Talk:Zachlumia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Middle Ages Portal Zachlumia is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

I am sorry to object, but the maps on the right side of the page are clearly false. They both use the same sorce, but size of the raska (in the maps it's name is serbia) is two time bigger on the second. This page looks like just another greater-serbian propaganda page.

Yes, but that is just a minor detail and the article's conclusions rest most heavily on Constantine VII: "The Zahumljani (Zachlumoi) that now live there are Serbs". There is a Wikisource link, as well as a regular Wikipedia link where this can be checked.

From Wikipedia (Dalmatia)...The southern duchies of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja, whose territories spread much further inland and southward than the current Dalmatia does, were self-ruled by their Slavic population that was mixed pagan and Christian, and also quite likely mixed Croat and Serb. They were not central to the formation of these two Slavic nations (the main part of medieval Croatia was to their northwest and the main part of medieval Serbia was to their northeast), but they did more often than not fall under their respective influences.

Oh and since there is 'great' emphasis on Constantine VII...this too from Wikipedia (De Administrando Imperio)

Although in 53 chapters it covers many topics and describes various peoples and regions (for instance, Moravia, Iberians and Slavs in different parts of contemporary Greece and Turkey), as well as bizarre genealogies (one example is prophet Mohammad's in chapter 14),only a few chapters have become controversial due to conflicting political aspirations, chiefly of Croats and Serbs. Namely, the dispute is centered about the following chapters:

30, "Story on the province of Dalmatia" 31 "Of the Croats and of the country they now dwell in" 32 "Of the Serbs and of the country they now dwell in" as well as

33 "Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now dwell in" 34 "Of the Terbounites and Kanalites and of the country they now dwell in" 35 "Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in" 36 "Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in" Briefly: Constantine's description has become a weapon in colliding Croatian and Serbian national ideologies from mid-19th century onwards, since the emperor had given early distribution of Croats and Serbs upon their arrival, and by reading historical records and interpretations into contemporary situation, it was used (or misused) as a tool in arming current national geopolitical claims with a sort of "historical legitimacy". Although such misuse may seem grotesque, it is still a standard weapon in nationalist arsenals, especially with regard to the supposedly contended lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and southern Croatia, Dalmatia in particular.

Although historians differ in their assessment of the credibility of these passages, certain conclusions seem to have become, more or less, generally accepted:

there is not one author of the whole work; De Administrando Imperio is a collection of articles written by a few authors and ascribed to Constantine, who probably wrote only a part of it and/or edited or compiled the rest (or had imperial scribes do the same) the most politically controversial chapters, 30, 31 and 32 are mutually contradictory. Chapters 30 and 31 tell two different versions on the arrival of Croats, and chapter 32, about the arrival of Serbs, shows striking similarity to the chapter 31, which is probably the emperor's story on the Croats. Many historians have deduced that chapter 32 is just a retelling of the migration pattern found in chapter 31. As far as chapter 30 is concerned, it is accepted that it was written by an anonymous author who had conveyed genuine Croatian mythic story on their origin. The chapters 31 and 32 tell essentially the same story of a people who came upon invitation of Byzantine emperor Heraclius, with virtually exact scheme appearing in both cases-Croat and Serb. On the other hand, anonymous who composed chapter 30, portrays the mythic Croatian origo gentis: a narrative on 5 brothers and 2 sisters as leaders of Croatian tribe- something entirely different from chapter 31. Also, one must bear in mind that the described events took place some 300 years before this work, and that "De Administrando Imperio" is the first description of arrival of the mentioned peoples, hence greatly reducing the credibility of the narrative. other dubious chapters (33, 34, 35,36) are devoted, essentially, to lands that are now parts of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. They claim that Serbs, or tribes close to them, or descended from them, inhabit these lands. Understandably, Serbian historians accept these claims, while others (especially Croatian and Bosniak) consider that the chapters 33-36 are emperor's concoction, stemming from the fact that he tried to extend the region of Serbian ethnicity-motivated by the fact that Serbs, unlike Croats, accepted Byzantine suzerainty. nevertheless De Administrando Imperio remains the only surviving authoritative text of its kind about the region and era; is the direct or indirect work of an advanced diplomatic bureaucracy; and is attributed to the famously most erudite of Byzantine Emperors.

Yes. A well-summarized comment on the issues pertaining to D.A.I Hxseek (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV, putting accuracy tag

Looking into medieval Dalmatian principalities I came upon huge POV in these articles. They are one-sided and are based on contradictory and dismissed data. Until a new neutral version can be achieved accuracy tag should be up there. --Factanista 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss. I'm all ears. --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, one thing for example "...Zachlumia's hereditary dynasty, the House of Višević, is a tribe from the Serbian tribes populating the upper streams of Visla in Greater White Croatia.". how come that they are serbian tribes if they are coming from White Croatia. Shouldn't they be Croats then?

That's an error. Geographically, it's close to Greater White Croatia - but not in it. Also the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Zachumlians, according their local tradition, considered themselves as descendents of the Litziki (Slavs) from the Vistula (Vislas) river in Poland (upper Vistula). Only Constantine VII noted Zachlumians as "Serbs" (obviously because of politics), but in the same time he noted M. Višević as the ruler of the "Slavs" or "Zachlumians". There's also Constantine's information about ancestry of the Zachlumian rulling family, which corresponded to previously mentioned local tradition. But this tradition was not connected in any way to another Constantine's story about the coming of Serbs to the Balkans. It's obvious that the Zachlumians 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 there was White Croatia around the Upper Vistula basin area with Krakow as the main settlement.

BTW among many Polish sites about Litziki there is not even one where they were reffered to as Serbian tribe. They were Slavic tribe.

It seems this is just one of the Serbian historical myths, produced in the same way - substituting Slavs with Serbs, Slavic with Serbian, without any reference or historical basis.

Pax you wrote this: the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river! According to...? What? Whom? Where? On what basis? Referenced with...? Can you explain it please. Zenanarh (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean because of politics?

I don't think that Ferdo Sisic and normal Croatian historiography is poised by Serbian mythological myths, or standard scholarship (including both Fine and Curta). It's standard point to consider the Zachlumians a Serbianized tribe. Throughout the 8th century Serbs and Croats expanded from their centers in Rascia and the upper Dalmatian hinterland. Croats expanded to Lika, Banija, Kordun, Savia; Serbs to Bosnia and the coastal principalities (including Zachlumia, Travunia with Konavle and Pagania); Croats to Bosnia and Pagania; Serbs to Doclea, Morava, etc....

It is also true that Zachlumia became one of three component parts when the Serbian realm (re)united itself and reached full unity in the late 12th century. There is no or little reason to consider the Timokians a Serb tribe, but we do that because they have been incorporated into the Serbs. The Bulgarians also claim them - with indeed right (similar with the Croats and the Narentines). We consider the Savian Principality Continental Croatia, and normal historiography takes that standardly; we should observe the entire historiography and the courses of events that followed afterwards. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gudušćani/Gačani and countless more were Croat tribes in the same manner. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:56, 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

You didn't answer my question. No need to wander around. There's no doubt 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. Your expressions like "we consider", "standard point" and similar are not science, which history should be. And BTW who are those "we"? You say: we should observe the entire historiography and the courses of events that followed afterwards and then you move retrogardly to the past, so according to you, Litziki were Serbs in 6th century in the Upper Vistula just because It's standard point to consider the Zachlumians a Serbianized tribe in 12th century in Zachlumia. And BTW it's far away from the standard point in modern normal scientific circles.

But let's just stick to agenda: the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river?!?!?

We is, me, you and the rest of us here, if we want to pertain neutrality. ;) This is not a historical view, but a translation of the original document. His view is also supported bz Nada Klaić, which is modern and not old historiography.

You are right. Since I was doing copy-paste from articles across my hard drive, I should've most definitely not used that phrasing. Corrected now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the same manner

...as there is Pannonian Croatia and as those rulers are Croatian rulers, rather than just Slavic rulers of Savia (as some Western scholars even interpret it). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

quote> "Zachlumia (Croatian: Zahumlje Serbian: Захумље)"

since serbian language uses both latin AND cyrillic script, this line shoul be: Zachlumia (Croatian: Zahumlje, Serbian cyrrilic: Захумље, Serbian latin: Zahumlje) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.201.67 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)