If you have any sources for us to look at, we would happily consider it.
Thank you for your interest.
Firstly I would like to state that I am excited about the way You have populated the map, a lot of historical research definitely went into it. Considering the Northeastern area of the map, the germanic entities are about where they were supposed to be so one can Roleplay the migration and expansion of historical entities like the Lugii (Vandals?), Goths from Scandza to Oium and the Black Sea coast etc.
Intro
I will briefly present my case for the inclusion of a proto-Slavic entity or entities into this region, possibly called Veneti. I took some time to look at additional sources. We all know that ethnogeneaology is a subjective, hypothetical and oftentimes politicly contentious practise especially when we are dealing with earlier historical sources from the antiquity, trying to relate them to archaeology, linguistics, genetics etc. Our interpretations are too often inspired by modern nationalistic way of thinking about communities, they were often described by foreign and distant authors, archaeologically defined cultures rarely correspond with historical entities etc. Most importantly we have to acknowledge, that ethnic groups or people who identified with each other, preserved material culture patterns as discerned by archaeology and proto-languages as reconstructed by linguists all relate to different socio-cultural processes and as stated rarely correspond. furthermore, identities, cultures, languages changed dynamically and mixed through time. Nevertheless, the time period of I:R is perhaps the furthermost point at which we can expect at least some correspondence with reality rather than fiction.
Some history on Veneti
As noted in my original post, You included
Aesti, an entity first described in Tacitus Germania in late 1st century AD: "
Upon the right of the Suevian Sea the Aestian nations reside...". The
Vistula Veneti were described probably a decade earlier by Pliny the Elder, who was also stationed at camps on the river Rhine. He mentiones
Sarmatae Venedi along the baltic coast. Tacitus described them as well: "
Here Suebia ends. I do not know whether to class the tribes of the Peucini, Venedi, and Fenni with the Germans or with the Sarmatians. The Peucini, however, who are sometimes called Bastarnae, are like Germans in their language, manner of life, and mode of settlement and habitation. Squalor is universal among them and their nobles are indolent. Mixed marriages are giving them something of the repulsive appearance of the Sarmatians ... The Veneti have borrowed largely from Sarmatian ways; their plundering forays take them all over the wooded and mountainous country that rises between the Peucini and the Fenni. Nevertheless, they are to be classed as Germani, for they have settled houses, carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot; in all these respects they differ from the Sarmatians, who live in wagons or on horseback." (Germania, 46). The mentioned Peucini are often considered as synonymous with Bastarnae. So Tacitus places the
Veneti about between the Dniester and eastern Baltic coast. Claudius Ptolemy from Alexandria described
Vouenedai along the
Venedic Bay in the 2nd century AD (see attached map of the Roman Empire in 125 AD).
A connection between the
Vistula Veneti and
Slavs was made by Jordanes, an eastern roman author of Gothic origin: "
The populous race of the Venethi occupy a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sklaveni and Antes" (Get. 119')
. Jordanes considers the
Venethi,
Antes and
Sklaveni as part of the same ethnos and thinks that the
Sklaveni and
Antes came from the
Venethi. Furthermore, medieval germanic sources (Life of Saint Martinus, Fredegar's Chronicle, Paul the Deacon etc.) refer to the Slavs as
Wenden or
Winden and Germans and Austrians used Wends and similar names from Slavs living near them suck as Poles, Czechs, Slovenes etc
Nevertheless, the connection between proto-Slavs and historical Veneti is far from secure.
Some archaeology on "proto-Slavs"
Through typological analysis of artefacts, considering similarities and differences of different types of material culture and how they are patterned through space and time, archaeologists defined archaeological cultures. These are definitely constructs which cannot be related to ethnical groups in the past but probably do show some kind of groupings or relatedness of peoples in the past, as zones of economic contacts, common burial rites, ways of living etc. The Prague-Korchak-Penkovka cultures in the 6th century AD are the earliest uncontested entities that most researchers consider as Slavic. Further back in time archaeologists dealing specifically with the ethnogenesis of Slavs consider at least the Przeworsk - Zarubintsy archaeological cultures from the 3rd century BC as the earliest possible material that can hypothetically be considered proto-Slavic. The Przeworsk culture is however also mainly considered by archaeologists as related to the german Lugians and other groups. The renowned Russian archaeologists Valentin V. Sedov considers already the Pommeranian culture with the proto-Slavs
For connections between prehistoric archaeological cultures and historical ethical groups separated by several centuries to be at least plausible, there should be continuity of evidence between historical archaeological cultures (Prague-Korchak-Penkovka) and prehistoric ones (Zarubintsy...). Indeed the Zarubintsy culture and partly the earlier Milograd culture show continuity of simple, rarely decorated handmade pottery, cremation burial rite in simple urns and pit dwellings in small settlements on river promontories. (see attached map on the Zarubintsy culture - green - from an Ukrainin source). I don't want to make too long a post so I will end here. This is a complex subject, besides I would need a lot of time to write and argument everything in a way to really be convincing. You can check some stuff on Wikipedia, I am happy to provide additional argumentation and sources if you are interested.
Suggestions for I:R
-Add one ore two small proto-Slavic countries with only a few owned territories at the edge of the map. I suggest one at Dnieper river and one further south of Aestii.
-Add Slavic culture group from the edge of the map to the Dniester river thus replacing the Harpii (which werent attested so far on the left bank of Dniester), the Irmionic, Aestian and Scythian culture groups can remain as it is.
(see attached maps I prepared on the I:R campaign map)
Some archaeological sources:
Dolukhanov, P. 2013. The Early Slavs.
Pleterski, A. 1990. Etnogeneza Slovanov. Arheo. Ljubljana
Schukin, M. 1997. The Birth of Slavs.
Sedov, V.V. 2001. Sloveni u dalekoj prošlosti. Akademska knjiga:Novi Sad (major synthetical work by renowned russian author Valentin V. Sedov, translated to serbocroatian)
and other articles
Maps of archaeological cultures:
Buchvaldek et al. (ed.) Atlas of Prehistoric Europe. 2007. Prague: Charles University
https://indo-european.eu/maps/
and other local sources
.png){kind=avatar}
