Talk:Dervan

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Untitled

Is it accurate to claim that Dervan was the leader of the Sorbs, and not the Serbs? What time did the Sorbs and Serbs split? If the split occured after Dervan's time (which I think is the case) then the article's portrayal of Dervan as having nothing to do with the Serbs is misleading. Edrigu 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the french Wikipedia, Dervan is presented as the father of the guy who lead a part of the Serbs in the Balkans.

My two Wiki-cents, Lxtc 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sources indicate no connexion with Serbs/Serbia/Balkans. Dervan was a Sorbian ruler in Sorbian territory. Srnec (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the german book "Die Slawen in Deutschland" I found some informations about Dervan. He was a Sorbian princ in the 7th century, not a Serbian. I think, that somebody mixed him with the Serbian Drvan (name in the French article). Perhaps they were two different men. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dervan and Drvan are variants of same name. According to my sources, one of Dervan's sons led part of the Serb people from Lusatia to Balkans, where they mixed with South Slavs, adopted South Slavic language but spread their name to them. Other part of the Serb people that remained in Lusatia developed into modern Sorbs (who still call themselves Serbja / Serby in their own language). PANONIAN 22:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which would be your source? I have an academic source, often cited in scholarly works, that clearly says that West Slavic Sorbs and South Slavic Serbs were two completely different groups not even adjacent to each other, at the beginning of 7th century. Your story about "one of Dervan's sons", when compared with my source, looks like an absurd fairy tale. Vladimir (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @Vladimir; But came from Mars, built pyramids, moved to Iran, invented the Hamburger, and yes Jesus was a Serb as well?

Current fact supported theory about the Serbs/Sorbs ethnogenesis

It is supported by historical, oral, archeological facts, rather than upon a romantic impulse, and some mambo-jambo about genetics. After 100 years of living among a different genetical cluster, genes change, after 1400 as well.

The King of White Serbia, 6th century, (also known as Bojka, Boika, Boii), was succeeded by two sons, one of them was the The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez), the other probably the ruler of the Serbs, Knez Dervan. Not more is known about him.

From the information we have today, it seems the region described as White 'unbaptized' Serbia or Boika in the Byzantine Chronicles (De Administrando Imperio chapter 32, Constantine VII, 950 AD), lying east of the Franks (Germany), west of the White Croats (the inland regions of Silesia and Lesser Poland, according to Edward Gibbon), north of the Turks (Magyars of Hungary), corresponds with the modern regions of north Bohemia, Lusatia and south-western Poland.

Facts that support this theory are, the common linguistical origin of the West Slav (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and the South Slav (Serb and Croat) language, that differ from the Bulgarian language, the toponyms found in the region, south Bohemia (Srbsko, Srbská Kamenice etc. as well as the toponym Chorvat, in the adjacent regions). Lusatian Wends still bearing the name Serbs. The region of Bohemia was known as Boii to the Romans, as well as Byzantines, after the celtic Boii tribe settling the region before Slavs. Byzantines often described people by the region (Tribalians, Thracians, Illyrians) they inhabited, eventhough the name-giving tribes were long extinct, rather than by the native names of the tribes they were carrying. The region called Boiheim by the western Rome (German suffix -heim) and Boika by the eastern Rome (Slavic suffix -ka) corresponds to the current region of Bohemia.

The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez) is described in the chronicles as being a successor alongside an unnamed brother (according to the historical data, probably Knez Dervan) to a Serb king and having led part of the Serbs from White Serbia during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641 AD). On their way south they vanquished the Avars, before eventually settling in Servia (The place still bears its name), the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, a province which Heraclius granted them with the task to protect Byzantium from future threats, such as Avars.

The Serbs left the province and moved northwards, until they came to Belgrade where the strategos of the theme gave them the areas of Rascia, Bosnia, Trebounia, Zachlumi, Pagania, Neretvia and Duklja (Byzantine Sclaviniae or Slavdoms) after they swore allegiance to the Emperor. The date of his death is unknown, however it is attested before the arrival of the turkic Proto-Bulgars in the Balkans (681).

Serbs and Sorbs (south and north Serbs), were 1400 years ago the same Polabian Slavic tribe, afterwards it came to a split, the northern Serbs that stayed (now known as Sorbs or Wends) were largely assimilated by greater Slavic tribes (Poles, Czechs) as well as non-Slavic nations (Germans) enormly influencing their language and culture by the Polish and the German one. The southern Serbs on the other hand, conquered and assimilated lesser Slavic tribes, as well as the romanised Illyrian and Thracian population of the Roman empire in southeastern Europe, into their own Slavic tribe.

This is the fact supported theory, everything else is romantic mythomany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.24.131 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Name in Slavic/Serbian ????

Djordje? Really? That's a Christian name, equivalent of George.. needs some more actual research and sources there, definitely. 188.195.203.5 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

@Kgfleischmann why did you make a revert in which did not merely make a "reorder contents" as you removed a reliably sourced content and references? The old revision was backed up by primary source (Jenkins's translation of De Administrando Imperio) which does not support the claim of Dervan being brother of Unknown Archon. It is somebody's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I repeat again, Emperor Constantine VII nowhere in his work mentions Dervan nor relates him to Unknown Archon. That connection is historiographical construction, as well as sentence about (Serbian) migration (to the Balkans) is not specific enough for laic reader. The paragraph doesn't belong to the beginning of the article as are merely historiographical opinions and secondary events unrelated to Dervan. Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a second look on the article Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]