Content deleted Content added
Line 140:
* And some information from the book of [[Sima Ćirković]] (2004) "The Serbs". Chapter: "Clans and Clan Society", from page 129, he mentions the Vlachs and Albanians throughout the chapter and mentions them in context of Paštrović clan, Banjani, Drobnjaci, and Ridjani, "Neighboring Montenegro had its own clans (Vasojevići, Bjelopavlići, Piperi, Njeguši, etc.)" etc. Serbian academician although he mentions Serb medieval influence in the area, he does not mention a single word ie that all these tribes are '''Serbs''' or '''Serb tribes'''.
*Therefore there must be confirmation from a neutral source that all these tribes are Serb tribes. You have exposed some sources and quote what exactly this sources speak to all see what it is about. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|talk]]) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
::First, I reacted towards the specific mention of Ivan Radonjić - he was representative of those tribes in the 18th century, he considered his people as [[Serbs]] and sources given are modern and not primary. As for other tribes and their origins, it is a very broad talk and completely off the topic. (Đorđević, Tihomir R. (1919)) is not the only source I have put so that argument doesn't stand (if you tag something as [[WP:AGE MATTERS]], then you need elaborate, not just claim ''old source''). Next, regards towards [[Sima Ćirković]], his book ''The Serbs'' deals with the topic of history of Serbs in general. The author is a very respectable Serbian medievalist, with a excellent research of [[Bosnia]], but clans and it formations are not his primary area of interest, as you can see from the book or his other works. That's the reason why, in the mentioned book, he doesn't provide more information about the tribes themselves. Nor he specifically mentions them as Serbian (but yet again, the book is about the Serbs), but also not specifically as [[Vlachs]], so I don't see why you mentioned him. What I see that you missed the logical point - when we are talking about tribes, we are talking about clans when they have got their ''tribal organization'' (late 16th century) after merge(s) of different brotherhoods etc, not the XV century clans (for which better word is ''brotherhood'' in majority of the cases), nor even about the people who formed those clans earlier. If we are talking about the not so short process of the tribal formation from those early clans, you are oversimplifying it in the sense "Vlachs formed the tribe" etc. When literature deals with the origins of the tribe, it deals with the oral tradition of the members from the tribe itself, or, which is far better as you would agree, scientific historiography with precise results or at least, opinions from the historians. When in the literature says ''Serbian tribe'', that means that we are talking about already formed tribe and that these people already had Serbian identity. You mentioned Špiro Kulišić, which is fine argument as he stated that the tribes didn't have Serbian identity, but rather Montenegrin. But numerous other historians (Đurđev, Jovan Vukmanović, Vukčević Nikola...) from his country, during that same period, successfully challenged his views and proved, for examples, that he made mistakes in his methodology, so you can't challenge the whole historiography, based only on him. In contrast, for example, mentioned Branislav Đurđev really masterfully described, based on the sources such as Ottoman surveys in the 15th century, how early mixture of Serbs and Vlachs started development of the tribal organization in Montenegro. And even those Vlach brotherhoods, in that time, were more-or-less, in majority assimilated into Slavs, because of the strong influence of medieval Serbian states and more numerous Slavs around them. But because early ''[[katun]] organization'' came from them, as proved by Đurđev when he challenged Erdeljanović, for example, and not from the early Serbs (as Vlachs were in majority cattlemen), and as Slavs also started to deal with cattle-breeding, ''Vlach'' gradually transformed into a synonym for [[cattlemen]], not other ethnicity, as stated by Branislav. That is, as you can see, far more complex process, and even I went off-topic as I didn't talked about Vasojevići only. When the Vasojevići tribe was formed, you already had Serbian names, [[Orthodox religion]], language, customs and identity, among them. And we see that from the members of the tribe itself, and their representatives, during the centuries after. That's the reason why, for example, excellent historians who really specialized in the topic, such as Radoslav Vešović or Lutovac, who were also from the tribe itself, and concluded without a doubt that the tribe had strong [[Serbs|Serbian identity]] during its existence. And I didn't mentioned even Jovan Vukmanović, Lalević Bogdan, Mirko Vukićević and rest. As I said, instead of wasting the time to discuss did Ivan Radonjić thought of Vasojevići as Serbs, when he said in the letter twice that they are Serbs, it was far better if the article itself was expanded with other topics such as battles against the Ottomans, customs and traditions, etc. That's all from me, as this discussion is going outside of the bounds of historiography and into political topics. [[User:James Jim Moriarty|James Jim Moriarty]] ([[User talk:James Jim Moriarty|talk]]) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
| |||