Talk:Zahumlje
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. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ). Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
|
WP Former Countries - Things 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.
[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)
