Talk:Zachlumia

who lives in Hum in middle ages

Yea, in his very broad synthesis "The Late Medieval Balkans", on p.20 Fine speaks of Serbs in Hum. However, he refers to ruling class, which will become much clearer later, first in the same book and then in other writings. But, to banish any and all doubts, we will use same researcher, Fine, only his much later and much more focused research - instead of his synthesis from 1987, we will use his monograph from 2005, titled "When Ethnicity Didn't Matter", in which he analyses this very particular issue in much more focused and direct approach. So, Fine abandons nomenclature used in 1987, and changed ethnonym "Serbs" in favor of label "Slavs" in 2005 - see "When Ethnicity Didn't Matter", pp.94 - 98, or if interested you can broadened your reading all the way through pp. 67 to 174, which comprises two chapters. By the way, we are obligated with a WP:AGEMATTERS to use most recent scholarship, whenever that seems reasonable or possible - in this case we have one and the same scholar and his two books from different periods, with different view.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

First of the book is from 1994 not from 1987, second there is no direct rule on [WP:AGEMATTERS] when exactly age is to old to be applied, third it is funny you did not removed Vlachs even though he does not mention them but you removed Serbs. I am restoring according to source and fourth there are other sources from Fine where he mentions that Zachlumia was a Serbian land. See early medieval Balkans Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am adding a source here (open access) pg 20 so that everybody can read what is written [[1]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why should I remove Vlachs? J.A. Fine changed his view, if one can even say that, on one label not the other. And no, age matters very much, especially with scholarship/research. Yes, early region was ruled by Serbian dynasty sometimes, sometime by Croatian, and sometimes it was governed by local indigenous župans, who were not Serbs (gospoda Srpska) nor Croats. However, it appears that article is characterized by a tug-war between two groups of editors, whose competing view is based on injecting ethnicity into a narrative describing medieval topic. This mostly revolves around enduring misunderstanding, or confusing ruling elite use of labels, which we today recognize as ethnic, with peasantry, which never developed any kind of sense of common identity beyond tribal and local.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Vlachs should be removed because they are not mentioned in this particular quote or in source and because even Fine goes on saying that they were more of shepherd community with mixing of Slavs and Vlachs since 12. century, Fine did not changed his opinion because even in the book "When ethnicity..." he translated the views of Goldstein and some other regional historians and the views were presented mostly around the land that surrounded Dubrovnik not whole land of Zachlumia actually the whole book deals only with what is today Croatia and wath authors are talking about Croatians and Croatia, Hum was more than just Dubrovnik, especially not the inner parts, peasantry did identified itself at that times with their lords and the lords during that part of history were Serbs, there are other sources from 11. century that are calling different regional rulers "archons of Serbs" meaning that ethnic identification started in that period, giving also the fact of influence of Serbian orthodox church in the area, it is obvious that Serbs did inhabited Zachlumia. Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to check it again, but as far as I remember, Fine 1994 says on page 19 that Hum's population had Slavic speakers and Vlachs. On page 20 he says that the largest part of the interior had Orthodox Serbs, while the areas near the Adriatic, including the capital, had mixed Orthodox and Catholic populations. He does not specify whether those Orthodox people, and especially Catholics, were Serbs or not. Check the source on both pages. I will do the same. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes inner parts Serbs, around Ston mixed catholic and orthodox population Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything I said earlier is confirmed by introduction of yet another messy line in the article, where the editor unnecessarily insists on a non-existent ethnicity and labels. The editor also ignored WP: AGEMATTERS, which in this case and in this particular context is really blatant - we use one and the same author and his two books, one from 1987 and the other from 2005 in which he updated his attitude on ethnicity by completely rejecting it. Editors, guided by their emotional (irrational) motives, persistently insist on introducing ethnic labels into the article, which is wrong because these labels are absolutely unknown in a given space at a given time (Middle Ages) when used in a manner known to us since 19th century to this day. In this way, the article (sentence, paragraph) puts readers in a situation to deal with contradictory claims, which are referenced to two good books by the same author, but ignoring the fact that this author has, in the meantime, completely revised some of his views, especially those concerning ethnic labeling in the sense of modern ethnic names, and which the author in this second, 20 years newer book, which also represents his far more extensive, detailed and focused study-research on the topic of ethnicity, completely and absolutely rejects! (See my first two TP posts.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything, the source is clear, claims are definitely not contradictory because the book "When ethnicity did not matter" by Fine deals only with the territory of today Croatia, meaning Dubrovnik and surroundings, not mentioning inner Zachlumia and also Fine in the book only transfers what Goldstein thinks, Fine did not change his opinion, the formation of Serb identity was already present earlier and known, because lot of these rulers were called "Archon of Serbs" or "Lords of Serbs" by the Byzantines, so the fact is that the WP:RS is the main policy to be respected here. And Fine is reliable source. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you do, all that and some more - you are trying to squeeze the author’s view of the ethnicity he has abandoned. The fact that you are now trying to plant the extremely incorrect (both ethically and factually) understanding of his research in the book, one that is more recent one, is a matter of the editor's integrity and ethical approach to the project (Wikipedia). As for the development of identity among the South Slavs, there are two approaches: one is anachronistic and nationalistic, abused by politicians, generals, but also academics and intellectuals; the other is an expertly, scientific, which gave us everything that we could learn about it, considering the development of the research branch itself. You refer to the former, which can be read from your misunderstanding of the medieval notion of labels "Serb(s)" (Gospoda Srpska), "Bosnian(s)" (Dobri Bošnjani), while Fine's book "When Ethnicity" speaks the most about medieval Croats. After all, trying to talk about identity the way you do it is hard sell on the English Wikipedia, because there are too many high quality sources available on the Internet in refutation of such views - here, just this book by Fine shatters such illusions, and there are far better ones, written by historians and anthropologists who deal exclusively with ethnic identity - but for a start read “When Ethnicity” on Google books, it’s almost entirely in their preview, or at least its Introduction.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

He did not abandoned anything. That is your opinion and it goes under WP:SYNTH because you are using misinterpretation of the sources (quote: do not make conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.), you are quoting the book that has nothing to do with Zachlumia (most of it, but present day Croatia), you are giving your personal opinion about the author not knowing anything about them and by removing Serbs from the list (even though it is well sourced) and yes there are other authors that also mentioning Serbs living at that time in Zachlumia like Stephenson, so no it is not a hard sell on english wikipedia because it is well and clearly sourced by foreign authors, and I did read the book and its introduction and it clearly deals only with the territory of present Croatia, that excludes inner Hum, Fine is clear, source is also clear. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)

You should at least read (and try to understand) these policies first (like WP:SYNTH), before you decide to cite them. Back to Fine - And in fact such political “Croats” (or Serbs or whatever) may, as we shall see, have actually identified themselves as “Slavs.” ; But if these incorporated individuals feel that they are still part of a Croat community even though they now live beyond the borders of a Croat state and that they are, therefore, Croats—and in this example not Hungarians — then they are on the way to acquiring an ethnic identity. Such feelings, or at least evidence of them, as we shall see, were very rare in the Middle Ages; thus I shall argue that most South Slavs mentioned with specifc national-type names in our sources were such by political affliation, namely that the individuals so labeled served the given state’s ruler, and cannot be considered ethnic Croats, Serbs, or whatever.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

More Fine: My research on the Balkan peoples in the Middle Ages indicates that an identity label like “Croat” or “Serb,” when we do find it in medieval texts, was drawn from the geographical region or more frequently the state name in which the identified person lived..--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Since we are quoting Fine: The other Serbian state of this period was the one of Michael of Zahumlje ... (pg 160 Early Medieval Balkans), more of the same author: In the course of our studies, we have found Serbs living in many regions of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje (or Zachlumia), Trebinje and parts of Bosnia... (pg 225 Early Medieval Balkans) it is obvious that ethnic identification of Croats and Serbs started somewhere during the period when DAI was written since the Byzantine emperor also started to call Slavic tribes by their names and that Zachlumia was one of Serbian states which Fine also recognises, he even finds in his studies where the Serbs lived, from the source that recognition started in 11. century, not to mention the quoted source in the article that states Most of Hum interior was settled by Serbs and belonged to Eastern Church (under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church so we have Serbian lords, established Serbian church in 1219., we have mentioning of Serbs living in those parts and like user Ktrimi991 noticed in the parts oh Zachlumia where there was mixture of Catholic and Orthodox population Fine writes those synonyms for the population, where it is is clear that Serbs lived (inner Zachlumia) he writes that, just like article mentions. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)

after many months

You again anachronistically trying to inject ethnicity into times when such labeling didn't exist, and for that you are trying to pass outdated sources as relevant on that issue. When you quote Fine you should use his latest stance and argument, not those which he abandoned or updated long time ago. Respect WP:AGEMATTERS guideline and the fact that this article falls under WP:ARBEE.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No I am putting what was is written in source and you are removing sourced material, please read what was written above, there is no Age matters aspect since this was not disputed by newer sources, actually it was confirmed.Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is confirmed and what, in which publication ? You have cited outdated and misunderstood Fine, while ignoring the fact that he made his mind much clearer in his last book on the Balkan ethnic identities. Your insistence on anachronistically labeling people with outdated and misread sources is violation of AGEMATTERS, in article under ARBEE.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How can it be misunderstood, when this is exactly what it says, where is the quote that he made his mind ? And this book you are mentioning does not even deal with Hum or interior of Hum but with Croatia, that was already written here multiple times. Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)

J.A.Fine 2010 entire book is research on identity specifically (monography)

First, to state the obvious - WP:AGEMATTERS, which means that all works and research published more recently take precedence over those published earlier, in this case, what J.A.Fine said in 2010 supersede what Fine said in 1981. And John Fine last book on medieval history of Serbo-Croatian speaking people, published in 2010, which makes it most recent of all his books written on the subject. This book, like his Bosnian Church, is also a monography and a proper research, dealing with medieval identities (it wasn't just synthesis of most relevant information on variety of peoples and states, like two of his most famous, The Early and The Late medieval Balkans). Like "Bosnian Church" before, this book also dealt a blow to all nationalistic revisionisms, in this case anachronistic imputation of ethnicity to medieval inhabitants of areas gravitating Bosnia (between traditionally Croatian and Serbian areas):

• p.95: Dinić, for example, found an early-fourteenth-century reference to a “Slav priest” (presbyter slavicus) ministering in the surroundings of Dubrovnik.134 He was almost certainly an Orthodox priest serving Slavs (nationally undefined) beyond the walls, for the Ragusan authorities did not tolerate Orthodoxy within the city’s walls.
• p.95: The treaty concluded in 1186 between Dubrovnik and Stefan Nemanja, of the newly revived Serbia (Raška), grants the “Slavs” of the hinterland of Dubrovnik the right to move freely in and through the territory of Dubrovnik.136 Thus, the Slavs living in and around Dubrovnik had acquired
• p.95/96: Thus, the Slavs living in and around Dubrovnik had acquired no specific name to define themselves. Moreover, the town’s hinterland was generally referred to as “Sclavonia.”
• p.96: This conclusion is clearly supported by the town’s 1272 statutes, which have several articles on Ragusan conflicts with foreigners: The following article (chap. 51) speaks about relations with Hum (Chelmo), whose people are called “Slavs” (aliquem Sclavum de Chelmo). Chapter 56 deals with relations between Dubrovnik and the lord of Slavonia (dominus Sclavonie), who turns out in the given article to be several lords: the King of Raška/Serbia, the Ban of Bosnia, and the counts of Hum and Zeta (present-day Montenegro). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be an WP:AGEMATTERS if the book is from 1994. There are also newer sources like Cirkovic book from 2004 which confirms the continuity of this land s being inhabited by Serbs:

• 1)Noel Malcolm says in history of Bosnia :Srbi su se naselili na području koje odgovara današnjoj jugozapadnoj Srbiji (teritoriju koji je poslije, u srednjem vijeku, postao poznat pod imenom Raška ili Rascia), i malo-pomalo proširili svoju vlast na teritorije Duklje ili Diocleje (Crna Gora) i Huma ili Zahumlja (Hercegovina).The Serbs settled in the area corresponding to today's southwestern Serbia (a territory that later, in the Middle Ages, became known as Raska or Rascia), and gradually expanded their rule to the territories of Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro) and Hum or Zahumlje. (Herzegovina)
• 2) Cirkovic in his book from 2004 also mentions that the land was inhabited with Serbs. [[2]].The regions occupied by the Serbian tribe in karst basins suitable for agriculture between the Dinaric Alps and the Adriatic coast gave rise to the principalities of the Neretljani (between the Cetina and Neretva rivers), Zahumljani (from the Neretva River and the Dubrovnik hinter-land), and Travunians (from the Dubrovnik hinterland to the Gulf of Kotor)
• 3) Kardaras, Georgios (2018) : The Serbs... Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani), who occupied portions close to the Adriatic coast, particularly in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro.54 Except the Diocletians, all these tribes are said to be Serbian, which implies that the actual area of Serbian settlement was even larger.[[3]]

Furthermore Fine gives us in details why was Hum important for Serbs in the midlle ages:Sava's first task was to place all Serbian territory under the jurisdiction of its new archbishop. This necessitated the ousting in 1220 of Greek bishops from the recently acquired towns of Prizren and Lipljan. Sava then proceeded to construct Serbia's Church administration, dividing all Serbia's territory (including Zeta and Hum) up into about ten bishoprics. The inclusion of Zeta and Hum contributed to the binding of these previously separate Serbian regions more tightly to Raska by helping their populations to i dentify themselves as Serbs and to perceive a commonality of interest with the S erbs of Raska. There are many other sources that are confirming what Fine said. That has nothing to do with nationalistic revisionism since the Serbs from that area left the cultural mark on that area. Including some that are protected by Unesco. Theonewithreason (talk)05:10, 09 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS because age matters for published works - as I said above, what J.A.Fine said in 2010 supersede what J.A.Fine said in 1981. But where in these quoted paragraphs authors actually talk about ethnic makeup of the inhabitants?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean in 1994, and this is not age matters, also if we put your logic in than the source from 2018 is newer than Fine 2010 so yours is agematters. But again Fine in the book from 2010 deals with the area around Dubrovnik and the hinterland so he does not contradicts himself Theonewithreason (talk)05:26 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Zachlumia is Dubrovnik hinterland, and all historians always referred to it in such a manner, The following article (chap. 51) speaks about relations with Hum (Chelmo), whose people are called “Slavs” (aliquem Sclavum de Chelmo)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, 2018 is more recent per AGE, thus, if contradicting then is more relevant, but, fortunately, your Kardaras is not contradicting. But you keep avoiding my question: where in these quoted paragraphs of yours authors actually talk about ethnic makeup of the inhabitants?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Umm everywhere, don′t you see the quotes above, Serbian tribes, inhabited by Serbs, Serbian lands etc. and Zachumlia hinterland according to Fine is inhabited by Serbs, on the coast there is mixed catholic and orthodox population -- so with this quote he defines where he is certain who lives in hinterland and where he is not certain he only mentions religion. Theonewithreason (talk)05:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Everywhere - where? Where exactly they talk about specific ethnic makeup of inhabitants of Zachlumia (and while we are at it, Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro))?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine pg 20 Cirkovic pg 43 Kardakas pg 96 quotes are presented on this tp, the green letters above.Theonewithreason (talk)06:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine p.20 is superseded by same author 2010 p.95-96. Ćirkovć and especially Kardaras don't speak about ethnic makeup of inhabitants - Ćirković speaks about tribal migration, and Kardaras, actually, starts by just repeating Constantine's writings about tribal migration of Serbs and Croat, which is obvious to any little bit more careful reader, who will also read authors footnotes. He, than, make sure that we understand which modern historians accept that at face value and which don't, and in the following 50 or so pages he chose to stand with those authors who don't accept Constantine's implications at face value.

Ćirković "in green letters" says "Serbian tribe" .... gave rise to the principalities of the Neretljani, Zahumljani, and Travunians, all of which implies a rise of new local identities, because he writes Neretljani and not Nertva, Zahumljani and not Zahumlje, Travunjani and not Travunija - he in no way, shape or form implies ethnicity either way.

Kardaras "in green letters" says "Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani)" and "all these tribes are said" by Constantine "to be Serbian", and then he leaves us footnote in which he points which historian accept this and which ones reject it. He, it will be clear on following pages, is among those who reject it !--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Cirkovic points out Serbian tribes, not other, Kardakis confirmes what the sources and Byzantine authorities and later historians were thinking about Zachumlians of that time, that they were Serbian tribe. Fine says directly inhabited by Serbs. And finally Find does not suppress himself, there is no section in his book where he writes I was wrong this is how it was. Actually in his book from 2010 deals mostly with Croatia and RagusaTheonewithreason (talk)06:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Another quote by Fine:In the course of our studies, we have found Serbs living in many regions of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje (or Zachlumia), Trebinje and parts of Bosnia... Theonewithreason (talk)07:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and tribal labels for migrating Slavs, Serbs and Croats are not ethnic.But he does speaks of smaller tribes because he also refers to Constantine, he's not inventing them from his dreams, but repeats emperor-historian.

Where exactly "Kardaras confirms sources" ? I can give you a link to download entire book, because I again doubt that you have access to entire volume, so that you can explain what that "Kardaras confirms sources" means. Because, he actually does not confirms anything, he has his own theory about migrations and he reject to take Constantine's text at face value.

I am not that naïve, regarding your new quote of Fine.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If DAI distiguinsh Serbs and Croats already in 10th century, that means that the names of those tribes were known. Kardakas on pg 96 says: The Serbs... Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani), who occupied portions close to the Adriatic coast, particularly in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro.54 Except the Diocletians, all these tribes are said to be Serbian, which implies that the actual area of Serbian settlement was even larger, Cirkovic says too, Malcolm is also the source I added above, there are other quotes by Fine I added earlier. Theonewithreason (talk)07:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

DAI is only source on the topic but as primary is completely irrelevant for two of us and other wiki editors - we can only use historians working on DAI, meaning through secondary sources. All these mentions are tribal labels, not ethnic, and even in case of tribal migrations we cant categorically claim who settle where, because different historians interpret DAI differently.

Malcolm in particular is clear: "Serbs settled in the area corresponding to today's southwestern Serbia" and than "gradually expanded their rule to the territories of Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro) and Hum or Zahumlje" - emphasis on "expanded their rule" not ethnic makeup. His view correspond with all these other historians views, which I already tried to explain.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope it does not say that, additionally the number of cultural heritage left by Serbs in that time some of them protected by UNESCO, only confirmes that, later in the centuries one of the rules was even Saint Sava, which is also confirmed by Fine.Sava's first task was to place all Serbian territory under the jurisdiction of its new archbishop. This necessitated the ousting in 1220 of Greek bishops from the recently acquired towns of Prizren and Lipljan. Sava then proceeded to construct Serbia's Church administration, dividing all Serbia's territory (including Zeta and Hum) up into about ten bishoprics. The inclusion of Zeta and Hum contributed to the binding of these previously separate Serbian regions more tightly to Raska by helping their populations to identify themselves as Serbs and to perceive a commonality of interest with the Serbs of Raska.Theonewithreason (talk)09:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nope it does not say that", that's your respond? OK, wiki general consensus per WP:ETHNO is to avoid ethnicity in controversial topic areas - and you are aware this is such case per WP:ARBMAC / WP:ARBEE. Anachronistic insertion of ethnicity by imposing modern sense of ethnic identity onto medieval populace is undesirable and it always lead to disruption and unresolvable disputes. And although historians never use ethnicity to identify medieval populations, they sometimes use tribal labels to explain early Slavic migrations, which is than sometimes misused as an evidence of everlasting eternal identity by editors via references (either in good faith, or fueled by preferable ideology). Not one of quoted sources speaks about ethnicity and ethnic makeup of inhabitants. Name(s) are used as tribal label(s) and only when historians talked about 7th century migrations, and nowhere else - except in nationalistic demagoguery in narratives such as "Croatia to the Drina" and "Serb Bosnia" (now "Serb Montenegro").--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Santasa99, AGEMATTERS and Wikipedia is not the place for editors to make original research & comments based on primary sources, misinterpreting and misuing secondary sources for claims they don't completely support and ignore many other reliable sources, violating WP:UNDUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Zahumlje/Zahumska zemlja = Hum/Humska zemlja

This long-standing article (Zachlumia) is properly covering the entire history of a medieval region known as Zahumlje (Zahumska zemlja) = Hum (Humska zemlja), with corresponding articles on more than 20 other projects. Quite recently, on 28 June 2024, a novelty was introduced here on EW. Using a redirect Humska zemlja, that was pointing to this article (Zachlumia), user Santasa99 created a separate article dedicated specifically to the late medieval history of the same region (here), a subject already covered by the full scope of this long-standing article (Zachlumia). Thus, a duplication was created, that previously did not exist, nor it exists on any other project, since none of them has separate articles on Zahumlje and Humska zemlja, because it is common knowledge that those are just variant names for the same historical region. By detaching the redirect Humska zemlja from Zachlumia, and turning it into a separate article, quite a confusion was created, and a reductive and incorrect meaning of that term was introduced, since Humska zemlja = Zahumlje in general, while the newly crated article detaches and incorrectly reduces the term to the late medieval period only. Instead of expanding chapters on the late medieval period in this article (Zachlumia), a separate article was unnecessarily created, by duplicating the same subject, and that was done without any explanation. Therefore, some explanation by the user Santasa99 would be welcomed here, since it is quite obvious that the late medieval period of Humska zemlja is already covered by the full scope of the long-standing article Zachlumia. Sorabino (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)