From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: BOSNIA AND ITS PEOPLE
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:32:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan27.183220.19880
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


The government sponsored rewriting of history in ex-Yugoslav Republic
of Bosnia and Hercegovina had taken huge proportions.  I am writting 
rather short responce to this article that appeared in SCBH.

In article <93026.095405U15231@uicvm.uic.edu> U15231@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
>
>          BOSNIA AND ITS PEOPLE
>
>          by : I.Lovrenovic, M.Imamovic
>                                           Sarajevo 1992
>
>         THE MIDDLE AGES - A PERIOD OF INDEPENDENCE - Lovrenovic
>
>     BOSNIA is a historical name of the present BOSNIA&HERZEGOVINA,
>the South Slavic country which has existed in various constitutional
>forms for around 1000 years. 

	It already starts here.  Bosnia and Herzegovina are 
	historically very much separate parts.  Hercegovina 
	happened to have it's independent existence for at least
	as long as Bosnia did.  



>... They joined the Western Christian
>civilization some time after it reached the coastal and Panonian
>regions of Croatia.

	Rather questionable. This is history twisted to fit the 
	current political situation.  While the above is true for Croatia,
	it is highly disputable for Bosnia.  


>     It is known that BOSNIA was first mentioned in "De administran-
>do imperio" , the work of Constantine Porfirigenet, the 10th century
>Byzantine emperor and historian. With an undefined level of political
>independence, BOSNIA was at various times under the domination of
>either Hungary or Byzantium. 

	Let us see.  
	from Constantin Porphyrogenitus,"De Administrando Imperio"
	English translation by R.J.H.Jenkins, Dubarton Oaks, 1967

	*************************************************************
	30,31 or p. 145.
	From the river Zentina begins the country of Croatia ...
	and at Tzentina and Chlebena becomes neighbour of the country
	of Serbia. ...
	31,32 or p. 153
	
	Of the Serbs and of the country they now dwell in

	...And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and so-called 
	country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of 
	Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of Romans,
	and since these countries had been made desolate by Avars
	...therefore the emperor settled the same Serbs in these 
	countries...
	32,33 or p. 161
	...And through benefit and the co-operation and many 
	many benefits of the emperor he [Tzeeslav] has united 
	this country and is confirmed in the rule of it...
	In baptized Serbia are the inhabited cities of Destinikon,
	Tzernbouskei, Megyretous, Dresneik, Lesnik, Salines; and
	in the territory of Bosone, Katera and Desnik.
	**********************************************************

	There were some doubts about names of the places mentioned
	by Constantine.  However at the end everyone agreed, on both
	Serbian and Croatian side, that Constantine's Serbs and 
	Croats had border on the line Cetina ( Tzentina ) - Vrbas
	(Chlebena).  Everyone agrees that Terbounia and Zachlumi and
	Pagania, inhabited by Serbs, is what is nowadays considered
	Herzegovina.  Everyone agrees that Salines is what is today 
	Tuzla.  There are some hints that Desnik is Tesanj.
	Also, after the rule of Tzeeslav of Chaslav in Serbian, his 
	country collapsed in many small countries and locas rulers
	took over.  Some time after, Constantine Croats took over 
	the whole area. Unlike in the WWII and present war, Croats
	"taking over" did not mean killing all the population. 
	For a while Bosnia was indeed part of Croatia.  This is 
	completely missed in the "Hungary and Byzantium" rule.



>However, in the first half of the 12th
>century, a Byzantine author, Ivan Kinamos wrote: "And Bosnia is not
>subordinated...it is on its own; a nation living its independent
>life and governing itself..."


	However, here is the same quote in the "Through Bosnia and
	Herzegovina on Foot," Arthur J. Evans, 1876 
	[ Yes, it is the Arthur Evans, in his earlier days]
	From Historical Review of Bosnia, 
	
	***********************************************************
	xxiii
	...we learn from his [Manuel Comnenus] historian Zinnamus
	a few facts tending to show the comparative independence of
	Bosnia and its isolation from Serbia.  "The Drina," says he,
	"divides Bosthna from the rest of Serbia.  For Bosthna is not 
	subject to the Grand Zupan of Serbia, but the people were at 
	that time under their own magistrates and used their own 
	customs." [ 2) the passages relating to Bosnia in Cinnamus 
	are in his Historiar.lib.iii.c.7 and 19.]
	********************************************************** 
	
	So there is something missing.  Why is the author constantly 
	avoiding any connection to either Serbia or Croatia. 
	
> From the days of ban Kulin (1180-1204)
>one of the greatest and most important rulers in the history of
>BOSNIA, the country developed parallel with the neighbouring
>South Slavic states of Serbia and Croatia.
>... Kulin period deleted... 
>     The entire 13th century (under the rule of Matija Ninoslav,
>Prijezda, Stjepan Kotroman) was marked by political oscillations
>and dynastic conflicts mostly by Hungarian intervention. There was
>also a brief, destructive attack by the Tartars in 1242.

	Well, how did bans call themselves and what language did
	they use?  They would call themselves either Bosnians, or
	Serbs, depending on the political situation.  If Serbia 
	was strong, they would try to keep their independence by 
	underlining the "Bosnian side." and vice versa.  Here is 
	qoute from document showing the "treaty" between Ragusa,
	(Dubrovnik) and Bosnian ban Matija Ninoslav.  Vlachs was 
	standard name used then among Serbs for Catholics, or even
	more precisely for everyone latinised.

	From Ciro Truhelka, Das mittelalterliche Staats und Gericht-
	wesen in Bosnien, 1907, Sarajevo.[ Translation mine, my German 
	is slightly rusty, but it is good enough ]

	*************************************************************
	
	So determined already Bam Mathaeus Ninoslav, (1234-1240)
	in his Privileges given to the citisens of Ragusa:
	
	When Serb owes money to Vlach ( citizen of Ragusa ),
	the process would be done by Knez ( ruler of Ragusa ),
	When Vlach owes to Serb, Ban is the one to decide.
	**************************************************************

	It is important to quote Dr. Jagic, the best Croatian
	linguist, about language used by Kulin-ban in one
	of his Privileges ( Miklosic, Serbian Monuments ).  
	Dr. Vatroslav Jagic claims that it is the most beautiful
	case of Serbian ( on Cyrrillic ) language ( I have this
	quote only from the secondary source).


>	... Tvrtko and other deleted... 

	Again too many things missing.  Tvrtko's relationship 
	with Serbian ruling family, history of Herzegovina,etc.
	In some future I might adress that.

>
>         BOSNIA WITHIN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE - Ivan Lovrenovic
>
>	...deleted...
	
	Reader should, while reading the initial article pay the 
	attention how the fate of those who did not convert was 
	completely missing in this account!?  They were majority.



>    BOSNIA WITHIN THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY
>                                                I.Lovrenovic
>
>... The idea of Pan-Serbian hegemony found support in the
>"linguistic nationalism" of Vuk Karadzic. His work propagated his
>formula regarding the ethnic unity of the Serbs - "The Serbs-all
>together and everywhere"- and maintained that the only difference
>among the people was in their religion - Orthodox,Catholic or Muslim

	Is there something wrong with this?  Did anyone ever even
	attempted to seriously dispute this?  Everyone in 19th 
	century considered the area of present days Croatia 
	(except Zagorje and to some extent Istra and Zadar ) 
	Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro ( border 
	with Bulgaria is questionable ) as a single ethno-linguistical
	entity. 

> ... more deleted...

>
>   At the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Austro-Hungary obtained a
>mandate to occupy and govern BOSNIA&HERZEGOVINA. In the summer of that
>year, the Austro-Hungarian army entered BOSNIA, encountering an unex-
>pectedly fierce and lengthy armed resistance.

	Something very important missing.  Bosnia and Herzegovina
	had Serbian majority at that time!  This majority was there
	until the WWII!

	Lack of time prevents me from going more into details.  
	However, I hope that I have at least brough some doubts about
	history written in this article.

	Regards,

	Milan N. Stojanovic