The language spoken by the Liburnians in classical times is basically unattested and unclassified. It is reckoned as an Indo-European language with a significant proportion of the Pre-Indo-European elements from the wider area of the ancient Mediterranean. Due to the paucity of evidence, the very existence of a distinct 'Liburnian language' must be considered hypothetical at this point.
No writings in Liburnian are known. The only presumed Liburnian linguistic remains are Liburnian toponyms and some family and personal names in Liburnia presumed to be native to the area, in Latinized form from the 1st century AD. Smaller differences found in the archaeological material of narrower regions in Liburnia are in a certain measure reflected also in these scarce linguistic remains. This has caused much speculation about the language but no certainty.
Features shared by Liburnian and other languages have been noted in Liburnian language remains, names and toponyms, dating from between the Iron Age and the beginning of Common Era. These are insufficient for a precise linguistic classification, other than a general indication that they have an Indo-European basis, but also may incorporate significant elements from Pre-Indo-European languages. This also appears to be the case in their social relations, and such phenomena are likely related to their separate cultural development, physical isolation and mixed ethnic origins.[1][2][3]
Following studies of the onomastics of the Roman province of Dalmatia, Géza Alföldy has suggested that the Liburni and Histri belonged to the Venetic language area.[4][5] In particular, some Liburnian anthroponyms show strong Venetic affinities, a few similar names and common roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (< PIE*ghos-ti- 'stranger, guest, host'). Liburnian and Venetic names sometimes also share suffixes in common, such as -icus and -ocus.
Jürgen Untermann, who has focused on Liburnian and Venetic onomastics, considers that only the Liburnians at the north-eastern Istrian coast were strongly Venetic. Untermann has suggested three groups of Liburnian names: one structurally similar to those of the Veneti and Histri; another linked to the Dalmatae, Iapodes and other Illyrians on the mainland to the south of the Liburnians, and a third group of names that were common throughout Liburnian territory, and lacked any relation to those of their neighbors.[6][7]
Other proper names, such as those of local deities and toponyms also showed differing regional distributions. According to R. Katičić, Liburnian toponyms, in both structure and form, also demonstrate diverse influences, including Pre-Indo-European, Indo-European and other, purely local features. Katičić has also stated that toponyms were distributed separately along ethnic and linguistic lines.[8]
S. Čače has noted that it can not be determined whether Liburnian was more related to the North Adriatic language group (Veneti, Histri) or the languages of Iapodes and Dalmatae, due to the scarcity of evidence.[9] While the Liburnians differed significantly from the Histri and Veneti, both culturally and ethnically, they have been linked to the Dalmatae by their burial traditions.
Other toponymical and onomastic similarities have been found between Liburnia and other regions of both Illyria and Asia Minor, especially Lycia, Lydia, Caria, Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphylia, Lycaonia and Cilicia, as well as similarities in elements of social organization, such as matriarchy/gynecocracy (gynaikokratia) and the numerical organization of territory. These are also features of the wider Adriatic region, especially Etruria, Messapia and southern Italy.[10] Toponymical and onomastic connections to Asia Minor may also indicate a Liburnian presence amongst the Sea Peoples.[11]
The Liburnians underwent Romanization after being conquered by the Romans in 35 BCE. The Liburnian language was replaced by Latin, and underwent language death –most likely during Late Antiquity. The Liburnians nevertheless retained some of their cultural traditions until the 4th century CE, especially in the larger cities – a fact attested by archaeology.[11]
The single name plus patronymic formula common among Illyrians is rare among Liburnians. In a region where the Roman three-name formula (praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen: Caius Julius Caesar) spread at an early date, a native two-name formula appears in several variants.
Personal name plus family name is found in southern Liburnia, while personal name plus family name plus patronymic is found throughout the Liburnian area, for example: Avita Suioca Vesclevesis, Velsouna Suioca Vesclevesis f(ilia), Avita Aquillia L(uci) f(ilia), Volsouna Oplica Pl(a)etoris f(ilia), Vendo Verica Triti f(ilius).
Plaetor, gen. Plaetoris. Found among the Veneti as Plaetorius; among the Illyrians as Plator, genitive Platoris. Attested as Pletor in an inscription found in the area of LjubljanainSlovenia.
Patalius
Recus
Suioca
Tarnis
Toruca
Trosius
Turus
Vadica
Velsouna (fem.)
Viniocus
Volaesa
Volscus
Volsetis (gen.)
Volso
Volsonus
Volsounus (masc.), Volsouna (fem.)
Volsus
Voltimesis (gen.)
Vol(l)tis(s)a
Zupricus
The majority of the preceding names are unknown among the eastern and southern neighbors of the Liburnians (Dalmatae, etc.), yet many have Venetic complements. The following names are judged to be exclusively Liburnian, yet one (Buzetius) is also attested among the neighboring Iapodes to the north and northeast:
Aeia
Barcinus
Buzetius
Caminis (gen.)
Ceunus
Clausus
Granp (...). Attested only in abbreviated form.
Iaefus
Lastimeis (gen. ?)
Mamaester
Pasinus
Picusus
Tetenus
Vesclevesis (gen.). - The etymology is established. It is a compound, the initial element Ves-, from PIE *u̯esu- ('good'); the second element -cleves- (genitive suffix -is) from PIE *ḱleuos ('fame', ultimately from *ḱleu- 'to hear').[14][15][16]
^D. Rendić-Miočević, Onomastičke studije s područja Liburna, Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke u Zadru 1, 1955
^M. Suić, Zapadne granice Ilira u svijetlu historijskih izvora, Simpozijum, 1966
^Š. Batović, Liburnska kultura, Matica Hrvatska i Arheološki muzej Zadar, Zadar, 2005, UDK: 904 (398 Liburnija), ISBN953-6419-50-5, pages 65, 66
^Géza Alföldy, Die Namensgebung der Urbevölkerung in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 15, 1964
^G. Alföldy, Die Personennamen im römischen Dalmatien, Heidelberg, 1969
^J. Untermann, Die venetischen Personennamen, Wiesbaden, 1961
^J. Untermann, Venetisches in Dalmatien, GCBI 5, 1970
^R. Katičić, Ancient languages of the Balkans, Trends in linguistics 4, 5, The Hague and Paris, 1976
^S. Čače, Liburnija u razdoblju od 4. do 1. st. prije nove ere, Zadar, 1985, 101-120
^M. Zaninović, On some relations between Anatolia and Dalmatia, Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Studies, Ankara-Izmir, 20-30, Sept. 1973, Ankara 1978, 81-93
^ abZaninović, M. (22 December 1988). "Liburnia militaris". Opvscvla Archaeologica (in Croatian). 13 (1): 43–67.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. pp. 141, 151. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. p. 141. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. p. 141. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. p. 141. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. p. 142. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
^Kurilić, Anamarija (2022). "Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation: How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?". In Kresimir Matijevic; Rainer Wiegels (eds.). Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Akademie Forschung. p. 142. doi:10.1515/9783110716580-007.
