Re: Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

From: george knysh
Message: 60922
Date: 2008-10-15

--- On Wed, 10/15/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> GK: "Lyakhs" also from an earlier "Lend-" .

> not known before historical Slavic times, thus not earlier than the
> 5th c. CE when Slavs replace Germanics (and Germanized elements) in
> Poland. The retroactive archaeology of Viatichia (an area south and
> east of Moscow) indicates a Baltic culture prior to the 6th c.CE.
> So if "Viat/Vent" was a Venetic borrowing in Poland, it was
> borrowed not earlier than the 5th c.CE and brought to Viatichia
> about the 7th c. CE.We have no evidence for anything more ancient
> on this particular issue.

I don't understand your line of reasoning. Please explain.

****GK: The standard line on this is that if "Vyatko" (the eponymous ancestor of the Viatichi) came "from the Lyakhs" then this happened in the 7th c. which is when the area of Viatichia (occupied by Baltic tribes) was Slavicized. And if "Vyatko"'s name is from an earlier Vent- [the Ventichi would have become Viatichi when the Eastern Slavs denasalized], this would have been picked up when the Slavs moved into geographical Poland in the 5th c., as Lendzians (Lendizi of the B.G. as mentioned by Piotr) IOW this tribal name stems from a late Slavic import. If one ignores the strict logic of the Chronicle account,one might argue that the Viatichi stem from a Venetic group which fused with Balts in the post=Zarubinian period and retained its name after Slavonization. Since Shchukin argues for "Venetic" dispersal after their mid-1rst c. CE lambasting by the Sarmats,this line would also be arguable. Anything earlier depends on where you begin the ancient
Venetic trek. As Shchukin says (and I agree) there are no historical or archaeological indicators as to this.*****
> ...


> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Adriatic_ Veneti#Historical_ references
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Sea_Peoples
> > http://tinyurl. com/3wknsb
>
> GK: Nothing connectable to our European Veneti except one
> interesting little story about the Paphlagonian Eneti (but when did
> they arrive in Paphlagonia? ) Antenor supposedly led the Trojan
> Eneti to Italy after the death of King PYLAEMENES, whence the Latin
> Veneti of the Adriatic. Connect this to the following passage in
> Shchukin (1997, sect. 4, pars. 61-62):
>
> "The legendary portion of the 'Lithuanian Chronicles' is beginning
> to acquire some interest. It speaks of a certain POLAMONIS, who
> fled to the Baltic shores with his family and 500 migrants to
> escape Nero's persecution. The sons of this rebel were the supposed
> founders of the Lithuanian state. In reality the establishment of
> Lithuanian statehood comes much later, possibly at the time of
> Charlemagne (ref. Ushinskas 1988). But the Polamonis legend might
> nevertheless correspond to certain political realities: Nero's
> persecution of various opposition groups, political,ideologic al,
> and religious, including the early Christians, clearly tookplace
> and are sufficiently well-known. // If this infiltration of certain
> warriors-traders- artisans, called Veneti, in a sense "vikings back
> to vikings", was a reality, then this would explain many processes
> which took place not only on the Baltic shores but in the rest of
> Eastern Europe".
> He then goes on to describe the relevant archaeology. Schukin thus
> seems to be arguing the thesis that ancient Veneti who spread all
> over Europe and beyond thousands of years earlier, "returned" in
> the 1rst c.CE.(long after having lost whatever was their original
> language)*** *

I don't know (yet) what you are arguing, but it seems to me the
addition of king Pylaemenes forces one to argue to accept either

1) that the author(s) of the Lithuanian Chronicles had read Pliny's
Natural History
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Adriatic_ Veneti#Historica l_references
or Homer's Iliad (but why would they associate the Enetoi with
themselves?) ,


****GK: That's probably the likeliest explanation. They would associate with the Enetoi because of the equation Eneti=Veneti, and the classical localization of the Venedi east of the Vistula. After all, Snorri was not the only one who was fascinated by Troy and looked for "ancient pedigrees" in the remote past.****

or

2) that the Palemon story reflects a genuine memory of the return
home to the Adriatic by the (V)Enetoi,

****GK: Just as the Slavs "remembered" that they migrated to the Danube from Mesopotamia (Kyivan Chronicle). I think not.****

or

3) that 'Palemon' was one of the later Pylaemenes of Paphlagonia.

****GK: Only in the sense of embroidering on what was read in classical sources.****


I think you misread my 'CE' as 'BCE'.

****GK: In that case one needs to remember that the Eastern Venedi completely disintegrated and dispersed in the mid-1rst c. CE. The Western Venedi lost their ethnicity much sooner under Germanic pressure. It's interesting that the Germanics used the term for the Slavs to their east, but the Slavs never considered their western neighbours to be Venedi/Veneti. This suggests to me that when historical Slavic consciousness arose (sometime in the 2nd c. AD at the earliest I would think), there were no longer any "Venedi" to their west they could contrast with. Whereas the Germanics contacted the Venedi to their east much longer after becoming a conscious ethnic reality themselves.I don't know the Baltic situation re "Venedi"****