Talk:Carantania

Maria Saal Church Picture

What, for goodness' sake, is the purpose of the picture of an admittedly impressive 15th century village church that has nothing whatsoever to do with Carantania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marschner (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosezes "crowned" their princes near there.109.182.78.190 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion

Hey XJam -- what do you mean by "state of the Slovenes" -- this is very anachronistic language for the 7th c., and I am not sure it is close to accurate -- sources, please? JHK

Can you, please, redefine your answer? I do not understand it quite, I must admit. "State of the Slovenes" or "Slovene state", at that time called Karantania, in the Western world known as Carantania and later Carinthia. If there is a problem strictly with the English language - you can freely correct. And if there is a problem with the meaning I'll do my best to correct that. What sources do you mean? Where have I read this or what? I gave one source, but it's a Slovene one. There are still only a few English sources about this subject. Right now I am dealing with this hard subject - a history of Slovenes before the 6th or 7th century. Occasionaly I'll report my findings and add some more accurate stuff in the related articles. But I do believe I am not writing anything that is not close to the truth. The past is still very uknown for all of us. Please reply. Recently one Canadian Slovene is having an interesting page on the net about some periods from Slovene history. I have found these days all over some very shocking facts from a history of my own small and almost vanished, but proud nation. And we must know I am not a super educated historian. I am simply a wikipedian. Best regards. --XJamRastafire

I partly agree with JHK (see Karantanians). Besides, I do not know what is difference between Reference and Further reading and why is Joško Šavli's book placed before those of academic authors. OK, you apparently want to have at your Karantania article all my Further reading too. As a complete newcomer I put it here at first instead Šavli's book but soon changed my mind and deleted it because I realized that you apparently used only it for your article. Besides it is a bad idea to duplicate the same Further reading at both articles. So I suggest to delete it out of yours. Even better solution would be to make from the Karantania article link to a new Venetian theory article and there put Šavli's book. In the new article we should tell to Wikipedia users that Šavli is an amateur - which does not necessarily mean he is wrong. Afterall we know a lot of great amateurs in science history! But one has right to know whom is he dealing with, hasn't he? Again, delete my Further reading at your Karantania article. Please. --TomS -- 23 Apr 2004

TomS, I can't see why you have put the article under the NPOV dispute. Who and what is disputing? :o) No, nobody wants to have your futher readings here. (although I prefer they stay here - because we can really use them to read from them...) Perhaps TUF-KAT just though that references/futher readings were intentionally deleted. You can remove them freely if you wish. As I've already written at you user talk page why I've put Šavli's reference here and that I know his researches are designated as 'non-academic (not my term, but anyway), so I won't repeat this here. You have correctly realized that, yes. This Šavli's book was just starting point for making the article, although I respect his work about our distant history. There is still a lot to do - not just for academicians, but also for all other, ordinary people as we Wikipedians are and so. And as you've written he is not necessarily wrong, right. And can we put a notice of NPOV dispute out as nobody dispute the article? Best regards. --XJamRastafire 00:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you XJam, that you haven't delete my NPOV dispute notion. And sorry for (too) long delay, but I have been bussy, then on a holiday in Istria ... :-)

Nobody dispute the article? So far the JHK and me do. Who and what is disputing? Disputing are Slovene (a "very anachronistic language for the 7th c.", as JHK has mentioned), "state of the Slovenes", than all this stuff of Dante Alighieri, Fazio degli Uberti, Giovanni Villani, Giovanni Boccaccio, river Brenta, etc., -- why on earth could be all these people and things so important for Karantania? And the language. Who today in Slovenia would understand a sentence like, say, "Glagolite po nas redka slouesa"? Except specialists of course. Everybody would say "Govorite za nami teh nekaj besed" (English: Say after us these few words). The language from 7th to 12th c. in Karantania was by comparison to modern Slovene really very archaic. And was actually called Slavic (by the neighbors and by speakers themselves). There are other things too, say, your Karantania on the map is far too big, you used the same color for Carniola, so it seems as it was a part of Karantania, etc., etc.

For what it's worth, this is what English looked 1000 years ago: Wé cildra biddaþ þé, éalá láréow, þæt þú tæ'ce ús sprecan rihte, forþám ungelæ'rede wé sindon, and gewæmmodlíce we sprecaþ. Nobody without special training could possibly read that today, but it's still considered English.

In short, disputing is J. Šavli (just like in the article Timeline of Slovene history!). He is not necessarily wrong, but in my opinion he actually is wrong.

But this is not the point. The point is quality of the article, the point is the question, what kind encyclopedia we want to be Wikipedia. I am sure we all want it to be as good and accurate as possible. Say, like Encyclopaedia Britanica. But in Britanica an author like he never could contribut, as a matter of fact he wouldn't get a chance at all. That is the point.

So I've again deleted the Furter reading from your ("Šavli's") Karantania article, this time with your permission. But this is nothing more than a temporarily solution - I'm working on a new, longer, article on the basis of several main books from the Furter reading, rather than merely deleteing or rearanging yours.

I'm a non native speaker and a bussy man so I'll need to do this at least two months. Wish me a luck.

Best regards

--TomS --

595

The first mention of this state in official documents has been dated to 595, according to present knowledge.

Actually, Paulus Diaconus doesn't mention the Karantania state. This is what he writes:

In these days Tassilo was ordained king among the Bavarians by Childepert, king of the Franks. And he presently entered with his army into the province of the Sclabi (Slavs), and when he had obtained the victory, he returned to his own land with very great booty.

That happened in 595. As you can see, Paulus Diaconus doesn't use the word Carantania, he uses the words Sclaborum provincia (the s that Thomas Jefferson read about installing the Caranthanian dukes in the Jean Bodin's "Six livres de la Republique". That's it. And XJamRastafire read the nonsense about inspiring Jefferson in J. ?avli's book "Slovenska dr?ava Karantanija" (the map of Caranthania is from the same source too). XJamRastafire is excellent physicist and not-so-good historian, ?avli is just an amateur historian, an awful one, few of the worst in Slovenia. One more thing. As a matter of fact this nonsense si not "the kind of Slavic claim" but the claim of some Slovenes, followers of amateurish (so call) Venetian theory. See also the talk page of Timeline of Slovene history. TomS 14:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with TomS. By the way, maybe the fact that the ceremony was described by Jean Bodin is worth mentioning in the article, because for this reason the ceremony became known all around the world, as Bodin's work is a classic one. Boraczek 07:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I've written what I have read out. Do not blame my lack of knowledge in the fields of history. ?avli is proper written Šavli BTW. (I've named him incorrectly also Šorli at TomS' user talk page). TomsS I am not so excellent physicist as you say. And perhaps I am not so bad historian. The map of Karantania is not from his book also. It is from one newer Slovene history textbook for secondary schools. So, if Jefferson read about this ceremony in that book, why these facts could not have inspired him further on? I do not see nothing amusing in above sentence. Really. But you can laugh if you please. Why small nations can not inspire bigger ones..? --xJaM (t) 23:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For heaven's sake XJamRastafire, who am I to laugh at somebody who wrote so many articles for Wikipedia? I'm really far from such intention. After all everybody can make mistakes. Even me ;-) Secondly, I am curious about "one newer Slovene history textbook for secondary school". Could be more specific? What is its exact title? : TomS 15:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've found two internet references to Jefferson reading about the ritual. The first is a speech by Bill Clinton during his visit to Slovenia in 1999 (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/062199-speech-by-president-in-toast-to-people-of-slovenia.htm) and the second is a speech by senator Frank Lausche in 1967 (http://www.prah.net/slovenia/history/lenarcic.htm). In this second reference an original schlarly reference is also mentioned, "The Genesis of the Contractual Theory and the Installation of the Dukes of Carinthia", author Joseph Felicijan. I have no idea how trustworthy these references truly are, just thought I'd add this here.128.61.25.223 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Acoording to [1], Felicijan found out that Jefferson had two pages marked in his version of Bodin's book, one of them was the description of the ceremony. He concluded that Jefferson must have seen the ritual as the foundation and confirmation of the contractual theory. Nerby (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke's stone and Zollfeld

Guys, I thik the object on the picture shouldn't be labeled Duke's Stone. Two objects were involved in the ceremony, namely (sorry, I only know the German names), the Fürstenstein (Prince's stone) and the Herzogsstuhl (Duke's chair). The image clearly shows the chair, not the stone. I would also suggest adding the German geographical names for matter of clarity. The area north of Klagenfurt where the ceremony took place is now known as Zollfeld. On the procedure, see [2]. Martg76 03:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. This was my mistake, since I haven't correctly translated »Vojvodski stol« to Duke's chair. Thanks for your correction. --XJamRastafire 01:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ducal coronation

Considering that Karantania later became the Duchy of Carinthia, shouldn't we distinguish between the "coronation" ceremonies as well? The prince's of Karantania were installed on the Prince's stone, but the Duke's chair didn't play any role. After Karantania became a duchy, the dukes of Carinthia integrated the ceremony at the Prince's stone in the Ducal coronation. Gugganij 08:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ducal coronation (language issue)

After the incorporation of Karantania into the Holy Roman Empire the ceremonies surrounding the ducal coronation had three parts: 1. a ceremony which took place at the Prince's Stone was held in Slovenian, 2. a Mass held at the cathedral of Maria Saal, 3. a ceremony at the Duke's Chair, which was held in German. Gugganij 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Were Karantanians Slavic or Slovenian?

Hi! I read the discussion about this question in the beginning of this talk page, and I agree with the decision to call it simply a Slavic state, since there is very little evidence that could allow for a more specific designation. However, as far as I know, it is only the Slovenians that feel Karantanians were their ancestors. I believe this should be mentioned in the article, and early on. Regards, --Golioder 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's an accepted fact that the Karantanians were the ancestors of modern-day Slovenians. Some people claim however that they were Slovenians, which is false. Therefore Karantania cannot be designated as a Slovenian state, but there is a strong connection to Slovenian history as well, which cannot be ignored.Wikingus 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The people of medieval England – how are they called? Are they called Germans just because the English language of medieval times was different from modern English? So accordingly, the people of Karantania shouldn’t be called Slavs just because the language has since changed. They were not some abstract Slavs, but rather they were predecessors of modern Slovenes, and not of modern Bulgarians, Croats, Polacks, and so on. But clearly, the word Slovene in the context of Karantania should be understood in ethnical terms, and not in the political/national denotation of the name Slovenes, because there simply was no Slovene nation/polity, only ethnos, prior to 1848. Politically the state was called Karantania and not Slovenia.

Also, one should not use the name Karantanians, but either Karanti or Karantani. The first choice Karanti means the same as Kran(j)ci, and the second choice Karantani means the same as Kran(j)čani. The modern Slovene form Karantanci is false, because it is just the multiplication of the endings, and would mean the same as “Kranjčanci”, while the English form Karantanians would mean the same as “Kranjčanijanci”.

But since the first ‘a’ in Karantania is from the Latin version of the name, while in Slovene this vowel is ‘o’ (Korotan, Koroška), the even more proper term for the population of Karantania would be Koranti (Kranjci) or Korantani (Kranjčani). Korant, of course, is also a figure of Slovene pagan mythology.

The name Karantania is a Latin form of the state’s name, and it should be taken as certain that it was not called this way by its own people, because they were not Romans. The name itself doesn’t come from any Celtic or pre-IE word, but rather it comes from the Slovene word ‘krajina’, which means land, province. 58.239.255.145 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The word Karatan, from which Korotan evolved(the sounds "o" and "a" tend to be interchangeable, like sloven-slaven, wlosy(czech or slovak or sth)-lasi) is actually thought to be a combination of the proto-slavic root *kar, meaning high or to rise up(čer, gor, gora, kór) and stan, meaning residence, perhaps state. However the word Kranjska is thought by official historians to originate from the Karni, an ancient people who used to dwell there and is later supposed to have taken on the meaning of krajina, so krajnska... but some of us know that this is bullshit and that the word krajnska became used only after it was written down as "kranjska", but before that, it was always pronounced as kranska. About the Slovenes vs. Slavs argument: I think they should be called Slovenes. The only reason they aren't widely reffered to as Slovenes and it is always stressed that they were "Alpine Slavs" is because some Austrian nationalist historian(in league with Jörg Haider =)) proclaimed them to have been some other Slavs, with absolutely no evidence to back this claim up. Also, she can not deny that the coronation ceremony was held in Slovene. Nerby (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and another version is it being named after the god Korant, also known as Karant. Nerby (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Karantania was 1. Slovene state, without any doubt. The proof are Freising Manuscripts in Slovene language. KARANTANIA comes from Slavic name "KARA" - "KIRA" (also Etruscan "kira", Nepal as "Kirata" - "hilly"), "Gira", "Gara" - "Gora" - Korotan, Kaernten. Kara means "mountain". "Gorovat", "Korovat" means "hilly". Korant or "Gorant" (the hilly). "GOR" in slavic means "up" - "Gora" (mountain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.200.87 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Langugage changed, people didn't

Hi! I read the discussion about this question in the beginning of this talk page, and I agree with the decision to call it simply a Slavic state.

At first, I should tell you, that I'm a Slovenian... Anyways, I think you should look at the logical point of view - no other slavic country is closer towards Carantania then Slovenia. No other slavic country claims that Carantania was their country. Ask Croatians about Carantania, Checz, Slovak... Maybe at some point Carantania included their territory, but the the names like King Samo, St. Domitian, etc. their existecy was proven, their names mean sth. only to us. Only we have our minority in south Austria, where use to be Carantania. So your logic would be - those slavics had to leave that place but at some point slovenians came there out of nowhere?

Austrians (germans) did take away the independency of Carantania, they did cause so-called germanizing, they brought christian religion, they assimilated northeren part of Carantania, they did everything to make Slovenians look small, without history, just slaves waiting to be captured like Hitler tried...

Conclusion - Slovenia is a small country. Yes we were captured by other countries for hundreds of years, they treated us as a part of Yugoslavia, of Austro-Ogerska, of Habsburska monarhija,... so it sounds unbelivable that this small nation was once a much bigger country, pride of Europa and yes it was a slavic state - our slavic state!!!

(omg, I speak English, I'm not Slovenian anymore, where did I go wrong :( )

le vkup, le vkup, uboga gmajna!

What is your point exactly? This brings nothing meaningful to the discussion, as it's mostly your POV. Wikingus 13:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Slovenians, please face it, it is written here your first recorded Slovenian writing is from 16th century. Before that you cannot be 100% sure if they spoke Slovenian in Ljubljana. There was also the oppression from Ottomans, where a lot of Southern Slavs were fleeing from Balkans. Abdulka 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? THE CORONATION CEREMONY WAS BEING HELD IN SLOVENE LANGUAGE. What better proof do you need? Why don't you learn about the Freising monuments and other medieval Slovene manuscripts and until then please refrain from bullshitting here with provocations and your Magyar royalistic agenda. 201.51.122.168 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Abdulka, I don't understand what you mean. The first Slovenian writing - the Freising manuscripts - date to a time between 972 and 1032. Your theory is thus completely false. Have a nice day, and please go outside and get your mind off your strange ideology. Wikingus 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Karantania → Carantania — The spelling "Carantania" is used more frequently in English publications. —Olessi 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as originator. Olessi 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support per evidence below. English prefers C to K in general; we latinize or francify more often than we adopt German or Slavic spellings. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support the title "Carantania" with "C", I agree it is more commonly used than with "K". The "K" is because in slovenian language is "Karantanija".--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Google Books searches: Carantania, Karantania Olessi 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Google Scholar searches: Carantania, Karantania Olessi 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map of Karantania?

I was just wondering, am I the only one here who has a problem with this 'map' of Karantania? I mean, basically it follows from it that the southern border of Karantania in 828 AD was exactly the same as the southern border of modern Austria with Slovenia. This I find a bit funny. As far as I know the modern border between Austria and Slovenia was established after WW1 and not in 828 AD. I don't know where this map originates from or who put it in the article, but to me it seems ridiculous. 195.210.239.32 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The extent of Carantania's territory is still a matter of debate among historians, but the prevailing opinion nowadays is that Carantania did not extend south of the Karawanken mountains and most likely only comprised that part of the area of modern Slovenia around the Drava River. --Jalen 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true, that the extend of Carantania's territorry is still debated, but it was never a question, if the slovenian region of Koroška (Korotan) was part of it. Like the name says, it is the only slavic heir by the name. It seems to me, that this map has its actual political reasons. Today's right wing politicians in Austria still do not want to recognise the slovenian minority in Kärnten (the region around Zollfeld valley (Slovenian Gosposvetsko polje), the center of middle age Carantania), where till the end of WW1 was slovenian territory. The Austrians are worried, that the Slovenians could ever demand this territories back. That is why they have problems recognising any connection between the Republic of Slovenia and the middle age Carantania. They are worried, that this would legitimise these possible demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strukturalist (talk • contribs) 20:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Strukturalist. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I say add "disputed" in brackets next to the image. Like this: Hypothetical borders of Carantania around 828 (Disputed!) Nerby (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Did it. Nerby (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavs vs. Slovenian - compromise proposal

I've seen that the problem of the definition of Karantania as a Slavic vs. Slovenian principality has come again to the surface. I tried to stay out of it, because I think (contrary to my former professor Peter Štih, but similarly to his former professor, Bogo Grafenauer) that both "Slavic" and "Slovenian" are equally correct adjectives. However, to avoid further quarrels on the issue, I propose a compromise solution: why don't qualify Karantania as a "proto-Slovene principality". I think this term is the most correct one: the Karantanians were in fact proto-Slovenes, since 1) the Karantanians gradually evolved into Slovenes; and 2) the Slovenes are their only descendants. What do you guys think about it? Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If there is a reputable, scholarly source that speaks of Carantanians as proto-Slovenes or Carantania as a proto-Slovenian principality, then I would be willing to accept your proposal. I would also ask you to provide a source for your claim on Slovenians being the only descendants of Carantanians. --Jalen (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

I agree with Viator slovenicus. Carantanian were slovenes, they weren´t russians, they weren´t a kind of extinct slavs, they weren´t serbian, they were slovenes. In fact this discussion will be obsolete when the advance of genetic investigation demostrate it. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, there are no Slovenians in time of Carantania, but in cca. 972/1093 (Freising manuscripts Freising Manuscripts - without dispute the oldest SLOVENIAN text) there are. What changed in those 200-300 years? Except that Carantania lost it's indenpendance and became part of Frankish empire. The area was still called Carantania (duchy of ...), dukes were still being installed acording to the old traditions ... The only thing that changed were the new rulers. But even they had to be at least partially Slovenian (according to old tradition). Matjazz (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right Matjazz, but some Wikipedians insist that they weren´t slovenes, they insist in calling them "Alpine Slavs" which was a term used by pangermanist writers, and I consider pejorative. I don´t know why is such a problem to call things by its proper name...Carantanians were Slovenes. As long as I can I´ll try to edit but there is always someone reverting my editions. I know that there are political interests as Strukturalist explain in the above discussion, but in Wikipedia? I don´t know why to hide the truth here.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy in the article

The claim that Carantania was established in the 6th century is wrong. Carantania was established after the dissolution of Samo's Tribal Union in 658 and is mentioned in historical sources no earlier than 660. --Jalen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy of an article of Dr. Šavli, ...yes a doctor, And many other academics have taken the side of the Veneti Theory instead your "Invasion Theory":

"...595 AD is the date that the Slovenian State, the later Carantania, also called Slovenia, appears for the very first time in historical records. The mentioning of "provincia Sclaborum" in "The history of Lombards" by the lombard historian Paulus Diaconus, is one of the first books to bear witness of its existence. He explains that in this year Tassilo I, the Bavarian duke, made an incursion into Slovenian territory, defeated them, and returned home with great booty. He quotes: Qui mox cum exercitu in Slaborum provinciam introiens, patrata Victoria, ad solum proprium cum maxima praeda remeavit. ("Historia Langobardorum" IV, 7).

Particularly eye-catching is the denomination "provincia. Today it means the basic administrative unit of a State and not the State itself. Anyway, we have to take into consideration that the author was a Lombard, and that the Lombards called their own kingdom in Italy a provincia. Thus, the mention made by Paulus Diaconus refers to an independent State at the level of a kingdom, which belonged to the Slovenian (Sclaborum) people. In Europe only a few nations, as for example the Irish, Bavarians, Basques… can refer to a State tradition of such an early period in history. This alone was very likely reason for envy toward the Slovenians. Their neighbours (Austrians, Bavarians, Croats, Serbs, Friulians), it is true, concealed the historical identity of the Slovenian people. Perhaps their more distant Slav "brethren" like the Czechs or Russians simply ignored the date 595 AD, the historical mention of Carantania. In Czechia, for example, Great Moravia, which appears as late as ca. 830 AD, is quoted as the "first" historical State of the Slavs.

The ancient- new distortions

The 19th century in Europe was the period of the awakening of nations. It was a Question d'honneur for each nation to present itself individually in its earliest stage of historical origin. For this purpose, a so-called scientific explanation of history was often formulated and perhaps forged to fit national and nationalistic aims. Yet, there is not one European State were historical forgeries were so widely extended and fateful as in the one-time Austrian Monarchy, a multinational historical formation, of which Slovenians were part of.

In fact, Austria to a close extent was the historical origin and core land of the later Monarchy. But seen in historical and political perspective, it was only a continuation of the previous Carantania, a Slovenian State (mentioned 595 AD). In spite of this historical fact, within the Monarchy Slovenians were declared a "non historical" people, who never had a proper State and never achieved a proper statehood in their history. Moreover, Slovenians had to be Germanized in order to create the German bridge from the North Sea to the Adriatic. To achieve this purpose a campaign of denigration and disdain for the Slovenian language and culture was set in motion.

The chief role in this campaign played the University of Graz. In the second part of the 19th century, studies were done on a "scientific" level of shameless chauvinistic interpretation of "history for inferior Slavs", Slovenians were targeted in particular. Regretfully, in modern Austria the ancient forgeries from Graz are still in circulation. So, the early Slovenian State of Carantania, the predecessor of Austria, is strictly concealed. The present-day Austrian academic world shamelessly continues to call Slovenians "Alpine Slavs" (Alpenslawen) as to deny them their historical identity. At the same time, for example, Austrian academicians do not call Bavarians "Pre-Alpine Germans", or Croats "Adriatic Slavs", and so on.

These and other examples demonstrate an evidently chauvinistic orientation precisely directed against Slovenians. Not by chance! Such a standpoint of the Austrian academic world towards Slovenians is not only chauvinistic but also completely abnormal. Therefore, one must conclude that such orientation is the primary mechanism of the not clearly defined (pan-German?) circles. It is about the background circles, who influence directly the financing of Austrian academic institutions, formally carried out through the Ministry of Education in Vienna. Evidently, still today, this financing influences in a negative way the approach of the Austrian academic world towards Slovenians. It is evident, that for these undefined circles the historical identity of Slovenians, clearly attested by their early Medieval State Carantania, continues to be disturbing.

In this connection it is interesting to know in a concrete way, to what extent the Austrian academic world is forced to falsify the historical data about Carantania. They quote for example: The "Alpine Slavs" populated the Eastern Alps (the area of today's Austria) with the help of their masters, the wild Avars, who settled in Pannonia at that time. After the Avars were driven out, the Franks (they identify them with Germans) became the new masters of the "Alpine Slavs" (Slovenians). - In this way, Slovenian history is presented as an endless yoke. In reality there are no corresponding historical records to confirm such an explanation. It is all an invention, a lie. Anyway, that lie is supported by a number of irresponsible statements and made credible by the academic prestige. Therefore, this type of history is generally found in Austrian schoolbooks and in the mass media, leaving an imprint in the Austrian public mind.

Still before the WW1, it is true that the present-day Austria (the Habsburg Hereditary Lands) was very frequently called "South-Eastern Germany" (Südostdeutschland). The Austrians, who in majority are Germanized people of ancient Carantania, consider themselves to be descendants of the famed Germans (Bavarians), like they were told. This makes them feel superior to the non historic »Alpine Slavs« (Slovenians), whom they tend to look down upon. Until today the Austrian mind has not changed. Of course, it is not about spontaneous sentiments of the otherwise gentle Austrian people. The image of the "inferior" Slavs is carefully maintained by the above mentioned undefined circles. The question remains open as to whether or not they are members of Cobra, the Austrian secret service.

Manipulation of the Public Mind

In 1976, Carinthia, a federal province of Austria, celebrated with great pomp the "1000 - anniversary" of the country. Thus, in 976 AD a separate duke was appointed in Carinthia (Carantania). Some decades before that time, Bavaria and Carantania shared a common duke, a Dux Baiuvariorum et Carentanorum. However, Carinthia (Carantania), according to historical records, existed already in 595 AD! Thus, the aforesaid pomp was aimed to celebrate the millenary of "German" Carinthia. An evident forgery, but no one commented on it in Austria.

Further more it is true, that the citizens of present-day Carinthia (and Austria) do not know much about the Princes Stone (Knežji kamen, Fürstenstein), on which the installation of the Carantanian (Carinthian) dukes took place. Why? Because the entire rite was carried out in Slovenian language, and the duke was called Slovenian Lord (Slovenski gospod, Windischer Herr). His title did not refer to his ethnical appurtenance but to the fact, that he was the head of the Slovenian State. Thus, »Slovenian« meant in the first line a political and not a close ethnical formation. But any publication of these facts could be embarrassing to the Carinthian and Austrian authorities and would make liars out of public opinion makers. The easy way out was to omit the issue entirely.

Instead, the symbol of the Dukes Throne (Vojvodski stol, Herzogstuhl) is widely spread throughout Carinthia. School programs and the mass media present the symbol in an untrue way as the »oldest German judicial monument«. Why »German«? One considers that it had its origin in the Carantanian feudal time (but it is only a supposition). The feudal order, as it is known, was spread by the Franks throughout Western Europe, who in the time of the great-German movement simply were recognized as Germans. Therefore, the feudal class in Carantania was automatically »German«, and so was the Dukes Throne. Very simply, isn't it?

But there is more to it! Further forgeries and lies were discovered in connection with the Franks. One of them is, that after Christianization (after 750 AD) Carantania became a »Bavarian March«. This lie is constantly propagated without being questioned by Bavarian and Austrian historians. What's the matter?

Around 745 AD, Carantania was seriously menaced by the Avars, who had settled in nearby Pannonia. To secure the country, the Carantanian duke turned to the friendly Bavarians for help. But Carantania's request for Bavarian assistance had to be approved by the Frankish king, the recognized supremacy of the kingdom. The approval was granted under one condition, that the Carantanians, at that time still a pagan people, accepted the Christendom and recognized the supremacy of the Frankish king, the protector of the Christendom in Europe. The Carantanian duke Borut agreed, and with help of the Bavarian military the Avars were defeated. Missionaries arrived from Salzburg (Bavaria) and from Aquileia, and thereafter Christianization began in Carantania.

Evidently, the idea of the »Bavarian March« has been connected with the following historical fact: in 791 AD the Frankish army finally defeated the Avars in Pannonia, and then a unique military district (a march) was established for Bavaria, Carantania (north of the Drava River) and Pannonia. A further military district was formed for Friuli, Carniola and Slavonia (south of the Drava River). The military commanders were called »confinii comites« (margraves). Sometimes their administration was also entrusted to the dukes. But the civilian (duchy) and the military authority (march) always were diverse offices. The anti-Slovenian circles stress the fact that Carantania lost its independence after Christianization. In fact, Carantania associated with the then European Christian community frequently called imperium Cristianum, which was under the political and military protection of the Frankish king.

In spite of the fact, that both duchies were under a common military commander, Bavaria and Carantania continued to be two dukedoms (states) of the same kingdom with equal rights. The imperium Cristianum, that Carantania associated with after Christianization, was a confederation, later called Sacrum Imperium Romanum (Holy Roman Empire). It united European kingdoms and dukedoms in defence against Islamic expansionism, and was not dissolved until 1806 AD. The word Romanum meant, that this Christian community had its centre with the Pope in Rome. Carantania and its follower Austria belonged to this confederation as an independent nation. These circumstances have been continuously suppressed by the Austrian and Bavarian historians.

Yugoslav unitarism

In 1918, at the end of the WW1, the majority of Slovenians associated with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The kingdom, with the centre in Belgrade, had a centralistic regime. The Serbian part was predominant over other nations. Moreover, if Yugoslavia already exited, then, through gradual unitarism a Yugoslav (Serbian) nation should be formed, too. One of the main obstacles to this end presented the Slovenian historical tradition, language and culture, because it is so very different from that of other southern Slav nations.

Therefore, in 1920 AD, Belgrade sent their confidant Prof. Nikola Radojcic to the University of Lublana, where he was given the cathedra for Yugoslav history (a non-exiting scientific branch). He did not know Slovenian; therefore he simply gave lectures in Serbian. The cathedra should substantiate the Yugoslav ideology, which was needed to execute Belgrade's centralism and unitarism. The ideology was constructed on the premise that, at one time, all Southern Slavs (Yugoslavs) formed a unique nation, which later the »hostile neighbours« divided into several peoples. Consequently, this primordial »Yugoslav« nation should be restored anew.

In this connection, the Yugoslav unitarism should not mean denationalization of the Slovenians, but rather a »return to their origin«. Such ideological line was elaborated by the Serbian Academy and propagated by Belgrade's regime apparatus. The regime financed the academic institutions and, in this way, it conditioned their publications, including those of the University of Lublana. It is true that the Yugoslav unitaristic line did not appear openly in these publications, in order not to proof Slovenian history could only have been conditioned by Belgrade. Anyway, in his works he also treated the Installation of the dukes of Carantania (Carinthia). But he did not take into consideration the existence of the Slovenian law (State tradition), the institutio Slavenica. He explained the historical tradition in this way: (after the supposed loss of Carantanian independence, in 820 AD) the installation rite was no more than a symbol of an ancient »custom« without political base. The new elected dukes, in particular those of the House of Habsburg, used this rite to make themselves popular among the Carantanian people

Evidently, by denying the continuation of Carantania in the following Austria, where the rite still remained preserved, Prof. Bogo Grafenauer was forced to follow the corresponding directives of Belgrade. Anyway, his knowledge of political history, as I think, was somewhat vague. He evidently understood the contents of the »electio« (election) of the new dukes in the pre-feudal period of Carantania. But in the feudal period (and in the later Austria), the duke was not elected any more. In sense of the dynastic law, he was appointed by the Royal Court. Anyway, the institutio Sclavenica still had to be taken into account. In the sense of this law, the duke had to be confirmed by the Carantanian people to hold office. It was the »collaudatio« (confirmation) of the people or their representatives (today's parliament). On this occasion he had to swear under oath that he would be a righteous ruler and practice the Christian Faith. After fulfilling these requirements to the satisfaction of the people the executive power was vested in him and the duke became the official ruler of the country.

The enthronement of the duke is clearly evident from events, which occurred in the 11th century. In 1036 AD, Duke Adalbero, the beginner of the Dynasty of Carantania (first house), was deposed. He was not replaced, and the King and Emperor Henry III decided to »administrate Carantania himself«. In fact, Markvart, Adalbero's son, ruled Carantania. In 1047 AD, the Royal Court appointed the noble Wolf of Bavaria as duke of Carantanian. But he was rejected by the people and could not assume office. When in 1057 AD the noble Conrad III of Franconia was appointed to this office, the Carantanian army prevented him and his suite from entering the country. In 1061 AD, the Royal Court appointed another ruler, Berthold of Svabia, who was also prevented from crossing the border. Thus, all these dukes were not cognates of Carantanian noble families, as it was customary in the sense of the institutio Sclavenica. - These events, which are sharply in contrast to that what official historiography presents, have been omitted in the papers of Slovenian (Yugoslav) historians until this very day.

Undermining the scientific level

Thus, not only in Austria but also in Yugoslavia the Slovenian State tradition suffered a tremendous blow. Through its secret service, the Belgrade regime applied severe control measures, in particular over the University of Lublana. When advocating the Slovenian historical statehood it was interpreted as Slovenian »nationalism« and suspected of separatism from Yugoslavia. Anyway, this was only one of the reasons why the Belgrade regime was downsizing the scientific level of the University of Lublana. In the period after the WW2 approximately 90 outstanding professionals were dismissed from the university. Belgrade's general aim was to decrease the scientific level of this institution.

Moreover, in order to realize this goal, the obligatory Communist (Marxist) ideology has been applied, too. The university was, perhaps, forced to change its name to University of Edvard Kardelj. It should be named after the leading ideologist of Yugoslav Communism and its »self-management«. Following the secret directives of Belgrade, Kardelj had perhaps planned the rising of a (Yugoslav) »socialist« nation, into which Slovenia should be amalgamated. For this purpose, the Slovenian historical identity had to be denied. The basic premise survived both, the Communist regime and Yugoslavia, and has continued into independent Slovenia. Therefore, the year 595 AD is still not found in Slovenian schoolbooks. In my opinion, the present-day Minister for Education, Milan Zver, must be aware of the situation.

Under the Yugoslav Communist regime, the University of Lublana was exposed to ideological terror. Consequently, its scientific level wen gradually down. After the declaration of independence of Slovenia, this situation did not improve. Today, the University of Lublana did not make the list of the top 500 most serious academic institutions, quoted in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Thus, it is high time that the prevailing ideological line of this university changes into a scientific one! To this purpose, the underground Yugoslav ideological control must cease. The freedom of scientific research must be secured. Not at least, the freedom of recognising the Slovenian State (595 AD) and its historical tradition." by Dr. Jožko Šavli.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this article published? The fact that Dr. Šavli and other academics agree on the Venti theory does not mean that the facts are not still in dispute. If there is genuine dispute in the community (something which I cannot judge), then the article should reflect both points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imars (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Imars!. Thanks for your interest in this question. I found Dr. Šavli´s article in http://www.carantha.net/595_ad____provincia_sclaborum___slovenia_.htm. But the real background is the Veneti Theory which is supported by a number of repected academics http://www.prah.net/europaveneta/select.htm , is interesting the article there "How it all begun". I mentiones PhD in Linguistics Charles Bryant-Abraham, you can read http://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/Bryant-AbrahamVenetiReview.html. If you are interested please contact me by mail, there are many people who don´t want this theory to be spread but new researchs in genetics are demostrating it right, that the slovene are in Central Europe since the Bronze Age. Greetings--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is NO proof whatsoever for the sixth century theory, while there is proof for the veneti theory. You can even interpret venetic inscriptions using modern-day Slovene. Practically every word of these inscriptions is preserved in some Slovene dialect. I could link a site with information about these, but since it's in Slovene I might as well write it here. One inscription is on a bottle, or more accurately, a container for liquid. It says "osti jarej", in litterary Slovene "ostani mlad" and it means "stay young". It is thought that this would've been a toast. Another one(a laddle I believe) was recovered near a lake thought to possess magical powers and says "kalo diba", in litterary Slovene "kal čudeža" and means "germ of miracle." (not germ as in bacteria - check dictionary if you don't know) Another one is much longer, it says "ki si ut slovonicu s trumužjatji donom", in litterary Slovene "ki si od Slovencev, z darom tromoštvu" and means "(You) who are of the Slovenes, with the gift to the "three-men"." This is the first time the word Slovene was written down. The trumužjat is thought to mean the god Triglav. A very interesting inscription is found on a cinerary urn, it says "v ougon taj tot i onaj", litterary "v ogenj ta, toti in oni." It means "into fire (with) this one, that one and the other one", so it means "all into fire." Another particularly interesting find is a tablet, thought to have been used for linguistics or learning the language. The most important part of it is the third part, which contains all forms of the verb "jekati", meaning "to cry". Here's the link in case you want to look at the pictures or run it through a translator: http://www.hervardi.com/stari_slovenski_napisi.php
You might want to also take a look at http://www.veneti.info/
The reason Slovene history is so messed up is because the Germans tried to germanise us in Austro-hungary, modifying it, and later, in Yugoslavia, because we were supposed to have been joined into one nation with the Serbs and the Croats. The biggest mistake was that a real review of our history was never really made, only the most controversial stuff was removed, like Croats rulling in Carantania. And this version of history is still thought in schools. Nerby (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you can not interpret Venetic as Slovene; at least not without abandoning all sense. This is assertion is absurd. See my talk page for commentary as well as links to other discussions on this topic. Share sources if you have them, no matter what language they're in. This is patent bullshit that undermines the work done on the language so far and offers nothing of serious, encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Dr. C.S. Lewis-Barrie, Ph.D. (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

“Patent bullshit”, “An orgy of nationalistic assaults on logic and research”, etc. Sir, these are harsh words and serious accusations and it is somewhat ironic that such statements are coming from you, when in fact your claims go completely against what we know for sure from legitimate primary historical sources.

“/…/ termini Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur.” This statement comes from Vita S. Columbani, a biography of Saint Columbanus, written in early seventh century.

“Sclavi coinomento Vinedi /…/” This phrase can be found in the Chronicle of Fredegar, written in mid seventh century. The Chronicle of Fredegar also mentions a Slavic / Slovene early medieval political entity, called in the original text “Marca Vinedorum”

And the following is written in De origine actibusque Getarum, a history of the Goths, written by Jordanes around 551 CE.

“Introrsus illis Dacia est, ad coronae speciem arduis Alpibus emunita, iuxta quorum sinistrum latus, qui in aquilone vergit, ab ortu Vistulae fluminis per inmensa spatia Venetharum natio populosa consedit, quorum nomina licet nunc per varias familias et loca mutentur, principaliter tamen Sclaveni et Antes nominantur.” (34)

Later on in the book Jordanes also says:

“Post Herulorum cede item Hermanaricus in Venethos arma commovit, qui, quamvis armis despecti, sed numerositate pollentes, primum resistere conabantur. Sed nihil valet multitudo inbellium, praesertim ubi et deus permittit et multitudo armata advenerit. Nam hi, ut in initio expositionis vel catalogo gentium dicere coepimus, ab una stirpe exorti, tria nunc nomina ediderunt, id est Venethi, Antes, Sclaveni; qui quamvis nunc, ita facientibus peccatis nostris, ubique deseviunt, tamen tunc omnes Hermanarici imperiis servierunt.” (119).

These statements in primary sources are facts. They clearly show that the ethnonym Veneti was indeed used in Latin to denote the Slavs. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that such was the case only from sixth century onward and not before. On the contrary, not one ancient source written in Latin or Greek mentions the Slavs anywhere in Europe or Asia, but they do mention the (Baltic) Veneti in the exact area of the alleged Slavic homeland in North Eastern Europe. So unless we are to believe that the largest ethnical group of Europe simply fell from the sky in the sixth century, while at the same time the largest ethnical group of ancient Eastern Europe magically disappeared, then clearly the term Veneti (Baltic) was used to denote the Slavs already in classical Latin, when the Veneti were mentioned in Northeastern Europe by Pliny the Elder and Tacitus (as well as Ptolemy in Greek). If the term Veneti was used to designate Slavs in the case of the Baltic Slavs (Baltic Veneti), clearly the same may also be true when speaking of the Adriatic Slavs (Adriatic Veneti), especially in light of complete absence of any sixth or seventh century source mentioning the arrival of Slavs into the Alpine-Adriatic area.

If some or even most historians and linguists choose to ignore the above primary sources or choose to interpret them in exactly the opposite manner from what these sources actually say, this is no longer a matter of factuality but rather a matter of tendacious interpretation.

We have primary sources to support our claims. We have German and Hungarian exonym for Slovenes. Plus we have ancient toponyms and hydronyms understandable directly through Slavic (such as Tergeste, ancient Trieste, and Opitergium, ancient Oderzo; from terg, trg, meaning market), and we have 1200 years of historiography prior to Napoleon’s defeat and the rise of German nationalism (which of course later achieved its peak with Nazism), accompanied by the rewriting of Slavic history within Habsburg monarchy.

What do you have Dr. C. S. Lewis Barrie? Apart from Italic interpretations of inscriptions based on the “ego + Name + Surname” prescription, accompanied by all sorts of paleographical corruptions of original inscriptions in the process of transcription from Venetic to Latin script: 1) false direction of reading in the case of alphabetical tablets in order to disguise the true morphology of Venetic language, which completely dismisses any comparison to Latin, 2) inserting letters into individual inscriptions where these letters are absent in order to achieve the desired result, 3) assigning false phonetic values to individual letters, 4) assigning several different phonetic values to same letters, written more than once on individual inscriptions. 90 % of words on Venetic inscriptions are deemed to be anthroponyms in Italic interpretation, which says a lot about the credibility of this so called Italic “Venetic” language.

You accuse people of bullshitting, but have proven yourself how little you know about Venetic theory when you assigned it to Serbian (sic!) nationalism. Yet you vehemently accuse us of stupidity, nationalism, “assaults on logic”, and so on. 220.19.128.219 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr. C.S. Lewis-Barrie, Ph.D., what's with the rough talk? These are serious accusations. If you think my point isn't valid feel free to undermine it using your own arguments, but don't use words like "patent bullshitting" with me. Such behaviour shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. If I find your arguments better than mine, I'll admit my mistake. As for the latin writings: Besides what the person above me has proposed, it could've also been that the Venets that wrote them would have taken over the language(since we know they were in the roman empire and latin was "the language" of the time), with some unique properties coming from their original language. Besides, as far as I know, the language of the Venets has been classified as a unique indoeuropean branch(obviously nobody tried to compare it with over 200 Slovene dialects) and isn't thought to have originally been latin. Nerby (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I admit I am no linguist, I'm simply trying to create a discussion based on the sources I've seen. I'm leaving the research to the experts, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical and try to determine the truth. Nerby (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My editions were reverted and the information was from a cited reference ( Jožko Šavli, Slovenia: Discovering a European Nation, Humar Publisher, Slovenia (2004). ISBN 961-6097-19-9), Paulus Diaconus cited "Provincia Sclaborum" indeed, and no writer cited a supposed invasion in the 6th century. The image of the EURO 2 cents coin was erased too and it was from Wiki Commons, it is almost vandalic. And if a State officialy honours the Installation of the Duke with a coin, so it is not a Fringe Theory that Carantania was formed by Slovenes, it was not a State of Russians, Avars, extinct Slavs, or ET´s. A State officialy honours Carantania and I am reverted.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ducal Coronation the umpteenth

The text as of today: "The principality of Carantania is particularly notable for the ancient ritual of installing Carantanian dukes (or princes, both an approximate translation of Fürst), a practice that continued after Carantania was incorporated into the later Duchy of Carinthia. It was last performed in 1414, when the Habsburg Ernest the Iron was enthroned as Duke of Carinthia. The ritual took place on the Prince's Stone (Slovenian Knežji kamen, German Fürstenstein), an ancient Celtic column..."

I'm going to put right some confusing or not quite correct details : A principality is ruled by a prince, a duke rules a duchy or dukedom. "Duke" is not an approximate "translation" but an approx. interpretation of "Fürst" since "Fürst" is an old superlative like "first". The title is the literal translation of Latin "princeps" = prince. The Prince's Stone is not a Celtic column but the fragment of a Roman column from nearby Virunum.

---

And, please, will someone with authority remove the lovely picture of the 15th (!) century Gothic Maria Saal village church. It's definitely not "Carantanian"! . Marschner (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Church of Maria Saal (Gospa Sveta)

The Prince's Stone is definetely an ancient Roman and not Celtic column. As of the picture of Maria Saal church, I believe it can stay: of course it was largely restructured in the Gothic style (and later in the Baroque style, too; it btw. has even modernists elements from the 1920s), but the initital structure with the bases was erected during Carantanian times. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Immigration in 6-century is lie,Paulus Diaconus (720 - 799) woud mentioned it but he didn't beacuse there was no immigration.I i porpose that Carantania is Slovene principaly not Slavic.Infact there were some tribes in Carantania beacuse there was no borders.Like;Lombards,Celts,Avars,Bavarians... But none of them,did not control Slovenian state,Carantania was controled by Slovene duke not Slavic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlovenecMB (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mate, you make zero sense Hxseek (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Carantania

by Dr. Jožko Šavli

Carantha.net discusses Slovenian history that has developed before and after the fall of the Roman Empire and especially during the reign of Charlemagne the Great, who created the extension of the Roman Empire. Our intention was not to discuss the history of Byzantium, because we are mainly concerned with true Slovenian history and Roman Catholicism of Slovenia.

To answer your questions, please read http://www.carantha.net/

Forum Carantania – Slovenia and Forum Veneti

The center of regnum Noricum, (ca. 113 to 15 BC), which encompassed large parts of present-day Austria and Slovenia, was the one-time sacred mountain called Magdalensberg (Šentlenska gora) (possibly Virunum, successor of Noreia) in modern Carinthia. This name refers to the Carni, a tribe that had settled the south-western part of the province in present-day Carinthia, Upper Carniola and Friuli, were they had formed the federal kingdom of Noricum. The Latobici tribe settled in the south-eastern, meaning today's region of Celje. The Carni people gave modern Carinthia its name, and also Carnia (Northern Friuli) and Carniola (in Slovenia) were named after them. It is the same people who, after the decline of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, and after some decades of Otrogothic occupation, proclaimed an independent Carantania. In 595 AD, a historical source mentions for the first time the existence of provincia Sclavorum (Carantania) (also called Sclauinia, Slovenia).

Slovenians and Carantanians are historically an ethnic people, which is not applicable to the Slavs, who are only a linguistic and not an ethnic group.

A nation, in the sense of the national model of the 19th century, is still today stamped with an identification mark of a linguistic group. But such conception is definitely not true. For example, English speaking Americans, English/French speaking Canadians or Spanish speaking Mexicans... or even the four languages speaking Swiss, etc., each one of them must be defined as a nation. And it was not any different in historic and in pre-historic times.

Such a question must also be connected with the origin of the so-called Slavs. They are only a linguistic "national" group, and certainly not an ethnic one. However, in the sense of the 19th century conception, they were considered to be descendants of the "Ancient Slavs", like the Germans from the Ancient Germans. The ethnic group of "Ancient Slavs" was purely an academic construction. An easy demonstrable error, for they did never exist.

--B.Jezovnik (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)B. Ježovnik/ for Carantha (April 17, 2010)

Comments to Maria Saal Church Picture

by Dr. Jožko Šavli (August 19, 2010)

Concerning the picture of Maria Saal from ca. 1420, which should have had nothing to do with Carantania, I feel compelled to make the following remarks: The original picture of this church, which bears the characteristic name Maria Saal, was definitely installed at the time of its foundation. This period marked the time of the Christianization of Carantania in 8th century AD. No pictures have been preserved from this period. That it really existed, is certain, because one cannot imagine a church without the image of the Saint after which it was consecrated. Furthermore, the German name Maria Saal is a derivation from the Latin appellation Maria in Solio (Mary on the Throne). It is about an image of this name, which was very much venerated in Byzantium. It arrived in Carantania through the missionaries of Aquileia. At that time, Aquileia was subordinated to the Byzantine Church and not to Rome, where the veneration of Mary was not yet promulgated. In Greek, the image of Mary on the Throne is identified as Kyriotissa, i.e., the Queen of Heaven and Earth. The Slovenian appellation Gospa Sveta (literally: Holy Mistress) is a direct translation of Kyriotissa. In the West, her name is Maestà, in Italian, and Sedes Sapientiae (Seat of Wisdom), in Latin. It is about the Eternal Divine Wisdom (Jesus). The church of Mary on the Throne called Maria Saal – Gospa Sveta was the cathedral of Carantania and was founded in 753 AD by the Irish Bishop Saint Modestus, the Apostle of the Carantanians. In a time, when the veneration of Mary did not yet exist in (Western) Europe. But it was largely diffused in the East. The translation Our Lady (Unsere Liebe Frau, in German) is formally correct. Anyway, it does not express the much more deeply rooted origin of its veneration. – .

Please read Our Lady of Carantania http://www.carantha.net/our_lady_of_carantania.htm

--B.Jezovnik (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)B.Jezovnik (talk) August 19, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Carantania and the Eastern March (Austria)

by Dr. Jožko Šavli, September 5, 2010

Under Emperor Diocletian (after ca. 300 AD), Noricum was divided into Noricum mediterraneum and Noricum ripense. It is beyond doubt that the one-time Roman province of Noricum mediterraneum (Inner Noricum) was the predecessor of Carantania. It is less known, that Noricum ripense, the other ancient province of the Roman Empire, was the predecessor of Bavaria, with the chief town of Lauriacum (Lorch), Upper Austria. In the middle of the 8th century AD, Bavaria was threatened by the Avars, and the Bavarians transferred their capital to Regensburg in Vindelicia, the present-day Bavaria. Carantania included the modern Carinthia and Styria, whereas Carniola, which was part of the Roman province of Pannonia in Roman times, became a province in the lower part of the Principality of Carantania.

Was Carantania a Slavic or Slovenian duchy? Historically, Slovenians and Carantanians are an ethnic group. Slavs are only a linguistic group, and certainly not an ethnic one. However, in sense of the 19th century conception, they were considered to be descendants of the "Ancient Slavs", who at one-time should have lived in the "Ancient homeland of Slavs" behind the Carpathian Mountains. This was purely an academic construction, which was elaborated for the purpose of the pan-Slav ideology. It was, more or less, an answer to the pan-German construction, which refers to Scandinavia as the "ancestral homeland of the Germanic people". Today it is well known that both ideologies were used for imperialistic purposes.

The naive conception of "ancient" Slavs or Germans, crowned by the well financed and ideologically-driven academic institutions, chose as comparison the Spanish speaking world, which today includes all Latin American countries. Does that mean, all Latin American Spanish-speaking inhabitants descended from the "Ancient homeland of the Spaniards", which would have been from the Iberian Peninsula? Or, would people from USA and Canada be descendants of the "Ancient English", who lived in the "Ancient homeland of the British Isles"? Only because they speak English?

Thus, regardless of all statements made by the well funded academic world, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that Carantanians are a nation of Slovenians. But in which way did they become Austrians during the centuries? Because, from the historical point of view, Austria is identical with Carantania. Its name derives from the Eastern March (a part of today's Lower Austria) on the Danube. On all maps, the Eastern March is shown as a Bavarian March. But this is a deliberately misleading statement, committed by German and present-day Austrian historiography.

I was aware of this fact, when I read the citations of B. Grafenauer, the well-known Slovenian historian. He copied from German material the following "statement": ... In 876 AD, Prince Carloman, son of Louis the German (†), inherited Bavaria and Carantania. He ceded Carantania to his son Arnulf, except the Eastern March, which he annexed to Bavaria, where he reigned himself.

This was surely a false interpretation. Around 856, King Louis the German deposed of Margrave Ratbod because of his connections with the hostile duke of Great Moravia. Ratbod was the military commander of the Eastern March, which at that time included Carantania and Pannonia and later only the territory on the Danube River around Melk. Already in 883, because of the Eastern March, a war broke out between Carantania and Great Moravia. How could that be possible if the Eastern March would not be a Carantanian province? After a while, I solved the puzzle with the help of heraldry. On the seals of the Eastern March, which later became known as Austria, appears the Royal Eagle and the Carantanian Panther, but no Bavarian emblem. This means, that the Eastern March was a military province of the Kingdom of the Eastern Franks (later called Germania). But its civil administration pertained to Carantania.

In 976, Leopold was appointed Margrave of the Eastern March. At that time, Leopold did not use the family name Babenberg. It is well known, that the very family of Babenberg originated from Franconia, and that already in 906 their last member fell in battle. The name Babenberg was given to the descendants of Margrave Leopold I about 70 years later by Bishop Otto of Freising (1114 - 1158) (Vajda.42) and passed as such into the historical records. In origin, the Margrave was a member of the line of the Luitpoldings, a Carantanian family. The founder of the Luitpolding line was Luitpold (Leopold), cousin of King and Emperor Arnulf of Carinthia. Margrave Leopold, although not mentioned in the records, was the son of Duke Berthold of Carantania, the younger son of Luitpold (Leopold), Margrave of Carantania. Thus, it is clear that the Austrian "Babenbergs" actually descended from the Luitpoldings. Today, this fact is also recognized by Austrian historians. The name Austria, which gradually was extended over the Carantanian lands, derives from the Habsburg family, who in 1335 inherited all provinces of this ancient duchy. The Habsburg dynasty, it is true, first reigned in Austria (Eastern March). Bavarian and German historians persistently consider the Eastern March and the Traun March as a part of Bavaria and call them Donau (Danube) Marches. In this regard, the question of identity of Carantania and Austria is a question of names, and not a historical one. It is not a matter of true history, but of bad faith.

--B.Jezovnik (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) (http://www.carantha.net/carantania.htm)

Carantania, Duchy of Carantania(later Carinthia) and Margraviate of Carantania

It appears to me that you guys do not comprehend the difference between these three forms territorial units.

Carantania was the first Slavic state(semi-state), whose inhabitants were ancestors of Slovenians(you can call them Slovenians - because no other Slavic tribe is the ancestor of Slovenians)

The Duchy of Carantania or Greater Carantania(later Duchy of Carinthia - the successor to the Duchy of Carantania) was a Duchy composed of the following margraviates(in Slovenian - mejne grofije(krajine)) and other territorial units: Margraviate of Carantania(later to be Styria), Margraviate of Savinja, Margraviate of Ptuj(Ptujska krajina - in Slovenian, Ptuj=Poetovio in Latin), Margraviate of Carniola, Margraviate of Istria(Histria in Latin) and finally Margraviate of Friuli. It is therefore MUCH larger than anything mentioned in this stub of an article. This offends me... (obviously I am Slovenian)

Margraviate of Carantania was a Margraviate of the Duchy of Carantania(mejna grofija in Slovenian), which was the central part of the later Styria.

Obviously there is a general problem in translating the names of these territorial units or regions if you will because only Slavic(mostly Slovenian and Croatian) or German words exist to name them(periodicity Latin expressions as well).

I would also like to mention and important document left out in this stub of an article, which is the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum(The conversion of Bavarians and Carantanians). The document was written in 871 and it clearly proves the existence of the first Slavic state - the slovenian Carantania, it's princes(Fürst in German) and the act of The Princely Inauguration(which was later an inspiration for Jean Bodin's theory of state and his belief that the inauguration is the PROOF that the monarch executes his authority from the people's bestowal of it. Thomas Jefferson read of the inauguration from Bodin's work).

Finally I must add that a lot of the writings about Carantania and theories about it were written by nationalist Austrians, who undermined the idea of Carantania in peoples views of it. Therefore each map/article/theory must be critically evaluated before being accepted as true.

ESPECIALLY WHEN TALKING ABOUT IT FROM THE EYES OF AN OUTSIDER Ciroc (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Slovenian vs "Slavic"

"In its early stages, the language of Carantanian Slavs was essentially Proto-Slavic. In Slovenian linguistic literature and reference books it is sometimes provisionally termed Alpine Slavic (alpska slovanščina). "

So was this proto-slavic language Slovene? Did proto Slavic language derive from Slovene? Because Freising manuscripts were written in SLOVENE LANGUAGE AND NOT IN CHURCH SLAVIC OR IN SOME "PROTO SLAVIC" LANGUAGE...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carantania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319025304/http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/pdf/zgodovina/Stih-Slovenska_zgodovina_od_prazgodovinskih_kultur_do_konca_srednjega_veka.pdf to http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/pdf/zgodovina/Stih-Slovenska_zgodovina_od_prazgodovinskih_kultur_do_konca_srednjega_veka.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)