Talk:Dalmatia

lead section region discussion

I've recently reverted a new user's change that removed the notion of Dalmatia being in Croatia from the top of the article (which would be glaring NPOV/UNDUE issue), while at the same it is a bit overcrowded there, esp. in combination with the hatnote. Suggestions welcome how to phrase it in a more concise manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

6th century slavs

In an edit, editor OyMosby mentioned that "the article" indicated that the Sclaveni (South Slavs) who entered the area in the 6th century were "mostly Croats". I would be happy to review that specific article if OyMosby would provide the citation. In reading Van Antwerp Fine Jr., John (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3. pages 50–57 it appears that the Croats were not originally Slavs, but had an Iranian origin (p. 57), and that they didn't enter Dalmatia until the 7th century after defeating the incumbent Avars, citing Constantine. See also the sentence in this article "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in Roman province of Dalmatia in the first half of the 7th century," citing Katičić (1989) and Birin (2015), two articles in Croatian. On this basis having Croats included in the Slavic invasion of the 6th century seems to be an over generalization. Like I said, I look forward to reviewing the article mentioned by OyMosby.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There exist different interpretations of the DAI in literature. DAI itself anachronistically projects events, and sometimes is contradicting own accounts often because of political reasons. Croats were represented as new arrivals from faraway lands and liberators of Roman land from the Avar rule although that's highly unlikely and most probably merely revolted against the Avars after already arrived. Fine sometimes isn't most accurate/factual and when cited alone should be attributed, and the Iranian origin/identity of the Croats isn't something usually considered in the historiography anymore. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

My main point was that three cited sources have the Croats arriving later than the 6th century Slavs. And the arrivals are distinct. But what does Miki Filigranski mean by "the Iranian origin/identity of the Croats isn't something usually considered in the historiography anymore." -- is it ignored? or is there published research suggesting that it isn't so? I note that recent historiography regarding the Ustashe concept of "Croatian" accepted the eventual genetic merging of the Croats with the Slavs as reported by Fine. Regarding recent research, see footnote 71 in Bartulin (2008) where it says: "Although there is an on-going academic debate on the origins of the proto-Croats, the name 'Croat' itself is most probably of Iranian origin. See Radoslav Katičić, 'On the Origins of the Croats' in Ivan Supičić Croatia in the Early Middle Ages: a cultural survey (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 1999), pp. 149–167." See also, Bilogrivić, Goran (2018) "Carolingian weapons and the problem of Croat migration and ethnogenesis." in Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire Brill, pp. 86–99; and Goss, Vladimir P. (2013) "Culture v. Nature: on Slavic and non-Slavic Origin of the Croats." Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3.40, pp. 243–253. Regardless of the possible Iranian origin of the Croats, they do not seem to be part of the Slavic invasion of the 6th century. --Bejnar (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, depends on the perspective and critical analysis of DAI in the sources. If there's no critical analysis and sources stick with the DAI narrative then often provide only such viewpoint. It is related to the Grafenauer's thesis that there happened two migrations of the South Slavs, that the described events in DAI are unrelated. It is impossible to differentiate Croats from the other Slavs. There exist many sources which argue that the Croats arrived with the late 6th century Slavs - however the arrival of the late 6th century Slavs is a whole other issue itself as the sources sometime do not differentiate between seasonal plundering, warring, arrival and settlement of the Slavs/Croats. The arrival and settlement in narrow Dalmatia can be surely argued only since the 7th century. As for the Iranian origin/identity, previously in the historiography was popular an idea that the Croats didn't arrive as Slavs yet as an Iranian-Slavic elite in the 7th century. Today, such concept is mainly used for explaining the etymology of the Croatian ethnonym and related to the supposed Proto-Croats history somewhere in Ukrainian homeland (and often only explained as a Iranian loanword into Proto-Slavic rather than claiming an existence of some Iranian tribe of Croats). Goss wasn't an expert on genetics to be considered a reliable source as well the source is greatly outdated/wrong by now.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the best historiographical & archaeological source about the topic, or at least an overview about it, is Krešimir Filipec (2020), "Praishodište i/ili situacija. Slaveni i Hrvati – do zauzimanja nove domovine" (Origin and/or situation. Slavs and Croats – until the conquest of a new homeland), Zagreb: Centar za ranosrednjovjekovna istraživanja Zagreb-Lobor: Odsjek za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta, Katedra za opću srednjevjekovnu i nacionalnu arheologiju: Arheološki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta. ISBN 978-953-57369-1-2.

I will check the current sources and provide better ones, but the issue and details in question are out of scope for this article. There already exist other articles which are dealing with them. It is enough saying that the South Slavs arrived in the late 6th-early 7th century.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Da. But don't include the Croats in that statement. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If Miki has sources that state otherwise…. Why not? Or did you mean for them to be sure not to mention Croats as part of the Southern Slavs migrating then? OyMosby (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no scientific consensus and they are details which aren't really important to the article's scope so find unnecessary stressing to much about it in this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears their gripe wasn’t with the scope but lack of sources stating 6th century arrival. Hence my question to them. OyMosby (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned that There exist many sources which argue that the Croats arrived with the late 6th century Slavs

So what are the sources that state that Croats arrived in the late 6th and 7th century as you mentioned? And it seems in scope given region location.

As I stated in my previous diff, the article body has sourced material about DAI stating Croat presence in early 7th century. Overlapping the late 6th early 7th century arrival of Sclaven. As the other user stresses. I’m lost as to why only one can be mentioned and not both.

Given that Italian is mentioned for the form of Romance people present, surely Croats can be mentioned as well. Otherwise if scope is an issue, just stick to Romance and Slavic peoples in the paragraph. OyMosby (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources by Filipec, Budak, Dvornik, Sedov, Majorov, Voitovych, Heather... even Yugoslavian historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. That seems like a fairly significant amount of sources. Seems safe to say they arrived from modern day Poland-Western Ukraine in the late 6th century then? This appears to be the main theory on articles that discuss the topic. Therefore mentioning “Croats in the statement” which Bejnar requested not to, would seem warranted and in scope. As migration and types of populations is what that paragraph in the intro is about. Adding these sources to the sentence would be a good idea sparing this sort of discussion in the future. OyMosby (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the article body where a cited sentence states

De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in Roman province of Dalmatia in the first half of the 7th century,

You referenced this in your comment. The sources for this being in Croatian is irrelevant as they are referring to a non-Croatian source. So I don’t get the point of mentioning that.

I agree in my undo I was not careful in reading. I assumed the arrival of Croats in the early 7th century and arrival of Sclaveni in the late 6th and early 7th century overlapped and coincided. However it implied them being in the same

group which appears to not be what the source implies. Also did not mean to imply Sclaveni were mostly Croats, that would be ridiculous. Hence why I reverted my revert.

I do not see the reason from mentioning Ustashe and their theories as they are the last group I would seek facts from. How mentioning them helps this conversation I haven’t a clue.

As for claims of Croats being Iranian in origin. I had thought Croat and Serbs arrived to the Balkans as Slavic people already. Where they not? I was under the impressythat their names may be of non-Slavic origin only.

Before December of 2023, the intro stated arrival of the Croats in the 6th century. Instead of changing the 6 to a 7, you removed Croats and replaced it with Sclaveni. Though it should have been changed to late 6th and early 7th for them regardless. I am not sure the reason given you agree with the 7th century arrival of Croats in the area per source. Then a month or so later, Miki included “mostly Croats”. So perhaps a sentence stating Croats arriving early 7th century after the Sclaveni sentence would make sense. As it is well within scope of the article. And appears sourced.

I will take a look at the sources you provided as well as the sources @Miki Filigranski claims stating Croats arriving as early as 6th with the Sclaveni. I replied to them requesting what the source were. I will do some digging as well as I recall reading elsewhere the 6th century claim in other articles. They may need to be corrected to the 7th century as well.

I think if any further changes are needed, we should discuss here first. So as to keep the intro stable. I know you mentioned on my page you will be traveling for a week or two so I will await further discussion with you until then. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

To not be mistaken, "mostly Croats" was related and an addition to the "South Slavs" as the Croats are those who settled most of modern Dalmatia and are most numerous and representative South Slavic ethnic group in Dalmatia, while South Slavs is a very broad term including from Slovenes to the Macedonians. It wasn't related to the topic of early medieval migration.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Though why is it not within scope of the topic? Given they migrated around the same time and given where Dalmatia is mostly located in present day. I’m not really understanding that. It was part of the intro for some time. And seems as relevant as any migration to the area. For example for the mention of Romance populations, it was further detailed to be Italian rather than generalized Romance people. Was the “Dalmatian Italian” identity formed before the 6th century? As well as the more modern Venetian and Italian languages? Is that also within scope? OyMosby (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity of inhabitants of Dalmatian

There is no evidence from analysis of ethnic ancestry of present population of Dalmatia inffered from the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution data to back the claim that ethnic origin of Fetivi, Boduli and Vlaji as distinct groups of people reflects different ethnic backgrounds, as the article claims. It should be removed from the article as the citations provided do no prove such a claim. Cultural differences between those groups, which are indeed prominent and discussed in the cited articles, are also largely intermixed and much more complex than what this article claims, as they involve high degree of regional specificity. 78.1.111.12 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim they are distinctive ethnic identities or having different ethnic origin. However, the paragraph does seem to be poorly sourced and mention of that information - which is almost trivial - doesn't seem as a part of necessary scope of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)