[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - Bosnian grave stones (Stecak)

[Bosnian_King]

Good lord, what unique style is that? They are built in dozens of different shapes and forms, if anything stecaks are very diffused group. Some of them are shaped as tables, some of them as big crosses, some of them resemble houses, some of them are amorphous rocks, 6000 of them have decorations, 54,000 doesn't, there is nothing consistent about them.
No, they are connected with Bosnia and Herzegovina in it's present borders, and with the Bosnian medieval state from 14th century onward when it conquered the areas populated with Serbs and Croats. Before that they were connected with Serbian kingdom and Croatian banate.
In its present day borders some 2,500, in its 14th century borders ( before Bosnia took Hum, Trebinje and Podrinje from Serbia ) probably some 30-40,000 more.
Here's the map, area bordered with black belonged to Serbia before it was gradually conquered between by Bosnia 1322 and 1377, in the same time this is the area with largest number of the preserved stecaks which. as shown, predate Bosnian occupation for at least 200 years and possibly more:

Wait a moment. Most of the stecaks are built during the medieval Bosnian state. I think that this is recognised as a fact. There are different stecaks off course but they are very easy to be distinguished from other grafestones lets say Bulgarian:



And you are again mainupating things. As non nationalist and recognised international historian say, like prof John VA Fine from the Michigan university:

"Serbs inhabited Western Hercegovina and Hum, Kosovo, Montenegro and todays Serbia in the 7. century. The Croats inhabited today's Bosnia to the Vrbas river at the most western poin. Between those Serbian and Croatian tribes there was a mixeture of Slavs and slavanised indigninious population which identified themelves as Bosnians." John V.A. Fine Early medieval Balkans- Michigan University 1989.

Bosnia as a state existed in the 10. century. It vas a vazal state but a state . According to Marko Vego; whose map you posted yourself, you can see that Bosnia from the 10. century already has a border at the Drina river. So stecaks which were probably built during this period were already bosnian. By 1189. we know that some buitifull decorated stecaks were made like this one for which most historians think that it was the grafestone from the first totally independent ruler Kulin:

[clandestino]

Bosnia as a state existed in the 10. century. It vas a vazal state but a state . According to Marko Vego; whose map you posted yourself, you can see that Bosnia from the 10. century already has a border at the Drina river. So stecaks which were probably built during this period were already Bosnia. By 1189. we know that some buitifull decorated stecaks were made like this one for which most historians think that it was the grafestone from the first totally independent ruler Kulin:

You see that pink area on the map? That's Bosnia in the 10th century ( and even then according to Vego- Postanak rednjovjekovne bosanske drzave,1982, p.19- it's apart of Serbia ), everything around it isn't Bosnia, it's a land inhabited by the Serbs and Croats and part of their respective states until conquered by Bosnia by 14th-15th century. Also as I already showed before, in the time of ban Matej Ninoslav Bosnians apparently called themselves Serbs before they started calling themselves Bosnians in 14th century, but for the sake of tolerance I'll suppose that Ninoslav didn't have clue what was written in his charters.

Bosnia as a state existed in the 10. century. It vas a vazal state but a state . According to Marko Vego; whose map you posted yourself, you can see that Bosnia from the 10. century already has a border at the Drina river. So stecaks which were probably built during this period were already Bosnia. By 1189. we know that some buitifull decorated stecaks were made like this one for which most historians think that it was the grafestone from the first totally independent ruler Kulin:

Really, and how do we know that? Only 300 of stecaks have some inscription and few of those can be actually dated and out of those I already listed two which were built in 12th and 13th century Hum which belonged to Serbia. How do we know when the rest of 60,000 stecaks without any inscriptions were built, during the Serbian or Bosnian rule, or whenever?

Wait a moment. Most of the stecaks are built during the medieval Bosnian state. I think that this is recognised as a fact. There are different stecaks off course but they are very easy to be distinguished from other grafestones lets say Bulgarian:

Yeah, but they aren't unique Bosnian, they are uniquely Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian.

[Bosnian_King]

You see that pink area on the map? That's Bosnia in the 10th century ( and even then according to Vego- Postanak rednjovjekovne bosanske drzave,1982, p.19- it's apart of Serbia ), everything around it isn't Bosnia, it's a land inhabited by the Serbs and Croats and part of their respective states until conquered by Bosnia by 14th-15th century. Also as I already showed before, in the time of ban Matej Ninoslav Bosnians apparently called themselves Serbs before they started calling themselves Bosnians in 14th century, but for the sake of tolerance I'll suppose that Ninoslav didn't have clue what was written in his charters.

This is a brutal falsification of history. Bosnians called themelves Bosnians always. Serbs also said that 2/3 of Croatia was inhabited by Serbs. In the war 1992-1995 they said that Knik and Dubrovnik (Croatain cities) were Serbian from the eraly middle ages. I see that you are brainwashed by the history writings from the SANA memorandum which tried to explain how Bosnia, and 2/3 of Croatia were originally serbian.

I advise you to read some real literature. Reas John V.A. Fine. Read the Nada Klaic; she is attacked by all nationalist, you do not have to agree with her but read her. Read Marko Vego's book and not only parts of the book which you find on forums take out of context. Read Lovrenovic Dubravnko. etc.

You will discover that that what you are saying is a myth produced by serbian politics.

[dabela]

This is a brutal falsification of history. Bosnians called themelves Bosnians always.

Sure they did, just like today many Serbs, who live in Bosnia or are from Bosnia call themselves Bosnians (Bosanci). Just like i call myself "Sremac". Its not a national, its a region. Try to understand it.

[clandestino]

You will discover that that what you are saying is a myth produced by serbian politics.

Serbian myths produced by Franjo Racki, K.Jirecek and V.Foretic
I already explained everything here, you tried to wiggle away by forging stuff and then you disappeared for months:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Where Bosnia; without doubt means the Bosnian victariat. I showed you that and I hope that you will admit that you were wrong. That is a necessity because without this I won't have the will to talk further. When you admit this we can talk further. Because if you do not admit and; continue with posting "non trues" or "half trues" (or if I post non -trues or half trues without pardon) I can not waste my time on that type of discussion.
Dear Bosnian king, one thing that you are constantly failing to understand is that the words :

''Regnum Servilie quod est Bosna'' are from the charter of pope Urban III , written in 1187.

http://hazu.arhivpro.hr/?showdocumen...id=1274&page=0
http://hazu.arhivpro.hr/?showdocumen...id=1274&page=0


The Franciscan order was created in 1217. and first Franciscan mission in Bosnia was established in 1291. The Franciscan vicariate ( province ) of Bosnia was only created in 1339 or 1342.

Here is the passage from the official site of Bosnian Franciscan province:

Quote:
1209. Papa Inocent III. odobrio Franjevački red, kojega je utemeljitelj Franjo iz Assisija (1181-1226).
1248. Senjski biskup Filip i franjevački provincijal iz Splita otišli po nalogu pape bosanskom banu Ninoslavu da izvide njegovo pravovjerje.
1288. Papa Nikola IV. poslao fra Marina i fra Ciprijana, kao svoje izaslanike, srpskom kralju Urošu i njegovu bratu Stjepanu Dragutinu.
1291. Papa izdao nalog provincijalu provincije Sclavoniae (Hrvatske), da pošalje u Bosnu dvojicu franjevaca, vještih jeziku tamošnjeg puča*nstava, da bi trajno radili na iskorjenjivanju krivovjerja. Ova se godina uzima kao početak djelovanja bosanskih franjevaca.
1339/40. Osnovana Bosanska vikarija, a prvim vikarom imenovan fra Peregrin Saksonac.

http://www.bosnasrebrena.ba/v2010/po...dogadjaja.html

Even more the very page from Fine that you gently posted explicitly says that Bosnian vicariate was established in 1342.





So if anyone here has to admit something it should be you admitting that the words of the pope's charter from 1187. can't refer to the Franciscan province created in 1339/40 or 1342.

Quote:
Thed sentence Regnium X which is Bosnia/Bulgaria/Hungaria, Holland was used by the Pope 1000 times.

Really, can you give us couple of examples? If such sentence is used it usually describes synonyms, case where two names are used for the same country which was common in medieval times.

Quote:
No he does not and not one serious historian says this. Ban Matej Ninoslav's Bosnia did not strech from Sarajevo to Zenica but also to Soli and the Drina river (without Hum) which is recognised by the nationalistic Serb historians as well. Look at the book of Cirkovic and you will find a map of Ninoslav's Bosnia.

Ninoslav does not call his people as Serbs. This document is about the trade between Serbia (Raska) and Ragusa. This trade road went over the territory of Bosnia (which is historically accepted as prooven). And Ninoslav says about this trade (which existed of Caravans which transported goods from Dubrovnik (a port) to Serbia):

Again you are reaching for the impossible explanation because you don't like the more possible one:

the trade road between Serbia and Dubrovnik didn't went across Bosnian territory cause in this time Dubrovnik was completely surrounded by Serbian territory, Travunija and Hum were under the Serbian rule and the main trade road between Dubrovnik and Serbia was Dubrovnik-Trebinje-Onogost ( Nikšić )-Lim valley , this road was called Via Anagasti or Via Jesera and it was always and completely under the Serbian rule. There were also less important branches of this road but they also went across Serbian territory only. Also you say it's accepted and proven that main road between Serbia and Dubrovnik went across Bosnian territory, I just urge you to read capital work of Konstantin Jirecek about medieval trade and roads just to see how wrong you are. If you were just a little bit unbiased and not so desperate you would realize that trade between Serbia and Dubrovnik had absolutely no need to go over Bosnian territory. In fact it would be a strangest detour, I made a map ( shows Serbia around 1220 ) just for fun:

red is the closest road and the one that actually existed ( Via Anagasti or Via Jesera )
blue is supposed Via Bosnian_King, existing in his mind

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:






Now when we established that no one had need to go from Serbia to Dubrovnik across the Bosnia let's get to the point. You say that Ninoslav's charter speaks about Serbs just crossing through the Bosnia, however charter never says this, the one from the 1235. just say:

'' If Serb sues Vlach then the knez ( of Dubrovnik ) will be the judge, and if Vlach sues Serb then ( Bosnian ) ban will be the judge. ''

http://www.archive.org/stream/monume...ge/24/mode/2up


That's all, no mention of Serbs just passing by, no war against the Serbia, or anything like that. Why should Bosnian ban would anticipate that there would be legal processes between some passing Serbs and Vlachs ? Isn't more natural that there should be litigation between Bosnians and Vlachs, or between some other people and Vlachs? Why there isn't a reference about Croats or Hungarians litigating in Bosnia? And why should be a trade agreement between Bosnia and Dubrovnik would deal with lawsuits between Serbs and people of Dubrovnik?

Now let's see how Croatian historian Vinko Fortic, expert on history of Dubrovnik, long time director of the historical archive of Dubrovnik etc says about this line in his book History of Dubrovnik:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:






And what other Croatian historian, famous Franjo Racki says about this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:






We can ask some other, foreign historians, how they interpret this line, for example here ( in German, happy to translate if necessary, but wise guy like you probably knows German ).

You have a problem mate, you are to busy calling everyone else nationalist while being blinded by your own nationalism, you already have firm opinion on this issue and when someone challenges it you just walk over all evidences and turn blind eye on them just to keep your story as you devised it. You have repeated half of dozen times that in papal charters Bosnia refers to Franciscan vicariate of Bosnia and claimed that words regnum Servilie quod est Bosna is about franciscan province, however you fail to see that a 1187. charter can't refer to vicariate created in 1342, in my opinion these are acts of highly biased person who is incapable of objective thinking. You were demanding of other posters to admit they are wrong about this like you are the smartest guy in the world, now you are proven wrong and I demand of you to admit it!

Also I'm quite irritated about your constant labeling Serbian historians as nationalists, can you specifically list those historians and prove us hove are they nationalists? Is Ćirković nationalist? He was one of the most respected historians in former Yugoslavia, member of all Yugoslavian academies of science and several European, university professor, writer of almost hundred books and papers, immensely quoted by domestic and foreign authors, award winner of international Konstantin Jirecek Medal for contribution in historical research of Southeastern Europe etc. He was one of the most valued Yugoslavian historians ever since he got PhD in 1957, if he was so nationalistic I presume you can find us bunch of bad reviews of his papers from 1950's till present? But wait let's see what respected John VA Fine thinks about Ćirković:





review quoted from Speculum no. 41, 1966.

So we have a review on Ćirković, and what Ćirković says about the charters of ban Ninoslav?

'' While the bans of the thirteenth century, such as Matej Ninoslav, called their subjects Serbs, ban Stjepan II ( 1314-1353 ) called them Bosniaks... ''
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ki1...noslav&f=false

Good night, sweet dreams, don't let the facts bite you...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:
Please Clandestino. You want to play a game with me of the deaf telephones! You admit that Bosnia was not part of Serbia in 1187. You also admit that all the important Serbian historians agree that Bosnia was "less or more on her own"... But you still want to use this sentence:
"Regnium Serviella quoed est Bosna" to suggest something! And that is wrong. I will show you why it is wrong:

Yes, I'm suggesting that in papal letters Serbia and Bosnia are considered as synonyms for some reasons, not that they are same country. You could try reading what other people are posting for a change. You still keeping arguing with the things I never said.

Quote:
1) In the time of Kulin 1180-1200. the pope sent a delegation of Cardinals to Bosnia. And 10 corespondation documents between Hungaria and the Pope are testifying about this event:

"The Bosnian ruler together with his church leader and thousands of other Bosnians accepted Catholicism at the filed of Bilino Polje in presence of the Pope delegation."

This was the first known mission to Bosnia. So from that time already; in Papal texts the Pope talked about Bosnia as a Vikarijat of Cardinals (Vikar means governor).

Good lord, only a person who doesn't know absolutely nothing about administration and organization of catholic church can say such ridiculous thing. Pope sends cardinal in specific mission in Bosnia from which he returns immediately and that's why Bosnia becomes '' Vicatiate of cardinals '', which is btw absolutely unknown thing in the catholic church? And again your chronology fails, council of Bilino Polje was in 1203, still after 1187. You can't even invent things logically.

Simple reading of the charter from 1187. shows that mentions of Bosnia has absolutely nothing to do with some imaginary '' vicariat of the cardinals ''. This is the letter in which pope Urban III confirms archbishop of Dubrovnik Tribunus and confirms his rights as well as borders of his archdiocese. Pope says to archbishop of Dubrovnik ( short translation ):
I confirm rights of your churhc to you and to your successors in the place where your church is situated and in all the parishes that by law belong to your church, and those parishes are: region of Zachulmia, region of Serbia which is Bosnia, region of Travunija, cities of Kotor or Rose, Budva, Bar, Ulcinj, Skadar, Drivast and Pilot with all their abbeys, churches and parishes.

Codex diplomaticus, page 207.

Very clear, Bosnia-Serbia is a region which is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of archbishop of Dubrovnik, just as regions of Zahumlje and Travunija and all the listed cities. It's not some imaginary '' vicariate of cardinals ''just like other listed regions and cities aren't some '' vicariats of cardinals ''. Those are just geographical areas where archbishop of Dubrovnik has its supreme jurisdiction.

Quote:
From 1180 till the 14th century there was a Cardinal in Bosnia. And when the Cardinal was retreated from Bosnia from the side of the pope; in that time the Pope sends Fransciscans. But a Cardinal is much more important than Franciscans! And off course that it is a fact than in ALL CHURCH LETTERS (not only Franciscan letter but also Cardinal letter) with the term Bosnia the vikarijat was meant. And Vikarijat means in latin "governement" a Vikar means governor. In the time of the Cardinal being present in Bosnia; the church government (Vikarijat) was represented by the highest ranked church leader. So before the arrival of the Franciscan mission in 1342. ---> A cardinal formed the Vikarijat.

Really, there were a constantly cardinal in Bosnia during the 200-300 years? Give us the name of these cardinals, give us the sources for these claims. You are just inventing things my friend, pope sent one cardinal to get statement from ban Kulin that he and his people are catholics and from that you constructed that there were cardinals in Bosnia for next two centuries? One can just laugh about that. Again, I ask you where are your sources for these claims and who were these cardinals that no one ever heard?

Quote:
Yes that's what you are trying and I am asking you; why there is no Serbian historian who ever tried that? Why only children on the internet try this while Serbian historians agreed that Bosnia was " a state on her own" from Kulin and Further?

Again I don't know such children on the internet, I know some other children who invent things about vicariates of cardinals but I don't know children who claim that Bosnia was part of Serbia in the time of ban Kulin.

Quote:
And off course that it is a fact than in ALL CHURCH LETTERS (not only Franciscan letter but also Cardinal letter) with the term Bosnia the vikarijat was meant. And Vikarijat means in latin "governement" a Vikar means governor. In the time of the Cardinal being present in Bosnia; the church government (Vikarijat) was represented by the highest ranked church leader. So before the arrival of the Franciscan mission in 1342. ---> A cardinal formed the Vikarijat.

Nope, pope is referring to geographical area of ''Serbia which is Bosnia'' which is under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Dubrovnik. In 1187. there wasn't any cardinal in Bosnia, only cardinal that went to Bosnia went there in 1203, attended a church council and went to Rome, where cardinals usually live. Latter there were no cardinals in Bosnia cause cardinals live in Rome or in their dioceses, in the church organization we have archbishoprics and bishoprics, there is no such thing as vicariate of cardinals. Bosnia had it's own bishop which was under the archbishop of Dubrovnik, no place for some imaginary vicariate there. Only vicariate ( actually province ) that existed in Bosnia was Franciscan province of Bosnia in the 14th century.

Otherwise I presume that you can give us bunch of sources about ''vicariate of cardinals'' and cardinals living in Bosnia?

Quote:
I painted the route where those documents write about: the route between Bosnia and Dubrovnik. I don't know if the route went exactly like that (most probably not - it's likely that the route went through a river Valey) but in any case the route had to go through Serbia to reach Bosnia.

And it is obvious that Ninoslav guarantees the republik of Dubrovnik a free trade with Bosnia. Because without this free trade Bosnia would not be able to exist--> All the exports of silver and gold from Bosnia went through the port of Dubrovnik over this trade route.

And it is no coincidense that Ninoslav guarantees the Ragusans that they will be protected at this route. Because it is obvious that they will be protected in Bosnia. But Ninoslav wants to make something clear and that's why this document was written:

"On this trade route I will protect you from the Serbs with all your goods if a war breaks out" That is what Ninoslav says in all the 3 documents' only with different words. He guarantees the republik of Dubrovnik a free trade. And this guarantee he makes by defining the worse case scenario:

"If you are betrayed on your way to Bosnia" or "If war breaks out with Serbia/Raska" ----> "I will take the responsibility for this trade route"

And that's exactly why Bosnia conquered this part from Raska/Serbia some times later by killing and expelling the Serb nobles from the territory of this trade route and annexating this territory some decades later:

Listen mate, I gave you three different people who say that in the charters of ban Ninoslav ''Serb'' refers to inhabitant of Bosnia. We have Foretić, Rački, Ćirković and I will add Jireček as well ( Kulturna istorija Srba ) saying this:





Now on one hand we have 4 respected authors who wrote hundreds of works about medieval history of Serbia, Dubrovnik, Bosnia and Croatia that say one thing and on the other we have you saying other and completely confused and illogical thing. Are you better expert then those people?

Further more you intentionally keep mixing documents and references. You keep saying about war between Serbia and Dubrovnik blah blah however there is no mention about any war in the first charter.

The earliest charter of ban Matej Ninoslav, the one from 1234-1235 says, from word to word ,in full translation:

Quote:

In the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost amen.
I , slave of God, Matej called Ninoslav, great bosnian ban,
I swear to you , knez of Dubrovnik, John Dandolo and to whole
community of the Dubrovnik with the same oath as the ban Kulin sworn before me:

Vlachs can move free with their goods just as they did in the time of ban Kulin,
without any harm and damage. And where I rule you can move where ever you want freely
and will protect you from any harm.

This was written by the Desoe, scribe of the great Bosnian ban Vladislav, loyal as he was from the first.

One more thing: if Serb sues Vlach over debt then the knez of Dubrovnik will be a judge,
if Vlach sues Serb over debt then the ban will be a judge. And there will be no reprisals on Vlachs.
God give us health.

Very clear, no mention of protecting a trade route with Dubrovnik, no mentions of war with Serbia, no mention of protection of Raguzans from the Serbs and all other things that you invented.

As we see, the trade agreement says that Raguzans are free to trade in ban's country and that he will protect them from any harm ( robbers, illegal taxes and customs etc, illegal imprisonment, seizure of their goods and all other things that could happen to a foreign trader ). In the end ban says that in the case of the litigation of the Raguzan merchant and local people over debts ban will have jurisdiction if the sued part is Serb while if sued part is Vlach then the jurisdiction will belong to the knez of Dubrovnik. Also ban guarantees that Vlach/Ragusans won't be arrested for debts or retaliated in some other way.

Just to point: that this isn't my personal interpretation here I again give the explanation of Vinko Foretić, Croatian historian, long time head of the historical archive of Dubrovnik, writer of hundreds of works about history of medieval Dubrovnik etc:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:





English translation:

Quote:
From the ethnic aspect it's important that ban Matej Ninoslav calls Raguzans-Vlachs which means that there was still Romance majority in Dubrovnik. The inhabitant of Bosnia, which in that time encompassed Usora, Soli and part of Donji kraji along with original small Bosnia, is called Serb which is understanding, because that Bosnia with those borders was ethnically Serbian land, while western from it , in present day western Bosnia, was Croatia with Croatian population. New specific article which we don't find on the charter of ban Kulin, requires that in the case of the law suit over a debt Serb-Bosnian sues Vlach-Raguzan to the Raguzan knez and Vlach-Raguzan sues Serbian-Bosnian to the ban. Reprisals are forbiden.

And about other two charters:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:





translation:

Quote:
Both of them have same line, like in first Ninoslav's charter, about solving mutual lawsuits by the bosnian ban and knez of Dubrovnik, and here also Raguzan is called Vlach and Bosnian is called Serb.

V.Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808, v.1, Zagreb 1980, page 81-2.

Here you go, it's the litigation over debts between Vlachs/Raguzans and Serbs/Bosnians, according to Foretić. Now, I nicely gave you source and quotation from not one but from 4 different historians saying same thing, so be polite and answer me in same manner instead making ridiculous theories with absolutely no backup. Every word of your is worth as a source behind it, and so far I haven't see a single source.

I'm not intending to prove you wrong again, to summarize, in two of his charters to Dubrovnik from 13th century ban Matej Ninoslav calls his subjects Serbs, this is opinion accepted by two Croatian historians ( and wasn't disputed by others ) one Czech historian, not to mention Serbian ones.

[Bosnian_King]

Sure they did, just like today many Serbs, who live in Bosnia or are from Bosnia call themselves Bosnians (Bosanci). Just like i call myself "Sremac". Its not a national, its a region. Try to understand it.

O h really? And why did the bosnian rulers call their lands Bosnian lands then?

"I bosnian king Tvrtko ruler over many bosnian lands and many Bosnian sides, by God's will ruler of Bosnia and Soli and Podrinje and Usora and of Hum."

Why do the people in Hum and Soli and Usora (Provinces of the Bosnian state) called themelves Bosnjani (Bosnians) and not Soljnani or Usorljani?

Why do the Bosnian rulers say:"Bosnians and Croats." And "Bosnians and Serbs". Why do the Byzantese emperor in the 11. century says:"Let the Bosnians and the Croats be written in the books of Romeja."?

Why why why?

Why do they call thei rkingdom the Bosnian kingdom? Why do they call the Bosnian christian faith a "Bosnian Faith"? Why do they call the Bosnian military victories as "Bosnian glory"? Why are the Bosnian kings in war with Croats and Serbs and take lands from them and after those vicoties they call those lands Bosnian lands?

Because they, as John VA Fine said and most other historians:"Self identiefied themelves as ethnical Bosnians"

[clandestino]

Read above, little forger.

[Bosnian_King]

Read above, little forger.

This deserves a Ban!

I think that you have a problem with yourself mate. You can not discuss without insulting someone when he is saying the truth which u do not like.

[dabela]

I think that forging deserves a ban. He didnt insult you, he proved you wrong. And now when you are defenseless you are trying to change the subject. So obvious.

[Bosnian_King]

I think that forging deserves a ban. He didnt insult you, he proved you wrong. And now when you are defenseless you are trying to change the subject. So obvious.

Kids,

get a life. Finish a university or something like that. Or if you do not like to study find yourself a nice serbian gilfriend and xxxx her instead of being on forums and talking about boolshit and attacking countries where you never was...

I will not come to this forum again. Bye bye.

[phoenix[illusion]]

let's settle, he calls them bosnians same as spaniards from aragon calls themselves aragonese, or catillians etc.
same as serbian king calls people of rascia "rascians". it's a regional name, many times used in medieval times (swabians, burgundians, hessians, orleanians etc.)

yet, still, tvrtko was crowned as King of the Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands. (he used serblem (serbian people) for serbs, and bosnia for bosnia = ethnicity that he ruled above and region in which he ruled, doesn't have to do with taking serbian territories, especially if he puts ethnic name as first in his title)

[phoenix[illusion]]

i expect for this thread to be closed, by the way. we'll see by moderators, i hope not, cause it's just constructive conversation

[dabela]

Kids,

get a life. Finish a university or something like that. Or if you do not like to study find yourself a nice serbian gilfriend and xxxx her instead of being on forums and talking about boolshit and attacking countries where you never was...

I will not come to this forum again. Bye bye.

I am half Bosnian (my mom is from Bosnia) if you didnt know, so dont tell me i never were in Bosnia, or that i dont like that country. I love Bosnia as much as i love Serbia. And this is typical from you, when someone beats you (clandestino) you go away like nothing hapened and ignore the evidences he posted.
That is why your "leaving" this forum, but we all know you'll be back to spread your propaganda and forgery.

[matija191]

You can visit Croatian cities like Split and ask the better educated population there about stecaks. They all will say that this are Bosnian grafestones. And the better informed will be able to tell you that those grafestones were left by Bosnian troops which invaded Croatia and conquered northern Dalmatia around 1390.

Ti očito nikada nisi bio u Hrvatskoj, stoga ne pričaj gluposti.Stećke u Splitu ostavili bosanci ....a Alieni impregnirali Ripley

[SpyrosM91]

english....

[clandestino]

This deserves a Ban!

I think that you have a problem with yourself mate. You can not discuss without insulting someone when he is saying the truth which u do not like.

For what, for calling a things with right name? You forged a historical source and tried to present it as valid, I solidly proved that you mutilated and rewrote historical source in order to prove your stands, therefore you are forger. You also posted paragraphs and paragraphs of fictional inscriptions presenting them as real. It's not insult it's a fact, the one who forges is a forger.

Because they, as John VA Fine said and most other historians:"Self identiefied themelves as ethnical Bosnians"

Since 14th century definitely, before that who knows? at least two charters of Bosnian ban call his people Serbs. Let's take another perspective, someone is Bosniak today, 30 years ago he was a Muslim, 70 years ago he was a Serbs or Croat of muslim faith, 100 years ago he was a Turk, before that he was something else.The note of self identification changes with time.

Why do the Bosnian rulers say:"Bosnians and Croats." And "Bosnians and Serbs". Why do the Byzantese emperor in the 11. century says:"Let the Bosnians and the Croats be written in the books of Romeja."?

Where you found that?

Kids,

get a life. Finish a university or something like that. Or if you do not like to study find yourself a nice serbian gilfriend and xxxx her instead of being on forums and talking about boolshit and attacking countries where you never was...

I will not come to this forum again. Bye bye.

I finished it long ago, that's why I can tell difference between real inscription and fictional work and that's why I'm able to find source for my claims, something that you constantly fail. And that's why I look for my sources in real books, not on Bosnian nationalistic forums. As for xxxx, I have plenty of it, with my girl which your people forced from her home when she was a kid.

[matija191]

english....

I said that he obviously never visited Croatia when he talks such kind of SF - stećci in Split are tombs of bosnian warriors - comme on, who believe in this?

[BHCluster]

Just to get back to necropolis Radimlja, Stecaks are positioned in northwest - southeast direction and perpendicular to the direction and not east to west direction and next to necropolis where the road is (road Stolac - Mostar which was build during Austro-Hungarian rule) there use to be number of Muslim graves which were destroyed.

Also Stecaks were used as construction materials in the building of 83 Orthodox Christian Churches, 66 Catholic Churches and 7 Islamic build in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[clandestino]

Point? Except that muslims in Hum are converted orthodox Serbs, cause it's unquestionbly proved by M.Vego that Radimlja is orthodox necropolis, and we know that Hum was Serbian land until it was conquered in 1320-30.

[BHCluster]

Point? Except that muslims in Hum are converted orthodox Serbs, cause it's unquestionbly proved by M.Vego that Radimlja is orthodox necropolis, and we know that Hum was Serbian land until it was conquered in 1320-30.

Point is more than obvious, if it is a orthodox necropolis how com they are buried northwest - southeast direction and perpendicular to the direction and not east to west direction? And how com there was no Orthodox cemetery near by but there was Muslim?

Most of the tombstones, of the type known as stećci (sing. stećak) date from the fifteenth and sixteenth century. The most reliable evidence of the date of origin is an epitaph on one of the stećci, which suggests that the necropolis dates to the time when the Hrabren-Miloradović family lived in Batnoge or Ošanići.

According to the 1967 data there were 133 stećci in the necropolis. When the Čapljina to Stolac road was built in the Austro-Hungarian period, it cut through the necropolis, leaving eleven stećci to the north and the remainder to the south of the road. The assumption is that twenty stećci were destroyed on that occasion and used for macadamizing the road. During the late 1940s, A. Benac took some archaeological soundings, and determined that some of the graves beneath the most typical stećci had previously been excavated and robbed. Research conducted by A. Zelenika in the late 1950s when the road was widened and asphalted, produced similar results. These works prompted and hastened the legal protection of this site.

General information:
The stećci in this necropolis face north-west/south-east, with the head of the deceased to the north-west and the feet to the south-east. They are made of limestone from the quarry on the nearby Ošanići hill, some 800 m to the north-east of the necropolis, where one unfinished stećak still stands. The basic shapes were probably cut in the quarry, while the final treatment and decoration were carried out in the necropolis, to avoid damage during transport.

Following the customary classification of basic stećak forms, the necropolis consists of the following stećci: 36 slabs, 1 slab with plinth, 27 chests, 24 chests with plinth, 4 deep chests, 5 deep chests with plinth, 2 ridged, 31 ridged with plinth, and 3 crosses. A total of 63 stećci are decorated, making the Radimlja necropolis one of the most highly decorated necropolises in BiH. Its artistic features make it one of the most valuable and important necropolises as a whole.

The decorations on the Radimlja stećci are executed in shallow relief by carving or a combination of techniques, with the emphasis on preserving the basic form of the stećak. The short score marks on the surface indicate the use of a hammer with a short cutting blade, while the flat surfaces were smoothed with hard stone.

The finest decorated forms are the ridge and the tall chest forms. The vertical sides of some of the monuments bear arcades with pillars and arches, indicating that the stećci represent the abode of “eternal repose”. The roof sections of the ridge shaped stećci and the gable are particularly salient, with prominent eaves, zigzag carving or a broad line or rope weave decoration.

Among the motifs of a decorative nature, those that stand out both in quantity and quality of treatment are vine leaves in threes and twisted bands, as well as motifs of a symbolic nature such as the sun (circle), stars and crescent moon. There are also numerous motifs of the cross, often stylized, as well as shield, sword and bow-and-arrow motifs. Animal figures are represented on several stećci, and the necropolis is also rich in human figures. Those that stand out in particular are the figures of dukes, and the figures of men with their arm held aloft. There are also scenes of combat, of hunting and of games.

Five monuments bear epitaphs, naming certain members of the Vlach shepherd family of Hrabren Miloradović (Donji Vlasi), and indicating that Radimlja was where they buried their inheritance “na Batnogah”. A further detail makes it possible to date the necropolis more exactly. Radoje Vukovič, nephew of duke Petar, and Radoje, a brother of duke Petar, belong to the class of high feudal lords. Duke Stipan is mentioned on the inscription above the portal on the church in Ošanići, as well as on the large stone outside the church. Duke Stiepan died around 1470 and duke Petar was mentioned in 1477 as a chief of the Vlach summer pasture of Hrabrena. According to Radoja’s epitaph the second son of Stipan died at a date later than the 1470s, while Radoja Vukovič, nephew of duke Petar, died in the 1480s or 90s. (Hrabak GZM,1953, 326-327).

Vlač or Vlađ Vlahovič and Stipnan are mentioned in two inscriptions. From the shields on their monuments it may be assumed that they belonged to the military while nothing definite can be said concerning Vukac Petrovič.

Clerks or blacksmiths named Bolašin Bogačič, Miogost and Ratko Brativo(-)nič /Brativojevič) put their signatures to these monuments.

P.S.
Hrаbren-Milorаdović family dates back to XV and XVI century.