Talk:Marco Polo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Marco Polo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

OK, let's see where this theory of Polo's Croatian roots comes from. I found an article on the net A.Pavešković: Putopisac Marko Polo (Explorer Marco Polo) [1].

Here's translation of some important parts of the text. I wrote personal names same as in the original article:

---

FIRST KNOWN POLO'S AND THEIR PRIMARY SEATS

First known Pol's were Nikola sr., Mate sr. and Nikola's son Marko jr. Nikola and Mate had brother Marko sr. and sister Flora.
At first Giovani Ramusio (1458-1515) and then some other Italian writers concerned that first member of Polo family was some Andrea Polo di San Felice (Venice), allegedly a grandfather of Marko jr. from father's side. These writers never gave proofs (note 7) for their conclusion – according to Giovanni Orlandini, the most relevant scientist for Polo's ancestry question. Additionally Orlandini admits that there were no traces of Polo family original place of residence in Venice and Italy. Especially there were no proofs of their Venetian or Italian ancestry. (note 8)

An answer for the question: where from first Polo's came and what were their first known seats? is given by Venetian documents:

1. Testament of explorer's uncle Marko sr. in the year 1280 (Venice);
2. Explorer's book (Genoa, 1298);
3. Writing CHRONICON IUSTINIANI (Venice, 1358);
4. Documents from 1423 and 1446;
5. Document from 1450/1460;
6. Document from the beginning of 1600;
7. Another document from the first half of 1600.

All mentioned documents were Venetian, except Marko's book. In short these documents said this:

1. Marko sr. in his testament (1280) written in Latin language noted that in that year he was «habitatox» (inhabitant-immigrant) in Venetian church district S. Seuri, and that a second wife of his brother Nikola sr. Floraldise Polo born Trevisan (explorer Marko's stepmother) was in Venice too in that moment. He also noted that he was «… codam Constantinopoli…», what means that once he had sojourned in Constantinopolis, thus that was where he came from. He added that his son Nikola jr. and daughter Marota were still there in their family house in Soldaia (Crimea, Sea of Azov) (note 9)
2. In connection to previous, there was explorer Marko's quotation in his book (1298) which said that his father Nikola and uncle Mate had been in Constantinopolis in 1250 with goods transported from Venice. (note 10)
3. CHRONICON IUSTINIANI (1358) noted a Polo family among other inhabitants in Venice with quotation that it was unknown from where they had come from. However in the same place it was added "Di Dalmazia" (note 11)

Italian writer Giovanni Monticolo said (1900) that it was added by some irresponsible notar in the 16th century. He didn't explain his conclusion. Also he ignored the documents from 1446, 1450/1460 and other two from 1600. Concerning a quotation of Venetian annalist Marino Sanudo who also noted (1522) that Polo were "Polo di Dalmatia; fatti 1381; manco sier Marcho siande castellan a Verona - 1418" Monticolo stated that it hadn't been explorer's family, but some other later inhabitted (note 12). Monticolo gave nothing to assure his explanation. It seems that Monticolo forgot that explorer Marko's Polo family and Polo family from 1381 had the same family coat of arms (until that year). According to Moule, all numerous genealogies that he had inspected were talking only about "Poli di Dalmazia". (note 13)

Writing CHRONICON IUSTINIANI was published in the press in 1965, but without mentioned quotation «Di Dalmazia» from the original source. Arrangers of that edition didn't mention why they had omitted it, and that it generally had existed.

When CHRONICON IUSTINIANI mentioned Polo family in 1358 it didn't mention any other family of the same name, and it was written 34 years after Marko's death, therefore in period when his wife and daughters still lived in Venice. It was written 23 years before 1381, year known from mentioned documents (1446, 1450/60), other two from 1600 and by Sanudo (1522). If this is taken in consideration and since there were no any counter-proofs from Monticolo side, editors of CHRONICON IUSTINIANI edition and some other writers (like Roberto Gallo) who adopted Monticollo's assertion, it is incomprehensible how could Monticolo come out with his affirmation, why didn't he explain it, why editors (1965) omitted mentioned quotation, not even mentioning it. With such irrelevance and with not even a basic proof their affirmations should be refused.

Document under numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 noted the same. Document from 1446 concerning our agenda said: "Pollo: Questi antigunmente uene de Dalmatia, et per lo suo bon portamento et lialtade per la guerra de zenoa 1381. Io fo fatto del gran conseio. Et mancha questa caxada nel tempo del ser marcho polo…" (Pollo (family) came from Dalmatia in the past. Because of good behavior and devotion during the war against Genoa, they were accepted into the Great Council in 1381. And there had been no this family in the age of Mr. Marco Polo.). Almost the same was written in 1450/60 document, so it could be the same document. Document from 1446 was mentioned by Italian writer A.Bacotich, while other from 1450/60 by English writer A.C.Moule, both in 1938. Documents from 1600 generally said the same thing with additional details unimportant for this discussion. These 2 documents were noted by Moule.

Italian writer R. Gallo and some other Italian writers didn't mention the documents from 1446, 1450/60 and two from 1600. Concealing it and accepting Monticolo's statement about Polo family mentioned by Sanudo, Gallo affirmed that Marco Polo was a Venetian, in spite of all these vacancies. (note 14)

Some writers accented term "antiguamente" (in the past), connected to the explorer's family inhabiting in Venice, and were stating that his family had come from Dalmatia however, but so long ago (1033), that until 1250 when Marco was born, they were already assimilated in Venice. Some writers, like Lazarri, were relying on Marco Barbaro - Venetian genealogist from 16th century, they claimed that his family came in 1033 from Šibenik. (note 15)

English writer A.C.Yule, same as Moule, found that Barbaro had not given any proof for his statement (1566), but had relied on Ramusio, 9 years after Ramusio's death. Concerning Ramusio, Moule said that he also had not given proofs for his affirms about explorer's genealogy beggining with Andrea Polo di S. Felice. Additionally Moule informed about several alleged Barbaro's genealogy manuscripts, but of different hand-writing styles. Therefore neither Ramusio, neither Barbaro were convincing nor credible. (note 16)

A journalist Radovan Kovačević said that Barbaro's quotation had been a fake. (note 17)

Rafo Ferri informed that Šibenik was first time mentioned in 1036. (note 18)

With such situation in the facts the most serious thinking is that by Orlandini – Polo inhabited Venice from the Near-East and after 1260's, after the fault of Western Crusaders Empire (1261) /Latin Empire/. Many western people left Near-East and Black Sea area then. Here is important that there was no trace of explorer's family in Italy until the middle of 13th century, their genealogy "non e chiara ne secura" (was not clear, neither safe), there were no genealogy data of this family in Italy until the middle of 13th century. (note 19)

British writer Moule noted that there were no reliable and complete data in Italy until the middle of 14th century. (note 20)

So where and when Polo's left Dalmatia? According to the existing documents and Orlandini's statements: Polo's moved from Dalmatia to Near-East (Black Sea area), from where they were travelling as merchants in Adriatic too.

It can only be guessed when and which Polo firstly left the Croatian coast. As already said they were firstly mentioned concerning their stay in Constantinopolis in 1250 according to explorer's book from 1298 and testament of Marco sr. from 1280. They had a house in Soldaia in that year.

Connecting all of this "…antiguamente vene de dalmatia…" (arised from Dalmatia in the past or came from Dalmatia in the past). Did it mean that they came to Venice in the past and which past? Maybe the writer of the document from 1446 thought about past time from the moments when they had been found at first and only temporary in 1250 and 1260's, and finally continually from 1295, as we shall see later in the text.

If this writer knew the situation, by using word "antiguamente", he could bear in mind a time period beginning from 1446 regressively to1250's, when they temporarily occurred to be in Venice, and continually later. A writer couldn't point to time period backwards from 1250, because according to known documents Polo family hadn't been noted in Italy then, they had been noted in the Black Sea and previously in Dalmatia. (note 21)

Polo's, like many others of their compatriots, removed from Croatia to other regions of Mediterranean, just like it was done also by others, people from Genoa, Catalony, Pisa, Venice etc. So many of them were traveling, just like Polo's were, because of their trading busineses from Black Sea, across Aegean and Ionian Seas to Mediterranean or Adriatic Sea where the most known harbor was Venice. Their trading journeys were stopped in 1261 by the fault of Latin Empire, so immediately after that all these people removed to mentioned regions including Venice. (note 22)

Even they were sojourning in the Near East and Black Sea these European inhabitants didn’t lose their ancestry, they were from where they had come from: Genovese stayed Genovese, Catalonians – Catalonians, Venetians – Venetians, so Croats too – stayed Croats. Genovese didn’t become Venetian, Catalonian – Genovese, neither Croat became Venetian because of living in the Black Sea, in first generation. Eventually one could have become the habitant of the place where born in 2nd or some next generation.

As already said Polo family continually stayed in Venice not earlier than 1295. Brothers Nikola sr. and Mate Polo stayed temporarily in Venice 1269 – 1271 and continually after 1295 until they died, according to known data. Nikola died around 1300, Mate 1309. These Polo oldmen didn’t have enough time to be “assimilated” in Venice. Their brother Marko sr. stayed continually in Venice from 1280 according to his testament. It’s unknown how much earlier he came to Venice, neither when he died.

Explorer Marko said about himself that he was in 1298: “bourgeois et habitant en la cite de Venese” (a citizen and an immigrant in the city) . It’s important to notice that in his book he noted that his father Nikola sr. and uncle Mate sr. “estoient” were (stayed) in Constantinopolis in 1250 and transported some merchandise from Venice. He didn’t quote that they were citizens of Venice. He described himself in 1298 and 1307 as “citizen-immigrant” in Venice, his uncle Marko sr. did the same in 1280 – “habitator” (inhabitant-immigrant) from Constantinopolis. This quote from Marko sr. confirms that Nikola sr. and Mate sr. were citizens of Constantinopolis in 1250, so the same goes for him. He probably removed after 1261 to Venice in St. Sueri church district, while his brothers were in Soldaia or already on their way to China. (note 23)

Brothers – oldmen Polo’s bought a house in the area of Venetian church district San Giovanni Christostomo in 1295. Only then they became continual inhabitants of Venice. Explorer Marko jr. with the others was with them, but his stay was interrupted 2 times for long time periods, as we shall see later. (note 24)

At the end of this section, according to shown facts, next conclusion is needed:

First known Polo’s were brothers Nikola, Marko and Mate and their sister Flora. Their initial seat was on the Croatian Adriatic Sea coast. Second known seat of this family was in Constantinopolis and in Soldaia in the Black Sea. Venice was not earlier than third known seat undoubtly beginning from 1295.

Concerning ancestry of this family, writer Andre t’Serstevens gave interesting conclusion, according to:

SURNAME POLO AND FAMILY COAT OF ARMS

Contrary to mediation of some writers who claimed that explorer’s surname had been Latin-Venetian, t’Serstevens considered that its original was not Polo nor Pollo, but rather Slavic surname, so therefore it was differently formatted. He pointed to family coat of arms (3 water birds on it) as a proof for his thinking. (note 25)

Writers who considered that Marko’s surname had been originally Venetian deducted it from word “pola” in old-Venetian: water bird (note 26). On the other hand Croatian writer Vinko Foretić considered that this surname had originated in Latin name “Paulus”, Italian “Paolo”, Venetian “Polo”. Foretić also said that Croatian surnames Polić and similar originated from Latin “Paulus”, Italian “Paolo”, Venetian “Polo”. (note 27)

It’s indisputable that the coat of arms of explorer’s family had 3 water birds, which singular was “pola” and plural “pole” (note 28). However an explorer’s surname in Venetian and Italian was: “Polo”, and sometimes “Pollo” and not “pola”. Some writers yet considered that “Polo” came from “Pollo”, some kind of poultry.

Obviously there was contradictory among the writers who were deducting his surname from Latin, Venetian and Italian language. One deducted it from Latin Paulus, other from Venetian “pola”, others from Italian “pollo” (note 29)

In such situation, the most important fact is that explorer Marko wasn’t using Paulus, Pola, Polo nor Pollo as his surname. He was using Pol with a name Marc. Marc Pol. It’ equally important to notice that word “Pol” doesn’t exist in Latin, Venetian nor Italian language. (note 30). But this word does exist in an old Adriatic-Croatian dialect, where together with Čurlin there was also Pol as name for a water bird. This old-Croatian word exactly responds to what is seen on the explorer’s coat of arms, and that’s 3 “pol” birds. (note 31) By the way originating place of that coat of arms is unknown. It’s unknown whether it originated in Croatia and was brought to Venice, or it originated in Italy (Venice).

So therefore: Serstevens mediation that explorer’s surname was of Slavic (precisely Croatian) roots is much more convincing than those of the writers who thought that it was Latin or Venetian.

Baseless conclusion about Venetian ancestry of explorer’s family is also obvious concerning:

POLO’S SOJOURNING OUT OF EUROPE

As we already know Nikola and Mate Polo sr. were sojourning and doing their business in the Black Sea area in 1250. They left that region over Soldaia by the end of 1250's. They were staying on business for some time in the Soldaia background as guests of the Western-Mongol khan Barca. Their decision to go back over the Black Sea to Constantinopolis was obstructed by the war between Barca and his opponent Hulagu.

So they made new decision to go back to Constantinopolis indirectly. On that way they met the courier of the Great Khan Kublai. He persuaded them to go together to meet the Grat Khan and it was in the beginning of 1260's. After long journey they arrived to Kublai's castle in Combulac, present-day Peking. They stayed there for a few years and went back to Europe in 1269.

By returning they found out that Nikola's wife had died but left a son who was 15 years old in 1269. He was explorer Marko jr. (note 32). Nikola was married again and his 2nd wife was Floraldise Trevisan, according to Marko sr. (note 33)

Because of their previous consultation with Kublai they went to the new journey to China in 1271. This time Marko jr. was with them too. They finally returned to Europe again in 1295. As already said brothers Polo (oldmen in that moment) bought a house in Venice then, and from that moment they became continual inhabitants of Venice and not earlier (note 34).

As previously concluded the oldmen Polo were not able to become Venetianized in that last several years of their lives.)

Nikola and Mate sr. and Nikola's son Marko jr. brought a message from Kublai to Pope. Together with the Pope other known European rulers were mentioned in that message, but not Venetian Duke (note 35). Although Venice was an European force. It's very unusal that Venice was not mentioned in the document brought to Europe by so-called Venetian Polo's.

More about Nikola's son Marko jr. can be explained by:

LIFE AND WORK OF EXPLORER MARKO JR.

Marko was born in 1254, but it's unknown where. Some guess that it was in Constantinopolis, some say in Korčula and some other in Venice.

Along with this indistinctness there's one another, it's unknown what was the name of Marko's mother, who was she and from where, where did she become pregnant and where did she deliver a son, where did she educate him and where did she die. It's interesting that there were no any trace of her grave or any other her trace in Venice. Also it's unknown what was her mother-language, but it was also unknown concerning her son or any other of first Polo's.

Some writers, including also some Italians, concern that Marko was born in Korčula, in Croatia. This conclusion is based on the fact that Marko's father didn't return to Venice between 1250 and 1269.
Since Marko was born in 1254, it was not possible that his conception and birth occured in Venice because of absence of his father there. Also it was not possible that his mother was there. Since Marko's father Nikola and his uncle Mate were staying in the Black Sea then and were travelling as merchants, Marko's conception and birth probably happened somewhere out of Venice, in their Black Sea houses in Soldaia or Constantinopolis, or somewhere in the Adriatic Sea, perhaps in Korčula, in his ancestral Croatia, where many years later in 1298 he felt into slavery. It's very important not to forget that Marko's father Nikola sr. found out not earlier than 1269 that his wife had born his son in the meantime, after what she died in the unknown place.

It's clear from this that Marko's conception and birth happened out of Venice, conception in the place where his parents were sojourning together, birth in the same or some other place in absence of his father. Therefore Venice was the least possible place of his conception and birth. It must be noticed once again that, according to the known documents, Polo family started to live in Venice in 1295 when they bought a house there, these documents noted Dalmatia as the place of their origins, first known sojourning of Polo's was in Constantinopolis, they had a house in Soldaia in the same time, as said by Marko sr. (1280) (note 36).

There are no documents about Marko's birth, so this question is the subject of suppositions, where Korčula has a strong place, while Venice has weak or almost none (note 37)

We don't know where Marko spent his childhood. It seems that his father saw him for the first time in Venice in 1269. The most probably his brother Marko sr. (uncle of Marko jr.) was already settled in Venice then. It's certainly known that he was in Venice as an immigrant in 1280, after removing from Constantinopolis probably after 1261.

Explorer Marko spent his youth partly on travelling to Asia, beginning from 1271, partly on his work in Asia in service of the Khan Kublai, the ruler of China, the most part of Asia and a part of Eastern Europe (present south-eastern Russia and Ukraine). Marko spent his manful years in that service too. He learnt 4 Asian languages there, Chinese and Persian among others. He was high positioned employee of Kublai Khan, so he passed many regions of Kublai's kingdom...

After realisation of his work of life , he settled down together with his father and his uncles in new-bought house in Venice in 1295 in the region of the church district S. Giovanni Chrisostomo. Therefore his familly took the surname "Poli di S. Giovanni Chrisostomo" (note 39). Distinctive from the familly of the same name, actually another branch of their old familly, known by the name: di S. Geremia.

After settling in Venice (1295) when he was 41 years old, Marko abandoned long travels. He appeared in 1298 near Korčula in the sea battle between Genovese and Venetian navy, on the Venetian side. Venice lost that battle and Marko fell into slavery (note 40). It's unknown whether Marko was fighting for Venice his new place of residence or for his ancestral Croatia respectively Korčula where he had been probably born.

Else, there were Croats on the both sides in Genoa-Venice war. So some Benko Hrvat (Benko Croat) succeeded to arrive secretly all the way to the harbor of Genoa and fired up a few of the Genovese ships (1296 or 1298). (note 41)

Capturing of Marko and his staying in the Genovese prison were occasions which resulted with his glorious book. He narrated the contents of the book to his friend in the prison Rusta Pizano (1298), as it was noted in the book. Italian Rusta didn't write it in Latin or Italian language. He wrote it in French (Provencal) (note 42). It's interesting that Marko didn't write it with his own hands, although he was a scholar. It's interesting that his book didn't originate in Venice. It's also found that earlier interests for his book was not noted in Venice, neither from Venetians. That first interests came from the Frenchmen. In the introduction of his book (written or rewritten) in 1307, Marko noted that he was giving that copy of the book to an administrator of the French king, wishing that "noble regions of France" were acquainted with it.

The original of the book from 1298 was not saved. The most credible among numerous rewritings are saved in la Bibliotheque nationale (Paris). Rewrite of that copy given by Marko (1307) to France is saved in the city library in Bern (note 43). Some concern that Marko was able to use French language. He was not able to use Latin (note 44). Concerning Italian and Venetian, it's unknown when did he learn it and how well did he use it.

First translations of the book to Italian and Latin didn't originate in Venice. It was in Toscana (note 45).

It's outspoken that Dante didn't mention Marko neither his book when he was staying in Venice in the beginning of 1300's. Also he was not mentioned neither in CHRONICON IUSTINIANI (1358), although that chronicles noted all Venetian and world accidents, as well as famous Venetians, including known immigrants and their works. Marko was noted only in one Venetian document (1305) among other naval captains concerning payment of some taxes (note 46). He was never noted as some Republic employee or administrator, public worker or famous and meritorious person.

Explorer Marko was not noted in CHRONICON IUSTINIANI. After leaving the Genovese prison he went to Venice in 1299. But there was not any note about him there in the Venetian documents until 1305 (note 47). This statement is worthy only if disregarding Marko Polo noted in 1300 among rebels led by Marin Bacon (habitator) who were rebelling against Venetian aristocratic government. After that rebellion had ended in blood, this Marco was one of 43 "banditi" adjudged to suffer death (note 48). He saved his life by escape. Some scholars concern that he was actually our explorer Marko and that he escaped to Skradin to Croatian Ban Pavao Šubić, an enemy of Venice (note 49).

It's not easy to say what is exactness of this supposition, but it's previously already discerned that he was absent in Venice until 1305. Somewhat later he was mentioned in a few documents: the last will of his uncle Mate sr. in 1309(1310), then one official decision in 1319 which gave him possesion of the part of the real estates that became his inheritance after death of his father Nikola (1300), he was mentioned in the document according to which he bought a part of the familly properties of his wife Donata Baoer, finally there was his testament written in Latin but not by his hand in 1324 a short time before his death (note 50).

In the meantime there was another rebellion in Venice in 1310 under leadership of Baiamonte Tiepolo (the grand-son of the Duke) and Marco Querini. Among these rebels there were Jacobello and Francesco Polo from the branch S. Geremia. B. Tiepolo was a grand-son of the Duke of Trogir - Stjepko Šubić (1274), from his mother familly side, so therefore in parentage with Croatian Ban Pavao Šubić. That rebellion was also ended in blood. Its leaders were driven through to the Croatian area under Venetian government. They were acting in collusion there with the enemy of Venice (Ban Šubić) so Venice determined them for extermination. Some rebels succesfully escaped to Ban Šubić (note 51).

By the way let's notice that Belella a daughter of the explorer Marko was married to some B. Querini (note 51).

These facts bring more questions connected to main question which is origin of our explorer in the mirror of his relations to Venice. We have already found unexistance of genealogy data in Italy or Venice until the middle of 13th century according to Orlandini, or until the middle of 14th century according to Moule. First Polo in Venice was immigrant Marko sr. according to his testament from 1280 in the moment where their house was still in Soldaia and probably another in Constantinopolis too. That's from where Marko sr. removed to Venice and was an immigrant (habitator) in 1280. There was no familly house in Venice of the explorer's branch of Pol familly then all along until 1295 (in Venetian church district S. G. Chrisostomo), so we have concluded that there were weak connections to justify the name Venetians for his familly. Mentioned facts about Marko's book are giving the proofs for this unjustifiableness: he was literal, he was using at least 4 languages, Asian ones actually. He was giving the reports to Kublai Khan on one of these languages. Enormous numer of multifarious data extremely important for the whole world had to be noted somewhere by Marko so it was able to be transfered into his book. Some people think that these notes existed in Venice so he called for it by someone to bring it to the prison in Genoa. There are questions: on which language were those notes written, why didn't he use it in Venice, why didn't he write his book by his own hands on Latin, Venetian or Italian if he was able to use these languages? Why did his book origined out of Venice, written in French and initiated to France (edition from 1307)? Why there was no any interest for that book and for him in Venice? Why CHRONICON IUSTINIANI (1358) and Dante in 1300's didn't note him? Are the answers on these and many other questions contributing to Marko's connections to Venice? These connections would contribute to his Venetian ancestry and his loyalty to Venice, or it would contribute to thinking that he was known as citizen of Venice, meritorious in Venice, or noble etc... We have found that it was not the case. In contrary, his nickname "Il milione" leads to thought that Venetians were mocking about him (note 51**).

If considered that there was no trace of Marko's staying in Venice between 1300 and 1305, rebellion in the meantime (1300) with Marko Polo as a rebel, rebellion in 1310 with two Marko's cousins involved, then thinking of those writers who claim that rebel Marko Polo (1300) was actually our explorer. His daughter was married to Querini familly, one of Querini was a rebellion leader in 1310. Finally there is Croatian ancestry of Polo familly testified by mentioned Venetian documents and connection to Croatian Ban familly of Šubić.

There's another supposition, mysterious nickname of the explorer's familly: Il Milione.
There's a lot of mediations about the meaning of that name: Ramusio said that it was (derisively) used in Venice because of Marko's talking about millions, by means of treasure. Others think that he was "milionex", but Moule finds that he was financialy well settled but far away from richman or millionaire. Yule consider that this nickname was not of Latin, Italian or Venetian origin. Some consider that nickname was abbreviation of Emilion maybe in connection to Italian province Emillia. Without proofs. So this nickname stays enigma. However G. Benedetto gave that title to his noticed book, in which he published maybe the most correct text of Marko's travel record. (note 52)

Marko died 9th January 1324. He was burried in stone coffin together with a scelleton of his father Nikola. According to his words Ramusio saw Polo familly coat of arms with 3 water-birds. The coffin made by Marko in 1301 for his father burial was placed in front of church S.Lorenzo but dissapeared 1592. What remained of Marko in Venice were lost bones and poor data about his discontinual staying after 1295. (note 53)

...Some writers (Lazzari) guess that Polo's were Venetians but also arrivers from Dalmatia, allegedly from ��ibenik in 1033, without any base in facts.... Marko was born in 1254, four years after his father had brought goods from Venetian harbor to his place of residence in Constantinopolis in 1250. So Marko was born somwhere in the area from the Black Sea to the Adriatic Sea, maybe in Korčula. It's shown by the fact, formerly uninvestigated in the international literacy, that Korculan Pol's were staying in the Near East according to Korculan documents. Undoubtfuly they were coming to the Adriatic Sea by trade business but never noted in Venice between 1250 and 1269...

SUMMARY

Marc Pol was a Croat by his ancestry, and maybe by birthplace. He was Chinese European by his work and life in Asia, he was a Frenchman by cultural and humanistic inclination, he was a Citizen of the World by his historical realisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenanarh (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes:
Note_7 A. G. Moule and P. Pelliot, MARCO POLO THE DISCOVERY OF THE WORLD, L. (London, 1938), 15, 16, 20, 527
Note_8 Giovanni Orlandini, Marco Polo e la sun familia u ARCHIVIO VENETO TRIDENTINO, Vol. IX, 1926, 1-68, especially 1-3
Note_9 Testament of Marka sr., in Moule, 523-4.
Note_10 L. F. Benedetto (published) IL MILIONE (Firenze, 1928) - Benedetto published Marc Pol's book in French language (original) and translation to Italian.
Note_11 Roberto Cessi e Famy Benneto (ed.), VENETIARUM HISTORIA VULGO PETRO IUSTINIANI, in short: CHRONICOM IUSTINIANI (1358) Venezia, 1965)
Note_12 G.(iovanni) Monticolo (ed., LE VITE DEI DOGI DI MARIN SANUDO (Cita di Castello 1900), 39, note nr. 5
Note_13 See Note 11
Note_14 Amolio Bacotich, Tribuni antichi di Venezia di origine dalmata. ARCHIVIO STORICO PER LA DALMAZIA, vol. XXV (1938), 99. 100.
Note_15 According to V. F. Dominis Gogola, Dopuna u praznini životopisa Marka Pola in Zadarska revija 4/54, 327, 329, 330, 332.
Note_16 Henry Yule, The Book of Ser Marc Polo (London 1871), XLIV, Moule, 17, 20
Note_17 R. Kovačević,.Marko Polo... in NEDJELJNA DALMACIJA, 20. II. 1982, 20
Note_18 Dr. Rafo Ferri, O životopisu M. Pola in ZADARSKA REVIJA, nr. 2. (1995), 77, 78. About Šibenik concerning this see V. Delić, Šibenik published by Graf. zavod Hrvatske. DALMATINSKI GRADOVI (Zagreb, 1964), (19).
Note_19 Orlandini; 1, 2, 3.
Note_20 Moule, 20.
Note_21 Usp. Bacotich, op. cit. Moule, 17, 19. v. and Dominis-Gogola, as in Note_15.
Note_22 Usp. testament of Marko sr. in Moule, op. quote 523-4.
Note_23 Marko's book introduction, especially his introductionu in edition from 1307, v. Pauthier, 3, 767. including reptinted manuscript from 1307. (Intoduction and epilogue), 55-7. Testament of Marko sr., in Moule, 523-524.
Note_24 Marko's book, in Pauthier, 1-4, explorer's family genealogy in Moule, 14.
Note_25 Andre Serstevens, LE LIVRE DE MARCO POLO (Paris, 1969), XIX. Marko's family coat of arms see in Moule, 14 on the genealogy list, and special list according to Ramusio, 20, 21 and Moule's note 39.
Note_26 Moule, 24, 21; Gallo, 79, 80.
Note_27 Dr. Vinko Foretić, Da li je Marko Polo Korčulanin, MOGUĆNOSTI god. I., br. 10, 1954 (Split), 691, see note 391.
Note_28 Moule, 21. see note 39.
Note_29 Moule, 219; Gallo, 79, see note 39.
Note_30 V. Marko's introduction where he name himself as Pol in Benedetto's edition, pages 1, 2, 3., and in Pauthier's edition, pages 1, 2, 3. V. Moule 21, Gallo 79.
Note_31 O hrvatskoj staroj riječi "pol" v. Petar Skok ETIMOLOŠKI RI/EČNIK, IV. (Zagreb, 1974), 294 u vezi sa knj. I (1971), 343. Note_32 Marko's book, passim in Pauthier's edition 5-23, especially Chapitres IX-X, pages 16, 17, and Benedetto's edition Chapitre I C, page 17.
Note_33 Testament of Marko sr. in Moule, 523-524.
Note_34 Marko's book, as in Note_32.
Note_35 Marko's book in Pauthier's edition, in the end where Kublai's message to Pope was published, see Note_23.
Note_36 According to Marko's book and some other historical data, conclusion was that Marko was born in 1254, because he was 15 years old in 1269. see Note_32.
Note_37 Korčula is seen on geographical maps where the lines and directions of the brothers Polo travelling were marked from Europe to Asia and back. There is one such map from Marko's ages in London Records Office.
Note_39 See geneology of the explorer's familly Poli di S. Giovanni Chrisostomo, in Moule, 14. Old familly Poli was the most probably diferenced in 2 branches, a branch S. G. Chrisostomo and branch di San Geremia. Both branches had the same coat of arms until 1381. That coat of arms was seen and described by Ramusio, according to Moule, pages 21, 22 (according to Ramusio the coat of arms was engraved in the coffin of the explorer Marko mand his father). That coat of arms was precisely described in the document from 1450/60, and it was noted that there were 2 branches of the old familly tree, see Moule, 19, 20, especially Moule's note 25 and 29.
Note_40 See Marko's Introduction in his book, in editions by Pauthier and Benedetto.
Note_41 See Note_22 and Note_24.
Note_42 Introduction in Marko's book, in Pauthier, 3, 4.
Note_43 See Pauthier's edition, pages 1, 2. the Chapitres CL CLVI, introduction and title of rewrite of the Marko's book from 1307. in the city library in Bern.
Note_44 Sir Denison Ross MARCO POLO AND HIS BOOK (London, 1934), 14, 21. equally in Pauthier, 1, 2 CLVI, and manuscript in Bern.
Note_45 Ross, 11, 14, 21 and ENCYCLOPAEDIE BRITANNICA, Vol. 14 (1975), 760-761. Note_46 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, op. quote
Note_47 Moule, 528, 529. Moule added at the end of his (engl.) edition of Marko's book, 83 documents reprinted from Latin originals. The documents concerned Marko's familly and Marko himself, for example the testaments of Marko sr. and the explorer Marko jr.
Note_48 See F. Dominis-Gogola, see Note_15. R. Ferri, quote in the note 18, here see 75, 76. see also Šparac, quote Note_14.
Note_49 Ferri, like in the notes also Dr. Ivo Rubić, O porijeklu Marka Pola, MOGUĆNOSTI, II. nr. 4. 1955 (Split), 315, Dr. Jakša Herceg KORČULANIN MARKO POLO (Split, 1954), passim, R. Kovačević in Note_17.
Note_50 Moule, 528, 529, 535, and Annex 95.
Note_51 Gallo, 68, 69, 70, 71. Gallo didn't mention Šubić, but what was noted by mentioned Croatian writers can be connected to what was said by Gallo.
Note_52 The title of Marko's book in Benedetto edition. Also see Note_10. Benedetto suggested that origin came from Emilia, Emilion. He gave no proofs.
Note_53 Moule, 30. See also Genealogy on the pages 14, 15 in Moule.

---

Please don't put any comment until all text is translated with related references. Thanks Zenanarh 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's ridiculous. The "Devisement du Monde", written in French, used the gallicized form "Marc Pol" so he was Croat because Pol is not Venetian? Leaving aside that "Pol" is the equivalent of "Polo" in some area of the Veneto (where the Northern and North-Central variants are spoken) and that in the 13th and 14th century the notion of standardized spelling was unheard of, it was normal to "translate" names and surnames: the French version was "Marc Pol", "Marcus Paulo" was used in the Latin last will, "Marco Polo" in the Venetian and Tuscan documents and translations, and so on. That document is ludicrous: its author skates over every evidence contrary to his thesis and dwells on minor details as if they were irrefutable "smoking guns", for example the significance of "antiguamente" (nice to know that "antiguamente" means "in the past, but after 1250"), or all the "deductions" from the use of "habitator" (the same terms used for Marco in the last wills are used for his wife Donata, Venetian without any doubt, so I can't see why they should demonstrate that he was a Croat). GhePeU 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Read it again - "antiguamente" from the writer's point of view in 15th century! "Habitator"? Well, if you didn't know, during Medieval, population of the cities were differenced by classes. Noblemen were the rulers - civilian aristocracy with the properties - members of the City Councils and the main carriers of economical, church and political life. But noblemen were only a small part of the cities populations. The majorities were differenced into 2 other city classes: "habitatores" and "civas" (from Latin language). "Civas" were acknowledged citizens with acknowledged tradition of living in the city and contribution to its culture. In some cities where the nobility was not too isolated group this "civity" was a condition for accepting into noble society. However sometimes strangers were also accepted to nobility if they had deserved it by their contributions to the city developement (for example - contributions in the wars or in politics). The rest were "habitatores" - immigrants and peasants who came to the city. They usually needed a few generations to become "civas". This classment distribution was strict and always affirmed in the documents. It was how Venice and other cities were functioning. It was obligatory for the notars to note class appurtenance together with name of a person in the documents. And Polo's were noted as "habitatores"!

There's another interesting point: Polo family had their family coat of arms. Coat of arms was a sign of nobility and sometimes civity. As it's known they had it in the 13th century and if they had been Venetians before 13th century it was absolutely impossible that they were not "civas" or noblemen and they had their coat of arms as "habitatores"!!! Coat of arms was a sign of aristocracy in Medieval Europe and it only shows that somewhere they were listed as noblemen, but certainly not in Venice nor Italy, since we know that in Venice they were "habitatores"!

First learn something before you deduct by ignorance. And I'll apreciate if you avoid your comments before the rest of the text is translated. Thanks. Zenanarh 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. It is "cives", not "civas", so be careful with your accusations of ignorance.
2. Your article use the word "habitants" (not habitator) referring to 1298 and 1307, that is (as far as I can tell) to the two French editions of the Travels, the one written by Rustichello and the abridged version presented to a French nobleman some years later: these were not official documents and were not written by a notary.
3. The article cites "bourgeois et habitant" but in the Francophone cities these were generally two different classes and stayed different until the end of the Ancient Regime: so either he was both or "habitant" is not a juridic term equivalent to "habitator" but simply means that he lived there.
4. Contrarily, there is a document written by a notary, and it is Marco Polo's will, in Latin: in this document Marco is mentioned as "MARCUS PAULO de confinio Sancti Johannis Chrysostomi", exactly as the Venetian notary is mentioned as "JOHANEM JUSTINIANUM presbiterum Sancti Proculi et Notarium": no "habitator", no "cives".

That said, I'm sick of all this, I've got better things to do with my time that fighting with the Wikipedia Section of the Greater Croatia's Assault Troops. Do as you please, change as you please, as long as I don't wake up one morning with a knife at my throat and someone who suggests me that I'd better become a Croat as well. GhePeU 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down man, save your nerves. You don't have to be afraid of... how did you call it?... Greater Croatia blah blah... anyway it doesn't exist... I think we have scientific discussion here. That's not my problem if you're not ready for that.

1. "cives" or "civas" whatever, in my hometown it was "civas". OK in Venice it was "cives".
   
2. Article doesn't use "habitant"! Read it again. It was "habitator" in 1280 in Venetian document and "habitant" in Marco's book writen in French. If you didn't know the book was originally written in French language, not Italian.
   
3. “bourgeois et habitant en la cite de Venese” What is strange here? Polo's had the coat of arms which means that they were noblemen in Korcula or in Constantinopolis. In Venice they were "habitators". However they were accepted into Venetian City Council for their contributions in the war against Genoa. That means that they gained the rights of the "cives" class. Since they were strangers they didn't gain "cives" nomination. Now again he was “bourgeois et habitant en la cite de Venese” or translated it could be "nobleman and habitator in Venice". It's so simple: they were noblemen but in Venice they were "habitatores". If they were members of "cives" class he wouldn't use "habitant" in French but more likely French synonim for a "citizen" - a member of "cives", when he already used "burgeois" for - nobleman. Another point - if they were members of "cives" class or nobility in Venice they wouldn't need some special contributions in the war against Genoa to be accepted to the City Council, because their class membership would be a condition for it. And in the Venetian document it was accented that their contributions were the reasons! However if they were accepted to the Council as "cives" or noblemen it was in 1381 when our Polo was already dead, so it goes for his descendants. One more point - “bourgeois et habitant en la cite de Venese” - if he was a nobleman and inhabitant (not habitator) in Venice and if he was a Venetian it means that he was a Venetian nobleman! But it's never recorded in Venetian history. It's absolutely impossible that some Venetian nobleman from 13th century was never noted in the documents!
   
4. In Latin documents in Europe all names were translated to Latin format! So "Marcus Paulo" means nothing.
   

Hmmm this "Section of the Greater Croatia's Assault Troops" of yours are Italian writer Giovanni Orlandini, English writers A.C.Moule and A.C.Yule and Belgian linguist and writer Andre t'Serstevens. Zenanarh 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Insert the sources immediately or I will revert again the paragraph. --Giovanni Giove 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy Giove! We must not add sources from just one "side" here! It makes the article POV, that's why the paragraph was removed (not by a Croat) before. Leave the article the way it is, it does not say Polo was a Croat or Italian, because we simply do not know. Don't make it POV. Once again, you have Italian sources, and I have Slavic sources contradicting them. If you have a source it does not mean you are automatically right, keep that in mind. DIREKTOR 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original par. was removed by a CROAT user. Again: INSERT SOURCES FOR YOUR CLAIMS. There is no evidence for Polo, to be born in Curzola: there is the EVIDENCE he was Venetian. INSERT YOUR SOURCES!!! Otherwise I will revert it!--Giovanni Giove 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of that... Do you want sources? just read the long discussion above before reverting, there are many sources that support the Korčula theory. You cannot just come here like a "Deus ex machina", read the whole thing first. I personally believe he was possibly a Venetian, but we must keep the article NPOV, must we not? DIREKTOR 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL I WILL READ NOTHING

It's on YOU insert the sources on the paragraph, because you haven't dont this I will reintroduced the original and SOURCED paragraph. I strongly suggest you to avoid reverts, it will no so much helpful for you. Polo was born in VENICE as it is wrotten in HIS book!!!--Giovanni Giove 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I told you I think so too! There is however a legitimate claim that he is from Korčula. The sources are above. You will read nothing? I do not know what to say to you then. And I will not breach the 3RR if that's what you are hoping. You will not push POV by quoting one side of the story, that much I can assure you. DIREKTOR 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are legitimate sources from both sides of the debate. Even Encyclopedia Britannica states the two possible origins. Giovanni... the book wasn't even written by Polo and there is a good possibility that the writer didn't really know Polo's true origin. --Searchmaven 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The book was written by Rustichello Da Pisa, that was in jail with Marco. He has just written what Marco told him. You can clearly read that after 16 years, they come back to Venice where they find a young boy: Marco. (About 16). Anyway he has to insert the sources.--Giovanni Giove 07:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid reasoning will get you nowhere. As far as he's concerned, Britannica is probably Croatized as well. Giove, for the last time, we do not know where Polo is from. Therefore do not push the POV of one side, the article must be balanced out since historians are balanced out. DIREKTOR 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh, ima li referencea na netu? Ako ima, trebamo ih stavit u gioveove citation needed-e. To bi ga trebalo ušutkat... DIREKTOR 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all "Marc Pol" section on this talk page is a reference. There is a link [2] to the original article written in Croatian in the beginning of the section. My "Marc Pol" section is translation to English. There is also a list of references used in the text. Link to the author's original list of references is [3].

Since we have original article (Croatian) with the list of its references and a translation to English in "Marc Pol" section with the same related references, all is clear and transparent. By Wiki policy it has the same importance as a link to an English article in the net - Wikipedia: Citing sources. Zenanarh 11:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but not by Giove policy, it would seem. I just want to shut the guy up, I can't get to work on my military history edits at all. DIREKTOR 11:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

His behavior is self-speaking. How long can he act like that? I hope ARBCOM see this. Zenanarh 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope too. Meanwhile present a *trustable* source and not the usual HDZ 'historical' paper.--Giovanni Giove 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget Croatian politics, this is about History! Is the encyclopedia Britannica a "*trustable*" source, in your much respected oppinion?

"Polo, Marco (b.c.1254, Venice, or Curzola, Venetian Dalmatia--d. Jan. 8, 1324, Venice), Venetian merchant, adventurer, and outstanding traveler..."

Will you answer when confronted with an argument, Giovanni Giove?

OK wait a sec. why was he in jail???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.4.131 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from near Venice. I find irritating when Marco Polo is referred to be an Italian merchant/traveler just as much as when he is referred to be a Croatian merchant/traveler. He belonged to a now defunct nation, the Venet Republic, that extended its territory in the Adriatic area (and beyond). Propaganda that affirms that people in Venice, Istria and Dalmatia were Italians and spoke Italian should be dismissed just as much as assertions of being Croatian and spoke Croatian. Dalmatian used to be a language before beign subplanted by Venetian. The last name Polo simply means Paul.

Lodovigo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.203.124 (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! The most of speakers in Dalmatia were using Croatian language before Venetian occupation. Dalmatian was gradually disappearing from 10th to 17th century because of mixing with Croatian. In fact Chakavian dialect of Croatian was full of Dalmatian words already in 10th century. So Dalmatian language was subplanted by Croatian. Dalmatian was still present in the cities in the early Medieval but very soon it was spoken only by noblemen in Dalmatian cities in Medieval. Italian language subplanted official Latin in the documents and Dalmatian spoken by noblemen. All that time from 9th to 20th century Croatian wasn't subplanted at all, except in 19th century - by Italian in some small degree. Zenanarh 14:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

to be translated (I will not add insult for you, dear Z.&D.- that your habits...)

Marco Polo, la nascita a Curzola un clamoroso falso

Giacomo Scotti mi ha fatto, giustamente, notare che la storia che attribuisce la nascita di Marco Polo a Curzola, non è altro che un clamoroso falso. Coloro che hanno diffuso la leggenda che vuole sia stata l'isola dalmata a dare i natali allo scopritore del Catai, lo hanno fatto con scopo "promozionale", utilizzando il fatto che sul territorio insulare si trovassero delle famiglie Polo o Depolo.

La celebre "Casa di Marco Polo", visitata ogni anno da decine di migliaia di turisti, non sarebbe nient'altro che l'abitazione in cui lo scrittore de "Il Milione" avrebbe trascorso la notte (questa è solo un'ipotesi) in seguito alla disfatta navale veneziana, avvenuta nel 1298 nelle acque di Curzola, per opera delle galee genovesi. Questa sua permanenza costituisce l'argomento utilizzato da coloro che lo vogliono nativo di quest'area dalmata. Fin qui non c'è nulla di male.

Come è noto l'orgoglio legato al campanile ha, in molti casi, voluto attribuire i natali ad illustri personaggi, specialmente se questi non vantavano un'origine certa. Una situazione molto affine interessò il pittore veneto Vittore Carpaccio, che nell'ultimo periodo della sua vita si era trasferito a Capodistria. La casa giustinopolitana dell'artista -ubicata nei pressi di quella di Nazario Sauro - aveva indotto vari intellettuali istriani a ritenerlo figlio della città di San Nazario. Solo l'approfondito studio di Ludwig e di Molmenti dimostrò (nel 1906), attraverso una copiosa documentazione, l'origine veneziana di Carpaccio, nato da genitori provenienti da Mazzorbo.

Se ritorniamo a Marco Polo, dobbiamo precisare che pure gli studiosi jugoslavi erano piuttosto indecisi sulla località d'origine del viaggiatore in questione. Nell'enciclopedia dell'Istituto lessicografico di Zagabria si legge che coloro che lo considerano nativo di Curzola, fondano la loro tesi su un documento del XV secolo ove viene menzionata una famiglia Polo (Enciklopedija leksikografskog zavoda, vol. VI, Zagreb 1962, p. 135).

Abbandonando il campanilismo, un aspetto ripugnante è sicuramente l'atteggiamento di determinati ambienti croati che tendono a croatizzare e a fagocitare tutto ciò che ha avuto origine lungo le sponde dell'Adriatico orientale, nonché di tutti coloro che misero piede sul territorio dianzi ricordato. Il fatto che Marco Polo non fosse originario di Curzola, bensì di Venezia, costituisce un motivo in più per riflettere sullo scempio che viene creato da certi circoli che percepiscono la storia adriatica solo in chiave mononazionale, escludendo a priori l'eterogeneità dell'area geografica.

Come abbiamo ricordato la volta scorsa i documentari che verranno realizzati dall'ente televisivo croato avranno lo scopo di dimostrare la croaticità di Marco Polo (sic). In realtà non occorre argomentare più del dovuto una tale affermazione. Se si giunge a tanto, questo è dovuto al fatto che non si riconosce l'autoctonia dell'elemento romanzo (poi italiano).

Alcuni sono dell'opinione che Venezia avrebbe alterato (leggi italianizzato) una costa compattamente slava, snazionalizzando il carattere originario di quel contesto. Questi miti attecchiscono ancora e sembrano diffondersi sempre di più. Di fronte alle tesi che dipingono l'italiano come l'oppressore degli slavi (in qualsiasi epoca), non c'è spazio per un ragionamento serio e pacato. Di conseguenza, nei lavori presentati, c'è una volontà ossessiva volta a rappresentare un passato "diverso". Si tratta di imprese folli e anacronistiche. Il caso di Marco Polo rappresenta solo la "punta dell'iceberg" poiché il problema riguarda molti aspetti della storia e della cultura della sponda orientale dell'Adriatico.

Per concludere voglio ricordare, ancora, che Pietro Coppo, il celebre geografo e cartografo veneziano, che si trasferì a Isola d'Istria, viene presentato sotto varie vesti. Nei volumi dell'Enciclopedia della Slovenia il summenzionato viene riportato come Pietro Coppo, Peter Coppo ma non dimentichiamo che riscontriamo anche il nome slavizzato di Pietar Kopic (sic).

Tanti nomi, che vengono utilizzati liberamente, le cui forme si alternano a seconda dell'autore che tratta un determinato argomento. L'ultima versione sopracitata è la testimonianza tangibile di quanto abbiamo argomentato precedentemente. Nella furia di fagocitare tutto e tutti, per poi rappresentare i "nuovi prodotti" come espressioni "genuine della cultura slava", non si fanno distinzioni, in quanto sia gli autoctoni sia coloro che giunsero in queste terre si trasformano, e, come per magia, ottengono una nuova identità!

Kristjan Knez La Voce del Popolo 26/06/04

La TV croata dimostrerà la «croaticità» di Marco Polo

Il quotidiano di Spalato "Slobodna Dalmacija" dello scorso 9 giugno ha dedicato ampio spazio ai progetti televisivi che verranno messi in cantiere dall'emittente di stato croata, soffermandosi sui documentari di carattere storico. L'articolista Zeljana Matijevi? ha intervistato il redattore responsabile dei programmi culturali Miro Brankovi?. Quest'ultimo ha illustrato le iniziative che verranno realizzate, e che appariranno sui piccoli schermi a partire dall'autunno del 2005. Tra queste ricordiamo i 12 episodi concernenti il viaggiatore Marco Polo. Per ripercorrere le tappe della vita e dell'impresa dell'autore de "Il Milione", i produttori della serie visiteranno una dozzina di paesi, e seguiranno con attenzione gli scritti dello scopritore del Catai. In siffatto modo - sempre secondo le parole di Brankovi? - "dimostreremo che era croato"! In un primo momento si può pensare si tratti di un'iniziativa poco seria, intrapresa da qualche dilettante, con poca dimestichezza con la storia dell'area adriatica. Invece no, si tratta di un progetto (supponiamo anche costoso) della tv nazionale con sede a Zagabria, che andrà ad arricchire il palinsesto della stessa. Ciò che deve far riflettere è l'obiettivo che tale serie di documentari si prefigge di raggiungere. Da quanto abbiamo appreso dall'articolo sopracitato, ciò che preme è dimostrare - ignoriamo però in che modo - la presupposta croaticità di un personaggio che tale non era. Come sappiamo l'avidità di certi circoli croati tende a fagocitare la storia e la cultura della Dalmazia, facendole passare esclusivamente per croate, alterando di volta in volta nomi, cognomi, titoli di opere letterarie, sino ad arrivare all'esplicita deturpazione del passato della regione. Ancora una volta il ragionamento fatto è stato pressappoco il seguente: Marco Polo fu originario di Curzola, oggi quest'isola fa parte della Repubblica di Croazia, di conseguenza non può essere altro che croato! Aggiungiamo, ancora, che una tale argomentazione indica innanzitutto una grande ignoranza storica, uno spessore culturale inesistente o quasi, e, permettetemi, un disprezzo verso quella civiltà formatasi nel corso dei secoli, che non ha nazionalità alcuna, ma è semplicemente dalmata. Quando ci accingiamo ad analizzare i secoli antecedenti la seconda metà del XIX secolo, parliamo di storia dalmata - non dimenticando mai l'eterogeneità di questo territorio - e dobbiamo abbandonare il concetto di nazionalità, in quanto non ha senso utilizzarlo per i periodi che lo ignorano. La società di antico regime trovava il suo punto di riferimento nella "piccola patria", che corrispondeva al territorio ove si era nati, di conseguenza si apparteneva a quel contesto. Dante Alighieri era un italiano? Certamente no, era un fiorentino. Ma Firenze si trova in Italia, potrà obiettare qualcuno. È vero, ma nel XIII secolo - lo stesso secolo in cui visse Marco Polo - non esisteva una coscienza nazionale italiana e nemmeno in altre parti d'Europa. Tra Firenze e Torino, tra Venezia e Palermo, ecc., intercorrevano enormi differenze sia culturali sia linguistiche. Non a caso Massimo D'Azeglio ebbe modo di scrivere nell'introduzione ai "Miei ricordi" "S'è fatta l'Italia, ma non si fanno gli Italiani", cioè, una volta unificato il territorio dello stivale, bisognava unificare gli abitanti della penisola, abbattendo quelle differenze così marcate che rendevano assai difficile accomunare, ad esempio, i calabresi ai liguri, i lombardi ai sardi e così via, e, certamente, non facilitavano l'affermarsi di un senso di appartenenza ad una nazione. Lo stesso discorso vale anche per i territori dell'odierna Croazia. Per la Dalmazia, poi, la situazione si fa ancora più specifica in quanto era abitata da due popolazioni: quella romanza e quella slava, che subirono influenze reciproche, per dare luogo a una civiltà ibrida, con caratteristiche particolari tra il contado ed i centri urbani. Questa sistematica e permanente volontà di croatizzare tutto e tutti non fa certo onore ai contraffattori. Come è noto questi "interventi" interessano esclusivamente, o quasi, i lidi dell'Adriatico orientale - non invece la Slavonia, la Moslavina, ecc.- ove incontriamo sì la civiltà italica, ma è la regione ove germogliò e si sviluppò anche la letteratura croata. Tutto ciò, però, sembra non interessare. Quel patrimonio storico -culturale-architettonico dev'essere necessariamente spacciato per croato, ignorando e accantonando la realtà storica. Colui che verrà presentato sotto altre "vesti" e passato a miglior vita molti secoli or sono, non può replicare. Chi crede ancora nell'onestà intellettuale, invece, non può fare finta di niente. Tacere significherebbe acconsentire un'assurdità e favorire la diffusione del falso, dimenticando così il fatto che stiamo parlando di una terra ricca, complessa e affascinante, alla quale si vuole togliere la sua vera essenza. Kristjan Knez --Giovanni Giove 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From The Travels of Marco Polo [4][5] by Rustichello da Pisa and Marco Polo

• Prologue "(...) according to the description of Messer Marco Polo, a wise and noble citizen of Venice, as he saw them with his own eyes."
  
• CHAPTER I "It came to pass in the year of Christ 1260, when Baldwin was reigning at Constantinople, that Messer Nicolas Polo, the father of my lord Mark, and Messer Maffeo Polo, the brother of Messer Nicolas, were at the said city of CONSTANTINOPLE, whither they had gone from Venice with their merchants' wares. Now these two Brethren, men singularly noble, wise, and provident, took counsel together to cross the GREATER SEA on a venture of trade; so they laid in a store of jewels and set forth from Constantinople, crossing the Sea to SOLDAIA.
• CHAPTER IX Seeing well enough that what the Legate said was just, they observed: "But while the Pope is a-making, we may as well go to Venice and visit our households." So they departed from Acre and went to Negropont, and from Negropont they continued their voyage to Venice. On their arrival there, Messer Nicolas found that his wife was dead, and that she had left behind her a son of fifteen years of age, whose name was MARCO; and 'tis of him that this Book tells. The Two Brothers abode at Venice a couple of years, tarrying until a Pope should be made.
• CHAPTER X When the Two Brothers had tarried as long as I have told you, and saw that never a Pope was made, they said that their return to the Great Kaan must be put off no longer. So they set out from Venice, taking Mark along with them, and went straight back to Acre, where they found the Legate of whom we have spoken.
• CHAPTER XVIII. What more shall I say? Having left Kiacatu they travelled day by day till they came to Trebizond, and thence to Constantinople, from Constantinople to Negropont, and from Negropont to Venice. And this was in the year 1295 of Christ's Incarnation.
• CHAPTER XXXIV AND LAST But I believe it was God's pleasure that we should get back in order that people might learn about the things that the world contains. For according to what has been said in the introduction at the beginning of the Book, there never was a man, be he Christian or Saracen or Tartar or Heathen, who ever travelled over so much of the world as did that noble and illustrious citizen of the City of Venice, Messer Marco the son of Messer Nicolo Polo.

--Giovanni Giove 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh wrote: "Italian language subplanted official Latin in the documents and Dalmatian spoken by noblemen."

Sure, if you want to confuse Venetian with Italian, Dalmatian with Croatian, Gauls with Frenchmen, and King Arthur as an English men, go ahead.

No doubt that today's Dalmatia is 99.9% Croatian, and that Croats have been there for over a thousand years (Venice was fighting the Narentines Slavs in the Adriatic around the 10th century and before).

But here we are talking about Marco Polo, who is wrongly being referred to as an Italian, just because Venice has been annexed to Italy 140 years ago. Just to give you a linguistic perspective of the time, here is what Dante Alighieri (the forefather of Italian) had to say about the Venet tongue in his De Vulgari Eloquentia: "their accent and vocabulary so hirsute to destroy the femininity of any woman speaking it, making you think her a man". He liquidates this tongue as "barbarissimum", this is how foreign it sounded to the Florentine poet. Venetian and Dalmatian may be romance languages and not slavic, but that does not make a Venetian man an Italian, especially in the Middle Ages. At the time Venetians fought fiercely against Italians, while enlisting in their army the Sclavones who for centuries fought for Venice.

Now, let's do Marco Polo a favor and avoid referring to him as as an Italian or a Croatian. He was neither. How do you think he presented himself to the Kublai Khan? "Hi, I am Marco Polo, from Italy, I brought you an Italian flag." Or perhaps "Hello, I am Marko Poloski from Croatia, I leave in Curzola just North of Ragusa, but please call them Korcula and Dubrovnik."

The truth is that Marco Polo's belonged to an Adriatic culture whose roots have been woven by commerce and geography even prior to the Roman Empire. 19th Century nationalism, Italians on one side and Yugoslavians on the other, have succeeded in wiping it out. The dichotomy of your Croat/Italian debate is the sad result.

138.88.203.124 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Lodovigo

Your edit is fantastic! 87.0.236.193 07:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your words are very encouraging, especially after taking a lot of heat from the Slovenian contingent for failing to mention them. I will gather the references and include them as well.138.88.200.242 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, however Poloski would make him Polish no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

you are right, forgive my ignorance. 138.88.200.242 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Superb, I couldn't agree more with what you have said. This is a sad petty arguing over the assignment of an identity that did not exist at the time concerned. Who cares, Marco would not recognise himself as a Croat even if he was born in Korcula, neither as an Italian if he was born in Venice. Venice was for centuries one of the most important states on Earth, the center of the World's commerce and culture, whether he was born in one part of the Venetian empire or another what is wrong with calling him Venetian? - G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.190.228 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because people born in Dalmatia were not Venetians! People born in Korcula as well as anywhere in Dalmatia considered themselves as Croats, sometimes they called themselves Slavs and sometimes Illyrians (in Medieval). Venetian administrative ruling of Dalmatia didn't change people's ethnicity. Also a few conclusions here are totally ridicolous. Even in those ages Venetians didn't consider that people to be Venetians too! That is your invention from 20th and 21st century. Zenanarh 08:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in effect, what these poor uninformed fellows are saying is that Croats did not know they were Croats before 1850(!). Maybe you do not realise just how riddiculous that sounds. You should really read up on this (try reading the Marko Marulić article, for a start). DIREKTOR 10:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What this poor uninformed fellow is saying is that Venets did not know they were Italians until 1866. Never had been called that before. Now of course everyone is Italian. After making Italy, they have succeeded in making the Italians. I am no expert of Yugoslavian history, but since you guys were not immune to 19th century nationalistic propaganda that pervaded Europe, I would not be surprised that the same efforts were made to link distant territories like historical Slavonia and the Republic of Ragusa due to linguistic similarities.

For instance, it always puzzled me how people interpret the migration of a new population with the "genocide" of the previous one. Slavs may have arrived in mass, but I don't find it convincing that the autoctonous population simply dove in the Adriatic and swam into the sunset. Now, with time the percentages grew, people mixed, and the language of commerce prevailed. This is why even today you find people speaking Venetian down the coast, not because there was a massive migration of Venetians, but because they spoke Venetian for the same reasons we are communicating in English here. But forgetting the Venetian "occupiers", look even at independent Ragusa: it was founded by Dalmatians even before Slavic incursions.

And now, for a topic that I take to heart, please rethink the version taught in standard history books that see Venetians as "occupiers" like if they were an older version of Mussolini. Sure, there were battles in the Middle Ages, but that is the same story for the annexation of towns like Verona and Padua. From the 15th Century onward the history of Venice was a common history to be proud of. Dalmatians were the military force of Venice. Venetians left all their military ships and arsenals in Istria and Dalmatia (also because the Venetian lagoon was too shallow). The battle of Lepanto was won thanks to this military might (I don't have the numbers handy, but there is a detailed account of casualties both in ships and men from each Dalmatian town). Venice itself was a multicultural city. Besides Riva dei Sciaoni, right behind there were the Albanian quarters, the Greek Quarters, the Furlan Quarters, and so on. For three good centuries the Republic suffered no internal wars (from the League of Cambrai to Napoleon). Think about it. Three centuries of peace. Do you think this could be achieved if they were "occupiers"? With all their military strength in the hands of the "occupied"?

Oh, and by the way, back to Marko Poło, let's be serious: His book states that he was from Venice.138.88.101.17 13:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Have you ever wondered why Venice, the monopolist of the Adriatic, extended it's Republic down the East Adriatic, while being content of merely blocking maritime trade on the West Adriatic (the "Italian" Adriatic)? The Dalmatian coast flourished under Venice, and each coastal town, one more beautiful than the other, is the proof.138.88.101.17 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure the numerous rebellions against rampant Venetian exploitation of natural and human resources are accidental then (Zadar, Hvar, etc...)? Perhaps you do not understand that all those cities (Zadar, Split) would have been far richer on their own, as independent trading republics. Indeed, the most beautiful city of the Eastern Adriatic shore was independant (see Republic of Ragusa).

Venice did not, of course, "occupy" Dalmatia in the 20th century sense, but that does not change the fact that the province of Dalmatia was a predominantly Slav populated region under the control of non-Slavic, generally Italian rulers. Venice "occupied" the eastern coast because of favourable medieval sailing conditions and later to exploit the natural resources (wood, for example). Do not presume to lecture me about medieval cultural conquests and other concepts. You are even wondering why Venice did not occupy territories of the Papal State, I therefore question your understanding of the political situation. DIREKTOR 14:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ragusa is pretty, but so is Kurzola. To answer your first paragraph, I think if at the time they were all independent republics they would all have been Ottoman muslims. I am sure you have a good understanding of the political situation of the time. Perhaps that's why they fought like no other under St. Mark's lion, because they were first in line against the Turks. Besides (I might have mentioned elsewhere), when Napoleon invaded, and the Venetian nobility was ready to abdicate, it was the Dalmatians who independently went to fight and die in Verona. I am sure that you are also aware that the last to give up on the Republic were the Dalmatians (but the record was actually held by Perastro, now Montenegro). You talk about wood. Interestingly, the Alpine region of the Dolomites was also extensively "depleted" of wood resources, and more interestingly the people there (as the Cimbri of the Asiago plateau, who spoke a germanic dialect) were the fiercest supporters of Venice against the Austrian to the North. Something tells me that it was actually lucrative to supply wood to the largest ship builder of the time.

And now the pope. Of course you know Venice provided safe haven to Sefardic Jews during the 16th century inquisition. But the pope had it with the Venetians because they were tolerant of Lutheran heretics brewing in Vicenza. Also, Venice was the only state in the world that chose it's own bishop. The pope wanted Venice dead. The league of Cambrai was lead by him. I am not here to lecture anyone in history, but some info might be interesting for the casual reader. I simply invite you to rethink this notion of Venice as this evil occupier. This arcaic state whose people where "freed" by Napoleon. The reality is that people inhabiting in the Venet Republic (on both sides of the Adriatic) were one day citizens of a republic, and then next subjects of an empire.

One more thing. Please refrain from referring to Venetians as Italians. It's very Yugoslavian of you.

138.88.101.17 15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to make a point bacause I was distracted by the pope. You are right about the favorable sailing conditions. That was exactly my point. Except that you erroneously used the the adjective "medieval". This trade route down the Dalmatian coast was not a medieval discovery. Venice is at the Northest tip of the Mediterranean, providing the closest navigable point to Northern Europe. Even before the Roman Empire, the region of Venetia was the commercial exchange hub between maritime trade (along the more favorable Dalmatian route) and the fluvial trade that went up the Adige, and then down the Vistula all the way to the Baltic. This trade of amber and other goods is old as Europe, and Venice happened to be found right at the node, where before towns like Padua and Este had flourished during the Venetic period. It is no coincidence that Venetic artifacts and inscriptions were also found in Istrian towns. Venetia, Istria and Dalmatia were part of the same trade route, not part of rival routes. They flourished or perished together. The Venetian Republic was no different. The money was in the trade between the East and northern Europe. An independent Zara or Split would have only served a local market, the way Ragusa did. Instead they were part of something bigger, much much bigger138.88.101.17 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that until a few decades ago, linguists classified the Venetic inscriptions found in Vicenza, Padua, Este and Istria as Illyrian? Nowadays Venetic is considered a separate indoeuropean branch (I lack the knowledge to tell you exactly why), perhaps because it also has similarities with archaic Latin. But isn't it curious that the Venetics, who were then nown to the Greek world (trade route!) are a few centuries separated from the early Venetians who spoke a similar language to the Furlans, the Istrians and the Dalmatians prior to the Slavic migration?138.88.101.17 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood, I am no indoctrinated freak believing Dalmatia has nothing to do with Venice and Venetians. I myself am from an old Venetian Dalmatian Family by ancestry, and if I had to choose between radical Slav nationalists and radical Italian nationalists, I'd choose the latter (reluctantly), but my intention on this Wikipedia is to preserve the muti-cultural legacy of Dalmatia as the only location in the entire World where Slavic and Italian (Venetian, or Mediterranean) culture mingle to form a unique "mixture". Not only Venetian and Slavic (Croatian), but also Dalmatian (seperate Latin) culture and customs combine to create a truly worthwile area in Europe.

However, many, including Croats, wish to diminish it with WW2-era nationalistic tendencies to satisfy their hatred for one another. It just happens that (due to many obvious reasons) Italian nationalism is by far the stronger of the two, thereby making me look like an (i quote) "anti-Italian".

I strongly disagree, however, that the alternative to Venetian dominance is Ottoman rule (there are many arguments to the contrary). The coastal cities did not defend themselves solely by their weapons against HUGE Ottoman military power, they maintained their independance due to the fact that their location and the fact that they could trade with Christian states was very profitable to the Ottomans. Once again I give you the city-state of Ragusa as an example. DIREKTOR 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Having cleared that, I think the references to Il Milione are pretty striking. You can't get better reference than that about a 13th Century man. If you want to add a paragraph about the origins of the last name, that's another matter. But we are talking about ethnicity, not race, and Marco Polo referring to himself as a Venetian from the City of Venice is all you need.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.101.17 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's very interesting how history looks different seen from the other side. Maybe "Italians" became Italians in 19th century and not before, but the same situation doesn't work with Croats. First independent Croatian state (ruled by Ban - traditionally Croatian ruler) was established in 9th century in the territory of late Liburnia (modern western Croatia), already in 10th century it was kingdom in the territory of modern Croatia + a part of Bosnia. Usage of the name "Croat" was recorded after 10th century in all that territory. Also "Illyrian" and "Slav" were used as synonims. In some moments some of these people were using all 3 names, some Medieval Croatian writers noted: I'm a Slav or a Croat or an Illyrian - like it was all the same. Sometimes the same writer used one and sometimes the other name but with the same meanning. Dalmatians who were participating in cultural or political life in Republic of Venice were called "Sciavone" in Italy - which comes from Latin Sclavene (=Slav). And it was synonim for a Croat! However by the time only Croat survived as the name, but it was definitely much earlier than 19th century.

Now about Slavs in general. Massive Slavic migrations in 7th century was Pan-Slavistic teory encouraged by communists in 20th century. In fact that teory was absolutely uncovincing and is recently totally disputed by all relevant scientists specialized for that agenda. According to some archeologists only around 15% of population in the Western Balkans in Early Medieval could be connected to Slavs who had come from the north. Genetic analysis of Y-chrommosome distribution showed that around 34% of modern inland Croats have Slavic genes. Mostly in Slavonia, but also in the northern Adriatic (islands and land). The most of modern Croats have autochtonuous "Illyrian" I1b1 haplogroup - 38% in inland Croatia and around 50% in Dalmatia. Croats in isolated Herzegovina have 72% of it! If you're anyhow familiar with this science you can notice that these are very accented percentages. No massive genocide in the western Balkans was recorded from 4th to 8th century, it was assimilation. As always assimilations have many paths. Language goes in one way some other traditions in other. Many Illyrian traditions were saved and still exist among Croats, depending on micro-locality. It's very simple - autoctonous population didn't simply dive in the Adriatic and swam into the sunset. But yes, they are still swimming in the Adriatic especially in the summer.

Now Venice, finally. I agree - Venetian occupation was for economical reasons. Subgrading of Dalmatian cities economy to enlarge its own Venetian economy. Republic of Venice grew up for economical reasons, not ethnic reasons. Dalmatians were vassals of Venice and logically they fought for their side in the wars. But also they were fighting on Genoa side against Venice! It were all questions of that moment politics and not logical appurtenance to any side. BTW the battle of Lepanto is not good example of yours since a half of Europe was fighting on the same side against Turks in that battle. Ragusans were involved in the battle with around 80 trade ships but only as neutral suppliers for both side. You mentioned Three centuries of peace in Venice. But it was in Venice. Dalmatia didn't become a part of the Republic peacefully. Actually the city of Zadar was the symbol of Dalmatian resistance to Venice. Continual wars with Venice were lasting for a few centuries before 1409.

The Dalmatian coast flourished under Venice, and each coastal town, one more beautiful than the other, is the proof - this is absolutely uncorrect. Yes these cities are beautiful but definitely not thanks to Venetians. Zadar as example: the most flourishing years of the city were 10th-14th century (Kingdom of Croatia and dual Hungarian and Croatian Kingdom) when everything historically worth was built in the city, especially 13th and 14th century. In 12th century Zadar was stronger than Venice. Crusaders conquered and destroyed Zadar for Venetians in 1202. This city actually vanished from important political and cultural European scene later from 15th century further on, under Venetians. From 1409 til 1789 the city was in pain, it was cutted off from its natural background, many Zadar noblemen were persecuted or made poor. In the city nothing new was built, just a few storehouses, 2 millitary castles and maybe a house or two. 1st built castle was used by Venetian administrators, tax collectors and soldiers - they couldn't walk safely through the city in the beginning. There was no demographic growth in the city in all these years. It occured not earlier than in the beginning of the 19th century under French rule. When Turkish expansion occured Venice organized only defending of the cities in the beginning. In later stage of wars with Otommans Venice didn't want to involve and to help Croats and "Dalmatians" in counter-offence. Because of fearing that Croatia would get stronger and get back its territory. Dalmatia was not really flourishing then. Venice was. I don't know where that information comes from but it's absolutely ridiculous.

Polo noted that he was a citizen of Venice inb the moment, not a Venetian or Venet! Zenanarh 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't it interesting how history is told? Twenty years ago no one had heard of Croats, Slovenes and Serbs outside of Yugoslavia. We had heard of Montenegro, because of the name of an Italian liqueur, and because of an old James Bond movie.

Anyway, your genetic data makes sense. It is reasonable to believe that today's inhabitants have a strong autoctonous root. Interesting to hear that Croatian writers would refer to themselves as either Slavs or Croats (but never as a Venetians, I presume, as you wish Marko Polo did).

The three centuries of peace referred to a later period than the one you mentioned. Padua or Verona did not become part of the Republic peacefully either, just like Zara or Spalato. I am sure you know that the years you are referring to involved fierce fighting among city states in Venetia as well. You would never hear someone from Padua or Vicenza to be referred as "citizen of Venice", I don't see why he would if he was from Zara or Spalato or Kurzola. The term citizen was not used as in the Roman times, when Roman citizenship was slowly extended around the empire. Venetian citizens were from Venice.

The battle of Lepanto makes sense when you look at participation. I mean, Venice supplied 55% of ships (114 out of 207); 50% of cannons (900 out of 1815); 40% of soldiers (12thousand out of 28 thousand); 54% of sailors (7000/12920) and were the only ones with 6 "galeazze", a brand new ship that was crucial to victory. The next biggest contributors were Spain (36 ships - 17%), Genoa (22 ships - 11%); Tuscany (12 ships - 6%), and so on. The Papal state participated too...on board of Venetian ships. I mean if you look at the list, it is as copulous as the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, but the truth is that this was a Venetian effort. The percentage of casualties are the striking testament: of the 7000 Christian deaths, 4800 were Venets. So history likes to forget Venice as one of many fighting in Lepanto, and apparently forget even more the participation of Istrian and Dalmatians who in addition to regular military personnel, they armed by their own free will 14 additional ships with their own people. If you don't call this dedication and loyalty, when you send to die non-military men for a common cause, I don't know. So when you speak of "Dalmatians" taking a neutral stance, you do because you are taught to think of Dalmatians only of Ragusa (who I don't blame for taking a neutral stance given their commercial niche that you correctly described), and all the Sciavoni who fought heroically for a common cause are forgotten inside the "foreign" Venetian state, who you are taught to consider as "Italian" "occupiers."

Finally, I am puzzled by your assertion that Zara grew only between the 10th and 14th century and that it was in "pain" between 1409 and 1749. It is in contrast to what I have heard from a Zara historian who I personally know (born there). But then again, you also stated that Dalmatians were neutral during Lepanto. Your sciavoni ancestors (if you have any), are turning in their graves.

As far as Marko Polo goes, I think that if you want to add a paragraph about how Dalmatians are also proud of the heritage left by a Republic that produced fine explorers such as Marko Polo, you are certainly entitled to do so. But I think that the statement "the noble and great citizen of Venice" (as meant during the time) referred to Marco; other references to his father and uncle as "citizens of Venice"; other references of "visiting their families living in Venice"; and finding Marco, a 16 year old boy in Venice... I am a bit puzzled by this debate. I don't think you can find more information about a 13th Century man than Marco Polo. He was never referred to as a Slav, Croat or Illyrian, but all references about his homeland were the city of Venice. Besides the references that he was a nobleman, and your own assertions that noblemen were Venetians....

138.88.101.17 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read exactly my comment previous to yours?
Say hello to your Zara historian friend in your head.
Read "Marc Pol" section of this paragraph.
My own assertions that noblemen were Venetians? Where? Who? What are you talking about? Zenanarh 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your comments. I especially found the genetic research asserting that the population is mostly autoctonous very refreshing. In my reply I might have expanded beyond your initial point, but so what?

I am not making my friend up. He is indeed my friend. I understand that official history books have a homogeneous view, and anything different must be a figment of someone's imagination. I have seen the nationalistic propaganda in action in the Italian school system, it has been very effective and efficient. Think that children in Venice don't even learn about the history of the Republic of Venice. On average an elementary school textbook has about four lines on it. I am not surprised to find out that the Yugoslav system has been just as succesful. But remember that by dismissing the millenarian links of the people that lived and prospered in the Adriatic, you are doing a disservice to the heritage of your own people (or at least of Dalmatians, slavs or not slavs, Ragusans or Venetians, since I don't know your background).

Yes, I have read the section on Marc Pol. The author's assertion of what is and what isn't Venet clearly shows he has no knowledge of this language. He apparently thinks that it is an Italian dialect.

As far as the noblemen, I am referring to your comment of September 7th, where you stated that Dalmatian was phased out by the Slavic tongue, while in the cities, in official documents, and spoken by noblemen it was sublanted by "Italian". I merely changed "Italian" with "Venetian", because it is an erroneous fact championed by the Yugoslav/Italian doctrine.

Happy?138.88.241.140 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In your reply you might have expanded beyond my initial point so much that you have discussed something that I didn't write at all. There is no "official history"! Maybe there are official history books, maybe there is official history in totalitar regimes, but it's not history then, it's history construction. History of Zadar is history and it doesn't have any connection with any "office". It's based on very rich historical documentary archive placed in Zadar as well as other documents found everywhere in Europe.
And you are very good misinterpretator of my words. I have never said that noblemen were Italians or Venetians! I've written that they were using Venetian (Italian - whatever you like) language after 15th century. Noblemen were Croats or Dalmatians. Maybe you misunderstood it. Maybe "subplant" is not good word. Zadar noblemen were not substituted, Dalmatian and Croatian languages spoken by them were substituted by Venetian language. See "history of Zadar nobility" section in Talk:Zadar. Zenanarh 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

D. deleted my edit, claiming that Polo was Venitian claiming that "That source is in doubt". Is he kidding? The source is Marco himself: I've quoted five chapters from il Milione (see:[6]), where Marco is self declaring "Venitian" and from "the city of Venice". --Giovanni Giove 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giove! I know "you will read nothing", but please DO READ THE DISCUSSION above, many reasons are stated that bring your claim in doubt. Bye DIREKTOR 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason is presented. It's cleary wrotten citizen of the CITY of Venice. Do not start a further edit war according your style. Note: a further revert by Zenanarh, Zmaj or Kubura, could be considered a meatpuppetry.--Giovanni Giove 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason IS presented, at least make an effort. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS EVEN A DISPUTE THEN?! (Acclaimed historians cannot reach consensus on the matter, though I'm sure you and PIO can...) I do not care what you may or may not consider, do not bore me with your baseless threats. DIREKTOR 17:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Basles sthreats? Like this?...." that noble and illustrious citizen of the City of Venice, Messer Marco the son of Messer Nicolo Polo." (from "Il Milione") --Giovanni Giove 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Giove, use your head, even if that was written by him and undisputable (doubtful), that just means he was a citizen of the City of Venice at one time. Zenanarh has explained it much better, look up his post up there. Once again: I BELIEVE HE PROBABLY WAS A VENETIAN, but noone knows for certain. This must be clearly presented in the article without biase towards either theory. DIREKTOR 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Z. explained nothing. Marco is self declaring Venitian and as Venitian shall be presented. Present the alleged disputed about the birthplace in the proper paragraph. Finally I remember this. It's quite clear that Marco has to be born in Venice: "...we may as well go to Venice and visit our households." So they departed from Acre and went to Negropont, and from Negropont they continued their voyage to Venice. On their arrival there, Messer Nicolas found that his wife was dead, and that she had left behind her a son of fifteen years of age, whose name was MARCO; and 'tis of him that this Book tells.".--Giovanni Giove 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop the presses! It looks like Giove has ended the decades long dispute all on his own! Where many acclaimed historians have failed, he has succeded. It appears none of the scientists remembered to read Polo's book, what a mistake-a to make-a!

Giove, "...we may as well go to Venice and visit our households." means he lived in Venice before going on his journeys, nothing more. And until you can prove Marco Polo said that he was born in Venice, not Korčula (very unlikely, since the historians didn't), there is no room for wishful thinking and free interpretations on encyclopedias. DIREKTOR 09:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss any disagreements in here. You may want to try WP:RfC for a second opinion. Regards, --Asterion^talk 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFChist opened at ?? closed by Jaakobou - subject discussion needs refinement of sources and perhaps a compromize which does not insist on birthplace. RfC could be reopened again if no compromize if found - or perhaps try some other WP:DR proccess. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are in existence two theories :

• Venetian theory: Marco Polo was born in Venice, and therefore most probably a Venetian.
• Korula (Curzola) theory: Marco Polo was born in the town of Korula (then known as Curzola) on an Adriatic island of the same name, which was then part of the Republic of Venice (and is now part of Croatia). In this case is claimed that Marco Polo was probably an ethnic Slav (Croat).

The RFC is to decide on one of these possible causes of action:
1) Only the Venetian theory is to be considered valid and possible (only, or very predominantly, this theory will be presented in the article).
2) Both theories are to be considered equally valid and possible (both will be presented in an equal manner).

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• In Il Milione Marco Polo is quite clear when he presents himself as "Venetian" and when he point out that Venice was its hometown; see [7]. Thus he shall correctly presented as "Venetian explorer". This statement has been refused by some users , because "perhaps" he was "Croat".--Giovanni Giove 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The name of Curzola is never mentioned in "Il Milione". On the other side Marco for sure was growth up in Venice; see [8]. The Curzola theory is simply deprived of fundamentals, and it is today enforced by the Korcula tourist board just to have a touristic attraction.--Giovanni Giove 11:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Venetian historian Alvise Zorzi has already demolished the theory in his book, "Storia di Marco Polo, veneziano".--Giovanni Giove 11:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The alleged birth in Curzola is supported by no serious and recognized study. It appears to be at the same level of 'serious' theories claiming that pyramids where built by the E.T.s or that man never reached the Moon.--Giovanni Giove 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The idea of a Croatian nationality was developed after the 1840s, in the time of the Romantic Nationalism, 600 years after Marco's dead. In the XIII century, Croatia was a small possession of the Hungarian Crown, quite far from Curzola (which anyway retained a population of romance language). In no case Marko could be called "Croat". --Giovanni Giove 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Million quote proves nothing for numerous reasons (see below and above posts by Zenanarh), and this is well known by historians. The Million was not written only by Marco Polo. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• The fact that Korula is never mentioned in The Million means nothing (of course, the book is NOT a biography). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• MODERN ACCLAIMED HISTORIANS ARE DIVIDED ON THE ISSUE OF MARCO POLO'S ORIGINS. THIS RFC IS WITHOUT MEANING AND IRRELEVANT. QUOTE FROM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:
  

"Polo, Marco (b.c.1254, Venice, or Curzola, Venetian Dalmatia--d. Jan. 8, 1324, Venice), Venetian merchant, adventurer, and outstanding traveler..." DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Please look in Google books and search "The Travels of Marco Polo, A Venetian" you will find reprints of his 13th century account of his voyages, where you can make up your own mind, just by searching the document.138.88.101.17 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I do not believe we can come to a conclusion in this RFC. After all, actual historians have been debating on this problem for some time and have reached no consensus.
We do not really know where he was born, and all we can do is just waste our time finding and citing the historic arguments that have proven inconclusive on a much higher level.
This is all pretty obvious. What I'm saying is: if the historians could not reach a consensus, we should simply state this in the article, without biased towards either legitimate possibility. The problem of course being the Italian (Venetian) editors that (understandibly) insist on making the article POV towards the first (Venetian) theory. I, for one, am inclined to support it myself, however, since this is an encyclopedia, we should let the scientists collective views into account more then anything else. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this RFC.

According to one theory Marco Polo is a Venetian (born in Venice).

Yes it's true. That is what is said by one theory.

According to another theory, he was born in the town of Korula (Curzola) on an Adriatic island bearing the same name (today part of Croatia), then a Venetian possession. According to this (second) theory Polo was an most probably an ethnic Croat.

True again. That's what is said by another theory.

Nothing for discussion here! Or maybe Mr. G.G. expects that we take role of history arbitration committee to decide which theory is correct?! Very funny and childish. This is an encyclopedia not totalitar regime which should decide what is history and what is not. There are 2 theories, one disputes another and that's all. Nothing more or less. That's how it should be edited in the article. "Mr. XY wrote that Polo was a Venetian in year -abcd-, mr. WZ disputed it in year -efgh-" - this is the key.

Maybe this RFC can be done but with other statement: engagement of users who see only one theory and play dumb and blind for the other! Zenanarh 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the 1991 Britannica says on the issue:

"Polo, Marco (b.c.1254, Venice, or Curzola, Venetian Dalmatia--d. Jan. 8, 1324, Venice), Venetian merchant, adventurer, and outstanding traveler..."

It's a model of brevity, and takes note of both possibilities. One or two scholarly citations elaborating on the uncertainty can be included as footnotes. JNW 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I went to curzola/Korcula about five years ago. While walking down a street of this beautiful historical city (even nicer than Ragusa/Dubrovnik in my humble opinion) I saw for the first time a sign saying "Marco Polo's House" Wanting to find out more, I learned from some brochure that Polo was captured possibly in the Battle of Curzola. Clearly, the house was not 13th Century, but by some tradition that's where he might have lived. I did not recall any claim though that he was actually born there. To refresh my memory I went to visit the website for Korcula tourism (http://www.korculainfo.com/marco_polo_korcula.htm)^[1] and this is what it said: "Polo is reputed to have been born in Korcula itself, although evidence to support this thesis is at best sketchy."
  

Now, I am all in favor of Korcula using Marko Polo as a tourist attraction, especially if he was presumably captured in a nearby sea battle. But in an encyclopedia, going from "Polo was captured during a naval battle with the Genovese, possibly the battle of Curzola" to " if it was Kurzola,this is the house where he 'might' have temporarily lived, because there are people with the last name 'De Polo' who used to live there" to "if that was his house, then perhaps he was born there", and then further "if he was born there, then he could have been an ethnic Croat, rather than Dalmatian or Venetian" seems a bit excessive to be called a theory. Following his logic, he could have been a lot of other things.
We are fortunate to have a 13th century direct account of his travel as told directly by Marko Polo (The Travels of Marco Polo, A Venetian). In this book it is stated that Marko was a a noble citizen of Venice, that his father and uncle were citizens of Venice, and that his father met a 15 year old Marko after returning to Venice from a long voyage. Marko Polo lived during the period of city-states were your home town was your country, and I find it very unlikely that he would be referred to as a noble citizen of Venice if he was not born there, even though the Venetian Republic included other towns down the Adriatic
Anyway, there is another historical document. Marco Polo's will signed by him on January 9th, 1324 states the specific location of his house in Venice. 138.88.241.140 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That Korcula Info site is a commercial site written by who knows who. It's not an official source of any kind. Il Millione is a book written by a cell mate of Polo, not Polo himself. It is a book that, in reality, has many fictional accounts. Furthermore, it wasn't being debated that Polo lived in Venice at some point so the information stated in his will is nugatory. This debate has been ongoing for over a year. I've been following it since the end of July when I suggested we follow the precedent Encyclopaedia Britannica has set. --Search maven 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, history is not a democratic process where historians vote, nor is it based on the volume of Internet debate or by parroting others. Differences of opinion should exist based on historical evidence. Now, I am aware of documentation asserting Marko Polo being Venetian: 1) Il milione (~1298), written by a contemporary who personally knew him, that stated that Marko was a noble Venetian, son of another Venetian; 2) Marko Polo's will (~1324), written in Venice and signed by him, describing his home in Venice, and nowhere else; 3) his uncle's will also written in Venice (~1305) mentioning not only Marko, but making more reference to various other relatives living in Venice (...older relatives were living in Venice...). 4) his daughter's will (~1360) making reference to the father Marko's belonging. Now, these are the documents of the time that indicate that Marko and his family (forefathers and descendants) lived in Venice (perhaps more). And no mention that this Venetian family was going abroad to give birth to their children. Now, for other theories, I would appreciate if some documentation of the time was presented, because the above mentioned documents make no reference of any other place as being Mr. Polo's homeland, but Venice. Quoting "esteemed" historians is of little value without historical documents backing their "serious" scholarly opinion. By historical documents, I do not mean the opinion of someone else in the past that lived centuries after Marko Polo. As far as Curzola goes, there is no evidence that he even set foot there, since if he indeed was captured in that naval battle (conjectured later, without mention in documents of the time), it's just as likely that he had set of from Lesina or other nearby islands. Making hypotheses based on a similar last name (De Polo) present in Curzola centuries later, is not a theory. Theories should have some historical evidence.

138.88.241.140 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You have it. Read "Marc Pol" section of this talk page. Zenanarh 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you did not want comments until you provided the second part...Anyway, here are a few comments on that article.

It appears to me that the author of that article, Paveskovic is very strict about documents about Marko Polo being Venetian, while very loose about accepting and shortening Dalmatian roots. I will give you an example of his style. If Ramusio (1458-1515) writes that Marko Polo's grandfather was Andrea Polo from the neighborhood of San Felice (Venice), Paveskovic asks proof of this assertion. But if there is a document asserting that a family of Polo originating from Dalmazia lived in Venice, then he makes a few summersaults to conjecture not only that that's Polo's family, but that came to Venice after Marko Polo's birth, not generations before.

This is the impression I had of the author of the article. Questioning that the tomb of Marko's mother cannot be found? That we don't know which house he grew up in? Isn't it enough that he stated in the book of his travel that he was in Venice when his father and uncle returned to know that he lived there? Why this impartial style?

But the broader point is, if we did not have direct evidence we could debate about geneaology. But we do have documents while Marko Polo was still alive stating that he was living in Venice since he was a child (his will, his uncles' wills...), a copy of his will is even available with a 1999 publication of Il Milione (Vallecchi ed., I believe). Afterward we have mentions of a family of Polo from Dalmatia, and centuries of genealogists' conjectures. Why doesn't Paveskovic ask their proofs? And the family emblem with 3 or 4 chickens that Paveskovic writes with certainty that it was also of Marko's family? It was not stamped on his will, nor are there any other direct indications, but it is stated with such force that that's his family emblem...

Personally, I think there is more indications Polo was Venet from Venetia. Polo is an extremely Venet last name (http://www.gens.labo.net/it/cognomi/genera.html?cognome=POLO&t=cognomi). Now, I know that a lot of Venet last names have Dalmatian origins, but Polo and Poli are extremely common, too spread out to be foreign, and found in many towns' documents going way back. Even Paveskovic mentions an omonimous Marcho Polo from Verona in 1418. Polo is a Venet last name meaning Paul, like Zorzi is a Venet last name meaning George, like Zanni is a Venet last name meaning John. The list goes on, with diminutives and majoratives. Poloni (the big Pauls) is also extremely frequent (http://www.gens.labo.net/it/cognomi/genera.html?cognome=POLONI&t=cognomi). I am sure Venet merchants with this last name ventured down Dalmatia, or maybe there were autoctonous Dalmatians with the same lastname. Afterall, 'Paul' is a common name shared down the Adriatic by similar people with a similar language (Venet and Dalmatian). Also, I know Pol/Polo means chicken in Venet (and Chakavian, apparently) but it's a small ó, not a large ò, like in Church of St. Polo (Saint Paul, not Saint Chicken).

In conclusion, debating about Marko Polo's ancestry, ok. His ancestors may have been originally Venet, or originally Dalmatian. We don't know for sure, as we are not certain about the etymology of last names. But suddenly throwing Kurzola into the mix, with absolutely no documentation from Paveskovic or any other. With Kurzola's tourist offices saying it's "sketchy at best". Listen, the controversy is about ethnicity, not genetics. He grew up in Venice, he did not move there when he was 14 and a half. He could have been the illegitimate child of a French monk while Nikolo` was in China, for all we know. What matter is that he grew up playing with other Venetian children yelling and screaming in Venetian. That's what makes a man a Venetian.

138.88.241.140 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What are we doing, people!!? The combined efforts of the World's scholars and histoians did not resolve this issue, and we are hoping to resolve it here, in one RfC!! Both theories are internationally accepted as legitamate and valid, nothing we say or write here will change that. Both must be presented without biase. Anything short of that is not worthy of an Encyclopedia. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, We have determined that there is absolutely no evidence of Marko Polo being born in Kurzola, so that can be safely taken out. Unless, there is something in the second part of the Marc Pol section...138.88.241.140 11:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 pages for translation left, give me 2 days. Thanks. Zenanarh 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take your time.138.88.241.140 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing "we" (i.e. you) have determined is that at this time it is difficult for ordinary Wikipedians to bring forth the evidence (produced by professional historians) of the legitemacy of both versions.

I ask you to respond to this simple quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Polo, Marco (b.c.1254, Venice, or Curzola, Venetian Dalmatia--d. Jan. 8, 1324, Venice), Venetian merchant, adventurer, and outstanding...".

It will be very difficult for you to produce evidence powerful enough to destroy the legitemacy of a theory supported by Britannica. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the simple online quote of Britannica. And I was amused to find out Curzola was not present in the old printed edition in my local library. I already wrote to Britannica asking if they could provide the reference to an historical document that at least hints at Curzola. I will let you know when I hear a reply. I think that this situation is important enough that a reference to a historical document before making such a strong assertion.

138.88.241.140 13:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgive my scepticism, but I really doubt the worlds most respected Encyclopedia is about to change its wording on your account (or mine, or Zenanarh's, for that matter). Do you really consider yourself that much above the scientific research conducted by the Encyclopedia Britannica, that you place more confidence in your own personal research? Once again, forgive me if I find that somewhat arrogant.

Please understand:

• You have found strong proof for the Venice theory.
• Zenanarh will find proof for the Korčula theory.
• Both theories have strong backing in evidence.
• Both theories are legitamate.

Zenanarh will now spend two days translating the proof for the latter theory, and for what? All this has already been presented by professional historians and they were unable to reach a consensus because both theories are approximately equal in evidence. What will it take for you to accept that the Korčula theory has legitemacy. You do not even accept the Encyclopedia Britannica as a valid source. It sounds to me like you will do anything to push your view on things. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked Britannica if they could provide the reference behind the assertion, since it was a recent addition. I find that normal practice, not arrogance.138.88.241.140 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking for the source is not arrogance in itself (of course), but doubting Britannica's conclusions because of personal research in this complex matter does seem a little arrogant, don't you think? More to the point, do you doubt Britannica's conclusion?
The source is of little consequence, though. Let me clarify my position: I will not allow the "Venetian, and only Venetian" theory to take precedence as long as the Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that both theories are legitemate (and I most certainly appear to have sufficient sources). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position. In the meanwhile I have received a reply from Britannica. They simply gave me the contact information of the two scholars who contributed the article. One is a lecturer of Japanese studies who unfortunately died three years ago. The other is an American history professor who happens to live just a couple of hours from me. I will let you know once I hear from him about a reference. Cheers.138.88.241.140 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect your diligent and thorough research efforts, but I must express serious doubts that the legitemacy of the Korčula (Curzola) theory will be destroyed by any course action you may now take, considering it was accepted by Britannica's (high) standards. Once again, the minute that encyclopedia changes its position, I will too (I realise that is unlikely). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marcopolians, I heard back from the history professor that Britannica listed as one of two contributors to the Marco Polo article. He told me that he always thought Venice as the likely birthplace and never suggested Curzola as an alternative. At this stage I just think there is simply a mistake on Britannica's database of contributors. Tomorrow I will call them to sort this out, find the contributors who made the assertion, and hopefully also find this fantomatic historical reference, if there is one.138.88.241.140 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure the whole thing is just a bloody typo! Now that is what I call arrogance. To believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica added material on the basis of "fantomical historical reference", because of one's own personal research. The fact that a single historian disagrees with the Korčula theory proves merely that he is personally from the Venetian theory supporter's group. Provided this is even his area of expertise; is it? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, the 1991 edition of Britannica briefly notes both possibilities, with the bibliography listing publications dating from the early 1900s to the 1960s. JNW 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The article should also note both possibilities (in an unbiased way). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy, Tiger. I did not say "fantomical" (fantasy-comical). I called the reference "phantomatic" (meaning 'elusive') because I have been looking for it, and have not found it yet: first contributor is dead, the second one disassociated himself with Kurzola as a birthplace. When you look at academic articles about Marco Polo, you always find a long bibliography. The hard thing is finding the one pertaining to Kurzola (unless it is linked by a footnote, which it isn't). Once it's found, then the research continues for the historical document.

To clear up another thing, I had said that one of the contributors was an American history professor. I did not mean a professor of American history. I meant a history professor who teaches at an American university. By the way, to answer your question, he is a professor of European medieval history.

Now to the meaty part. I did talk to Britannica's editorial team. They did confirm that they had a mix up in their database of contributors. Which explains why one was a lecturer of Japanese studies and the other disassociated himself with the assertion. You can apologize any time for calling me arrogant.

As far as Kurzola, they are now researching it, and will let me know.

138.88.241.140 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "phantomatic" does not exist, Tiger. The adjective you're looking for is "phantom".
Back to the matter at hand. Explain to me why I should appologise for calling you arrogant if Britannica has a problem with their database of contributors? The exact word you used is irrelevant, you still place your own personal research above the proffesional efforts accepted as valid reference by Encyclopedia Britannica's high standards. They (and we) did not invent the whole bloody thing out of thin air! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will let Webster dictionary know that "phantomatic" does not exist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=phantomatic). You called me arrogant, because I suggested that there was a mix up at Britannica. I think it is a healthy habit to double check a source. Either way, there is always something to be learnt.138.88.241.140 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well since you already seem to be in the habbit of telling acclaimed experts how to do their job, go right ahead. Me? It simply did not occur to me someone would call a source "phantomatic" (i.e. "phantasmal" = dreamlike, unreal; not elusive, like "phantom". There is a ditinct difference).
No, like I said a million times by now, I called you arrogant because you placed your own findings above those of experts accepted by Britannica's standards.
Like I also remarked before, I respect and agree with your way of thinking, it is always good to explore in greater detail, but not in hopes of changing accepted theories. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your last sentence seems spoken by an inquisitor talking to Galileo. Provocations aside, let me tell you a story. This happens from time to time, in different subjects, but I will give you an example that involves our geographic are and relates to archeology and linguistics.

In the 1970s' a linguistic professor of unquestionable fame, Lejeune, has an Hungarian student, Harmatta, who told him about the discovery in a part of ancient Pannonia now within Hungary's boundaries. He had found Venetic inscriptions and other artifacts that until then were thought to belong to an Indoeuropean tongue spoken around Padua and the Northern Adriatic. Based on drawings of the inscriptions that the student brought back to France, he graduated and published academic studies. The great Lejeune also published further work citing his student's paper, and for a couple of decades academic papers signed by scholars of unquestionable integrity flew around talking about the Veneti of Pannonia.

In the early 1990's two professors, Prosdocimi and Marinetti, went to Hungary to see first hand these artifacts. Their motives were not arrogance or to cast a dubious shadow over a claim that was by then universally accepted. They were simply moved by the passion for their subject. Once at the museum of Pecs, they looked at all the material cited in Harmatta's paper, and there were no inscriptions! This sad finding was then indipendently confirmed by Austrian scholars, such as Meid. This shameful discovery was briefly noted in: (A.L.Prosdocimi, Sulle inesistenti iscrizioni venetiche di Pannonia, in "Rivista di Epigrafia Italica", sezione di "Studi Etruschi" 58, 1992 (1993), pp.315-316), but there are unfortunately older papers that still mislead the casual researcher.

So, forgive me if I like to dig down. Best case scenario, I find that there is a medieval document of the time linking Marko Polo to the town of Kurzola. How exciting. Worst case scenario I sadly find out that the phantomatic (misterious, ghostly, elusive; present in different languages with essentially the same meaning) reference, was unfortunately fantomical.138.88.241.140 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine, I suppose. But the Korčula theory is not some typo or fraud. It is quite old and has been accepted for a long time (some 70 years I believe). If we were talking about some obscure find or about some unknown theory, I would join you in investigating myelf. But this is --Giovanni Giove 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)something I know to be far stronger than your example.
In short this is what I fear, I believe it is likely you are just going to dig up one side of the story and then show up on Wiki wth some obscure evidence that can and has been refuted, but is very hard to confront in this discussion, because of our collective lack of professional expertise. This is why I consider this research not only unnecessary, but also dangerous for the depiction of the whole story. It takes a lot more than some browsing on the Internet to prove or disprove theories (like that trip to the Pecs museum). Do you understand? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The *legend* is about 70y. old. Just recently someboy had the idea to present it as a real story. See google books: just recent works claims a possible birth in Curzola (mainly Croatia, related.... )Giovanni Giove 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But I don't understand why you apply your "impartiality" to the birthplace issue, but not to the ethnicity of Dalmatians. 138.88.241.140 18:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But I do. If you take a look at the Fourth Crusade talkpage, you will see that I dilligently defended the Dalmatian (i.e. ethnic (Latin) Dalmatian) heritage of that city. But Zadar (Zara) is not Korčula. The islands were long "slavicised" by the time of Marco Polo. This is to say that by the 13th century, in the islands, Dalmatian and Slavic ethnicity have become one indivisible whole, with the Slavic identity showing a lot more (and more and more as time progressed). This was not the case (or was so to a lesser extent) in many large cities (such as Ragusa or Zadar (Zara)). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that regarding Southern Dalmatian islands, above you say Croat, but when discussing in detail you say Slavic. I certainly don't doubt the Slavic presence, I have doubts about how swiftly you make a linguistic group disappear without genocide or commercial dominance. But my point is, have this debate on the Dalmatia/Dalmatian page. Don't have it on every page that the word Dalmatian appears by opening a parenthesis: ...Dalmatian (probably Croat). If an historical reference says "Marco Polo's ancestor came from Dalmatia" leave it like that. You don't need to add (=ethnic Italian) or (=ethnic Croatian) or (=ethnic Serb) all the time. Back then they called them Dalmatians, leave it at that.138.88.105.88 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be interesting to you, Gallileo, since you don not seem to know that the southern Slavs in the islands are considered Croats in modern historiography. But fine, lets call them simply Slavs. The group (Latin Dalmatians) was small in the islands to begin with, as they were sparsely populated during Roman times.
There is no debate, in the 13th century Dalmatians in the islands are completely assimilated for nearly 370 years. If Marco Polo was from Korčula (Curzola) he is most probably a Slav. This will not work. Back then they called themselves Dalmatian Slavs, and this does not make them into the Roman decendants. The islands were the first to "fall" to Slav assimlation around here, this is taught in elementary schools, for Heaven's sake... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not know they were Croats. I guess my history books are outdated. So I checked wikipedia to look at the modern historiography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kor%C4%8Dula). I guess you have a lot of other pages to correct, because the first link states that the Slavs that set up shop in the area were Serbs, and the Kurzola link states that when the Slavs settled in the region, the Romanised local population took refuge in the islands (7th-9th century). I realize I am opening another can of worms...also Roman Dalmatia included current Bosnia, Montenegro...I think that editing every reference to Dalmatia with (=Croatian) will keep you busy debating in several pages in various fronts. But while I wait for Britannica's reply, it's nice to always learn something new.138.88.105.88 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This will take a somewhat longer explanation, please bear with me:
All right, here's a small part of the history of Split (Spalatum), where I come from: The city of Split is the successor to the old Dalmatian capital of Salona. Here's how that happened. When the Avar/Slav invasions you mentioned occured, the (Roman/Dalmatian) population of Salona fled for the islands (like you mentioned). After the time of warfare had ended, some 30 years later, the families returned to the mainland (under the leadership of nobleman Severus Magnus) and created a new city centered on the mor defencible (more medieval, so to speak) Palace of the long-dead Emperor Diocletian, thus forming the foundations of the modern city of Split.
Why did I tell you this? It is because I wont to show you that you are oversimplifying a long and complex period. It is possible (and indeed, that is what happened) that the old Dalmatians did flee to the islands and that the mainland cities later formed the last "refuges" for old (Roman) Dalmatian culure. That's one thing.

I don't think even the radical Serb nationalists claim that the Dalmatian islands were populated by Serbs at any time whatsoever (and they do claim quite a lot, you know). Please make sure that the "setting up of camp" you are talking about did not refer to the Dalmatian hinterland, that much is correct. The islands? No.

I am fully aware of the extent of Roman Dalmatia, I live in the bloody province. During the Roman Empire "Dalmatian" meant something like "Yugoslav", by territorial extent, of course. This is all of no consequence, of course, since we are talking about the 13th century Dalmatia, wich encompassed pretty much the same territory as it does today, perhaps even less, as in those days "Dalmatia" often (but not in most cases) meant only the cities (Zadar, Split, Ragusa), the islands, and a narrow strip of shoreline, not the hinterland and even excluding the city of Šibenik. So you see, Dalmatia is a term that hugely varies in meaning.

In the 13th century we must understand that there were two "Dalmatian" peoples: the ethnic Roman Dalmatians and the ethnic Southern Slav Dalmatians (as they considered themselves). The latter are now considered to be mostly Croats, with some Serbs.
The Roman (Latin) Dalmatians are a seperate romance people (decended from romanised Illyrians) that managed to preserve their identity the longest in the cities: namely Zadar (Latin: Iadera) (Jader in the Dalmatian language) and Ragusa.
In the 13th century the South Slav Dalmatians were everywhere else. As for the Croat/Serb island dilemma, the islands were assimilated quickly and the South Slav Dalmatians (as they considered themselves) that lived there are now taken to be Croats (for numerous complex reasons). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above summary. I want to underline a couple of points: a) what was then referred to as Dalmatia was essentially the narrow coastal area; and b) there were ethnic Roman-Dalmatians, and ethnic South-Slav Dalmatians. Without getting into demographic percentages, let's look at the medieval Venetian perspective (since many historical references to Dalmatia that are being quoted are Venetian). Venice was initially a vassal of Byzantium, but even after its independence it always looked East for centuries. If you want, it was the Northern expression of that nautical highway that went down the Adriatic toward Greece. Those Roman-Dalmatians were culturally similar and spoke a comprehensible language. This did not prevent them from battling from time to time, of course, by they belonged together to the Greek-Byzantine sphere of influence. Now, as Venice grew strong, it became militarily and commercially more present in Dalmatia (Venice was Dux Dalmatinorum around the year 1000, I believe), and was well aware of other ethnicities that populated it, and had names for them. It fought the Croats and the Narentines, but also protected ports vital to its commercial interests that were inhabited by those Roman-Dalmatians. So, while there may have been a majority of Slavs populating the general area, Venetians called their linguistic cousins simply Dalmatians. A noble Dalmatian family that moved to Venice in the 11th Century, may have had a blood mixture that included Avar, Illyrian and Greek, but they must have come from a port that was friendly to Venice (unless they arrived as prisoners), from an ethnic Roman-Dalmatian world.

In conclusion, a Venetian reference to Marco Polo's ancestry being Dalmatian, does not say much about ethnicity, and it should not be equated so lightly with "probably Croatian" .138.88.105.88 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your discussion about islands very interesting. Keep in mind this: the names of the islands used in 10th century could be separated in 2 groups: Croatized Romannisms and Romanized Croatisms (Slavisms). Some of these toponyms were of older Liburnian or other "Illyrian" roots. As you can see already in 10th century there were toponyms that were Romanized Slavisms (Croatisms)! How was it possible? Very simple. Slavs were inhabiting the islands very early. It's hard to say exactly how early since we know that Slavs selectively populated Illyricum gradually beginning a few centuries before 7th century. There were Roman settlers (Latins and Romanized Illyrians) in some of the islands. These Dalmatian islands gravitated to the coastal cities - rich citizens had properties on the islands. But in 6th, 7th and 8th century the islands were mostly empty of people. Slavs were invited to populate the islands to give them new life. That's how Slavic toponyms occured and some of these toponyms were even translated to Dalmatian language later until 9th and 10th century. In 13th century it's hard to find many Roman-Dalmatians anywhere in Dalmatia. Only in the coastal (not all of it) and perhaps a few island cities (like Korčula). In 13th century the most of these Dalmatians were already Croatized (Slavized). Not all of them, however the majority was. If Polo's were Pol from Korčula then possibility that they were Croats (Slavs) is much much bigger than any other - Pol was water bird on Chakavian Croatian! Zenanarh 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re to the anonymous contributer:
I am aware of the Byzantine influence, but there is an impoortant point: "..., but they must have come from a port that was friendly to Venice (unless they arrived as prisoners), from an ethnic Roman-Dalmatian world." This is incorrect, here is why: the upper classes of any Dalmatian town (including the Slavic ones, such as Korčula) controled by Venice for so long would be fluent in Venetian and would be consiedered part of the upper classes of the Venetian Republic, especially so if they were (successful) merchants with strong links in the capital. As for a nobleman possibly being Greek, I that's really a little too much. And why do you think a nobleman could have Avaric blood but not Slavic? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't read too much into my Avar/Slav/Greek(Byzantine)/Illyrian assertion. I simply meant that genetically (DNA, blood...) they could have been a lot of things. My point was that ethnically (culture, language, and in to a lesser extent in this case religion, and race) an 11th century Dalmatian family(as defined by Venetians of the time) going to live in Venice, probably spoke Dalmatian (the romance language) and came from a Roman-Dalmatian town. I am talking about the 11th century, because I am referring to the historical references to Marco Polo's ancestry being Dalmatian. At this stage, until I don't find out more on a historical reference behind the 20th century hypothesis that he was born in Kurzola, I don't want to comment much on it.

But if we want to compare centuries I think we should make a distinction. In the early centuries, when the Slavic migration was still fresh, these ethnic groups had to be segregated, even if both populated an island. They fought each other, Roman-Dalmatians fled to the islands, with Ragusa being the prominent example. This is the same history of Venice by the way, only that they were fleeing from Germanic incursions. As their Dalmatian cousins, they kept through the sea a link with the Byzantine empire that was then the heir of the surviving Roman-Mediterranean culture. As towns stabilized, throughout the centuries you may have the Slavic component growing to a majority (also given the population of the hinterland). But the fact that many noblemen were Dalmatians (speakers of that romance language) hints that the early inhabitants/founders were Roman-Dalmatians. Dalmatian sea towns may have battled with Venice, but that does not make them necessarily Croat or Narentines.

Regarding the origin of the name, from what I learn from this Chakavian, it was influenced by Dalmatian, and I guess "Pol" has romance-roots meaning chicken. By the way, in Venet "poja" (read "póya") means "hawk" in case you were looking for a more noble bird. Nevertheless, I strongly doubt this ornithological origin of the last name. I mean, there are zoological names in Venet too (poja, lovo (wolf)...), but Polo meant Paul even for Roman-Dalmatian. I also noticed that Ragusans have a Đorđić/Georgi last name. This is parallel to Venetian Zorzi, which by the way could have been pronounced with a soft-g (english j), a soft-s (english z), or soft interdentals (english THen) as it is still pronounced in some parts of rural Venetia.138.88.105.88 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant genetically too, Greek?
Even in at the beginning of the 11th century, the last remnants of segregated Dalmatian ethnic groups in the islands were assimilated and gone from their last "refuge" in the town of Hvar (on an island bearing the same name, later one of the main ports of the Venetian fleet) for at least (circa) l00 years. Many noblemen were Dalmatians and many were Slavs (see Marko Marulić), but a man from the islands in the 13th century, wether a peasant or a noble, was Slavic. The nobles/merchant middle class members, however, were also probably (there were many exceptions, of course) fluent in Venetian. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek...read Byzantine if you like. Those lands were under Byzantium at the time of the Slavic migrations. The Gothic-Greek war was fought by Byzantium. I did not mean that there were Greek colonies up there at that time. Regarding the complete slavification of Dalmatia, I disagree. But without lining up historians, let me just briefly explain why I have doubts:

First, Venice gradually increased its influence in coastal Dalmatia from the 10th century up to the end of the 18th century. I don't understand why the existing Roman-Dalmatians would be fagocitated by Slavic culture in places under Venetian control.

Second, we have the example of Ragusa, that was established by Roman-Dalmatians as a response to Slavic incursions, and that was mostly independent for centuries. Why would they become entirely Slavic? I understand that by taking on territories in the mainland, they brought in Slavs. But when Latin was sublanted as the language of choice for documents, everywhere in Europe it was supplanted by the local language spoken for regular communication. Why would it be different in Ragusa? Why would they switch from a dead language to another dead one?

Third, I see other coastal Dalmatian towns as having a similar story to Ragusa. They were established by Roman-Dalmatians as refuge from Slavic migrations.While Ragusa managed to maintain independence more than others, the other Dalmatian towns were contested by Venice on one side, and Croats on the other. But back then every town was a little nation-state. Venice's manipulation of the fourth crusade was a brilliant maneuvre take control of several ports including Constantinople. But if Dalmatian towns resisted, this does not imply that they must have been fully Slavic. Look at Ragusa.

Fourth, everywhere else in the Mediterranean, West of Greece, the romance language survived. Every place incurred Northern migrations, but it is not that easy to subplant the existing population and their culture. Access to the sea meant belonging to a big cultural network. Modern time Dalmatia had a non-Slavic romance-speaking ethnic group. It seems not plausible that these were all Slavs that were Venetianized after 700 years of Venetian Republic. It could very well be that there was a continuum between the Roman-Dalmatians and the Venet-Dalmatians.

Of course, we do not have census data from those centuries...I have a few other points to make on the matter, but unfortunately I have to go. Tomorrow will be my last day on the Internet for at least a couple of months, so I won't be able to continue.

Gallileo138.88.105.88 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not say all of Dalmatia was slavified (it was not), I said the islands were slavified by the 13th century.
1) Well, then allow me to explain. As I'm certain you are aware, these are the middle ages we are talking about. A state did not care (much) about the ethnicity of its subjects, it would certainly not defend one from being assimilated by the other. And, like I said the Dalmatians in the islands were assimilated a long time before Marco Polo and the increase of direct Venetian control. Bear in mind that the islands were subjected to much weaker levels of Venetian control than the cities.

2), 3) The cities were not established as a refuge from Slavic migrations (Iadera, Ragusa...), Split is the only exception, but it is the successor of Salona so it cannot be considered a truly newly established city. Ragusa existed before the Slavic migrations. We are talking about hundreds of years here, the Slavs came in gradually and the merger of Dubrovnik and Ragusa is a great example of this (look it up).

4) Oh, but it is plausible. Like I said the Dalmatians were assimilated by Slavs and formed a coherent mixture. They both became one and the same in the islands after 500 years. That is a long time, bear that in mind. The Dalmatians in the cities resisted the Italians (Venetians) as much as they did Slavs. There are many examples of rebellions and resistance. They gradually became closer to Slavs than Italians and eventually became one and the same. As for the Italians in modern Dalmatia (early 20th century), they were a remnant of the long Italian rule. Colonizators and Italianized Slavs.
Hope to hear from you soon, DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gallileo.

1) Venice didn't gradually increase its influence in coastal Dalmatia from the 10th century up to the end of the 18th century. It was from 15th century. Until 15th there were only Venetian marchants in transition in Dalmatia as well as there were some Dalmatian merchants in Venice, Genoa etc... All these cities on the sea trade routes influenced each other through trade but nothing more. Material and cultural exchange like everywhere else. In 1409 when Venice got Dalmatia there were no Venetian speakers in Dalmatian cities. And in that moment the most of Dalmatians were already Slavized.

2) Slavization was a long term global process not caused by the great body of immigrants, but rather as cultural assimilation of existing population. Documents, writings, liturgy books were written in one of 3 "civilised" literal languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin same as elsewhere in Mediterranean. In Dalmatian cities all 3 languages were used according to the existing rich archives. However Latin the mostly. But there's another great amount of inscriptions, manuscripts, documents, liturgy books written in old-Glagolithic, Glagolithic and Western Cyrillic alphabet found from Istria on the north to Konavle in the south from 9th to 18th century. Especially liturgical literacy was written in Glagolithic alphabet which means in Slavic language. Practically every church had both Glagolithic and Latin missals until 17-18th century. Vernacular languages entered in the documentation by citizenship developement everywhere in Europe. The same was in Dalmatia. When mentioning Ragusa there is a rich archive of writings and documents written in Western Cyrrilic alphabet, which means Slavic (Croatian) language. Natural further occurance of Croatian language in the documents of Dalmatian cities was disturbed by Venetian occupation from 15th century, that's why it was found only in Medieval literacy and not in documentation.

3) Every of these cities was a harbor. And harbor means exchange of goods from the inland to the sea and contrary. You forget that Dalmatian cities were gravitating to the inland as well as to the Mediterranean. Also population exchange was made mostly by the inland. All these cities were growing in periods when connected to the background. Byzantine Dalmatia was not too strong connection so it's interesting that in some periods of earlier Medieval Dalmatian cities had full autonomy. Later the best conditions were realised in Croatian and Hungarian Croatian Kingdoms. Every city had its local nobility engaged in work of the city council. Autonomy of that council was autonomy of all commune. And it happened only under Croatian rulers, Kings and Bans. Venetian ruling was signed by taxes and economical exploatation.

4) Romanization of Illyricum was selective, never completed. It's obvious from the fact that Romance language was saved only in a few Dalmatian cities. Romanization lasted from 1st-5th century. Slavization was somewhat longer and more continual process starting undoubtly in 4th century. It occured later, lasted longer and by the end of 14th century it was completed. There was no some significant ethnical Venetianization in Venetian Dalmatia. Dalmatians didn't become Venets just because of Venetian administrators. Only offices were Venetianized and small number of local noblemen and citizens. BTW what remained of "Venetianized Dalmatia" is best seen by Austrian censi from 19th century where it's seen that only 3-5% of Dalmatian population were recognised as Italians and few percentages more were Italian speakers including bilinguals. Zenanarh 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was following with great interest this debate. Now that it has gone silent, I must add a few words to correct a few inaccuracies and add a "Northern" perspective.

I thought the 4th century is a bit premature for Slavic migrations. Wasn't that the time of the Goths? I always heard the 7th century as being the approximate date. So 1st to 6th Romanic Dalmatians, 7th to 13th Slavic migration, and 14th to 18th Venetians? Now the dates seem more balanced, but it is silly. Integration between Dalmatians and Slavs continued even during Venetian rule, just as well as it is not fair to say that interaction with the Veneti started at a particular date.

The Adriatic trading patterns linked the Dalmatians to the Veneti probably even before the Roman Empire. I am not surprised to learn that their languages were similar prior to the Slavic influence. But also, ethnic belonging does not have necessarily to do with breeding. Linguistic influences work even just with commerce.

To the North the Veneti share a similar ethnic mixing with Germans as they share (or shared) a mixing with the Slavs to the East. The region of Tyrol (now Italy), used to be for centuries Austrian, but there still lives a strong minority of Alpine Ladins (not to be confused with Latins) who speak a romance language that dates probably to the Venetia Regio of Roman times (and perhaps earlier). Just the same farther South there are the good old Cimbri (who I saw mentioned in this page) as a Germanic minority in a Veneti linguistic area.

The lesson is, geography often dictates these ethnic melting pots. Dalmatia is a region with no rivers (except in Fiume=river to the very North and the Neretva to the very South). I am not surprised if trade always lead North to the land of the Veneti, since they have rivers that penetrate way into the Alps (good for trade to Germany). And regarding the Venetian centuries, of course Austrian, Hungarians, and Croats would have loved access to the sea, and suffered economically because of of Venice's monopolistic obsession. But that does not mean it was bad for Dalmatians. I am not surprised that by the end of the Republic of Venice, Venice relied more on Dalmatians than on the mainland Veneti.

Oh, by the way. Regarding Marco Polo, the Korcula birthplace "theory" is the silliest thing I have ever heard. But I enjoyed the summer festival Korculan have in July a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.219.157 (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 80.187.219.157

Well there's a lot of controversy concerning Slavs. 7th century was taken as age of their migrations to the south from NE Europe and it was explained that it had been massive migrations. Actually this was just one of theories among others turned on by pan-Slavists and encouraged by communist regimes in 20th century so it became something like official history also accepted in the west. Modern sciences dispute massive migrations, migrations did occur but in much smaller degree. "Slavs" came from Latin "Sclavenes" found in the Byzantine writtings which described the people in 7th century led by Avars. Lately the name was used for all population of the Western Balkans after process of Slavization. Something similar already happened before when Greek and Roman writers gave the name of one little tribe - Illyroi - to all population of later Illyricum - today known as Illyrians. Modern sciences conclude that even these Sclavenes could not be taken as one unique cultural or ethnic group. The best decription would be different groups of warriors. According to genetics first groups of IndoEuropeans who were the possible carriers of Slavic languages began to arrive already in 1st century BC and were settled among natives. Some more accented influx of Slavic speakers arrived in 4th - Ants for example and other groups. Ostrogoths or Eastern Goths came in 5th century, but their Germanic roots are not clear. In some old inscriptions "Ostrogoths" were substituted with "Slavs" and contrary. Chakavians, Kaikavians and Ikavians (dialects of Croatian language) surely belonged to these first groups of Slavs, Stokavians came later from the north! While older groups were using "oganj" (engl. fire), Stokavians brought "vatra" (fire). Organization of first Croatian Medieval state was prolonged on OstroGothic state basis. First rulers of Croatia had Gothic suffix added to the name as sign of position. While Goths had -mer and -meir, Croats had -mir: Branimir, Krešimir, Trpimir,...

According to modern theories, modern Croats are mixture of "Illyrians" (Liburnae, Delmatae, Iapodes, western Ardeiaei and some other tribes like Panoni, Daorsi, Histri, Daesitiates...), Sclavenes, OstroGoths and Dalmatian Romans (mostly Romanized "Illyrians" but also probably some ethnic Romans left from Empire ages). Slavic language became "lingua franca" for all these people during early Medieval.

You wrote 7th to 13th Slavic migration. There were no Slavic migrations into the area after 8th century. You can point to Slavization until 13th century, not migrations!

Of course interaction between Venice and Dalmatia existed before 15th century too, but my point is that there was no Venetianization of Dalmatia earlier and there was no any significant Venetianization later concerning the ethnic pool of Dalmatia. It can be said that there was Venetianization of administration and a part of higher city classes.

Dalmatia with no rivers? You're wrong. Rjecina in the north is not Dalmatia. There are Zrmanja behind Zadar, Krka near Šibenik, Cetina in Omiš and Neretva near Dubrovnik. What was bad for Dalmatians was the flow of money and forced artifficient isolation from natural Croatian background. Any of these cities had its own "ager". If that ager was cutted off from the city, or the city and its ager were cutted off from suroundings, which happened during Republic the city was not able to develop. That's why economical and populatory stagnation was recorded in Dalmatian cities under Republic. In the same time Venice was growing in every way.

About Marco Polo birth place - actually it's unknown. According to all proofs it's equally silly to conclude that it was Venice, don't you think? Zenanarh 13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Great detail info on Slavs by 80.187.219.157. Very interesting. I did not know about this Gothic influence (both on state and suffix). Goths were in the Venetia too and left (with Longobards) a Northern influence. But I always wondered too about their borderline German/Slavic roots.

On the second set of comments by Zenenanarh, I think the point by previous user is there are no "navigable" rivers to ease trade much inland. It's much easier to navigate by sea as far North as possible and then get into navigable rivers. Regarding "venetianization" I think we are using different definitions of ethnicity (both right). When you say "there was no Venetianization in the ethnic pool of Dalmatians" you are clearly speaking about genetics (marriages...). But there was definitely a linguistic Venetianization, as Venetian was the language of money, and most Dalmatians were probably bilingual. But the point made earlier by the other user, that these two populations had to be close because of geography for millenia is a good one. I think you are right that Dalmatia was somewhat cut off from its inland, but its Adriatic connection is probably just as important, since sea travel is much easier and shorter. Before trains, planes and automobiles, Zara was closer to Venice than to Zagreb. And Venice was closer to Zara than to Verona. I don't know the exact time, but if you had to move cargo, this is for sure.

On Marco Polo, given that his father and two uncles were also Venetians, and the grandfather was also Venetian from jurisdiction of San Felice (according to 15th century document), I don't think it's silly to think Marco Polo was also Venetian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.131.162.249 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You've confused who you reply to, never mind. You're right - naval rivers comparing to Roman roads driven through the canyons of Dinar Alps left from Illyricum were one of the main reasons for succesful Venetian ruling of Adriatic. It's interesting that earlier Croatian capital cities were all in Dalmatia, not in the north and Venice was paying tribute to Kingdom of Croatia.

Concerning connection of Veneti and Dalmatians before Roman Empire. There were no Dalmatians. There were Liburni, Delmati, Ardeiaei... Liburnians were the rulers of Adriatic from 9th to 6th century BC settled in wide central part of eastern Adriatic coast. Their northwestern neighbours were Iapodes in Lika where lately Celts interfered, Histri in Istria and then Veneti in the west. Veneti were close to Histri and by some linguistic theories to Liburnians. However archeological discoveries connect Liburnians to other Illyrian tribes much more, but yet as somewhat distinctive and older tribe. They were attacked by Delmats and repelled to the north in the place where much later in the very early Medieval "Liburnia Tarsatica" state was established and then Croatian Medieval state from it. Delmats came from the inland and conquered the central part of present Dalmatia but always stayed much more connected to the inland than to the islands. Ardeiates were settled in the islands and in the south of present Dalmatia. Very simplified in short before Roman Empire.

There are 2 opposing theories about Polo. That's all. Zenanarh 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
The RfC appears to be concluded, beeing the discussion fallen outside the birth-place question. It clearly appears that there are no valid supports for the Corzula 'theory'. For this reason the only mentioned birth-place should be Venice, and Polo should be correctly presented as Venitian. The Curzola 'theory' may be presented in a proper paragraph, as it was in the origin. The fact that 'Britannica' presents both the possibilities has been shown to be baseless.
The discussion about the Romance presence in Dalmatia, and its Slavization, can be continued in a proper article, such us Italians of Dalmatia. If the 2 Croatian users (Zen. and DIR.) do not agree yet with the presented evidences, this is no more a problem to be managed with a RfC.Giovanni Giove 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if the Curzola 'theory' is discussed in a separate paragraph, it should be stated that this is only a recent (70years?) assertion, based on the presence in the island of the last name De Polo from the 15th century onward, and based on the presumed capture of Marco Polo in the Battle of Curzola. This way a reader can assess that it is a very weak 'theory', and to take it as a fun fact about Curzola. Otherwise, by just saying others believe that he was born in Curzola, it gives it stature, and makes it seem like that there are two birthplaces with equal staninding. Instead, the evidence for Venice is overwhelming.157.138.30.207 12:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. In a 1st moment we can just correct the birth place and the 'nationality' (Venice-Venitian) and to delet the 'ethnicity' paragraph. We can open a new discussion, outside the present RfC, to decide how to present the 'alternative possibility'.--Giovanni Giove 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the reasonable thing to do.157.138.30.207 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please make the change soon. Also, since there is no debate that he was a citizen of the Republic of Venice, we do not need to put all the languages spoken in this former state. Otherwise, we should also list: Bergamasco, Bresciano, Veneto, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Italian, Turkish, Ukrainian (and maybe I forgot some). I think it's best to just leave the name in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.116.5 (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy boys. Read Marc Pol section of this talk page. Venetian theory: Marco Polo was born in Venice, and therefore most probably a Venetian. is totally disputed there. Korčula (Curzola) theory: Marco Polo was born in the town of Korčula (then known as Curzola) on an Adriatic island of the same name, wich was then part of the Republic of Venice (and is now part of Croatia). In this case is claimed that Marco Polo was probably an ethnic Croat. The same text gives referenced facts for this theory. Do I have to copy all "Marc Pol" here? Zenanarh 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Only copy the missing second half were the historical references behind this theory are supposed to be revealed. Thanks.83.184.116.57 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The translated Croatian article has already been criticized. There is no need for repetitions; it does not mention the posted evidences (from "il Milione", Polo's testament, and others), and it is build on pure suppositions. It does not appear to be a valid source.Giovanni Giove 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but besides the questionable quality, the Marc Pol article only argues that the Polo family was of Dalmatian origins. All the references it quotes are about that. It does not present any arguments nor historical references about Curzola as a birthplace. Therefore, it does not pertain to the actual birthplace debate. The only probable birthplace backed by historical reference is Venice. The rest can be debated in a corner dedicated to the origins of the Polo family (and even there Curzola has no place, but only Dalmatia in general). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.138.30.207 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, its Giove with his trademark Deus ex Machina interventions. I'm so glad he's here to make "conclusions" for us all. However, fervently hoping my conclusions are at least as strong as his, I conclude that since Britannica has not changed its position, I will not either.
Read this carefully Giove: The Encyclopedia Britannica names Korčula (Curzola) as another possible birthplace. This is enough of a source (reference) by any Wikipedia standard for the inclusion of the "Korčula theory". Therefore, it will not be removed due to the fact it is supported by the World's best, and most acclaimed Encyclopedia. It will take more than your usual "conclusions" to remove this theory; besides, you're biase and radical POV is clearly shown in the introduction where you deny the very existence of Croatians. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:83.184.116.57, I was joking, this talkpage is already huge, no need to copy. It needs just a little bit of concentration to read it. But we can do something else - a little parallel summary for both theories with related sources.

Giove you always make me laugh, I simply cannot imagine you as a serious person. For example if you can't read English what are you doing here exactly?

To User:157.138.30.207, Observe that Korculan theory is based on Korculan documents about Pol familly which members - 2 brothers merchants left to the Near-East. Marc Pol article is author's discussion about other proofs to assure it. Article doesn't prove that Marco was born in Korcula, it's just a possibility, it suggests that Venice as his birthplace didn't have any proof and possibility was very small if not none. To be honest I haven't seen yet any historical reference to Venice as the probable birthplace. Zenanarh 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the two users DIREKTOR and Zenanarh will never face the evidence. I've tried to contact the administrator user:Asterion, asking him to correct the page. How to manage the two users is not something that can be discussed in the present RfC, anyway a I suppose that the work of a neutral Administrator is necessary. I invite all the involved users to try this way. Regards Giovanni Giove 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, short of not having a birth certificate from the 13th century, the historical references to Marco being a child in Venice, his father and uncles born in Venice and his grandfather from Venice, I think we can say that there is historical information to back Venice as a most probable birthplace. Now, having said that, I can understand if someone wants to see if it is possible that he was not born there. Ok. But regarding assigning Curzola as another possible birthplace, what has been presented in this discussion is not satisfactory. Simply having a De Polo family present in that island from the 15th to the 20th century is not enough. I hope we can all agree on that. The reason is that there are several other towns with Polo families from the middle ages allover the Adriatic (at least in Venice and the surrounding, but I imagine Dalmatia too). So it could be Curzola as it could be Verona. Also, there is no evidence presented here that Matteo and Nicolò belonged to that De Polo family in Curzola. Having said all this, just because what has been presented here has no merit, does not mean that those assertions could not be based on something more substantial (for instance Curzola documents that state more that simply a De Polo family used to live here). It would be great if we could have more info on this. Otherwise, I understand the position to base it on another encyclopedia (Britannica) who has professionals looking into it, and that it is backed by a network of researchers. Since I read that Britannica has been notified, and that it is doublechecking its sources, I am sure that if they find that the Curzola theory has no merit they will change their article. If they keep it, maybe there is something more than the baseless arguments that I read here. Hopefully, they will also add a reference to it, since an inquiry was made. So, perhaps with a little patience from everyone, we can all agree on it. 157.138.30.207 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems logic. Anyway, in the present moment, the Curzola possibility does not seems valid and it should be deleted. Nevertheless it will be possible to introduced it again, when Britannica will produce the references.--Giovanni Giove 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION (before I get criticized). I wrote that there is evidence that Nicolò and Matteo were born in Venice. I meant that they were always referred as Venetians, and were returning home to Venice. Clearly, there is no birth certificate for them either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.138.30.207 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is the thing: Wikipedia needs sources. You have extremely reliable sources supporting the Venetian theory. Zenanarh and I have extremely reliable sources (the Encyclopedia Britannica) showing that both theories are equal. According to Wikipedia rules, with such strong support I have sufficient reference to write that both theories are equal.
For the billionth time: I do not think the Venetian theory is wrong, but neither is the Korčula (Curzola) theory. Britannica is enough of a source.
I hate to resort to such means but I'm afraid I lost all patience after Giove arrived, so here's the thing: if someone removes the Britannica referenced equal theories edits I will immediately report them for vandalism in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Like I said at the very begining, if the World's most acclaimed historians could not decide, we should NOT either. I, for one, do not imagine my presonal research on the Internet is not worth that much. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "source" is really weak beacuse it does not provide sources. On the contrary, posted sources show that Venice as birth-place is quite logic. BTW, the "most acclaimed historians" of your beloved Britannica, agree to call Polo "Italian explorer": see [9], in the title we have "Marco Polo (Italian Explorer). *LOL*.--Giovanni Giove 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it actually says "Venetian explorer", wich means he was born in the Venetian Republic, noone is disputing that. When actually directly discussing his birthplace, the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states exactly this:

"Marco Polo

born c. 1254, Venice [Italy], or Curzola, Venetian Dalmatia [now Korčula, Croatia] died January 8, 1324, Venice"

Try to understand: while the Venetian theory has some strong evidence behind it, so does the Curzola theory. This is clear as it is accepted as valid by Britannica. Britannica placed it at the very beginning along with the Venetian theory, not in a seperate section. It will be presented as such in the article. This is source enough. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think I will contact Britannica too now, because while they state "...or Curzola, ...bla bla...NOW Croazia" they just say "Venice (Italy)". To be historically accurate they should at least state Venice, (NOW Italy)."83.184.116.25 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They are right. Venice was already in Italy (which borders was definied by Augustus, see[10][11][12] - and this has nothing to do with its political union, or ethnicity). On the contrary, in that time Dalmatia and Croatia were two well separated regions.--Giovanni Giove 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Romans defined borders of Italy? 2000 years ago? LOL... Venice was already in Italy? In 13th century? LOL... Are we talking about the same Italy? Italy in Europe on the planet Earth in the Milky Way galaxy? Or some other from some other dimension? LOL... Zenanarh 08:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha now you changed Romans to Augustus. In discussion you are using Italy as political and ethnical being, then you post links to something else - modern geographical term Italy connected to a historical map from Augustus age. Now I expect that you have a link about an ethnic Italian - Augustus. LOL... Giove dont't waste our time with your childish unscientifical rubbish Zenanarh 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweety, for now it seems that you are the one to waste his time defendenig surrealistic 'theories', for nationalistic purposes. The border of Italy were put on the Alpine water divide by Augustus, and in the Middle Age the definition was still in use. So that, Venice WAS in Italy, a fact that has noting to do with a possible political union of Italy. I'm sorry for you, but I haven't used Italy "as political and ethnical being". Everybody is free to judge where is the 'rubbish', and it seems that several users has already their own opinion. I wait with indifference your next insults. Cheers!Giovanni Giove 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you've replied to statement where political units were noted with answer of geographical connotation. Now I should reply to your geography by using artistic approachment? Zenanarh 09:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have to retract my previous statement, because Britannica stated "Curzola NOW Korčula" so the "now" referred to the change in spelling for the town. Regarding Venice being geographically in Italy, it is true that Venetia was the 10th Regio of Italia. I guess, from Augustus on, Italy did not refer only to the peninsula, which ends more or less at the river Po, but all the area up to the Alps. I guess the term was still applied in the middle ages, I am not sure. However, it might be confusing to refer to the Venetian Republic as in Italy, because its border extended all over the Mediterranean. I also found out that the Britannica source for Curzola as an alternative birthplace was the now deceased lecturer of Japanese studies, Fosco Maraini, I believe. They are now in the process of doublechecking the references.83.184.116.4 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The birth-place was the "town" of Venice (not to the "Republic"), so I suppose Italy is not confusing. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is not Fosco Mariani, as you said he was a lecturer. 78.3.57.165 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Oh for god's sake! Venice (Venetian Republic) is an Italian merchant city-state. It is in the geographic region known as Italy. That's what Britannica meant.
2) Even if Fosco Mariani (a lecturer) is the source, what does it matter that he's dead!? Even if the man had been swallowed up by a volcano, it still would not make him any less right, would it?
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, the point is that our Italian friends read and write without understanding. I've already placed up there around 50 notes with references and they can't see it. They're still looking for references. Isn't it funny? And that's just a part of existing references. In the same time they don't have not even one serious proof for their claims. They translate habitator to inhabitant, citizen or "born in the same place"! What more to say? Habitator in the Medieval city was an immigrant! It's absolutely the same situation in the science world about Marco Polo agenda. Italian writers who claimed that Polo was a Venetianized Dalmatian had only one proof and that was genealogy manuscript from 16th century where it's noted that his grandfather was some mysterious Andrea Polo di S. Felice - however lately it was proved that many genealogies of that author cannot be taken for serious. Our friends don't know that in last 200 years older references connected Marco to Croatia, while first "modern" claim that he was from Venice occured in 1900 by Monticollo. Our friends don't know that battle between 2 theories escalated actually in 20th century and while Italians were using always the same principles in discussion, the other side found a mountain of data which disputed almost all statements of the first group. Obviously it's very hard to break these premeditation blocks in some heads. However in the science world Marco's connection to Venice by means of his birthplace and ancestry is heavily disputed. Our friends act as it's disputed by you and me! Very very funny. Zenanarh 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh, the saddest thing is that NOTHING has changed. I feel so stupid for going along with another one of Giove's famous RfCs. There is NOTHING to discuss! We have sources, they have sources, and Britannica clearly states it accepts both theories as EQUALLY VALID. If anyone removes the FULLY referenced (by Wikipedia standards) equal theories version of the page, I will revert and report him. That's all there is to it. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC question - has there been any new developments from Britannica? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but Britannica has not changed its view judging from their article... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(1)link please. (2) what do other well established encyclopedias say about his b.place? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In the ethnicity controversy section the word association is spelt incorrectly as asociation- missing an "s". I'd fix it, but it's restricted. Clerks. 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Asterion^talk 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This is spam & a completely worthless link. It (and the rest of the encyclopedia's links to the site) should be removed. Wareh 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment of the link is about right, but I don't want to do this while the article is protected. It is scheduled to be unprotected on Sep 24, at which point you can remove the link yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a proposal how to solve things here.
Let's make a section "origin", and under that, two (or more) subsections:
"Theories about Italian origin" and "theories about Croat origin".
Simple, not suggesting anything, the readers may make conclusions for themselves.
This way we've avoided all edit wars regarding that matter.
Everyone can add whatever he/she wants, without disturbing/making uncontent the other side.
Of course, if a new theory about his origin appear, it's easy to make a new subsection. Kubura 05:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

this seems like a fair suggestion, perhaps you should close the RfC and re-open once this is complete? p.s. i suggest there would be a word limit on each person so that things won't be impossible to follow for an outside opinion in case it is later needed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(Yeah, the word limit could be a good idea ;) Generally, I do not see why the current version of the text is insufficient. I carefully made sure it does not suggest anything (though this was later changed). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave a note: mainstream , at least in Western historiography, takes Marco Polo as Italian, but the theory about his Croat origins isn't the "crazy" theory, and cannot be easily rejected, and has to be taken in serious accounts, because it has good grounds.
But, as the mathematicians say, the necessary condition is fullfilled, but the "condition for enough" isn't - which means, cannot reject, nor easily accept. Kubura 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the removed section (Korčula theory).
I didn't had time to see who removed it.
That section wasn't "this is only truth and nothing else, no matter what others 've written".
It was a content of that theory (in short) and some of its representants; we do not discuss here are they right or not.
I've put the "Venice origin" theory as a theory that belongs to international historiographic mainstream, so this edit wasn't some POV-pushing, nor revert warring. If someone wants to make "Venice theory" section, OK, I have nothing against it. Make the article richer. Widen it, write there what you want, but don't delete other theories. That's mutilation of the article, and in a way, a page blanking (in this case, a section of the page was being blanked). That's trollic behaviour.
So please, in future, stop those vandals who remove it. Kubura (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
THE SECTION WAS NOT BLANKED BUT MOVED INTO A NEW ARTICLE!!!!! See Birth Place of Marco Polo. I'm going to correct (it is the 2nd time) this clear misunderstanding.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lumbarda and connection with "Lombardy". Lumbarda is first time mentioned in historical sources in Statute of Korčula (its first form is from 1214). The lack of early medieval findings gives ground to hypothesis, that, at the late Old Ages, Lumbarda was deserted, abandoned place.
Here's Lumbarda's history in English [13]. Kubura 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is where I propose any changes to the current wording of this subsection can be discussed before any editing takes place. The reason for this is that the exact wording can be easily used to treat one theory as less valid or important than the other. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be several issues that need discussion here, Ghepeu.

• "since the town (and, indeed, the entire Dalmatian region) was inhabited by both Dalmatian language speakers and Croats."

Are you aware that the Roman(ce) Dalmatians were extinct in the islands by the 14th century Their presence in Dalmatia was reduced to Ragusa and (much less) Zadar (Zara). I mean this is just basic...

Then it should be fairly easy for you to add a significant reference instead of using the meaningless one-liner from Britannica. GhePeU 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for insults, the Britannica "one-liner" clearly shows both theories are considered valid. Anyway, you're right, here's some [14], [15], [16], while you cannot expect anyone to "prove a negative", you will clearly find in those sites the statement that Roman Dalmatians occupied the cities, while the Slavs occupied the remainder of Dalmatia (the islands were nearly abandoned by the second half of the 8th century). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some important notes. When speaking about Dalmatians and Croats and their correlation it's important to put it in proper time period. Slavization was cultural process which resulted in producing Slavic speakers mostly from native population. According to genetical, anthropological and other disciplines first Slavic speakers arrived to the Balkans already in 1st century BC. Some of the first "Slavic speakers with name" were Anths and others in 4th, 5th century. According to Dalmatian author from 10th century and some other Medieval writers Goths (Ostrogoths) in Dalmatia in 6th century were Slavic speaking Gethae. Migrating Slavs led by Avars in 7th century were warriors Sklavens whose name was used by Byzantine writers to specify Slavic speakers - Slavs in modern meaning.

In 7th century Dalmatian islands were abandoned because of Saracen assaults in the Mediterranean and Dalmatia was already settled by Slavic speakers, outside the coastal cities settled by Dalmatian speakers - Romanized Illyrians. In 9th century Dalmatian cities were recuperating and rebuilding. Repopulation of each Dalmatian city with settlers from its ager enabled further Medieval development. And city agers were settled by Slavs - Croats.

Good example is Zadar. The oldest saved historical document in Zadar is from the first half of 9th century where some Zadar citizens were noted, Slavic and Dalmatian names. First ethnonim for Zadar citizens after Antique Greek and Roman ethnonims was graphy Jaderani - phonetic (spoken) Zadrani - same as modern Croatian, found in the inscription in St. Simeon church from the beginning of 9th century. Next documents from 10th century noted a lot of Croatian names in all city classes including leading positions, precisely the major part of the city population were Croats. Names found in 13th and 14th century documents were almost all Croatian, no matter what language was used for writting.

Also according to original documents toponims in the islands in 10th century were 70% Croatian. Others were Dalmatian (Dalmatian language), mainly of Illyrian roots, some of Latin roots. It's interesting that some Dalmatian toponims from 10th century documents were translated from Croatian origins already that early! Dalmatian names in Zadar were found mostly among patrician families - noblemen and cives in the beginning. However more than a half of Zadar noblemen in 13th and 14th century were Croats.

Original Korculan documents from 14th century noted almost all Croatian names. Venetian nobleman Zorzi noted in his writings that he was living in Slavic envirement in Korcula in 14th century. And so on...

It's impossible to make ethnical separation between Dalmatians and Croats in 13th and 14th century in the Dalmatian cities, since "Dalmatian ethnicity" was long extinct in that moment, Dalmatian culture had survived for a while but carried by the same people - Croats who had settled in the cities much earlier. So Chakavian (dialect of Croatian) repelled Dalmatian language, but saved many Dalmatian term words. And Chakavian was the oldest Slavic dialect in the Balkans. Zenanarh 13:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• "After the annexation of Venice into the Italian Kingdom in 1866, by the law of transitivity many respected historians of all nationalities have referred to Marco Polo as being Italian.^[2] Historical documents refer to him by the Latin name Marcus Paulus, which does little to solve the dispute."

Just what is wrong with this wording?!! You can' just go around editing everything you don't like, FFS!

That it means nothing. Even before 1861 Italy was Italy, and everyone could call Italian a Venetian, Tuscan, Sicilian or Roman. And that was the practice: the French and the Germans called Claudio Monteverdi and Italian composer, even though he was born in Cremona, then a Spanish possession, and lived and worked in Mantua, an independent Ducate, and Venice, an independent republic. All this three hundred years before the unification of Italy. GhePeU 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe we may have a misunderstanding. Venice undoubtably is, was, and shall be a part of Italy, but this text refers to Polo, not Venice, being known as Italian by the law of transitivity. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "The Curzola theory probably originated because Marco Polo was possibly captured..."

This is pure conjecture and discrediting. How do you know the Curzola theory isn't true? We must represent them equally.

You got a whole session in which you present your "theory," in that section I'm reporting what Zorzi, supported by some 30 or more pages of bibliography, wrote in his book. GhePeU 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what I meant was that this is Zorzi's personal oppinion, not a fact, and while it may be good book-writing material, we may not present conjecture and speculation on Wiki. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "On the other side, most sources traditionally consider Marco Polo a Venetian citizen born in Venice."

Heh, This is nice. is this sourced, or is this your own personal wish?

Britannica 1911, for example. You can search in Google books, you'll find plenty of 19th century books whose authors don't seem to be aware of the "Curzola hypothesis". GhePeU 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not prove your point. The Google test does not concern scientific research, you are refering to. I appeal to your compromising side to remove this personal approximation, it undermines the neutrality of the article. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Would you say this wording is acceptable for the prelude to the "arguments" subsections? The historians are divided on the issue. Here it is:

"Strong arguments have been brought forth supporting both possibilities with historians divided on the issue."

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that there's a vocal minority of historians supporting the theory of Marco Polo being born in Curzola and I find suspicious that most of them are referenced (only) in the usual korcula.net web site. But it's my opinion and I'm not (yet) the Supreme Ruler of Wikipedia, so that wording is acceptable. GhePeU 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have a consensus on this point, then. Ghepeu, (as I have frequently stated) I myself personally believe that the Venetian theory is correct, but we must maintain historic accuracy and represent both theories in a neutral and equal way. We should maintain NPOV. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC comment - personally, i think you should scrap the OR debate and treat the issue like silk-road did [17] - anyways, i'm closing the RFC since i figure no one would actually go over it when it's so messy - i suggest you rewrite the discussion in a summarized fashion - probably best to create it first on your own userspace and posting here with a new RfC (if needed) when done.
p.s. could be a good idea not to make the distinction yourselves from the sources but rather use "britannica says X", "other famous encyclopedia says Y" etc.
p.p.s. you can move this comment a bit if you think it disturbs the flow of the input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________

---

I don't agree with considering Venice as "always" a part of Italy, even as a geographic or cultural definition. It's true that the adjective Italian started being used before 1866, but it was part of 19th century nationalism. Beforehand (18th century and beyond) Venetians did not refer to eachother as "Italians", linguistically they distinguished between Tuscan and Venetian, and geographically the Republic of Venice was located on the armpit of two peninsula's (the Italic and the Balkanic), and actually they were more tilted toward the Dalmatian side. Just because they spoke a romance language does not make them Italian, just the same way romance-speaking people in between the Italic and the Iberian peninsula are not referred as Italians. But again, it is very convenient to reduce the argument to a Croatian-Italian dycothomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.207.245 (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.87 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 

Origini culturali di Marco Polo:'

Marco Polo was integrated in the group of venetian patrician families, after 1297 this group became close for law ("Serrata del Maggior Consiglio"). And after that, in Venice, was possible to identify three classes: nobles (with full politic rights), "cittadini originari" or state bourgeoisie, and the large majority of population that was formed from Venetians (from "terra ferma"), Dalmatians, Albanians and Greek (from "stato da mar"), Hebrews and from other parts of Europe, slaves (to see like slavery sistem) from Balcans and Black Sea. The population of the city was very complex and multiethnic. The patrician group that governed on this variety of people, was very very very close. At that time, it was practically impossible that a venitian noble, or "cittadino originario" married a man or woman of different classes. Marco Polo has married a patrician venitian woman of the ancient and original family of Badoer-Partecipatio or Loredan. In Venise are conserved the testaments of Polo family: see Yule, Cicogna, Lazari, Orlandini, Dini, Tucci ecc, and there are the relations and letters of Venetians "rettori" from "Stato da Mar", and there are testaments of "de propria man" of people that are come from Dalmatia.

With except perhaps for the nobles, few thousands person, and "cittadini originari", the large part of population of Venice had not a ethnic idea of the difference but religious idea, they had several origins and they considered themself inhabitants of Venetia of the parish of San ... the "foresto" (alien) was not Albanian, Slav Greek, Tartar, but from Sebenico, from Corfu, from Durazzo, from Tana, from Beirut, from Florentia in this manner they identify themselves on the testaments and often they give money to the monasteries and inhabithans of origin places

In the venetian republic the population of Curzola or Corfù or other places were the population of Curzola or Corfù or other places, and had not ethnic connotation. The religion and the social classes were more important factors of discrimination respect the ethnic or cultural origin.

The names of Marco Polo daughters were Fantina, Bellela e Moreta (venetians name, he has done a donations to a monastery of city of Grado and S. Lorenzo for the buried. There aren't in the testament donations to monastery or church of Curzola.

Andriolo

Andriolo 18/10/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.87 (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica does not provide sources for the possible birth in Curzola. Not only: one of the authors of Britannica's article (the 2nd is dead) is against this possibility . This shall be correctly reported, because many Croatian sources report Britannica's article as a source to enforce the "Curzola theory" (just see [18]). User:Zenanarh should write the reasons for the deletions of this sourced fact.Giovanni Giove 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have destroyed this article in its entirety, please do not say what Britannica does or does not support. Concentrate on this: The info is included in the current Britannica edition, therefore the info is sourced by Britannica. How do you know that one author does not support his own work? Are we supposed to take your (poorly spelled) word for it? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not destroyed anything. On the contrary I've patiently rebuild what was destroyed by you and Zenanarh. Britannica does not provide sources and one of the authors does not agree with the Curzola possibility (just read RfC). We can not argue that the second author agreed (because he is dead). Britannica actually does not provide reliable sources. If you do not like my style feel free to correct it. Finally I shall point out that you wrote me that you think Polo was Venetian: which kind of game are you playing?--Giovanni Giove 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You've missed agenda, place,... This is encyclopedia, Brittanica too. Not forum, not blog, not political table,...The authors of the articles in the encyclopedias are not expected to agree, disagree or choose the side concerning different and opposed theories, when it exist. It seems that level of your knowledge and education is too low for all of this, that's why all of your contributions here are expressed through your own political attitude and engagement - something completely opposite to encyclopedic work. As DIREKTOR said you have destroyed this article in its entirety, I can add - not only this article. Practically you did it in a bunch of cases. Wherever you step objectivety dissapears... Zenanarh 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite usual insults, you have written nothing and you have not replied to my complains. Actually Britannica does not provide sources. Giovanni Giove 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave you guys to argue the validity of this section but I am going to edit it for grammar, spelling, etc. Whether it is encyclopedic or not, it reads horribly and needs to be revised. sdgjake 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, concentrate on these two sentences:

1) The info is included in the current Britannica edition, therefore the info is sourced by Britannica.

2) The authors of the articles in the encyclopedias are not expected or required to agree, disagree or choose the side concerning different and opposed theories.

In other words Giovanni, what these authors may or may not think at this particular time is irrelevant. It is enough that their opinions were included in Britannica. After they wrote that article, they can change their mind twenty times if they like or even die, it does not matter AT ALL. The fact remains that their work was included and accepted by Britannica. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Curzola's possibility was inserted by Britannica's team, and not by the authors (one was against, we don't know about the 2nd). Even if questioned, Britannica has not provided sources, and we can argue it was inserted just because it has became more and more popular (thought without relevant documents...). Despite your claims, we can NOT verify Britannica's source, and that what I wrote. Cheers!--Giovanni Giove 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. We should create new article, for this dispute. This problem is too big for the Polo's article. What do u think?Giovanni Giove 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridicuolous. Britannica's team? The authors? What are you talking about? Britannica's team is a group of proffesionals on documentary work. They are not the authors. Authors of the sources are writers, historians, linguists, other scientists,... one was against, we don't know about the 2nd. Who? What? Where? You mean editors of the Britannica 's Polo article? 2 of them and one said: I'm against. He told you that? You have direct telephone line with Britannica? Against theory or against inserting of it? Where did you dig that "against"? thought without relevant documents - actually there is no document of Polo's bithplace, but all other documents accord to better possibility of Korčula than Venice, while Venice theory was taken as usual in last 100 years and therefore much popular and known in the world. And you are shown a lot of it at this talk page. But that's another story... It appears that your perception goes only to the point set by your own cultural and civilization level. Everything beyond that point is not a subject of your perception. That's the real problem of this article at the moment. No need for new such articles. Wikipedia is not guilty. Zenanarh 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude appears to have improved (somewhat) Giovanni, but your actions remain the same. You do not discuss your edits, and you do not make any attempts to achieve a neutral article. I have named many examples of your lack of objectivity, you state your beliefs as 100% certain information, and by doing this, you make the article contradict itself. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The 95% of the discussions and nearly the 50% of the article is about a minor aspect, such us the birthplace. That's too much. It is time to create a special article about the "dramatic" problem of the birthplace, such us for "Christopher Columbus"'s article. --Giovanni Giove 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. --Rjecina 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For those of you interested, Britannica has removed Korcula as a possible birthplace. G- 138.88.110.3 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Favour split per Giovanni. Mary*wu (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim of Britannica, the main support provided for the Curzola theory, has been removed. I hope the dispute is over. Meanwhile I've moved it into a specific article.--Giovanni Giove 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I removed the Britannica reference in the controversy paragraph. Bolivendarsen (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have a link to this non-existing article when talking about the Silk Road and why has editing been blocked?--190.74.108.43 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this redlink matter. Mary*wu (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)