Jump to content

Talk:Korčula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

I've moved the article to the modern name and updated other old names in the article text. It looks like it was pasted from an older material, perhaps one of the encyclopedias? --Shallot 15:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! The "one" is Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, which I recommend to you in fact, plus about a dozen details lifted from various websites by Googling and subsequently converted in my usual way by working them seamlessly into the elegantly modernized rewritten text. Check Encyclopaedia Britannica to see how brilliantly this has been accomplished, but don't fail to let me know if any antique wording has escaped my editorial net. Better also check Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II for lifted ideas. "Korcula" applied to historical Curzola is confusing to the educated reader, but its entry redirects here. Wetman 16:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the old names should be properly included, though for the sake of easier geographic orientation in the modern world, the names used in the last couple of centuries should be primary, rather than the medieval ones :) I've added a few more modern details and will probably add even more later. --Shallot 16:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I found a touristic site with detailed history Wetman 17:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Marco Polo's birthplace

[edit]

Marco Polo isn't secure born in Curzola. SγωΩηΣ tαlk 16:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in history is "secure," is it? Before the rise of modern nationalism, did he speak Venetian is the apposite question. ...So Christopher Columbus was quite likely Catalan. Much of the European energy expended on such squabbles derives more from soccer fandom than history. --Wetman 18:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have added more geography, small map and and some more data. You guys take a look.--Mestric 16:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The map tells the story better than even a paragraph of text! It's a good-looking page. --Wetman 23:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a factual inacurracy that referred to the island lying "paralel to the Dalmatian coast". Though Korcula is aligned with Peljesac peninsula, technicaly mainland, it belongs to the southern group of islands ("Southern-Dalmatian group") whose propagation is east-west, unlike the remaining islands that are aligned with the coast. Hrundi 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nod definite proof that Marco Polo was born on the island of Kocula, but there are many intrests for the Tourism industy of Krotia to turn such speculations into facts. Wikipedia is no place for these circumstances.
As long as no valid proofs are shown for the statement that Marco Polo was born on Kurcula, this statemant should have no place everywhere in en-wiki. At that time the polo-family had their central livingpoint already for about 1000 years in Venice and therefor it is much more probable that he was born in Venice. 89.50.44.52 17:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- contrary to the Venetian documents, which say that they "came from Dalmatia", a Croatian maritime province. CHRONICON IUSTINIANI, 1358 (annotation) in the Venetian Bibliotheca Marciana. The Venetian manuscripts from: 1423., 1446., 1450/60., and the two documnets from the beginning of the 1600-ies.

The Venetian chronicler Marino Sanudo junior writes to that effect in 1522.: "Poli di Dalmatia". See A. C. Moule: MARCO POLO, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD (London, 1938), 17, 19, 20.

A. C. Moule says: "None of the large number of Venetian genealogies which we have been able to consult seems explicitly to recognize more than one family of Polo, namely "Polo di Dalmatia". Moule, 20.

Giovanni Orlandini, the Venetian authority on our subject writes in 1926., that the genealogy of the Polos is not "chiara" (clear). He asserts that their generalogy is traceable in Venice as from the middle of the XIIIth century. He believes that the Polos had been gradually comming from the Near East ports and settling, after the year 1261., in Venice in the consequence of the downfall of the Near East latin Empire. See G. Orlandini "Marco Polo e la sua familia" in ARHIVIO VENETO TRIDENTINO, vol. IX. 1926., 1-68, especiall pp.: 1-3.

A. C. Moule contends that the Pols genealogy can be traced in Venice, starting from the middle of the XIVth century. Moule, 20.

Marco Polo the elder writes in his Last Will (Venice, 1280.) that he came from Constantinople. As quoted by moule, 523-524.

His brothers, the merchant-travellers Maffeu and Nicolau fetched in 1250. the merchandise from Venice to Constantinople. They sejourned in the Black Sea area from then untill the year 1261. In 1261. They went to Asia and came back in 1269. In 1271., they went from Venice to Asia. Marc Pol the junior the son of Nicolau, (the author of the book), accompanied them on their second journey. (He was born in 1254., and died in 1324.).

They returned from Asia in 1295. Then they (definately) settled in Venice.

According to Vladimir DePolo, some Croatian manuscripts do mention: "The merchants, shipbuilders, travelers,... (etc) POLOS from Dalmatia, in the Near East ports including Constantinople. (The research paper published in Zagreb 1996. in the collection of the research works, entitled: MARKO POLO and THE EASTERN ADRIATIC IN THE XIIITH CENTURY).

Conclusion By their family roots comming from Croatia, the explorers Pols settled in Venice, after they had accomplished their historic explorations. Therefore they are misidentified as the "Venetian Polos".

(One Marco Polo was in the year 1300., among the rebels against the Venetian authorities, who condemned them to exile and then to death. Then the rebels flew to Croatia. Some writers believe that the said Marco Polo-rebel, was is fact the explorer Marc Pol himself.).

Tomislav?

[edit]

Tomislav ruling Korcula? But how come??? --PaxEquilibrium 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct in that there is no written record specifically linking this island with Tomislav's principality or kingdom. However, due to the ruler's powerful army and navy - eg he held back the Bulgarians - we can assume that a small island roughly 48km long and 8km wide was not beyond his control. This is accordingly an assumption with some historical basis. --Maestrale 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Shouldn't this article be split into "Korčula (island)" and "Korčula (town)"? It currently has two different subjects.--Húsönd 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not yet. Too small. --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Island of Korcula & Principality of Paganija

[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to questionable historical information pertaining to the Island of Korcula and the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods.

Wikipedia States: “Accordingly, the population of the island in the early Middle Ages was described as being in the same group as the Neretvians of the coastal Principality of Paganija (the land of the Pagans)”.

This article uses the information describing the population of the Island of Korcula as being the same as that of the Principality of Paganija which clearly is not the case. With this statement it infers that Korcula was inhabited only by Neretvians with no mention of other groups. These issues are important and these statements should be backed with some scientific fact. There is no reference point to confirm this (is it just a statement?).

To my knowledge there were people there from the former Roman province of Dalmatia. I would draw your attention to the existence of Roman ruins on the Island of Korcula at Poplat, Potirna, and two locations in the field of Vrbovica just to name a few. These predate the arrival of the Neretvians by several centuries. There is a church named “Our Lady of the Field” located on the Blato Field that has Roman Floors that place its beginnings in the 4th century. There is evidence that the Town of Korcula was established before the arrival of Slavs/Neretvians in the area.

In the article there is no mention of the Italianic descendants who inhabit the Island of Korcula. These families settled there during the Venetian Republic days.

Wikipedia States: After the 9th century, the island became a part of the Serbian realm.

There is no reference point to confirm this statement. One can assume the article here must be using the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such when concerning the referencing information about the people in that region. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is incorrect. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are other discrepancies in this document such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Island of Korcula and it’s relation to Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

Why hasn't other information been represented from that period of history, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arneri Family of Curzola

[edit]

Hello there! Sir Floyd here. I’ve actually found the original reference from where the Arneri Family information came. It was written by a British diplomat & writer from the 19 century called Andrew Archibald Paton (1811-1874). It’s on page 164 to 165 from his book "Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic" and here it is in its entirety.

"Close by is the palace of a certain Signor Arnieri, the principal landed proprietor of Curzola, to which I was taken by a gentleman of the town to whom I was recommended. The palace itself, of Venetian Gothic, is sadly dilapidated; but such an edifice as a Contarini or a Gradenigo might have dwelt in. A superb bronze knocker, representing a Hercules swinging two lions by their tails, adorned the door; and entering the courtyard, the marble draw-well, on which was cut three pears, the arms of the family, and the minutely fretted windows of the crumbling halls, reminded me that Curzola had for years supplied the timber for the wooden walls of Venice, and had been another favourite station of her fleets. Signor Arnieri, a polite gentleman, with white neckcloth and broad-brimmed hat, did the honours with the courtesy of the old school.
“ These three pears you see on the wall,” he said, “are the arms of my family. Perussich was our name, when, in the earlier part of the fifteenth century, my ancestors built this palace; so that, you see, I am a Dalmatian. All the family, fathers, sons and brothers, used to serve in the fleets of the Republic; but the hero of our race was Arniero Perussich, whose statue you see there, who fought, bled, and died at the siege of Candia, whose memory was honoured by the Republic and whose surviving family was liberally pensioned; so his name became the name of our race. We became Arnieri and ceased to be Perussich”.
The Sobborgo, or suburb of Curzola without the walls, is kept alive by shipbuilding; and being situated on the neck of the land that connects the town with the island, it has wharfs to both bays. The boats of Curzola are still renowned on the Adriatic; and those of the Company of the Austrian Lloyds are built here. Timber and labour are both cheap and vegetation is rapid; for no sooner is a wood thinned than it grows again with great rapidity.

It seems to me the writing is actually referring to the Venetian Republic not the Republic of Ragusa (as stated in the Wiki article -Republic of Dubrovnik) when it’s read in its entire context.

The quote from the book goes "All the family, fathers, sons and brothers, used to serve in the fleets of the Republic" & "Arniero Perussich, whose statue you see there, who fought, bled, and died at the siege of Candia, whose memory was honoured by the Republic". The battle or the Siege of Candia was fought between the Venetian Republic and the Ottoman Empire. This would indicate that he fought on the Venetian side.

The quote continues “whose memory was honoured by the Republic and whose surviving family was liberally pensioned”. The Republic here is referring to the Republic of Venice. Mr Perussich’s family would have been honoured by the Republic that actually engaged the Ottomans in the battle. Furthermore in the chapters there is no mention of Republic of Ragusa (Republic of Dubrovnik). Would like some feedback on this please?

Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew it! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DIREKTOR! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Whoever you are... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not Arnieri, but Arneri

[edit]

I see that somebody deleted my moderated comments in regards to Arneri Clan. I have the original Arneri Family tree spanning 20-24 generations(kept in a bank vault). Its quite clear from it that Perussich isn't a surname that was ever used. The surname was Piruzovic (extinct). Neither is it Arnieri, but Arneri. 5 Arnir's are mentioned on it. The last 2 were brothers in the 17 hundreds. There is added confussion, from which Arnir stems our surname.

The surname prior to that one is also known, but can not be displayed, as it is rather common these days. Due to the fact that the Balkans (especially the Western Parts) do not understand the concept of copyright, it would be a mistake to publish the surname with its rightful coat of arms. Furthermore, the ancient branch of the above, prior to the 14 century, are said to come from another family of nobles.

You're using a dubious reference of "here say", to prove a point. The above writer not only confuses the public as to the status of the Arneris, but managed to mis-spell the actual surname Arneri. That makes this book rather less credible for its intended reference. More so, since Arneris were never sole proprietors of Korcula, just simple Counts!

If Wikipedia continues re-moderating this article, with the above incorrections, it would constitute slander. It would be better then, if you didn't mention 'us' at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.42.196 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 82.196.42.196! Could you please assume some good faith here. The statement was placed there by some unknown and it was a mess. I have since try to work it so it's encyclopaedic. The story checks out. It was written by a British diplomat & writer from the 19 century called Andrew Archibald Paton (1811-1874). It’s on page 164 to 165 from his book "Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic". Also could you please provide references other than the bank vault. I can assure you there is no dubious references here. If you think Wikipedia is doing you a disservice please go through proper protocol. I myself don't real care as long it's encyclopaedic. I'll check for spelling. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! A. Paton got the Arneri wrong! I see you added:

"The original Patriarch of the clan was called Petar(1340-?). He had a status of a minor nobleman, (Local Patrician status of the City of Korcula). His family most probably fled the highlands of Travunia from where the original Aristocratic Coat of Arms comes from (differs from above)." A reference/citation would be good. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks for replying so quick. I will see what I can find in regards to "references". When dealing with family related issues, one has to be very sensantive. While I'm sure A. Paton, meant well while writting his memoirs, his words shouldn't be taken word for word, especially after showing his lack of detail for things relevant to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.42.196 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 82.196.42.196 for pointing out the Arneri chapter's problems. I've made some changes and it's a improvement. Also I found a reference for other noble families of Korcula, which is great! Sir Floyd (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found a book (written in Croatian)called "Otok Korcula", 2nd edition written by Marinko Gjivoje, Zagreb 1969. The book basicly outlines A-Z about the island of Korcula, from traditions, history, culture to wildlife, politics & geography! Its pretty detailed. On Page 46-47, on the bottom foot note, under the heading "Noble Families of Korcula", it starts off with the Arneris. In that small article, it coroborates most of what I wrote, including the most important "Piruzovic" surname (not Perussich). It also mentions the surname before that (the one I'm not so keen on publishing). It talks about profesions of various family members through the ages & the 2 coat of arms. On Page 48, the noble family "De Polo" are mentioned (possible link to Marko Polo), as well as a few other nobles some of which you already added.

I would advise you to add this book to the references of the article & seriously start thinking about deleting the Perussich Error. As promised, I will continue looking for more references on the subject! Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.42.196 (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Arnerius Peruzzi (did you add that)? Can you please provide a link to Marinko Gjivoje's book (he's the Esperanto guy). I do read Croatian, so if a citation/link (or page number) is provided then might we add a footnote in the reference section that the original statement got the spelling wrong, however references/citations come first.
Within the Korcula article it would read, for example:
Signor Arneri: "These three pears you see on the wall," said he, "are the arms of my family. Piruzovic was the name, when, in the earlier part of the fifteenth century, my ancestors built this palace; so that, you see, I am Dalmatian. All the family, fathers, sons, and brothers, used to serve in the fleets of the Republic (Republic of Venice); but the hero of our race was Arneri Piruzovic, whose statue you see there, who fought, bled, and died at the Siege of Candia, whose memory was honoured by the Republic, and whose surviving family was liberally pensioned; so his name of our race. We became Arneri, and ceased to be Piruzovic"
(Piruzovic almost sounds like it should be Piruzović, so that would mean Andrew Archibald Paton was pretty close for an English speaking person)
Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Guilty as charged. A few months ago, I added Arnerius Peruzzi as a latin derivative of the original. Back then,. I still didn't know the link connecting the surname with the 2 coat of arms & the name Peter. Furthermore, I hadn't had the chance to view the family tree, properly!

Anyhow back to the "Otok Korcula" book mentioned above; Page 46-47 Footnote Number 12, under the heading Nobles of Korcula - Summary of the Arneri Family. Page 54 Under the heading "Counts, Mayors, and Leaders/Presidents of Korcula" under 1420 it mentions Dobroslav Petrov as the rector of Korcula. This is the same person as Petar D. mentioned on Page 46. It should be Petar II D. Page 57 Under the sub-heading Mayors of Korcula, it mentions: 1824-34 Jerolim Arneri (Senior) - Lawyer 1871-78 Rafo Arneri - Public Notary 1878-80 Jerolim Arneri (Junior) - Lawyer 1880-88 Rafo Arneri (see above) 1897-1914 Dr Roko Arneri - Lawyer 1925-26 Dr Roko Arneri (see above) 1933-1936 Dr Juraj Arneric - Lawyer

Page 165 Under the chapter called Trade in the 4th paragraph it talks about Jacob Arneri, a wealthy nobleman in the 1660s, and his monopoly over all grain windmills in Korcula, Hvar, Vis & Brac. Underneath Page 165 there is an added footnote Number 29 - Explaining the Korcula Windmill and how it was built. In the same book right at the end there are about 5-10 pages of photos. On Page numbered XIV, 2 photos of interest are present. View of the main building of the Arneri Castle in Blato, & A photo of Slavko Arneri - Lawyer. On Page numbered VII there is a 1931 Photo of the whole Arneri Family sitting around a table. I'm sorry but I don't have any links associated with the above book. I hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.42.196 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated transport information

[edit]

Good morning, I am afraid that the section about transport is outdated. I was looking for ferries to Korčula and so far I know there no ferries from Rijeka and Bari anymore. Also, I have been told by Linijska Nacionalna Plovidba that there is no ferry from Drvenik anymore. I only know about ferries from Split via Hvar and to Lastovo. --Zik (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korčula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korčula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korčula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the "Middle Ages" section

[edit]

1. The "Middle Ages" section says "However, some Italian scholars believe that he may have been captured in a minor clash near Ayas".

There is no source/citation. Please help to provide one or delete the text.

2. The "Middle Ages" section also says "Curzola, as the Venetians called the island, surrendered to the Kingdom of Hungary in 1358 according to the Treaty of Zadar, but it surrendered to the Bosnian King Stephen Tvrtko I in the summer of 1390."

This sentence is awkward because "but" joins two sentences creating a contradition but the two events mentioned occur 32 years apart so I do not see a contradiction.

ICE77 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korčula&oldid=1233189783"