De-Serbianisation or De-Serbianization, also known as De-Serbification, De-Serbisation or De-Serbization (sometimes De-Slavicisation) is a framework for reconstructing pre-Slavic toponymy in the Balkans.

Abstract:
This article examines the term De-Serbianisation (also spelled De-Serbianization, De-Serbification, De-Serbisation, or De-Serbization) as an emerging onomastic and phonological heuristic for the critical reconstruction of place-names whose earlier forms are believed to have been altered through processes of Serbianisation or, more broadly, Slavicisation. While the term originates in political discourse, recent scholarship in Balkan studies has used it—sometimes cautiously, sometimes polemically—in methodological contexts concerned with linguistic stratigraphy, historical naming practices, and regional exceptionalism. This article proposes a more rigorous, academically neutral framework for “de-serbianisation” as a research method independent of its political connotations.

1. Introduction

Toponymy in the Balkans reflects millennia of demographic layering, conquest, migration, and cultural transformation. As a result, many place-names have undergone phonological adaptation, translation, or substitution. Scholars working with pre-Slavic, Illyrian, Thracian, Greek, Roman, Albanian, and Vlach strata often encounter forms that appear to have been systematically remodelled to fit Slavic—particularly Serbian—phonetic and morphological templates.

In this context, the term “De-Serbianisation” has gradually entered academic discussions as a shorthand for the analytical procedure of reversing such adaptations. The term is primarily found in Balkan studies, historical linguistics, and onomastics, often in debates over regional exceptionalism, ethno-linguistic continuity, or the politics of cultural heritage.

2. On the origin of the term

It is difficult to attribute a single inventor to the term De-Serbianisation. The concept appears to have arisen independently in multiple discursive contexts, much as terms like de-Hellenisation or de-Turkification emerged organically within their respective fields. The earliest identifiable uses come from late-20th and early-21st-century political commentary, after which certain scholars began employing the word in a more technical, quasi-heuristic manner.

One candidate for the earliest use of the term is Petrit Latifi, publicist, author of this article.

Given this diffusion, it is more accurate to say that the term crystallised gradually rather than having been “coined” by any single individual. What is novel today is its methodological reinterpretation: the appropriation of a politically loaded term into a neutral, reconstructive linguistic technique.

3. Conceptualising De-Serbianisation as Method

To adapt the word for rigorous academic use, De-Serbianisation can be defined as:

A systematic onomastic and phonological heuristic for reconstructing pre-Slavic or non-Slavic toponymic forms by analytically reversing Serbian- or South-Slavic-specific morphological, phonetic, or semantic transformations.

To emphasise the academic rather than political nature of such procedures, one may refer to the method with an additional technical term such as:

• Retro-Slavic Onomastic Reconstruction (RSOR)
• Inverse Slavicisation Heuristic (ISH)
• Toponymic De-Adaptation Analysis (TDA)

These designations underline that “de-serbianisation” is not an ethnic or ideological concept, but a linguistic operation that can be applied in a controlled, falsifiable manner.

4. Mechanisms of Serbianisation (and their analytical reversal)

4.1 Phonological adaptation

South Slavic phonotactics often reshape earlier forms, for example through:

• Epenthesis of /a/ or /o/
• Palatalisation of consonants
• Replacement of non-Slavic clusters (e.g., -nth-, -pt- → simplified structures)

De-serbianisation seeks to identify these layers and propose plausible pre-Slavic reconstructions.

4.2 Morphological integration

Toponyms may be assimilated using:

• Slavic suffixes (-ovac, -ica, -inje, -ovo)
• Definite/possessive morphology
• Conversion into anthroponymic patterns

Analytical reversal involves stripping these layers and evaluating what remains.

4.3 Semantic reinterpretation

Non-Slavic place-names may be re-etymologised to conform to Slavic lexicons (folk etymology). A de-serbianisation approach attempts to identify such reinterpretations and recover earlier meanings.

5. De-Serbianisation in Balkan exceptionalism debates

The Balkans is a region where linguistic reconstruction intersects with strong narratives of:

• Ethno-historical continuity
• Cultural exceptionalism
• Territorial legitimacy

Because of this, “de-serbianisation” is sometimes deployed polemically, especially in discussions involving Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The challenge for scholars is to extract the methodological value of the concept without importing the ideological baggage that sometimes accompanies it.

A neutral, academically sound use of de-serbianisation therefore requires:

Explicit methodological criteria, transparent reconstruction rules, independent cross-linguistic corroboration and Avoidance of teleological narratives.

6. Toward a Formalised framework

To normalise the concept within scholarly practice, the following procedure can be proposed:

1. Identification
   Detect phonological, morphological, or lexical markers of Serbian/Slavic adaptation.
2. Layer separation
   Distinguish between primary (structural) and secondary (folk-etymological, administrative) layers of modification.
3. Comparative testing
   Compare suspected pre-Slavic substrata using Albanian, Romanian/Vlach, Greek, Aromanian, or reconstructed Paleo-Balkan lexicons.
4. Plausibility modelling
   Evaluate reconstructed forms using established historical phonology.
5. Iterative reconstruction
   Produce a hypothesised original form, acknowledging uncertainty through probabilistic modelling.

This transforms “de-serbianisation” from a rhetorical term into a systematic, replicable research protocol.

7. Relevance for Albanian, Dalmatian, and Pre-Slavic Studies

The methodological reframing of De-Serbianisation—or more broadly De-Slavization—holds particular significance for several subfields in Balkan linguistic scholarship, especially Albanian studies, Dalmatian/Romance studies, and research into Illyrian and other Paleo-Balkan strata.

7.1 Albanian Studies and the retrieval of substrata

Scholars of Albanian historical linguistics have long noted that numerous Balkan toponyms traditionally interpreted as Slavic may in fact preserve older Albanian, Proto-Albanian, or Illyrian roots whose original forms became masked by later Slavic phonological remodelings. Because Slavic naming practices often assimilate non-Slavic forms to familiar morphological templates (e.g., suffixation such as -ovac, -ica, -inje, -ovo), the pre-Slavic base can be rendered nearly unrecognisable.

A systematic de-slavization protocol thus becomes methodologically indispensable in Albanian studies for:

• identifying Albanian lexical correspondences hidden beneath Slavicised exteriors;
• reconstructing regional historical linguistic layers relevant to early Albanian ethnogenesis;
• evaluating continuity claims concerning settlement patterns and cultural presence;
• challenging long-standing assumptions rooted in traditional Slavic-centric interpretations of Balkan toponymy.

In this way, de-serbianisation functions not as a political tool but as a corrective linguistic instrument, necessary to prevent the erasure of earlier strata.

7.2 Dalmatian and Romance studies: beyond serbisation

In the context of the Dalmatian coast, centuries of Slavicisation overlay complex networks of earlier Latin, Dalmatian Romance, Venetian, Greek, and Illyrian place-names. Many of these were adapted through Slavic phonotactics and morphology. As a result, Dalmatian studies similarly benefit from a structured de-slavization approach—one capable of:

• detecting submerged Romance toponymic elements;
• reconstructing Dalmatian-language roots known only fragmentarily from historical records;
• illuminating the linguistic mosaic of the medieval and early-modern Adriatic.

Here, “De-Serbianisation” becomes part of a larger methodological constellation: Un-Slavicising (or reverse-Slavisation) as a technical, non-ideological operation that can be applied across South Slavic–influenced regions.

8. The broader case: many Slavic toponyms encode Pre-Slavic meaning

One of the central findings emerging from recent onomastic research is that a substantial number of Slavic-appearing toponyms in the Balkans show consistent patterns of pre-Slavic semantic encoding. These include:

• hydronyms with no transparent Slavic etymology but clear Paleo-Balkan cognates;
• settlement names whose phonotactic irregularities indicate adaptation from earlier languages;
• toponyms whose apparent Slavic etymology collapses under scrutiny, revealing deeper Albanian, Illyrian, Thracian, or Romance layers.

De-slavization methodologies enable scholars to isolate these deeper strata by:

1. dismantling secondary Slavic layers,
2. testing reconstructions against known non-Slavic phonologies,
3. evaluating cross-regional correspondences, and
4. re-contextualising the historical landscape through linguistic archaeology.

This process is not a negation of Slavic contributions but a careful effort to disentangle linguistic chronology—to determine which elements belong to the Slavic era and which predate it.

9. De-Slavization as a catalyst for new academic insights

The broader implication is that de-slavization—whether as De-Serbianisation in a narrower sense or as Inverse Slavicisation Heuristics more generally—has the potential to reshape several academic narratives:

1. Historical linguistics:
   It refines our understanding of how Slavic languages interacted with pre-existing linguistic strata.
2. Ethnohistorical studies:
   It destabilises overly simplified models of ethnolinguistic replacement, revealing more nuanced patterns of continuity and transition.
3. Cultural history:
   It highlights the coexistence, blending, and sometimes suppression of different linguistic traditions.
4. Archaeolinguistics and cultural geography:
   It enriches reconstructions of settlement patterns, trade networks, and cultural boundaries.

In this sense, the methodological concept of de-serbianisation bridges disciplinary divides—connecting philology, anthropology, history, and geography—and introduces a more balanced, stratified, diachronic model of Balkan linguistic development.

10. Conclusion: Uncovering a new layer of academic inquiry

The emerging body of scholarship advocating forms of de-slavization is not attempting to “remove” Slavic heritage but to reveal the multicentred linguistic landscape beneath it. Albanian studies, Dalmatian studies, and research on Illyrian and other Paleo-Balkan languages stand to benefit enormously from such a heuristic.

By reframing “De-Serbianisation” as an academically rigorous, transparent, linguistically grounded method, scholars open a new frontier: a way of recognising the full complexity of Balkan toponymy—where many names labelled “Slavic” are, in fact, windows into deeper linguistic pasts.