[the answer to question 3 in our puzzle from the prior entry is obviously Galava – the name for the Roman fort at the town of WaterHEAD. But Galava is no doubt Celtic, after all it has that -ava ending, ya know like, say Solava, Morava or Varsava (as to the other Qs, your guess is as good as ours)]
Now onto other things…
That (social) science hypotheses travel in circles should surprise no one. These days it has become fashionable to question the Slavic nature of the Veneti (or, more precisely, the notion that the Slavs derive their ancestry from a people previously referred to as the Veneti). However, not so long ago precisely this was dogma. According to that most critical of the critics, Aleksander Brueckner, ancient reference to the Slavs included the Veneti (including the Veleti of Ptolemy). The same viewpoint was adopted by the German Max Vasmer who concluded that:
“[Based on the old sources] there is no doubt that the Veneti were Slavic.”
(Of course, Vasmer is talking here about the Vistula Veneti and the Danube Veneti but says nothing about any other Veneti. The context was Vasmer’s review of Walter Steller’s book which set out the so-called “Slawentheorie”. Vasmer ridiculed Steller’s work mercilessly including the belief that the Veneti were Germanic. Since Steller did not have a view on Gallic, Adriatic or Paphlagonian Veneti (his aim was “only” to prove that there was no such thing as Slavs so he did not care about Veneti outside of the current boundaries of Slavdom) Vasmer likewise did not have to take the view on other Veneti.)
Where We Are – Something Else
Nowadays, when Germanic Veneti theories are no longer acceptable due to their
“problematic” associations, it is instead fashionable to say that the Veneti may have been “something else” (non-Germanic, non-Slavic, perhaps “Illyrian” – whatever that may mean). Based on our review of past sources, however, this seems to be a bit of a cop out – perhaps designed to prevent peoples (in this case Slavs) from feeling like they have too long a history in one place. There simply seems to be too much evidence that they were the ancestors of most of the northern Slavs (perhaps too, though less likely, of some Balts) were the “Vistula” Veneti.
(And, as we are fond of pointing out, if the Vistula Veneti were, as all sources seem to indicate at the Vistula, then there is not much room for any Germanic kingdoms in the area at the time of Tacitus/Ptolemy with the possible exception of the Burgundians and the Goths (the latter, most likely, if at all, at the mouth of the Oder and, as we know, there only temporarily before setting shop in Ukraine)).
Where We Are – Somewhere Else
An alternative “theory” has been to grant the Veneti Slavic status (or at least not argue about it) but move them “somewhere else” – to the Pripyet marshes or the Carpathians or anywhere but here. Take a look at this helpful map (it also helpfully explains that the Lugii were Vandalic – just in case you did not get that):
That is, the thinking seems to be that “if they can’t be Germanic or at least Illyrian then they shouldn’t be at the Vistula at all!” Any Veneti should be offended by this suggestion – whether they be Germanic, Illyrian, Slavic or Ottoman, since Ptolemy – the only ancient author that we know actually aimed to (and did) produce a geographic work on the area – squarely places the Veneti on the Vistula and even names the a portion (or all?) of the Baltic Sea – the Venetic Bay.
Ptolemy who? What did he write!?
(note too that Tacitus says nothing about the geographic location of the Veneti or, put differently, where the “Hic” is in Hic Suevia finis)
Where We Go Next?
Where will they place the poor Veneti in the next century?
Copyright ©2016 jassa.org