The question of a nation’s antiquity, or providing evidence that its history is longer, richer, and more advanced compared to another, is a fundamental principle of nationalist ideology. Experience teaches us that such “competition” between nations is most often seen among groups with a long or unresolved history of conflict. This is especially true when it involves closely related, geographically and historically intertwined nations that have undergone political separation. South Slavic nations and their states are a prime example of this phenomenon. Over the past decade, almost every South Slavic nation has seen claims in local media asserting that they are the oldest in the Balkans, Europe, or even the world (for example, similar claims exist about Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Macedonians, and Albanians). Such topics remain quite popular within certain groups of all these nations, despite the obvious fact that, given their contradictions, the majority of these claims cannot be true. Beyond genetic attempts to prove a nation’s greater antiquity, citing a language as the “original”, as the core from which the languages of “hated” neighboring nations allegedly developed or were even stolen, remains a popular approach.

Within Croatian nationalist discourse, the main focus is on portraying the Serbian language as inferior to Croatian. A key example of this viewpoint, and the claims associated with it, is the table titled “Which language is older?”, which frequently circulates on various internet platforms. The table presents data on the achievements of Croatian and Serbian literacy over the years. While it is unclear who originally created this table both in terms of graphics and content, and when, versions of it have been widely shared in recent years, primarily by Croatian nationalist websites and blogs such as Croativ (available here, archived here), Biram Dobro (available here, archived here), and HOP (available here, archived here), as well as in pseudo-historical groups and pages on social media (e.g., here, here, here).

A closer look at its contents reveals that the table follows the typical pattern of how misinformation is usually spread. It mixes accurate and inaccurate information, along with details that are often perceived as common knowledge, even if they are not fully verified, while also omitting many crucial facts.

First, the criteria used to select the specific categories presented in the table are not explained. This alone, even if all the data were accurate, carries the risk of a biased selection of categories that favor the author of the text or the side they support. Furthermore, although the title suggests it is about language antiquity, all the listed points relate to written heritage, which is not an entirely accurate measure. While written records and language development are connected, the existence of a language does not necessarily ensure literacy among its speakers. For example, numerous languages spoken by tribal societies in Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia have never been recorded in writing. Similarly, in both Serbian and Croatian rural communities, where illiteracy was widespread, oral tradition was flourished and recorded centuries later, and is today considered as part of literary history.

When analyzing the table column by column, it becomes evident that it mainly presents information that is only partially accurate.
For instance, in the category of the “first written monument,” the table lists the Baška Tablet for Croatian. While the Baška Tablet is indeed a well-known example of Croatian literacy, there are still debates among Croatian medieval historians regarding its age and authenticity. Renowned historians such as Lujo Margetić [1] and Nada Klaić [2] have provided analyses suggesting that the inscription on the tablet does not match the style of the 12th century, and that the church where it was found was actually built in the late Romanesque 14th century. Additionally, there is evidence [3] suggesting that the text may have been carved over an earlier relief, raising further doubts about its authenticity.
Furthermore, doubts about its authenticity arise from the observation that in its text, at seven places, different letters are used for the same sounds – specifically for A, E, O, T, U, V, and the semi-vowel. A single scribe would not use different letters for the same sounds in a single, consistent text. The cause of this phenomenon is the compilation of ready-made Glagolitic words from various sources by a forger who was evidently not sufficiently familiar with the Glagolitic script.
Contemporary Croatian historiography interprets the tablet as being younger than indicated in the “Which language is older?” table. It suggests the possibility that there was once a document containing the same text about Abbot Držiha and King Zvonimir, which was later transcribed onto the tablet. However, there is currently no evidence to support this. [4]

Interestingly, even if the Baška Tablet is completely authentic, the author of the table failed to mention even older Croatian inscriptions that are indisputably genuine. These include the Baptismal Font of Duke Višeslav (8th-9th century), the Trpimir Inscription (9th century), the Branimir Inscription (9th century), and the Epitaph of Queen Jelena (10th century). Other older examples include the Župa Glagolitic Inscription, the Valun Tablet, the Plomin Inscription, and the Krk Inscription, The Kločev Glagoljas all dated to the early 11th century. The Hum Tablet, from the early 12th century, is approximately the same age as the Baška Tablet. [5]

On the Serbian side, several written monuments predate the Miroslav Gospel (incorrectly labeled as “Miroslavovo Gospel” in the table). These are the monuments written in the so-called Old Church Slavonic language with Serbian features. Early Serbian written records include the Marian Gospel (10th-11th century) [6] and the Grašković and Mihanović Fragments (11th century) [7]. Additionally, there are older inscriptions written in Old Church Slavonic with Serbian linguistic features, such as the Temnić Inscription and the Hum Tablet (10th-11th century), while the Judge Gradiša Inscription and another inscription found in Police near Trebinje are slightly younger than the Baška Tablet but still older than the Miroslav Gospel. [8] Although the Miroslav Gospel is often cited as one of the most beautifully decorated examples of Serbian literacy, it is not the oldest.

Regarding the category ‘first printed book,’ from the Croatian side, it is undisputed that this is indeed the Missal According to the Law of the Roman Court (1483) [9]. Similarly, the Serbian side began printing books somewhat later than the Croatian side, but not as late as 1537, rather much earlier, in 1494, within the printing house of the Crnojević family in Cetinje, [10] which was established a year earlier and operated until 1496, under the direction of Hieromonk Makary and under the patronage of Prince Đurađ Crnojević. This has brought it international recognition as one of the first Cyrillic printing presses. The book in question is the Octoechos First Tone, later one of the most used books in the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Four Gospels from 1537 thus remains the first book printed within the borders of present-day Serbia, though it should be noted that not only the modern borders of countries, including Croatia and Serbia, differ significantly from those of the past, but that these borders are not identical with the areas where Serbs or Croats have lived or once lived, or where Serbian church institutions were present. Therefore, works produced outside of one state undoubtedly can belong to its historical heritage. Finally, although there is some dispute over this, the Croatian Missal, printed in Venice, has not diminished its belonging to Croatian literature.

The “first novel” category is also problematic. The Croatian side correctly lists Planine by Petar Zoranić. However, the table incorrectly names the first Serbian novel as Astrid and Natalija. This is another incorrectly spelled name in the table, the ancient Greek male name Aristides, from the actual title of the novel, has been transformed in the table into the modern Scandinavian female name Astrid. The actual title is Aristid and Natalija, but even this is not Serbia’s earliest novel.
More importantly, the designation of the first Serbian novel is increasingly attributed to the ‘Memoirs of a Janissary’ by Konstantin Mihailović, a soldier in the vassal troops of Despot Đurađ Branković, born in 1435. The creation date of this novel is uncertain, as only later editions in Polish and Czech have survived to the present day; however, these sources indicate that it was first printed in 1501, making it several decades older than Zoranić’s ‘Mountains’ (Planine). Although this work was known much earlier, its classification as a novel is more recent, resulting from the gradual recognition of the predominance of fictional and fantastical elements, as well as the author’s reflections and emotions, over the documentary data presented in its content. [11] Naturally, it remains clear that data on the presence of a particular literary form, presented to prove the antiquity of a language, have absolutely no weight.

The categories of “first dictionary” and “first grammar” are especially interesting. While Vuk Karadžić’s Serbian Dictionary and Grammar of the Serbian Language were indeed the first explicitly Serbian lexicographical and grammatical works, earlier Croatian linguistic works were produced several centuries before. However, their original titles reveal that they referred to the language as “Dalmatian” (Faust Vrančić’s dictionary) or “Illyrian” (Bartol Kašić’s grammar). For comparison, the first grammar explicitly mentioning the Croatian language was published in 1771 by Josip Ernest Matijević, while the first dictionary appeared in 1869 by Ivan Filipović – both featuring explanations in German.​
It is important to note that both Vrančić and Kašić, whether Croatian, Illyrian, or Dalmatian, recorded according to the Čakavian idiom, while Matijević documented the Kajkavian idiom. This, of course, does not exclude Vrančić or Kašić from Croatian heritage. On the contrary, all these examples demonstrate that national exclusivity and the idea that nations must be separate, with their mutual contacts being detrimental, are unsustainable in the history of both the Croatian and Serbian peoples.

Conclusions about the monolithic nature of the linguistic history of today’s nations in the modern sense can therefore be counterproductive to developing awareness of their own history. The age of a language remains something inherently impossible to determine, given its constant evolution and adaptation to various external and internal influences, as well as all other factors that have led to the well-known concept of language as a “living organism.”

[1] Margetić, Lujo. “On Some Fundamental Problems of the Baška Tablet.” Croatia Christiana periodica 31 (2007), 1-15.

[2] Klaić, Nada. “Once Again on the Baška Tablet as a Source for the Reign of King Zvonimir.” Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 24 (1981), 287-297.

[3] Vežić, Pavuša. “The Architecture of the Church and the Choir Screen of St. Lucia in Jurandvor,” in: 900 Years of the Baška Tablet (1100-2000), ed. Anton Bozanić, Baška: Krčki zbornik, 2001.

[4] cf. Vežić (2001) and Margetić (2007).

[5] Bratulić, Josip and Stjepan Damjanović. Croatian Written Culture, vol. 1 (8th-17th century). Križevci: Veda, 2005.

[6] Trifunović, Đorđe. Towards the Beginnings of Serbian Literacy. Belgrade: Otkrovenje, 2001.

[7] Trifunović, Đorđe. Lexicon of Serbian Medieval Literary Terms. Belgrade: Nolit, 1990.

[8] Milanović, Aleksandar. A Short History of the Serbian Literary Language. Belgrade: Zavod za udžbenike, 2010.

[9] Kulundžić, Zvonimir. The 500th Anniversary of the Kosinj Missal – The First Croatian Printed Book , Zagreb: 1983

[10] Kalić, Jovanka. ​The Serbs in the Late Middle Ages. Belgrade: Institute of History, 2001.

[11] Katić, Tatjana. „On the origin of Konstantin Mihailović, author of the Turkish Chronicle“. Kosovsko-metohijski zbornik 9 (2022). 81-94.

Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU.

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission, nor the positions of the Agency for Electronic Media. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission, nor the Agency for Electronic Media can be held responsible for them.

This post is also available in: Hrvatski