1. Introduction
Ancient Veneti tribes coming from Caucasus populated different regions of the today’s Europe: Armorica (FR), Constance Lake (DE), Lazio (IT), Veneto (IT), Slovenia (SI), Austria (AU), Vistula river delta (PL) and Paphlagonia (TU). A Veneti tribe, named also Eneti, was considered to be part of the Illyrian ethnic community (Herodotus, 2013: I.196) and inhabited the region around the North Adriatic Sea.
Later, it was explained that “The part of the plain near the Adriatic had never ceased to be in the possession of another very ancient tribe called the Veneti, differing slightly from the Gauls in customs and costume and speaking another language. About these people the tragic poets tell many marvellous stories.” (Polybius, 2016: II.17.5-6) . In our opinion, the expression “very ancient tribe” is a clear indication that this Veneti tribe was considered an autochthonous population of the northern Italy. The expression “speaking another language” is an indication that Veneti were a people distinguished from the Celts.
On the basis of information acquired by Meandrius, Veneti, named Eneti, allied to the Trojans, migrated from Paphlagonia to the North Adriatic Sea, after the Troy fall (Strabo, 1903: XII.3.25) . Meandrius’s information contains certainly something of true, but most probably Veneti/Eneti came to North Italy not by chance, but seeking refuge by their relatives. In fact, it is possible that the autochthonous Veneti (Polybius, 2016: II.17.5-6) inhabited the North Adriatic region before the Trojan War.
Venetic anthroponyms can be encountered in some publications (Pellergini& Prosdocimi, 1967; Šavli, Bor, & Tomažič, 1996) which do not deal with them in a systematic way. Exception is a publication (Pauli, 1891) in which they are listed systematically according to their appearance in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL). However, this last publication does not consider their etymology.
2. Venetic Personal Anthroponyms
The above mentioned publication (Pauli, 1891) , on pages 352 - 378, identifies 854 sure Venetic (V.) personal anthroponyms in either nominative, or genitive, or dative case and highlights them with a bold initial capital character. Pages 352 - 359 contain V. anthroponyms from the area corresponding to the today’s Veneto/Friuli. Pages 359 - 378 contain V. anthroponyms from areas around the today’s Veneto/Friuli: Istria, Liburnia, Dalmatia, Pannonia superior, Pannonia inferior and Noricum.
In our analysis, said V. anthroponyms were considered one by one and only those having sure Slavic roots were retained in alphabetic order in Table 1 together with four other CIL. anthroponyms, indicated by * in Table 1, not recognized as V. in said publication but having sure Slavic roots.
Each record in Table 1 comprises the progressive record number (Re.), the V. anthroponyms (V. Anth.) sharing the same Slavic root, the corresponding root meaning (R. Mean.), the corresponding lexemes in present surviving Slavic languages (Sl. Lexem.) from which the root meaning was inferred, the respective CIL. (CIL) entry and the page (Page) in said publication where each V. anthroponym resides. Records with CIL. entries more than the numbers of the V. anthroponyms indicate that at least one V. anthroponym is cited in more than one CIL. entry. Records with CIL. entries less than the number of the corresponding V. anthroponyms indicate that at least one CIL. entry cites more than one V. anthroponym. Table 1 should be read bearing in mind the language conventions of Table 2.
3. Discussion
The CIL. is a continuously updated Latin inscription catalogue covering the period of the Roman Empire and its provinces, therefore, it is not surprising that Table 1 V. anthroponyms are deeply Latinized. The Slavic root for each V. 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; Pellergini & Prosdocimi, 1967; 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, 2009; Tomezzoli & Serafimov, 2013; Vodopivec, 2008; Vodopivec, 2009a; Vodopivec, 2009b) and normally contain few lexemes, insufficient for meaningful comparisons with Table 1 V. anthroponyms.
3.1. Initial Considerations
The concept of nature is present in: T1.17 storm, T1.18 mud, T1.19 stone, T1.20 root, T1.22 horse, T1.23 the end, T1.27 tree, T1.30 oak, T1.31 nucleus, T1.40 horse, T1.42 lion, T1.43 deer T1.44 ice, T1.50 sea, T1.51 beech, T1.58 sheep, T1.63 red, T1.65 dog, T1.68 rock, T1.71 salt, T1.74 darkness, T1.80 willow T1.86 rabbit.
The concept of person is present in: T1.3 quick, T1.4 ears, T1.6 without, T1.9 trust/faith, T1.21 honor, T1.25 to oppress, T1.28 soul, T1.34 verb, T1.36 to remain/to stay, T1.39 to go, T1.41 nice, T1.45 personal, T1.47 small, T1.51 brain, T1.52 man, T1.55 eyes, T1.57 to remain/to stay, T1.60 to drink, T1.62 joy, T1.64 hand/arm, T1.70 force, T1.72 dispute, T1.78 to go, T1.79 bath, T1.81 great/giant, T1.83 glory, T1.86 power.
The concept of personality is present in: T1.2 ardent, T1.15 awake, T1.16 rowdy, T1.35 anger, T1.37 ardent, T1.38 to appear, T1.53 plentiful, T1.56 experienced, T1.73 severe, T1.75 the one.
The concept of family is present in: T1.7 brother, T1.29 the tenth, T1.49 lesser, T1.59 the fifth, T1.76 the third.
The concept of profession is present in: T1.11fighter, T1.24 to buy, T1.26 to give, T1.32 to hunt, T1.33 harvest, T1.46 bow, T1.48 to throw, T.61 slave, T1.67 hundred, T1.68 cleaver, T1.77 bargain, T1.82 to lead, T1.84 wine.
3.2. Intermediate Considerations
T1.1 hell is linked to the ancient Gr. ᾍδης and indicates the underworld, a concept passed lately to the Christian tradition as hell.
T1.2 ardent, T1.37 ardent are linked to the theonym Iarovid/Iarovit indicating the Slavic fertility god, named also Jarilo. This theonym contains the Slavic roots jar: ardent, rod: give birth—Bos. roditi, Blg. раждам, Cro. roditi, Cze. porodit, Mac. роди, Pol. rodzić, Rus. рожать, Ser. породити, Slo. roditi, Slv. porodiť, Ukr. Родити and vid/vit: to be—Bel. быць, Bos. biti, Blg. бъда, Cro. biti, Cze. být, Lit. būti, Mac. биди, Pol. być, Rus. быть, Ser. бити, Slo. biti, Slv. byť, Ukr. бути.
T1.3 quick is linked to the hydronyms Adriatic the sea facing the today’s Veneto/Friuli, Adrias/Atrianus a no longer existing, ancient channel of the today Po river delta, mentioned by Hecateus, Theopompus and Ptolemy (Wikipedia, 2018) and Jantra a today’s Blg. river, tributary of Danube, which was named Athrys by the ancient Thracians.
The hydronym Plavis, the ancient name of the today’s Po River coasting the today’s Veneto, is linked to the Slavic root to swim/to flow—Bel. плаваць, Bos. plivati, Blg. плувам, Cro. plivati, Cze. plavat, Lit. plaukti, Mac. плива, O.Blg. плавати, Pol. pływać, Rus. плавать, Ser. пливати, Slo. plavati, Slv. plávať, Ukr. плавати.
T1.4 ears, T1.14 beech, T1.25 to oppress, T1.32 to hunt, T1.46 bow, T1.47 small, T1.66 alone, T1.69 cleaver, T1.81 great/giant, T1.84 wine preserve the suffix-ko present in today’s Slavic personal anthroponyms: Vinko, Stanko and Slavko. T1.10 spring, T1.22 horse, T1.66 alone preserve the suffix-na present in today’s Slavic personal anthroponyms: Dragana, Stana and Svetlana.
3.3. Final Considerations
In said publication (Pauli, 1891) , the V. anthroponyms in the area corresponding to the today’s Veneto/Friuli are 211 and in said areas around are 643 for a V. anthroponym total of 854 which represents a good sample for a statistical consideration. The V. anthroponyms in Table 1 having sure Slavic roots are 204 which represent 23.89 % of the V. anthroponyms in said publication. This permits to estimate that during the Roman Empire period, i.e. about five cen., roughly 24% of the Venetic population had Slavic ascendancies.
4. Conclusion
Said 24% of Venetic population having Slavic ascendancies, in the today’s Veneto/Friuli and said areas around during the Roman Empire period, highlights that Slavs were already present in the today’s Veneto/Friuli and in said areas around well before the Roman Empire period and the VII century A.D. of the generally accepted theory of the Slavs late arrival in Europe. The logical consequence is that this theory is wrong and should be rejected.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Ms. Vostretsova G. for her kind revision of the present article.