Talk:Slavic settlement of the Eastern Alps

No Proofs of this "invasion"

This is only a Theory. There isn´t a single evidence of an invasion in the 6th century. It was only a political idea of pangermanist circles during the 19th century to treat Slovenia as a non-historic country, and later supported by Serbians to create the false idea that all the poeples of ex-Yugsolavia were a single nation once. This were intentional and political ideas that a young democratic Republic as Slovenia has to bury and start a serious study of its own History. There are still nostalgic comunists in the country but the truth will prevail. Now there are new scientific tools, like genetics, and the false History written by ancient and circunstancial victorious nations or ideas are falling and this is being replaced by the Truth.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to compliment user Jalen for this article: I think it's a very good contribution to the overall coverage of Slovenian history on English Wp. About the issue: the Slavic settlement in the Eastern Alps is a historical fact, although much of it is still unclear. There are indeed very few written contemporary sources (but then again, still more than for other similar contemporary population movements, such as the Germanic colonization of present-day Switzerland, Tyrol and Bavaria). Other evidence (archeological remains - many of them discovered only in the last decade, due to the extensive highway constructions in Slovenia -, analysis of toponyms, of patterns of rural settlement and land cultivation etc.), together with some contemporary mentions, leave little doubt that the settlement took place as exposed in the article. One of the most comprehensive works on this issue is Bogo Grafenauer, Karantanija: izbrane razprave in članki (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000).

I guess Marcos' comment (which I don't believe to be uncivic at all) refers to the theories advanced in the 1980s by Matej Bor, Ivan Tomažič and Jožko Šavli. Their theory, a.k.a. "Venetic Theory", states that there was no Slavic settlement of the Eastern Alps at all; that a Slavic-speaking (proto-Slovenian) people that they call (referring to ancient sources) "Veneti" had lived in the larger Central European area since 12th century B.C. Fascinating as this theory may seem (and I don't want to argue that it indeed is fascinating), it has been unfortunately proven completely wrong. Bor's linguistic analysis is worthless (it lacks all scholar rigour and is methodologically unsustainable; besides, it can't possibly be true, all linguist agree on this point) and the theory of a population continuity between the late antiquity and the middle ages in the eastern Alps has been disproven from all possible angles. Furthermore, the analysis of topnonyms that Mr. Šavli advances as an evidence to his theory of a Slavic-populated Central Europe in the Atiquity, is completely faulty: he claims that all toponyms that sound like Slovenian or Slavic are in fact Slovenian or Slavic. Unfortunately, everything can be proved with this method (Please see: Protochronism, Sun Language Theory). To put it short: the Venetic Theory has been completely rejected by all scholars, as have other similar theories denying the Slavic settlement in the East Alps.

User Marcos g. Tusar:I have seen that in the Spanish-language wikipedia you have written several articles based on the books of Mr. Šavli. I have to warn you that much of it has been proven wrong, so these books are often unreliable sources. I don't say that everything Mr. Šavli writes is wrong, but you cannot use him as the only source without double-checking with a second, scholarly recognized source. Please, rectify those changes in the Spanish wp.

Nevertheless, a section in the article on the "Venetic Theory" could be added, where Mr. Šavli's theory could be fairly described; but the fact that it has been completely rejected by all scholars should of course also be added.Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Off the record: This article is simply a translation from the one in the Slovenian wikipedia (and I'm not the author of that article either). I found Mr. Tusar's comments uncivil because he used a lot of capital letters and exclamation marks which gave the impression as if he was shouting. As you may see [1], he subsequently mildened his wordings. --Jalen (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About what Viator slovenicus wrote, it is important to read Dr. Šavli himself, who was called "amateur historian" by Jalen in Spanish Wp. He completed his studies in Economics at the University of Ljubljana. Afterwards, He achieved his doctorate in Social Economic Sciences at the University of Vienna. ..."a doctorate in Social Economics Science", I think both as respectable Universities. So... Who is uncivil?, anyone can agree or disagree with what Dr. Šavli writes (I personally agree), but call him an amateur, that is uncivil. I am a lawyer and I studied "History of the Political Ideas", I can contribute in History, so imagine a Doctor in Social Economics Science. I suggest to read the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?". I really believe in Viator Slovenicus "good intentions", so if you have some academic references (in internet in spanish or english) for me to read and double-check the "Venetic Theory" I can improve the article in spanish.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my addition was removed, it only explains both theories, why was erased? It is a vandalic act, I presented both theories, now it seems a proven and not discussed fact the "invasion"--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Marcos, please stop. See the section disputed theories in the lower part of the article where the autochtonous theory is mentioned, as well as the stance of the academic circles on it. You have been given the explanation above. The Slavic settlement is no theory but a proven fact. Controversial theories, on the other hand, must be presented under a special section, with the addition that they have been rejected by scholars. References for that (Štih, Skrbiš) have been provided in the article. A short abstract of the paper by Zlatko Skrbiš is available here [2]. --Jalen (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the brief Skrbiš, she doesn`t prove anything, it is just an unbased opinion. About Štih, I couldn´t find anything in english or spanish about his position against the "Veneti Theory". Šavli, Tomazic and Bor provide better proofs. From the "Carpatian Theory" I didn`t find a single proof, even one, just historians wrtiting the ideas of his financial pagermanist or panslavist circles, just opinions, no evidence, no writters contemporary to the "invasion", nor a single mention in historical records. Interesting to read Dr. Šavli himself in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?" or Tomazic explaining the "Veneti Theory" [3]. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the brief Skrbiš, she doesn`t prove anything, it is just an unbased opinion. About Štih, I couldn´t find anything in english or spanish about his position against the "Veneti Theory". Šavli, Tomazic and Bor provide better proofs. From the "Carpatian Theory" I didn`t find a single proof, even one, just historians wrtiting the ideas of his financial pagermanist or panslavist circles, just opinions, no evidence, no writters contemporary to the "invasion", nor a single mention in historical records. Interesting to read Dr. Šavli himself in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?" or Tomazic explaining the "Veneti Theory" [4]. In my opinion the "Carpatian Theory" is mostly acepted by nostalgic comunists who miss Yugoslavia.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Paulus Diaconus only wrote that the "Sclaveni"(western slavs) and "Anti"(extinct tribe of southern slavs) were Venets. Historians decided that he got confused because the slavs had just settled there. So they mark this as the time of the slavs arrival. This is not proof, so let's stop talking about proof, because proof does not allow reasonable doubt, while evidence does. And this is evidence. Very disputable evidence. Paulus Diaconus' writings do not support this theory in any way. And they are the only evidence there is. Could you list and, more importantly, quote any other sources? How can you support the 6th century theory by archeological findings? If you get the perfect find, you find a house that was built in the 6th century, you find tools, weapons, all preserved. And what of this can tell you that the people had just arrived here? Nothing. Did they find a writing saying "We r teh Slovenes and we just moved here lol." or what? How does analysis of patterns of rural settlement and land cultivation prove anything? So people settling in the 6th century build different settlements than people already living there? Did they bring their own wood and stone from their homeland? Did they start making houses of mud? And how can you cultivate differently? I haven't heard of any other way of working a field than tilling it, planting seeds, watering it and weeding it. Did they grow stuff in pots? Did they raise marijuana? Analysis of toponyms actually favours the venetic theory, see:
http://www.hervardi.com/slovenski_toponimi_oronimi_hidronimi.php
Please list any sources you might have, because I would be very much interested to see them. Nerby (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Jordanes wrote that, not Paulus Diaconus. But as far as I know Diaconus doesn't give any evidence either. Nerby (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To the owners of the Truth

Hi! Your editions (in favour of a supposed invasion of slavs in the 6th century are erasing or treating in a despective way the "Veneti Theory".

1.- there are no proofs of the "Carpatian Theory" you show as an undisputed historical fact

2.- PhD Charles Bryant-Abraham, is a more important academic in this subject and presented a favourable point of view to the "Veneti Theory", so not all the supporters of the Veneti Theory are "Amateur" or "ignorant" in this point.

3.- Dr. Šavli is a doctorate in socio-economic Sciences, which makes him a n academic in historic facts, graduated in the University of Vienna. Do you really read the article "Who is afraid of the black panther?" in www.carantha.net?

4.- Paulus Diaconus never related an invasion!. The article says the contrary, and it is a lie!

5.- Matej Bor won the Prešeran Prize and it is a data that has not to distur you in the article.

6.- The veneti Theory is presented tendenciously and against it. It is not proved wrong. If not, the explanation.

7.- You mentioned "recent dicoveries" of the invasion while contructing a route in the article... Which are the proof, who say it, where are they.

I am getting tired of this. I am new in Wikipedia, but this nostalgic yugoslavism is really showing only one side of the coin. A NPOV must show the Veneti Teory without any pejorative quotatios.

Greetings from Argentina --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed mention of the "Veneti theory" because it has not been established that it has ever been a topic of academic discussion. See also WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a topic of academic discussion, sorry if you disagree. and I think that linking in cathegory the "Venetic Theory" with "Protochronism" is all I have to know about your intentions. Congratulations for you now supporting Yugoslav nationalism!. Nostalgic --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PCT?

Shouldn't perhaps Mario Alinei and his theory be at least mentioned in this article? He is no advocate of Venetic theory, but he does place Slavs into these areas prior to sixth century. And most of all, he is an academic, therefore it is not only the amateurs who dispute the whole sixth century arival story.

Also the article is currently saying in the last sentence: "Besides, it is fully confirmed by the relatively few available contemporary mentions and early historical sources (such as Paulus Diaconus)."

E? Where exactly does Paulus Diaconus say one word of Slavic arival? He speaks of wars, yes, but arival? 195.210.239.33 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Faults

What's this about Slavs under Avar rule? This is a very old theory, for which there is no evidence and is not even a part of official history. And what does the term "krščenica" prove? How do we know it's an old Slavic term? It's just used in a dialect in a very small part of the settlement area these days and it doesn't mean slave, it means maid(maidservant). How do we know it didn't appear after christianization. It could just mean that he/she, despite the lower social rank, is a christian too and should be treated fairly. This quote is also quite controversial: "An important evidence of Slavic advances is the progressive decline of ancient Christian dioceses in the respective areas." As far as I know, the local populace was never fully christianized, so couldn't it have just declined because of the empire weakening, so loss of support, and the pagan population pressuring the church? And shouldn't it atleast be mentioned that most genetic research negates this theory? I find this article extremely lacking. Nerby (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article

On the whole i think this article is good. I know that there is debate about the Venethic theory versus "Slavic invasion" theory. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Some element of Slavic invasions must have occurred. Afterall, what is more efficient in imposing a new language to an area than the arrival of a dominant new group ? We should not just dismiss the Slavic theory as mere propaganda tools of Serbia and mother Russia. Hxseek (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Venetic theory is fantasy. I'm wondering why you, Hxseek, are even giving the Venetic theory so much consideration. A is putting the smack down (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it is quite probable that a significant portion of modern Slovenes do, in fact, descend from the pre-Slavic populace of Slovenia. Hxseek (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite probable that a significant portion of modern Slovenes do in fact descend from the pre-Slavic populace of Slovenia. However, that is not what the Venetic theory is about, according to the lead and according to my understanding: here is the quote: The Venetic theory (Slovene: Venetska teorija) is a widely diffused autochthonist theory of the origin of Slovenes which denies the Slavic settlement of the Eastern Alps in the 6th century A.D., claiming that proto-Slovenes (also known as Veneti) have inhabited the region since ancient times. Although it has been completely rejected by scholars, it has been an influential alternative explanation of the Slovenian ethnogenesis. During the 1980s and 1990s, it gained wide attention in Slovenia and former Yugoslavia. This is very different from what you said, so perhaps there was a misunderstanding. A from L.A. (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. Tha is rather different. I can see why it has been rejected by most scholars Hxseek (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Block evading serial copyright infringer

This article has attracted the attention of block-evading serial copyright infringer User:Joeyc91, whose edit to this article in IP added a directly translation of a copyrighted source. It's temporarily protected to help discourage these edits. Please help keep an eye out for copyright infringements, especially but not only from Italian sources, when copyright protection expires. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)