User talk:Hxseek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
18 July 2007 – 21 February 2008

Contents 1 MAPS 2 The Antes 3 DNA 4 Please Revert this vandalism 5 Ants (people) 6 Re: Hi 7 Guduscans 8 Pagania 9 ottomans in Balkans 10 Your edits in Eurasian Avars 11 Image:830 12 Image:900.png 13 The debate of Serb and Croat settlement in Balkans , ctd 14 Methodius and Cyril 15 Seal of Peter 16 Mihailo Visevic 16.1 Pejacevic 16.2 Farlati 17 Encyclopedia Britannica 18 Re: Origin of Serbs 18.1 Daniele Farlati 19 Bosnia 20 Bosniaks 21 Pagania 22 1080 23 1050 24 Re: History 25 Re: northern islands 26 Slavonia 27 Reply 28 Avars 29 Maps 30 South Slavs 31 Slavic languages 32 Genetics 33 Slavic settlement in the Balkans 34 Macedon's Map: request for comment 35 Skylitzes 36 Illyrians - Hallstat

[edit] MAPS

Hi. Sorry for not answering you until now, I was quite busy with real life. I use Inkscape, a program similar to CorelDraw to create my maps. You can download it for free. Just search for Inkscape on Google and you'll find their website.

Andrei nacu (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Antes

Actually I just picked and organized information from the sources I listed. I don't think there is any wealth of information about the Antes people as the subject was of marginal interest (and limited expertise) to the writers of that time. I would look for more information in archeological research publications.

Orczar (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNA

mtDna and Y-chromosome DNA are differently distributed. MtDNA is more static and usually regularly disributed - women didn't go to wars, they were not mobilised into warrior groups, so mtDNA haplotypes could be connected much more to general human migrations, while Y-chromosome show real nature of the men, it's more dynamic and it's much easier to follow smaller migrations and in some cases historical occasions. AFAIK there are no genetic data taken from old Slavic graves yet. But the best possibility is that R1a y-chromosome is involved. But it would be nothing strange if other groups are there too. It's not clear what "Slav" means in some ancient historical envirement. It seems there was not some universal typical Slavic culture or identity. Slavic languages were the most possibly lingua franca for initially different ethnic groups living on caravan routes from north-western Asia to eastern Europe. Also Slavic speakers could be present in the Balkans much earlier than "official" 6th or 7th century. Croats and Serbs were small groups in the beginning. By the time more and more other people were grouped under these identities and under Slavization process, but it seems in different ages. There were 2 Slavic migrations into the area. First migrators were Bulgarians and a group from which Chakavian and Ikavian speakers developed (Croats). They were using "oganj" (fire). Kaikavians were also users of "oganj". While Kaikavians were both Croats and Slovenes, Chakavians and Ikavians were only Croats. Users of "oganj" were already regularly settled in the Balkans from Bulgaria to Slovenia when another wave of Slavic speakers came: Stokavians with "vatra" (fire). They occupied the central area of the Balkans and actually penetrated among others. Ikavian Stokavians became Croats (Ikavians were mostly settled in Bosnia, Lika, Herzegovina and part of Stokavians came into their area), while other Stokavians were lately recognized as Serbs and Macedonian Slavs. These are results of some linguistic researches and completely the same result was given by archeological investigations concerning agriculture tools. Zenanarh (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't note them as tribes, did I? Zenanarh (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hxseek, I appreciate your contributions to Slavic agenda but there is a lot of biased statements already written in many articles and you only fall into the same trap. Example: river Cetina as borderline between Croats and Serbs in early-Medieval, it's ridiciolous. Just because first Croatian state stretched to Cetina in the east doesn't mean that in the east of that river were Serbian settlements - it's modern Serbian heavy bias. Or Pagania as Serbian land and similar. In the first place they were old-Slavonic language speakers. Paganian Slavs were Paganian Slavs, not Paganian Serbs. Do you know about DAI controversy: older chapter says that it was settled by Croats, younger chapter (added 200 years later) says that Serbs were settled in the southern Dalmatia. DAI was written for political purpose not historical. My family comes from an island in central Dalmatia, before that my ancestors were living in Boka Kotorska 500 years ago and we have saved memory of only Croatian identity, but also literal records that much old. I have never heard about known Serbian captains and sailors, on the other hand Croats are among the most famous and the most wanted sailors in the world for centuries. Did you know that? I don't want to contribute in these articles 'cos it's too disgusting to me, I simply cannot fight with Serbian quazi-historians. Let me ask you this: what scientific proof some Aborigin can give that he is native in Australia? Zenanarh (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry friend, you're right, I was a little bit mad about some things. Concerning Avars, they were not really "settled" since they were always moving. However it's known that after sieges of Dalmatian cities in 7th century a part of them settled in some Dalmatian areas. I've read somewhere that they probably inhabitted some central Dalmatian islands. Recently it's proved by genetics, Y-chromosome P haplo (if I remember well). It's found in Hvar. I can give you source in a few hours, I'm out of time at the moment. Sorry once again. Zenanarh (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

According to I.Muzić modern Croats are roughly Sclavini, Dalmatians (Liburni, Ardiaei, Histri and other "Illyrians"), OstroGoths and Romans (that's how Dalmatian language speakers in Dalmatian cities were described in Medieval literature). According to I.Jurić genetical researches enable supposition that bearers of R1a came among paleolithic and neolithic natives already around 2.000 BC and especially after 900 BC. This migration was probably from Russian and Ukraine steppes. It's certain that groups of horsemen created Dalj group, Martijanec-Kaptol group, Colapiani, Budinjak group and finally Iapodes. There was significant influence of population which came from the north in the teritory of Histri, Liburni and in Slovenia, as well as a lack of it in the region populated by Dalmatae and in central Bosnia (you know about a reservoir of I1b1). Sclavini from 6th, 7th century were definitely tribal union, not an etnic group. Migrations in 7th century were rather small or just much smaller than it was thought (it's never really proven). There is interesting genetical bipolarity among Croats - I1b1/R1a - Croatia (mainland) 41/37, Croatian islands 21-72/8-28, Herzegovina 64/12. Some scientists think that first groups of Slavic speakers were not recognised by Antique writers since they were simply "barbarians" or hidden under generalizations Illyrians and later Sclaveni. "Avaric" P is found in islands Hvar 13% and Korčula 8%, almost everywhere else they make 0%. Some Byzantine writers were using other names for Sclavini: Goths, Getae, Hunni, Avars, Scythae, Vulgari. Croats were mentioned earlier than in 10th century DAI, for example: Catalogus ducum et regum Dalmatiae et Croatiae (825) and older, but only in the same place. Croat (Hrvat) is not the name of Slavic roots. First people with this name in the SE Europe were probably a group of noble warriors. Actually name is very old: SaRasVATi (Sanskrit, 3.750 BC), H(A)RahVAiTi - AuRVAT - HARVAT (Zend-Avestan), HuRaVAT (Aryan-Hurrian), ARaQuUTtu (Assyrian, spoken Arvat), ARroMATi - HaRrauMATiš - ARraoVATiš - H(A)RruMATiš (Elamite), H(A)RauVATiš - H(A)RauVATaiia - H(A)RahVATiš - H(A)RauVATiya - H(A)RauVATim - ARruVAuTti - H(A)RraoVATiš (Old-Persian), ARUhaATtu i ARrahUTti (Akkad-Babylonian, spoken H(A)RVAT and HRVAT), HRUhATti (Aramaic), HoRoHoAD (1st century from HoRohVAT), ARiVATes and ARViATes (Latin pre-forms, 1st century), HORoUAThos and HOROAThos (Tanais, 2nd/3th century) CHROATorum (document by king Trpimir I, 852), CRUATorum (Šopot, 9th century), HRoBAToi: read HrOVAToi (DAI), HARVAT - HORVAT - HRVAT (modern forms). Ethnogenesis of any modern ethnos is very complex, this is just good example.Zenanarh (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Revert this vandalism

Revert this vandalism [1]Megistias (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that you did it but i cant revert it myself.Megistias (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ants (people)

Hi. First of all, this is a great and informative article. Great work!. One thing though: you should probably use {{citebook}} in the references section. Cheers.

P.S. Why is there a disambig for Pen'kovo culture? Does it have more than one meaning? If it doesn't, then there is no need for a disambig page. BalkanFever 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed the disambig page for "speedy deletion", and I created the redirect Pen'kovo culture. Is that what you originally tried to do? BalkanFever 05:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. One other thing, since you are good at drawing maps, would you be interested in making a map of Greater Albania in the same format as Image:Ethnicmacedonia.jpg? There is one (in Albanian) here, and some more here and here but I don't think that they're fair use. BalkanFever 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. If you don't want to, don't feel obliged to :). I'll try and draw it when I have time. My main reason is the current maps in the page show it along with the ethnic composition, trying to justify it in a way, while the United Macedonia article is pretty much based on Greek paranoia. That image though, is very concise and to the point, which I like. Anyway, I'll do it, so can I ask you where you get your map blanks from? BalkanFever 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is it at "Ants" and not "Antes", as it's called in the text? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hi

Hi :) Well, I wouldn't call it a deliberate "anti-Slavic stance" (though even here we may find exceptions), its just that Anglo-Saxon culture(s) are understandably "closer" to the Romance ones, than they are to the Slavic. Its incredibly hard for Americans, for example, to pronounce most South Slavic (Serbian/Croatian) words correctly (this I know from many a personal experience). I imagine the situation is less so with Western Slavs, and more so with Eastern Slavs though I can't say I'm exactly an expert. I remember one guy in LA remarking that "Zagreb" sounds like some Klingon word or something, the same guy found it hilarious that I come from a city that's called (a) "Split". Anyway, I agree that people have a "legitimate" reason (of sorts) for perceiving us as primitives when we slaughter each other over what basically amounts to religious differences, on the eve of the 21st century no less.

Yeah, I've always been annoyed that the Greeks are forcing Macedonia to keep that FYR prefix to their country's name. They had no objections when the Republic was part of a far more influential political entity. I suppose they fear invasion or something... ;) Anyway, don't get me started on the irredentists.

Well, Watson dared to state publicly that people of the Negroid (Africoid) race are scientifically proven to posses somewhat lower intelligence than Caucasians. Now I believe that the mentality of the modern society is greatly restricted by an ever increasing egalitarian stance. I am always in favor of unlimited science, and I cannot abide it when it is diminished to suite the needs of society. For example, IQ testing all over the world has proven beyond question that the sociological group with the highest IQ over all are Caucasian males, but one must not say this in public or in the media for fear of being socially branded a nazi, or racist, or who knows what. Even now that I've written this I may be attacked, just for stating scientific fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, congradz on your specialization (I'm hoping to be accepted for an Internal medicine specialization myself). Surgery is particularly difficult though, I hear. R.A.C.S. is noted even up here, I know of a couple of colleagues hoping to get a specialization down under (on account of their Aussie cousins, I've heard). Good luck yourself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guduscans

You know about the Dalmatian state developed by Goths. Goths and Dalmatians were together in wars with Byzant. Gothic fleet was defeated near Salona (Solin) in 537. and until 540. (Savia defeated) Liburnia Tarsatica (a Gothic state northern to Dalmatia - previously Liburnia was also a nothern part of Roman province Dalmatia, but periodically it was indenpendent province) fell into Byzantine hands. Goths didn't leave Dalmatia and Liburnia, the most of them stayed, so in 6th century they were living there mixed with native populations. However the most of Goths stayed in the mountains, mainly in ->Bosnia: Delegošta, Vogošća, Gačani; and in Herzegovina: Otolež, Gacko, Hrgud, Orgošta, Otilovci, Kotezi - toponims derived from Gothic names -> (1). Gacka (river in Croatia) and Gaćani (ethnonim) the most probably comes from a word Goth -> (2),(3), (4). L. Margetić: area around the Gacka river was called "Gotska zemlja" (Gothic country), they were gradually assimilated and accepted old-Croatian language, so they were called Gotjane and Frank source noted them as Guduscans -> (5). Zenanarh (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In DAI Gacka is one of the lands ruled by Croatian Ban. Notice that Gacka is noted there as land, not as the river. -> 9th century immigrants from territories of Gacka, Krbava and Lika to Dalmatia were called Sclavini by local native Dalmatians and small number of Romance speakers in the Dalmatian cities, since they were same called by others too. In Frank sources about overall population of Liburnia, only Guduscans (Gacani) inhabitants of Gacka were noted by name, obviously only them were ruled by Franks. Franks had only nominative, not real authority in other parts of Liburnia: Krbava and Lika. Only Guduscans followed Franks in fights against Ljudevit, the others didn't -> (10). In Frank sources Guduscans were connected to Borna (818) -> (6),(7),(8). In 818 the leader "Guduscanorum" was "Dragamosus socer Liudewiti", while Borna in the same place was "Dux Dalmatiae". However the next year (819) Borna was "Dux Dalmatiae atque Liburnae" so therefore ruler of these Guduscans too -> (9). They were directly involved as one of the tribes in expansion of Croatian identity of 9th century. Zenanarh (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(1)Tibor Živković, O prvim poglavljima Letopisa popa Dukljanina, Istorijski časopis, book XLIV/1977, Istorijski institut SANU, Beograd, 1988, pages 30-31

(2) M. Suić, Granice Liburnije kroz stoljeća, page 285

(3) J. Kelemina, Goti na Balkanu, Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje, Maribor, year XXVII for 1932, pages 121-136 and in some other works

(4) 3 years later (1935) L. Hauptmann tried to dispute it but unsuccesfully. Very soon study of Kelemina was affirmed once again by M. Wasmer. Max Wasmer, Shriften zur slavischen Altertumskunde und Namenkunde, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, II, 1971, page 914. All in all in last 50 years study made by Kelemina is taken as correct, logical and the only convincing by almost all authors.

(5) L. Margetić, O Borni vojvodi Gačana, in Zbornik biskupa Mile Bogovića. Prošlost obvezuje. Povijesni korijeni Gospičko-Senjske biskupije, Teologija u Rijeci-Riječki teološki časopis, Rijeka, 2004, pages 94-96. Origin of the name according to Kelemina: Gotska - Gatska - Gacka; Gotjane - Gatjani - Gačani. As already seen the same people were noted as Guduscans by Einhard. I've seen also form Gadačani somewhere as Slavic phonetic form of Frank graphy Guduscans.

(6) F. Kos, Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev, II, page 48, according to Einhard's annals of the year 818 where it's written: "Erant ibi et aliarum nationum legati, Abodritorum videlicet ac Bornae, ducis Guduscanorum, et Timocianorum, qui nuper a Bulgarorum societae..."

(7) Predominant thinking in historiography was one by: Ernst Dümmler, Über die älteste Geschichte der Slawen in Dalmatien. Sitzungsberichte der Akad. der Wissenschaften. Wien, 1856, page 388 - "legati Bornae ducis Guduscanorum et Timocianorum, qui nuper..." which means that in 818 Borna was dux Guduscanorum

(8) V. Klaić, Porieklo banske časti u Hrvata, Vjesnik kr. hrv.-slav.-dalm. Zem. arkiva, I, Zagreb, 1889, pages 20-28 - Guduscans were mentioned among others together with Borna in 818, but not in meaning that Borna was their duke, it was a list of messangers of different official political or tribal units, so there were among others Borna (dux Dalmatinorum), dux Guduscanorum, ...

(9)F. Šišić, Genealoški prilozi o hrvatskoj narodnoj dinastiji, Vjesnik Hrvatskoga arheološkog društva, Nova serija, sv. XIII for 1913 and 1914, Zagreb, 1914, page 31. This source explains that Dalmatian duke Borna became their duke in 819 when Liburnia fell under his authority, in 818 the duke of Guduscans and Borna were just allies.

(10) I. Mužić, Hrvatska povijest IX stoljeća, Naklada Bošković, Split, 2006, page 93.

Conclusion: Guduscans (Gacani) were inhabitants of Gacka (Gotska), the name was given to them by old-Croatian (dialect of Slavic language) speakers, however between 6th and 8th century they became the speakers of the same language so probably that's how they were calling themselves too. Also it would be uncorrect to forget about Iapodes (an "Illyrian" tribe - mixed Illyrians (I1b1), Celts (R1b) and R1a Indo-Europeans who were coming there beginning from 2.000-1.000 BC), the previous inhabitabts of the same territory who didn't dissapear (only their name dissapeared by the faulth of Roman Empire). The most possibly Guduscans were some kind of admixture of the Goths from 6th century and native Iapodes. This R1a genetical component of Iapodes (and other peoples in the region) is very interesting - earlier speakers of pre-Slavic language could be hidden there, simply unrecognised by Antique writers. Recently it's taken as almost sure that R1a people were bearers of Slavic languages from NW Asia to E and SE Europe. Also there's another interesting fact: many Medieval authors were equalizing Goths with Getae - Slavic speakers, many historical sources noted Goths followed by Slavs and similar. There are also some other direct connections between Goths and Croats, however Goths were just a part of population which was already in 10th century (DAI) noted as Croats. Gothic Liburnia Tarsatica was some kind of pre-Croatian Medieval state in 6th century (almost completely the same territory as a duchy later called Croatiae). Kingdom of Croatia in 10th century was Regnum Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae. Zenanarh (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Croatia related terms in dictionary by - Joakima Stulli Dubrocsanina, Rjecsosloxje, Dubrovnik, MDCCCVI, page 207: "Hârvacsia, e, f.= Croatia, Liburnia"; "Hârvatcski, a, o, Croato = Liburnicus-hârvatska zemlja"; "Hârvat, ata, m. - Hârvatac, atca, m. = uomo di Croazia, vir ex Liburnia"; "Hârvacsicca, e. f. = donna di Croazia, mulier ex Liburnia"

ABOUT R1a - I agree. False (never proven) theories of massive Slavic migration to the south in 7th century made a lot harder to establish other theories that BTW exist all the time but pushed under the table, pan-Slavists in 19th century were too loud, next century their ideas were aditionally encouraged by the communists (connection pan-Slavism pan-communism in E Europe so the same by the Yugoslav authorities) and spread into international middle stream historiography. Unfortunately totaly false. Slavs didn't come to the Balkans in 7th century, what really happened was that Sclavens led by Avars have crossed the mountains in Dalmatia and attacked coastal Dalmatian cities. We know about that from Byzantine sources only, especially from reports from Salona to Constantinople, where an author wrote something like this (as well as I can remember without checking): "they are coming in a huge number, this time there is more many of them than ever before...". Salona was attacked in a number of attempts (many succesful but Avars and Sclavens were robbering not staying and the citizens were always returning) during period of some 30 years in the beginning of 7th century. Finally it was abandoned not because it was ruined and destroyed (as you can read almost everywhere), but more likely because the city lost its ager due to repeated attacks and sieges. The irrigated fields turned to the swamps and the sea bottom was mired. No "ager", no food. Whatever this report was about an army which was crossing 100-400 km, not 1.000 or 4.000. Nevertheles it was taken as the main and direct proof of huge migration of Slavic peoples to the Balkans. How epical, very shaky... We can only be sure that there was certain old-Slavonic language developed in 6th and 7th century in the region around Pannonia as lingua franca accepted by Sclavens - many different ethnic groups in tribal union. According to the linguists, in those ages bilingualism or even multilingualism were more common than in our time. Zenanarh (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

R1 originated 40 KYA in Asia, R1a 15 KYA in NW Asia, the most part of R1a found in the Balkans came from NE Europe 4-1.5 KYA, last input was 2nd (minor) influx of Slavic speakers in 7th - 8th century. Zenanarh (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MtDNA in SE Europe [2] Zenanarh (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT BORNA - it's not certain whether Bornae was -according to his name- a native, possible tribal leader of Guduscans or stranger sent by Franks. Croatian Borna (Borimir, Borislav, Borivoj, from verb "boriti" - "to fight") vs. Bornus (Borenna, Bornez) names found in documents of the monastery in Anjou (11th century). Since he was titled dux in Frank sources about Liburnian territory, it undoubtly meant Ban, so obviously their vasal was a Croat. Zenanarh (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pagania

I have wanted to say that in my thinking map has been wrong because both "Croat Duchy" and "Savia" (names on map) are Frank vassals. This is very good shown in war between Franks and Bulgarians when Trpimir (Duke of Croat Duchy) has like any good vassal declared war to Bulgarians and during Franks-Bulgarians peace negotiations he has made peace deal (Croatian-Bulgarian wars).

Emperor Constantine work is making very great mistakes between Croatian and Serbian teritory because in Franks-Byzantine peace agreements of 812 Croatia has entered Frankish zone of influence and everything east of then Croatian border has entered in Byzantine zone of influence. In his book Constantine is saying Croats are living west and Serbs east of this border. In reality for him it has not been important which nation is living on that territory.--Rjecina (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DAI was written for political reasons, as a compilation of instructions written by an emperor to his son, it was not a history book. Serbs were Byzantine vasals so it's possible that naming other nations by Serbian name was intention - spreading of influence indirectly by motivating a servant, the same trick is used in politics always and everywhere. Don't forget that Constantine P. was a politician in the first place. Whatever the real borderline between these 2 ethnos was much southern - in Montenegro (Kotor bay). Last year, in the archeological location in Župa Dubrovačka (a few km south of Dubrovnik), Slavic grave was found from 10th century with Glagolithic inscription. Glagolithic alphabetics was Croatian ID, wasn't it? It's some kind of message from Josip (father) to Ivan (son). Doesn't sound too Serbian, does it? This mess is not only about Pagania, there are also Travunia and Zahumlje... Zenanarh (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know this part of history very good (I do not have sources) but in popular thinking Trpimir (845–864) is de jure Frankish vassal, but de facto independent ruler which is listening Frankish orders when he see profit. Important part is that in legal sense he is Frankish vassal--Rjecina (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i definitely agree the DAI was political bias in some aspects, since hie tries to downplay Croati'as independence, etc. He mentions the minor skirmish between Croatia and BUlgaria in the mid 800s, but doesn;t even talk about the major battle of Bosnians highlands, which was during his time.

I understand that glacollitic was used by Croatia. More correctly though, it was used by the Dalmatian bishoprics, was it not, befoire the Split synods slowly removed it. With all due respect to your suggestion, i dont think that we can safely say that Duklja was under Croatian rule, or was of Craot ethnos, just because Glacolotic scriupt was found there. Was it not also used in nearby Macedonia for example ?

Like i keep saying, it is pointless to keep trying to prove whether Pagans, Zahumljians were Serbs of Craots. in the 700s- 100s, these early times, they were seperate duchies. Ethnically, they were all very similar, speaking a very similar language. Croat (and Serb) just probably referred to one clan or tribe of southern slavs. THus the traditional view that Serbs occupied the southeast half and croats occupied the northwest half is wrong. In fact, their initial territory was probably much smaller, ie northern dalmatia around Nin, and southwestern Serbia around the Lim and Ibar rivers, respectively. Later, over time, their power increased. Eg croatia spread to Slavonia, and Serbs spread into Srem. Thus the slavs in these areas, which were probably of different tribal clans/ tribe originally, also came to be called Croats and Serbs subsequently. Thus what were Paganians ? They were south slavs who were called Paganis/ Neretvi/ Mariens. Croats were their neighbours, and also related , and often allied. Hxseek (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the oldest Serbian scripts were Glagollitic before Cyrillic, we can't identify that with the Croats. That's identical to the Serbian nationalists' claims how most Croats are really Serbs that speak Serbian language (Shtokavian dialect).

The DAI was a secret work, made and allowed only for the ruling dynasty. It was kept from the public eye as one of the Secrets of Byzantium. It makes no sense to do so. Besides, Constantine collected data from the from various sources, the most traditional belief of the DAI researches is that the people themselves sent emissaries to inform Constantinople. That could explain why the Docleans are ambiguously referred to as simply "Slavs" - he just wrote what the possible emissaries told.

It doesn't, but there were in those areas a lot of Serbs with Western names (Antun, Stjepan,...).

It makes no sense to claim the Bay of Kotor was some sort of an "ethnic" border (especially when we can only claim political & influence ones primarily). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What do you mean that DAI doesn't talk about the Croatian-Bulgarian war? He writes that the Croats practically slain all the Bulgarians. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Older "obla glagoljica" [3] was also found in Moravia, Macedonia, Russia etc. Whatever, "uglata glagoljica" is only Croatian characteristic. It developed from "obla" in norhern Dalmatia and Kvarner (ex-Liburnia) very early and was in usage until 19th century. The longest usage of Glagolithic alphabetics. Baška tablet was "uglata" with small ingradients of "obla", also earlier glagolithic inscriptions cut in the stone or cheramic tablets are also Croatian characteristic. Script from Župa Dubrovačka is cut in the cheramic tablet, in general the text is graphically the most similar to the one of Baška tablet, probably from the beginning of 11th century. Zenanarh (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ottomans in Balkans

I'm afraid your points are incorrect. I re-iterate that my inclusions are from Hupchik. Just because i didn;t cite them verbatim, it doesn;t mean that is not so. Please feel free to point out any bias.

I stand with my comment about what might be bias. Yes, Hupchik state that the Balkan's peasant's plight might have been initially better, but certainly not so mid to late into the occupation. Your text concluded with the statement that occupation was positive. I don't think that will sit well with many people, and is probably incorrect.

The photo's i included were quick additions. As it is the article is so long and bogged down in Turkish Jargon that it was dificult for me to read- a very interested amateur Balkanologist, let alone lay people. I was trying to break it up a bit. Yes, we can certainly put a picture of Suleyman or Murad. The map was the only one i found. It is still pertinent as it shows when the Balkans were conquered. We can certainly try find a map more specific to the Balkans.

I really think we need to summarise it all a bit, and tone down with all the word transilterations. Hxseek (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have Hupchick's book you should have noticed that the entire chapters for the two articles come from there almost verbatim. There is not a single sentence that is mine. I am not certain which article you are referring to but Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans focuses on the period the peninsula was conquered by the Ottomans. Refer to the corresponding chapter in Hupchick's book "The Balkans: Ottoman Conquest". My objection to some of your changes are as follows:

1. 1. Adding the words "disuntied and squabbling " as here does not add any value the previous sentence already indicates that.
   2. Adding "and Wallachia as here] also is not necessary since Wallachia is already mentioned in a previous sentence.
   3. Including [Image:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png] is misleading. The article is about an earalier period not the 17th century.
   4. You remove the sentence "A combination of factors accounted for the Ottomans rapid and vast Balkan conquests. Once again, the Islamic holy war concept lent them a motivating morale that their European foes initially could not equal.". This is tendentious editing. Didn't Hupchick write so?
   5. Finally the paragraph you added is not exactly on the subject. You indicated that the article needs to be shortened. So why add more repetition? I don't think we need to elaborate on how exactly the Balkan states were fragmented at such a length.[4].

Regarding the "Turkish Jargon", I am assuming you mean the other article Ottoman System in the Balkans. Yes, this article has a lot of Turkish/Ottoman words which are needed since they do not have an exact English equivalent. Perhaps a glossary is needed.

I am not sure if you object the following sentence :"Some scholars have argued that the Ottoman conquest had little effect on the Balkan populations’ daily lives other than replacing one ruling class with another and that the non-Muslims’ overall situation even may have improved as a result." Again, if that is the case, check the book. Also the statement makes it clear that some scholars say that. I am sure other scholars -probably all the Balkan historians- will oppose that. But I do claim that most western scholars will disagree with the Balkanese POV on this. For instance

Ottoman incursions into the Balkans were not unwelcome to local populations whom the new regime freed from the onerous obligations imposed by their feudal lords. C. Finkel, The History of the Ottoman Empire:Osman's Dream, pp. 40, 2006, Basic Books

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said early on the peasant's flight was unchanged or even improved compared to their conuterparts in western Europe/ However, by the early modern time, the Ottoman empire was decaying and backward. Being an Islamic state, it did no reap the benefits of enlightenment, scientific revolution mercantilism and industrial revolution. THis of course trickeld down to worse conditions of the average peasant. Hupchik says so. So leaving it at "OTtoman occupation bettered the peasnat's flight" is misleading or incorrect on the whole, because the overall result was worsening of their condition.

Anyway, i am busy at the moment with other articles. I will not be able to get to the OTtomans article for w little while. But i will be happy to suggest a summarised format in a while

Hxseek (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits in Eurasian Avars

You know I gave you an easy pass in Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans where you replaced content based on your POV while still claiming that you also had the same source. (that of Hupchick). (I copied the relevant section from my page above) This time you are going to provide a reference to each line that you contribute. For instance;

1. You placed an image of a Khazar warrior (see right) claiming that it was "possibly Avar". That is flat out boloney. I can give you a page number of a source for that image. You are making history.
2. You replaced the following sentence;

   The Avars were a highly organized and powerful Turkic tribal confederation governed by a central ruler (khagan) Dennis P. Hupchick, The Balkans, pp. 28, ISBN 0-312-21736-6

   with the following;

   The Avars were a highly organized and powerful multi-ethnic tribal confederation, with a Turkic core of aristocratic nomads, governed by a central ruler (khagan) Dennis P. Hupchick, The Balkans, pp. 28, ISBN 0-312-21736-6.

   If you have Hupchick's book -as you claimed to be the case- you very well know that the original sentence (#1 above) is what Hupchick wrote and that your edit simply distorts his view. You did the same thing in the other article. While claiming to have the same book you went ahead and replaced content according to your POV. I am going to revert your changes in both articles since your approach is clearly an attempt to push your POV while retaining the original reference. If you want to alter anything be prepared to provide a source for it and be sure I will check it.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You gave me an easy ride ?? Please, you self-righteous little nationalist

I made the article far better than it ever was. The Picture actually states that it is a steppe warrior, which could be either bulgar, Khazar, or avar. I didn;t distort anything from the picture.

Secondly i didn;t distort Hupchiks quote. You legitimise your POV-pushing by claiming you take direct quotes from authors. In fact, you distort their quotes by tilting it all into one persepctive. I din;t change the meaning of Hupchik's quote. You may not realize it, but your idea of writing an article is regurgitating one authors words, presented in a certain way as to present your own particular idea. In fact, what we are meant to do is use multiple sources, and present all the major views.

So yes, the avars were a multi-ethnic confederacy. Just like all medieval states, empires, and cofederacies were. You should know Hxseek (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I warn you not to attack me personally. Your response demonstrates who is in fact little. You need to back up every edit you make with a source. Simply claiming that you "made the article far better than it ever was" is unacceptable. Better according to whom? Altering the main premise of a referenced sentence is unacceptable. If you have an opposing view you need to back it. Hupckick does not claim that this was a "multi-ethnic tribal confederation, with a Turkic core of aristocratic nomads". Without a source that becomes your POV. Therefore it will be taken out. Also in case you were unaware of it encyclopedias such as Iranica are not considered good sources. So scholarly publications take presedence. That means some of the other stuff you contributed by backing it with such sources is also of questionable quality. Regarding the image, the word "possibly" is sufficient to take it out. It is also "possibly" Khazar. So we have several articles misleading the readers. I will request citations to your contributions in the article. If you can't back them up with reliable sources they will be replaced or removed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. You need to put quotations when you word for word copy an authors thoughts. But i can come up with many sources for it being multi-ethnic. THis is not even worth debating because it is such general knowledge. If you want to be spared the personla attacks, then you should watch the manner of your 'suggestions'. I am a western Gentleman, and out in my side, we don;t talk like you have done so far. Attacking people of trying to be POV, when that was never my intetion. Maybe you are just too used to dealing with your fellow Turkish, Iranian and Balkanoid editors.

I don;t see what mortifies you about the picture. Even if is not 100% an Avar, it is a satisfactory visual aid. If you find a bona fide avar picture, then please add it. Hxseek (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the origins of the Avars is debated. Some scholars suggesting a Mongol background and others a Turkic one. I did not read about the multi-ethnic part but if this is the way experts express it it is fine with me. Unfortunately in the area of concern the history of these peoples is clouded by ideologues and nationalistic agendas. If you visit articles such as Bulgars Cumans, Asenids, Shishmanids etc. and if you are familiar with the national versions of the histories of countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. you might perhaps guess the reasons why, for instance, some theory about the Bulgars being an Iranian rather than Turkic people would become widely accepted among Bulgarians. Trying to write articles becomes a challenge under these circumstances. Check the article Khazars also. The same image is also there. Nationalistic agendas make referenced sources worthless.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:830

Very brilliant map! Excellent work! I have just several questions.

The "Croat Duchy" could perhaps better be "Croat Archonty" as well - it became a Duchy in the 850s. Also what'd you think 'bout mentioning Zachlumia? Btw, are you sure Rascia didn't border Ras in ca. 830? Cheers. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Duchy" comes from the 852 assertion of Prince Trpimir's title as "Duke" and the subsequent formation of Dalmatia as - Croatia. Think of it as primitive Medieval "national awakening". ;) That happened to the Serbs later. The process went through the 8th century and was complete in the 9th. The greater tribes have by force or culturally assimilated minor Slavic ethnic groups in attempts to form up states, which is the first step in the Theory of Forceful Creation of the State (the oldest). Croats and Serbs have mostly managed to do that by mere influence, partially also upon insistence on Slavic language in Christian service, while the Bulgarian case was mostly with forceful centralization and assimilation (that, if you remember the Timokians, met a lot of resistance). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I always thought that Trpimir expanded from Bosna to Drina, which was then lost by Tomislav. Every day you learn something new. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek, in Image:830 you have 3 Croatian cities: Zara, Split and Ragusa. All 3 written in different naming conventions. Zara - Venetian name of Zadar, Zara was never recorded in 9th century, it became official name of Jadera/Jadra (phonetic: Zad'ra) not earlier than in 1408 when this city fell under Venetian rule. It was official until the end of 19th century when it became Zadar, it was changed once again to Zara 1939-1943 because of fascistic occupation. There is no place for that name in your map. In 9th it was Jadera or Jadra, used by both Romance Dalmatian and Croatian speakers. Split - modern name of Split, old-Croatian was Spljet and Romance was Spalatum. Ragusa - Romance name of Dubrovnik, developed from Raughia. If you want to write modern names then: Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik. If you want original names from the end of 9th then: Jadera, Spalatum, Ragusa. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:900.png

I also have several suggestions regarding this map. To my knowledge, the border was ca. 900 on the river of Drina rather than Bosna. It expanded to there during the age of Duke Trpimir, and it will take only Tomislav to lose it back to Bosna.

Prince Petar Gojnikovic ruled also Zachlumia. He pushed the local ruler Mihailo Visevic to his maritime possessions. I do not have sufficient information about Doclea. How sure are you about it? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No really, Petar really ruled Zachlumia. All historians actually agree on that. They suppose Vusevic was suppressed to the islands. He took over its continental part.

I didn't notice a 840 map. Is there one? Did you perhaps mean 830?

But Chapter 33 of DAI is called "On the Zachlumians and the land they inhabit now".

I have the Historical atlas (from old greater Yugoslavia), and it depicts Peter Gojnikovic's realm as plain Rascia+Pagania+Zachlumia+Doclea, with Croatian Dalmatia ruling most of Bosnian territory. I find this intriguing. I have never ever heard in my life about Tisemir, do you perhaps have some more information on it?

Well, the reason why Doclea isn't mentioned back then - might lie in the explanation that it didn't really exist as a realm. At least not as an Archonty as the other 4 (Rascia, Zachlumia, Travunia and Pagania). There has been extremely thorough archaeological research and excavation in Montenegro from 1996 to 1999, which partially influenced Djordje Jankovic's work. It would seem that Višeslav and Mutimir indeed ruled over Doclea, just as Petar Gojnikovic too as traditionally learned. I have no idea what is the 1st primary source for Prince Ceslav Klonimirovic's reign over Doclea, but it is claimed everywhere. It is learned as standard history in both Serbia and Montenegro. Research claims Ceslav reigned over 70% of Doclea, while the remaining 30% was under Byzantine control. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Prince Caslav even operated from Zeta as his heartland ("Ceslav, ruler of Zeta" article):

The Slav peoples were organized along tribal lines, each headed by a zupan (chieftain). In this part of the Adriatic littoral, from the time of the arrival of the Slavs up to the 10th century, these local magnates often were brought into unstable and shifting alliances with other larger states, particularly with Bulgaria, Venice, and Byzantium. Between 931 and 960 one such zupan, Ceslav, operating from the zupanija of Zeta in the hinterland of the Gulf of Kotor, succeeded in unifying a number of neighbouring Serb tribes and extended his control as far north as the Sava River and eastward to the Ibar. Zeta and its neighbouring zupanija of Raška (roughly modern Kosovo) then provided the territorial nucleus for a succession of Serb kingdoms that in the 13th century were consolidated under the Nemanjic dynasty.

Considering that these are all reliable sources, I think it perfectly collides with the 1996-99 findings which identify that a center of the Vlastimirovics' domain was Gradina in modern-day Montenegro. Now, the DAI is really paradoxical about this matter. It mentions only "Slavs" in Doclea and Serbs in every other Sclavinia, when AFAIK Doclea and Rascia were the two realms which gathered the Serbs - and the other two-three-four would then (very amusingly and probably not a coincidence) form up today's Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In very truth, Doclea didn't exist as a secular realm before Serbia collapsed in 950 or 960 to a Bulgarian Byzantine invasion. It is, due to Serb anarchy that then came upon, that regional leaders came to prominence. Thus there is John Vladimir in Doclea, of the local house most probably of origins from Travunia. Jankovic defines that Doclea was formed up only with the Byzantine invasion itself. The reason why you don't know anything about Doclea before that period is because there is really nothing heard about it.

That seems to be the Byzantine viceroy that governed Doclea (or rather, a small part of it, closely corresponding to the coastal and south-eastern one that remained pro-Byzantine up to Nemanya's expansions in the late 12th century), dated ca. 9th century. There is no further data on it.

P.S. Sorry for taking some time, I was really busy with something over at home. All the best! :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that that Tomislav (King or not) lost the strip of land from the river of Drina to Bosna to the Bulgars.

Sorry for the confusion. Byzantine (I corrected to the up). Did you read Corovic? The Serbian Wikipedia article on him gives some good details about him. Prince Petar Gojnikovic reigned up to 917, and it is then afterwards (possibly after the Bulgarian invasion of 924) that he enlarged his realm to include to the west, to include Narentine areas (I don't about expansions to the east).

Regarding archaeological stuff you could source to Risto Kovijanic and his book "The Kotor Medallions" for example. In general he studied the history of Kotor in full detail. According to the findings, Kotor was ruled by Prince Ceslav too. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You just have to keep on mind that I, during writing these articles, primarily kept to the later & modern "national-romantic" to call it, interpretation of history. That's why I wrote "Serbian" in the intro for them. For Savia there is not a single source about it's potential Croatian identity, but I write of it mostly using "Continental Croatia", or "Pannonian Croatia". The same way I treated Ljudevit Posavski when I wrote the article.

P.P.S. I don't know if you're interested in the later medieval ages, but check out Djuradj II. It's one of the articles I dedicated most time and resources to. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I meant the territorial expansion (after Gojnikovic's death) of Great Prince Mihailo Visevic of Zachlumia - which you yourself noted. ;)

2. As I understand, Trpimir had reigned up to the Drina. According to my map, the Croatian-Bulgarian border during Tomislav was on the Bosna river - and the Battle of the Bosnian Highlands was somewhere in the middle of the two Bosnian riverflows. That brought me to this simple conclusion. But this is of course, not necessarily correct. That's just my point on how it had occurred, and is not really a consensus of historians', but of me myself. :-)

3. It was/is this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, as a human being I am neutral. I don't support any side in the Kosovo conflict. Ergo, this means that independence of Kosovo could be acceptable to me. However, as a lawyer, I cannot approve this precisely that is occurring (UDI), since that is obviously illegal. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Very diplomatic Mr Pax Hxseek (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Pax but it is not possible that in 1 article you are legalist and lawyer but in other article you are not interested "just" in legal arguments but in inspecting the situation as a whole [5] --Rjecina (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really find it funny, but a very normal reaction. The Brussels-based European Centre for stability and security itself concluded that secession of Kosovo is illegal and a precedent, all those who claim otherwise (finding "holes" and "unique cases") make those statements for political interests and not from legal standpoints. The constant repetitions how it's not a precedent, seem very much how (the now ex) Serbian PM constantly calls the entity "False State of Kosovo" over and over again - it is as if these people are not trying to convince someone else, but rather themselves, absurdly not aware that they themselves base their own legal systems on Precedent Law. :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The debate of Serb and Croat settlement in Balkans , ctd

I see your points. I have not come accross any English-language books going into the Glacollitic aspect. Either way, i am not convinced that finding of Glacollitic script will 100% equate with Croatian ethnicity. I am taking the approach of John Fine, and other western historians, who present the view that 'Serb' and 'Croat' only became established as ethnic labels much later in history. initially they were tribal, or less so- even a clan or dynastic name. Curta suggests that the 8th century Croats were a collection of nobles -Trpimir and his Zhupans. As they established control over most of northern Dalmatia, western Bosnia, the area became known as Duchy of the Croats. Much later, the area became known as Croatia, in the name sake of the founding rulers.

Comparison: Bulgaria. In 900 Bulgaria was huge. But it doesn;t mean that the Bulgars settled Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia, Serbia, Slavonia, Greece. Similarly we can find Bulgar artifacts in these areas also. However, the Bulgar elites and their family clan were only concentrated in Dobrudja.

Only difference is : Croats were Slavs . For all the different theories about their origins and settlements (whether they were Sarmatian, or Goths) for all intents and purposes, they were Slavicized by 700. So, they were too similar to their other Slavic neighbours- the Serbs, Pagani, Zahunljiani, Trabunites- to have established a clearly different nature of existence to look into archeology and clearly say "here are croats, there are Serbs".

As for Zahumljiani and TErbunites. The same arguement could be applied. Slavs that fell under Serb rule at times. Hupchik and Fine generally refer to them as Serbs though. If you can point out to me a western scholar that calles them croats, i will be too happy to include that into my new articles.

Regards Hxseek (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you, don't want to be misunderstood. A bunch of articles are totaly Serbized, that was motivation in my comments. But there's also another point. Southern Dalmatia was (is) not well "discovered" in archeological meaning. In fact there's a lack of material investigations (archeologics, architecture, culture,... except the city of Dubrovnik) so it gives a lot of space to quazi-historian speculations, a flood of it in Serbia at present. Of course, I don't want to compromise serious scientific works. However existing material remnants from this regions were usually taken as proof for connecting it to northern regions (example: old-Croatian pre-Romance architecture in northern Dalmatia and its nearest relative pre-Romance architecture in Doclea). Process of "Croatization" was mostly done until the end of 13th century, so from 16th to 19th century, when appurtenance to specific ethnos became important, all this population described itself as Croatian one without any doubt (to Kotor in the south). Dialects spoken from the north to Pelješac peninsula in the south were all Chakavian and Ikavian, including both islands and close inland. And it's typical Croatian. From Pelješac to Kotor there was increasing number of Stokavians. That's because of the last wave of Slavs who came in 8th century and Pagans belonged to them. Stokavians brought some different habits in agriculture and language, earlier Macedonian Slavs were probably not Stokavians, that's what they became under influence. In 9th century Slavs who largely settled in Zadar (northern Dalmatia) were simply Slavs. Slavs who were living around Dubrovnik in 10th century were simply Slavs. Both Slavs from Zadar and Dubrovnik were writers of the same language - Croatian during Late Medieval and Reinnesance. During Venetian economical (thus trade language) dominance of the Adriatic from 15th - 18th century, Croats in Dalmatia were simply hidden under Venetian name Sclavi, Sciavoni etc... What is very important is that Dalmatia was the place of the early Croatian identity origin in the western Balkans, not inland. And the eastern Adriatic coast (read: sea roads) was the best connection for the same tradition, culture, language, architecture expansion. Before Nemanjić's in Medieval Serbia and their political expansion to the west (to the sea coast), these southern provinces were all connected to western by the church organisation which is very important if we discuss about early ethnos identification. And Boka was cut off from Dalmatia and Croatia in 1920, the real "Serbization" of Montenegro occured not earlier than in 19th and finallised in 20th century. I was talking to many Mentenigrins and there is a large number of them who said the same thing: "I'm a Montenigrin, not Serb". Let me be so free to call them "the real Montegrins", proud people from the largest part of modern Montenegro, probably of both Illyrian and Slavic ancestry. But finally you're right. All together, for the earlier days, we can talk only about Slavs in these regions.

About Glagoljica; I didn't try to find English names for different Glagolithic forms. But maybe "rotund G." (obla G.) and "angular G." (uglasta G.) is not bad. I will use Croatian names anyway. Croatian identity is the easiest recognized by its church literacy and liturgy - Glagolithic alphabetics (earlier transforming forms "obla"->"uglata" (triangular) and "uglata" Glagolithic forms) and Glagolithic church singing. If we understand each other well, we're discussing about specific forms of Glagoljica, at first found in the centre of the earliest Cro state and found only in the regions where the same Cro identity developed. You can use term "Croatian Glagolithics" for "uglata Glagoljica" and its pre-forms without any fear to be unobjective. The earliest Croatian (*Croatian in its real meaning, not Slavic) inscriptions were written in Glagoljica, Croatian (*) literacy in Glagoljica, (*) liturgy in Glagoljica. From the beginning it was Croatian (*) identification card and a mechanism for expansion of it. When Croatian language was under pressure of the Venetian rulers in Zadar, it was saved and recorded by glagoljica, not Latin alphabetics. When Glagolithic alphabetics disappeared elsewhere in E Europe, it was still used by Croats for centuries. When we observe all history of Croats, it's interesting that there was much longer and much more important usage of Glagolithic than Latin alphabetics. It's very strange if the western authors didn't recognise this basical connection. Maybe because of influence of the Yu communist ideology - where anything "specifically Croatian" was criminalized, which largely influenced middle stream historiography - usually the mostly quoted by the scientists from other meridians and parallels. In the same way, scientific west accepted -massive Slavic migration in 7th- theory started by the local pan-Slavists. Zenanarh (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say I do not understand how the population identified itself as Croatian all the way to Kotor (when the traditional belief was/is the river of Cetina), especially without any doubt (sic!).

I didn't know that there were Ikavians and Chakavians in the Bay of Kotor and Peljesac. Are you sure about that?

Yes, the "Sclavo" term was used for the Dalmatian Croats - but it's also fallacious to claim that it wasn't used for Serbia. "Sclavonia" was indeed a (one of the versions of) Western term for "Serbia", while Balthazzar Bogisic considers that "Sclavon" and "Serb" are one-way synonymous.

I think that Knin could be called AFAIK 'inland'. ;)

The thing you stated about the Nemanyiden is not correct. The Nemanyics never had any expansion in that aim, save for just the attacks on Ragusa and Corzula in the very beginning. The vast majority of their expansion was AFAIK concentrated at the east, or better said is south-east (turning a blind eye onto that short-lived takeover of Bosnia). Their interest at the area you're referring to became so strange that they simply didn't care (lol) when the Bosnians conquered the Hum.

As for the religious affairs, that does not count for the whole provinces. Yes, they were subjected to Rome when Slavs colonized the region - also remember that the Serbs have accepted first influences of Christianization from the West, rather than Constantinople - but that cannot be said for the period that followed suit. In 732 AD Eastern Roman Emperor Leo III the Isaurian took away from Bishop Gregory III of Rome and gave it to the jurisdiction of Patriarch Anastasius of Constantinople, when Latin culture was completely suppressed in favor of Eastern influence. These 'Vlachs' had remained only in the very closed-up cities where only Latin was spoken and it was lived as if the Roman Empire was still there (Dubrovnik, Kotor, Bar and Ulcinj).

I do not understand the notion that the Bay of Kotor was cut off from the rest of Dalmatia in 1920 or what that means.

I also do not understand your claim regarding the Serbianization of Montenegro? Is it the same as the Croatization of Slavonia or Dalmatia? I know three Bunyevs today, and they're even insulted at the possibility that they're Croats, while Zlatko Logumdzija said a week ago "I'm a Bosnian, not Croat". ;)

I also do not think that Yu communist ideology was specifically aimed against Croats - it was against Serbs too, in the very same manner (Serbian nationalists'd claim more against them, and Croatian against them).

As for Glagollitic being synonymous to the Croatian "national being", then we also have to understand that for those coastal sclavinias, the mostly-used script was Cyrillic, which ergo by the same logic we must connect to the Serbian 'national being'. We must also be aware that the oldest Serb scripts are not in Cyrillic, but in Glagollitic (11th century) - the most very famous Miroslav's Gospel (Cyrillic evolved from Glagollitic) and the minor Gerskovic's and Mihanovic's scripts. Of course, there is also the Marian Gospel - the very oldest literary Serbian work. The interesting thing is also that the Serbs used Glagollitic and created literary works on it before the Croats. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pax, poor Hxseek, his page will sink :)

Well, I don't know what you don't understand, you can talk about Cetina next hundred years but the fact is that Dalmatia is populated predominantly by Croats for many hundred years and not Serbs. So what's the point?

Dialects spoken from the north to Pelješac peninsula in the south were all Chakavian and Ikavian - to quote myself.

Sclavo, Sciavo,... - of course because Sciavo meant Slav. But Venetians were actually concentrated on Dalmatia which was populated by Croats, not Serbs. Two cities, Zadar in the north of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik in the south of it were the bearers of the Croatian literacy in the same time. Don't tell me that Venetian quarter Castello with Catholic Scuola di Sciavonne in 13th century was settled by Serbs.

Knin is in Dalmatia, isn't it? ;)

I was talking about processes, grouping around 2 ethnonims.

The population of these cities were not "Vlachs". They were rather "Dalmatians" or "Romans", sometimes "Latins", depending on different Medieval sources, actually Dalmatian language speakers. About other Romance language speakers Vlachs see in Vlachs.

Evaluation of Boka population according to Austrian censi: Croats 46.2% (1890), 50.3 %(1910); Montenigrins and/or Serbs 45.5% (1890), 40.9% (1910). (I. Crkvenčić, A.Schaller - Boka Kotorska: Etnički sastav u razdoblju austrijske uprave (1814-1918), Hrvatski geografski glasnik 68/1, 51-72, 2006). By creation of Kingdom SHS Boka was permanently cut off from Dalmatia and connected to Zeta region or Montenegro in 1922, while in 1939 Dubrovnik and its surrounding were returned back to Croatian Banovina (from Zeta region). And these are modern borders as well. In this period there was only decreasing number of Croats in Boka.

There are many theories about Glagolithic alphabet. One of it is originating in some kind of Germanic-Slavic union (probably 2nd half of 4th century - Wulfila) and link to Goths, there are plenty of other, it doesn't matter. These scripts were found in many different places connected to Slavs. It's certainly older than Cyrillic. BTW Cyrillic was also used by Croats, not only in Dubrovnik, Hum or Neretva. For example it was used by Medieval Croatian noble families: Babonić, Frankapani, Kačić, Keglević, Kurjaković, Šubić, Zrinjski.. Precisely "Ikavian" western Cyrillic or Bosancica, not written in Serbia. AFAIK Serbian Ikavians exist only in Serbian propaganda. Bosancica was saved by Bosnian franciscans after 13th century, the same those people guilty for existing of so many Croats in Bosnia. The name of Bosancica saved in the Franciscan monasteries in B&H was/is "glagoljica" (interesting) or "hrvaštica". Anyway I was talking about "Croatian Glagolitsa" or "angular Glagolitsa" (uglata) - always written in Cakavian dialect, and not about its ancestor "pre-Glagolitsa".

In the western Balkans 3 alphabets origined from pre-Glagolitsa (Crimea): 1) "rotund Glagolitsa" among Stokavians in the east, later exchanged by new "Cyrillic alphabet", 2) Byzanthinized "Bosancitsa" among Ikavian Scakavians which was very close to early pr-Glagolitsa and 3) Iranized "angular Glagolitsa" among Cakavians which was pre-Glagolitsa with some other influences too: Germanic runes and Mesopotamic cuneiform script. This last actually developed from pre-Glagolitsa through its pre-format "Veyian Glagolitsa", both connected to the name of Croats or Croatian kings from the first scripts.

the Marian Gospel - the very oldest literary Serbian work is dated - not later than in the beginning of 11th century, while the minor Gerskovic's and Mihanovic's scripts in the 1st half of 12th century. How certainly it can be connected to Serbs? I'm not familiar with it, just asking.

Obviously people were literal 1.000 years ago as well. You want to argue who was literal first? Is that kind of argue possible at all? Is it relevant? :) Zenanarh (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he enjoys this, rather. ;)

Yep, you make a point.

Got it.

Yes, that's actually what too I wrote.

Indeed. ;)

Well the term "Vlachs" varies shockingly: from a term for the entire romanized ancestral population that the Slavs met, to a social class (!). Yes, in the same sense the Ragusians were Vlachs - check out the edicts of Serbian and Bosnian rulers, who referred to the Dubrovnikers as "Vlachs".

Aha, but we have gone through this (before you were active in Wikipedia) before. Those figures are not on nationality, but in religion, and if I understood, they do not include data for the whole region, but just its central urban parts. We have fully-detailed Habsburg-conducted censuses for the entire region. According to the very last Austro-Hungarian population census (1910), Roman Catholic Christians formed 35.79% of the Bay's population. It should also be noted that during the Imperial age they went through a massive demographic growth, while the Orthodoxes stagnated. For instance, let us compare to the very first population census of the Austrian Empire, conducted in 1818. According to it, Catholics had formed only 28.73% of the bay's population. There was also data by language, I am currently trying to get a hand over it. According to it, the Orthodoxes and a part of the Catholics declared Serbian, while another part of the Catholics declared Croatian. The Bay of Kotor was for the first time tied to Dalmatia in 1815, where it remained until 1922. Nevertheless it had remained a separate identity, both geographically (separated from Dubrovnik's territory by Herceg-Novi) and culturally (with an Orthodox-Serb majority, tied to Montenegro). In 1848 the Boccans attempted to join Montenegro in an attempt to created a unified Serbian state ('Greater Serbia') and in 1918 their national representatives voted to join the Kingdom of Serbia. And what's very amusing, the number of the Catholic Croats actually didn't fall during the Yugoslavian Kingdom - but during Tito's Yugoslavia.

Precisely, that's why the Cyrillic script can't be claimed as "a 100% Serbian property", same as the claim for Croatian-Glagollitic.

I do not think that Serbian Ikavians exist anywhere, even in Serbian propaganda. :D

The Miroslav's Gospel was made for Miroslav (brother of Stephen Nemanya) by a Kotor-based scribe in the Serbian recension of the Old Slavonic language. Maria's Gospel was created by Serb liturgic writers in a Russian monastery in Mount Athos. It was written in the Serbian recension, just like the Mihanovic's and Gerskovic's scripts, which were designed for the Eastern Orthodox Church and then became a component part of the Serbian Orthodox Church's liturgic heritage.

The point was it's not "Croatian property". :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You generalize, I can write about different forms of these different but relative scripts all day, it worths nothing if you simply generalize it. The point is that "angular Glagolitsa" is strictly connected to Croatian identity (whatever it means) from the first beginning. It developed and spread along by Croatian states (in its real meaning, not Slavic) and it was written in Cakavica, strictly Croatian dialect, not old-Slavonic or else. First attempts of translation of Baška tablet by old-Slavonic language were totally unsuccesful. Completed text came out when it was translated by local Veyian Cakavica (island of Krk). Actually all angular Glagolitsa opus was written in Cakavica. Maybe you don't understand but we are talking about script directly connected to the both: name Croat in its origin and name Croat in the western Balkans. there's no doubt about it. You can accept it or not, it doesn't matter. It's a fact. Examination of "Croat, Croatia, Croatian" is examination of angular Glagolitsa, more than anything else. Zenanarh (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I disagree? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. AFAIK in the 20th century the Montenegrin question was opened and whether they are not Serbs, that is after 1920. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Two interesting sites: "Croatian Glagolithic Script" [6] and "A Chronological List of Glagolithic Monuments" [7]. Zenanarh (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Zenanarh. The continuity and commonness of Catholicism and Romanesque culture/ architecture along the Dalmatian coast from Istria to Montenegro -as you pointed out- is from the Pre-Slavic traditions and political arrangement of the region. THis , of course, is not proof that the entire region was settled by Croat tribes originally, although it appears that it might have been a thread by which the Slavs of the region , over time, came to identify as a common sub-branch of South -Slavs :Dalmatians (and/or Dalmatian -Croats). SO you see in the 17th century when nationalism was at its birth, the Slavs of Dalmatia might have identified as Croats because of the unifying factors -Catholicism and the Roman cultural influence. HOwever, what they were in the 800s, even 1100s is not known- simply Slavs, as you say. Same arguement for Bosniaks- it is a religious division, not a true ethnic one.

The old idea that Croats settled north-west haf of entire Illyria and Serbs south-east is an oversimplification. Fine suggests that the majority of ex-Yugoslavs today's ancestors were the Sclaveni (the western rgoup of south slavs)- Zalatarski's theory. The Serbs and Croats were just two small tribes or clans that settled down. The Croats "Base" was Nin region , etc, while the Serb's core was the valleys of the Lim and Ibar rivers. From their they expanded to other areas, mixing with other Slavs. Eg Vojvodina region : Abordrites, Timichans, BRaniches, Severians all lived there as well as Serbs. Similar to Slavonia. Although many authors refer to it as Pannonian Croatia, if you actually be specific about it- they were Pannonian Slavs, not Croats in the primordial sense.( Just slavs that didn;t form a notable tribal name/ territory because they were direclty ruled by the Franks. Maybe we can call the Savians). They became Croaticized from 900s onwards, perhaps even not until later (since it was always such an autonomous region).

Although DAI mentions that a group of Croats moved north from Dalmatia to settle Slavonia. Just like he says that Serbs settled Zahum, Travunia and Pagania. I think these are just reflections of the political situation during his time. Ie Slavonia was part of Croatia and the Serb princes in the 900s had authority over Zahumlje , etc. So He rationalizes the political situation with trib al lineage, if you get what i mean- which of course, is not necessarily a true reflection of reality. The articles on Wiki have been using his comments as "fact". To improve the articles, we of course have to mentio this, but clarify it as i have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 March 2008

As far as I know, according to material evidences (archeologic, linguistic), the tribe of Zahumlians (or tribes) were linked to Slavic tribes from the north of Poland. Must check the literacy. Zenanarh (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote about pre-Romanesque architecture. In Croatia it's called "Starohrvatska pred-Romanika" (Old-Croatian pre-Romanesque) [8]. If you want more details it's archirecture found mostly in the region of northern Dalmatia (but somewhat northern and southern also) from 8th to 12th century. In these churches liturgy was carried by Croatian language and Glagolithic missals, not Latin, which produced conflicts with Rome in the next episodes of the story. This characteristic pre-Romanesque style was also caled "barbarian" from the point of view of the western Croatian neighbours. If you ask for influences there were a lot of them (west, east, north), but it's always that way in architecture isn't it? Finally this Croatian Dalmatia is the place with the biggest number of saved pre-Romanesque monuments in all Europe. So actually I didn't point to something irrelevant, in contrary I'm too cautious to avoid unobjectiveness. So cautious that I'm losing my nerves a little bit, because of this never ending debate.

You're very wrong if you think that 17th century was moment of "Croatization" of Dalmatia. Don't forget that Croatia DID origin in Dalmatia and there was never any other process of Slavic self-identification than Croatian one in DDalmatia, except the most southern part (Montenegro). There is not even one single case in Dalmatia where Dalmatians generally identified themselves as Serbs for example, of course except little minorities in later stages, like in Dubrovnik, which is irrelevant for this debate. More than 80% of its territory was (and still is) populated by Cakavians and Ikavians - the speakers of the oldest Croatian language dialects. It's totally ridiciolous to speak about Slavs who were Cakavians and Ikavians, who were not Croats because they were Slavs, while Cakavian and Ikavian are undoubtly Croatian dialects. Isn't it weird a little bit? In fact Dalmatia was historically more Croatia than any other part of modern Croatia at present. I don't have enough time for all of this. Hxseek, why don't you come here to Dalmatia on summer vacancies, so I can show you some things from the first hand, I'm inviting you. 78.3.59.209 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that here came a conflict on What is Dalmatia. One of its understandings is that it's a former Roman province, grasping practically most of the future Serbo-Croat lands. The second, is the Slavic Dalmatia, striping from Istria to Cetina in the continental hinterland, which became the birthplace of the Croatian nation (in the 9th century). However as we know, the very coastal Dalmatia itself, including the islands (both hardly populated by ethnic Slavs at all), only for the first time came to Croatian administration in ca. 925 and was annexed in the 11th century. Therefore, I believe that Hxseek refers to the third Dalmatia: the "Italian", that is the modern one. For it indeed the 19th century was a political struggle as the Croatians and Serbians tried to integrate population into its national corpus, originally the Serbs more effective with th shtokavian-speakers.

How can you say that there's not a single case? What were the Narentines, the Zachlumians, the Docleans, the Travunians - and even the Konavlians, south of the river of Cetina, than that? And what about the Ragusians who were most probably for the most of the time "Slovin"? And also what about the Serbs?

And now you claim that over 80% of Dalmatia are Croats, which brings us again back to the very first question - what Dalmatia? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First Dalmatia in 2nd century BC was between Krka and Cetina rivers, populated by Delmatae. There is former Roman province Dalmatia from Istria to Albania and to Pannonia in the north. However this huge province was not Dalmatia, it were Dalmatias, since it was made of a few provincia Dalmatiarum (plural). Liburnia was one of it from Krka to Istria, Narona district was from Budva to Cetina, southern part of Narona district became a part of Praevalitana dstrict, central part between Krka and Cetina had the same name Dalmatia. All together we simplify it and call it former Roman province Dalmatia, the same as many Medieval sources like DAI. Byzantine Dalmatia was just a few cities and islands, etc...

the very coastal Dalmatia itself, including the islands (both hardly populated by ethnic Slavs at all), - this is wrong. In 7th century the number of Romans (population of a few Dalmatian cities) was very small.

Ie Zadar

Nada Klaić, Ivo Petricioli: «Prošlost Zadra – knjiga II, Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409.», Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1976. «History of Zadar –book II, Zadar in Medieval until 1409», University of philosophy Zadar, 1976.

page 61:

A much of history didn't concern Slavic and Croatian colonization of Byzantine Dalmatia, so it was not easy to answer how could have the Roman population survived among numerous Slavs and Croats. Both politically and biologically. Observing Roman remains specially from that biological side, we should summarize that Romans quickly disappeared in Croatian and Slavic ocean. It couldn't have happened since the cities and the islands continually accepted fresh forces from the Croatian inland. That was how Croatian inland carried the life of «remains of the remains» by constant colonization of Byzantine Dalmatia… Roman-Slavic symbiosis in the area of Byzantine Dalmatia was signed, because all habitants of that Byzantine province shared the same interest… Slavic colonization also soothed antagonisms between the Croatian city and the village from one and Dalmatian communes from the other side.

page 59:

So onomastics of Zadar archipelago undoubtly show that Croatian element inhabited almost every island taking over the names for cities or bigger settlements from indigenous people while it gave its own name to the villages and the lands… There’s no reason to date inhabiting of Croats into the islands as late as 10th century, since Dalmatian Romans didn’t go against Croatian populating of the islands, in the contrary they encouraged it.

...it wouldn't be unreasonable conjecture that Croatian element gradually succeeded around 70% of the islands population. This evaluated precentage goes for period -until 10th century! Or precisely 7th-10th century.

Zadar was not part of the first Croatian state, it was in Croatian kingdom from 925, however it was massively populated by Croats from the beginning of 9th century, so already in 918 the oldest saved city document was written by the city prior - a Croat. The very same thing happened elsewhere. Ethnical and political borders were not the same.

Italian Dalmatia? OK, but originally the Serbs more effective with th shtokavian-speakers? In Italian Dalmatia? Maybe just southern part - Montenegro and without Boka Croats. Dubrovniker's Stokavian is modern standardized Croatian. Stokavians from ex-Pagania are all Croats aren't they?

Show me where these Slavs, ie Narantines self-described themselves as Serbs! Go there to Neretva river and ask them, the best you can get is foot in ass ;)

As I know Ekavian Stokavian is Serbian language. As for Montenegro and Montenigrin Ijekavian Stokavians you had long funny disccussion with them in Montenegro related articles.

Pax what is wrong about Serbs? Why so many mythical approachments to your own history? Why always sneaking around neighbour's house and producing coflicts? Aren't recent accidents in Serbia just results of this weird mythomania? So now you're losing your property (Kosovo) because of appetite for others properties. It's sad. This is out of this debate, but I had to ask you. Zenanarh (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, OK then - but I find it hard to believe that really the population of the very cities (Zadar, Spljet, Trogir,...) had a Croat majority already in the 7th century, just as Kotor, Bar and Ulcinj hardly had a Serb majority (or the in-between Dubrovnik). I was always under the impression Latin culture pertained extremely strong in those areas. I thought that all Roman identity vanished only under Petar Krešimir IV in the mid 11th century, with first major Croatian influence under Tomislav in the early 10th. Do you have perhaps some further information?

Montenegro was/is not modern Venetian Dalmatia. That's why you confuse me about what Dalmatia again. ;)

Well, I was talking historically, and I didn't say that the Narentines self-identified as Serbs.

Er, no; the Serbian language has both dialects. Approximately ekavian is spoken by two-thirds and iyekavian by one-third Serbian-speakers. According to your logic, all Cakavians and Kajkavians are non-Croatian speakers. But even this is inapplicable, because Serbian has officially both dialects, while Croatian counts only shtokavian.

I must say I really do not understand one slightest bit your last comment. BTW I get the impression you think I am from Serbia - which I am not. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Didn't you claim that Lower Dalmatia's Eastern Orthodox population considered itself mostly Croat until recently? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that from 7th century Sclavens began colonization of the city agrars (islands, coast, inland), Dalmatian cities were populated somewhat slower, but their agrars were a key for developement. Period from last decencies of 9th century to the middle 10th century was time of peace so therefore Mediterranean and Adriatic cities developed a lot. Specially favorable conditions occurred in the Adriatic sea after Saracen attacks had stopped, the sea was free for navigation. Also adjusting of relations with Croats made possible for the city merchants to trade in the inland too. Ie in Zadar there were no strong differences in the early Medieval city society. The city classes were open, it was possible to transfer from one group to another and it was a condition for successful development. Especially for the reason that Zadar accepted new inhabitants from everywhere, but mostly from the Croatian inland. Some names of Zadar patricians showed that Croats reached the highest city honors already in 10th century and made majority of the population. Zadar was just one of the bigger cities, where it was similar. Smaller communes were more closed, it just prolonged unavoidable assimilation.

Well, Latin culture pertained extremely strong just because Slavs didn't change Byzantine organization, they accepted it and even developed it. However "Byzantine Dalmatia" was never strongly tied to Constantinople, its theme organization was never completed. B emperors were constantly sending their strategists to Dalmatia, but these cities saved a lot of autonomy. Their tendency was always to keep as better as possible conditions in political unions, no matter of what ancestry the citizens were. Isolated Dalmatian language speaking communities from 7th and 8th century became Romano-Slavic building sites in 9th and R-S cosmopolitan cities in 10th and 11th, massively inhabited by Slavs. Even today, for some Dalmatian islanders, America is much closer than Zagreb.

Romance identity didn't vanish, it was transformed. It was used by Slavs like the clothes. Perhaps only small groups of original patricians survived. Assimilation was to both directions, cultural in one, ethnical in other. You don't turn gold to silver.

hmm I've confused myself too...

Sorry about the rest, food, drink, more drink...

P.S. What? Is it 1st April already? Zenanarh (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to this edit of yours. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah that (war) edit. OK when I get a book by my side, you'll be first to know about it. Zenanarh (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you straying off the topic at times. THis focus was settlement in the 700s, not modern ideaologies. Although interesting, please try to limit this. I think i have got the near complete picture. With both your inputs, I would like to upgrade a couple of the Balkan-Slav articles soon.

PS: I am planning to visit the homeland sometime in june 09. Iplan to go to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, MacedoniaHxseek (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. :)

Not Montenegro too? Too bad. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. One cannot forget little Montenegro Hxseek (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Methodius and Cyril

... as founders of Glagolithic alphabet - this is controversial. During Yu ages it was taken for sure just because scientists with opposite thinking were simply silenced. Recently there are much more claims among scolars that alphabet made by them was actually Cyrillic and not Glagolithic. Zenanarh (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seal of Peter

The discovery was first published by Gustav Schlumberger in 1884, as an "eastern roman archont of Dioklia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

sweet as Hxseek (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mihailo Visevic

Certainly. Yes, Vistula. He is descending from a Slavic tribe (as such before moving to the Balkans) known as the "Liciki", according to tradition. The Liciki became sort of "warlords" of Zachlumia. Mihailo Visevic reigned Zachlumia from 910 to 930, 931 or even 940 and he's the son of a certain Vis. Serbian linguists have considered him a branch of the main family, due to the fact that their surname was Višević, connecting it to the first known Serbian ruler Višeslav and his family thereof.

Peter Gojnikovic in the early 10th century took martially control over most of Zachlumia and pressed him, possibly to the islands (though not certain). Serbian historians claim his vassalage to Serbia from the start. He was working to fight against him and he forges an alliance with the Bulgarian tsar Symeon in that cause. He captured the future Venetian Doge Peter Badoari in 912 on his return from Constantinople and sent him as a slave to Bulgaria in that effort (Venice was Byzantine subject, and it was an enemy of Bulgaria).

In 917 there was a secret meeting between Prince Peter and Byzantine Dyrrachian strategos Lion Rabduch somewhere in a palace in the Narentine frontier (Pagania), Byzantium was trying to gather the Magyars and Serbs into a massive coalition against the Bulgarians in order to destroy them. As a further attempt, Vusevic found out about this and informed Symeon about the meeting, who quickly acted to first subdue Serbia placing a friendly ruler, braking the potential alliance. Petar's cousin Paul Branovic was put to the throne by the Bulgarians. In 923 he quickly changed from pro-Bulgarian to pro-Byzantine, so the Bulgars once again replaced the Serbian ruler, this time with Zaharija Pribislavljevic.

During the reigns of the weak Pavle and Zaharije, it is believed that Mihailo not only factually strengthened as ruler of his own land, but also further expanded his realm throughout coastal Serbia. In 924 Serbia wanted to loose on dependence on Bulgaria, so the Bulgarians ravaged hard wars onto it. In the end, they finally succeeded in totally abolishing and annexing it, rather than maintained a form of vassal-state. This, giving full-scale independence to Great Prince Michael, also convinced him of the Bulgarian threat - Symeon simple continued to successfully conquer everything.

In 924 and 925, Michael closed by to Croatia, seeing a threat in Bulgarian expansion. He is recorded on the two Spalatan Church Councils as a representer of Serbs. He went into an alliance with Croatia against Bulgaria; this also meant eligious subjection to Rome (to the Church of Spljet). Croatian historians consider that Zachlumia was a Croatian vassal-state because of this.

As the Bulgarians got weaker, he saw a great power in the Balkans in Byzantium, so he started to return to it. In 926 he crossed with his navy across the Adriatic and conducted the greatest success in his reign - on 10 July 926 he conquered the Italian City of Siponte, greatly jeopardized by Arab and Langobard intruders. As a reward, he received numerous Byzantine titles including 'patrikios' and 'hypatos', under Byzantine sovereignty recognized as the Viceroy of the region, becoming after 927 and 928 the most powerful ruler in the Adriatic region. With his death, his land collapsed and Zachlumia was never more a powerful & distinct realm. After him the overpowering influence of Prince Ceslav Klonimirovic who from the hinterland of Zeta slowly regained all of Serbia was fulfilled.

There. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Zachumlians, according their local tradition, considered themselves as descendents of the Litziki (Slavs) from the Vistula river in Poland. Where the hell you found a link to Serbs in this story? You're so serious and funny in the same time. Only Constantine noted Zachumlians as Serbs (obviously because of politics), but in the same time he noted M. Višević as the ruler of the Slavs or Zachumlians. There's also Constantine's information about ancestry of the Zachumlian ruling family, which corresponded to previously mentioned local tradition. But this tradition was not connected in any way to also Constantine's story about the coming of Serbs to the Balkans. It's obvious that the Zachumlians simply didn't relate their ancestry to Serbian one. Finally, in 12th century their name was still "Slavs" and none else. They were neither Croats neither Serbs, they were simply Slavs. The same goes for other duchies between Croatia and Serbia. BTW wasn't there some kind of White Croatia in the Vistula area and Krakow in Poland? I don't think that they were really White Croats by ancestry, they were Litziki. This is just to tickle your imagination :). But Serbs... puff pant... all of Serbia... :) Zenanarh (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is recorded on the two Spalatan Church Councils as a representer of Serbs?!?! Why Serbs? You mean Zachumlians? Once again, where this Serbs comes from? If you write recorded and Serbs, it gives totally wrong information in comparison to reality. Historical records should not be subject to one's imagination. You're producing fake history this way. Zenanarh (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DAI didn't note Michael as a ruler of Slavs, but anyway that's what we all are. ;) I do not understand what you mean by obviously because of politics.

Not Zachlumians, but Serbs in precise (across the versions appearing in different names, some today dispute whether this was referring to the Serbs at all, but that's what general historiography referred/refers to).

All in all, the Serbs settled Rascia and Croats settled the northern Dalmatian hinterland. As I said, they expanded further, Croats to Lika, Banija and Kordun and to Savia; Serbs to Bosnia, Travunia with Konavle and pagania; Croats to Bosnia and Narenta, Serbs to Doclea; this all occurred in the 8th century and was finalized across the 9th, as the two expanded their names to the local Slavic tribes. Ergo, if the Abodrites managed to elude Bulgarian expansion and create a potent civilization, we would have Croatian and Timoccan nationalists today fighting over whether Bosnia is Croat or Timokian. ;) The Zachlumians were integrated into the Serbian corpus, just like the Narentines were integrated (in the end) into the Croatian, or the Gacans ages before. Aforefacing Serbian and Croatian expansion (though different from the Bulgarian, which went with quite potent force and resistance from the mini Slavic ethnic groups), met with disappearance of practically all other Slavic groups very quickly, with only a new unique Bosnian identity asserting later on. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

“	When the aforementioned bishops (1) had gathered there, passing through Dalmatian cities and meeting with the Croatian and Serbian (2) noblemen and when in Split they gathered the Bishops and elders, they held a very solemn council [..](2) refers to the Zachloumians, followers of Prince Michael Vusevic, who - as master of the area of Ston's Bishopric - takes part at the Council	”
—Conclusions of the Church Council in Split, 925, Ferdo Šišić

In case you misunderstand me, I always look for the entire historiographic scene to come to a neutral conclusion. If something is claimed by neutral (Western & other) historians, and by both Serbian and Croatian - I take it as a historical neutrality. For instance, this precise (that Michael's Zachlumians were "Serbs") is according to neutral Western (and eastern [Greek, Russian and Romanian]) historiography, to Serbian historiography and to moderate Croatian - I see no rational reason to doubt it. When looking through the controversial historic image of the lands of former Yugoslavia - I always look for both Croatian and Serbian moderate historians. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I rely mostly on neutral Croatian historians when it comes to Serb-Croat history, and using also outside views, I almost never ever use Serbian sources. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DAI did mention Višević as a ruler of "Slavs" (Zachlumian of course)!

You know very well what I mean by obviously because of politics. You already had a lot of discussions with other users about DAI controversy concerning this agenda. Also this is one of the main controversy in DAI, in the "Slavs" chapters, according to the general, standard, normal historiography. And you know about that.

F.Šišić's "Povijest Hrvata u doba narodnih vladara" (Zagreb 1925, 21990) is more than worth as history book, but his work is superannuated, in conception, it gave a historical view which was already 70 years ago a little bit out of the main scientific stream. Many of his statements are heavily disputed by modern historians. Your expressions like "we consider", "standard point", "general" (general 80 years ago) and similar are not science, which history should be.

Considering that all Slavs in the Balkans should be distinguished in 2 etnical bodies - Croats or Serbs - is out of date. If we should discuss about the Balkan history that way, then this discussion is not worth, then we are out of date too.

Zenanarh (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy according to general historiography lies in the story of Dalmatia and the impossibility of Croats and Serbs inhabiting all those gigantic lands; they probably assimilated the "lesser" peoples referred in the DAI by the 10th century. But that's normal for medieval sources, I fail to see politics there.

You fail to see that this is not some simple opinion - but a translation to Serbo-Croat from the original document in Latin. Nada Klaić agrees with him, and she's modern.

As major peoples - yes, we should. They after, like the Bulgarians too, were one of the few that brought their ethnos to the Balkans, rather than it arising in there. Of course, in the Later Medieval Ages, the only those that appeared next were the Bosnianins. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When did Pagania get incoporated into Hum? ALso i read that Croat nobles were powerful in Pagania at some point. I just can't find it again. What clan was this - do you boys know ? Hxseek (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard belief was early 12th century (that is how the Serbian realm got the island of Melita [Mljet]), but now you mentioned something about Michael Visevic's expansion, so I guess it's possible that it was (for a short time) before too.

I think you're referring to the Kačićs from Omiš and the 13th century. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

About Nada Klaić - you're wrong, I really don't know where you've found that N. Klaić considered that Zaclumia was Serbian land or populated by Serbs. Ie, she wrote in her book “SREDNJOVJEKOVNA BOSNA - POLITIČKI POLOŽAJ BOSANSKIH VLADARA DO TVRTKOVE KRUNIDBE” (Zagreb, 1989.) this: ....No, ove nevješte projekcije o srpstvu Bosne vrijede isto koliko Šišićevo dokazivanje o hrvatsvu Bosne. Međutim nekritički izvještaj Konstantina Porfirogeneta o Sklavinijama moze poslužiti kao podloga za zaključke samo onom historičaru kome nije odveć stalo do historijske istine. On je uglavnom iste vrijednosti kao i Dukljaninove vijesti o vladanju hrvatskih ili srpskih vladara nad Bosnom. To su tek povremeni izleti susjednih vladara koji nisu niti su mogli izmijeniti stoljetni položaj bosanskih zemalja, jer su one bez Hrvata i Srba odavno išle svojim, od njih posve odijeljenim putem. Carevi podaci za taj posao ne mogu biti mjerodavni, a još manje vješta konstrukcija barskog nadbiskupa koji piše sredinom 12. stoljeća....Posve razumljivo da Ćirkoviću za njegovu teoriju o srpstvu Bosne ne mogu poslužiti niti Konstantinovi podaci o naseljenju Srba, jer ih car, a znamo i zašto, stavlja u Srbiju, Paganiju, Zahumlje i Travuniju te Konavle po kriteriju 10-og stoljeća kad su sve te zemlje priznavale bizantsku vlast. Something completely different!

She fights against rediciolous ideas of strictly Croatian or Serbian settlements of Bosnia, Zachlumia, Pagania, etc. About the Narantines, in her book "Povijest Hrvata" she wrote: da u vrieme naseljavanja nisu pripadali ni hrvatskoj ni srpskoj jezgri.(!!!) When she discusses about view given by Constantine in DAI, that the Narantines belonged to Serbs, she says: "on to čini zato što sliku političkih prilika svoga razdoblja prenosi u VII stoljeće." or few sentences later: "...izvodio porijeklo Neretljana od nekrštenih Srba jer se našao u nedoiumici kad je trebalo da prikaže sebi nepoaznatu njihovu prošlost."

Concerning Docleans, she accents the name "Red Croatia" (from LJPD) from what older Croatian traces could be found in the same place, before political expansion of Nemanjić's.

About Šišić again, to quote him: Car Konstantin crpući znanje svoje o doseljenju Hrvata i Srba ,po naređenju' cara Heraklija iz hrvatske i srpske tradicije, pribraja slovenska plemena na jugu ušća Cetine Srbima prosto zato, jer ne zna kuda bi s njima. You wrote something completely different about his statements!

It appears that you are relying on that Serbian historiography which uses false or fake quotes of prominent Croatian historians, like giving the facts out of context, or substituting Slav -> Serb. This is sad. This is getting more worse by every next comment of yours. Please prove to me that I'm wrong.

Sorry Hxseek for this "battlefield" on your page. If you want translation of the text above, just say it. Zenanarh (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You failed to see that I was referring to the translation of the 925 Latin document, with both Klaic and Sisic (I quoted Sisic to the above) giving a translation of that. The document wasn't written by some new historian, nor is it some sort of retelling / interpretation. Serbian historians mostly emphasize this point out that, even during the age of struggle with Serbia, the Zachlumians were already Serbianized.

About Nada Klaic, she perfectly confirms what I have been claiming. Everyone knows the centers of the Serbs and Croats were in Rascia (proper itself) and the northern Dalmatian hinterland, all else was expansion. Zachlumians, Travunians, everyone,...they're not of Serb/Croat origin, they were serbianized/croaticized in due course - as most Serbs and Croats. In any case, this what I have been saying has nothing to do with DAI or any of that - but with the 925 Church Councils of Split.

Yes, the problem is with Serbian historiography that it mindlessly on occasions binds itself to Constantine's DAI. But Doclea which according to DAI is populated by "Slavs" and not Serbs precisely - was a Serb state according to Ferdo Sisic. To add more if I may, he really goes into the details of Doclea (partially dismissing or fully disregarding the theory of Red Croatia), practically always referring to it as a Serb state. We shouldn't bind ourself to DAI, but to research in general. For instance, the Split Council of 925 gives this very interesting image, and I have given you how both Sisic and Klaic interpret this (and if memory serves me well, so does Racki). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Hxseek next time when you make an archive, it could be titled: Pax and Zen monologues :) OK Pax, I must check it. Zenanarh (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. The good thing is none of us are heated by this discussion and it only brings more information, so it can't hurt anyone. ;) Cheers (both of you). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael of Zahclumia attented the Split Synod with Tomislav pure and simply becuase they were both under its religious jurisdictions, and were at the time the only independent Slav rulers of the area. Serbia had been incorporated into Bulgaria.MIchael had expanded his rule over travunia and even part of Duklja. There is no evidence that Michael was vassaled to Tomislav, although certainly there was alliance and cooperation. Despite the (Probably legendary) account of his special genealogy, I have to say that by this time the western authors i have come accross refer to Zachlumia as a Serbianized state. Eg John Fine Jr call it "the other Serb state" in 900s. Hxseek (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I have been saying to the up. A most interesting observation are the conclusions of the 925 Church Councils of Split, according to which there were Serb representatives (headed by Michael Visevic of Zachlumia).

Did you get those expansions from Fine or someone else? I heard that he expanded to the West to Pagania, but can't confirm this. I actually don't quite know where/how/when did he precisely expand his realm, maybe you have some data on that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaking but this discussion is about DAI so I will add little informations about Balkan history in 9 century.

Around AD 800 Croatia (this is today name) has become vassal state of Frankish Empire.

806-813 we are having war between Frankish and Byzantine Empire.

813 With peace agreement between 2 Empires "Croatia" has entered Frankish zone of influence and everything east of "Croatian" borders has entered Byzantine zone of influence.

Around 922 two western slavic states are united in Croatia.

930-959 Constantine is writing history of Byzantine empire (from 817) and DAI. In his works Slav population which is living east of old Frankish-Byzantine border (zone of influence) are Serbs and Slav population living west of this border are Croats.--Rjecina (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is not about DAI. :)

Also, the theory fails as it just says "Slavs" in Doclea's case - and not "Serbs". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite Rjecina. The 812 Treaty of Aachen gave the Dalmatian coast to Byzantines and the Slavic hinterland and Istria to Franks. The Franks influence went east to some part of present day Bosnia, ? perhaps the Bosna river, where Bulgarian control began.

Peter Gojnik expanded into Pagania, 'had conflct with MIhaijlo if Zahum' and also expanded into Bosna valley. We don;t know when exactly, but circa 900. Perhaps DAI calls the Pagans, Zachlumoi and Travunians (and Konavlians) Serbs because in Constantine's time, ie c. 900s, they were under Serbian vassalage. So he maybe constructed a genealogy to fit the political situation of his time. He also maybe constructed a special genealogy for Visevic because he did not accept Serbian vassalge, so Porphyrogenitus explains this by saying his stemmed from a different dynasty. He says the DUklja was at that time ruled by the 'Romans' (ie Byzantines)- not part of Serb or Croat league, so he merely calls them slavs, as opposed to Serbs or Croats. I have not read anywhere that Mihailo Visevic attended the Split Synod as a "Serb representative". As i said, he was just there because he was under Split's religious jurisdiction. It doesn;t mean he represented all Serbs.

The same thing with "Croatian Pannonia". They weren;t neccesarily Croats. They were Pannonian Slavs, still under Avar vassalge even after the Craots defeted them from Dalmatia in c. 640s. They then fell under Frank vassalage c. 790s. WHen Liutevid revolted, but ultimately failed, it was put directly under Frank rule- under the Margriave of Carinthia. THen briely part of Balaton Principality, which itself was also a nominal Frank vassal. Then there was a State called Savia c. 898-900 under a Slavic Prince, again vassaled to Franks. THis was created as a buffer against Great Moravia. THen Magyar attacks in 900s. According to the Chronicle of PRiest of Duklja, Tomislav the defeated the magyars, and established Croatia's border up to Drava. But constantine says that the Magyars actually occupied down to Sava river. THus scholars argue whether Slavonia (as it came to be known) was actually Croatian or Hungarian in 900s. Archeology shows it to be only sparsely populated in 900s anyway. IT was probably a highly anarchtic region. Whatever the case, it was certainly "Croaticized" in subsequent 2 centuries. Hxseek (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Let's see. Connecting of Dalmatia to Croatian inland was followed by church connecting of 2 regions, especially because Dalmatian cities came again to the church jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome. In 925 there was a letter sent by Croatin king Tomislav, Zachlumian duke Mihajlo Višević, the bishop of Split, the bishop of Zadar, the bishop of Nin Grgur Ninski and other bishops, to the Pope John X with request to resolve question of the church organization in Croatian state. The Pope then sent his delegates at a Church Synod in Split (925) and gave them the letters adressed to: 1st letter to the archbishop of Split and his priests; 2nd to Croatian king Tomislav, the duke Mihajlo Višević and to all rectories, priests and to all people who were living in Croatian country and Dalmatia (precisely in Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar and in the islands Rab, Krk and Osor). So the main problem and reason for these Split synods in 925 and 928 were conflicts - which diocese should be the leading (Metropolitan) one in these new conditions. The main rivalty was between the bishops of Nin and Split. Well, the second one won and Nin diocese was abolished soon after.

Another demand from the Pope was abolition of the Slavic Glagolithic liturgy (widely spread in Dalmatia in the 2nd half of 9th century), but synods only formally prevented establishment of those bishops who didn't speak Latin language at all.

Material from these synods was saved in "Historia salonitana maior" by Toma Arhiđakon. All data interesing for us were placed in 2 sentences, both of the same meaning:

1) date

Tempore Joannis pape sanctissimo consulatu peragente in provintia Croatorum et Dalmatiarum finibus
Tamisclao rege et Michaele in suis finibus presidente duce", 

"In the age of reverend Pope John, when King Tomislav was a consul in the provinces of Croatia and Dalmatia, and Mihailo was a duke in his region."

Croatian translation: "U vrijeme presvetoga pape Ivana, dok je bio konzul u pokrajini Hrvata i u krajevima Dalmacija kralj Tomislav, a u svojim krajevima Mihailo bio knez." Dalmatia was written in plural form Dalmatiarum! - one of the direct proofs that Višević was, at least, a vasal of Tomislav, since these Dalmatiarum included Zachlumia, Trabunia and Doclea.

2) 2nd letter was adressed to

Joannes episcopus servus servorum Dei dilecto fiflio Tamisclao regi Crovatorum et Michaeli,
excellentisimo duci Chulmorum (...),"

"bishop John, a servant of the servants of God, dear son Tomislav, a king of Croats and Mihailo, an excellent duke of Zachlumians (...),"

Croatian translation: "Ivan biskup, sluga slugu Božijih, ljubljenom sinu Tomislavu, kralju Hrvata, i Mihajlu, izvrsnom knezu Humljana (...),"

Nikola Zvonimir Bjelovučić: "Crvena Hrvatska i Dubrovnik",Zagreb,1929:

...Why the Pope in his second letter didn't talk to the neighbouring rulers: Serbian duke Zacharia, or Bulgarian emperor Simeon? Because they were the rulers in other states, not in Croatia. The Roman Pope had to resolve the question of the archbishop authority and the language of liturgy only in Croatian state. So he applied to the chieftains of Croatian state - king Tomislav and Zachlumian duke Mihajlo Višević. Therefore it should be concluded that M. Višević, who contributed at the synod with his regions Zachlumia, Doclea and Trabunia, or the area between Neretva and Bojana, was in Croatian state. The diocese of Ston belonged to his region Zachlumia (Pelješac peninsula was in Zachlumia until 1333). How was it possible that Zachlumian duke M. Višević contributed to business of Croatian state, problems of the language in liturgy and other questions in Croatia, if he wasn't a part of that state? Why did he come to synod in Split? Why the Pope apllied to him together with Tomislav, precisely in the same letter where Tomislav was a king and he was a duke? The truth was that he was definitely the most prominent nobleman of the Croatian state. He was a Zachlumian duke with patrimonial duchy from Neretva to Bojana, made of smaller regions Zachlumia, Trabunia and Doclea.

This is a proof, based on the letter of Pope John X, that Tomislav as a king had authority from Raša (river in Istria) to Bojana, if not earlier then definitely after 925. The same conclusion comes from another fact: a Croatian king Stjepan Miroslav gave for a gift to Dubrovnik, according to his sovereign authority, the lands between Župa and Dubrovnik from Trabunia region, and between Dubrovnik and Orašac from Zachlumia.

In the Church Synod in Split (925), there were discussion about all dioceses in Croatia and Dalmatia, so therefore about the dioceses of Kotor and Dubrovnik too, since both were the parts of Dalmatia of that time, and Dalmatia was under Tomislav's authority.

Words from XII canon accepted at the synod: "If a king of Croats and the Croatian noblemen (rex et proceres Chroatorum) decide to put all dioceses of our Split metropoly under authority of their bishop of Nin, then our bishops (Latin) won't baptise neither initiate the priests in all their country."

It certainly meant that the diocese of Ston (Zachlumia), Dubrovnik and Kotor (Trabunia) were inside the Croatian state, since according to the Pope's words, a Croatian king and noblemen were able to decide about these dioceses of the Split Metropoly. This is a diplomatic proof that Croatian state included Višević's regions: Zachlumia, Trabunia and Doclea and that Croatian king had authority there. At the both synods in 925 and 928 it was discussed about the dioceses of Ston, Dubrovnik and Kotor as well as about Zadar, Rab, Krk, Osor, Duvno and Sisak.

There was a letter by Pope Leon VI (929) concerning 2nd Synod in Split, in the part where he wrote about the bishops in Croatian state (Zadar, Nin, etc.): We are warning the bishops of Rab, Osor and Dubrovnik to keep their dioceses... - which obviously meant that they were on Croatian territory...

...King Tomislav (925), King Stjepan Miroslav (948) and Stjepan Držislav (988) were mentioned as the kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, but at that time, it were 2 separated parts of the same state (kingdom), united at the time of the King Petar Krešimir IV.

The dioceses of Ston, Dubrovnik and Kotor in 925 and in 928 were under authority of the archbishop of Split, therefore in Croatia and Dalmatia, since it was impossible that the bishops were "sufrogans" of the archbishop from another state...

R. Horvat: "Povijest Hrvatske I", Zagreb 1925:

...Report from the 1st synod (925) proves that there were some Serbian noblemen, actually they were those Serbs who escaped together with Zacharia to Croatia, after Bulgarian emperor Simeon had defeated them. The most probably Serbian noblemen were at the court of King Tomislav as his guests... Conflict between the archbishops of Nin and Split was prolonged to 928. It was not possible to resolve it earlier since Croatia was in new war with the Bulgarians. Simeon the Great was not able to accept defeat of his voivod Alogobotur. So in 927 he rised a new army and personally led it against Croats. After another defeat (27th May 928) an old emperor has died, his inheritor was his son Peter. Tomislav was then preparing to attack Bulgaria. Pope John X heard about it and became scared because of probabal benefit to Byzantine Emperor if both Croatia and Bulgaria got weakened due to the war. So he sent new delegates to Croatia, a bishop Madalbert and prince John of Kuma to reconcile Tomislav and Peter. Tomislav interceded for Serbs in this peace agreement, so indeed, soonly after, Serbs from Croatia and Bulgaria were returning to devastated Serbia and Ceslav restored a Serbian state. Yet many Serbs stayed in the southern Croatia, especially in Doclea (modern Montenegro).

When the peace was trully agreed, bishop Madalbert turned to another problem: to resolve conflict between bishop Grgur and bishop Ivan, so he called another Church Synod in 928. Once again there were Dalmatian bishops, King Tomislav and Croatian noblemen, while there were no Serbian noblemen anymore...

This is F.Šišić's text with his "translation" from Latin:

Zaključci Crkvenog Sabora U Splitu G. 925.

...Kad su spomenuti biskupi (1) tamo stigli, prođoše kroz dalmatinske gradove i sastadoše se s hrvatskim i srpskim (2) velikašima, pa kad su u Splitu sakupili biskupe i starješine, održaše vrlo svečan sabor....

1) Papinski poslanici, Ivan — biskup u Ankoni i Leon — biskup n mjestu Preneste.

2) Odnosi se na Zahumljane, pratioce kneza Mihajla Viševića, koji - kao gospodar područja stonske biskupije — sudjeluje na saboru.

Decisions from the Church Synod in Split in the year of 925.

...When mentioned bishops (1) arrived there, they passed through Dalmatian cities and made meeting with Croatian and Serbian (2) noblemen, so when they assembled the bishops and rulemasters, very solemn synod was maintained...

1) delegates of the Pope, Ivan - a bishop in Ancona and Leon - a bishop of Prenesta.

2) Reffering to Zachlumians, companions of duke Mihajlo Višević, who participated at the Syond - as he was a master of the diocese of Ston

As you can see he has used Serbian noblemen for Višević and his fellows just because he was relating it to DAI as historical source for Serbian settlement. But in the same time he forgot or he didn't know that there were Serbian refugees Zacharia and his noblemen, hiding in Croatia after their escape from Bulgarians. However it's better to say that he was partially respecting DAI about this case (he was also confused by so many time mentioned controversy). This is obvious from another his quote which I've presented above:

Car Konstantin crpući znanje svoje o doseljenju Hrvata i Srba ,po naređenju' cara Heraklija iz hrvatske i srpske tradicije, pribraja slovenska plemena na jugu ušća Cetine Srbima prosto zato, jer ne zna kuda bi s njima.

Translation: Drawing his kowledge of arrival of Croats and Serbs by order of Emperor Heraclio from Croatian and Serbian traditions, Emperor Constantine counted Slavic tribes southern of the mouth of river Cetina as Serbs, just because he didn't know where to put them else.

So citating just one Šišić's sentence and wrong evaluation that Serbian noblemen included Višević and his guards or building history around one doubtful naming with relating note (in not direct translation!!!) is ridiciolous. Zenanarh (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the lack of material data there are still some traces of Red Croatia recorded in historical sources. Red Croatia which disappeard with the faulth of Doclea in 12th century.

As a historian from Dubrovnik, Crijević wrote:

Dioclea metropolis Croatiae Rubeae, tempore Samuelis Bulgarorum imperatore....(Duklja bijaše metropolija Crvene Hrvatske u vrijeme Samuela, cara bugarskoga) in English: Doclea was a metropoly of Red Croatia at the time of Samuel, the Emperor of Bulgaria. Zenanarh (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All this still doesn't change the fact that it was interpreted this way by mainstream historiography (obviously), both Croatian and Serbian. As we can see, that one to the up if very POV, possibly motivated by national(ist) tendencies, as he not only definitely uses the existence of a Red Croatia - which most probably could've been just the Komani-Kroja culture - but plainly considers that it was a component part of the Croat state (opposed by mainstream and neutral Croatian historiography). To quote Sisic: "But if it cannot be denied - at least with a good reason - the existence of the Croat name in Upper Dalmatia of the 11th and 12th centuries, that still doesn't mean that it was a component part of the state of Croatia, nor even that it's about ethnic Croats in the same sense as those in Croatia, where their name was not only national, but also political (statist). That only means, that amongst the Serbs Docleans there were certain groups of peoples, who were called Croats, in the same manner as there were such groups of Croats also amongst the Czechs of the 10th and 11th centuries of the age and amongst the Poles of then's time."

They are already inherently POV if they claim Red Croatia, especially with that level of strange certainty.

As for the theory that those were indeed Serbian refugees - I know about it, and have heard it before, but those are just opinions of some, and obviously not quite neutral or mainstream ones. If you ask me, it doesn't seem likely - because Zaharija Pribislavljevic would've been named specifically, which he wasn't. Since Michael Vusevic's there, he's the most logical explanation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. Michael's attendence of SPlit is purely a matter of religious jurisdiction. His principality fell under Split see. As did Croatia. HE may have been an ally of Tomislav, even somewhat subordinate (since he was a Prince vs King). But no wetern Scholar has echoed this view of Zachlumia being part of Croatia. In fact, if he was vassaled to anyone- it was Symeon. Instead they say it was politcally independent. THe Serb or Bulgarian rulers didn;t attend Split because they were under Constantinople (plus Serbia collapsed anyway). On the other hand, no western scholars argue that Visevic represented Serbs either.

Since we cannot deny the bias of Croat and Serb 'scholars', we mut stick to non-Balkan views. This is a necessary compromise. Z: whilst you raise interesting points, we cannot make our own conclusions. Hxseek (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But, according to the 925 Latin text, there were obviously some Serb represents, next to Croatian, at the council. I'd not disregard entirely domestic claim - especially when there is a consensus amongst Serb-Croat historians, like this.

But to add, Hxseek, this same thing is claimed by a neutral non-Balkan historian: Konstantin Jireček. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek, we must be concious of the fact that we are discussing about accidents and occasions partially hidden in fog - there are not enough direct proofs for any theory, especially not for strictly Croatian or Serbian, concerning these duchies. And I agree with you at some degree. As I've already shown before, modern Croatian historiography (I'm not interested in cheap historic zealotry) is keeping a distance to any oversimplified conclusion. Modern thinking in serious Croatian scientific circles is shown the mostly in studies made by Budak (I didn't quote him here yet), which is, in some conclusions, much closer to Horvat than to Šišić. It is based on Budak's studies about King Tomislav and Latin documents and records from Split synods (not only Historia salonitana, but also Hrvatska kronika (Croatian cronicles) - older and and recently translated compilation of Dalmatian Latin documents). I've presented 2 different views made by 2 Croatian historians in 1925, but none of it is used as certain in modern times - simply because there are no direct proofs. But according to modern stream of Croatian historiography, Serbian version is nothing than hard core zealotry based on shaky suppositions. I've presented what kind of proofs are used by them: controversy of DAI, doubtful Šišić's supposition presented in his note related to his translation - not present in translation and the best one - if there is a ceramic pot in the grave it is Serbian grave, just because such graves were found in Serbia too - which is actually a characteristic of Slavic graves in general, not Serbian. Well, because of the last one, the archeologists in Croatia are rolling on the floor laughing. It appears that half of Europe was settled by the Serbs.

You said that Višević was the most possibly vassal of Simeon. Actually he was a duke of the Slavic duchies (or duchy) who was walking on the edge between Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Byzanth. But he definitely was some kind of vassal to the Croatian king. It doesn't need any discussion. You wrote: Michael's attendence of SPlit is purely a matter of religious jurisdiction. OK but you forget something very important: overlapping of the church jurisdiction over 2 separated political units was impossible because of the close relationship between the civil and church authorities during Medieval. I've shown you a decision from a synod where it's directly shown that Tomislav had authority in Višević's lands, it's impossible that Croatian king gave a land of Doclea and Trabunia as a gift to Dubrovnik if it was not under his authority. Read XII canon again. Obviously Višević was not politically independent. I'm not making my own conclusions.

When Pax say middlestream historiography - there is one huge problem about it. Yugoslavia was a communist federation with only one political option - communists. All other were enemies. The same was with science, so history too. In this artificial political creation there was artificially created history, it was holy bible, every theory different than "official" one was persecuted. So holy bible said that there was a massive Slavic migration in 7th century, when Croats and Serbs arrived, Slavonia was Croatian, Doclea was Serbian, Cyril and Method were the founders of the Glagolithic script, etc. It was almost like Once upon a time... ending with happy end in Yugoslavia. In the same time many scientists were silenced, ie 4 Croatian scientists were murdered because of different theories about the Glagolithic. So this middle stream historiography went out and spread through the works of western authors too. Recently I had a discussion about Indo-Europeans in Illyrians article. A Greek user said that we need an objective western author. I gave him a link to the most eminent one - precisely a writter of Indo-European encyclopedia. But the best thing was that this objective American author used Croatian authors as the sources when he was writting about the Illyrians, simply because these authors gave the most of contribution to our knowledge about the Illyrians. It's not important whether they were Croats or other, they were just 3 guys who gave the maximum in their studies. The same goes for Slavic history. If you want to examine history of Dalmatia, you must come here, to Dalmatia, since archeological evidences are here, rich documentary archives are here in Dalmatian cities, the mostly in Zadar, Dubrovnik and Split. Or to live in Australia and quote local authors who are sleeping with these evidences under their beds. Or you can live in Australia and quote the western authors who are 20 years late. We must use serious authors with logical conclusions. Sometimes we will have 2 authors with opposite ideas, in that case we must accent both, 1st said this, 2nd said this and 3rd is somewhere in between since there are no direct proofs. This is formula. And wait for some new realisations, science is always developing.

Pax you are a little bit boring with your POV accusations. You said that 1st text is POV just because there is "Red Croatia" in the title, which is a thorn in your eye, as far as I know. The title could be "Elephant on the moon" it still doesn't mean that the text is POV. Actually your reaction is POV since you are not able to accept some historical facts when presented to you. But that's your problem. If you want to prove that it is a POV, prove it in details with counter-evidences for every presented single detail. That's what scientifical discussion should look like. I've disputed your "evidences" by using serious literacy, not by my own wishie wishes. But don't try to dispute that text by catching 2 words "Red Croatia" because of its controversy (there is also controversy in DAI but you don't mind about it, don't you?). If you can concentrate on text, it would be much better.

Concerning your comment about "Serbian noblemen"; Zaharia was a refugee in Croatia and a guest on the Tomislav's court. He didn't have any kind of political role important for Croatian problems resolved at the Church Synods. He was just a Serbian nobleman so that's why his name was not important for the reporters from the 1st Split Synod. He simply didn't contribute there actively. This is so logically that your opposite conclusion makes me laugh. It's possible that they were present at 1st synod as the guests and spectators, or they were just meeting the Roman delegates together with other Croatian noblemen before assembling of a synod - actually this is what Šišić's quote definitely said: the Roman delegates were passing through the Dalmatian cities and met Croatian and Serbian noblemen!

No offense Pax, that's my mentality, I'm a Dalmatian ;) Zenanarh (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually - and you might understand why my opinions seem "archaic" - I disregard all Serbo-Croatian historiography after the year 1990. They are quite often driven by madness and nationalism. Tell, which is a fully normal and neutral Croatian-Serbian historian today? Is there one? I think not, it's those damned 1990s that have caused this. For one thing, just like you said - there is a lot of stereotype about the Serbs in Croatian historiography, their opinion is that that is just Serbian fantasy - but obviously fantasy which corresponded their own predecessors, and including world science (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Americana, Brockhaus, LaRousse...Britannica for example openly claims that the Serbs were divided into two religious groups - Catholic coast and minor Orthodox hinterland). The cause of this illusion created is hideous nationalistic politically-motivated propaganda, on the argument that Serbian historians claim something that is completely biased - when those who claim this themselves are alone as Vojislav Seselj's theories he regularly expressed at his trial at the ICTY. On the other side, you can open textbooks in Serbia or Montenegro and read that Shoktzs were mostly Serbs and that Dalmatia was mostly a Catholic Serb land, as well as that Bosnia was 98% populated by Serbs of three religions - all a result of mindlessly-driven acts during the Yugoslav wars, that have sadly left a permanent scar on our world. Or, the insanely-driven archaelogists like Jovan I. Deretic, like you mentioned. As we can see, revisionist-historic illusions arise in which Serbia has border at Una (sic!) and Croatia at the river of Bojana (double sic!).

Yes, it was possible - Upper Dalmatia religiously was subjected to Rome, but this didn't bother it to be politically subjected to Byzantium, did it?

Well, Ferdo Sisic or Vatroslav Jagic didn't live in Communist Yugoslavia, did they? :) Or especially Ioannes Lucius from the 17th century. And when I referred mainstream - I was also referring to world historiography (from various Encyclopadiae to Fine himself). I am a bit tired of the propaganda in ex Yu, always claiming that Communist Yugo was against them. In Serbia you might occasionally hear that Serb history of Bosnia and Dubrovnik was "denied because of the pro-Croat/Slovene anti-Serb authorities", and the same thing is, evidently, though in Croatia (probably elsewhere too). The best way to revive revisionist and ultra-nationalist theories of Dominik Mandić or whomever else amongst Serbs, Bosnians or anyone else, is to "boo-hoo, blame it all on Communism". But of course, don't get me wrong - I do know what occurred to history indeed - but this overestimation, in which's spine neo-romantic nationalism is hiding, is really inappropriate.

Don't misunderstand my approach to sources - but you can expect how I react when I read Dominik Mandic. :0) And yes, if someone definitely claims that such a thing as Red Croatia existed without any doubt - I am going to disregard him without any deeper opinion, and that's a most NPOV thing to do.

The irrelevant Serbian noblemen, so much that they didn't even need to be mentioned? So irrelevant that they're named at the start practically as equals (Croatian and Serbian nobility)? And isn't it really obvious that those who were present were there because their lands religiously belonged there? Rascia wasn't religiously subjected to Split, that we know for sure. Anyway, we use this vary logic to attain that Upper Dalmatia was subjected to Split - presence on the council. I simply don't understand how the theory of the refugees - of whom there's no trace - fits in. The probable argument is to try to tie "Croatian" to also the Zachlumians, and therefor also politically tie Upper Dalmatia to Croatia - but as that seems less probable. Sisic also said that the Serbian noblemen were Zachlumians of Mihailo Visevic.

No problem. I'm Herzegovinian-Montenegrin. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No Pax, you're talking a lot and saying nothing. Now you are trying to discredit local historians after you have edited a number of the articles by using Serbian POV versions. It's very sad that this Serbian POV conquered international literacy during last 50 years, you are just taking advantage of it at this moment. In Croatian historiography nothing was changed after 1990, only one thing - it was finally possible far many authors to write freely with no fear of political punishment by Big Brother. Of course I agree, it enabled also nationalistic expressions, but as I said I'm not interested in it. I have shown you some reliable historical sources and you've described it as POV. I'm asking you - on which basis? Uncertain interpretation of a few sentences? And that is NPOV? GO to Franciscan monestery in Boka, where many documents are saved. Documents of Croats, not Serbs. Serbian government has supported China concerning occupation of Nepal, recently. Since China has supported Serbia concerning Kosovo. That's how Serbs do it. High politics, low morality. Bravo. Zenanarh (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And now you have (again) traced off from the discussion (did you fully read what I wrote) and resorted (again) to incivility and almost racial comments. I'm not going to interpret this as (yet another) personal attack on your part, but am just going to ignore this. I'm very sorry, but I'm trying to lead here a professional discussion and you obviously have the tendency to switch over to the "evil Serbs accusation", totally unrelated to the discussion, despite I made very clear notifications regarding this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Stojanovic and his colleagues have expressed very interesting data in the 19th and early 20th century how the territory west of the river of Una (Lika, Kordun, Banija) was "also" (!!!) a part of Western Serbia, but I'm interested for neutrality (WP:NPOV) and am going to disregard these things, a thing you should too learn to differ. Stojanovic is [was] a very good (old school) Serbian scholar.

P.P.S. What on earth do Franciscan monasteries have to do with this? And what documents of Croats kept in Franciscan monasteries? Could you elaborate (I'd like to know)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil, boys Hxseek (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm trying to do, I'm taking a neutral observation on our historiography, I'm not the one who is pointing the ethnic wrongness of a people... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Wait a minute...wasn't Rudolf Horvat an active support of the Ustaše and politically active in the Independent State of Croatia? If modern Croatian historiography is closer to him than Sisic - well that's precisely what I meant when I talked about the results of the nationalistic 1990s. Studying through Horvat's works reveals that he belong to the very same (gladly minor) school Dominik Mandić belonged to. Horvat's work is just like Dominik's copy-paste, they both even had pro-Ustashi policies.

Bjelovucic's conclusions don't really hold the water. He claims that it was one state - but that's just because of religious jurisdiction. Even in the letters he refers to - two rulers are named, obviously of two different medieval realms.

P.S. Was Michael at the 928 Council and were there Serbs mentioned? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Reading Horvat's history, I also discovered an interesting thing - he calls the realm of Stefan Voislav (the Coast, Doclea and Travunia) a "Serb state". :))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

“	[..]Petar Krešimir got other parts of Dalmatia (Zadar, Osor, Krk and Rab). The struggles for Imperial succession in Constantinople that were created after the extinction of the Macedonian dynasty in the year of 1056 boded him well. It seems that Krešimir used the weakness of the Serb state, which with the death of Stephen Voislav (year of 1051) collapsed into numerous parts.	”
—Rudolf Horvat, History of Croatia I

[edit] Pejacevic

Hxseek, Croatian historian Franz Xavier Pejacsevic from the 18th century in his Historia Serviae seu colloquia XIII. de statu regni et religionis Serviae ab exordio ad finem, sive a saeculo VII. ad XV. stated that Michael Vusevic's Zachlumia is a part of the Byzantine Province (Theme) of Serbia and that he quite possibly also reigned the Narentine Pagania. Pejascevic also explained the likely possibility why in Pope's letters and in some western sources is he called "Regem Sclavorum". This title, and the titling of Michael Voislavljevic as "Reegem Sclavorum", Pejacsevic compared to every single reference of the Serbian Kings from the Nemanjic dynasty in Italian sources, as well as the fact that Serbia was also from then to the 15th century even, called "Sclavonia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farlati

Daniele Farlati says that when the Pagans became economically weak, the called Zachlumians, Serb tribe (nam Zachlumi, gens Serblorum), managed to cross the river and subject all the Neretvians to the river of Cetina. Farlati also explains that this seems to have happened in Vusevic's reign and that that is the reason for a sudden gap in entioning of the Narentines. He also explained that it is that how the later Herzegovinian name expanded, so that to today it geographically also refers to that Frontier region. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Britannica

For instance Hxseek, here's the whole quote from EB:

“	The Slav peoples were organized along tribal lines, each headed by a zupan (chieftain). In this part of the Adriatic littoral, from the time of the arrival of the Slavs up to the 10th century, these local magnates often were brought into unstable and shifting alliances with other larger states, particularly with Bulgaria, Venice, and Byzantium. Between 931 and 960 one such zupan, Ceslav, operating from the zupanija of Zeta in the hinterland of the Gulf of Kotor, succeeded in unifying a number of neighbouring Serb tribes and extended his control as far north as the Sava River and eastward to the Ibar. Zeta and its neighbouring zupanija of Raška (roughly modern Kosovo) then provided the territorial nucleus for a succession of Serb kingdoms that in the 13th century were consolidated under the Nemanjic dynasty. (See Serbia: Medieval Serbia.) Although the Serbs have come to be identified closely with the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity, it is an important indication of the continuing marginality of Zeta that Michael, the first of its rulers to claim the title of king, had this honour bestowed on him in 1077 by Pope Gregory VII. It was only under the later Nemanjic rulers that the ecclesiastical allegiance of the Serbs to Constantinople was finally confirmed. On the death of Stefan Dušan in 1355, the Nemanjic empire began to crumble, and its holdings were divided among the knez (prince) Lazar Hrebeljanovic, the short-lived Bosnian state of Tvrtko I (reigned 1353–91), and a semi-independent chiefdom of Zeta under the house of Balša, with its capital at Skadar. Serb disunity coincided fatefully with the arrival in the Balkans of the Ottoman armies, and in 1389 Lazar fell to the forces of Sultan Murad I at the Battle of Kosovo. After the Balšic dynasty died out in 1421, the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Zabljak (south of Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojevic set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan the Black, who, in the unlikely setting of this barren and broken landscape and pressed by advancing Ottoman armies, created in his court a remarkable, if fragile, centre of civilization. Ivan's son Djuradj built a monastery at Cetinje, founding there the see of a bishopric, and imported from Venice a printing press that produced after 1493 some of the earliest books in the Cyrillic script. During the reign of Djuradj, Zeta came to be more widely known as Montenegro (this Venetian form of the Italian Monte Nero is a translation of the Montenegrin Crna Gora, “Black Mountain”).	”
—Montenegro, Encyclopedia Britannica

...in particular I'm referring to the beginning of the second part. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Origin of Serbs

Very, very good. May I suggest also a similar work for the Origin of Croats? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, much can be applied to both.Hxseek (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I'm not sure what your second question means, could you elaborate? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Bosnia became a self-governing Banate in the 1150s. Its first ban was Ban Borić.

It cannot be said for Ceslav that he conquered Bosnia in 950 - especially since that's one of the two possible years of his death (the other being 960). Also the DAI explicitly says that Ceslav had so many internal troubles, so that he didn't get to expand his country at all - the borders of his realm where those of his predecessors, before Bulgaria annexed the Serbian realm in 924.

Well - precisely in DAI. It's the very first mention of Bosnia in the history, and it refers to the area of the Bosna river's valley. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, three decades of a gap...I guess nothing really relevant happened during that time. :)

Some Serbian sources claim that it was during those 30 years or so reunited with Rascia, but I have yet to see non-Serbian claims, so that rules out. The more probably explanation is the following. You can compare it freely to the Serbian Empire after 1371. There was no Emperor or any sort of centralized control (OK, except the Church) - and yet most the nobility acted as if the Empire was still there and observed themselves as local nobility of a greater feudal monarchy.

The reason for that is because Rascia+Bosnia+Doclea+Travunia+Zachlumia comprised under the Vojislavljevics what is called by Serbo-Croatian and foreign historians "Serb confederacies". Doclea and Rascia continually fought each other over dominance, and as we see others were included. Kočopar united Bosnia and Zachlumia ca 1103 with him and wanted to take over Rascia. It was all a blurry moment of struggles over who'd prevail in the various Serb confederacies that had existed, it started with the death of the mighty King Konstantin Bodin in the end of the 11th century, and only ended with Stefan Nemanja practically one and a half centuries later, ending with a Rascian victory! The realms were temporarily before Nemanja united from the Coastline by Desa, but such an attempt utterly failed.

Jirecek calls upon the Byzantine sources, which simply call all those lands "Serbia". It would appear that Cinnamos made that remark because around that period Bosnia was fully and completely detached from Serbia and a new Medieval realm is born - and it's definitely not a coincidence that Boric appears immediately after that. It's interesting that the latter Serb confederacies include Zachlumia+Doclea+Travunia+Rascia just as if nothing happened, but Bosnia lives on independently.

From 1080 to 1100 it was ruled by Prince Stefan, a viceroy in the name of the Doclean-Dalmatian King Constantine Bodin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You got that Tisemir from Fine or Curta? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. That's why I was stunned. Ah, every day you learn a new thing! :)

For that period of time, there aren't really Serb and Croat names - they're practically all the same national or christian names for Serbs, Croats and other Slavic tribes. The only thing we could say is that "H{o}rvat"s were Croats - but even there there were/are H{o}rvats that were Serbs.

P.S. Why don't you contribute to the Petar Gojniković article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out this map, based on the DAI. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

but even there there were/are H{o}rvats that were Serbs. ??? Ahhh :)))))

Serbian names with sufix -mir??? Ahhh ahhh Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The Horvats were a Serb family that (headed by lieutenant colonel of the Serb Militia Jovan Horvat) led refugees from Ottoman Serbia to Russia, overseeing an establishment of a Serbian colony in Russia. Plenty of Horvats became very famous in New Serbia (historical province) and advanced highly in the Russian Imperial Army.

Are you actually claiming that no Serb ever had a suffix -mir? I'm sorry, but this is total and complete ignorance of history. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Vladimir, Mutimir, Strojimir to name a few ? Hxseek (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And Stracimir, Lugomir, Tešimir, and Predimir...and Stanimir...and Klonimir, Pavlimir...and Tihomir. ;) BTW two current Ministers in the Serbian government have such names Radomir Naumov and Velimir Ilić. There are also Tolimir, Vojmir, Radomir, Svetomir, Branimir, Tugomir, Dobromir, Budimir, Gradimir, Tatomir, Ljubomir, Krasimir, Vlastimir, Bratimir, Momir, Ratimir, Gostimir, Vladimir, Vitomir, Stanimir, Desimir, Zvonimir, Bratmir, Rajimir, Rajomir, Ratomir, Dragomir, Miomir, Skoromir...guess that covers all ones. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot the ever-liberal Čedomir. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hxseek, that's about it - all possible -mirs except for Krešimir. :) At first hand, there seems to be an even greater choice of "-mirs" than in Croatian, as Zenanarh thought. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniele Farlati

“

This Serbia was split into four parts, of which one was settled by Zachlumians, another by Travunians and Konavlians, third by Docleans, the fourth in Slavic language called Pagans, while their Roman name was Narentines [..] All of them were Serbs

”

18th century Western historican. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnia

It seems that before ca. 900 we have practically no secure data on Bosnia. Yes, we have learned that it was probably a part of Croatia during the 800s - and to tell the truth now that I have found out that Petar had seized Bosnia, this brings me to question - when did Croatian Dalmatia posses Bosnia, which ruler and how did he come to acquire it? I think we won't be able to find an answer... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for Petar Kresimir's reign over Bosnia in the 1060s? I can't actually find a source to support this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearing some Croatian claims, I heard that according to them Bosnia was a part of Croatia from 968 to 1018 - first conquered by Kresimir and then lost to the Byzantines; but I have yet to see something to back this up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarfiy , we are now referring to the medieval region- not today;s state (which is far larger)

Again using Fine: he said that in the 800s Bulgaria bordered Dalmatian Croatia "in some part of Bosnia" "along the Bosna river (or wherever)". Northern Bosnia, Srem and eastern Slavonia were Bulgarian tributaries. WHat is now Northwestern Bosnia has always been archeologically in continuum with Dalmatian Croatia, where the zhupania of Pset, Livno and Pliva were. Southeastern Bosnia was part of early (Vlastimir and Mutimir) Serbia (centred on what is now south-western Serbia, western Montenegro, and southeastern Bosnia).

As for the central Bosnian lands- Bosnia proper (between Drina and Bosna- that can be our definition for consistency)- this was ever-changing. As i said, Peter took Bosnia c. 900. Hupchik states in his book that Tomislav's reign included the "greater part of Bosnia" and has drawn a map depicting his state's border east to the Drina. Fine does not mention this directly, but states that Bosnia was "lost to Caslav" in the 950s Croat civil war after Tomislav's death. Then Serbia "disintegrated" after Caslav's death (Fine).

We know Bosnia, Serbia and the coastal lands were captured by Samuel in 1000- 1014. Then part of Byzantine theme of Sirmium from 1018. c. 1040, a duchy or banovina of Bosnia arose, still under Byzantine suzerainity. In 1040s, the Bosnian duke or chief attacked Duklja, along with Liutevid of Zahum and a Zhupan of a new serb state called Raska.

Fine and Hupchik state that Croatia (Kresimir IV) exerted control over Bosnia in 1060s, it was one of Croatia's banovinas. And Fine, Curta and Hupchik mention Bodin's conquest in the 1080s.

From then on, the history is a bit more known:it was part of Hungary 1102-1160, then Byznatine (1160s-80), then semi-independent banate under Kulin in 1180s when Emperor Manuel died.

So gap in knowledge is in period 960-1018. Did Croatia really take it back? DId it remain part of Serbia , despite Caslavs death? Was it reuled by petty nobles ?? Hxseek (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps between 960 to 980s it was part of Byzantium. Cirkovic states that when the Bulgarian empire collapsed, Byzantine's borders stretched north all the way to Sava and Danube. THis would explain why we know nothing about this period.: as Serbia did not really exist as an independent political player, but was under Byzantine administration. THus there was nothing for the Byzantine chroniclers to write about.

THen, as we know, briefly part of Samuel's EMpire. THen back to Byzantium from 1014 until mid 1050s.

Well, Serbia was a Byzanine special 'thema', which included the lands formerly ruled by domestic rules.

Yes, it was ruled by "petty nobles". Yes, Croatia really annexed Bosnia in 968, and this on is pure historical fact. All the rest however - countless interpretations, varying from historian to historian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Where is it mentioned that Croatia annexed Bosnia in 968 ? Also Byzantine theme of Sirmium = theme of Serbia. 2 names for one thing.

Hxseek (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is claimed by every single Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and other historian; even the Serb nationalists who claim that Bosnia was oh-forever Serbian, just under short-lived Croat occupation since 968.

But I recall that there is a primary source. I will look got it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is how John Cinnamus records Ban Borić in his work - as "Exarch of the Serbian land of Bosnia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Just checked. The primary historical source is the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, for both of the two Kresimir's reigns over Bosnia (when I say Bosnia, I always mean "proper"). Actually the claim that Tomislav reigned over Bosnia is extremely doubtable, though it spread out and actually became standard historical fact.

It is primarily based on the notification in the Chronicle how Tomislav was crowned in the Field of Duvno, and after all if indeed true, I don't know how could that extend the Croatian border all the way to the river of Drina. Modern Croatian historians Nada Klaić and Ivo Goldstein attempted to purify the history from these facts, and they claim the Croatian ruler didn't reign over Bosnia at all.

Hungary took Bosnia in 1137. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks

Greetings. I've noticed you are one of the editors who has edited the Bosniaks article a lot, and most recently. I was wondering if you would have any input into a few "revert wars" happening lately over there. Here's a diff. Personally, I think the changes are biased, a little racist/xenophobic, but mostly, they are wrong. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi back. You should get a username so people can reply to you

I didnt have a part in the edit you are referring to (i mostly am interested in medieval history & ethnogenesis of Balkan peoples). I don't know which view you hold, but i definitely agree with the latter edit. The previous one was wrong. To say the Bosniaks have an insignificant Slavic component is incorrect. I don't know how well acquianted you are with population genetics, but so far we have only a limited conclusion. In terms if pure genetics- Bosniaks are the fusion of the autochthonous Balkan population + the Slavs 'from beyond the Carpathians' (+ minor traces of this & that). Bosniaks origins are no different from that of Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Dalmatians, Sucki, and every other rediculous "ethnic" subcategory.

Whilst certainly no one denies that today they are a distinct people, we should not start confabulating an imagined "pure illyrian" ancestry. Yes, genetically they may even be mostly Illyrian, but the overriding factor is culture and language. Bosniaks were "formed" when a large number of Bosnian Slav Christians converted to Islam in the 1400s onwards. And prior to that, Bosniak was (only sometimes used by rulers (ban of Bosnia-from the 12th century onwards) to refer to their subject peoples. Preceeding this, they were referred to as Slavs, Serbs, Croats, etc. They are not a special, isolated people that somehow resisted Slavicisation whilst every other person around became Slavic. ALthough, certainly I agree that Bosnia may have had a higher retention of Illyrians, since it was a more mountaineous region. But as i said, they were definitey Slavs. Its like ENgland. They are English, although in the past most of them were Celts. Most English people don't go about declaring they are anceint Celts, do they. Their Celticness is long gone ! Diffused by a sea of new cultural influences : Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings, etc. Its just that in the Balkans, they all hate each other that they start falsifying history just to set each other apart, although it is plainly obvious that they all were born from the same people.

We should not let fact be hidden by false, PC-driven propaganda.

Hxseek (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pagania

Check the bottom of Talk:Pagania. It relates your map. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1080

Most scholars, Western, some Croatian or other, as well as then's contemporary Byzantine chroniclers, have noted that realm plainly as "Serbia". But if not, then I recommend naming the country to its official title: "Kingdom of Doclea and Dalmatia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sure. I agree most schilar simply call it Serbia. I often include the different states (Bosnia, Travunia, etc) because technically the realm was not really centralized until the reign of Stephen Uros in the 1200s. In the 1080 map i call it Kingdom if Dioklea just becuase its shorter Hxseek (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But remember also that it was "technically" centralized numerous times under strong rulers like Stephen Nemanya, Constantine Bodin or Desa. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and No. During Bodin- he was the overall authority, but Bosnia, Raska, Zachlumia all retained their own native hereditary nobility, their own rules etc. Only much later did the King abolish all the family appenages, etc , and take firm control of all the land. THis is what i meant. Desa wasn;t powerful enough to centralize anything. Hxseek (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the earlier part, I agree. every book i have come accross refers to Zahclumia Duklja (and therefor Travunia) as Serbian states". This is not an issue for me. Pagania is definitely more iffy because the references about it are more obscure.

By the way, talking about Pagania, the article here on wiki- i beleive- is incorrect. IT state that Pagania was absorbed into Hum. In fact, only the very southern portion of Pagania was part of Hum. The part on the northern baks of the Neretva ruled by Prince Peter (son of Miroslav, brother of Nemanya). The rest at this time was ruled by the Kacici family of pirates. powerful magnates changing their loyalty. In 1166, they gave their alliegence to BYzantines, but the Hungarians took most of northern Dalmatia back from 1180. Then the Subici started to expand from Bibir, Split, etc. THen it got taken by Ban Stjepan II. Yes ? Hxseek (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Check out this below. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1050

There's just a minor error on that one. It depicts Ston as if a part of the Croatia, instead of Doclea. Then, the City of Ston was the centre of that realm, there is a preserved fresco of King Michael in there. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: History

Will do in due time. For now, please check Petar Gojniković which I have just vastly rewritten, as well as the threat to the up of this one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've seen only some speculations that it could've been Peter's, but really far too weak to actually use them for the Wikipedia. Some modern scholars now tend to think that it was some sort of a local Archon of Doclea, but standard scholar opinion (including that of those who actually found the Seal and studied it) is that that was that of a Byzantine viceroy in Doclea.

No, I agree it's more correct - but compare them and you'll see that the first one is better quality.

BTW, I meant about the 1050 one, it's slightly incorrect over with Pelješac, depicting it in Croatia instead of Doclea. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: northern islands

Coming... I need free hour or two... Zenanarh (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Rab, Cres and Krk? Rab was a little bit special case. Although settled in 7th, Croats didn't really occupy the island of Rab in stampedo, like almost all area around. However, in general, Croatian colonization of the northern islands was completed faster and earlier than those in the south. Croats made majority over Romance speakers there already in the very beginning of their settling, this predominance was so accented that they were soon organized in their own communes by assistance of Byzantium. On the island of Krk only 2 Romance settlements survived - Civitas Vetus (Veglia, Krk) and Civitas nova (Punat). In the next few centuries the city of Rab was a bastion of the Romance Dalmatian speakers on the island, surrounded by Croats - paisants. Also, the bishopry of Rab was very important and esteemed in the late Antiquity and early Medieval. Totally opposite to Zadar, the city society of Rab was very conservative and closed to newcomers. That's why Croats settled it after 10th century and not really before and it needed much longer for them to become majority over Romance speakers inside the city walls. However, in political sense, Rab had the same destiny like Cres and Krk, which on the other side had significant Croatian sign.

It's not certain who ruled Dalmatia in 7th and 8th century. As already said it was archonty, the most possibly. Byzantium spread authority over the northern islands in the middle of 8th, so after that Rab was percieved as the most northern land of Byzantine Dalmatia. By treaty of Aachen (803) the northern islands definitely became a part of Dalmatian archonty and theme in 867. But Byzantine Emperors were not too succesful in the 1st half of 9th century. It was the most obvious during the rule of Emperor Michael II (820-829) when, according to Byzantine sources, Dalmatian cities gained total autonomy and were not vassals to anyone.

Byzantine weakness and defeat of the Venetian fleet near Taranto (840-841), resulted with the Saracen break to Adriatic. The Saracens came far to the north and burned down Osor on the island of Cres, Ancona on the Italian coast, went back to Sicilia and captured the rest of Venetian ships, than back to Adriatic and once again won the battle near island of Susak (a small outer island in Zadar aquatory). However all these Saracen attacks in the Adriatic were concentrated on the perrifery. They were not bold enough to enter among the Dalmatian islands, so Dalmatia was saved.

The Roman Popes tried to spread their church authority to the Balkans in 9th century, but indenpendent Dalmatia was a strong barrier to their ideas. It was changed during Byzantium conflicts with the Bulgarians. B. Emperor had to pay alliance with the Popes, so he gave jurisdiction over Dalmatia to the Roman Popes in 2nd decency of 10th century. However Dalmatian bishops followed their own decisions (Split Synods 925 and 928) and the Popes stayed largely pissed, since their demands were diplomatically refused. On the other hand they were succesful in something: metropolitan bishopry of Zadar (the theme centre) lost authority in Dalmatia.

Rab was paying a tribute to Croatia and Duke Branimir (879-892), but after that and until King Tomislav (925) it was a part of shaky Byzantine theme again. Same as the others. In 925 Rab was in Croatian Kingdom. Like the other Dalmatian cities (those related to Byzantine theme) it meant autonomy (autonomous commune) with their own city statute (within the kingdom of course).

Then there came that "glorious" Venetian expedition in 998 with not some special political results except mythical "dux of...". While tribute paid by central and southern Dalmatian cities to Venice (redirected from paying to Croatia) ended very soon, the northern islands were forced to pay it once again in 1018 to Duke Oto (son of Peter II Orseolo) by restoring of the contract from 998. However it should not be percieved as vassalage to Venice in the real sense of meaning, not yet. In 1025 Orseolo's were driven off from Venice and there were no records of the northern islands tribute to Venice anymore. Under King Petar Krešimir IV northern islands were Croatia.

In 14th April 1075 the island of Rab was surrounded by a huge Norman fleet. Citizens were desperate so they decided to ask some help from their patron-saint St. Kristofor. Many cities of that time had mummies (or parts of it) of their patron-saints. Rab had St. Kristofor's skull, it's still there. Zadar still has all body of St. Simeon, mummified of course, I saw it a several times, it's in one piece but doesn't look very nice, I prefer alive people :) So the citizens of Rab made a solemn ceremony and put that skull on the top of the city walls, begging God and St. Kristofor to help them. It worked. The Normans simply disappeared over the night in 9th of May. The city was untouched. It was a miracle! 9th of May became Dies Victoriae fete-day. Well, the Normans were there for another reason, as I've already explained, in agreement with central Dalmatian cities they came after poor King Slavić and to demonstrate their power to B. Emperor by cruising in the seas of his vassals. And Venetians sent their fleet to Dalmatia a year or two later, just to sign "foedus" with Dalmatians. As you can see Rab was defended by a "miracle" and not by the Venetians as it's written in It. historiography. Zenanarh (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also as I've mentioned before Venetian fleet didn't dare to cruise in the northern Dalmatia (northern islands). Actually Venetian Duke was not allowed officially to send his fleet to any part of Dalmatia without permission of B. Emperor. All northern Adriatic was strongly Croatian until the beginning of the 12th century. To be continued and expanded... Zenanarh (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

---

It formally ended in 1069, when Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes of the Doukid confirmed Croatian ruler Petar Krešimir IV the Great of the Trpimirović dynasty in the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia, utilizing the collapsing weakness of Byzantium (at war with the Seljuk Turks, Serbs and Normans) he directly annexed all those lands into his realm, entering into a conflict with the Byzantines by also sending military aid to Doclea.

Byzantium survived all perils in the end and managed to actually convince the Romans in 1075 in an attempt to forcefully retake Dalmatia, possibly relinquishing the claim over it to the Normans. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavonia

Roughly, yeah.

"Sclavonia" or similar term was the name for the entire territory from Istria to the river of Bojana, then to Macedonia indeep. Over the ages it was referred in different usages, "Sclavinias" for the Slavic realms, "Sclavonia" for Serbia, the "rex Sclavoniae" often used. However to the present, only Slavonia and Slovenia have kept those names.

If I recall good, "Slavonia" was for the first time used in political meaning for the territory during the 12th century, for that Banate.

Slavonia was a direct part of Hungary as much as any other Hungarian Banate (Croatia, Jajce, Macva,...). But yeah, you could call it "more" under centralized Hungarian authority, until reunified in 1476 under Ban Andrew Banfi, but that's not really that different (yes in Dalmatian Croatia Old Croatian nobility was crucial for local politics and yes in Slavonia nobility was mostly inter-connected to or outright Hungarian). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Slavonia is eastern half of ex Pannonia Savia and western half of Pannonia secunda [9]

A. Gluhak: As in many other areas settled by Slavs, the territory which is and was called Slavonia, was named in the early Middle Ages after its inhabitants, the Slavs, Slověne. The root *Slověn- in various dialects appears as Slovin-, Sloven- + -ec, -ac. The name Slovin was applied to Slavonians (originally to inhabitants of the land “East of the Sutla”), to Croats and to South Slavs. The ethnonym Slovinac, plur. Slovinci, adjective slovinski, was used with various meanings: for Slavs in general, for South Slavs, for Slavonia (“East of the Sutla”), for South Slavs in former Illyricum, for Croats. The land “East of the Sutla” was called Slovinje, Slovenje, which was both an adjective in the neutral gendre and a collective noun (from the Common Slavic *Slověnьje, where the suffix –ьje totally corresponds etymologically to the Latin –ium in Latium, for example). From this name, through Latin mediation, the modern Croatian form Slavonia was derived. Zenanarh (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Well my family is from all around former Yugo, but I guess mostly Bileća' region (and other south-Dinaric parts). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avars

Well done Hxseek!! this periodisation (subdivided into three intervals=early-middle-late) is more adequate. about the CB map: I don't know for sure ... maybe a took some colored map from the internet, and I've adjusted it to black and white ... but this was several years ago ... I could send you if you need one :) --fz22 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I just draw upon another map (usually a physical map). After I finish drawing the rivers, lakes, cities etc., I delete it and add the other map elements (borders, names etc.). Andrei nacu (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Slavs

As you are an NPOV editor, I ask you to take a look at South Slavs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Noonien Soong is pushing some haplogroup crap in the intro (!?) and doesn't even know what "Yugoslavia" means. Regards BalkanFever 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's been fixed. Turns out Noonien Soong is the 77.78xxxx idiot. We should be on the lookout for new users editing Bosniaks and South Slavs. Cheers, BalkanFever 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. And "Slavia" means "Slavs"? Maybe in German. BalkanFever 09:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic languages

Check the literacy about expansion of the Indo-European languages in Europe. A detail you're interested in is nothing revolutionary, it's widely accepted in the scolar circles. My source is an academic text about the I-E languages in general (history, developement) written by one Croatian linguist with purpose to be a basis for any further more direct linguistic studies, it's a compilation of what is today known about history of languages in Europe. Very good stuff. I'll give you notes or more informations later. Zenanarh (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read it in a several sources that proto Slavic speakears were the nomads in NW Asia, people who lived eastern of modern Russia. These nomadic people allegedly still live there in small groups and their modern language is supposed to be the oldest variance of Slavic language at present. I've found this data about N haplo type concerning these nomads, I think it's not some secret, it should be easily found in the net. About Slavic language as language of the traders, maybe it's not good definition. I'll try to explain in a few words. You know about I-E language before 5.000 years used in the scripts in India, it is initial point of all modern I-E languages. It was developing in a several different directions, resulting with Slavic, Germanic, Romance etc languages of the present time. Some proto-Slavic languages were spoken to the east of Ural in the steppes populated by the nomadic peoples. This area was always a natural coninental path from Asia to Europe: large plains allowing the Asian horsemen to cross long distances, big rivers rich with water, crucial for trade caravans (the same path to Europe was used by massive Chinese caravans during Kublai Khan much later). These caravans were passing through the area settled by proto-Slavic speaking nomads, probably some number of the tribes with probably similar languages or dialects. BTW even modern Slavic languages are the richest in terms related to water: well, river, lake,... In every Slavic language there is a lot of different terms for any of it, more than in any other language family. It's not hard to imagine that a caravan needed some support of the local people or some of the local peoples, the caravan stations were by the water logically. As always some group became predominant (in number, by influence, millitarily or politically) and their language therefore became predominant in the region, so the same happened there. There was a tribe of the nomads or more of it speaking the same language which became predominant and gradually spread along the caravan roads. Since I-E migrations were mostly to the west (pushed by migrations of the same direction in central Asia) and to Europe, it's not hard to understand its massive occurance in EE. Also there is another very important fact: earlier people were much more multilinguists than we are today, there was much more different tribes, so also languages and dialects, our modern culture is globalised. That's why I've used term lingua franca. All modern languages were in the beginning spoken by some smaller group which spread it wider. For example, the Frenchmen are the mostly Germanic people by ancestry but their language is from the Romance family: a small Romance group gave that idiom to a large group of the Germanic tribes, which Germanic idioms simply vanished.

So it's not point that the traders were Slavic speakers. The caravan roads were important here and people who lived around it. I suppose that the most of the traders were some Asian people of the horsemen culture, maybe some civilised Alans or the Sarmatians to the west etc... BTW according to Iranian theory (based on the name and some traditions) original Croats were the Alanic horsemen, noble warriors and traders...

We can only suppose how Slavic idioms were spreading, we know that a certain old-Slavonic language was spoken in Pannonia in 6th century. Your question about an interplay of Gothic with Scythian is interesting, must check it a little bit. Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I've noticed some discussions with you involved about the genetics and the results of that investigations like in Bosniaks article. These investigations undoubtly show total predominance of the natives over newcomers not only in the Balkans but rather everywhere. It seems that only small groups, mainly warrior-groups were moving, while the main part of the population always remained in the same place. Obviously the culture is moving more than the people, it is always brought by some little but influential group to new region. There is another interesting genetic investigation about the Slavs, not related to the Y or X chrommosomes and haplo types. There is a specific genetic disease (some kind of phibrosis) and it's caused by a certain mutilated gene. It's found that this mutation occured at first in the Ukraine steppes 2.000 years ago. This gene is found in the western Balkans only in 2 areas: northern Greece and southern Macedonia and northern Croatia and Slovenia. It seems that these 2 are the only areas of the South Slavs populated by Slavic people of Slavo-Baltic origin from Russian and Ukraine steppes. It only confirms all those theories of Sarmatian, Iranian, Scythian, Alanic and other origin of the most part of the migrators in 6th and 7th century. And all together these migrators made just a little percantage of overall population when they came to the south. In fact it's pure logic to me, I was always wondering what the hell Slavic tradition means in Dalmatia where only in some places something similar can be found, except language, while the most of the culture is autochtonuous. There was a huge cultural assimilation (new languages in one, traditions in opposite direction) as a result of "barbarian" breaks to Illyricum during the Late Antiquity, thanks to previous aculturisation of the Illyrians managed by the Roman authorities.

I've read somewhere a comment by some Russian concerning South Slavic languages, Russian language sounds very emotionally, while South Slavic are flat to their ears, the same as Latin, almost like Latin with Slavic words. That's how Russians percieve it. And truly Slavic languages are full of Latin root words. For example Chakavian dialect of Croatian language spoken in Dalmatia and Istria is based on 3 languages: old-Slavonic and Romance Dalmatian but also Latin. You can read here and there some comments that Kaikavians and Chakavians don't understand each other very well. Of course it's nonsense for one very simple reason. Apart of the fact that there are really a different vocabularies between these dialects, there's a connection which makes it more familiar to each other more than any other 2 dialects or languages in the region: it's the same old-Slavonic language root in both. Completely the same Slavic words are used in Slovene Kaikavian, Croatian Kaikavian and Chakavian and Croatian Scakavian Ikavian. The last coming Stokavians brought some new word pool. Also it seems that the Macedonian Slavs were more close by language to other earlier Slavs before Stokavians, those whose languages developed to Bulgarian, Slovene (kai-) and traditional Croatian (kai-, cha-, i-). These earlier Slavs were using the same agriculture tools as the natives in the Balkans for centuries. Stokavians came the last, penetrated in the centre of the region and brought some other typical tools. Hmm, according to some older historiography Croats were attacking Byzantium while Serbs were invited by Byzantine Emperor as protection. Maybe this is oversimplification, wrong usage of ethnonyms, maybe it's better to say that earlier Slavs, from which ethno-pool Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bulgarians developed sieged Constantinople, while newer Slavs, which gave the Serbs among others, protected it in agreement with Emperor.

For me pan-Slavism is the same extreme as counter-Slavism. Ethnogenesis is process. Probably just around 20% of modern South Slavs are descendents of some migrators from the north. Zenanarh (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaikavians were previously settled in Pannonia, modern Slovenia and modern northern Croatia. Ikavian Scakavians occupied regions which now correspond to central Croatia (Lika, Gorski Kotar), Dalmatian inland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chakavians in Dalmatia and Istria. At present there are no more Kaikavians in Pannonia and Slavonia, they were pushed to the west and you can find them only in Slovenia and northern Croatia. Also there are no more Ikavians in Bosnia, maybe just in some regions in a small number, much more of them remained in Herzegovina. They have moved to some previously Kaikavian regions (Slavonia) and to the south (Dalmatian inland and Dalmatian islands during Ottoman expansion), but in large part they were Stokavianized. Also Slavonia is now the mostly Stokavianized. Chakavian remained in the same place in Dalmatia and Istria. I've read some discussions where it was stated that Macedonian Slavs were possibly Kaikavian speakers in the beginning, or familiar to them. To be honest I've never checked it, but sounds interesting. All these dialects were initially closer to Bulgarian than Stokavian. Stokavians came from the north to the central area, so others surrounded them in shape of "U" letter: Bulgarians in the east, Mecedonian Slavs in the south, others in the west. New agriculture tools completely replaced the traditional ones in the central "Stokavian region", where they were the most homogenous, while in the peripherical areas of that region it was mixed with traditional. So the same happened to dialects. Stokavians probably pushed (completely assimilated - would be much more accurate) the others from the central "Stokavian area", while in the peripheries they were mixing. So territory settled by Stokavians or under their influence due to direct contacts was modern: western Serbia, eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, eastern Slavonia/Vojvodina, southern Dalmatia/Montenegro and southern Serbia/northern Macedonia.

Both Croats and Serbs were probably just really small tribes, they only gave the names around which modern ethnicities were gradually grouped, because of the both politics and religion. At first Croats were the most possibly Ikavians or Chakavians, while Kaikavians were their northern neighbours - Pannonian Slavs. Modern Kaikavians are actually Slovenes and Croatian Kaikavians in the northern Croatia. Serbs were probably a tribe among Stokavians, settled in historical Raska. As you know Stokavians can be distinguished in 2 dialects: Ekavian and Ijekavian. Ijekavians are obviously those Stokavians who were mixing with Ikavian Scakavians in Bosnia, Herzegovina, southern Dalmatia, Montenegro and eastern Slavonia - modern Croats, Bosniaks and Montenigrins. Ekavian Stokavian is spoken in Serbia and Macedonia. So, as you can see, modern ethnicities are formed of admixtures of dialects, not defined by it, although Chakavian and Ikavian are/were spoken only by Croats. It would be very wrong to conclude that all Stokavians were Serbs. In fact it's one od modern Serbian myths, you can see reflections of it in Wikipedia articles too, but I really don't want to discuss about it now. The real differencies between modern standardized Croatian and Serbian languages are in grammatics, not strictly in dialects. Historical difference was made mainly by religion - catholics recognized themselves as Croats, orthodox christians as Serbs. Zenanarh (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The main reason why standard Croatian language is made of Stokavian dialect is Croatian history. Some historical Croatian states (especially the older) were very strong (11th century Croatia was one of the strongest states in Europe in that moment), even in Hungarian-Croatian union under the kings from Hungarian royal families Croats had sovereignety on their territory. There were 2 main reasons that made Croats weaker, Ottoman expansion - Croats were an European armor vs Turks; and losing their nobility - Austrians murdered Croatian noblemen and their families 400 years ago to gain full authority on Croatian territory - that's how Croatia lost its political and cultural elite and was therefore always pushed to unions with neighbours until recently. In the same time noble elites in the rest of Europe seeded new European states through their cultural and political engagements. So in Croatia of 16th century the main Croatian cultural story moved to the cities which were not earlier political Croatian centres: Zadar and Dubrovnik. Zadar was ruled by the foreigners - Venetians, Croatian literacy was saved there by Chakavian Glagolithics, so there were Dubrovnik Stokavians who made a large contribution. It was reason why in 19th century their Ijekavian Stokavian was used as basis for standard Croatian. In some way it is historical "mistake" which made original, strictly Croatian dialects pushed to local or vernacular usage. Well, this is simplified explanation. Zenanarh (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the oldest Slavic hydronim is found in Ukraine, precisely eastern Ukraine. However, according to what I've read, it belongs to the people who live there, genetic science says Y-chrommosome N haplo group, absent in all other parts of Europe. Also according to their own tradition they are descendents of the nomads from the east. It's confirmed by genetics, N haplo type is the mostly found in the NW Asia, in the steppes to the east of Ukraine. But actually it only corresponds to the linguist theory of I-E languages expansion. It's nothing strange that the most of these N haplo Asians don't speak Slavic. Neither pre-I-E languages are spoken by 5 or 6 millions of pre-I-E descendents in the western Balkans. Observe that this small group in Ukraine and their relatives in close NW Asia were probably proto-Slavic speakers, not Slavic. It means that their language was some I-E idiom from which later Slavic languages developed in Europe, not in Asia. There's no conflict in this case. Conflict comes from the other side, between different theories, by some theories Slavic languages developed in the eastern Europe or even in Pannonia and expanded to the east as well as to the south, that's interplay of languages mentioned by you, Gothic, Sarmathian and Scythian… Hmm, history has teached me only one thing, different theories can be all true in the same time, in the parts. Slavic languages are different, something has caused it… Some proto-Slavic language from I-E family of languages made connection and basis. A linguistic source which I've mentioned earlier says a lot about it, but nothing about what I've read elsewhere and wrote about those N haplos. Maybe I should translate that source to English, in part about Slavic languages, hmm it needs a lot of time…

When I was in Krakow on vacancies and heard Polish language, I was a little bit confused – I didn't understand it at all, except every 10th or 20th word – it was completely the same as in Croatian (some of those Croatian words that have a little bit archaic sound). It was like long distances between lights in total darkness. All in all, Polish seemed to me as some kind of ancestor of Croatian, like some really archaic pre-form. In written form Polish was like Martian to me. If I remember well, in my perception of their writting, there was a lack of vocals. This is interesting because we know that in old-Slavic language which was developed in the western Balkans there were half-vocals: Glagolithic alphabetics had special marks for it. By time many words were changed, some half-vocals dissapeared, other turned to vocals, while some still exist but not in written form: in all South Slavic languages there is the same word for "death" – it's "smrt". Impossible for non-Slavic speakers to pronounce it correctly, isn't it? That's because there is saved half-vocal before "r" letter. So for English speaker I will write "smert" and hope it will sound somehow. You know, there is one Croatian cargo ship, often on the routes to the eastern USA coast. Its name is "Krk" according to one of the northern Croatian islands. But its "official" name in the New York port is "a ship with 3 f***ing letters"! :) Of course, there is a half-vocal before "r". Probably "kerk" would be the closest.

Illyricum was largely Latinized during the Roman Empire ages. Our knowledge about it comes from the scripts, it was all in Latin. However there's also another fact: Illyrians were not litteral, as far as we know they didn't write so there's nothing to compare. In other words the Romans teached them to write and it was in Latin language and alphabetics, so it's still not proof that Latinization was completed. In fact Romanized Illyrians were using Latin in the funeral scripts, in some places (like in Bosnia and Istria) these Latin scripts had some non-Latin letters (4th century). It undoubtly shows that they were still using their own languages during the Late Antiquity and when they used Latin it was so-called Vulgar Latin. It's also important that Illyrian tribes were largely heterogenous, it was obvious reason for their relatively rapid aculturisation and acceptance of the new European civilisation (our modern world globalization with English language as the leading one is a kind of the clone of the Antiquity European globalization – Roman Empire with Latin language). Whatever, Illyrian languages became extinct, one by one, gradually by time. We don't know when and how exactly, but there were surely some Illyrian speakers, when the "barbarians" broke to Illyricum. And Thracian also, in the region of modern Bulgaria. Ie Slavic name of Greek city Philippopolis is Plovdiv. Slavs didn't hear that name from the Greeks, they heard it from the Thracians, in their language it was Pulpudeva.

Carl Patsch discovered 3 funeral monuments from 4th century CE (Lisičići near Konjic, Herzegovina) and stated: Latin alphabet didn't fully satisfy some native voices... in the regions where ...Illyrians and Celts survived. There is a foreign (no-Latin) letter in 2 no-Romance names found on these inscriptions for voice, most probably consonant J. Also there was another unknown letter in these inscriptions,... just once written as normal Latin "f". According to /Carl (Karlo) Patsch, Zbirka rimskih i grčkih starina u B.-H. Zemaljskom muzeju/.

Also there are evidences that special letters existed in Istria too during 4th century according to Hraban Maur (776-856) and his writing De inventione lignarium ab Hebrea usque ed Teodiscam, ex notis antiquis. These unknown (no-Latin) letters were found in St. Jeronim's (Hieronymus presbyter) writings, who was of natione Scythica (Scythian ethnicity).

In Stipčević's "Iliri" book at the page 73 it's written: St. Jeronim, who was Illyrian by ancestry, confirmed that Illyrians were speaking their own languages all along until the age of Late Empire, according to a reference Gentilis barbarusque sermo, Hieronymus, Comm. in Isaiam VII, 19.

A. Stipčević, Iliri, Školska knjiga Zagreb, 1974, page 70: Even the most superficial analysis of the archeological material from that age reveals that process of Romanization was not present everywhere equally. While urban centres, both coastal and inland, were almost totally Romanized so Latin language was spoken and written there and life was the same as in other bigger cities in the Roman Empire, situation out of these cities was completely different. Although Illyrians were subject to strong process of aculturisation (which brought some forms of Roman civilisation also into the most out-of-way regions - for example funeral and other inscriptions were always written in Latin language, no matter who wrote it), they continued to speak their native language, to respect their own gods, to bury their dead in the same traditional ancient way, to cultivate the soil equally as it was done by their ancestors for centuries, to wear their traditional clothes, to give their children their own domestic names, to respect their traditional laws and regulations and to respect their own social-political tribal organization, which was only in some necessities adapted to Roman administration and political structure. Zenanarh (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what really contributed to modern western Balkans ethnicities are much more some other traditions of the natives, rather than their traditional languages. You can find some words of extinct languages in modern ones here and there, there are much more toponyms saved. Ie the original Romance language – Dalmatian language – which developed in Dalmatia and survived until 18th century in some places, it probably saved a lot of Illyrian words, it definitely did save a lot of Illyrian toponyms. In fact pre-Illyrian too (pre-I-E ones). A large part of modern toponyms in Dalmatia are transfered to Croatian from Dalmatian, also a lot of words in Chakavian Croatian came from Dalmatian. Especially those related to the sea, ie Croats have the most richest dictionary for vernacular names of marine algae within Europe, its richness is subequal to the maximal one for Japanese algae in the rest of the world! Since Illyrian languages and dialects are completely unknown to us, we simply don't know the real roots for all these words. Probably Illyrian? Also we don't know what original Illyrian words or terms were transfered to Latin and became Latin ones during the Illyricum ages. People of Illyricum had a lot of influence on the Roman Empire during the Late Antiquity, 5 Emperors were the Illyrians! Zenanarh (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check cystic fibrosis, that's disease. I have some dead link to the source of this investigation, but probably enough to find alive one. I think it was German site. Zenanarh (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

www.mh-hannover.de/kliniken/kinderheilkunde/kfg/cf/dork2000.pdf - this was a link, it's dead now. I've found it at a forum specialised for the Balkan history. This is just a part of the abstract from the source given in the same place:

Current data show that the mutation is particularly common in Czech (6.4% of all CF chromosomes), Russian (5.2%),Belorussian (3.3%), Austrian (2.6%), German (1.5%), Polish (1.5%), Slovenian (1.5%), Ukrainian (1.2%), and Slovak patients (1.1%). It has also been found in Lithuania, Latvia, Macedonia and Greece and has sporadically been observed in Canada, USA, France, Spain, Turkey, and UK, but not in CF patients from Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania or Serbia.

It seems I was wrong, not Ukraine, the place of the mutation origin was western Russia, Belorussia and Poland. Of course, it much better corresponds to the Balto-Slavs. Much closer to your map of the Slavic expansion. It seems there was only one massive migration of the Balto-Slavs towards Macedonia and Thessaloniki, from where one part went to Turkey. Article says 0/276 patterns in Croatia, 0/398 in Serbia and Montenegro, while 2/132 in Slovenia. Patterns were taken from the cystic fibrosis patients with that mutation. So there's possibility that the Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians came in small numbers or they weren't mainly of the Balto-Slavic origin, but rather Sarmatians, Alans, Turks, Avars... Avars hardly since we know their Y haplo - P - found sporadically in really minor numbers, Also more E3b and less L2 which can be connected to the Turks are generally absent in Croatia, while present a lot in Serbia and Bulgaria, but the most of it belonged to Thracians, Dacians, or some Thraco-Illyrian tribes like Dardani, partly Turks from the Ottoman expansion so... Maybe some R1a waves from Turkey direction across the north of the Black sea, if there was some old-Turkish ancestry - not to mix with Ottoman Turks. But those warriors from the northern Illyricum frontier reported by the Byzantine writers could be rather those others. This western "wall" of the Balto Slavs is interesting: Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, eastern Germany... like the masses were moving to the west and were stopped on that line. The number in Austria could reffer to the Carantanians and later Slovenes since much of them were Germanized. Unfortunately there is a lack of data for Hungary. It could be important for the Pannonian area. Of course these informations can be related only to migrations, not to Slav origin place. Mutation is probably a few thousands years old since it was spread in such territory. If Curta's, Nestor's theories about Pannonian and northern Balkan origin place of the Slavs are correct it means that there was Slavization process towards the northern population where mutation already existed and then later revival of the new Slavs through migration waves to Macedonia and Slovenia. Very interesting. What more I read about the Balkan history it only brings me closer to the modern autochtonuous theories of the South Slav ancestry. Ie Montenigrins were using the name Docleats for themselves until 12th century, which was the name of the Illyrian tribe in the same place. The same was in Dalmatia. All Medieval writters were writting about 3 separate ethnicities in Dalmatia in 7th and 8th century: Latins in the Dalmatian cities (in fact Romance Dalmatian language speakers - Romanized Illyrians), Dalmatians around the cities (same as Illyrian tribe Delmatae - Dalmatians) and Sclavens in the inland (probably a conglomerat of the Slavs, Illyrians, Ostrogoths and others). I can bet that these Sclavens and even Dalmatians were bilinguals or multilinguals in the beginning, but Slavization already went too far and there was nothing to stop it. It was normally for that ages, rather than monolingualism - according to the linguists. Can you read Croatian and Serbian? Zenanarh (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Zena... no no that's not my name. Just username here. It's not name at all. Just... nevermind.

Your comment that CF genes are not overlapping R1a distribution in the W Balkans is completely irrelevant. It means nothing. The point is that I-E R1a can be easily related to people who were living in Iran 3.000 years ago, or in NW Asia in the same time, or in the north of the Black Sea, in near-Baltic EE, in Pannonia all in the same time. And we know for sure that there were already some R1a I-E's who contributed to ethnogenesis of some Illyrian tribes in the Bronze and Iron Age. In central and northern Croatia there are a few archeological locations defined as specific Bronze Age horsemen cultures, but not of the Celtic roots, but rather of I-E's from the north, obviously of some NW or W Asian ancestry (horsemen!). So if this CF mutation originated in the specified area in NE Europe it's about only some of R1a's. That's why this CF genetic investigation is so interesting, it gives some more accuarate information than Y-chrommosome ones, concerning this particular Slavo-Baltic migration. Also it would be silly to think that only R1a's were moving to the south 1.500 years ago. Although they probably made the major part of the migrators (maybe really a large part) there were others too involved, by pure logic. Ie some minor part of I1a (if there were settled some people who earlier had come from the west and north-west to Balto-Slav area, maybe Goths,...), minor E3b/L2 (if there were some settlers of much earlier Neolithic expansion from Anatolia or Thracia, Dacia, Asia Minor), even some minor I2a part (those pre-I-E's who settled there after much much earlier I2a expansion from the western Balkans). We can only guess and calculate that CF gene mutation was related mostly to R1a, only those who were settled in Balto-Slav region. Oooh these markers hurt my brain. Zenanarh (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Ooh, I'm not a genetic scientist. But as I understand it, cluster of genes is specific group of genes placed in series along the chrommosome. Zenanarh (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic settlement in the Balkans

In last few decencies many new theories occured about it, some prominent historians are involved from all ex-Yugoslav republics, with the same general idea - Slavic speakers were present in the Balkans much earlier, some claims say even from 1st century AD. What is said by "your" sources about it? Zenanarh (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There were even before such theories. Remember the Illyrian Movement, or the Serb-Slavonic historical school, it was actually quite standard among our scholars until real historical science in the 19th century developed with foreign influence, and the DAI gave a story.

But as far as I know, Slavic speakers can be tracked back to the 4th century and yes, in minor groups, to the 1st (when the first migrations had occurred). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macedon's Map: request for comment

I would like to request your comment on the issue in discussion on Talk:Macedon#Macedon.27s_Territory. I think you will find everything there, including links to materials supporting my claims and to previous discussion of the subject.
My objection to the current form of describing the territory ("centered in the northern-most part of ancient Greece") arises mainly from it's lack of objectiveness and from the implied relationship between Ancient Greece and Ancient Macedonia. I understand that these are debated subjects and believe that the suggestions that I am trying to place forward will bring impartiality and clarity.
During the discussion became obvious to me that the materials used by the article (specifically, the maps in French) are not appropriate (I state the reasons in the linked discussion section). This is related to the point in debate and your opinion on the matter would be welcome.
Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skylitzes

“

..Because while over Serbia reigned Vladimir, by daughter of Samuil father in law, a man just and peaceful and full of virtue, the occasions in Dyrrachion were peaceful. And when John executed Gabriel, and when this one (Vladimir) was double crossed and believed the oaths given to him by John across David, the Archbishop from Bulgaria, and gave himself to him and after a short time got executed, and then the occasions in there disturbed so greatly and mettled, considering that John day from day, often using his military commanders or himself personally, tried to seize back the City...

”

This is according to John Skylitzes' "Synopsis of Histories". I will try and get a grab over other relevant historical sources for you. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrians - Hallstat

Exactly. Statement in the article: Illyrians were a part of Hallstat culture is innacurate, it appears that all Illyrians were known by that culture, which is completely wrong. That sentence there has been digging my eyes for last few months, but I didn't change it. I'll respond at the Illyrians talk page. Zenanarh (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never read all Wilkes, just some parts. But probably you can try with him, don't read it 20 years :) Zenanarh (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)