99 disgrace, T1.100 to remain/to stay, T1.102 bye, T1.113 sweat, T1.116 language, T1.119 alone, T1.120 dignity, T1.123 heart, T1.128 village, T1.133 force, T1.139 dream, T1.140 become, T1.145(1) hostage, T1.146 thief, T1.147 body, T1.154 corpse, T1.159 bath, T1.169 hair, T1.170 power.
The concept of personality is present in: T1.12 whim, T1.17 rowdy, T1.82 dear, T1.87 dreary, T1.92 careless, T1.98 experience, T1.104(2) obedient, T1.114 right, T1.143 severe, T1.165 authoritative.
The concept of family is present in: T1.7 dad, T1.34 the tenth, T1.37 child, T1.38 children, T1.39 home/house, T1.90 to us, T1.103 the fifth, T1.131 sixth, T1.151 third, T1.152 father in law.
The concept of profession is present in: T1.2 granary, T1.4 shout to dogs, T1.8 trouble, T1. 13 fighter, T1.19 alcoolic drink, T1.22 shackles, T1.24 hut, T1.26 barn, T1.29 dot, T1.30 rank, T1.31 gift, T1.32 to give, T1.45 this, T1.48 veil, T1.54 to hunt, T1.55 stronghold, T1.58 poison, T1.62 stern, T1.63 hunting dog, T1.66 boat, T1.72 scrap, T1.76(1) bow, T1.79(1) honey, T1.86(1) flour, T1.88 dregs, T1.89 to wash, T1.94 new, T1.95 stronghold, T1.97 itinerant trader, T1.104(1) share, T1.108 marmalade, T1.109 halyard, T1.110 pay, T1.111 whip; T1.115 saw, T1.117 to dig, T1.121 hundred, T1.124 awl, T1.125 breadth, T1.126 soon, T1.127 this, T1.129 seven, T1.132 rapid, T1.136 cheese, T1.141 chair, T1.145(2) thawed, T1.149(1) market, T1.149(2) bargain, T1.153 rope, T1.155 there, T1.160 cook, T1.161 blowing, T1.162 to lead, T1.163 crown, T1.167 wine, T1.168 vortex, T1.172 behold, T1.175 to take.
3.2. Intermediate Considerations
Similarly to what already observed in considering the V. anthroponyms (Stein & Tomezzoli, 2020), the following is observed.
T1.1 hell is linked to the ancient Gr. ᾍδης and indicates the underworld, a concept passed lately to the Christian tradition as hell.
T1.3 quick is linked to the hydronyms Adriatic: the sea facing the ancient I. territories, to Adrias/Atrianus: a no longer existing, ancient channel of the today Po river delta, mentioned by Hecateus, Theopompus and Ptolemy (Wikipedia, 2018) and to Jantra a today’s Blg. river, tributary of Danube, which was named Athrys by the ancient Thracians.
T1.71(1)/(2) front/personal, T1.84 sea, T1.142 marmot preserve the suffix -co present in today’s Slavic personal anthroponyms like, for example: Vinko, Stanko and Slavko.
T1.7 dad, T1.11 spring, T1.15 shore, T1.30 rank, T1.31 gift, T1.47 face, T1.74(1)/ (2) love/forehead, T1.119 alone, T1.150 blackthorn, T1.157 mulberry, T1.169 hair preserve the suffix-na present in today’s Slavic personal anthroponyms like, for exsmple: Dragana, Stana and Svetlana.
3.3. Final Considerations
In said publication (Krahe, 1929), the I. anthroponyms total is 899 which represents a good sample for a statistical consideration. The I. anthroponyms in Table 1 having Slavic roots are 413 which represent 45.93% of the I. anthroponyms in said publication. The V. anthroponyms in Table 1 of the previous publication (Stein & Tomezzoli, 2020), having Slavic roots is roughly 24% of the V. anthroponyms in the corresponding publication (Pauli, 1891). This permits to estimate that during the Roman Empire period, i.e. about five cen., roughly 46% of the I. population and 24% of the V. population had Slavic ascendancies. This permits therefore to reply to the above question (Pigozzo, 2020) that ancient I. and V. were related through their Slavic ascendancies.
4. Conclusion
Said 46% of I. population and said 24% of V. population having Slavic ascendancies, during the Roman Empire period, highlight that Slavs were already present in areas incorporated by the Roman Empire well before the VII cen. A.D., the date, according to the generally accepted theory, of the Slav late arrival in Europe. The logical consequence is that this theory is wrong and should be rejected.