Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 UDC 572:911.3:314(497.5) Original scientific paper

Ethnohistorical Processes, Demographic Structure and Linguistic Determinants of the Island of

L. [kreblin, L. [imi~i} and A. Sujold`i}

Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb,

ABSTRACT

The present paper aims at describing the most relevant background data on geomor- phological, economic, ethnohistoric, demographic and linguistic features of the island of Vis. As an introduction to future holistic anthropological research on the island, it seeks to identify both internal and external impulses of change and/or continuity of the island population structure within a wider socio-cultural and historical context. The ethnohistorical and demographic data indicate a higher degree of isolation throughout history as compared to other islands in the region and a continuous depopulation trend during the last century. The analysis of the existing linguistic data on two main settle- ments shows a certain amount of intradialectal micro-differentiation, which is mainly due to various social and non-linguistic reasons.

Introduction

A long-term anthropological research mate basic geographical, historical, econo- of the population structure of the East mic, demographic and other socio-cultural Adriatic rural populations, conducted so (linguistic) factors that directly or indi- far on a number of Adriatic islands and rectly might have influenced the forma- other regions, has now been extended to tion of the island population structure. the investigation of the population struc- The strategy of the applied method elabo- ture of the island of Vis. Being a part of a rated in the previously published more comprehensive biological and socio works1–4 was aimed at identification of -cultural investigation presently under- internal and external impulses of change way, the purpose of this study was to esti- and/or continuity of rural populations

Received for publication April 12, 2002

333 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 within a wider socio-cultural and histori- rain is lower than on the mainland and cal context. amounts to only 557 mm p.a. Summers The island of Vis is situated between are dry with only some 40 mm of rain, so 43° 12’N and 43° 05’N in latitude, and 16° that summer draughts and scarcity of 03’E and 16° 15’E in longitude and be- water are common. Due to the preva- longs to Middle-Dalmatian islands. It is lently limestone geologic structure, there the westernmost populated island of the is no spring water except for the spring in 5 Adriatic archipelago. It is 55 km far from the vicinity of Komi`a . Split and 147 km from Monte Gardano, In the past the island vegetation con- which is the nearest town on the Italian sisted primarily of the autochthonous coast. The island of Vis is, therefore, an Mediterranean woods Quercetum ilicis, open-sea island. Its surface area amounts which seems to have been destroyed by to 90.3 km2. The closest island is , burning and cutting since early history. which is about 16 km NE from Vis just The arable lands are situated in Karst across the Vis Channel. The island of valleys and are covered with red soil and Bi{evo is 4.5 km SW, and Sveti Andrija 25 sand. The Mediterranean woods on lime- km W from the island of Vis. The island stone ridges gradually deteriorated into stretches in the direction E-W. It is 17 km dense evergreen underbush. The most long and 8 km wide and its coast-line is common uncultivated vegetation of the 76.6 km long5 (Figure 1). island is made up of holm oak (ilex), wild olive trees, and some carob woods in the The upper-cretaceous limestone lay- SW of the island5. ers, which build the island of Vis, stretch in the NE-SW direction. The most wide The Greeks introduced agriculture -spread geological formations that they well suited to the island, primarily wine- form are gently rounded limestone ridges and olive-growing. Supposedly, they also and closed Karst valleys. The ridges are brought the then known fishing tools. highest in the western part of the island Along with the already existent sheep where the highest peak of Hum (587m) is and goat breeding among the Illyrians, situated5. these innovations initiated a Mediterra- nean poly-cultural organization. The vine The northern and southern coasts are used to cover all arable lands, so that al- built of limestone and are, therefore, only ready in the ancient times Vis was well slightly indented. There is a fine harbor known for its wine. Until the 15th century at Vis town on the NE corner of the is- fishing was not popular among islanders land, while a lesser anchorage is located who feared sudden pirate attacks. How- on the western shore at Komi`a. There ever, from the end of the 16th century un- are several very small harbors/landing til the mid-1800’s Vis shared fish- 5 points, namely at and Oklju~na . ing-grounds with the nearby islands and Vis is one of the most wind-exposed exported salted fish to the main export Adriatic islands. The most frequent markets on the Adriatic coast. Fish soon winds are NW (maestral) and SE winds, became the chief export item of the island both very maritime. Summer tempera- population, which earned a profitable tures are lower and winter temperatures market surplus. The first Dalmatian fish considerably higher than on the main- cannery was established in Komi`a in land. The average temperature in July, 1890 and by 1930s the island was the which is the warmest month of the year, center of Dalmatian fish industry. The is 24.0°C and in January, the coldest main economic activities of the island to- month, it is 8.8°C. The average amount of day are still vine-growing and fishing, ac-

334 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 companied by adequate industries, as ruler Ionio on Greek coins proves that the well as the growing of early vegetables, colonizers and the native population citrus fruits, almonds and palms. With its maintained good relations7. In the course fish cannery Komi`a is the fishing center of the 4th and 3rd century BC, Issa gained of the island. Due to the status of Vis as a its independence and won a lead over a border-zone until 1969 and the curfew for part of the Adriatic. It minted its own foreigners until 1976, started to coins, started ceramic production and develop slowly only in the last two de- vine growing, and set up a fleet and a cades5. mercantile network on the Dalmatian Today the administrative center of the mainland. They also started establishing island is the town of Vis, which is con- their own colonies such as Tragurium at nected to the main regional center of the site of the present , Epetion Split by a couple of ferry lines per day. Al- where present Stobre~ is, and Lumbarda together there are 16 places on the is- on Kor~ula island. From 400 BC until 50 land. Vis and Komi`a are the biggest and BC, i.e. for 350 years, Issa was an inde- most important ones, whereas the other pendent state on the Adriatic7. 14 are mainly situated in the interior. Various ancient written documents, epigraphic monuments and material remnants acknowledge the importance of Ethno-History and Demography Issa. One of them is the inscription from of the Island of Vis Lumbarda discovered in 1877 which doc- The population history umented the regulation of property dis- The prehistory of the island of Vis is tribution between the Greek colonizers only slightly known, and only a few frag- and the indigenous population of Kor- ments of very characteristic ceramics ~ula. Some documents also testify to the that can be dated back to the 6th millen- production of one of the best wines in the nium BC witness the earliest traces of world at that time and to the active par- men on the island6. The Illyrians, who ticipation of the island’s fleet as an ally to are the first islanders known by name, the Roman Republic in the wars on the came to the Dalmatian coast probably in Adriatic, in Greece and Asia Minor8. the 2nd millennium BC. Four buildings, A rare investigation of human re- one open settlement without a defense mains discovered on Martvilo necropolis system and seven tumuli date from that on Vis that date back to the period of period8. Greek colonization shows that the con- The Greeks from Syracuse colonized temporary inhabitants of Issa belonged to the East Adriatic coast in the course of the Mediterranean type of long-headed, the 4th century BC, and founded the col- robust and tall people, who were seem- ony of Issa on the island. It soon became ingly more similar to the indigenous pop- the principal Greek stronghold on the ulation than to the Greeks, who were Adriatic. However, there are historical re- shorter and more gracile8. These finds cords according to which the Greeks prove that the island was mainly settled never assimilated with the native Illyrian by the Illyrians, while the Greek new- population on the islands of Vis, Hvar, comers were less numerous, limited in Bra~ and Kor~ula. The Greeks populated distribution to the town of Issa and grad- only one settlement on the island, which ually assimilated with the natives. they fortified with defensive and In the 3rd century BC Issa, attacked by out of which the town of Vis grew later on. the mainland Illyrians, requested help The image of the Illyrian contemporary from Rome. Since then it was a Roman

335 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 ally and employed its fleet to help Rome rulers before it recognized Venetian rule on the Adriatic and Mediterranean sea. in 1278. It was again under Croatian During that period the Roman coloniza- -Hungarian rule at intervals before it was tion and gradual Romanization of the in- finally occupied by the Venetians in digenous Adriatic peoples began, which 14205. Administratively the island of Vis lasted until the Slavs’ arrival in the 7th belonged to the Hvar municipality since and 8th century AD. the 12th century until the end of the Vene- According to Plinius, Issa was referred tian rule in 1797. The noblemen of Hvar to as civium romanorum, i.e. it was an in- were given properties on Vis and the local dependent state with its own colonies on population became tenant farmers with the mainland and on Kor~ula, linked to almost no landholding rights to the Hvar Rome by mutual amity and defense8.Fol- »landlords.« The records of 1331 from lowing the example of Romans, the people Hvar, indicate that fishing was a very im- of Issa also built a theater, thermae and a portant occupation in Komi`a at that forum, the remains of which today testify time, while a document dated 1367 re- the long period of Roman colonization. veals that the family name »Petric« should be considered as the oldest family At the time of great migrations in the name in Komi`a; that family name has 7th and 8th century AD the Slavs reached been preserved through the centuries and the Dalmatian coast and the islands. In is still present in Komi`a to this day10-12. his work De administrando imperio Con- The 1380 Hvar declaration documented stantine Porphyrogenitus confirms that the first list of land owned by the Hvar Vis was already inhabited by Slavs by the community on the island of Vis. Until the 10th century. He also mentions Slavic place end of the 15th century all the settlements names on Vis such as Velo Selo, Poje, including the main village of Velo Selo Pospilje, Polhumje, Oklju~ina, Dragodid, were situated in the interior part of the and Knezrot9. island (Figure 1). In the war between the At the time of the Slavs’ arrival on the Venetians and the Duke Ercolo di Fer- island the ancient population mainly rara in 1485 Velo Selo was completely de- lived in their town of Issa, and only few of stroyed and burned down and was never them inhabited the rest of the island. In rebuilt thereafter8. the course of time the Slavs married and After the 15th century coastal settle- intermingled with the resident popula- ments began to prosper under the Vene- tion of Illyrian and Roman origins and as- tian rule. The inhabitants of Velo Selo similated the ancient population so that moved into the Port of Sv. Juraj (today Vis was a completely Slavonicized town the town of Vis), which was founded in by 997 AD when the Venetians arrived8. the vicinity of the ruins of the Ancient The towns were destroyed and the popu- Issa. The inhabitants of Dibje Selo, how- lation was enslaved. Some people escaped ever, moved into the spacious Komi`a and settled in the hinterlands of the is- Bay, which started to develop as a fishing land. They founded several settlements in settlement7. the hills, some of which exist to this day. The various land and contract docu- In 1145 the Venetians subjugated both ments from the first half of the 16th cen- Vis and Hvar to the prince in . After tury provide the first records of the oldest a short Byzantine rule during the Early family names in Komi`a: Vitalji}, Foreti}, , 1180 Vis came under the Radi}, Vokijarevi}, Ili}, Pribi~i}, Bozani}, Croatian-Hungarian rule. In the 13th cen- Jurkovi}, Nikoli}, Gridasi}, Radovanovi}, tury it was ruled by Croatian-Hungarian Cviti}, Petrasi}, Korculanin, Sfiro, Bor-

336 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

Fig. 1. The island of Vis.

~i}, Marde{i}, Bogdanovi}, Bogdani}, and Kut, which merged into the town of Oruji}, Radojevi}, de Magri, Pav{i}, Mar- Vis later on, and of the village population di}, Castalol, Pri{~i}, Catalano, Polutino- in the same parish. The inhabitants of in- vi}, Jak{i}, Sokoli}, Martulosov, Primoti} land hamlets were not recorded and only and Bakuli}. occasionally persons from Velo Poje, @ena By the examination of parish registers Glava, Podhumlje or Budihovac were it is possible to trace down the formation mentioned. The registers were kept in of the island population structure of the and recorded not only the names of island since 1587. In the first parish reg- the families that lived on the island, but ister, which covers the period from 1587 also their vocation and a whole range of to 1628, 175 last names were included. other data that can give an insight into Besides these names the newcomers were the living conditions on the island at that registered by their place of origin: Du- time10–12. brovnik (9), Poljica (3), Pelje{ac (2), Vra- The Turkish military occupation of the njic (1), (1), Zadar (1), Podgora (1), Balkan peninsula since the end of the (1), Furlanija (1), Rijeka (1), 15th until the end of the 17th century (1), Sali-Dugi o. (2), Mljet (1), Split (4). caused great migratory waves from the Omi{ (5), Vlah-Murlak (2)10–12. hinterland towards the Adriatic coast. The parish registers since 1628 in- Migrations were particularly frequent clude only the inhabitants of Sv. Juraj around 1570 during the Cyprus war

337 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

(1571–1573), Kandian war (1645–1669), century new settlers, artisans, traders Morean war (1683–1699) and in the first and seamen came to the town of Vis from half of the 18th century (1714–1718). The the neighboring islands, mainland and Venetian Republic populated the Middle more distant cities. At the same time, the -Dalmatian islands with refugees from agricultural labor force was on the ebb Makarsko Primorje, Poljice and Dalma- and laborers from other Dalmatian towns tinska Zagora. The immigrants were and villages were hired. The majority of given land and special privileges, which the hired labor force originated from guaranteed them safety for their wives Ka{tela and other places in the surround- and children, while they were obliged to ings of Split and from Dalmatinska Za- serve in the Venetian army. They were al- gora. Many settled permanently on Vis lowed to export their products to and started families there10-12. and other places in the Venetian Republic Between the fall of the Venetian Re- without paying taxes, but were not al- public in 1797 and the Congress of Vi- lowed to marry with the natives. These enna in 1815 Vis was subject to constant migrations provided with new population administrative changes. In 1797 it came Vis and other Dalmatian islands that under the Austrian rule and in 1805 un- were demographically weakened by wars, der the French rule. After it had become a poverty and illness13–19. However, the center of piracy and smuggling, it went privileges caused hostility between the through a short and sudden period of eco- old and new population and might have nomic prosperity. In 1815 Vis was an- caused biological (reproductive) isolation nexed to the Austro-Hungarian Monar- of the two groups13–19. chy, which set up a new municipal go- From 1646 to 1672 forty families im- vernment, court, customs, port authority migrated to Vis settling on both munici- and kept a permanent army5. pal and private land. Unfortunately, no After the Italian occupation in WWI complete listings of those immigrants are Vis was incorporated into the Kingdom of available so it is impossible to determine Slovenes, and Serbs. In WWII it which families came to the town of Vis was occupied by the Italian and German and other places, except only partially army and later on became a part of Yugo- from the subsequent censuses. This is slavia. Due to military and safety rea- how we know that the Doroti}’s arrived sons, the island was turned into a mili- from Makarsko primorje in 1662, and tary naval base with as many as 40 that the family of Pavao Martinis, who different military objects. It was made in- was supposedly a Turk baptized later in accessible to foreigners, the tourism was life, came to Vis in 16797,11–13. A few last halted at the time when its neighboring names mentioned in the mainland Poljice islands recorded constant inflow of tour- at that time are still preserved on Vis, ists. As the chief military stronghold Vis which can mean that some of them might was practically under the occupation of have settled on Vis in the course of the the Yugoslav army. It re-gained its »free- 16th and 17th century escaping before the dom« in May 1991 and today it belongs to Turks. There are various documents on the Split-Dalmatian county of the Repub- new immigrants’ gatherings, representa- lic of Croatia5. tives’ elections, defense of their privileges and clashes with the native populati- Demography 7,10–12 on . According to the official census from As a result of the economic flourishing 2001, 3,735 inhabitants lived in 16 settle- of the island at the beginning of the 19th ments on the island of Vis20. The average

338 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

11000

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

POPULATION SIZE 5000

4000

3000 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 YEARS Fig. 2. Population size on the island of Vis from 1857 to 2001.

NSIZE

O

TI

PULA

O

P

@

1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 YEARS Fig. 3. Population size of the villages on the island of Vis from 1857 to 2001.

density is 41.3 persons per km2. Like on ated on the edges of the central field in the other islands along the Dalmatian coast, southern part of the island21 (Figure 1). very small settlements prevail on the is- The number of inhabitants has oscil- land of Vis as well, where 14 out of 16 set- lated in the last 150 years22 (Figure 2). tlements number less than 100 inhabit- The first official census was taken in ants. There live only 6 inhabitants in the 1857 when 6,226 inhabitants were re- smallest village of Oklju~na, while Vis gistered22. Until 1910 the total number of and Komi`a have the highest number of inhabitants was on the increase as the inhabitants (1,554 and 1,829 respective- consequence of a sudden development of ly)20. Most of the small villages are situ- vine growing and fishing. The reason be-

339 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

TABLE 1 THE ISLAND OF VIS POPULATION ACCORDING TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (1991)

Village Total Industry and mining Agriculture and fishing Forestry Construction Traffic Trade and entertainment Tradesmanship Housing and communal Cultural and social Public and administrative Other 1. Borovik 10 5 – 4 – – – – – – – 1 2. Dra~evo Polje 4 2 1 1 – – – – – – – – 3. Komi`a 1194 609 226 48 – 1 17 43 94 22 31 103 4. Marinje Zemlje 5 3 1 – – – – – 1 – – – 5. Oklju~na 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – 6. Plisko Polje 4 2 – 2 – – – – – – – – 7. Podhumlje 16 9 5 1 – – – – – 1 – – 8. Podselje 13 7 2 2 – – – 2 – – – – 9. Podstra`je 14 7 2 2 – – – 2 – 1 – – 10. Pod{pilje 29 15 5 7 – – – – 1 – 1 – 11. Rukavac 14 8 3 2 – – 1 – – – – – 12. Vis 1412 725 163 73 1 2 7 54 101 29 15 242 13. @ena Glava 34 17 9 7 – – 1 – – – – – Total 2752 410 417 149 1 3 26 101 197 53 47 346 yond such sudden flourishing was vine emigration in the pre- period, disease filoxera that destroyed vine in which is clearly shown in the population other European regions and opened up an census from 1920 to 1948, was also opportunity for Dalmatian winemakers caused by losses in WWII13. The first cen- to enter a huge wine market. A new labor sus that shows a slight population in- force arrived to the island to work in the crease was in 1953 when the population vineyards and a large part of it stayed reached 7,64322. After that year, however, there permanently13–19. a faster economic development of the In 1910 a depopulation trend was ini- coast acted as a pull-factor for the inhab- tiated by massive emigrations, mostly to itants of Vis and 1953 also marked a new overseas countries. The downfall of sail- negative turn in demographic trends. The ing ships and the so-called Wine Clause greatest decrease of population was re- (1892–1905) were the main causes of the corded in the 1961–1971 period when it economic crisis and strong emigrati- hit the bottom line of –27.9%. The nega- on13–19. The Wine Clause disabled the ex- tive trend has not been stopped ever port of Dalmatian wines in the Austrian since. By the next census, the intensity of countries. Filoxera, which later spread to the demographic decrease was slowed as well, only intensified emi- down to –18.1%23. gration. Vineyard restoring is unfortu- Population growth and a positive mi- nately a long process and on most islands grational trend during this long period the number of vineyards has, therefore, were recorded only in the two coastal set- never again reached figures from the be- tlements of Vis and Komi`a. It is evident ginning of the century13–19. A consider- from Figure 3 that the depopulation pro- able population decrease, apart from the cess was most prominent in small inland

340 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

TABLE 2 THE ISLAND OF VIS – NUMBER OF INHABITANTS AND ESTIMATED EFFECTIVE SIZE

Village 1910 1961 1971 1198 1199 2001 Nef 1. Borovik 75 69 29 15 17 19 8.31 2. Dra~evo Polje 17 99 41 24 11 9 5.93 3. Komi`a 3572 2495 1965 1669 2032 1554 683.88 4. Marinje Zemlje 307 238 114 64 39 35 23.23 5. Oklju~na 304 118 44 8 11 6 4.79 6. Plisko Polje 88 57 36 28 21 22 10.78 7. Podhumlje 355 235 110 70 60 41 27.96 8. Podselje 123 84 56 39 31 23 14.36 9. Podstra`je 200 125 78 52 36 24 17.46 10. Pod{pilje 91 141 74 56 42 14 13.82 11. Rukavac 127 111 70 39 36 48 18.97 12. Vis 4297 2847 2233 1971 1932 1829 768.19 13. @ena Glava 254 215 120 76 70 65 33.47

TABLE 3 THE ISLAND OF VIS VITAL STATISTICS FOR 1961, 1971, 1981 AND 1991 1961 1971 1981 1991 1. Total number of inhabitants 6834 4970 4111 4338 2. Number of births 987 640 549 434 3. Birth rate 16.6 10.6 12.0 10.3 4. Number of deaths 700 791 818 807 5. Mortality 11.7 13.1 17.9 19.0 6. Natural growth 287 –151 –269 –368 7. Vital index 141 80.9 67.1 53.7 8. Rate of migration 14.9 –25.8 –12.8 3.7

villages where the main activities were A long-term emigration weakened the farming and cattle breeding. Vis and Ko- biological-reproductive basis so that the mi`a developed fishing and food indus- negative natural growth has been its tries with an emphasis on fish, olive, logic consequence23. Table 3 shows vital wine production as the main economic ac- statistics for the island of Vis over the tivities, which is the chief reason for the past few decades (1961–1991). The data gravitation of the inland population to- indicate a steady increase of death rate wards these two towns (Figure 3)21. Table (from 11.7‰ to 19‰), a decrease in birth 1 shows the economic activity of the vil- rate (from 16.6‰ to 10.3‰) and a conse- lage population in 1991, and the gravita- quential decrease in natural growth. The tion of the interior villages towards Vis migrational rate in the same period was and Komi`a. Table 2 shows the distribu- –25.8‰ compared to, for instance Hvar tion of the total population on the island where it reached 4.9‰24,25. The last re- as well as the effective size within one corded birth rate was lower than the birth generation for 1910–2001. Except for the rate for the whole country (13.2‰)23. two main settlements the effective size is Age-and-sex population structure (Fi- negligible ranging from only 4.8 to 33.5. gure 4) demonstrates all the possible con-

341 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

Fig. 4. Population distribution of the island of Vis in 1971, 1981 and 1991 according to age and sex.

342 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 sequences of a reduced demographic ognizable on Vis throughout history (Fig- base: aging of the population, the popula- ure 5). tion’s decrease of reproductive ability, a The oldest known stratum on the is- lack of vital population cohorts and a land is still reflected in the very name of whole range of other negative consequen- Vis, which derives from a supposedly ces of demographic and economic under- pre-Indo-European name Issa and which 23 development . Due to emigration of the Greeks adopted later on. Although mainly male population and their dying the exact meaning of the word »issa« is in WWII, female population prevailed in unknown, it denotes »a fortress on water« older population groups on the island. according to some speculations. The However, the population structure ac- Greek hO RIssa was Latinized in the By- cording to sex balanced as the older gen- santine time and became (il)la Issa > erations were substituted by younger l'Issa > Lissa. According to Constantine 23 ones . The inherited disturbed popula- Porphyrogenitus from the 10th century hO tion structure according to age caused by nhMsoV PIhV was read Jis, and Skok further emigration of young people primarily to- explains that v (=u) + Jis > Vis9. Lessa, wards Split and the capital of the Repub- Lesa, Lysa, Lexe and Lisa are other docu- lic and the consequently reduced biody- mented names of the island26. namics resulted in a further decrease of From the beginning of the first Greek the population size. Vis and Komi`a, how- visits to the Adriatic in the 6th century BC ever, recorded a positive rate of migration until the period of their colonization in caused by the difficulty to find employ- the 4th century BC, the island was inhab- ment out of the island. In ex-Yugoslavia ited by people that the Greeks referred to the island was populated by militia, but as the Illyrians. The Greek way of coloni- this part of the population mostly moved zation was a crucial factor that influ- out after 199123. The main overall conclu- enced the linguistic history of the island. sion that can be drawn from the above Unlike the Romans, the Greeks were not -presented data is that the population of military conquerors that came to new ar- Vis is very old due to a long-term selective eas in large numbers with the aim of as- emigration and a decreasing birth rate. similation with the native peoples. Their primary goal was the founding of strate- gic and trade outposts. This is witnessed The Language of the Island of Vis by the Lumbardian inscription found on the island of Kor~ula from the 4th century The linguistic background of Vis BC with 71 Greek and/or Illyrian per- Like other Middle-Dalmatian islands sonal names and patronymics chiseled on Vis was exposed to a constant linguistic it. Some of these names are typical Greek reshaping in the course of the history. names such as Aristofanes, Lizimahos, Significant cultural and linguistic chan- Theodoros, Dionysos, Nikias and some ges were often the result of migrations to are Illyrian, e.g. Sallas, Mykilu, Sibalios, and from the island. These demographic Sonylos, Sestos Klea, Tyru and others27,28. movements gave rise to successive re- These finds prove that Issa was cultur- placements of substratum languages of ally divided between the indigenous Illyr- subdued populations by the superstra- ian population and the newcomers distin- tum languages of superior conquerors. guished by specific ethnic characteristics. Because of the island’s relative isolation It is also the reason to believe that the caused by its distance from the mainland, Illyrian language spoken on the island at different strata and adstrata are well rec- the time of the Greek arrival remained

343 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

Fig. 5. Linguistic influences on the island of Vis throughout history.

well preserved until the Romans came nyms and remains of the Dalmatian (Ro- and that it played a crucial role as a sub- mance) language. Skok mentions a rare stratum language in the subsequent lin- Dalmatian noun pritor/pritur (

344 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 erty of some Greek Nikomedes who lived erated by two factors: autonomous, in- on the island9. ternal, linguistic and heteronymous, ex- The ancient Roman toponymy is more ternal, sociolinguistic. The external fac- common on Vis than the Illyrian or the tors can accelerate internal tendencies, Greek. Skok mentions at least eight but they can also be stopped and occa- 31 Latin place-names such as Kostirna sionally rejected« . (

345 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

Lexical 40% BASIC VOCABULARY CULTURAL VOCABULARY differences 35% 11%

30%

Phonetic 25% differences 21% 20%

15% Accentual Same 10% differences 66% 2% 5% Fig. 7. The ratio of overall linguistic differences 0% ACCENTUAL PHONETIC LEXICAL TOTAL between Vis and Komi`a vernacular. DIFFERENCES DIFFERENCES DIFFERENCCESSDIFFEREN E Fig. 6. Differences in the analyzed vocabulary of Vis and Komi`a vernacular by type and percentage. The basic vocabulary in this analysis is the same one used and described in earlier studies3,34–38, which is adapted to specific features of the ~akavian dialect Komi`a vernaculars respectively in order and other cultural and historical factors to make a preliminary assessment of ho- characteristic of the Adriatic population. mogeneity and/or heterogeneity of the The vocabulary analyzed in this work population structure. consists of 320 words selected from the dialectological questionnaires completed Data and methods some 35 years ago in Vis and Komi`a from the database of the Institute for The analysis was based on the lexico- Croatian language and linguistics in statistical method, which enables the as- Zagreb. sessment of genetic relationship between two languages or local vernaculars by The first step consisted of the analysis comparing their basic vocabularies (a of the basic vocabulary containing 103 fund of words denoting some basic catego- words. Later on the database was ex- ries of general human culture, which is tended to comprise further 217 cultural most resistant to change) and estimating vocabulary words, i.e. specific notions de- a number of shared cognates that are noting material culture and social life, phonetically, morphologically and lexi- which are more prone to change and rep- cally identical. The method was devel- resent a more open lexical system than oped for the anthropological investiga- the basic vocabulary items. With respect tions of the East Adriatic populations, to the restricted range of the analyzed and its application to a number of Adri- corpus only phonological, accentual and atic islands and other regions has shown lexical traits of the two vernaculars un- so far that by means of the given method der investigation were considered, while it is possible to observe the characteris- the morphological ones were underrepre- tics of linguistic microevolution to a cer- sented and therefore excluded from the tain extent3,34–38. analysis.

346 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

The results of the linguistic analysis TABLE 4 A SAMPLE OF ACCENTUAL, PHONOLOGICAL Figure 6 presents the differences be- AND LEXICAL DIFFERENCES tween the towns of Vis and Komi`a found in the examined vocabulary, while the ra- Standard Vis Komi`a tio of the overall differences is shown in Croatian Figure 7. Total differences found in the Accentual prst parst parst differences majka mati mat complete sample (320 words) account for u{ usenok usenok 33.9%, out of which 61% refers to the pho- Phonological konj konj kunj netic differences, only about half that differences klije{ta kis}a klis}a percentage to lexical (33.3%), while the pili} pipli} pyli} share of the accentual differences is the Lexical ko{tica pinka kos}ytsa lowest (5.5%). Exactly the same relations differences krijesta kruna gryva between the different segments of analy- samostan kuvenat mustir sis were reached in the separate analysis of basic and cultural vocabulary. The per- centage of the total differences was about and a more closed /i/ which becomes /y/ 2.7% higher in the cultural vocabulary under a short descending accent in Ko- according to expectations. A more de- mi`a (jabzyk, bsybsa vs. jazic k, sicbsa). Besides, tailed analysis of the types of differences although a typical cakavian substitution shows that the accentual differences were of the phonemes ^[@ and CSZ with CBBSZ observed mainly in the basic vocabulary is characteristic of both Vis and Komi`a, (4.8%) while the classic ~akavian three there are some differences in the distri- -accentual system (CEm) has been preser- bution of these cakavian sounds in the ved by both vernaculars. However, the two settlements (mabslina, prabskva (Vis) few found differences indicate the devel- vs. maslina, praskva (Komi`a), ali: suza, opment of some innovations in the speech parsi (Vis) vs. bsubza, parbsi (Komi`a)). In of Vis that mainly reflect a different dis- addition to the already mentioned ones, tribution of the accentual inventory. In there are other phonetic differences, but the speech of Vis, for instance, vowels un- because their distribution is not system- der a short descending accent C are length- atic, it is impossible to determine whe- ened. This is particularly characteristic ther they are more typical of only one of of the vowel »a« (parbst>parbst; brat> the vernaculars under investigation. De- brat). Besides, there is a tendency in Vis palatalization of /lj/, for instance, has in towards a transfer of an old short accent most cases been conducted in both variet- from the ultimate syllable toward the be- ies (prijatelj > pric jatej; postelja > pobsteja, ginning of a word (dbaska >dabska; ogonj$ > ko{ulja > kobsuja, ecc.), and in some cases ogonj), while the old accent position has it is conducted in only one of them c e been preserved more systematically in (butilja, Vis vs butyja, Komi`a, ali divji, Vis vs. divljie , Komi`a). Consonantal clus- Komi`a. The examples of all observed dif- ter simplification by the degree of ten- ferences are shown in Table 4. sion32 is often manifested in both vernac- On the phonological level, where the ulars, although the analyzed data show greatest number of differences was ob- that it is more frequent in Komi`a than in served (17.5% in basic and 22.2% in cul- Vis (zglob, Vis vs.bzlub, Komi`a; klupko > tural vocabulary), the only systematically klulko, Vis vs. kluko, Komi`a, but: bse- conducted changes include a more closed karva, Vis vs. bsvekarva, Komi`a). pronunciation of /o/ pronounced /u/inKo- mi`a equally as much in basic and cul- The observed lexical differences indi- tural vocabulary (kubst, bstul vs. kobst, bstol), cate a greater foreign, notably Romance,

347 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350 influence on the vocabulary of Vis (tam- The size of the island (88.29 km2, Hvar bur, vapor, kuverta, marenda, bandira vs. 299.6 km2, Bra~ 394.57 km2) and its geo bubanj, brud, krov, ubzina, barjok). In Ko- -morphological traits might have also mi`a vernacular, the old Slavic lexemes contributed to this kind of uniformity. As are more numerous particularly in the the relief map (Figure 1) shows, the high- kinship terminology where a greater est ranges on the island stretch in E-W number of distinctions of different ex- direction, i.e. along the valley that con- tended family relationships have been nects Vis and Komi`a, which indicates preserved, while most of them have been that there is no significant hindrance to a neutralized and substituted by a corre- good communication between the two sponding Romance lexeme in Vis (dyver, main towns on the island. jutarva vs. konjod, konjoda). Notwithstanding a relative linguistic Morphological and derivational traits homogeneity of the two settlements observed (bspinot (m.), pomedora (f.) (Ko- within the ~akavian dialect, the overall mi`a, bspinaca (f.), pomedor (m.) (Vis)) are differences indicate a certain micro-dif- also an indicator of certain differences in ferentiation in the analyzed vernaculars, the examined vocabulary. Although these which might have been caused by mutual differences are rather restricted in scope isolation of the two communities in the in the examined corpus and hence ex- past, different immigration dynamics as cluded from the analysis, they are signifi- well as by different origin of the immi- cant in that they, similarly to lexical grants, different economic orientation items, also suggest the role of Vis as a re- and social structure of the populations. ceiver and mediator of innovations to Compared to the town of Vis, Komi`a has other places on the island. Other paradig- always been farming and fishing settle- matic morphological differences, such as ment, which left a trace in a more conser- the losing of the final -i in the imperative vative type of speech of its inhabitants. singular in Vis, described in the relevant The role of Vis as a regional mercantile, literature, only confirm the existence of a naval and administrative center through- more conservative character of the speech out history enabled a more intense com- 29 of Komi`a . munication with other islands, mainland From the analysis of the above-men- and distant regions and consequently a tioned linguistic traits it can be deduced greater exposure to the external linguis- that both vernaculars represent a rather tic influences. It is also reasonable to as- archaic form of ~akavian and that the is- sume that the population of Vis was ex- land of Vis was least exposed to the {to- posed to long periods of bilingualism kavian influences in the past. This sug- thanks to its specific historical circum- gests that all known immigrations into stances when foreign (primarily Ro- both Vis and Komi`a discussed in the in- mance) elements entered and with only troductory part of the article, did not re- slight alterations assimilated into the sult in compact groups of immigrants. autochthonous language. On the other The immigrants to the island of Vis grad- hand, Komi`a and other villages on the ually and completely assimilated unlike island were monolingual and received the the immigrants on the neighboring is- same foreign elements only indirectly lands of Hvar, Bra~ and Kor~ula, where through the city vernacular, which there- there is still one exclusively {tokavian fore, underwent more alterations on pho- village while the {tokavian influence on nological, morphological and sometimes each of them is more or less noticeable in semantic level as illustrated by the given other places as well. examples.

348 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

It is crucial to point out, however, that micro-evolutionary processes that have the observed linguistic micro-differentia- influenced the formation of the island tion was based only on the vernaculars of population structure. the two biggest places on the island re- corded in mid-20th century. In the contin- Acknowledgements uation of the study it will be necessary to examine other places on the island as The research is funded by the Minis- well as recent changes in the already an- try of Science and Technology of the Re- alyzed ones to get a more complete and public of Croatia under grant 0196002 for precise insight into linguistic differentia- the project »Population structure of Croa- tion and other relevant indicators of the tia – Sociocultural approach«.

REFERENCES

1. RUDAN, P., D. F. ROBERTS, A. SUJOLD@I], 19. SUJOLD@I], A., A. MARKOVI], A. CHAVEN- B. MACAROL, N. SMOLEJ, A. KA[TELAN, Coll. TRE, Coll. Antropol., 16 (1992) 413. – 20. ANONY- Antropol., 6 (1982) 47. – 2. RUDAN, P., D. F. ROB- MOUS: Popis stanovni{tva, ku}anstva i stanova 31. ERTS, A. SUJOLD@I], E. @U[KIN, A. KA[TELAN, o`ujka 2001. Prvi rezultati po naseljima. (Dr`avni Coll. Antropol., 6 (1982) 39. – 3. SUJOLD@I], A., P. zavod za statistiku, Zagreb, 2001). – 21. ANONY- [IMUNOVI], B. FINKA, L. A. BENNETT, J. L. AN- MOUS: Popis stanovni{tva 1971., 1981., 1991. (Dr`a- GEL, P. RUDAN, Anthropol. Ling., 28 (1986) 405. – 4. vni zavod za statistiku, Zagreb, 1991). – 22. SMO- SUJOLD@I], A., Coll. Antropol., 21 (1997) 285. – 5. LJANOVI], M., A. SMOLJANOVI], I. NEJA[- MI]: VASILJEVI], J., R. GUBERINA, Vis. In: BRAJKO- Stanovni{tvo hrvatskih otoka. (Split, 1999). – 23. VI], V. (Ed.): Pomorska encikolopedija. (JLZ »M. Kr- VOJNOVI], F., Acta Geogr. Croat., 28 (1993) 103. – le`a«, Zagreb, 1989). – 6. FORENBAHER, S., Coll. 24. LAJI], I.: Stanovni{tvo dalmatinskih otoka: Po- Antropol., 23 (1999) 521. – 7. NOVAK, G.: Vis od IV vijesne i suvremene zna~ajke depopulacije. (Consi- st. p.n.e. do 1941. god. (Izdava~ki zavod Jugoslaven- lium, Zagreb, 1992). – 25. LAJI], I., I. NEJA[MI], S. ske akademije, Zagreb, 1961). – 8. KIRIGIN, B.: Issa: PODGORELEC: Oto~ani. Oto~ka demografska istra- Gr~ki grad na Jadranu. (Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb, `ivanja. (Centar za razvoj otoka Ekonomskog institu- 1996). – 9. SKOK, P.: Slavenstvo i romanstvo na ja- ta, Zagreb, 1991). – 26. [ENOA, M. Geografski glas- dranskim otocima. (Jadranski institut JAZU, Zagreb, nik, 11 (1949/50) 75. – 27. WILKES, J.: The Illyrians. 1950). – 10. BEZI]-BO@ANI], N.: Povijest stanovni- (Blackwell, Oxford, 1992). – 28. LISI^AR, P., Filolo- {tva u Visu. (Knji`evni krug, Split, 1988). – 11. BE- gija, 2 (1951) 109. – 29. HRASTE, M., Beli}ev zbornik, ZI]-BO@ANI], N.: Stanovni{tvo Komi`e. (Logos, 2 (1937) 147. – 30. MALECKI, M.: Cakawizm z uwz- Split, 1984). – 12. BEZI]-BO@ANI], N., ^akavska glednieniem zjawisk podobnych. (Prace Komisji jezy- ri~, 2 (1985) 31. – 13. SUJOLD@I] A., Coll. Antropol., kowej PAU, Krakow, 1929). – 31. MULJA^I], @., Die 12 (1988) 329. – 14. SUJOLD@I] A., P. RUDAN, A. Welt der Slaven, 4 (1966) 367. – 32. MOGU[, M.: ^a- CHAVENTRE, Coll. Antropol., 7 (1983) 49. – 15. SU- kavsko narje~je. Fonologija. ([kolska knjiga, Zagreb, JOLD@I] A., V. JOVANOVI], A. CHAVENTRE, P. 1977). – 33. HAMM, J., Radovi JAZU u Zadru, 3 RUDAN, Coll. Antropol., 8 (1984) 185. – 16. SUJOL- (1958) 21. – 34. SUJOLD@I], A., Coll. Antropol. 13 D@I] A., P. RUDAN, V. JOVANOVI], B. JANI]IJE- (1989) 189. – 35. SUJOLD@I], A., Homo, 41 (1990) 1. VI], A. CHAVENTRE, Coll. Antropol., 11 (1987) 181. – 36. SUJOLD@I], A., Coll. Antropol., 15 (1991) 309. – 17. BENNETT, L. A., A. SUJOLD@I], P. RUDAN, – 37. SUJOLD@I], A., Coll. Antropol., 21 (1997) 285. Ethnologia Europea, 19 (1989) 141. – 18. ZEGURA, S. – 38. SUJOLD@I], A., Ser. Antropobiol., 4 (1985/86) L., B. JANI]IJEVI], A. SUJOLD@I], D. F. ROB- 29. ERTS, P. RUDAN, Am. J. Hum. Biol., 3 (1991) 155. –

L. [kreblin

Institute for Anthropological Research, Amru{eva 8, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

349 L. [kreblin et al.: The Island of Vis, Coll. Antropol. 26 (2002) 1: 333–350

ETNOPOVIJESNI PROCESI, DEMOGRAFSKA STRUKTURA I JEZI^NA OBILJE@JA OTOKA VISA

SA@ETAK

U ovom radu iznesene su osnovne geomorfolo{ke, ekonomske i demografske karak- teristike otoka Visa te etnohistorijski i lingvisti~ki podaci koji su utjecali na uobli~ava- nje njegove populacijske strukture. Kao uvod u budu}a holisti~ka istra`ivanja na otoku Visu, rad nastoji odrediti unutarnje i vanjske ~imbenike koji su mogli pridonijeti pro- mjenama i/ili stabilnosti populacijske strukture unutar {ireg socio-kulturnog i povi- jesnog konteksta. Etnopovijesni i demografski podaci pokazuju relativno visok stupanj izolacije u usporedbi s drugim otocima u regiji te stalan proces depopulacije tijekom pro{log stolje}a. Analiza postoje}ih jezi~nih podataka za dva glavna naselja na otoku ukazuje na odre|enu mikro-diferencijaciju unutar ~akavskog dijalekta koja je uglav- nom posljedica dru{tvenih i drugih nejezi~nih razloga.

350