dimitrije
05-19-2006, 02:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avars? Huns? Croats?
by Slobodan Jarčević
While attempting to explain the roots of their nation, Croatian intellectuals have aroused curiosity among all those who cannot solve the enigma of the rise of Croatian state which was based on the bloodshed of nearby Serbs from whom the Croats have even borrowed their language. Not a small number of researchers have attempted to explain the Croatian hostility and hounding of Serbs by pointing to their non-Slavic origins. Even the Croatian historians - regardless of whether they are fond of the Gothic theory of Croatian origin or the Iranian theory - gladly claim that the Croats are not a people whose roots are Slavic. So is the Croatian behavior toward Serbs only a question of political motives, or is there some kind of sub-conscious necessity quite frequent in the phenomenon known as “narcissism of small proportions”?
It really is not difficult to see that the evil aimed at Serbs has its origin in the bosoms of Croatian nation even though we cannot discount the role of great European powers (in this frenzy) which is best expressed in the thoughts of one Benjamin Kalay: “Croatian expansion in this hour cannot be dangerous for Austria-Hungary so long as it is of damage to Serbs. This expansion is useful for us - not only are we going to disunite South Slavs but we will also have a free hand in further destabilization of Balkans.”
If we are to suggest that the proto-cause of these hostilities could be a national redefinition then those who are in search of the oldest national and racial characteristic of Croatian people are correct. Even many well known Croats have attempted to prove that their people had some other origin, and not a Slavonic one. They fanatically supported theories of non-Slavic origins at times, and these theories were often at the forefront of their partisan or governmental policies.
During 19th century, as well as during the existence of Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945), Croats claimed that their origins were Gothic (people who are accepted to be Germanic). Of course, there are also suggestions of Iranian origin, such as those of Dominik Mandić, different theories on slavinization of Croats during their migration across Asia, Eastern Europe and Balkans; of an ancient Croatian state in present day Germany, Czech Republic, Poland…etc.
It is interesting how Croats often deny that they belong to the Slavic group of people even when they are not attempting to prove their theories of Gothic or Iranian origins. Whether this denial is a political goal or perhaps slavery to some subconscious need is difficult to determine. The importance of this orientation is that it is enthroned in (consciously or not) and that it has found its place in the encyclopedic entries of Croatian nation. According to them, Balkans was “settled by Croats and Slavs”. Serbs are stringently left out. If there is a mention of Slavs, they are quickly replaced by Croats. This “truth” about two different peoples (Croatian and Slavic) has been flowing out of the encyclopedias of Croatian educational and cultural books. And so Slavko Goldstein, in his work “Croatian early medieval period”, stated:
“Much of the data that would enable us to describe and explain in greater detail the processes which took place after the Croats and Slavs settled these parts is missing. But if we possessed it, it would be of high importance for us to ask and later discover how the newly arrived Slavs and Croats behaved.”
Intentional or Unintentional Denial of Slavdom
Modern Croatian historian Dragutin Pavličić not only excludes Serbs but also Slavs from these parts, and bestows these vast lands to Croats alone:
“The Croats have settled, among other lands, the southern parts between the Cetina and Neretva Rivers, which they named ‘Pagania’, and these parts were populated by Neretvljans. From Neretva River to Dubrovnik there was a region called Zahumlje: from Dubrovnik to Kotor including Konavli there was Travuniya, further to the south Duklja and in the background Bosnia. The populace of all these regions would soon, just as other Croats did, convert to Christianity and turn towards the West.”
Even the father of Croatian state, Ante Starčević, stubbornly proclaimed the Croatian separation not just from Serbs but from Slavs as well:
“Who cannot see that the words Slav and Serb are the same in meaning, for both of those words can replace the word ‘foreign’… The Croatian people view that Slavo-serbian blood as foreign: the Croatian people will not stand by as these foreign people defile the holy land of Croats.”
The extent to which Croatian academics deny kinship of Croatian people with Serbs can be seen in the title of a historic work by Dr. Dominik Mandić (released in Zagreb, 1990 by the Croatian Motherland): “Croats and Serbs – two different ancient nations”.
The Croatian “half-saint”, Cardinal Dr. Alojzije Stepinac shares Mandić’s beliefs. In his “Dnevnik IV”, he stated that Serbs and Croats are not related:
“…and once again, the fact that Serbs and Croats are two different worlds has seen the light of day, two different peoples who will never unite as long as one of them lives.”
All these attitudes are engraved in texts of Ante Pavelić (leader of the Croatian state during WWII):
“There never existed some general Slavic consciousness in the wide segments of Croatian people which we could compare to the national consciousness of Croats. These segments do not feel that they are a part of Slavdom, and have separated Slavdom according to their feelings as something that is foreign and dangerous. The foreign and dangerous Slavic (and South Slavic) movement that emerged during 19th century was led by Prague, Moscow and Belgrade. This irrefutable fact can provide us with further proof that Croats are not of Slavic but of Gothic origins – a claim that has already been discussed seriously.”
Croats Not Mentioned in the Old Documents
Maybe the above mentioned Croatian stance - which states that Croats of medieval period were not Slavs - should be looked into. If we are to carefully examine the old documents which first mention the Serbs and Croats, they will easily reveal that the mentioned conclusions of Croatian academics about non-Slavic origins of Croats could be true.
We begin with the analysis of one of medieval documents that mention Serbs. That document is “The Frankish Chronicles”, or “Einhard’s Memorials” from the beginning of 9th century. In this document there is a mention of territories which stretch from the Adriatic coastline to Drava River (just south of present-day Hungary), but no where can one find people who bear the Croatian name. There is not anything about a Croatian state either. The lands that are mentioned are Dalmatia and Slavonia; when it comes to their inhabitants, Serbs, Gudušćans, Timočans, other Slavic tribes as well as Avars are mentioned. Dalmatia, the document states, is exclusively populated by Serbs.
Let us now examine the words of Professor Relja Novaković about this priceless historical testimony:
“Descriptions of events just before the beginning of Ludevits uprising, Einhard states how envoys arrived to Heristal in 818, at that time the residence of Frankish King Ludwig, among whom was Borna – a person who was without a doubt determined by historians as the Prince of Coastal Croatia, even though they did not ask themselves whether it was even possible for a Prince of Coastal Croatia to find himself at Heristal back then. The question that is asked is why did the wise Einhard, who described the events of his time with so much detail, name Borna as the Prince of Guduskans and not a Prince of Croats? He mentions the envoys of Abordits, Guduskans, Timočans and Ludevit the Slavonian, but there is not a mention of Croats in that, in my opinion, strangely important place.”
Professor Relja Novaković reasonably states that Prince Borna could not have had any ties to Croatia, especially not to the one which leaned on the Adriatic Sea:
“If Borna’s land was a part of Croatia, it would not be possible for Einhard not to call him a Croatian prince, because that Croatia (which would stretch to Cetina and Livno in the south) would be a great and powerful land at that time, and Ludwig of Heristal would make sure that there was a Croatian prince among many others… ”
According to Professor Novaković, among the envoys who were with the Frankish king in Heristal during 818, there is not a mention of Serb representatives either, but Einhard states that Ludevit at one time escaped from Serbs and wrested away a part of their territory in Dalmatia (at that time Dalmatia stretched from Adriatic coast to Sava River – a present-day boundary between Croatia and Bosnia). The mentioned Borna, from 818 to 821, managed to move up from being a “voiovod of Guduskans”, to “voivod of Dalmatia”, and finally to “voivod of Dalmatia and Liburnia”. However, once again there is no mention of Croatian lands and Croats, and so Professor Relja Novaković brings forth theses only about lands which could have been ruled by Borna and the possible stance of Serbs towards those lands:
”I would say that the answer could contain only two suggestions. One is that the Einhard’s Serbs were located in the same region which was ruled by Borna, but only as a less important, smaller group. The second, a more realistic one, is that the Serbs as an ethnic group lived not far from Borna’s land, out of the sphere of Frankish influence most likely under the Byzantine administration or perhaps maybe as an independent people and so they were not invited to send representatives to the Frankish court.”
Franjo Rački’s Forgeries
Svetislav M. Prvanović comes up with more specific conclusions when it comes to Borna, stating that Franjo Rački falsified “Einhard’s Memorials” and with that created confusion in history:
“The oldest mention of Borna can be found in the writing of Einhard, the most famous chronicler at the Frankish court. He notes that two Slavic delegations came before the Emperor in 818 complaining about Bulgarians. Einhard continues by saying that they were delegations of ‘Braničevans and Borna, the prince of Gudušćans and Timočans who not so long ago dissolved their alliance with Bulgarians and as a result were forced to flee into our lands.’” Prvanović continues:
“Einhard’s information, in the way it is cited, is very clear. One delegation represented Braničevans while the other came in the name of Borna – the prince of both Guduščans and Timočans who not long ago migrated into regions under Frankish rule due to the conflict with Bulgarians. Rački went on to conclude that Guduščans were in fact Gačans – a small tribe north of Lika (Dalmatia) who could not have had neither close relations nor a common prince due to geographic distance. He edited the Latin text, changing its meaning by placing a comma after the word ‘Guduščans’. Rački separated Borna and Guduščans not only from Timočans who were their neighbors, but from the deeper Latin context as well which resulted in dissection of its integrity. The new meaning was that three delegations went before the Emperor instead of two: first of them being the Abordit delegation, the so-called Bodrićans or Braničevans who lived east of the Velika Morava delta (Serbia); second – the delegation of Borna, the prince of Gudušćans, or the Croatian Gačans, and third – the delegation of Timočans who fled from Bulgarians and settled the Frankish lands.”
The Confused Croatian Academics
To prove that Guduščans did not live on territory of present-day Croatia but that they were from eastern Serbia, Svetislav Prvanović calls on 19th century ethnographers Pavle Šafarik and Vladimir Karić who find them around Timok (north-eastern Serbia) and Danube River.
Had Croatian academics only committed a mistake about Guduščans being from north Lika and not from north-eastern Serbia, one could say that they were deceived by the conclusion of Franjo Rački and so we could not find fault with them – that is, if the Prvanović’s claim that Rački forged the “Frankish Chronicles” is true. We have seen that not even the cautious professor Relja Novaković had found any mention of Croats and Croatian state in this Frankish document, and he himself questions whether the comma behind the word ‘Guduščans’ should be there or not. Even though he does not take sides when it comes to this issue, Novaković mentions the work of Svetislav Prvanović on prince Borna. Hence the latter Croatian academics will not only take the stance of Franjo Rački, but will create an even greater confusion when it comes to the “Frankish Chronicles”.
They tried hard to present Borna as a Croatian ruler, and his land as a Croatian land which leans on the Adriatic coast. Due to that, Borna’s state is called ‘Coastal Dalmatia’ or ‘Coastal Croatia’. Even if we were to forget about their usage of Croatian national and territorial symbols (because they have no source which would tell them that the above mentioned lands used those symbols), we cannot be silent about the fact that they are placing Borna’s state on the Adriatic coast. Borna was a vassal of the Frankish Empire, no doubt about it, but this empire could not have had any possessions (not even vassal possessions) around the Adriatic Sea because according to the Peace Treaty of Aachen (812), the border of influence between the Frankish Empire and Eastern Roman Empire was drawn from Istria to the peaks of Velebit Mt., alongside Serbian lands, Livno, Imotski and finally to Pelješac.
Therefore, the Frankish possessions under the control of vassal Borna could have been located only north of this line, and so there is no possibility for them to stretch all the way to the Adriatic Sea. This simple logic (or the contents of a historical document) when it comes to the lack of mention of Croats, not on the coast, nor in Slavonia, did not prevent Croatian academics from stating the next about “Ludevit the Slavonian” in “The Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia” – Yugoslavian Lexicographer Institute of Zagreb, book 3, 1962, page 577:
“Ludevit the Slavonian, the prince of Slavonian Croatia (817-823). At the time when the sources first started to mention him, the whole of Croatia was under the Frankish sovereignty.”
There is no mention about the sovereignty (or the sphere of interests) of Eastern Roman Empire, but Slavonia is called ‘Slavonian Croatia’, although we know that Slavonia, which was under the rule of Austrian crown up until 19th century was a separate kingdom from Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia.
Stupidities in Encyclopedia
Croatian encyclopedists are not concerned with historical documents. Those documents do not even mention Croatia and Croats, as in the case of the “Frankish Chronicles”, but they are persistent in croatianization of those documents and so this encyclopedic entry states:
“Even though the Frankish reports undoubtly exaggerate the scale of Ludevit’s uprising, it was still a movement of wider proportions in which there were, alongside Croats between Gvozd and Drava River, lower-slavic Slovenians and Timočans – a Slavic tribe which seceded from Bulgarians and joined Ludevit.”
A real confusion is created by the writer of this entry as well since his Dalmatia, where Borna rules, is at times a Frankish possession and at other times a Byzantine possession:
“In his struggle against Franks, Ludevit’s entry into the lands of prince Borna cost him 3,000 men and more than 300 horses (according to the Frankish report) in the beginning alone. He was in even more difficult position when the Dalmatian Croats did not join him. The causes for Borna’s protection of Frankish interests can be found in the political environment of the Adriatic coastline after the Peace of Aachen (812): from then on the Dalmatian Croats had to rely on Franks since Dalmatia was a Byzantine theme, and as a foreign body, it closed off access to the Adriatic for Croats.”
It is clear that Borna was a Frankish vassal, but if Dalmatia was a Byzantine theme, Borna could not have ruled it. This means that the first sentence of this encyclopedic entry (cited above in ‘The Confusion of Croatian Academics’) cannot be true because it states that the “whole of Croatia was under the Frankish sovereignty”.
And the response of Croatian encyclopedists to the fact that “Frankish Chronicles” mention Serbs in Dalmatia can be seen by their explanation of a sentence about Ludevit’s escape from Sisak “to Serbs, a tribe (they say) which rules a big part of Dalmatia”. Encyclopedists think of it as of some Serbian oasis:
“It is probably referring to the present-day Srb which was the center of a separate tribal region.”
We can see that this ‘explanation’ does not precisely say whether this could be one of many tribal regions, but it suggests that there is a region where Serbs rule on the “Croatian land”. The fact that this Croatian encyclopedist admitted this minimum to the Serbs – that there was (only one) Serbian-ruled region in Dalmatia during 9th century – invalidates other encyclopedic entries, and volumes of books, newspapers and schoolbooks in Croatia, that deny the existence of Serbs on “Croatian land” before the Turkish conquest of Balkans in 15th century. It must be that the writer of this entry was clear (at least subconsciously) with the fact that the Serbian-administered region in Dalmatia destroyed important pillars of Croatian historiography since his encyclopedic entry about Ludevit the Slavonian ended rather quickly. Because Ludevit’s escape “to Serbs in Dalmatia” resulted in him killing Prince Vladislav, Ludevit himself was killed by Vladislav’s uncle Ljudemisal… Ljudemisal in turn succeeded Borna. If Ljudemisal was a Serb, his nephew Vladislav was most likely a Serb as well, or at least, he was the son of a Serbian woman – Ljudemisal’s sister.
Where Have the Avars of Croatia Vanished?
The Frankish ruler Charlemagne invaded Panonia (present-day northern Serbia and surrounding areas) in 791 and that is when he established the Avar currency. Later on, when the populace of Panonia was converted to Christianity (805 A.D.), Slavs forced the Avar kagan Sabarian to convert to Christianity and change his name to a Christian one – Theodor. The presence of Avars in Panonia at that time offers a possibility to remove doubts when it comes to the fact that the “Frankish Chronicles” do not mention either Croats or Croatian lands at the Assembly of Heristal in 818.
The answer to this ‘omission’ can perhaps be found in the further reading of “Frankish Chronicles” – the part which describes the Assembly of Frankfurt, held 4 years later in 822. Einhard states that the following peoples were represented in the Assembly: Abordits, Sorabs, Vilacs, Bohemians, Moravians, Predenecentians and Avars. It can be seen that Einhard records Serbs (‘Sorabs’) earlier as the populace of Dalmatia, and once again, fails to mention Croats. However, he does mention Avars among other representatives who attended the Assembly.
Even though professor Novakovic does not explain why Croats are not mentioned in those two Assemblies held by the Frankish Emperor, it is possible that the reason could be that the invitation to attend was given to Avars. This document contains information about the time during which its creator (Einhard) lived, which is why it is much more trustworthy than say the texts of Emperor Profigenitus who described the events that unfolded 200 or 300 hundred years before he was born. One can now ask the question, how is it that Einhard does not mention Croats in the 9th century, while Emperor Profigenitus does so in the 10th century?
We can assume that Croats as a nation were still forming during 9th century and that the non-Slavic tribes were a significant numerical addition to them. Among them were Avars as well, often mentioned by Einhard. It is possible that Avars were invited to the Assembly of Frankfurt (822) as representatives of that mixture of peoples, who will later adopt a common name – Croats. Historians state that the first mention of Croats was in 852, and that there is no mention of Avars in the lands of medieval south-slavic states ever since then. It is not difficult to suggest that the name “Croat” could have replaced Avar, Hunnic, as well as other non-Slavic and Slavic names.
How Avars found themselves in the Lands of South Slavs
Our schoolbooks contain many texts about Avar-Slavic alliance in a war against Eastern Roman Empire. According to those texts, Avars and Slavs crossed Sava and Danube Rivers, plundering the Roman provinces in Balkans, taking over larger cities including Thessaloniki and Constantinople. However, the French historian Francis Cont has found Greek documents which give no mention of Avar-Slav alliance in a war against Byzantines. Those documents state that the military alliance was negotiated between Byzantine Empire and Avars against Slavs in Thrace (6th century A.D.). This document was written by a Greek historian Menander:
“In the fourth year of Emperor Tiberius’ rule (581), around 100,000 Slavs devastated Thrace and many other provinces… Tiberius did not have enough manpower to oppose the Slavs and Avars. He sent a delegation to the Avar prince Bayan who at that time had no hostility against Byzantines. Under those circumstances, Tiberius pushed him into conflict with Slavs. Sixty thousand armoured Avar horsemen crossed Illyria, Schythia (at that time a region between lower Danube and Black Sea), and finally Danube River – with boats built in such a way that transport was possible in both directions. As soon as Avars landed on the other side of Danube, they started burning down Slavic villages, destroying them to their foundations and setting the fields on fire: every living soul fled into the thick forests.”
Francis Cont finds that Slavs were in south-eastern Europe even before 6th century:
“During the first centuries of new era, Romans reported sightings of Slavs on the eastern borders of the Empire; from Northern to Black Sea, from Germania to Thrace, alongside the whole flow of Danube River.”
In “The History of Goths”, historian Jordanes (7th century) writes:
“Sklavines can be found everywhere from the city of Noviyetun (south of present-day Ljubljana) to the lake of Mursyanskiy…”
Francis Cont will mention a document of Constantinople’s Patriarch Nikolay III (1084-1111) as well. This document states that Slavs ruled the entire Peloponnesus ever since Emperor Tiberius signed the military alliance with Avars against Slavs. Patriarch writes to the Emperor Alexis I Komnin: “A Roman foot has not ventured into Peloponnesus for two-hundred and eighteen years….” Francis Cont also sites the preserved Greek “Monemvasic Chronicles”, a document which once again states that Slavs ruled Peloponnesus for 218 years, from 587 to 805 C.E., and have dominated some of its parts up until 950.
Professor Novaković’s Information
The presence of Slavs (Serbs) in south-eastern Europe and present-day Romania is even older. Professor Relja Novaković has provided some input when it comes to that. He cites the Greek historians who discuss warfare between two rulers of Roman Empire –Constantine the Great and Licinius (325 C.E.). It was written in those documents that Licinius was a Serb and that he received military aid from Serbs of Carpathian Mountains.
Prof. Novaković presents us with the Christianization of Serbs in Balkans when he says that Bishop Nicetus spread Christianity “among wild Serbs” in Remeziana (present-day Bela Palanka) at the end of 4th century and in the beginning of 5th century.
The Slavic presence on Balkan Peninsula is mentioned even in the 5th century B.C.E. in a document written by the father of history, Herodotus. He stated that the Illyrians are Slavs and it is truly baffling that nobody is giving any weight to this claim. If we know that Veneti (Venedi, Vends, Vindi) are Slavs and that Germans even to this day call Poles, Czechs, Ukranians, Moravians, Slovakians and Lusatian Serbs by that name, then there is no reason for us not to believe Herodotus. This is what he wrote while speaking about Armenian traditions:
“…And these were their traditions. I believe that this next practice is the most intelligent one; the same practice, I hear, exists within the Illyrian tribe Veneti as well…”
There is much information about the Slavs in Balkans and central Europe, and upon examination of Herodotus’ texts, one could say that Illyrians were Slavs. With that in mind we can conclude that Slavs are the original people of Balkan Peninsula. Present-day Serbs know that they are Slavs, and so no one has the right to accuse them of having settled ‘foreign territory’.
Croats settled Serbian land
Avars, Huns, Ugars, Bulgars and Croats have arrived from some place to settle the Slavic lands. Croats have not yet decided whether they will see their nation within the Slavic group of people or outside of it. Their historians and other well-known personalities prefer to distance themselves from Slavdom. Among those whom we have cited and innumerable others for whom it is impossible to be cited in this article, it is our duty to mention a few more whose opinions could lead us to the conclusion that the first core of Croatian nation was not Slavic, but possibly Avar.
A well-known Croatian historian Niko Županić wrote in his “The First Croats” the following:
“I believe that the first Croats were not Slavs but a foreign people from Asian Sarmatia, who in the Great Migration of Peoples found themselves in Transcarpathian Slavic homeland, and having absorbed a certain number of people from other tribes they started calling themselves Croats.”
Nada Klaić, a historian, finds that Avars made up a rather big part of the first Croatian populations:
“Croats found Avars in possession of that province (Dalmatia). After they engaged in wars against one another for some time, Croats triumphed and slaughtered some of Avars while forcing others to assimilate. From then on, that province was ruled by Croats. One can find descendants of Avars in Croatia even to this day.” (Note: She is of course ignoring Einhard and other historians who mention Serbs as the rulers of Dalmatia.)
To add to this Avar-Croat connection, it can be said that many Croats were named “Bayan”; the name of Avar kagan who formed an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Tiberius (581) in order to wage war against Slavs in Thrace.
Right before WWII, Dr. Mladen Lorković (minister of foreign affairs in the so-called “Independent State of Croatia”) denied the Slavic origins of Croats in the book “The Nation and State of Croats” (“Narod i zemlja Hrvata” in Serbian/Croatian):
“The whole Croatian history can be understood only if one makes an assumption that the ruling Croats were a non-Slavic segment who incased and organized the Slavic masses.”
“Hrvatski list”, a Croatian newspaper, was also concerned with Croatian history, and so the April 14th, 1939 number discussed the origins of the name “Croat”:
“Having arrived to Europe, Hu-ur-vathi together with Huns ruled an old Slavonic population(s) with whom they merged into one, and imposed their name on them even though they were a minority.” (Note: Croat is written “Hrvat” in Serbian/Croatian which is why I am not altering the name this newspaper used - “Hu-ur-vath”.)
The Imposition of Croatian Identity
Having in mind that we are witnessing the imposition of everything ‘Croatian’ on Serbs and other nationalities in Balkans and central Europe during the last two centuries, then it cannot be unreasonable for us to state that such behavior could have begun in the 9th century. After all, that is when every trace of Avars suddenly disappears in the historical documents, and there is an appearance of people who call themselves Croats. That is exactly what the Croatian newspaper “Hrvatski List” claims in 1939.
The appearance of such will to assimilate, which was followed by intolerance against other nations and which was dictated by big European powers and Vatican, was noticed by a Slavic historian – a Catholic priest Matija Katančić (1750-1825):
“You will finally be convinced that the Croatian identity has been propagated in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Serbia, but the Illyrian people of these mentioned parts never call themselves by this name.” This is what he said about Serbian language:
“Bosnian-Dalmatian/Serbian language is characterized by clarity and elegance.”
He will also claim that Dalmatians, Bosnians and Slavonians are of the same ethnic structure as Serbs are and that these people are profoundly different ethnically from Croats. Furthermore, Katančić will state that the imposition of Croatian identity in those regions was done through Austro-Hungarian pressure even though the populace did not see itself as belonging to Croatian nation.
Another Catholic priest, Franje Jukić, will note that the Catholics of Bosnia & Herzegovina during 19th century do not know what the word ‘Croat’ means, let alone that they see themselves as Croats. However, the gradual change brought on by the big powers and Vatican will (eventually) create out of Serbian Catholics in Bosnia the most fanatical Croats in 20th century.
Historian Jeremija Mitrović will dedicate himself to this phenomena and he will precisely describe what Croatdom is:
“Vatican has in general proclaimed the converted Croats and some receptive Serbs as a part of one nation – a Croatian nation. Thus it managed to create one strong Catholic-Croat system in the western parts of Balkans which in turn was time and time again stubbornly aimed against Serbs.”
A resident of Dubrovnik, Lujo Vojinović, wrote a piece in publication “Vreme” on January 30th, 1938 protesting croatianization of Rudjer Bošković, Ivan Gundulić and all of Dubrovnik and its Serbian past:
“Let us openly say that we are tired of this misuse of the name Croat and Croatian; this misuse does not come out of people’s will, but out of certain elements who with incredibly clever propaganda (a powerful hypnosis) are using the infinite harmlessness of the Croat masses in order to turn them away from necessities of life, injecting their veins with poisonous frenzy, madness.”
This Croatian frenzy or madness (let’s not even mention the genocide during WWII and the expulsions of Serbs from their lands from 1991-1995 in greater detail…) has led them to believe Austrians (1915) who promised that Croats would receive administrative powers over all conquered Serbian lands, and so Croats began dissecting Serbian history. Among other things, they have printed two books about Miloš Obilić and Marko Kraljević claiming them to be “Croatian national heroes”. (Note: It is well known to all that Miloš Obilić was a Serb, while Marko Kraljević was the son of a Serbian nobleman whose lands were in present-day south-western Macedonia, nowhere near Croatia and Croats.)
For example, one of them is titled: “The Heroic Narratives of National Hero Miloš Obilić – for Croatian youth”, printed in Križevci (1915) in the bookstore of Gustav Noyberg.
This article appeared in “Srpsko Nasleđe” publication, number 12 – December of 1998.
Avars? Huns? Croats?
by Slobodan Jarčević
While attempting to explain the roots of their nation, Croatian intellectuals have aroused curiosity among all those who cannot solve the enigma of the rise of Croatian state which was based on the bloodshed of nearby Serbs from whom the Croats have even borrowed their language. Not a small number of researchers have attempted to explain the Croatian hostility and hounding of Serbs by pointing to their non-Slavic origins. Even the Croatian historians - regardless of whether they are fond of the Gothic theory of Croatian origin or the Iranian theory - gladly claim that the Croats are not a people whose roots are Slavic. So is the Croatian behavior toward Serbs only a question of political motives, or is there some kind of sub-conscious necessity quite frequent in the phenomenon known as “narcissism of small proportions”?
It really is not difficult to see that the evil aimed at Serbs has its origin in the bosoms of Croatian nation even though we cannot discount the role of great European powers (in this frenzy) which is best expressed in the thoughts of one Benjamin Kalay: “Croatian expansion in this hour cannot be dangerous for Austria-Hungary so long as it is of damage to Serbs. This expansion is useful for us - not only are we going to disunite South Slavs but we will also have a free hand in further destabilization of Balkans.”
If we are to suggest that the proto-cause of these hostilities could be a national redefinition then those who are in search of the oldest national and racial characteristic of Croatian people are correct. Even many well known Croats have attempted to prove that their people had some other origin, and not a Slavonic one. They fanatically supported theories of non-Slavic origins at times, and these theories were often at the forefront of their partisan or governmental policies.
During 19th century, as well as during the existence of Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945), Croats claimed that their origins were Gothic (people who are accepted to be Germanic). Of course, there are also suggestions of Iranian origin, such as those of Dominik Mandić, different theories on slavinization of Croats during their migration across Asia, Eastern Europe and Balkans; of an ancient Croatian state in present day Germany, Czech Republic, Poland…etc.
It is interesting how Croats often deny that they belong to the Slavic group of people even when they are not attempting to prove their theories of Gothic or Iranian origins. Whether this denial is a political goal or perhaps slavery to some subconscious need is difficult to determine. The importance of this orientation is that it is enthroned in (consciously or not) and that it has found its place in the encyclopedic entries of Croatian nation. According to them, Balkans was “settled by Croats and Slavs”. Serbs are stringently left out. If there is a mention of Slavs, they are quickly replaced by Croats. This “truth” about two different peoples (Croatian and Slavic) has been flowing out of the encyclopedias of Croatian educational and cultural books. And so Slavko Goldstein, in his work “Croatian early medieval period”, stated:
“Much of the data that would enable us to describe and explain in greater detail the processes which took place after the Croats and Slavs settled these parts is missing. But if we possessed it, it would be of high importance for us to ask and later discover how the newly arrived Slavs and Croats behaved.”
Intentional or Unintentional Denial of Slavdom
Modern Croatian historian Dragutin Pavličić not only excludes Serbs but also Slavs from these parts, and bestows these vast lands to Croats alone:
“The Croats have settled, among other lands, the southern parts between the Cetina and Neretva Rivers, which they named ‘Pagania’, and these parts were populated by Neretvljans. From Neretva River to Dubrovnik there was a region called Zahumlje: from Dubrovnik to Kotor including Konavli there was Travuniya, further to the south Duklja and in the background Bosnia. The populace of all these regions would soon, just as other Croats did, convert to Christianity and turn towards the West.”
Even the father of Croatian state, Ante Starčević, stubbornly proclaimed the Croatian separation not just from Serbs but from Slavs as well:
“Who cannot see that the words Slav and Serb are the same in meaning, for both of those words can replace the word ‘foreign’… The Croatian people view that Slavo-serbian blood as foreign: the Croatian people will not stand by as these foreign people defile the holy land of Croats.”
The extent to which Croatian academics deny kinship of Croatian people with Serbs can be seen in the title of a historic work by Dr. Dominik Mandić (released in Zagreb, 1990 by the Croatian Motherland): “Croats and Serbs – two different ancient nations”.
The Croatian “half-saint”, Cardinal Dr. Alojzije Stepinac shares Mandić’s beliefs. In his “Dnevnik IV”, he stated that Serbs and Croats are not related:
“…and once again, the fact that Serbs and Croats are two different worlds has seen the light of day, two different peoples who will never unite as long as one of them lives.”
All these attitudes are engraved in texts of Ante Pavelić (leader of the Croatian state during WWII):
“There never existed some general Slavic consciousness in the wide segments of Croatian people which we could compare to the national consciousness of Croats. These segments do not feel that they are a part of Slavdom, and have separated Slavdom according to their feelings as something that is foreign and dangerous. The foreign and dangerous Slavic (and South Slavic) movement that emerged during 19th century was led by Prague, Moscow and Belgrade. This irrefutable fact can provide us with further proof that Croats are not of Slavic but of Gothic origins – a claim that has already been discussed seriously.”
Croats Not Mentioned in the Old Documents
Maybe the above mentioned Croatian stance - which states that Croats of medieval period were not Slavs - should be looked into. If we are to carefully examine the old documents which first mention the Serbs and Croats, they will easily reveal that the mentioned conclusions of Croatian academics about non-Slavic origins of Croats could be true.
We begin with the analysis of one of medieval documents that mention Serbs. That document is “The Frankish Chronicles”, or “Einhard’s Memorials” from the beginning of 9th century. In this document there is a mention of territories which stretch from the Adriatic coastline to Drava River (just south of present-day Hungary), but no where can one find people who bear the Croatian name. There is not anything about a Croatian state either. The lands that are mentioned are Dalmatia and Slavonia; when it comes to their inhabitants, Serbs, Gudušćans, Timočans, other Slavic tribes as well as Avars are mentioned. Dalmatia, the document states, is exclusively populated by Serbs.
Let us now examine the words of Professor Relja Novaković about this priceless historical testimony:
“Descriptions of events just before the beginning of Ludevits uprising, Einhard states how envoys arrived to Heristal in 818, at that time the residence of Frankish King Ludwig, among whom was Borna – a person who was without a doubt determined by historians as the Prince of Coastal Croatia, even though they did not ask themselves whether it was even possible for a Prince of Coastal Croatia to find himself at Heristal back then. The question that is asked is why did the wise Einhard, who described the events of his time with so much detail, name Borna as the Prince of Guduskans and not a Prince of Croats? He mentions the envoys of Abordits, Guduskans, Timočans and Ludevit the Slavonian, but there is not a mention of Croats in that, in my opinion, strangely important place.”
Professor Relja Novaković reasonably states that Prince Borna could not have had any ties to Croatia, especially not to the one which leaned on the Adriatic Sea:
“If Borna’s land was a part of Croatia, it would not be possible for Einhard not to call him a Croatian prince, because that Croatia (which would stretch to Cetina and Livno in the south) would be a great and powerful land at that time, and Ludwig of Heristal would make sure that there was a Croatian prince among many others… ”
According to Professor Novaković, among the envoys who were with the Frankish king in Heristal during 818, there is not a mention of Serb representatives either, but Einhard states that Ludevit at one time escaped from Serbs and wrested away a part of their territory in Dalmatia (at that time Dalmatia stretched from Adriatic coast to Sava River – a present-day boundary between Croatia and Bosnia). The mentioned Borna, from 818 to 821, managed to move up from being a “voiovod of Guduskans”, to “voivod of Dalmatia”, and finally to “voivod of Dalmatia and Liburnia”. However, once again there is no mention of Croatian lands and Croats, and so Professor Relja Novaković brings forth theses only about lands which could have been ruled by Borna and the possible stance of Serbs towards those lands:
”I would say that the answer could contain only two suggestions. One is that the Einhard’s Serbs were located in the same region which was ruled by Borna, but only as a less important, smaller group. The second, a more realistic one, is that the Serbs as an ethnic group lived not far from Borna’s land, out of the sphere of Frankish influence most likely under the Byzantine administration or perhaps maybe as an independent people and so they were not invited to send representatives to the Frankish court.”
Franjo Rački’s Forgeries
Svetislav M. Prvanović comes up with more specific conclusions when it comes to Borna, stating that Franjo Rački falsified “Einhard’s Memorials” and with that created confusion in history:
“The oldest mention of Borna can be found in the writing of Einhard, the most famous chronicler at the Frankish court. He notes that two Slavic delegations came before the Emperor in 818 complaining about Bulgarians. Einhard continues by saying that they were delegations of ‘Braničevans and Borna, the prince of Gudušćans and Timočans who not so long ago dissolved their alliance with Bulgarians and as a result were forced to flee into our lands.’” Prvanović continues:
“Einhard’s information, in the way it is cited, is very clear. One delegation represented Braničevans while the other came in the name of Borna – the prince of both Guduščans and Timočans who not long ago migrated into regions under Frankish rule due to the conflict with Bulgarians. Rački went on to conclude that Guduščans were in fact Gačans – a small tribe north of Lika (Dalmatia) who could not have had neither close relations nor a common prince due to geographic distance. He edited the Latin text, changing its meaning by placing a comma after the word ‘Guduščans’. Rački separated Borna and Guduščans not only from Timočans who were their neighbors, but from the deeper Latin context as well which resulted in dissection of its integrity. The new meaning was that three delegations went before the Emperor instead of two: first of them being the Abordit delegation, the so-called Bodrićans or Braničevans who lived east of the Velika Morava delta (Serbia); second – the delegation of Borna, the prince of Gudušćans, or the Croatian Gačans, and third – the delegation of Timočans who fled from Bulgarians and settled the Frankish lands.”
The Confused Croatian Academics
To prove that Guduščans did not live on territory of present-day Croatia but that they were from eastern Serbia, Svetislav Prvanović calls on 19th century ethnographers Pavle Šafarik and Vladimir Karić who find them around Timok (north-eastern Serbia) and Danube River.
Had Croatian academics only committed a mistake about Guduščans being from north Lika and not from north-eastern Serbia, one could say that they were deceived by the conclusion of Franjo Rački and so we could not find fault with them – that is, if the Prvanović’s claim that Rački forged the “Frankish Chronicles” is true. We have seen that not even the cautious professor Relja Novaković had found any mention of Croats and Croatian state in this Frankish document, and he himself questions whether the comma behind the word ‘Guduščans’ should be there or not. Even though he does not take sides when it comes to this issue, Novaković mentions the work of Svetislav Prvanović on prince Borna. Hence the latter Croatian academics will not only take the stance of Franjo Rački, but will create an even greater confusion when it comes to the “Frankish Chronicles”.
They tried hard to present Borna as a Croatian ruler, and his land as a Croatian land which leans on the Adriatic coast. Due to that, Borna’s state is called ‘Coastal Dalmatia’ or ‘Coastal Croatia’. Even if we were to forget about their usage of Croatian national and territorial symbols (because they have no source which would tell them that the above mentioned lands used those symbols), we cannot be silent about the fact that they are placing Borna’s state on the Adriatic coast. Borna was a vassal of the Frankish Empire, no doubt about it, but this empire could not have had any possessions (not even vassal possessions) around the Adriatic Sea because according to the Peace Treaty of Aachen (812), the border of influence between the Frankish Empire and Eastern Roman Empire was drawn from Istria to the peaks of Velebit Mt., alongside Serbian lands, Livno, Imotski and finally to Pelješac.
Therefore, the Frankish possessions under the control of vassal Borna could have been located only north of this line, and so there is no possibility for them to stretch all the way to the Adriatic Sea. This simple logic (or the contents of a historical document) when it comes to the lack of mention of Croats, not on the coast, nor in Slavonia, did not prevent Croatian academics from stating the next about “Ludevit the Slavonian” in “The Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia” – Yugoslavian Lexicographer Institute of Zagreb, book 3, 1962, page 577:
“Ludevit the Slavonian, the prince of Slavonian Croatia (817-823). At the time when the sources first started to mention him, the whole of Croatia was under the Frankish sovereignty.”
There is no mention about the sovereignty (or the sphere of interests) of Eastern Roman Empire, but Slavonia is called ‘Slavonian Croatia’, although we know that Slavonia, which was under the rule of Austrian crown up until 19th century was a separate kingdom from Kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia.
Stupidities in Encyclopedia
Croatian encyclopedists are not concerned with historical documents. Those documents do not even mention Croatia and Croats, as in the case of the “Frankish Chronicles”, but they are persistent in croatianization of those documents and so this encyclopedic entry states:
“Even though the Frankish reports undoubtly exaggerate the scale of Ludevit’s uprising, it was still a movement of wider proportions in which there were, alongside Croats between Gvozd and Drava River, lower-slavic Slovenians and Timočans – a Slavic tribe which seceded from Bulgarians and joined Ludevit.”
A real confusion is created by the writer of this entry as well since his Dalmatia, where Borna rules, is at times a Frankish possession and at other times a Byzantine possession:
“In his struggle against Franks, Ludevit’s entry into the lands of prince Borna cost him 3,000 men and more than 300 horses (according to the Frankish report) in the beginning alone. He was in even more difficult position when the Dalmatian Croats did not join him. The causes for Borna’s protection of Frankish interests can be found in the political environment of the Adriatic coastline after the Peace of Aachen (812): from then on the Dalmatian Croats had to rely on Franks since Dalmatia was a Byzantine theme, and as a foreign body, it closed off access to the Adriatic for Croats.”
It is clear that Borna was a Frankish vassal, but if Dalmatia was a Byzantine theme, Borna could not have ruled it. This means that the first sentence of this encyclopedic entry (cited above in ‘The Confusion of Croatian Academics’) cannot be true because it states that the “whole of Croatia was under the Frankish sovereignty”.
And the response of Croatian encyclopedists to the fact that “Frankish Chronicles” mention Serbs in Dalmatia can be seen by their explanation of a sentence about Ludevit’s escape from Sisak “to Serbs, a tribe (they say) which rules a big part of Dalmatia”. Encyclopedists think of it as of some Serbian oasis:
“It is probably referring to the present-day Srb which was the center of a separate tribal region.”
We can see that this ‘explanation’ does not precisely say whether this could be one of many tribal regions, but it suggests that there is a region where Serbs rule on the “Croatian land”. The fact that this Croatian encyclopedist admitted this minimum to the Serbs – that there was (only one) Serbian-ruled region in Dalmatia during 9th century – invalidates other encyclopedic entries, and volumes of books, newspapers and schoolbooks in Croatia, that deny the existence of Serbs on “Croatian land” before the Turkish conquest of Balkans in 15th century. It must be that the writer of this entry was clear (at least subconsciously) with the fact that the Serbian-administered region in Dalmatia destroyed important pillars of Croatian historiography since his encyclopedic entry about Ludevit the Slavonian ended rather quickly. Because Ludevit’s escape “to Serbs in Dalmatia” resulted in him killing Prince Vladislav, Ludevit himself was killed by Vladislav’s uncle Ljudemisal… Ljudemisal in turn succeeded Borna. If Ljudemisal was a Serb, his nephew Vladislav was most likely a Serb as well, or at least, he was the son of a Serbian woman – Ljudemisal’s sister.
Where Have the Avars of Croatia Vanished?
The Frankish ruler Charlemagne invaded Panonia (present-day northern Serbia and surrounding areas) in 791 and that is when he established the Avar currency. Later on, when the populace of Panonia was converted to Christianity (805 A.D.), Slavs forced the Avar kagan Sabarian to convert to Christianity and change his name to a Christian one – Theodor. The presence of Avars in Panonia at that time offers a possibility to remove doubts when it comes to the fact that the “Frankish Chronicles” do not mention either Croats or Croatian lands at the Assembly of Heristal in 818.
The answer to this ‘omission’ can perhaps be found in the further reading of “Frankish Chronicles” – the part which describes the Assembly of Frankfurt, held 4 years later in 822. Einhard states that the following peoples were represented in the Assembly: Abordits, Sorabs, Vilacs, Bohemians, Moravians, Predenecentians and Avars. It can be seen that Einhard records Serbs (‘Sorabs’) earlier as the populace of Dalmatia, and once again, fails to mention Croats. However, he does mention Avars among other representatives who attended the Assembly.
Even though professor Novakovic does not explain why Croats are not mentioned in those two Assemblies held by the Frankish Emperor, it is possible that the reason could be that the invitation to attend was given to Avars. This document contains information about the time during which its creator (Einhard) lived, which is why it is much more trustworthy than say the texts of Emperor Profigenitus who described the events that unfolded 200 or 300 hundred years before he was born. One can now ask the question, how is it that Einhard does not mention Croats in the 9th century, while Emperor Profigenitus does so in the 10th century?
We can assume that Croats as a nation were still forming during 9th century and that the non-Slavic tribes were a significant numerical addition to them. Among them were Avars as well, often mentioned by Einhard. It is possible that Avars were invited to the Assembly of Frankfurt (822) as representatives of that mixture of peoples, who will later adopt a common name – Croats. Historians state that the first mention of Croats was in 852, and that there is no mention of Avars in the lands of medieval south-slavic states ever since then. It is not difficult to suggest that the name “Croat” could have replaced Avar, Hunnic, as well as other non-Slavic and Slavic names.
How Avars found themselves in the Lands of South Slavs
Our schoolbooks contain many texts about Avar-Slavic alliance in a war against Eastern Roman Empire. According to those texts, Avars and Slavs crossed Sava and Danube Rivers, plundering the Roman provinces in Balkans, taking over larger cities including Thessaloniki and Constantinople. However, the French historian Francis Cont has found Greek documents which give no mention of Avar-Slav alliance in a war against Byzantines. Those documents state that the military alliance was negotiated between Byzantine Empire and Avars against Slavs in Thrace (6th century A.D.). This document was written by a Greek historian Menander:
“In the fourth year of Emperor Tiberius’ rule (581), around 100,000 Slavs devastated Thrace and many other provinces… Tiberius did not have enough manpower to oppose the Slavs and Avars. He sent a delegation to the Avar prince Bayan who at that time had no hostility against Byzantines. Under those circumstances, Tiberius pushed him into conflict with Slavs. Sixty thousand armoured Avar horsemen crossed Illyria, Schythia (at that time a region between lower Danube and Black Sea), and finally Danube River – with boats built in such a way that transport was possible in both directions. As soon as Avars landed on the other side of Danube, they started burning down Slavic villages, destroying them to their foundations and setting the fields on fire: every living soul fled into the thick forests.”
Francis Cont finds that Slavs were in south-eastern Europe even before 6th century:
“During the first centuries of new era, Romans reported sightings of Slavs on the eastern borders of the Empire; from Northern to Black Sea, from Germania to Thrace, alongside the whole flow of Danube River.”
In “The History of Goths”, historian Jordanes (7th century) writes:
“Sklavines can be found everywhere from the city of Noviyetun (south of present-day Ljubljana) to the lake of Mursyanskiy…”
Francis Cont will mention a document of Constantinople’s Patriarch Nikolay III (1084-1111) as well. This document states that Slavs ruled the entire Peloponnesus ever since Emperor Tiberius signed the military alliance with Avars against Slavs. Patriarch writes to the Emperor Alexis I Komnin: “A Roman foot has not ventured into Peloponnesus for two-hundred and eighteen years….” Francis Cont also sites the preserved Greek “Monemvasic Chronicles”, a document which once again states that Slavs ruled Peloponnesus for 218 years, from 587 to 805 C.E., and have dominated some of its parts up until 950.
Professor Novaković’s Information
The presence of Slavs (Serbs) in south-eastern Europe and present-day Romania is even older. Professor Relja Novaković has provided some input when it comes to that. He cites the Greek historians who discuss warfare between two rulers of Roman Empire –Constantine the Great and Licinius (325 C.E.). It was written in those documents that Licinius was a Serb and that he received military aid from Serbs of Carpathian Mountains.
Prof. Novaković presents us with the Christianization of Serbs in Balkans when he says that Bishop Nicetus spread Christianity “among wild Serbs” in Remeziana (present-day Bela Palanka) at the end of 4th century and in the beginning of 5th century.
The Slavic presence on Balkan Peninsula is mentioned even in the 5th century B.C.E. in a document written by the father of history, Herodotus. He stated that the Illyrians are Slavs and it is truly baffling that nobody is giving any weight to this claim. If we know that Veneti (Venedi, Vends, Vindi) are Slavs and that Germans even to this day call Poles, Czechs, Ukranians, Moravians, Slovakians and Lusatian Serbs by that name, then there is no reason for us not to believe Herodotus. This is what he wrote while speaking about Armenian traditions:
“…And these were their traditions. I believe that this next practice is the most intelligent one; the same practice, I hear, exists within the Illyrian tribe Veneti as well…”
There is much information about the Slavs in Balkans and central Europe, and upon examination of Herodotus’ texts, one could say that Illyrians were Slavs. With that in mind we can conclude that Slavs are the original people of Balkan Peninsula. Present-day Serbs know that they are Slavs, and so no one has the right to accuse them of having settled ‘foreign territory’.
Croats settled Serbian land
Avars, Huns, Ugars, Bulgars and Croats have arrived from some place to settle the Slavic lands. Croats have not yet decided whether they will see their nation within the Slavic group of people or outside of it. Their historians and other well-known personalities prefer to distance themselves from Slavdom. Among those whom we have cited and innumerable others for whom it is impossible to be cited in this article, it is our duty to mention a few more whose opinions could lead us to the conclusion that the first core of Croatian nation was not Slavic, but possibly Avar.
A well-known Croatian historian Niko Županić wrote in his “The First Croats” the following:
“I believe that the first Croats were not Slavs but a foreign people from Asian Sarmatia, who in the Great Migration of Peoples found themselves in Transcarpathian Slavic homeland, and having absorbed a certain number of people from other tribes they started calling themselves Croats.”
Nada Klaić, a historian, finds that Avars made up a rather big part of the first Croatian populations:
“Croats found Avars in possession of that province (Dalmatia). After they engaged in wars against one another for some time, Croats triumphed and slaughtered some of Avars while forcing others to assimilate. From then on, that province was ruled by Croats. One can find descendants of Avars in Croatia even to this day.” (Note: She is of course ignoring Einhard and other historians who mention Serbs as the rulers of Dalmatia.)
To add to this Avar-Croat connection, it can be said that many Croats were named “Bayan”; the name of Avar kagan who formed an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Tiberius (581) in order to wage war against Slavs in Thrace.
Right before WWII, Dr. Mladen Lorković (minister of foreign affairs in the so-called “Independent State of Croatia”) denied the Slavic origins of Croats in the book “The Nation and State of Croats” (“Narod i zemlja Hrvata” in Serbian/Croatian):
“The whole Croatian history can be understood only if one makes an assumption that the ruling Croats were a non-Slavic segment who incased and organized the Slavic masses.”
“Hrvatski list”, a Croatian newspaper, was also concerned with Croatian history, and so the April 14th, 1939 number discussed the origins of the name “Croat”:
“Having arrived to Europe, Hu-ur-vathi together with Huns ruled an old Slavonic population(s) with whom they merged into one, and imposed their name on them even though they were a minority.” (Note: Croat is written “Hrvat” in Serbian/Croatian which is why I am not altering the name this newspaper used - “Hu-ur-vath”.)
The Imposition of Croatian Identity
Having in mind that we are witnessing the imposition of everything ‘Croatian’ on Serbs and other nationalities in Balkans and central Europe during the last two centuries, then it cannot be unreasonable for us to state that such behavior could have begun in the 9th century. After all, that is when every trace of Avars suddenly disappears in the historical documents, and there is an appearance of people who call themselves Croats. That is exactly what the Croatian newspaper “Hrvatski List” claims in 1939.
The appearance of such will to assimilate, which was followed by intolerance against other nations and which was dictated by big European powers and Vatican, was noticed by a Slavic historian – a Catholic priest Matija Katančić (1750-1825):
“You will finally be convinced that the Croatian identity has been propagated in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Serbia, but the Illyrian people of these mentioned parts never call themselves by this name.” This is what he said about Serbian language:
“Bosnian-Dalmatian/Serbian language is characterized by clarity and elegance.”
He will also claim that Dalmatians, Bosnians and Slavonians are of the same ethnic structure as Serbs are and that these people are profoundly different ethnically from Croats. Furthermore, Katančić will state that the imposition of Croatian identity in those regions was done through Austro-Hungarian pressure even though the populace did not see itself as belonging to Croatian nation.
Another Catholic priest, Franje Jukić, will note that the Catholics of Bosnia & Herzegovina during 19th century do not know what the word ‘Croat’ means, let alone that they see themselves as Croats. However, the gradual change brought on by the big powers and Vatican will (eventually) create out of Serbian Catholics in Bosnia the most fanatical Croats in 20th century.
Historian Jeremija Mitrović will dedicate himself to this phenomena and he will precisely describe what Croatdom is:
“Vatican has in general proclaimed the converted Croats and some receptive Serbs as a part of one nation – a Croatian nation. Thus it managed to create one strong Catholic-Croat system in the western parts of Balkans which in turn was time and time again stubbornly aimed against Serbs.”
A resident of Dubrovnik, Lujo Vojinović, wrote a piece in publication “Vreme” on January 30th, 1938 protesting croatianization of Rudjer Bošković, Ivan Gundulić and all of Dubrovnik and its Serbian past:
“Let us openly say that we are tired of this misuse of the name Croat and Croatian; this misuse does not come out of people’s will, but out of certain elements who with incredibly clever propaganda (a powerful hypnosis) are using the infinite harmlessness of the Croat masses in order to turn them away from necessities of life, injecting their veins with poisonous frenzy, madness.”
This Croatian frenzy or madness (let’s not even mention the genocide during WWII and the expulsions of Serbs from their lands from 1991-1995 in greater detail…) has led them to believe Austrians (1915) who promised that Croats would receive administrative powers over all conquered Serbian lands, and so Croats began dissecting Serbian history. Among other things, they have printed two books about Miloš Obilić and Marko Kraljević claiming them to be “Croatian national heroes”. (Note: It is well known to all that Miloš Obilić was a Serb, while Marko Kraljević was the son of a Serbian nobleman whose lands were in present-day south-western Macedonia, nowhere near Croatia and Croats.)
For example, one of them is titled: “The Heroic Narratives of National Hero Miloš Obilić – for Croatian youth”, printed in Križevci (1915) in the bookstore of Gustav Noyberg.
This article appeared in “Srpsko Nasleđe” publication, number 12 – December of 1998.