Talk:Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Croatia Portal
Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

"...The WikiProject Italy has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory. We intend to work in a spirit of cooperation with the many Wikipedians who have contributed to articles on “Italian” subjects...". Please, do not erase, because the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and most living Dalmatian Italians, who were born in Dalmatia and are closely related to the few hundreds of them still living in Zara and Croatia, reside actually in Italy mainly in the "Quartiere Dalmato" of Rome). Not only that, but Zara and the islands od Cherso, Lussino, Lissa and others have OFFICIALLY belonged to Italy from 1917 to 1947. --Cherso (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


The article needs a section on art (painting, sculpture,etc..) and literature. Regards.--Brunodam 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Romanisation of Dalmatia

The historian Theodore Mommsen wrote (in his The Provinces of the Roman Empire) that all Dalmatia was fully romanized and Latin-speaking by the fourth century. - this is one of the statements from the article disputable for surely. It's much more correct to say that official language was Latin for all ethnics in the province. However funeral inscriptions has shown that the natives were using their special letters for voices which didn't exist in Latin language. 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). Zenanarh (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

So obviously Dalmatia was NOT fully romanized and Latin-speaking by the fourth century. This can also be proved by archeological investigation of the graves in Salona (1st century CE and later), where it's found that even the richest citizens who were supposed to be Latin speakers didn't lose their Illyrian (Delmatae) traditions (Roman clothes but Dalmatian/Illyrian cults, gods and other archeological material). Zenanarh (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Italian Dalmatians may in part trace their origins back to the Romano-Illyrians during the Barbarian Invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries, when among others, Avars and Slavs invaded Illyria. This invasion opened the way to the settlement of different Slavic tribes.

Direct connection between Italians or any kind of Italian identity to Dalmatians before 13th century is impossible. According to a prominent Italo-Dalmatian from 19th century (I'll edit this quote later), the real Italo-Dalmatians were 19th century descendents of Venetian immigrants and Venetians were not settling Dalmatia before 13th century, or more precisely they were settling Dalmatia mostly in last 2 centuries of Venetian ruling of Dalmatia (17th and 18th century). Zenanarh 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

During those years the original Latin population found a shelter in the coastal cities and in the islands, whilst other migrated to the mountains (they were later called "Morlachs"). Zenanarh 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Latin population? I thought origanal Latins were from central Italy and Rome. Romanized Illyrian population which found a shelter in the coastal cities and in the islands developed their own neo-Latin language Dalmatian language which is not dialect of Italian

How would it be to relate France to Italians because of Asterix and Obelix or London to Italian culture because of Londinium. Zenanarh 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I accept something of your comments, I want to ask you: Who is Stipčević outside of your former Yugoslavia? What guarantees us that his writings were serious and not faked inventions or exaggerations in perfect Tito-dictatorship style? All the historians in the world know the huge importance of Mommsen and respect his opinions. Obviously he wrote about a fully latinized Dalmatia, like today many write about a fully english England: in both cases there were/are communities speaking other languages in isolated areas (like the "Celtic" in actual Cornwall). You always go on and on and on with your "byzantinisms"....don't you get tired, ZenanarTh? You know that the cited adjective "original" related to the Latin populations of Dalmatia (with the Dalmatian language) means clearly "local latinized Illirians": why you play above with byzantine references to Latins from central Italy? Sometimes I believe you use the tactic of repeating the same byzantinisms in order to irritate people, like has happened to Giovanni Giove. I give up now, be sure of this! Cherso

Probably the most eminent scientists and historians of Illyrians agenda in the world today are A. Stipčević and j. Wilkes. Don't you get tired of your problems with Tito??? Try with Mao Ze Tong. Don't project political problems of your family in the past on everything related to Croatia. About Mommsen... Hmm maybe you didn't understand well. Romanized cities were main centres placed on the Roman roads and coastal cities. The real colonies of Roman citizens were only a few cities in Dalmatia. And these Romans were mostly retired legionars who got properties in Illyricum province. Even legionar didn't mean ethnical Roman for sure. Archeological evidences simply don't support thesis that they were all fully romanized. There is no known ancient Illyrian literature. Everywhere in Europe in the territory of Antiqe Roman Empire there are Latin inscriptions from that age. If the cited adjective "original" related to the Latin populations of Dalmatia (with the Dalmatian language) means clearly "local latinized Illirians why is it not written clearly then? This is encyclopedia. Yeah you're right! I got big diploma by "Univrsity for the tactic of repeating the same byzantinisms in order to irritate people". Now I'm thinking of doctorship. Regards Zenanarh (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Cultural Imperialism

I see this evening that this article has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy, to lend it some cultural imperialism and historical gravitas that it may (or may not) deserve. Which is odd, because at or around the time of Italian unification (1860's), the Croatian national renaissance was more or less ending the Italic/Italian role or influence. Other than the Fascist interventions under Mussolini. So, that's a false tag that should be removed. I throw this into the air to see who might catch it. Once concensus is achieved, it'll be decided. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Imperialism? Wow, what a "skyscraping terminology"....you learn quickly the typical Tito/Stalin phrases in Ljubiana, don't you? Cherso


Dalmatia NOW is not Italy, but Zara and Cherso and Lussino and other minor Dalmatian islands were Italy from 1918 to 1947. And not only that, we must remember that the Kingdom of Italy had the 'Governatorato di Dalmazia' from 1941 to 1943, that included nearly all the dalmatian islands and coasts (with Spalato, Sebenico, Trau, etc..). Finally don't forget that <WikiProject Italy has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory>. Consequently, please, remember that the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and the historical state of Italy called 'Republic of Venice', with its cultural and historical presence in Dalmatia).--Cherso (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Well, from the Italian Wars until Italian Unification, Italy was dominated first by Spain, then by Austria, then by France. So by Cherso's logic the History of Italy article should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria and Wikipedia:WikiProject France. Thank you, Cherso, for making such an eminently sensible suggestion. I'll go there right now and add those tags. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Cherso's comment speaks for itself. I have never seen such shameless history revisionism, expansionism, imperialism and even FASCISM (Governatorato di Dalmazia from 1941 to 1943) (!!!) in any other Wikipedia matter or by any other user in Wikipedia. Zenanarh (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. This bit about WikiProject Italy has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory. Well, what territory? The territory of Italy, FFS, on today's map. Not places once ruled by Mussolini, or Venice, or any of the bewildering number of former states that there used to be in what we now call Italy. Otherwise, Cherso would have the article on Jerusalem in Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy because it was once ruled by the Romans. Ridiculous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Maybe the History of Poland article should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany? LoLL --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


(A)AlasdairGreen27, from your above message I understand that you are not an "english BOY living in Ljubiana"......You remember me more and more Kubura and his sockpuppets! (B)Direktor, not the history of Poland but the Pomeranian or Prussian Germans YES. (C)ZenanarTh, it is impossible to deal with your byzantinism: you deny everything...even what is written in tags! It is a loss of time to deal with Croat fanatics!!! From today I will no more deal with these Croatian fanatics, but I will monitor what the Croat/Slovenian group will do to the Dalmatian related articles and notify (with precise references about their changes) the authorities and the serious admins of Wikipedia.--Cherso (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ANOTHER CROATIAN ATTACK

Here we are again with the same stuff. The Croatian nationalists (Kubura, Zenanarh, Direktor, Raguseo and others) now create another problem: they are not able to understand that the Dalmatian Italians are NOT necessarily Italians. Unbelievable. Now they cannot understand that a foreign surname in a big western country (like Italy, France, England, ecc..ecc..) not necessarily means a foreigner to that country. May be with small counties like Croatia this can happen, but when we remember Disraeli as british prime minister or Hugo in France or Skorzeny in Germany or Oberdan in Italy, we all realize that there is nothing strange if the croat Grubelic is a dalmatian Italian. But they want anyway that those dalmatian italian be declared italian by themselves. Unbelievable. And they erase the Italian names of the Dalmatian cities and they deny the existence of the Dalmatian Italians and they call "cultural imperialism" the civilization from the Italian Renaissance in Dalmatia and so on and on and on...This is typical Balkan mentality, the same mentality that creates ethnic wars even in our days! WARNING: they want a final BLOCK of the article by some friendly admin (as they got the ban of Giove). Whatever the answer to this post, I will monitor and bring it to whom it may concern in the Wikipedia top management, be sure of that!--Cherso (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

English boy living in Ljubiana (or whoever you REALLY are) note that "...The WikiProject Italy has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory...." Not only that, but the city and area of Zara (with Cherso, Lussino, Lissa and other Dalmatian islands) were OFFICIALLY part of Italy from 1918 to 1947! Please, do not erase the Italian tag again: all this is monitored and will be reported to the top wikipedian authorities. --Cherso (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cherso, the point is that "Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy" and the "variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory" does not include parts of Croatia, or Malta, or Corsica, or Jerusalem, or British Somaliland, or anywhere else once controlled by Italians. Because "its territory" means the nation of Italy.
Do please report this to the highest authorities possible so that we can end this ridiculous farce. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the Wiki Project Italy is very clear: the Dalmatian Italians (and their cultural & historical presence in Dalmatia) ARE involved in the Italian wikiproject because many of them (like myself) were born when Zara and some Dalmatian islands (like my Cherso) were part of the Kingdom of Italy. Or you Slovenian-Croats want to deny - with your usual Tito-style lies - even that from 1918 to 1947 Zara was officially part of Italy? --Cherso (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] NAMES

Nothing is wrong with different names in different langages for the same town that people know. Examples for Geneva: Genf, Genève, Ginevra, Ginebra, for Venice: Venedig, Venezia, Velence, for Warsaw: Warszawa, Varsovie, Warschau, etc. This is not a question of the state that actually "owns" the place, but that of the language. --84.72.91.25 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and according to Wiki policy English names are used on English Wikipedia. Plantago (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and English names are always used in Italian/Venetian for cities in Dalmatia in the centuries before the XX century and the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918. Like in this English map where Ragusa is written in Italian and is NOT called Dubrovnik:[1]..--Cherso (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contentforking

Article "Dalmatian Italians" and this one "Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia" ... Smells like WP:CFORK/POVFORK.

[edit] Quote

Zen, I translated the encyclopedia geographic names into English by mistake. They should remain in their original Italian form as the text was quoted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica is a tertiary source, see Source text, and wiki policy - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which should be applied to all. Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful

Here's a useful material, [2]. It speaks about Italian rule in Croatia and the exodus of Croats (1918-1943).
Talijanska uprava na hrvatskom prostoru i egzodus Hrvata (1918.-1943.), Zbornik radova s Medunarodnog znanstvenog skupa,Zagreb,22.-23.listopada 1997., ur.: Marino Manin, Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb, 2000. (2001.), ISBN 9536321172.
Over 800 pages, so there're enough interesting sources and works to be used for consultation. Kubura (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)