Two great misconceptions, mostly malicious (nationalist-chauvinist-driven), reign the historical sciences in the western-Balkans for the last two and a half centuries. The first misconception concerns the never-ending disputation between the Albanian and the Serbian school. While the former school claims Albanians to be the last (only authentic?) surviving Illyrians, the latter claims not only that Albanians are Thracians (i.e., not Illyrians) but it also says that no such people as Illyrians has ever existed, instead contending that the locals were all Slav/Serb because ancient sources are filled with references to "sclavs" and "serfs"... The second misconception is related to the first, and it concerns the issue of who the Slavs were (or weren't) in the Balkans before the national awakening of the 18th century... The reason for the two schools being so unapologetic lies in the possible answers to the crucial question they thus pose: Whose is the western Balkans? But being so extreme, neither of those two views seems very authentic; besides, no other interested parties living in the area have ever been asked for their opinion on the above two fundamental disputes that can (and do - as we speak) have great repercussions on lives of millions. At the same time, both schools oppose wholeheartedly and fight fiercely any idea of Bosnia-centered Illyria, even though the idea is supported by a world's leading authority on Illyrians, Professor of Roman and Greek archaeology John Wilkes (the author of "The Illyrians", Oxford Press 2000).
.
The first dispute is dealt
with easily just by stacking ancient maps in time. Thus by looking at the
Ptolemy's Map [on the left] one can see that (province of) Illyria was alive and
well just around year 100 AD, i.e. about the time the legend of Christ took
roots. Following the situation as it developed, some centuries later there it is
yet again [on the right] - amongst other Roman provinces including the conquered
Dacia (today's Romania). What's curious about this however is that of all the
provinces shown on the maps, only the detailed records on how Illyria was
conquered are missing, unlike say the well-documented conquest of Dacia (see
article of 26 August). However, it's not just that military papers are
mysteriously lost, but according to Wilkes "even today Illyrians barely make the
footnotes in most versions of ancient history" as well. Indeed, with exception
of a partly preserved appendix on Illyrian wars, by Appian of Alexandria (95-165
AD), there is virtually no complete account available on (the conquest of)
Illyria!
The first dispute is dealt
with easily just by stacking ancient maps in time. Thus by looking at the
Ptolemy's Map [on the left] one can see that (province of) Illyria was alive and
well just around year 100 AD, i.e. about the time the legend of Christ took
roots. Following the situation as it developed, some centuries later there it is
yet again [on the right] - amongst other Roman provinces including the conquered
Dacia (today's Romania). What's curious about this however is that of all the
provinces shown on the maps, only the detailed records on how Illyria was
conquered are missing, unlike say the well-documented conquest of Dacia (see
article of 26 August). However, it's not just that military papers are
mysteriously lost, but according to Wilkes "even today Illyrians barely make the
footnotes in most versions of ancient history" as well. Indeed, with exception
of a partly preserved appendix on Illyrian wars, by Appian of Alexandria (95-165
AD), there is virtually no complete account available on (the conquest of)
Illyria!
.
Wilkes supports the concept of a Bosnia-centered
Illyria, proposing that it's actually Bosnia, not Albania, which was (the center
of) Illyria. This is also obvious from the maps shown here. It's rather a
mystery how Bosnia, so prominent and nearby the Rome itself, could have gotten
omitted from most texts from/on the Roman Empire. He writes of
Illyrians:
(1)
"...A separate group of Illyrians identified by renowned historian Geza
Alfoldy: he identifies 'Pannonian peoples' in Bosnia, northern Montenegro
[around Pljevlja and Prijepolje, p.84] and western Serbia [Sandžak]".
p.75
(2)
"Not much reliance should perhaps be placed on attempts to identify an
Illyrian anthropological type as short and dark-skinned similar to modern
Albanians." p.219
(3)
"...a documented description of Illyrians, Pannonian family: -Pannonians are
tall and strong, always ready for a fight and to face dangeour but
slow-witted." p.219
(4)
"Life has always been hard in the Illyrian lands and countless wars of
resistance against invaders are testimony to the durability of their
populations." p.220
(5) "In sum, the destructive impact [of
Bosnia-centred theory] on the earlier generalizations regarding Illyrians
should be regarded as a step forward." p.40.
Also,
as Wilkes suggests, given the military mindedness of the Illyrians [royal armor
shown above, soldier's armor on the left], as well as their vigilance and
resistance to numerous conquerors through ages, it can be said with high
certainty that today's Bosnians [Bosnian Muslims and Catholics] are direct
descendants of the Illyrians who never "disappeared" or "got assimilated". Add
to this the non-stop putting-down of Bosnians (via jokes akin of those on
"slow-witted" Illyrians) that continues to this day and is mostly favored in
Serbia and Croatia (same as in Greece and Rome a few millennia ago). Namely,
this is an anecdotal evidence for validity of the Bosnia-centered theory of
Illyria. Be it noted at the end that authenticity of many intermediate maps
(produced in times before or after the maps showed above) can also be
questioned, as such maps mostly come from Serbian (and to a lesser extent
Croatian, albeit not less confused and not less nationalist-chauvinist) sources.
Therefore it'd be useful to deliberately dispute all Serbian and Croatian
historical references (sources, maps, analyses) on ancient and medieval Bosnia,
at least until the time tells the true science from nationalist-driven
(geo)politics. Unfortunately, history of Europe is history of war, even more so
in case of the Balkans, and even more so still in case of Bosnia. Therefore,
most of the grand events/undertakings in the area can probably be explained by
geopolitical motives and related military activities. I don't need to remind the
reader that the same overlaying set of rules applies to Bosnia even today, as it
did in her recent past (Dayton Accord 1995, Teheran Conference 1943, Berlin
Congress 1878), the most recent Kosovo-Bosnia connection - including the
1992-1995 aggression - being its latest manifestation as we speak... This is
also why in the above I use geopolitical maps only (to show that most of the
intermediate maps are unreliable), for geopolitics is "oberpolitics", with
everything else (including history) from Antiquity till today being nothing more
than its byproduct.
http://omerbashich.blogspot.com/
The
Illyrians-Bogomils-Bosniaks continuity is self-evident as the above finds
coincide with the settlements of today's Bosniaks (the Muslims of the Balkans).
Note ancient maps [above] corroborating the early Antiquity-Ottoman Empire
continuity too: there [left] you can see that, of the entire western Balkans,
only Bosnia was called Illyria (proper) with own Sea called Illyricum
Mare (part of a larger, Adriatic - Emperor Hadrian's Sea). It can be also
seen that during the whole time of their independence, Illyrians had a coast
from today's Dubrovnik to Šibenik. This simply continued (wasn't given to Bosnia
by anyone!) during the entire period of Middle Ages [right], after the Holy See
helped establish Kingdom of Bosnia just like many other European kingdoms that
Vatican designed so to replace the fallen Roman Empire with a kingdoms-padded
geopolitical shield protecting Rome for millennia to come - if you can't have
one huge empire any more, then have a number of loyal and small nonetheless
resilient states instead. Given that there are more than 200 scholastic theories
on why the Empire fell (meaning no one has a slightest clue as to why it
happened), it could also be that it never has fallen but was transformed (in the
above described manner) instead.
.
Contrary to common belief,
for the most part of their long history Illyrians/Bosnians had a strong fleet,
brave infantry, and able generals. As immediate neighbors of the Romans and
Greeks, they were enormously envied however. Therefore no Roman or Greek record
referred to the Illyrians in any other way except as "pirates", "thieves",
"barbarians", "rebels" or even "sclavs" and "serfs" (Lat. sclavo = Slav; serf =
servus = slave, later on 'exiled Russian slave'), both terms used by the Romans
as insult only, i.e., long before the 6th century when real Slav hordes began
attacking and committing mass murder of thousands of Illyrians at a time, always
careful not to encounter the Roman legions but only unarmed civilians (thus
"softening" the Roman defenses that semi-relied on non-Italian recruits in
Illyria and Thracia; before moving the border of civilizations westward to Drina
River and on). Probably, the insults were part of the first geopolitical game
ever played in the Antiquity, where both Rome and Greece played on the card of a
well-known geopolitical fact that your immediate neighbor is your enemy, and
that your immediate neighbor's neighbor is your natural ally. Similarly, later
on, in the 18th century, Serbian nationalists will claim that all "sclav" and
"serf" ever mentioned in the Antiquity were actually Serbs. (In the same
grabbing manner they simplistically and systematically translated all
appearances of 'Sclavoniae' in Latin texts, as 'Serbia(n)'.) Thus it's Serbian
relentless nationalism that makes it important to set the record straight -
today more than ever. Hence etymology of the word 'sclav' is completely
unrelated to what's contended, so Serbia's historians cannot claim Slavic
heritage from the ancient times for any of the peoples westward from the Drina,
just like Albanians cannot claim their exclusive, pure-Illyrian heritage either.
The real (and the only statistically significant) Slavs that exist in Bosnia
nowadays are the Bosnian Orthodox (self-styled "Bosnian Serbs" although most are
born in Bosnia) whose immediate ancestors (up to third knee) largely moved in
from Serbia and Croatia during the last ninety years or so, thanks to Austria's
and Serbia's administrations trying to Christianize the domestic Illyrian
population.
Contrary to common belief,
for the most part of their long history Illyrians/Bosnians had a strong fleet,
brave infantry, and able generals. As immediate neighbors of the Romans and
Greeks, they were enormously envied however. Therefore no Roman or Greek record
referred to the Illyrians in any other way except as "pirates", "thieves",
"barbarians", "rebels" or even "sclavs" and "serfs" (Lat. sclavo = Slav; serf =
servus = slave, later on 'exiled Russian slave'), both terms used by the Romans
as insult only, i.e., long before the 6th century when real Slav hordes began
attacking and committing mass murder of thousands of Illyrians at a time, always
careful not to encounter the Roman legions but only unarmed civilians (thus
"softening" the Roman defenses that semi-relied on non-Italian recruits in
Illyria and Thracia; before moving the border of civilizations westward to Drina
River and on). Probably, the insults were part of the first geopolitical game
ever played in the Antiquity, where both Rome and Greece played on the card of a
well-known geopolitical fact that your immediate neighbor is your enemy, and
that your immediate neighbor's neighbor is your natural ally. Similarly, later
on, in the 18th century, Serbian nationalists will claim that all "sclav" and
"serf" ever mentioned in the Antiquity were actually Serbs. (In the same
grabbing manner they simplistically and systematically translated all
appearances of 'Sclavoniae' in Latin texts, as 'Serbia(n)'.) Thus it's Serbian
relentless nationalism that makes it important to set the record straight -
today more than ever. Hence etymology of the word 'sclav' is completely
unrelated to what's contended, so Serbia's historians cannot claim Slavic
heritage from the ancient times for any of the peoples westward from the Drina,
just like Albanians cannot claim their exclusive, pure-Illyrian heritage either.
The real (and the only statistically significant) Slavs that exist in Bosnia
nowadays are the Bosnian Orthodox (self-styled "Bosnian Serbs" although most are
born in Bosnia) whose immediate ancestors (up to third knee) largely moved in
from Serbia and Croatia during the last ninety years or so, thanks to Austria's
and Serbia's administrations trying to Christianize the domestic Illyrian
population.
.
No wonder
both (and only) the Serbian and Albanian schools largely dismiss Wilkes (thus
giving him an enormous credibility), for Wilkes says it's hard to believe
Bosnian-Illyrian tribes were "Romanized", "Hellenized", etc. This however is
what the Serbian school needs desperately so that they too can claim that the
same tribes had been also "Slavicized" after the fall of the Western Roman
Empire and into the Mid Ages. Everyday experience however teaches us that
assimilation of entire peoples/tribes under occupation is practically
impossible, and can instead be expected to occur only in individuals moving to a
foreign land. The maximum extent to which assimilation is able to get is already
known from everyday life, the best example being our present-day diaspora: our
refugees who got entirely surrounded by foreign language adopt that language as
quickly as by 2nd generation. On the other hand, an occupation is an occupation
is... then as nowadays - take for instance the Ottoman occupation of Bosnia
(1527-1878) during which time Bosnians acquired only religion from their
occupationists, but not their culture, tradition, or language for that matter.
It has been suggested that Bosnians had attained language from the Slavs, and
religion from the Turks,
but it's a fact that they had never adopted both
from the both. This arbitrariness is an important circumstantial evidence that
"Romanization", "Hellenization", "Slavization", "Turkization", or
"Germanization" were all practically impossible in Bosnia! Finally, if such
"izations" were at all possible, why is it that the Bosnians adopted neither
religion nor language from the Austrian occupationists too? The relatively
shorter duration of that occupation compared to the other two occupations cannot
be the answer because say the Roman occupation had lasted much longer than any
other, yet most of the Illyrians-Bosnians had adopted neither Latin language nor
Catholic religion, not to mention Roman culture, art or tradition.
but it's a fact that they had never adopted both
from the both. This arbitrariness is an important circumstantial evidence that
"Romanization", "Hellenization", "Slavization", "Turkization", or
"Germanization" were all practically impossible in Bosnia! Finally, if such
"izations" were at all possible, why is it that the Bosnians adopted neither
religion nor language from the Austrian occupationists too? The relatively
shorter duration of that occupation compared to the other two occupations cannot
be the answer because say the Roman occupation had lasted much longer than any
other, yet most of the Illyrians-Bosnians had adopted neither Latin language nor
Catholic religion, not to mention Roman culture, art or tradition.
.
Also,
as Wilkes suggests, given the military mindedness of the Illyrians [royal armor
shown above, soldier's armor on the left], as well as their vigilance and
resistance to numerous conquerors through ages, it can be said with high
certainty that today's Bosnians [Bosnian Muslims and Catholics] are direct
descendants of the Illyrians who never "disappeared" or "got assimilated". Add
to this the non-stop putting-down of Bosnians (via jokes akin of those on
"slow-witted" Illyrians) that continues to this day and is mostly favored in
Serbia and Croatia (same as in Greece and Rome a few millennia ago). Namely,
this is an anecdotal evidence for validity of the Bosnia-centered theory of
Illyria. Be it noted at the end that authenticity of many intermediate maps
(produced in times before or after the maps showed above) can also be
questioned, as such maps mostly come from Serbian (and to a lesser extent
Croatian, albeit not less confused and not less nationalist-chauvinist) sources.
Therefore it'd be useful to deliberately dispute all Serbian and Croatian
historical references (sources, maps, analyses) on ancient and medieval Bosnia,
at least until the time tells the true science from nationalist-driven
(geo)politics. Unfortunately, history of Europe is history of war, even more so
in case of the Balkans, and even more so still in case of Bosnia. Therefore,
most of the grand events/undertakings in the area can probably be explained by
geopolitical motives and related military activities. I don't need to remind the
reader that the same overlaying set of rules applies to Bosnia even today, as it
did in her recent past (Dayton Accord 1995, Teheran Conference 1943, Berlin
Congress 1878), the most recent Kosovo-Bosnia connection - including the
1992-1995 aggression - being its latest manifestation as we speak... This is
also why in the above I use geopolitical maps only (to show that most of the
intermediate maps are unreliable), for geopolitics is "oberpolitics", with
everything else (including history) from Antiquity till today being nothing more
than its byproduct.http://omerbashich.blogspot.com/
