PDA

View Full Version : Were the Croatians originally Slavic?



Pages : [1] 2

zanipolo
07-05-11, 13:37
The question above has always been talked about when visiting croatian friends/families. The arguements range from being forced to become slavic or not. An alphabet ( slovenians as well) which has always been Latin based instead of Cyrillic based. A religion from the west roman empire - Catholic instead of the East Roamn Empire - Orthodox.

Anyway after reading many books, I decided to ask the question to the slavs in this forum. Link below is interesting

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6UbOtJcF8rQC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22ancient+venetian+origins%22&source=bl&ots=zUDlr8g7dh&sig=9-ttP7jbOvBiDpEDL-maY8jxn_M&hl=en&ei=0yvFTe-LEZCavgOc8_CdAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22ancient%20venetian%20origins%22&f=false

zanipolo
07-05-11, 22:10
Maybe the Croats where the goths, Avars and other non-slavic people which moved south after the slavic migration into central Europe after 500AD


There are a number of relevant conclusions that can be drawn from the croatian genetic data.
First of all it gives strong support to the theory that the region of modern day Croatia served as a refuge for northern populations during the last glacial maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) (LGM). Eastern Adriatic coast was much more to the south, northern and western parts of that sea were steppes and plains, while modern Croatian islands (rich with the archeological sites from Paleolithic) were hills and mountains. After the LGM, the offspring of these survivors (haplogroup I) repopulated much of central-eastern and southeastern Europe. Those who remained in the Balkans were the direct male-line ancestors of about 45% of modern day Croats in Croatia and 73% Croats in Herzegovina.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-Battaglia-36)
It can be said that the Croats are "the most European people", as no other people have such high shares of this major (and likely the only) Paleolithic European haplogroup.
The second conclusion that can be drawn is that the theory of an Iranian origin has little genetic support. Modern-day Iranians have a significantly different haplogroup distribution, although Iranic speaking communities have lived in eastern Europe. The low frequency of Anatolian haplogroups suggests that agriculture spread into the region of Croatia primarily by way of cultural contact.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-sforza-38)
And the third conclusion from the genetic evidence points to the fact Croats are genetically heterogeneous, pointing to a high degree of mixing of the newly arrived medieval migrant tribes (such as Slavs) with the indigenous populations that were already present in the region of the modern day Croatia.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-olson-39) Hence, most modern day Croats are directly descended from the original European population of the region and have lived in the territory by other names, such as Illyrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians) and their forebears. These original inhabitants also served an important role in re-populating Europe after the last ice age

iapodos
09-05-11, 11:27
First of all, sub variant of haplogroup I spread in western Balkan (and southern Croatia too) is I2a2 Dinaric and there is no single evidence that this haplogroup was in western Balkan since Lgm in continuity. On the contrary all proves suggests that it was spread primeraly with Slavic peoples in 6 th century. It is opinion of all leading geneticists and it was recently incorporated in wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region. It is exactly the regions where during Ottoman reign were great migrations of population. Dalmatia for example, change almost entirely its previous medieval population. So, the medieval Croats which lived in Dalmatia moved mostly on islands or northward, or in Italia. New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.
The real Croats you may today find in the region of chakavian dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakavian_dialect

and genetic analisys of island Krk (the real Croats) shows prevalance of haplogroup of R1a over I2a2. The same situation is for the rest of mainland Croatia. So, I do believe that it is possible that Croats were not Slavs initiallly (maybe some Sarmatian or Turkic component among the Slavs) and that they were predominantly R1a.

julia90
09-05-11, 13:48
before the slavic invasions in the balkans they weren't.
they were much akin to neolithic italians i think.. at least those near the coasts, (Croatia and Dalmatia).

Itas Argis
09-05-11, 18:21
Never take Wikipedia seriously. It is written by those who support official history. Propaganda tool ...

iapodos said in short how things really are.

Who are Croats?

Well, some are croatised Serbs, some croatised Vlahs or Romanians, Goths, Celtcs, Sarmatians, Avars, and so on, and so on...

zanipolo
10-05-11, 11:54
First of all, sub variant of haplogroup I spread in western Balkan (and southern Croatia too) is I2a2 Dinaric and there is no single evidence that this haplogroup was in western Balkan since Lgm in continuity. On the contrary all proves suggests that it was spread primeraly with Slavic peoples in 6 th century. It is opinion of all leading geneticists and it was recently incorporated in wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_%28Y-DNA))
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region. It is exactly the regions where during Ottoman reign were great migrations of population. Dalmatia for example, change almost entirely its previous medieval population. So, the medieval Croats which lived in Dalmatia moved mostly on islands or northward, or in Italia. New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.
The real Croats you may today find in the region of chakavian dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakavian_dialect

and genetic analisys of island Krk (the real Croats) shows prevalance of haplogroup of R1a over I2a2. The same situation is for the rest of mainland Croatia. So, I do believe that it is possible that Croats were not Slavs initiallly (maybe some Sarmatian or Turkic component among the Slavs) and that they were predominantly R1a.

so the theory that the croats where originally goths and with this had the I haplo is wrong?

If what you say is correct , then is the Chakavian dialect the ancient language of the illyrians or lubanini from histria , maybe mixed with latin and Venetian later on?

iapetoc
10-05-11, 14:25
for it is more simple,

Today all area is named croatia, but from past it is 2 Sub areas, and probably in ancient times there where 2 people,
Thracians never passed the Dinaric Alps, while Greek settlers stay only in Adra sea,

to examine Croats better we must divide to 2 primary regions,
1 is Zagreb, main inland Croatia, and the other is Dalmatia,

I believe the Croat unification movement so to create a nation, lay between the religion and the language,
Dalmatians I don't Believe they were Slavic people, while Zagreb people I believe they were. the case of Avars or Huns or Oghurs, I can't tell, although I don't reject it,

zanipolo
11-05-11, 08:54
for it is more simple,

Today all area is named croatia, but from past it is 2 Sub areas, and probably in ancient times there where 2 people,
Thracians never passed the Dinaric Alps, while Greek settlers stay only in Adra sea,

to examine Croats better we must divide to 2 primary regions,
1 is Zagreb, main inland Croatia, and the other is Dalmatia,

I believe the Croat unification movement so to create a nation, lay between the religion and the language,
Dalmatians I don't Believe they were Slavic people, while Zagreb people I believe they were. the case of Avars or Huns or Oghurs, I can't tell, although I don't reject it,

Dalmatians where illyrian people with there own language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Itas Argis
11-05-11, 11:35
Land around Zagreb, which are Zagorje, Medimurje, Gorski Kotar, western Slavonia etc., not the city itself.

iapetoc
24-05-11, 01:52
Dalmatians where illyrian people with there own language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language


so you probably agree with me.


Land around Zagreb, which are Zagorje, Medimurje, Gorski Kotar, western Slavonia etc., not the city itself.

yes that is what i mean.

Shetop
19-06-11, 16:55
Croatian science about themselves: Croatian genetic heritage: Y-chromosome story (http://www.cmj.hr/2011/52/3/21674820.htm)

I'll refrain myself from comments.

how yes no 2
25-06-11, 16:45
though when provoked by Croat nationalists, I like to emphasize the clues indicating potential Turkic origin of Croats... I am pretty sure their tribal identity was Slavic, and before that probably Celtic... same holds for Serbs...

in fact I think I2 are Cimmerians/Gomer people and original Celts but more about that on link http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26549-Celtic-Serbian-parallels/


Russian primary chronicle enlists Croats (as well as Serbs and Carantanians (Slovene of today) in Danubian Slavs...according to it they have migrated to north due to pressure of Vlakhs (read Roman empire) to the lands of Lyakhs (read Lech or Poles)


Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnipro, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from
this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem', and the Sula, and were called Severians.Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf



Byzantine emperor historian places white Serbia in land they themselves called Boika thast he places beyond Turkia( = north of Hungary) neighbouring white Croatia and Frankia ...from many reasons this land can only be Bohemia... according to him they have also originally dwelt there and we know that Celtic Boii originally dwelt there and that Celtic Scordisci spread roughly from there to area of Serbia...and that from Serbia they entered Thrace and Asia minor as Celtic Serdi...

white Croatia would be Slavic settled area east of white Serbia ... roughly Slovakia, south Poland, west Ukraine.... the core of this white Croatia is more or less Galicia which is same as Bohemia local source of I2a2...

very term Galicia tells us that these people might have originally been Gals or Celts, perhaps a branch of Helveti... Celtic ancestors of Serbs on other hand would be Scordisci/Serdi /Boii..

Byzantine emperor historian tells us that both Croats and Serbs were called "white" prior to Balkan settlement... this could be same as Wends/Vindelici/Veneti.... Sorbs of east Germany (in Serbia known as Lusatian Serbs) are still called Wends.. Vindelici are Celtic people..

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al15wpFWiMC&lpg=PP1&dq=de%20administrando%20imperio&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

look at Galicia area in east Europe
term is clearly same origin as Galatia in Asia minor and Galia in France, that is about Celtic settlement ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Ukraine-Halychyna.png/250px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Galiz20.gif/250px-Galiz20.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

those are cores of I2a areas...

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif


white Croatia is considered more or less same area as Galicia... now look at early Slavic tribes... in Galicia are white Croats...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Kievan_Rus%27_historical_map_980_1054.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_East_Slavic_states

zanipolo
20-07-11, 11:15
as per link

http://www.cmj.hr/2005/46/4/16100752.pdf

it seems, that croatians in the north , istria etc are R1b , the inland ones are R1a and the southern ones are I - P37 ( old illyrian marker )

are people sure the I2 marker does not originate form the I1 marker from scandinavia?

Dalmat
22-07-11, 05:55
i can see you dont know much, Croatian write in latin, but original script was glagolithic

Dalmat
22-07-11, 05:58
Maybe the Croats where the goths, Avars and other non-slavic people which moved south after the slavic migration into central Europe after 500AD


There are a number of relevant conclusions that can be drawn from the croatian genetic data.
First of all it gives strong support to the theory that the region of modern day Croatia served as a refuge for northern populations during the last glacial maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum) (LGM). Eastern Adriatic coast was much more to the south, northern and western parts of that sea were steppes and plains, while modern Croatian islands (rich with the archeological sites from Paleolithic) were hills and mountains. After the LGM, the offspring of these survivors (haplogroup I) repopulated much of central-eastern and southeastern Europe. Those who remained in the Balkans were the direct male-line ancestors of about 45% of modern day Croats in Croatia and 73% Croats in Herzegovina.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-Battaglia-36)
It can be said that the Croats are "the most European people", as no other people have such high shares of this major (and likely the only) Paleolithic European haplogroup.
The second conclusion that can be drawn is that the theory of an Iranian origin has little genetic support. Modern-day Iranians have a significantly different haplogroup distribution, although Iranic speaking communities have lived in eastern Europe. The low frequency of Anatolian haplogroups suggests that agriculture spread into the region of Croatia primarily by way of cultural contact.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-sforza-38)
And the third conclusion from the genetic evidence points to the fact Croats are genetically heterogeneous, pointing to a high degree of mixing of the newly arrived medieval migrant tribes (such as Slavs) with the indigenous populations that were already present in the region of the modern day Croatia.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats#cite_note-olson-39) Hence, most modern day Croats are directly descended from the original European population of the region and have lived in the territory by other names, such as Illyrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians) and their forebears. These original inhabitants also served an important role in re-populating Europe after the last ice age

there was a goth theory, infact one of the early traveling writers from 11 century called us Goths (pop Dukljanin), we were those Ggoths that lived with Slavs(Sarmats) and formed early Rus' state.

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:01
First of all, sub variant of haplogroup I spread in western Balkan (and southern Croatia too) is I2a2 Dinaric and there is no single evidence that this haplogroup was in western Balkan since Lgm in continuity. On the contrary all proves suggests that it was spread primeraly with Slavic peoples in 6 th century. It is opinion of all leading geneticists and it was recently incorporated in wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region. It is exactly the regions where during Ottoman reign were great migrations of population. Dalmatia for example, change almost entirely its previous medieval population. So, the medieval Croats which lived in Dalmatia moved mostly on islands or northward, or in Italia. New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.
The real Croats you may today find in the region of chakavian dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakavian_dialect

and genetic analisys of island Krk (the real Croats) shows prevalance of haplogroup of R1a over I2a2. The same situation is for the rest of mainland Croatia. So, I do believe that it is possible that Croats were not Slavs initiallly (maybe some Sarmatian or Turkic component among the Slavs) and that they were predominantly R1a.

lol gypsy full of shit as always, on tests made on people from Zagerb, 64% of them where I2a2, as for Slavonia where is I the lowest(34%) was tested at Osijek, near Serbia and Hungary border, where people actually have most varied roots, as well as Istra , and NW near border

As for chakavian, it was earliest Croatian dialect, and its full of words with Gothic roots, and you dont even know to speak Serbian after turks and Karadžićevog prijepisa hehehe

Naime oko 1/5 do 1/4 germanizama koji su u Jugoslaviji pogrešno pripisani utjecaju Austro-Ugarske, ustvari su rani gotski arhaizmi predslavenskih Hrvata. Tih je najmanje u štokavštini, a puno više u kajkavskim i čakavskim govorima gdje su se većinom održali do danas.
Tek malobrojni primjeri tih gotskih arhaizama očuvanih u književnoj štokavštini su: bota (bod: čakav. bot), frisiaz (frizura-češljanje), lekeis (liječnik), lekinassus (ljekovit), nu (ali-no), pops (pop-svećenik), skrizis (križ), smakka (smokva), stiurjan (stvoriti: čakav. storit), swaikra (svekrva), swairban (svrbiti), thaurna (trnje: čak. tarnak), weihitha (vještica), wopjan (vapiti-zapomagati), weinagards (vinograd) i wraks (vrag-đavo).
Znatno ih je više (preko 100) bilo u javnom kultiviranom hrvatskom prije 1918, koji su sad uklonjeni ali su ih još zadržali čakavci i kajkavci (Lovrić i surad. 2005-2007): uz gore spomenute još npr. bandi (strana: ča. banda), daughtar (udavača: ča. dotarica), flodra (podstava: kaj. futar), hropjan (krkljati: kaj.ča. hropiti), ja (da-jeste: kaj.ča. ja), saj (taj: ča. sej), skiuban (očerupati: kaj.ča. skubiti), skura (mračno: kaj.ča. škuro), skuran (smrknuti: ča. škurit), tekan (dirati: kaj. teknuti), thiuda (mnoštvo: ča. čuda), wazgo (upaliti: ča. vazgat) ... itd.

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:08
before the slavic invasions in the balkans they weren't.
they were much akin to neolithic italians i think.. at least those near the coasts, (Croatia and Dalmatia).


not really, modern Italian and Croats are not similar

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:11
Never take Wikipedia seriously. It is written by those who support official history. Propaganda tool ...

iapodos said in short how things really are.

Who are Croats?

Well, some are croatised Serbs, some croatised Vlahs or Romanians, Goths, Celtcs, Sarmatians, Avars, and so on, and so on...

Hehe, Croats are in Upper part of homogeneity of Europe, Serbs are at the very bottom.

I mean with mentality you Serbs have, with stories where all Europeans descendant of Serbs, i am not surprised at all.

You know what that means in terms of assimilation?

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:18
so the theory that the croats where originally goths and with this had the I haplo is wrong?

If what you say is correct , then is the Chakavian dialect the ancient language of the illyrians or lubanini from histria , maybe mixed with latin and Venetian later on?

That gypsy is talking BS lol, its comparative to trash scavenger talking about quantum physics.

Usually from some standpoint of Serb farytails, where all white people on Earth are descendants of Serbs.

Funny thing is that Serbs were always called Vlach by us, even today in some areas its common.
They, with help of ottoman buddies were very active in Bosnia, they spread or assimilated like bacterial infection.

I can always recognize a true Serb, he looks like North African.
We see them as sort of malign gypsies.
They are like pests.

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:20
for it is more simple,

Today all area is named croatia, but from past it is 2 Sub areas, and probably in ancient times there where 2 people,
Thracians never passed the Dinaric Alps, while Greek settlers stay only in Adra sea,

to examine Croats better we must divide to 2 primary regions,
1 is Zagreb, main inland Croatia, and the other is Dalmatia,

I believe the Croat unification movement so to create a nation, lay between the religion and the language,
Dalmatians I don't Believe they were Slavic people, while Zagreb people I believe they were. the case of Avars or Huns or Oghurs, I can't tell, although I don't reject it,

Again, you are talking out of your ass

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:26
though when provoked by Croat nationalists, I like to emphasize the clues indicating potential Turkic origin of Croats... I am pretty sure their tribal identity was Slavic, and before that probably Celtic... same holds for Serbs...

in fact I think I2 are Cimmerians/Gomer people and original Celts but more about that on link http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26549-Celtic-Serbian-parallels/


Russian primary chronicle enlists Croats (as well as Serbs and Carantanians (Slovene of today) in Danubian Slavs...according to it they have migrated to north due to pressure of Vlakhs (read Roman empire) to the lands of Lyakhs (read Lech or Poles)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf



Byzantine emperor historian places white Serbia in land they themselves called Boika thast he places beyond Turkia( = north of Hungary) neighbouring white Croatia and Frankia ...from many reasons this land can only be Bohemia... according to him they have also originally dwelt there and we know that Celtic Boii originally dwelt there and that Celtic Scordisci spread roughly from there to area of Serbia...and that from Serbia they entered Thrace and Asia minor as Celtic Serdi...

white Croatia would be Slavic settled area east of white Serbia ... roughly Slovakia, south Poland, west Ukraine.... the core of this white Croatia is more or less Galicia which is same as Bohemia local source of I2a2...

very term Galicia tells us that these people might have originally been Gals or Celts, perhaps a branch of Helveti... Celtic ancestors of Serbs on other hand would be Scordisci/Serdi /Boii..

Byzantine emperor historian tells us that both Croats and Serbs were called "white" prior to Balkan settlement... this could be same as Wends/Vindelici/Veneti.... Sorbs of east Germany (in Serbia known as Lusatian Serbs) are still called Wends.. Vindelici are Celtic people..

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al15wpFWiMC&lpg=PP1&dq=de%20administrando%20imperio&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

look at Galicia area in east Europe
term is clearly same origin as Galatia in Asia minor and Galia in France, that is about Celtic settlement ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Ukraine-Halychyna.png/250px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Galiz20.gif/250px-Galiz20.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

those are cores of I2a areas...

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif


white Croatia is considered more or less same area as Galicia... now look at early Slavic tribes... in Galicia are white Croats...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Kievan_Rus%27_historical_map_980_1054.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_East_Slavic_states


Its enough to go into Serbia, and look at the people, you guys(most of you) can pass as N. African, Levantine or Turk.
Your 3 fingers salute theory of Serbs was funniest one( since you even dont know recent history), as well your theories as Proto Serbs= ancestor of Germans.

That map of I2a2 is incorrect, since Serbs from Bosnia ( and they territoriality hold 50% of it) have less of it than Croatians from Slavonia.


Didn't even had the need to read rest of your post.
Your theoris in general, are typical for Serb, a nation without their own culture or language, infested with low self esteem, overcompensating in search for better past

Dalmat
22-07-11, 06:54
Dalmatians where illyrian people with there own language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Dalmatian, was used to communicate with latinized/Italian minority during middle ages, it is language similar to Venetian.
It was used longest in Dubrovnik, as they were independent City-state that had political contact with Venetians a lot.

Oldest artifacts, and texts written in Croatian glagolithic script are in fact from Dalmatian region, Dalmatian wasnt even called Dalmatia after Croats settled, it was called Croatia. Only after Venetian took over it was renamed Dalmatia.
It was a core of Croatia, and from dalmatia Croatians expanded northwards towards Slavinje/Zagreb.


____________________

you serbs are actually very similar to these guys, as i know one of your distinguished "historian" claimed Greeks also


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaRxKR81PKo


... must be those "Egyptian" genes eh!

zanipolo
22-07-11, 22:52
Dalmatian, was used to communicate with latinized/Italian minority during middle ages, it is language similar to Venetian.
It was used longest in Dubrovnik, as they were independent City-state that had political contact with Venetians a lot.

Oldest artifacts, and texts written in Croatian glagolithic script are in fact from Dalmatian region, Dalmatian wasnt even called Dalmatia after Croats settled, it was called Croatia. Only after Venetian took over it was renamed Dalmatia.
It was a core of Croatia, and from dalmatia Croatians expanded northwards towards Slavinje/Zagreb.


____________________

you serbs are actually very similar to these guys, as i know one of your distinguished "historian" claimed Greeks also


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaRxKR81PKo


... must be those "Egyptian" genes eh!

As for my question, are croats originally slavs. Can you answer this,

its a pity that the croats renamed ragusa into dubrovnik , this distorts history, you do not see a name change for the veneti in ancient or modern times, you do not see much of a name change from etruscan to tuscan, sicel to sicilian, lombard to lombardia. ............. if in roman times the dalmatian coast was Dalmatae , it would always remain so named in italian people. Same as there is always a Constantinople and not a Istanbul.

Bodin
17-08-11, 23:00
First of all, sub variant of haplogroup I spread in western Balkan (and southern Croatia too) is I2a2 Dinaric and there is no single evidence that this haplogroup was in western Balkan since Lgm in continuity. On the contrary all proves suggests that it was spread primeraly with Slavic peoples in 6 th century. It is opinion of all leading geneticists and it was recently incorporated in wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region. It is exactly the regions where during Ottoman reign were great migrations of population. Dalmatia for example, change almost entirely its previous medieval population. So, the medieval Croats which lived in Dalmatia moved mostly on islands or northward, or in Italia. New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.
The real Croats you may today find in the region of chakavian dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakavian_dialect

and genetic analisys of island Krk (the real Croats) shows prevalance of haplogroup of R1a over I2a2. The same situation is for the rest of mainland Croatia. So, I do believe that it is possible that Croats were not Slavs initiallly (maybe some Sarmatian or Turkic component among the Slavs) and that they were predominantly R1a.

It is true that I2a2 is probably not hier since LGM because it would be more equaly disperced like mthDNA haplogroups that are in Europe since LGM . Few strong clusters of I2a2 could sugest and total apsence on other regions showing it is haplogroup that have mooved recently ( compared to LGM ) . Also it is to young to be hier since LGM , and there is not much divercity which should be expected if that is the case . But there is also no any evidence that I2a2 is Slavic , first Slavs are formed recently , Jordanes mentions they were called diferently ( Spores ) , so they would carry mainly Scythian R1a - around Pripyat were is probably originating place of Slavic languague , and some I2a2 received by mixing with Sarmatians who use to rule over them . I2a2 in Ukraine is of Roxolans who use to live there , in Moldavia and Romania from Ants also Sarmatian tribe - you can say by they names , in Hungary by Yaziges , in Czech, Bavaria and Saxonia Anhalt by Serbs and Croats , in Aragon in Spain , Sardinia and Lybia by Alans and Vandals , ... Pliny cleary says Serboi/Siraci and Haruatas were Sarmatians .
After they gain Dalmatia from Turks Austrians resetled Croats that have escaped in todays Slovenia back in Dalmatia , only small percentage of Dalmatian catolics are Serbs that converted to catholicism . Islands ( Krk) are actually better for observing situation before settling of Croats because they are the places were old population have survived Avar attacks.

Bodin
17-08-11, 23:19
That gypsy is talking BS lol, its comparative to trash scavenger talking about quantum physics.

Usually from some standpoint of Serb farytails, where all white people on Earth are descendants of Serbs.

Funny thing is that Serbs were always called Vlach by us, even today in some areas its common.
They, with help of ottoman buddies were very active in Bosnia, they spread or assimilated like bacterial infection.

I can always recognize a true Serb, he looks like North African.
We see them as sort of malign gypsies.
They are like pests.
Serbs and Croats have same Sarmatian origins , so if Serbs are gypsies so Croats are . Yo u called Serbs Vlachs because it is specific millitary cast in Ottoman Turkic state - they dont pay all taxes , geting land for plaughing and make war for that . Because Serbs were brought to Croatia and Bosanska Krajina ( land setled by Croatians - speacked and writed Ikavski during Midle Ages) in that status by Turks you called them Vlachs .It is true that Serbs use to mix with indigenous populations more then Croatians ( E1b1b , J ,G ) but genes are yet very simillar

Goga
17-08-11, 23:31
The closest people to Serbs are Croats and the closest people to Croats are Serbs. Am I right or wrong?

But their mentality is not the same. Croats are more like other fascists all over the world (like Turkey, Syria and other fascist regimes that love to terrorize and intimidate innocent people) and Serbs are very friendly and kind folks. Why?

Bodin
18-08-11, 03:32
Nether Serbs or Croats are innocent in general , some of them are , but some just like to kill they own brothers . Nema rata dok ne udari brat na brata ( There is no real war , till brother atacks his brother - old Serbian and Croatian saying )

Milovan
18-08-11, 03:57
The closest people to Serbs are Croats and the closest people to Croats are Serbs. Am I right or wrong?

But their mentality is not the same. Croats are more like other fascists all over the world (like Turkey, Syria and other fascist regimes that love to terrorize and intimidate innocent people) and Serbs are very friendly and kind folks. Why?

You cannot judge all croats on the basis of 1 or 2 idiots, I think that guy is ustasha hence his bias.
If you were to put 10 serbs and 10 croats in a room and I told you to pick which ones are serbs and which ones are croats you would not be able to do so. Croats know this too. the whole goth/croat theory was put into place by hitler and the ustasha because hitler hated slavs and needed an excuse for favoring croats. prior to that the only non slavic croat origin theory was illyrianism nothing to do with goths. of course there were germanic and celtic settlements in the region but no more then the rest of the balkans.

and Dalmat if you are indigenous to dalmatia you have serb blood whether you like it or not. catholicism does not change bloodlines. serbs were in dalmatia before croats.

Bodin
18-08-11, 20:20
You are right you couldnt pick who is Serb and who is Croat . But there is more Gotic blood in ex -Yu then in rest of Balkans : remember Theodoric kingdom and his borders ? And no Serbs were not in Dalmatia before Croats : 1) if you speak about Roman province of Dalmatia Constantinus Porphirogenetos in De administratio imperio says Croats setled in Dalmatia and Serbs around Thessaloniki , then Serbs decided to go back , but after crossing Danube they thurned back and settled next to Croats -so Croats were first 2) if you speak about today Dalmatia , Knin and Nin were capitolcities of Croatian kings , Serbs settled there in XVI century like Turkic soldiers with Vlach status.

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 21:36
You are right you couldnt pick who is Serb and who is Croat . But there is more Gotic blood in ex -Yu then in rest of Balkans : remember Theodoric kingdom and his borders ? And no Serbs were not in Dalmatia before Croats : 1) if you speak about Roman province of Dalmatia Constantinus Porphirogenetos in De administratio imperio says Croats setled in Dalmatia and Serbs around Thessaloniki , then Serbs decided to go back , but after crossing Danube they thurned back and settled next to Croats -so Croats were first 2) if you speak about today Dalmatia , Knin and Nin were capitolcities of Croatian kings , Serbs settled there in XVI century like Turkic soldiers with Vlach status.

Croats have more R1a & I2 than Serbians and Bosnians.
Croats have less R1b & J2 than both the Serb and Bosnian population.

Bodin
19-08-11, 04:31
Croats have more R1a & I2 than Serbians and Bosnians.
Croats have less R1b & J2 than both the Serb and Bosnian population.
There is biger diference betwen North Greece and South Greece genes , then betwen Croatian and Serbian genes I allready explained R1a , R1b and J2 in thread Who were and are Serbs ( or something like that ) . As about I2a2 there is not such big diference Serbia 38,5% , Croatia 42% , Bosnia 50% ( Croats 71%, Bosniaks 44% , Serbs 31% , but there is small number of Croats -around 15% , and they mostly live in Herzegovina were is highest density of I2a2 )

Milovan
19-08-11, 07:13
Bodin
some of the first serb settlements were on the adriatic coast of southern dalmatia (and bosnia), pagania, zachlumia, travunia are all part of dalmatia today. of course the northern part was croat first. then it went back and forth (bosnia too) between serb and croat rule, this map is 800 AD. I have seen earlier maps but I can't find any right now. I know I have earlier maps in a few books.
5083
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/WestBalkans800.png

Dorianfinder
19-08-11, 11:56
There is biger diference betwen North Greece and South Greece genes , then betwen Croatian and Serbian genes I allready explained R1a , R1b and J2 in thread Who were and are Serbs ( or something like that ) . As about I2a2 there is not such big diference Serbia 38,5% , Croatia 42% , Bosnia 50% ( Croats 71%, Bosniaks 44% , Serbs 31% , but there is small number of Croats -around 15% , and they mostly live in Herzegovina were is highest density of I2a2 )

You need to look at the trends, if you only look at the frequencies you will make an erroneous assumption like, 'Bosniacs have more I2 because the frequency in 'Bosnia' is 50%.

Greece has an overall and clear trend that distinguishes it from the rest of the Balkans. More R1b, J2 and E than the Slav population (Serb, Croat, Bosniac, Bulgarian, FYROM and Montenegrin).

What is your goal by emphasizing the difference between North and South Greece?

zanipolo
19-08-11, 12:40
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic

Dorianfinder
19-08-11, 16:48
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic

Croatian propaganda is less in your face but it's no better. Slovenia is probably the exception out of the Slavic nations. It sits there and doesn't say a word because their economy is relatively strong and people don't need propaganda to value themselves. Slovenia was influenced by Europe (Tyrol, Austria, Veneto) whereas the rest of Yugoslavia was in a hole, a very deep hole with factories.

Taranis
19-08-11, 16:51
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic

Suddenly I understand why how-yes-no claims what he claims! :petrified:

Bodin
19-08-11, 17:06
Bodin
some of the first serb settlements were on the adriatic coast of southern dalmatia (and bosnia), pagania, zachlumia, travunia are all part of dalmatia today. of course the northern part was croat first. then it went back and forth (bosnia too) between serb and croat rule, this map is 800 AD. I have seen earlier maps but I can't find any right now. I know I have earlier maps in a few books.
5083
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/WestBalkans800.png
Yes you repeated all the things I said in my previous posts , first Serbian states were in Tribunia , Canale , Helm -Zachlumia ( name since XII century ) , Narbona ( Pagania since christianisation ) , I didnt try to denie that I just said you are not right claiming Serbs are in Dalmatia before Croats .And that guy from Dalmatia is catholicized Serb - that is simply not thruth because after Austria took Dalmatia from Turks she brought back escaped Croatians from Slovenia and Hungary , thats all that I claiming

Bodin
19-08-11, 17:17
You need to look at the trends, if you only look at the frequencies you will make an erroneous assumption like, 'Bosniacs have more I2 because the frequency in 'Bosnia' is 50%.

Greece has an overall and clear trend that distinguishes it from the rest of the Balkans. More R1b, J2 and E than the Slav population (Serb, Croat, Bosniac, Bulgarian, FYROM and Montenegrin).

What is your goal by emphasizing the difference between North and South Greece?
Bosnia and Herzegovina has 50 % I2a2 , and Herzegovina by itself has 71 % I2a2 , I clearle said Bosniaks have 44% I2a2 , I didnt try to claim anybody has less or more I was just presenting facts.
So the " Slav population have clear trend to, that distinguishes it from rest of Balkans - more I2a2 , I1a , and less of E1b1b1 ,R1b, J and G.
What is you / goal by emphasizing the difference betwen Serbs and Croats , I just tried to say there is double amount of I in north ( 21% ) than in south , central and east Greece ( 12% ) , and in south there is more I2*B than in north , there is also more R1a and R1b and less of G , E1b1b and J. Thanks for answering

Bodin
19-08-11, 17:32
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic
Me to is trying to fight against that kind of "history" . Ofcourse being Serbian nationalist I would like if Serbians would be oldest nation of the world , but it is simply not the truth . And I wouldnt going to use lies to glorify my nation , because I think that would only harm it , showing it like foolish . First of all I think Serbs are not the Slavs at all( which is clearly shown with lack of R1a genes which is present in more than 50% in Slavs ) , but Sarmatians . But if what your guys are claiming that I2a2 is aboriginal to Europe is true , than Serbs and Croats are older nations of Europe ( Which I do not believe but you do ).

Dorianfinder
20-08-11, 10:00
Me to is trying to fight against that kind of "history" . Ofcourse being Serbian nationalist I would like if Serbians would be oldest nation of the world , but it is simply not the truth . And I wouldnt going to use lies to glorify my nation , because I think that would only harm it , showing it like foolish . First of all I think Serbs are not the Slavs at all( which is clearly shown with lack of R1a genes which is present in more than 50% in Slavs ) , but Sarmatians . But if what your guys are claiming that I2a2 is aboriginal to Europe is true , than Serbs and Croats are older nations of Europe ( Which I do not believe but you do ).

Your Achilles heal is the 37% I2a found on the island of Sardinia. Not to mention that Sarmatia had very high R1a.

Conclusion:
The lack of R1a in Serbs makes the Sarmatian theory unlikely.

The diffusion of I2a was from the Balkans to the Danube and Wallachia-Moldova.

I2a is concentrated along the West coast of the Dinaric Alps and Sardinia. I2a spread out from this region. The 12a in ancient Sarmatia appears to have been insignificant or extremely low! let me explain ...

Early Byzantine-era migration from the Balkans is what formed the unique Wallachia-Moldovan Principality. Wallachia means foreigner and I2a is centered in the previous States of Wallachia where history is clear that Balkanic peoples settled here.

The Bulgarian Kingdom cut the Wallachia-Moldovan Principalities off from the south Balkans from as early as the 10th century. The Bulgarian influence spread Cyrillic but Wallachia-Moldova was predominantly under anti-Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople who made continuous efforts to settle Orthodox Greeks & Serbians to strengthen Orthodoxy in the Polish and Hungarian dominated region! The remnants of these Orthodox Balkanic settlers are the Vlachs or 'Foreigners' in Romania.

Today, political sampling and categorization allocates individuals sampled from this region to modern Romania but they were until recently Wallachia-Moldovans, this is why Romania has 26% I2a and the Vlachs have over 20%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Ukraine_topo_en.jpg/800px-Ukraine_topo_en.jpg

Bodin
20-08-11, 15:45
Your Achilles heal is the 37% I2a found on the island of Sardinia. Not to mention that Sarmatia had very high R1a.

Conclusion:
The lack of R1a in Serbs makes the Sarmatian theory unlikely.

The diffusion of I2a was from the Balkans to the Danube and Wallachia-Moldova.

I2a is concentrated along the West coast of the Dinaric Alps and Sardinia. I2a spread out from this region. The 12a in ancient Sarmatia appears to have been insignificant or extremely low! let me explain ...

Early Byzantine-era migration from the Balkans is what formed the unique Wallachia-Moldovan Principality. Wallachia means foreigner and I2a is centered in the previous States of Wallachia where history is clear that Balkanic peoples settled here.

The Bulgarian Kingdom cut the Wallachia-Moldovan Principalities off from the south Balkans from as early as the 10th century. The Bulgarian influence spread Cyrillic but Wallachia-Moldova was predominantly under anti-Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople who made continuous efforts to settle Orthodox Greeks & Serbians to strengthen Orthodoxy in the Polish and Hungarian dominated region! The remnants of these Orthodox Balkanic settlers are the Vlachs or 'Foreigners' in Romania.

Today, political sampling and categorization allocates individuals sampled from this region to modern Romania but they were until recently Wallachia-Moldovans, this is why Romania has 26% I2a and the Vlachs have over 20%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Ukraine_topo_en.jpg/800px-Ukraine_topo_en.jpg
I2a in Sardinia is diferent subclade then I2a2-Din , so they do not have to be conected at all . Aldo I believe southern mountains on Sardinia was place were Vandal and Alans from North Africa escaped after Justinian took they kingdom ( Sardinia is also part of Vandalo-Alanic kingdom ( After escape from Spain Vandals and Alans joined under one king and in one nation ) . I2a on Sardinia is same subclade like Basque , Aragon (both 9% ) and Lybian ( 1% ) and that all places were Alano-Vandals use to live.
Where did you get informations Sarmatian DNA was R1a ? What land do you call Sarmatia , because Sarmatians are moving westward since V century BC.
I2a2 in Moldavia and Romania was by my oppinion sign of Anti tribes and Iazigi that use to live there .And I2a2 in Vlachs is weaker than in Serbs - it is more possible they taked it from Serbs and Moldavians then other way around .Thanks for answering

Dorianfinder
20-08-11, 20:31
I2a in Sardinia is diferent subclade then I2a2-Din , so they do not have to be conected at all .

I2a1 developed in Sardinia, STR analysis puts the TMRCA at approximately 8000 years ago.

I2a2 developed in the Dinaric Alps, STR analysis puts the TMRCA at approximately 7500 year ago.

I2a1 is the older sister clade of I2a2 suggesting the diffusion was from the West to the East along the Mediterranean.


Where did you get informations Sarmatian DNA was R1a ? What land do you call Sarmatia , because Sarmatians are moving westward since V century BC.

Sarmatia was originally located in modern South Russia, the Ukraine (43% R1a & 21% I2a) and the East Balkans (Romania, Moldova). This you can see in the map you posted of ancient Sarmatian territory, it is also found in numerous historical sources. R1a is by far the most common hg in these regions. Romania is the exception with its highest hg being I2a (26%) and R1a (18%) its second highest. This is because of settlement from the Dinaric populations in the Balkans as I've said.

Comparing R1a and I2a we find a West to East diffusion of I2a and an East to West diffusion of R1a:
Serbia has 15% R1a and 34.5% I2a
Romania has 18% R1a and 26% I2a
Ukraine has 43% R1a and 21% I2a

The Indo-Iranian invasion of South Asia was responsible for bringing more than 40% R1a to northern India.


I2a2 in Vlachs is weaker than in Serbs - it is more possible they taked it from Serbs and Moldavians then other way around .Thanks for answering

The Vlachs were composed of both Greeks and Serbian Orthodox settlers. There is less I2a (20.5% I2a) in Vlachs because the Greeks carried more R1b, E-V13 and J2. Modern Romania confirms that the Greeks infiltrated the region with 16% R1b, 13% J2 & 10% E-V13. Wallachia and Moldova were combined into a Principality which covers the modern populations of Romania and Moldova today. The Vlachs were concentrated in both Moldova and Wallachia as it was the same place, called Moldovlachia or the Principality of Wallachia-Moldova.

Bodin
20-08-11, 21:31
I2a1 developed in Sardinia, STR analysis puts the TMRCA at approximately 8000 years ago.

I2a2 developed in the Dinaric Alps, STR analysis puts the TMRCA at approximately 7500 year ago.

I2a1 is the older sister clade of I2a2 suggesting the diffusion was from the West to the East along the Mediterranean.



Sarmatia was originally located in modern South Russia, the Ukraine (43% R1a & 21% I2a) and the East Balkans (Romania, Moldova). This you can see in the map you posted of ancient Sarmatian territory, it is also found in numerous historical sources. R1a is by far the most common hg in these regions. Romania is the exception with its highest hg being I2a (26%) and R1a (18%) its second highest. This is because of settlement from the Dinaric populations in the Balkans as I've said.

Comparing R1a and I2a we find a West to East diffusion of I2a and an East to West diffusion of R1a:
Serbia has 15% R1a and 34.5% I2a
Romania has 18% R1a and 26% I2a
Ukraine has 43% R1a and 21% I2a

The Indo-Iranian invasion of South Asia was responsible for bringing more than 40% R1a to northern India.



The Vlachs were composed of both Greeks and Serbian Orthodox settlers. There is less I2a (20.5% I2a) in Vlachs because the Greeks carried more R1b, E-V13 and J2. Modern Romania confirms that the Greeks infiltrated the region with 16% R1b, 13% J2 & 10% E-V13. Wallachia and Moldova were combined into a Principality which covers the modern populations of Romania and Moldova today. The Vlachs were concentrated in both Moldova and Wallachia as it was the same place, called Moldovlachia or the Principality of Wallachia-Moldova.

Exactly what I said sister from 8000 years ago , lot of things and moving hapen in 8000 years remember how many movings hapen in last 2000 .

Yes R1a is prevalent because before Saramatians in that land were Scythians ( R1a) , and after Slavics R1a again) , in Romania and Moldavia there is more I2a2 because of tribe of Ants -Saramatian ( Ptolemy) and Yaziges who conquered Dacia after Roman retreat .

Yes the Slavs are reletives with Aryans that conquered India not Saramatians.

What Greeks settlements in Romania ? Exept in cities on Black see there has no been Greeks . Dacians like cousins ( northern branch ) of Thraceans had J2 , some R1a , E1b1b1, G , some R1b from mixing with Celts , and some old I2*B
Vlachs were not composed of Serbs or Greeks they were separate group of Romanized Balkans , they only mixed with Serbs and Greeks , and parts of Serb and Greek peasants escaped from their feudal lows becoming more free Vlachs , most of Vlachs I2a2 is from Romania where from some of them come to Balkans. Thanks for replying

Dorianfinder
21-08-11, 15:20
What Greeks settlements in Romania ? Exept in cities on Black see there has no been Greeks . Dacians like cousins ( northern branch ) of Thraceans had J2 , some R1a , E1b1b1, G , some R1b from mixing with Celts , and some old I2*B
Vlachs were not composed of Serbs or Greeks they were separate group of Romanized Balkans , they only mixed with Serbs and Greeks , and parts of Serb and Greek peasants escaped from their feudal lows becoming more free Vlachs , most of Vlachs I2a2 is from Romania where from some of them come to Balkans. Thanks for replying

The Greek cities on the Black Sea, Pontus and Nicaea only sent relatively small groups of settlers to live in Wallachia and Moldova during the 14th century. Larger groups fled the Ottoman pogrom of the Empire of Trapezunda in the 1360's. Greeks were active in the region before this with a substantial shipping infrastructure having been developed from families primarily from South Greece (Peloponnese) and Crete. Many Greeks were merchants from Constantinople and Epirus, others were Greek Orthodox/Romanian Orthodox priests. Many Epirote families related to them still call themselves Romani or Vlach.

The Dragomans and Ottoman diplomats, governors were Greeks originally from the Greek community of Wallachia-Moldovan Principality. Some of these families kept records from the Byzantine Empire. The Greek War of Liberation's secret society was started by the Greek community from Phanar in Constantinople who held family estates in Wallachia-Moldova. A large number of Greek peasant population had developed from earlier Byzantine-era settlement. Serbian Orthodox soldiers had also settled here with the Byzantine military. The Greek shipping community traded along the Danube with the large Greek Orthodox community in Poland and Hungary.

The Greeks formed a significant settlement in Cretatea-Alba on the Black Sea coast of Moldova. The castle of Cetatea-Alba was a Byzantine fort originally known as Asprocastro.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Partitions_of_Moldavia.jpg/220px-Partitions_of_Moldavia.jpg
Territories of the medieval Principality of Moldavia are now split between Romania in blue, Moldova in green, and Ukraine in pink (Chernivtsi oblast and Budjak).

Bodin
21-08-11, 19:26
The Greek cities on the Black Sea, Pontus and Nicaea only sent relatively small groups of settlers to live in Wallachia and Moldova during the 14th century. Larger groups fled the Ottoman pogrom of the Empire of Trapezunda in the 1360's. Greeks were active in the region before this with a substantial shipping infrastructure having been developed from families primarily from South Greece (Peloponnese) and Crete. Many Greeks were merchants from Constantinople and Epirus, others were Greek Orthodox/Romanian Orthodox priests. Many Epirote families related to them still call themselves Romani or Vlach.

The Dragomans and Ottoman diplomats, governors were Greeks originally from the Greek community of Wallachia-Moldovan Principality. Some of these families kept records from the Byzantine Empire. The Greek War of Liberation's secret society was started by the Greek community from Phanar in Constantinople who held family estates in Wallachia-Moldova. A large number of Greek peasant population had developed from earlier Byzantine-era settlement. Serbian Orthodox soldiers had also settled here with the Byzantine military. The Greek shipping community traded along the Danube with the large Greek Orthodox community in Poland and Hungary.

The Greeks formed a significant settlement in Cretatea-Alba on the Black Sea coast of Moldova. The castle of Cetatea-Alba was a Byzantine fort originally known as Asprocastro.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Partitions_of_Moldavia.jpg/220px-Partitions_of_Moldavia.jpg
Territories of the medieval Principality of Moldavia are now split between Romania in blue, Moldova in green, and Ukraine in pink (Chernivtsi oblast and Budjak).
I remembered I have heard something about Greeks in Besarabia . Thanks for puting light on that part of Balkanic history . But all of Romanian and Moldavian R1b , J2 and E1b1b cannt be Greek , maybe small portion.

Dorianfinder
21-08-11, 21:25
I remembered I have heard something about Greeks in Besarabia . Thanks for puting light on that part of Balkanic history . But all of Romanian and Moldavian R1b , J2 and E1b1b cannt be Greek , maybe small portion.

We should never try to fit haplogroups to specific populations. Only in rare cases such as Wallachia and Moldova do we have a unique example of recent gene flow events we can use to justify some of the J2, E-V13 and R1b-U152 within the Greek-speaking Vlach population. The Romanian J2, E-V13 and much less R1b-U152 could be from a local diffusion of Vlach peoples, however not enough data is available to substantiate this.

Most of the time subclades are introduced during prehistoric times, this can be evidenced by levels of G throughout many countries at very low levels. Only in rare cases such as Moldova where the surrounding genetic composition is strikingly different can we use the verifiable and recent population movements to build a tentative case for the introduction of those unique markers not otherwise found in the broader region in similar quantities or with the same structure (genetic correlations). An alternative scenario for the elevated J2 is that it may have been introduced separately by Tatars from the East. However this is less likely as the structure of the region's genetic data suggests that J2 is found in direct correlation with R1b and E-V13. The Tataric peoples did not carry any R1b-U152 and E-V13, the E-V13 being attributed to the Balkans and the R1b-U152 attributed to the Roman or Dorian 'proto-Celtic' Greeks. Another scenario for U152 is also that it could have arrived with the Genoese who colonized Caffa, however this is unlikely too as the Genoese and Venetians arrived long after the Greek Vlach community was well established in the 10th century. Only the Greek and Roman population had similar admixture (J2, U152, E-V13) however I will lean towards the Greeks as the Vlachs have always used Greek and exclusively write in Greek with most of their vocabulary coming from the Demotic Greek spoken during the Byzantine Empire.

Thus, to summarize, I make the case using the genetic structure not found in the surrounding/neighboring population. Their frequencies, the unique aspects of Moldova and Wallachia and why they have always preferred independence rather than unite with either Ukraine or Romania. Also the unique linguistic traits the Moldovan and Wallachian Vlachs carry. Then geographically I explain how they arrived, from where and for what purpose using historical documentation of population movements. To close I add a final paragraph stating that most Vlachs today reside in the Greek Pindos mountain range with an estimated figure of 700 000 traditional Vlach whi still speak the Vlach language spoken in and developed in Moldovlachia.

The theory can never be beyond criticism and needs to comply with statistical validity and reliability protocols.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5082&d=1313614993

Bodin
21-08-11, 22:42
We should never try to fit haplogroups to specific populations. Only in rare cases such as Wallachia and Moldova do we have a unique example of recent gene flow events we can use to justify some of the J2, E-V13 and R1b-U152 within the Greek-speaking Vlach population. The Romanian J2, E-V13 and much less R1b-U152 could be from a local diffusion of Vlach peoples, however not enough data is available to substantiate this.

Most of the time subclades are introduced during prehistoric times, this can be evidenced by levels of G throughout many countries at very low levels. Only in rare cases such as Moldova where the surrounding genetic composition is strikingly different can we use the verifiable and recent population movements to build a tentative case for the introduction of those unique markers not otherwise found in the broader region in similar quantities or with the same structure (genetic correlations). An alternative scenario for the elevated J2 is that it may have been introduced separately by Tatars from the East. However this is less likely as the structure of the region's genetic data suggests that J2 is found in direct correlation with R1b and E-V13. The Tataric peoples did not carry any R1b-U152 and E-V13, the E-V13 being attributed to the Balkans and the R1b-U152 attributed to the Roman or Dorian 'proto-Celtic' Greeks. Another scenario for U152 is also that it could have arrived with the Genoese who colonized Caffa, however this is unlikely too as the Genoese and Venetians arrived long after the Greek Vlach community was well established in the 10th century. Only the Greek and Roman population had similar admixture (J2, U152, E-V13) however I will lean towards the Greeks as the Vlachs have always used Greek and exclusively write in Greek with most of their vocabulary coming from the Demotic Greek spoken during the Byzantine Empire.

Thus, to summarize, I make the case using the genetic structure not found in the surrounding/neighboring population. Their frequencies, the unique aspects of Moldova and Wallachia and why they have always preferred independence rather than unite with either Ukraine or Romania. Also the unique linguistic traits the Moldovan and Wallachian Vlachs carry. Then geographically I explain how they arrived, from where and for what purpose using historical documentation of population movements. To close I add a final paragraph stating that most Vlachs today reside in the Greek Pindos mountain range with an estimated figure of 700 000 traditional Vlach whi still speak the Vlach language spoken in and developed in Moldovlachia.

The theory can never be beyond criticism and needs to comply with statistical validity and reliability protocols.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5082&d=1313614993
I agre with everything you said. But if you to believe that "Most of the time subclades are introduced during prehistoric times, this can be evidenced by levels of G throughout many countries at very low levels. Only in rare cases such as Moldova where the surrounding genetic composition is strikingly different can we use the verifiable and recent population movements to build a tentative case for the introduction of those unique markers not otherwise found in the broader region in similar quantities or with the same structure (genetic correlations). " is true , why would you claim that I2a2-Din is Illyrian when Greeks and Albanians -old popultions have less I2a2 then Serbs and Croats-newcomers , also Mesapi population of southern Italy has no I2a2 and they are Illyrians that crossed Adriatic see. What we do know with some amount of confidence is that current I2a-Din is only about 2500 years old, that it has expanded a lot, and that it has a center of diversity that seems to be north of the Balkans ,its spread showing it is grouped wich indicate there was resettling in near future , while older haplogroups - E1b1b1 , G2a and mythohondrial are more evenly spreaded all over Europe..And also if I2a2 is Peleolitic old population would make more then 80% of today Serbs which is imposible - Hunic and Avaro-Slavic invasions , litle ice age and plague that killed 30% of empire population during Justinian rule. Do you atleast alow probability that I2a2 -Din settled with Croats ( and Serbs , but this tread is about Croats ).

Dorianfinder
22-08-11, 03:37
why would you claim that I2a2-Din is Illyrian when Greeks and Albanians -old popultions have less I2a2 then Serbs and Croats-newcomers

I agree, I did not suggest that I2a is Illyrian, if anything Illyrian genetic structure would have an admixture of older Balkan haplogroups with possibly a little bit more E-V13.

Bodin
22-08-11, 04:08
I agree, I did not suggest that I2a is Illyrian, if anything Illyrian genetic structure would have an admixture of older Balkan haplogroups with possibly a little bit more E-V13.
Than we agree . Thanks for answering

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 04:49
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region.
I have to correct you in this, it's true that Dalmatia and Herzegovina have hight amount of I2a2 HG, the highest... but also latest research in croatian capital Zagreb showed that 60% of population in Zagreb have I2a2 as dominant. :)

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 04:55
New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.


Unbeliveble propaganda... This is true that Dubrovnik people called themselfs only dubrovnik people and slavs, but this one of your propaganda's that people who migrated to Dalmatia during Ottoman occupation of Bosnia called themselfs only SLAVS is such a lie, they called themselfs as Croats those who were Catholics, due to a fact that in Bosnia before Ottoman occupation of Bosnia, Croats made same number of people and even higher than Serbians in Bosnia... I don't know have anyone noticed what are you trying to do here, you are trying to connect I2a2 HG in Balkan strictly to Serbians, and that my friend is not genetic, that's called propaganda and nationalism, even racism.

No matter what you say, the fact remains, today Croatia have higher percentage of I2a2 than Serbs, I'm not saying it's "our" HG, I'm saying only a fact... Your tryings to identify haplogroups with nationalism cannot have any place in serious genetic disccutions, because genetic is one thing and nations and ethnics are another.

Shetop
07-10-11, 08:07
but also latest research in croatian capital Zagreb showed that 60% of population in Zagreb have I2a2 as dominant. :)
Can you please provide some link where those research results can be seen?

zanipolo
07-10-11, 08:14
Unbeliveble propaganda... This is true that Dubrovnik people called themselfs only dubrovnik people and slavs, but this one of your propaganda's that people who migrated to Dalmatia during Ottoman occupation of Bosnia called themselfs only SLAVS is such a lie, they called themselfs as Croats those who were Catholics, due to a fact that in Bosnia before Ottoman occupation of Bosnia, Croats made same number of people and even higher than Serbians in Bosnia... I don't know have anyone noticed what are you trying to do here, you are trying to connect I2a2 HG in Balkan strictly to Serbians, and that my friend is not genetic, that's called propaganda and nationalism, even racism.

No matter what you say, the fact remains, today Croatia have higher percentage of I2a2 than Serbs, I'm not saying it's "our" HG, I'm saying only a fact... Your tryings to identify haplogroups with nationalism cannot have any place in serious genetic disccutions, because genetic is one thing and nations and ethnics are another.

Dubrovnik people ?...what is that...... do you know your history?.
it was called ragusa and the people where illyrians
Ragusa in those early medieval centuries had a population of Latinized Illyrians, who spoke their own romance Dalmatian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language) and was an island[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa#cite_note-10)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik

IIRC, Ragusa was changed to dubrovik in 1918

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 08:22
Dubrovnik people ?...what is that...... do you know your history?.
it was called ragusa and the people where illyrians
Ragusa in those early medieval centuries had a population of Latinized Illyrians, who spoke their own romance Dalmatian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language) and was an island[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa#cite_note-10)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik

IIRC, Ragusa was changed to dubrovik in 1918

HAHAHA, "Latinized Illyrians", oh boy... you would be a good Roman if you only lived in their time, because by your terms, everyone is that in which roman province he lived (in some particular roman province, in this case Illyricum), means that everyone from Histria to Epirus were Illyrians only because there is a roman province Illyricum, Jesus Christ...

Yes I know my history, and yes I know Dubrovnik was called Ragusa, and yes dubrovnik people called themselfs as dubrovčani in times of dubrovnik republic, but as you know, you don't know croatian so you cannot translate "dubrovčani" in exact terms what it means, so I've wroted "dubrovnik people"... to make you analogy, "dubrovčani" would mean somethin like when you say for people living in today New York as: "new yorkers".

And plz, leave a wiki when it comes about Dalmatian-latin language, ofcourse that language is latin origin, died 1898 with last speaker Udaina on croatian island KRK, but first of all, you don't know about ethnology of people in Dalmatia in last 2000 years or terms for a lot of them, all you know is qoute some high school terms as: "Illyrians", "Latinized Illyrians" and maybe something about Dalmatian latin language evolved from Latin, that's all, but if I would ask you that you say somethin to me about term Vlachs in Dalmatia and what brought that term in the first place what would you say? You would search a google for Vlachs in Romanian Wallachia or in Serbia and you would come here with answers...

Jesus...

zanipolo
07-10-11, 08:55
Next, why do you start history from the Roman period, did not ancient historians say the people where illyrians?
yes, illyrians where from epirus to the danube in the bronze age


Yes I know my history, and yes I know Dubrovnik was called Ragusa, and yes dubrovnik people called themselfs as dubrovčani in times of dubrovnik republic, but as you know, you don't know croatian so you cannot translate "dubrovčani" in exact terms what it means, so I've wroted "dubrovnik people"... to make you analogy, "dubrovčani" would mean somethin like when you say for people living in today New York as: "new yorkers".
your using modern terminology and you are discussing medieval times. Do you see me call the etruscan italians or the Romans italians or cimbri danish people. Stop trying to confuse people and use the names of the people at the times in question.



And plz, leave a wiki when it comes about Dalmatian-latin language, ofcourse that language is latin origin, died 1898 with last speaker Udaina on croatian island KRK, but first of all, you don't know about ethnology of people in Dalmatia in last 2000 years or terms for a lot of them, all you know is qoute some high school terms as: "Illyrians", "Latinized Illyrians" and maybe something about Dalmatian latin language evolved from Latin, that's all, but if I would ask you that you say somethin to me about term Vlachs in Dalmatia and what brought that term in the first place what would you say? You would search a google for Vlachs in Romanian Wallachia or in Serbia and you would come here with answers...

Jesus...Yes that language died in 1898 so you answered your own question, so In the medieval times there where no dubroviks/ians

You do know about Desislava , in 1189 as the last ruler of Zeta sought refuge amongst the ragusans fleeing from Nemanja as he acquired Hum ( zuhumlje).
You do know that ragusa was a norman vassal state in 1186 and that the normans aided the ragusans against Nemanja. Nemanja signed the peace treaty on 27 September 1186. As Nemanja stated in the treaty, Ragusa, in the lands of Lord King William, the Norman ruler of Sicily ..........I do not follow wiki unless I can back it up with other non-wiki information

Enlighten me with some links. I will be waiting

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 11:00
@Zanipolo, I really don't want to continue this "debate" over "nothing", this was a subject about Croatians and still is, and I don't want to use term Illyrians for any autohtone pre-roman tribes northern of today Montenegro, and I'm not the only with this opinion when it comes about term "Illyrians". Term Illyrians is to general term and often use in general discussion and this is not thread about Illyrians...

When it comes about this thread, in simple terms of words, today Croatians are, by genetic, half slavs and half autohtone people of this area, that's it... slavs by HG R1a (because it's common in most of slavic nations) and autohtone by I2a2, and can you tell me, if we know, and we know, that I2a2 was on this area long time before Croats ever came here and mixed with people from whom we (croats) adopted this HG I2a2, so we can assume that "your Illyrians" northern from today Montenegro were carriers of that same I2a2 haplogroup, how can it be that today Albanians have less than 10% of that same HG? explain that to me?

zanipolo
07-10-11, 11:08
@Zanipolo, I really don't want to continue this "debate" over "nothing", this was a subject about Croatians and still is, and I don't want to use term Illyrians for any autohtone pre-roman tribes northern of today Montenegro, and I'm not the only with this opinion when it comes about term "Illyrians". Term Illyrians is to general term and often use in general discussion and this is not thread about Illyrians...

When it comes about this thread, in simple terms of words, today Croatians are, by genetic, half slavs and half autohtone people of this area, that's it... slavs by HG R1a (because it's common in most of slavic nations) and autohtone by I2a2, and can you tell me, if we know, and we know, that I2a2 was on this area long time before Croats ever came here and mixed with people from whom we (croats) adopted this HG I2a2, so we can assume that "your Illyrians" northern from today Montenegro were carriers of that same I2a2 haplogroup, how can it be that today Albanians have less than 10% of that same HG? explain that to me?


Because ancient historians say the "albanians" where Molossians or Epirotes and what you say are Albanians migrated into Epirote lands. In ancient times North of epirote lands where illyrians, be them dalmatian, liburnian, pannonian etc etc.
So, albanians today want to be classified illyrian , but they do not have the genetics to be illyrians.
I do agree that croatians have an illyrian mix, but tell me where craots are from ...............some croats say they are goths , some say they came from iranian tribes.

I just hope you do not believe that propaganda book ...Srbi..narod najstariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 11:22
Because ancient historians say the "albanians" where Molossians or Epirotes and what you say are Albanians migrated into Epirote lands. In ancient times North of epirote lands where illyrians, be them dalmatian, liburnian, pannonian etc etc.
So, albanians today want to be classified illyrian , but they do not have the genetics to be illyrians.
I do agree that croatians have an illyrian mix, but tell me where craots are from ...............some croats say they are goths , some say they came from iranian tribes.

I just hope you do not believe that propaganda book ...Srbi..narod najstariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic

I don't belive in propaganda's :) I just told to you about what Croats are by genetic, now I will tell you what are Croats by ethno origin... one theory is that Croats are just one of the slavic tribes migrating from eastern Europe trough central and finally coming to today Croatia where they mixing themselfs with autohtone people, romanized ex-roman empire citizens...This theory is most adopted today in almost every serious archeological or history universities in Europe.

Another theory is that Croats were one of the Sarmatian tribes, and that name Croat is deriving from term Sarmat, now... I'm speaking here about Sarmatians, not about some general Persian-Iranic people from Asia, but about Sarmatians as european "branch" of Scyhtians. Even if this second theory is true, Croats when they came to present day Croatia in 7th century were totally slavicized tribe, and Goth "theory" about Croats is nothin more but a lie and propaganda, Croats have nothing to do with Goths, maybe some slight genetical influence from Goths but nothin worth mentioning...

It's enough to say that when Goths were rulling present day Croatia from Italy (OstroGoths State) in 5th and early 6th century, were never a majority in area of today croatia, only a rulling cast, evidences from that we have in Archeology, from some sites like cemetaries from that period where we can see for example on cemetary knin-greblje in today Croatia (Dalmatia) from 5th and 6th century, that from 200 graves, only 3 are ostrogothic and 197 are autohtone dalmatian from romanized people.

"Gothic theory" about Croatians is rejected theory for a long time in any serious archeological or history circles..., the official thesis about Croats today adopted in majority of european universities is this: Croats were a slavic tribe who in 7th century came to present day Croatia and mixed themselfs with ex-roman citizens of this area, pre-croatian population, because of that, Croats have today dominant HG I2a2 and not R1a, even though R1a is second dominant HG in Croatians, so you can say that today Croats are in fact in majority of cases that autohtone people before original Croats even came to this area in 7th century, I hope you understand what I want to say... :)

About that books "srbi ... narod najstariji", well... I don't have anything to say about that except that I don't belive in science fiction :D

Yetos
07-10-11, 14:00
so my believes are correct when I say that Bosnians Croatians and Serbs are the same people-nation divided by religion and politics?

I exclude dalmatians and some Monte-Negrins

Dale Cooper
07-10-11, 19:24
so my believes are correct when I say that Bosnians Croatians and Serbs are the same people-nation divided by religion and politics?

I exclude dalmatians and some Monte-Negrins

No, Croats and Serbs are different nations, pay attention to word nation, but Croats and Serbs are from same origin, but two different tribes, very similar...but today have different states, just like Norge and Swedish people :)

Anyway...I'm dalmatian Croatian :)

Bodin
23-10-11, 23:13
First : prove that Dubrovčani ( or Zadrani ) ever called themselves Croats and that they were Croats . Second : Illyrians lived egzactly
in today Dalmatia , Albania was mixed Illyro -Thracian aeria . Third : prove Sarmathians were Scythian branch . Four : it is scientificaly accepted that only ruling cast of Ostrogoths went to Italy while people stayed on Balkans where they lived before 496 - that is why I1 is so high in Serbs and Croats . Fifth : prove Croats were Slavicized before ariving to Balkan - yes they speacked Slavic languague , but they archeology is totaly diferent than Slavic

Bodin
23-10-11, 23:16
No, Croats and Serbs are different nations, pay attention to word nation, but Croats and Serbs are from same origin, but two different tribes, very similar...but today have different states, just like Norge and Swedish people :)

Anyway...I'm dalmatian Croatian :)
This is very good explanation

Devils Advocate
06-11-11, 04:57
are we talking about the Dalmatians here or Croatia? Because Dalmatians have been in the balkans as long as the albanians, I'm not sure the closeness of their languages, but they are surely an illyrian tribe. I'd believe part of todays Croatia are slavs, while there rest are slavinized dalmatians.

You'll have to excuse me if I've offended anyone with my thinking.

zanipolo
07-11-11, 21:42
are we talking about the Dalmatians here or Croatia? Because Dalmatians have been in the balkans as long as the albanians, I'm not sure the closeness of their languages, but they are surely an illyrian tribe. I'd believe part of todays Croatia are slavs, while there rest are slavinized dalmatians.

You'll have to excuse me if I've offended anyone with my thinking.

The biggest "illyrian tribe" was the Dalmatians, followed by the Liburnians . these people where different from each other but recognised in the ancient and modern worlds as Illyrian. There is a possibility ( recent studies), that illyrian represents a linguistic ( maybe even a loose confederation ) and not a cultural group of tribes similar to what celtic was in the ancient times

Eldritch
19-04-12, 16:36
They obviously are since haplogroup percentages match.

Eldritch
05-09-12, 13:16
The fact that they probably have the highest I2a1b + R1a in the region is enough to say they're among the most Slavic Balkan nations.

Gosh
06-09-12, 20:09
The question above has always been talked about when visiting croatian friends/families. The arguements range from being forced to become slavic or not. An alphabet ( slovenians as well) which has always been Latin based instead of Cyrillic based. A religion from the west roman empire - Catholic instead of the East Roamn Empire - Orthodox.

Anyway after reading many books, I decided to ask the question to the slavs in this forum. Link below is interesting



Croats are pure Slavs but their name isn't Slavic. They've got them from some non-slavic tribe from the east.

BTW cyrillic was the main script in the southern part of Croatia (Dalmatia) although they were Catholics!

GloomyGonzales
06-09-12, 20:57
The genetic structure of Western Balkan populations based on autosomal and haploid markers. K. Tambets1, L. Kovacevic1,2,3, D. Primorac4, G. Lauc5, A. Leskovac6, Z. Jakovski7, K. Drobnic8, S. Kovacevic9, T. Bego10, E. Metspalu11, D. Marjanovic2,5, R. Villems1,11 1) Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia; 2) Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 3) Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 4) University Center of Forensic Science, Split, Croatia; 5) Genos doo, Zagreb, Croatia; 6) Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia; 7) Institute of forensic medicine, criminology and medical deontology and Medical Faculty, University of "St. Cyril and Methodious", Skopje, Republic of Macedonia; 8) Faculty for Justice and Security, Ljubljana, Slovenia; 9) Forensic Center, Bozova glavica, Danilovgrad, Montenegro; 10) Faculty of Farmacy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 11) University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

Contemporary inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula belong to several ethnic groups of diverse cultural backgrounds. In this study, three ethnic groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina - Bosniacs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs - and four other Slavic-speaking Western Balkan populations: Serbians, Croatians, Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrins, and Albanian-speaking Kosovars have been characterized for the genetic variation of 660 000 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genetic structuring of Western Balkan populations has been analyzed in a global context. Comparison of the variation within autosomal and haploid data sets of studied Western Balkan populations revealed their genetic closeness regardless of a genetic system inspected, in particular among the Slavic speakers. Hence, culturally diverse Western Balkan populations are genetically very similar to each other. Only the Kosovars show slight differences both in the variance of autosomal and uniparentally inherited markers from the other populations of the region, possibly also due to their historically strict patrilineality.

how yes no 3
14-04-13, 09:04
Celtic?

some interesting data about I2c haplogroup and theory about making of Slavs

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26803-I2c-frequency-and-diversity-maps

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28516-Serbs-and-Croats-origin-from-Germanic-Scirii-and-Hirri (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28516-Serbs-and-Croats-origin-from-Germanic-Scirii-and-Hirri)

adamo
14-04-13, 16:02
I agree with zanipolos first post. No Croats where not originally Slavs they received later Slavic migrations. They're predominantly indigenous to the Balkans or have been there since god knows when. Some people here are saying I2a2 is Slavic or something, I don't think it's Slavic I just think that it followed/moved around with later Slavs that arrived but it was not originally an incoming Slavic genetic marker, it was heavily influenced by Slavs and some subclades may have been deeply culturally mixed with and followed these incoming Slavs to other Slavic areas they allied with and culturally prospered with theses coming R1a men this "making of Slavs" is linked to Ukrainian refuge/ Russian steppes R1a men that poured into Europe and meeting some indigenous balkanian I men in certain locales, this is evident because on any genetic map you look I-M170 and the R-M173 took totally different routes into Europe not even together with the R1 men going around Central Asia and through Russia and the I men from Anatolia to Balkans and then one branch going north etc. the only exception would be I don't know but if I-M170 came through Caucasus and then hugging the Black Sea coast and arriving through Ukraine to Moldova. But even then I don't think the I and R1 even moved during same time period I think I was already in Europe like 25,000 years ago the r1 guys was still in Central Asia crossing the Russian steppes?

adamo
14-04-13, 16:14
I think culturally Croats are pure Slavs but the genetics shows they have predominant indigenous element 40% with heavy Slavic influence 30-35% 1a.

Vedun
23-05-14, 12:25
Slavic people were different groups, separated by several antique authors (such was Jordanes) as: Antes (current Ukrainians), Sloveni - this is the word from where later artificial form "Slavs" came from, which is a name for only 1 nation; Slovenes & Slovaks (both speak "Sloven-ski" language); a transliteration through Greek and Latin: Σκλαύηνοι (Sklaunvoi; "sklaVENoi") or Sclaueni (lat.) or even Sthlaueni (transmutation of kl into soft TL)) and Veneti. (also check the cultures among "Amber road" ).

The word SkloVen (and later transmutation of Sloven) derives from 2 different tribes of Slavic people: 1) Herodotus's Skolotoi (a greek transliteration, transmutation of Slavic Sokoloti or Sokoli (Falcons) this is "Scythian" (another form of Slavic Sokoli(current Ukrainians; of the tribe Antes) was Scythian or Skitian; Skot; catt-le; Kot; cat; skotiti; "kotiti", "kotati"; "to turn around" (like a cat on the floor; giving a birth (in the animal kingdom). and 2) Ven which is "Venet".
When the Antes were seeking Venetic brides in the west from 1-9th century their descendants called themselves "Skloveni" ("scythian venetic" people around Danube; Donava (which was intentionally named after Russian river "Don")...
With other words; the patrimonial (tribes, groups) with marker R1a1a were arriving to the territories with the I2 haplo groups.

Dalmat
03-06-14, 11:59
Croats are pure Slavs but their name isn't Slavic. They've got them from some non-slavic tribe from the east.

BTW cyrillic was the main script in the southern part of Croatia (Dalmatia) although they were Catholics!


you are funny guy

Gosh
04-06-14, 13:16
why do you think so? Try to explain.

albanopolis
04-06-14, 15:52
Never take Wikipedia seriously. It is written by those who support official history. Propaganda tool ...

iapodos said in short how things really are.

Who are Croats?

Well, some are croatised Serbs, some croatised Vlahs or Romanians, Goths, Celtcs, Sarmatians, Avars, and so on, and so on...
None of the above! They are croatised Illyrians! If you want to read history! So Croats are mixture of Illyrian with slavs. Croatians have known this for a while. There was a time when they called themselves Illirci.

Dalmat
05-06-14, 04:43
why do you think so? Try to explain.

Cyrilics was never main script, not even close, it was Glagolithic, until around 16.th century., and from there on we were bi-literal, Glagolitic/Latin

There was a small influction of semi-cyrilic script called (H)Arvatica(Croatica), or Bosančica(Bosnica), which was fusion of Glagolitic and Cyrillic script, but that was rather short period

Glagolitic script remained in use until 19.th century, when it was completely replaced with latin.


In fact the oldest Croatian records and scripts come almost always written in Glagolitic, and all of them are mostly from Dalmatia, from 1000 of them, only one was written in Arvatica


Also Hrvat has meanings in our language, and 2 most probable solutions are:

Hrbat-mountain chain, makes sense, as we actually live on mountain chain
Hrvati se- to wrestle, fight, could designate those of fighting elite, Hrvati-those who fight, or nobility in middle ages


While Srb has no meaning in your language as I am aware of, closest thing would be Serf

Sile
14-07-14, 11:51
i have seen croatian people, many of them look germanic. i heard they have austrian ancestor. i dont believe they are mostly slavic as like serbian people

Croatians are a few centuries older than Austrians

Gosh
14-07-14, 23:10
[QUOTE]
Cyrilics was never main script, not even close, it was Glagolithic, until around 16.th century., and from there on we were bi-literal, Glagolitic/Latin

Thatžs not true for the region of southern Dalmatia. A large parts of Dalmatian coast were under the rule of Byzant long after south Slavs came there.




There was a small influction of semi-cyrilic script called (H)Arvatica(Croatica), or Bosančica(Bosnica), which was fusion of Glagolitic and Cyrillic script, but that was rather short period

it is a fake story made by your "scientists" which wanted to separate Croats from Serbs as much as it possible (and even more). Your "Harvatica" and "Bosnica" are just a small variation of the main church-slavonic script. According to you, every village could have its own script.




Glagolitic script remained in use until 19.th century, when it was completely replaced with latin.

Glagolic script existed, that's not a problem. But, be so nice to search for documents from southern Dalmatia. Can we see what's the main language of Dubrovnik (except italian latin, of course)


In fact the oldest Croatian records and scripts come almost always written in Glagolitic, and all of them are mostly from Dalmatia, from 1000 of them, only one was written in Arvatica



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Humacka_ploca_2v.jpg

what's this?
Can you explain, what's the difference between "croatian" and "mainstream" cyrillic? Can you give a source which will prove that medieval Croats called that script as "Croatian cyrillic"?



Also Hrvat has meanings in our language, and 2 most probable solutions are:

Hrbat-mountain chain, makes sense, as we actually live on mountain chain
Hrvati se- to wrestle, fight, could designate those of fighting elite, Hrvati-those who fight, or nobility in middle ages

it is just a hypothesis, nothing else. My own opinion is that Croats has name from Iranian language. But Croats (as ethnicity) are Slavs, no doubt.
Something like this:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-WDYdiGGIJec/R1wE4o2kPvI/AAAAAAAAAF8/Ud8TL8cP2C8/HR-povijesna-PODRIJETLO%252520I%252520SEOBA%252520HRVATA.jpg



While Srb has no meaning in your language as I am aware of, closest thing would be Serf

To be honest, I didn't understand you very well about this. Why Russian language have to have word for Serbs?

Slavonac
15-08-14, 23:22
Cyrilics was never main script, not even close, it was Glagolithic, until around 16.th century., and from there on we were bi-literal, Glagolitic/Latin

There was a small influction of semi-cyrilic script called (H)Arvatica(Croatica), or Bosančica(Bosnica), which was fusion of Glagolitic and Cyrillic script, but that was rather short period

Glagolitic script remained in use until 19.th century, when it was completely replaced with latin.


In fact the oldest Croatian records and scripts come almost always written in Glagolitic, and all of them are mostly from Dalmatia, from 1000 of them, only one was written in Arvatica


Also Hrvat has meanings in our language, and 2 most probable solutions are:

Hrbat-mountain chain, makes sense, as we actually live on mountain chain
Hrvati se- to wrestle, fight, could designate those of fighting elite, Hrvati-those who fight, or nobility in middle ages


While Srb has no meaning in your language as I am aware of, closest thing would be Serf

Im Croatian and I have to say you dont speak truth because you are aproaching this with emotions. Cyrilics WAS MAIN script of Dalmatians in middle ages(glagoljica was mainly on islands) and it was called BOSANICA or BOSANČICA never Harvatica(which you made up).

To all in this discussion Croatia should be devided in few parts Slavonia, Dalmatia, Zagorje or discussion of genetics have no sence. Differences between these regions are so big that you could consider them as little countries. These lands were long time parts of different kingdoms and they are culturally not similar.

Italians influence- Dalmatia
German and Magyar influence- Zagorje, Slavonia

I dont even think originaly Croatians were I2a1 but maybe some other and that minory had bigger influence over majority. And every connecting between modern nation or ethnicity with haplogruops are non sence if you try to say nation is pure one haplogruop.

Vedun
17-09-14, 11:56
Of course they were always Slavs. Horovati or Horvati and their relatives Sorbati or Sorbi or Srbi. (transmutation of H into S and B into V). They were Hribati or Gorovati or Horovati & from Gore (mountains) / Hrbti - chrbát (back; rursus) in area around Karpati / Carpathian mountains...

Tomenable
17-09-14, 19:23
Anatolian chevalier,

Austrians themselves are genetically more Slavic than Germanic, and more Celtic (Hallstatt) than Slavic.

Austrians are Celtic > Slavic > Germanic, but for example people from Graz (southern Styria) and Carinthia are mostly Slavic.

In Graz only 14% have R1b and 43% have R1a (study by Kalevi Wiik, 2008) - more R1a than in East Germany.

Apart from German-speaking Austrians with Slavic ancestry, there are also actual Slavic minorities in Burgenland & Carinthia.

=========================

Croat haplogroups:

We notice, that:

1) R1a-Z280 is common for all Slavs & Balts
2) I2a1b is common or quite common for all Slavs
3) M458 is common or quite common for all Slavs
4) L260 is only common for West Slavs
4) Z92 is only common for East Slavs
5) N1c1 is very common only for Balts

http://s11.postimg.org/khn67kfjn/R1a_Slavs_2.png

Z92 originated from Z280 while L260 originated from M458.

This map shows distribution of M458 including L260 (green):

http://s16.postimg.org/f6grrbsdh/CE_and_WS.png

==============================================

It seems that Z280 existed already among Balto-Slavs, yet before they split into Slavs and Balts.

M458 and I2a1b in my opinion also existed already among LCS people*, but most likely not only among them.

*LCS = Late Common Slavic, speakers of Slavic shortly before the great Slavic migrations and expansion.

===========

Do you think it is possible that Balto-Slavs or Early Slavs / LCS speakers had also some I1?

How to explain almost equal distribution of I1 among Croats, West Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians (4,5 - 5,6 % each)?

On the other hand Russians and Poles each have few percent more of I1 than the four groups mentioned above.

Tomenable
17-09-14, 20:52
Dalmatians where illyrian people with there own language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

That said, at least from the 1500s "Dalmatian" was a name applied to a local Slavic language spoken in that region.

Comparison from 1603 of several languages, of which five (12. to 16.) are Slavic, and one of them is "Dalmatian" (13.):

http://s7.postimg.org/h2mpvlvzv/Dalmatian.png

It is a page from a 1603 work by German linguist Hieronymus Megiser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Megiser

Sile
17-09-14, 21:28
That said, at least from the 1500s "Dalmatian" was a name applied to a local Slavic language spoken in that region.


that said you speak English.........are you English?

Its only because the slavs have a tendency to claim ownership of something they never created ( same as albanians, maybe they are the same race) . But as stated the last person who spoke Dalmatian died in 1898. Dubrovnik was originally Ragussa, nothing in that place is slavic built , all the ancient works from Roman times to the 20th century has no slavic building alond any of the adriatic coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik

We even know that istria was Italian until 1977 , it was never slavic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Osimo

So, I do not know why you are beating your chest!...............show me one ancient place that the slavs built on the adriatic coast

Ike
17-09-14, 21:31
Of course they were always Slavs. Horovati or Horvati and their relatives Sorbati or Sorbi or Srbi. (transmutation of H into S and B into V). They were Hribati or Gorovati or Horovati & from Gore (mountains) / Hrbti - chrbát (back; rursus) in area around Karpati / Carpathian mountains...

That's the most funny thing, because according to palatalization: HRV>HRB>SRB is totally acceptable. It can be the same word.

Tomenable
17-09-14, 22:55
are you English?

I have my ethnicity in my profile, man. I'm Polish from Lithuania - like these guys:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfg4Xo6zpDM


same as albanians, maybe they are the same race

Albanians AFAIK are primarily Europid, so yes - they are of the same race as you and me.

Maybe they have a different "sub-race", but race is the same.

I know personally only one Albanian guy, so I can't tell you much about Albanians. But it seems to me that Albanians are more swarthy than most Slavs and Balts (well, certainly that one was), even than Southern Slavs. Southern Slavs today - especially South-Eastern ones - are darker than their ancestors 1000 years ago. You might want to check my thread from The Apricity Forums (my nick on that forum is Litvin), "Early Slavic phenotypes":

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134398-Early-Slavic-phenotypes-%286th-10th-centuries%29

When it comes to South Slavs - I find Slovenes & Croats most similar in appearance to Poles. Bulgarians are most different in appearance.


But as stated the last person who spoke Dalmatian died in 1898.

So what ???

The last person who spoke Prussian* died after 1711, but German dialects spoken in Prussia were called "Prussian" already long before that.

*One of Baltic languages, related to Lithuanian and Latvian.


Dubrovnik was originally Ragussa, nothing in that place is slavic

It was called Ragussa but it was Slavicized centuries ago and therefore plenty of things there are Slavic. For example the main Croat Baroque poet was from that place, and he wrote an epic Pan-Slavic poem "Osman" which was about Polish-Cossack victory over Turks at Khotyn in 1621:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_%281621%29


show me one ancient place that the slavs built on the adriatic coast

How could Croats build anything in Ancient Era, if Croats migrated to the Balkans from the north during the 7th century ???

They migrated from so called "White Croatia", which was somewhere at the Carpathian Mountains - could be in Southern Poland.

De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetosdescribes how Slavs - Croats - captured Dalmatia:

"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possesson of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"

==================================================

Some selected quotes from ancient sources which describe Slavic invasions of the Balkans during the 6th and the 7th centuries:

Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in year 545 AD:

"(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and these Sclaveni enslaved a very great number of Romans. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sklavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I estimate 200,000 Romans were either took as prisoners or killed (...)"

Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion:

"(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man brave enough to undertake this task. (...)"

Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy from year 599:

"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)"

And according to Priscus of Panium, in 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece.

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations - a defeat, and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping. (...) After all garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other one of barbarian armies, one of enemy bands fought against troops of Asbados. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbados himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that the Slavs were plundering all neighbouring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbados, later plundered in turn everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)"

John of Ephesus:

"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

Menander Protector:

"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)"

Strategikon of Maurice:

"(...) Slavs do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

Jordanes:

"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sklaveni, who are accustomed to conceal themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practising this in their native haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)"

Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134:

"(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were repulsed in the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not far from its banks. (...)"

And these are just a few examples out of many.

There are many more sources which write about Slavic invasions of the Balkans.

According to sources already in 547 AD Slavic tribes invaded as far as Durazzo (Dyrrachium / Durres).

Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th century Sephardic Jewish traveller from Muslim Spain):

"(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...) Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)"

Sile
17-09-14, 23:31
I have my ethnicity in my profile, man. I'm Polish from Lithuania - like these guys:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfg4Xo6zpDM



Albanians AFAIK are primarily Europid, so yes - they are of the same race as you and me.

Maybe they have a different "sub-race", but race is the same.

I know personally only one Albanian guy, so I can't tell you much about Albanians. But it seems to me that Albanians are more swarthy than most Slavs and Balts (well, certainly that one was), even than Southern Slavs. Southern Slavs today - especially South-Eastern ones - are darker than their ancestors 1000 years ago. You might want to check my thread from The Apricity Forums (my nick on that forum is Litvin), "Early Slavic phenotypes":

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?134398-Early-Slavic-phenotypes-%286th-10th-centuries%29

When it comes to South Slavs - I find Slovenes & Croats most similar in appearance to Poles. Bulgarians are most different in appearance.



So what ???

The last person who spoke Prussian* died after 1711, but German dialects spoken in Prussia were called "Prussian" already long before that.

*One of Baltic languages, related to Lithuanian and Latvian.



It was called Ragussa but it was Slavicized centuries ago and therefore plenty of things there are Slavic. For example the main Croat Baroque poet was from that place, and he wrote an epic Pan-Slavic poem "Osman" which was about Polish-Cossack victory over Turks at Khotyn in 1621:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_%281621%29



How could Croats build anything in Ancient Era, if Croats migrated to the Balkans from the north during the 7th century ???

They migrated from so called "White Croatia", which was somewhere at the Carpathian Mountains - could be in Southern Poland.

De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetosdescribes how Slavs - Croats - captured Dalmatia:

"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possesson of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"

==================================================

Some selected quotes from ancient sources which describe Slavic invasions of the Balkans during the 6th and the 7th centuries:

Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in year 545 AD:

"(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and these Sclaveni enslaved a very great number of Romans. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sklavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I estimate 200,000 Romans were either took as prisoners or killed (...)"

Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion:

"(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man brave enough to undertake this task. (...)"

Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy from year 599:

"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)"

And according to Priscus of Panium, in 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece.

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations - a defeat, and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping. (...) After all garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other one of barbarian armies, one of enemy bands fought against troops of Asbados. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbados himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that the Slavs were plundering all neighbouring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbados, later plundered in turn everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)"

John of Ephesus:

"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

Menander Protector:

"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)"

Strategikon of Maurice:

"(...) They do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

Jordanes:

"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sklaveni, who are accustomed to conceal themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practising this in their native haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)"

Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134:

"(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were repulsed in the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not far from its banks. (...)"

De Administrando Imperio:

"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possesson of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"

And these are just a few examples out of many.

There are many more sources which write about Slavic invasions of the Balkans.

According to sources already in 547 AD Slavic tribes invaded as far as Durazzo (Dyrrachium / Durres).

Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th century Sephardic Jewish traveller from Muslim Spain):

"(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...) Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not their internal discord and lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)"

Don't take the Glory of extinct ethnicity/cultures as your own

Tomenable
17-09-14, 23:32
Let's add that Slavic invasion and colonization of the Balkans was not just one event (just like Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain was not just "boom!, and here we are", but it lasted for many generations). It was gradual and lasted for about 200 - 250 years (from ca. year 500 to ca. year 700 - 750). Serbs, for example, most probably came as part of one of later waves, probably after year 630. And Lusatian Sorbs who live in Germany today, have some common ancestors with Balkan Serbs. But those ancestors did not live in East Germany but in Czechoslovakia - that's where the tribe formed itself and adopted it's name (before that they probably lived even further east, considering that it is assumed that Slavs came from Belarus-Ukraine). And one group migrated from Czechoslovakia to East Germany, while the other group migrated from Czechoslovakia to the Balkans. This map shows migrations of selected Slavic peoples during the late 6th - early 8th centuries (it doesn't show migrations during the 5th and early-to-mid 6th centuries):

http://s2.postimg.org/atfej69o9/Slav_migrations_VI_VII_cent.png

Tomenable
17-09-14, 23:47
extinct ethnicity/cultures as your own

I don't understand ??? My ethnicity / culture is not extinct. What do you mean?

Edit:

I wrote: "This map shows migrations of selected Slavic peoples during the late 6th - early 8th centuries (it doesn't show migrations during the 5th and early-to-mid 6th centuries)"

Here are maps for earlier times - Slavic tribes migrating into Poland from which they drove away Germanic tribes (those who had not emigrated):

http://s22.postimg.org/tawixhs9t/Sengebusch1.png

Later Avars came and started driving away some of Slavic tribes (maybe this accelerated Croat-Serb migrations to Germany/Balkans):

http://s11.postimg.org/61o60qr37/Sengebusch2.png

Maps come from "Germanie na ziemiach polskich w zaraniu średniowiecza" ("Germanic peoples in Polish lands at the beginning of the Middle Ages") by historian Adam Sengebusch.

Sengebusch wrote:

"(...) It is estimated that by the end of the 4th century population of Poland numbered ca. 600,000 people. Taking into account disturbances connected with the Hunnic invasion and subsequent, after their defeat, emigration movements of population to more attractive areas we can estimate, that during the period of Slavic expansion there were still around 150,000 - 250,000 Germanic people between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathians and between the Bug and the Oder Rivers. Some part of them decided to escape, some others died, some others were absorbed by Slavic invaders. (...)"

Tomenable
18-09-14, 00:14
West Slavs were called Wends by Germans & Finns (Wenden & Venäja) - maybe after ancient Venedi, who lived to the south of the Baltic Sea.

But it is assumed that those Baltic Venedi were not originally Slavic-speakers, but became absorbed (assimilated) by early Slavs.

There are some thoeries which say that they spoke Venedic language, which was an extinct Indo-European language.

Don't confuse these Baltic Venedi with several other tribes of very similar names, but from completely different regions:

Region (Ancient region) - name of people [selected examples of Ancient historians who mentioned them]:

1) In Asia Minor (Paphlagonia) - Eneti [Homer], Heneti [Strabo]

2) In Italy (Latium) - Venetulani [Pliny the Elder]

3) In Balkans (Illyricum and on the Adriatic) - Enetoi [Herodotus]

4) In France (Gaul) - Veneti [Julius Caesar; Strabo]

5) In Poland & Belarus (Sarmatia Europea) - Venedae / Ouenedai [Ptolemy], Sarmatae Venedi [Pliny the Elder], Venedi [Tacitus]

We don't know if all those people were related to each other or spoke similar language, or not.

Maybe they were not related, but had similar names due to living in similar homelands, and those names had similar meaning:


According to Julius Pokorný, the ethnonym Venetī (singular *Venetos) is derived from Proto Indo-European root *u̯en- 'to strive; to wish for, to love'. As shown by the comparative material, Germanic languages had two terms of different origin: Old High German Winida 'Wende' points to Pre-Germanic *Venétos, while Lat.-Germ. Venedi (as attested in Tacitus) and Old English Winedas 'Wends' call for Pre-Germanic *Venetós. Etymologically related words include Latin venus, -eris 'love, passion, grace'; Sanskrit vanas- 'lust, zest', vani- 'wish, desire'; Old Irish fine (< Proto-Celtic *venjā) 'kinship, kinfolk, alliance, tribe, family'; Old Norse vinr, Old Saxon, Old High German wini, Old Frisian, Old English wine 'Friend'.[4]

Slavic peoples called Venedi appear during the 6th century, but they also didn't have to be related to the other ones of similar names:

Jordanes (6th century) about Slavs:


These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though springing from one bloodline, have now taken on three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes.

Procopius (6th century) about Slavs:


For these nations, the Sclaveni and the Antae, are not ruled by one man, but they have lived from of old under a democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people. It is also true that in all other matters, practically speaking, these two barbarian peoples have had from ancient times the same institutions and customs. (...) And both the two peoples have also the same language (...) In fact, the Sclaveni and the Antae actually had a single name in the remote past.

Sile
18-09-14, 01:01
West Slavs were called Wends by Germans & Finns (Wenden & Venäja) - maybe after ancient Venedi, who lived to the south of the Baltic Sea.

But it is assumed that those Baltic Venedi were not originally Slavic-speakers, but became absorbed (assimilated) by early Slavs.

There are some thoeries which say that they spoke Venedic language, which was an extinct Indo-European language.

Don't confuse these Baltic Venedi with several other tribes of very similar names, but from completely different regions:

Region (Ancient region) - name of people [selected examples of Ancient historians who mentioned them]:

1) In Asia Minor (Paphlagonia) - Eneti [Homer], Heneti [Strabo]

2) In Italy (Latium) - Venetulani [Pliny the Elder]

3) In Balkans (Illyricum and on the Adriatic) - Enetoi [Herodotus]

4) In France (Gaul) - Veneti [Julius Caesar; Strabo]

5) In Poland & Belarus (Sarmatia Europea) - Venedae / Ouenedai [Ptolemy], Sarmatae Venedi [Pliny the Elder], Venedi [Tacitus]

We don't know if all those people were related to each other or spoke similar language, or not.

Maybe they were not related, but had similar names due to living in similar homelands, and those names had similar meaning:



Slavic peoples called Venedi appear during the 6th century, but they also didn't have to be related to the other ones of similar names:

Jordanes (6th century) about Slavs:



Procopius (6th century) about Slavs:


I am not confused with the term Veneti.

The baltic-Veneti are west-baltic culture who disappeared from the face of history around 200AD when they got absorbed into gothic society. they are lower vistula society.

The Veleti are upper vistula society who migrated as per your map to modern mecklenburg and got absorbed into Saxon society around the time of the wendish crusades ( circa 11th century )

No Greek or Roman historian ever used 2 words for naming of one tribe .............format was one word is one tribe, 2 words describes geographical area ie, montes bastanae , montes sarmatae etc etc

there is no documentation in latin by anyone that joins any two words into the meaning of one tribe


the Ouendedai are the Veleti people of mecklenburg and these people where claimed into Swedish Monarchy ownership ( not to say they where swedes)

there is also Veneti named tribes with extended letters in Portugal and Scotland......

Tomenable
18-09-14, 01:08
Veleti (Wieleci) was a Polabian Slavic ethnos during the Middle Ages, but I wasn't talking about them, but about Wends which was a more general term for Western Slavs. Polabian Slavs spoke Lechitic languages (Northern group of West Slavic languages), very similar to Polish & Kashubian. On the other hand, Lusatian Sorbs spoke (and still speak) a language more closely related to Czech and Slovak.


around the time of the wendish crusades ( circa 11th century )

Wendish Crusades (crusades against Wends - Obodrites, Veleti, etc. West Slavs) were during the 12th century. Absorption of the Veleti (and partially extermination) lasted until the 17th-18th centuries, when their language totally disappeared:

This map shows majority Polabian-speaking (not Sorbian) areas in the 1500s and the 1600s (white = areas mostly Germanized before 1500):

http://s29.postimg.org/9w7fjq5on/Polabians_small.png

Slavic language in area west of the Elbe River - in the region of so called Drawehn - was spoken until the 19th century.

But it was one of Obodrite (not Veleti) dialects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drevani

The Drevani were one of tribes of the Obodrites, who spoke a different dialect than Veleti:
(according to "Dzieje polityczne Obodrzyców" by Adam Turasiewicz)

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL12997717W/Dzieje_polityczne_Obodrzycow_od_IX_wieku_do_utraty _niepodleglosci_w_latach_1160-1164

Fragment from English summary:


http://s29.postimg.org/nzxf9tk6f/Summary_E.png

BTW - maybe later I will post a timeline of history of West Slavs in what is now East Germany. But in another thread.


when they got absorbed into gothic society

Goths recruited or absorbed people from other tribes, but I don't think that they absorbed all of them.

==========================================

Here a similar map but this time for Sorbian-speaking populations:

http://s2.postimg.org/6gppe3wop/Sorbian_Lusatian.png

===================================

This map shows approximate distribution of westernmost Slavic groups around year 800 (lighter red boundary shows territories already by that time partially De-Slavicized, or never fully Slavic - it is not certain whether those territories were fully Slavic or always ethnically mixed Slavic-Germanic - individual Slavic groups extended even more westward than that line, for example a few small groups of migrating Slavs settled as far west as along the Rhine River, but of course they were never majority of population there):

http://s29.postimg.org/6qhtjxt8n/Western_Slavs_B.png

Those large ethnic groups - such as Obodrites (aka Obotrites), Veleti and Sorbs - divided further into tribes and clans, which were united in realms / federations. In total there were around 60 such Polabian and Sorbian tribes and clans living in what is today East Germany:

Here is the list of tribes with names from original Medieval texts, written usually in Latin (so names are usually distorted, Latinized, etc.):

http://s9.postimg.org/k0c3higb3/Plemiona_1.png

Slavic presence can also be found in modern names of localities in East Germany. For example typical (but not the only ones) variants of toponyms of Slavic origin, are names with -ow/au, -in or -itz or -itze/itza suffixes, such as: Spandau, Krakow am See, Schwerin, Berlin, Chemnitz, Dönitz, Steglitz, etc. For example below is a map indicating areas in Germany where you can find settlements with names ending with suffix -itz:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Ortsnamenendung-itz.png/472px-Ortsnamenendung-itz.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Ortsnamenendung-itz.png/472px-Ortsnamenendung-itz.png

LeBrok
18-09-14, 03:02
Veleti (Wieleci) was a Polabian Slavic ethnos during the Middle Ages,

It is very tempting to connect Veleti with Wieleci, actually I was musing about this in couple of threads some time ago, but beside similarities in names, I'm yet to find any historical or cultural continuation of Veleti in form of slavic tribe. Hopefully with future genetic testing of ancient skeletons we should be able to detect who moved where and became who, or whether it just got exterminated. It would be cool if it turned ture. ;)

I'm not sure about origin of White Croats in Polish Carpathian area, Malopolska. Besides Austro-Hungarian maps or passport with White Croatia as ethnicity, it is impossible to find any documents from before occupation period, before 1800 or so, naming this region White Croatia. I have a hunch that it was a political move of Austro-Hungarians to call Polish territory under their occupation as White Croatia. Meaning that they didn't invade Poland, but instead they liberated Croatians, who already belonged to the Empire.

PS. Great job on Slavic history.

Tomenable
18-09-14, 12:07
LeBrok, what kind of Veleti are you talking about, from which time and region, memtioned in which sources? Slavic Wieleci (English version of name: Veleti) was not one tribe, but an ethnic group divided into several tribes. They also formed a political realm which was a federation of most of their tribes, and was called the Holy Union of the Veleti. Similar realm was formed by Obodrites - the Grand Duchy of the Obodrites - but also not all Obodritic tribes were part of it. We don't have any info from written sources about the Obodrites and the Veleti until the moment when they first came into contact with Frankish Empire. In 777 Charlemagne completed the conquest of Southern Saxons and in 780 we have the first contact between Frankish Empire and Obodrites at the Middle Elbe. In 782 there was a Saxon uprising against Franks under Widukind and Obodrites supported Charlemagne against Saxons. In 789 Veleti are mentiomed for the first time, also name of their supreme duke is mentioned - he was Drogovit. In 789 Drogovit invaded Obodrites and Obodrite duke Wieczan (Witzan) asked Charlemagne for help.

Tomenable
18-09-14, 13:13
Timeline of the early phasw of history of Slavs in East Germany, until the death of Charlemagne:

⦁ 512 - some of Germanic Heruli migrate from middle Danube to North Germany and encounter territories already inhabited by Slavs on their way there (Procopius)
⦁ 6th century - Slavic settlement at Prague numbers over 600 houses: http://www.archaeobotany.org/download/posters/novak_roztoky_abstract_whv2010.pdf
⦁ ca. 550 - Slavs start migrating into wgat is now East Germany
⦁ 595 - Slavs (probably ancestors of Slovenes or / and Croats) fight against Frankish-dependent Bavarian duke Tassilo in modern Austria and Bohemia
⦁ 596 - Slavs, probably allied with the Avars, defeat Bavarians under Tassilo, killing 2,000 of them
⦁ 620s - a major war between Slavs and Avars
⦁ 624 - a smuggler of weapons from the Frankish Empire, Samo (born near Sens at the Yonne river in central France), who had previously been illegally smuggling across the border and selling weapons to Slavs, enters Slavic lands, joins Slavs in their fight against the Avars, and due to his merits in battle, united Slavic tribes elect him their king (source: Fredegar's chronicle). Samo was probably a Gallo-Roman.
⦁ 630 - Walluk, duke of Carantanians (northern Slovenes), joins Samo's Federation.
⦁ 631 - Slavic Federation defeats the Frankish Empire in the battle of Wogastisburg
⦁ 631 - after the victory at Wogastisburg Slavic armies invade and plunder Thuringia
⦁ 632 - Dervan, duke of Surbi (Sorbs) joins the Slavic Federation under king Samo
⦁ 636 - Dervan is killed in one of battles against Randulf, governor of Thuringia
⦁ 661 - the federation disintegrates into many realms again after Samo's death. According to Fredegar's chronicle Samo had 12 Slavic wifes, 22 sons and 15 daughters.
⦁ 772 - Charlemagne invades Southern Saxons
⦁ 777 - conquest of Southern Saxons is completed
⦁ 780 - first Frankish contact with the Obodrites at the Middle Elbe
⦁ 782 - Sorbs raid and plunder Thuringia and Frankish-controlled Saxony
⦁ 782 - Saxon uprising against Franks under Widukind. Obodrites side with Franks
⦁ 785 - uprising squashed, Widukind surrenders and adopts Christianity in Attigny
⦁ 789 - Wieczan (Witzan) becomes the supreme duke (rex / princeps) of Obodrites
⦁ 789 - Obodrites mentioned as "old good allies" of Charlemagne (against Saxons)
⦁ 789 - Wieczan asks Charlemagne for assistance against his troublesome eastern neighbours, the Holy Union of the Veleti, under supreme duke Drogowit.
⦁ 789 - Charlemagne, allied with Frisians, Sorbs and Obodrites (under duke Wieczan), invades Veleti. Frankish army crosses the Elbe near modern Wolmirstadt. Allied forces besiege Brenna, the main stronghold of Veleti duke Drogowit. Seeing that resistance is pointless, Drogowit negotiates peace. Veleti pay a single tribute to Charlemagne. Charlemagne satisfied with tribute returns back to Francia.
⦁ 795 - Obodrite duke Wieczan (dux Witzan), ally of Franks against Nordalbingians (northernmost Saxon tribe, who remain independent from Frankish rule).
⦁ 795 - at the Elbe near Bardowick Nordalbingians ambush Obodrites, killing Wieczan
⦁ ca. 796 - Drozko elected new rex / princeps of the Obodrites. Drozko has a son named Czedrog (Chedrog). Drozko continues pro-Frankish policies of Wieczan and Charlemagne is his ally. Danes, Northern Saxons and Veleti are his enemies.
⦁ 795-798 - in revenge for Wieczan's death, Charlemagne raids Nordalbingians and carries out first forcible population transfers and deportations of Saxons.
⦁ 798 - battle of Swentana (Bornhöved) between Obodrites under Drozko and Nordalbingians (at the same time Charlemagne's army is near Minden, raiding Ostphalia). Obodrites win. About 3 - 4 thousand Saxons perish.
⦁ 799 - son of Charlemagne mediates in conflict between Obodrites and Veleti
⦁ 804 - conquest of Nordalbingians by Franks (with Veleti help) is completed, forcible deportation of over 10,000 Nordalbingian men, with families, to Gaul.
⦁ 804 - in Hollenstedt at the Elbe Drozko is crowned King by Charlemagne, he is also awarded Nordalbingia, which becomes part of Obodrite realm (sources: Ann. Regni Francorum a 804, Chron. Moiss a 804). Archaeological evidence of Slavic settlements and pottery in Nordalbingia discovered in Hamburg and in Domplatz, dated to 8th-9th centuries (R. Schindler connects these with Drozko's reign).
⦁ ca. 805 - Charlemagne fortifies Frankish-Slavic border (limes sorabicus and limes saxonicus) and establishes permanent military posts along it. He introduces capitulare duplex in 805 - a kind of embargo for export of weaponry to Slavic lands (including even his allied Obodrites). Several places are chosen for trade with Slavs.
⦁ 805 - Franks invade the Sorbian-Lusatian tribe of the Glomaci
⦁ 805 - duke Lecho of the Bohemians (Czechs) dies in battle against Charlemagne
⦁ 806 - Sorbs (Siurbs) agree to pay tribute to Charlemgne after their duke - Miliduch (Milidouch / Milito) - is killed in a battle against Franks near modern Halle.
⦁ 808 - Drozko, king of the Obodrites. Godelaib, one of their minor dukes.
⦁ 808 - the Danes under duke Godfred (his realm is in Jutland), allied with the Veleti, invade the Obodrite realm (Jutland had previously become a refuge for Saxon refugees during Frankish-Obodrite invasions of Nordalbingia). Danes and Veleti manage to capture several Obodrite strongholds in the process.
⦁ 808 - at least two out of tribes of the Obodrite realm, Smolincy and Linianie, betray and unite with Danish-Veleti army. King Drozko is forced to abandon his realm and escapes to Francia. Godelaib is captured and executed by. Godfred annexes Nordalbingia, two other Obodrite provinces - Obodrsko and Wagria - pay tribute.
⦁ 808-809 - Veleti wage offensive war against Obodrites and then against Franks
⦁ 808 - Charlemagne sends his son to crush the Veleti and Obodrite traitors, but he is defeated and has to retreat. Godfred proposes peace to Charlemagne, negotiations take place in Bandenflut at the Stör River, but they fail and war continues on.
⦁ 809 - Drozko returns from exile to his country. He signs truce with Danes in exchange for giving them one of his sons (maybe Chedrog) as a hostage. He allies with Saxons against Veleti and these Obotrite trines which seceded from his realm. Allied Obodrite loyalists and Saxons besiege a stronghold of Smolincy at Connoburg. The stronghold is captured and destroyed, power over rebellious tribes is restored.
⦁ 809 - Godfred violates the truce and invades Obodrites, he demolishes Slavic coastal town at Rerik (near modern Wismar), and deports local merchants to Haithabu (Hedeby), Denmark. Drozko is killed by Danish assassins at Rerik.
⦁ 809 - after the death of Drozko Charlemagne deprives the Obodrites of Nordalbingia and incorporates it to his Empire. The land is depopulated due to war, disease and deportations, so he brings in new settlers from entire Empire. Charlemagne establishes three new castles to strengthen the defence of his borders: first is at Eselfeld at the Stör River, second is at Hamburg, third is at Hochbucki near Lenzen at the Elbe.
⦁ 810 - Veleti attack the Frankish Empire and destroy their new castle at Hochbucki
⦁ 812 - Franks and Obodrites (under their new grand duke, Slavomir) in retaliation invade Veleti territories and manage to force them to pay a tribute.
⦁ 813 - coronation of Louis I by Charlemagne in Aachen.
⦁ 814 - death of Charlemagne, Louis I takes power in the Empire. Those of Slavic tribes which had been paying tribute to Charlemagne, stop paying it.

Vedun
18-09-14, 16:03
that said you speak English.........are you English?

Its only because the slavs have a tendency to claim ownership of something they never created ( same as albanians, maybe they are the same race) . But as stated the last person who spoke Dalmatian died in 1898. Dubrovnik was originally Ragussa, nothing in that place is slavic built , all the ancient works from Roman times to the 20th century has no slavic building alond any of the adriatic coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik

We even know that istria was Italian until 1977 , it was never slavic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Osimo

So, I do not know why you are beating your chest!...............show me one ancient place that the slavs built on the adriatic coast

Don't flatter yourself with claims that Latinic people created all these cities... Majority of current Italian cities are of Etruscan (Trojan) origin and origins of people who lived there before Etruscans - Liburnians (native Etruscans). Rome was Ruma, Tergeste (Tržišče; or Trg) or current Trst(Trieste) was of Etruscan(Trojan) origin also; written as "Tarkste", similar with Tarqunia which was Tarkuna...
Regards to "Istria". It derives from Etruscan Histria; Hesturuia, another name for "Trojans" (H)Estoroi or Vilushan/Velianaz ("Ilios")... The Tyrrhenian sea is named after Etruscans also...

http://ami.arhivpro.hr/?documentIndex=1&docid=1533&page=0

http://udruga-kameleon.hr/tekst/5698/

Rovinj

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r285/swirl_photo/maklavun/maklavun.jpg?t=1204461218

Mali sveti anđeo


http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/86370288.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/86370065.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/86370210.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/86370387.jpg

"Stonehenge" in Poreč:

http://www.kermas-istra.com/site_media/media/cms_page_media/15/stonehenge.jpg.380x280_q85_crop_upscale.jpg

(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/86370210.jpg)Mali Sv. Andjelo


http://www.smrikve.com/assets/10/0/106/Istria_From_Smrikve_Mali_Sv._Andelo_S.Angelo_Picco lo_5_Tholos__big.jpg

Hvar

http://udruga-kameleon.hr/IMG/jpg/megaliti_kula_Tor_Hvar_wikipedia_org_400.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqVlVSqDKJQ

LeBrok
18-09-14, 17:05
LeBrok, what kind of Veleti are you talking about, from which time and region, memtioned in which sources? Slavic Wieleci (English version of name: Veleti) was not one tribe, but an ethnic group divided into several tribes. They also formed a political realm which was a federation of most of their tribes, and was called the Holy Union of the Veleti. Similar realm was formed by Obodrites - the Grand Duchy of the Obodrites - but also not all Obodritic tribes were part of it. We don't have any info from written sources about the Obodrites and the Veleti until the moment when they first came into contact with Frankish Empire. In 777 Charlemagne completed the conquest of Southern Saxons and in 780 we have the first contact between Frankish Empire and Obodrites at the Middle Elbe. In 782 there was a Saxon uprising against Franks under Widukind and Obodrites supported Charlemagne against Saxons. In 789 Veleti are mentiomed for the first time, also name of their supreme duke is mentioned - he was Drogovit. In 789 Drogovit invaded Obodrites and Obodrite duke Wieczan (Witzan) asked Charlemagne for help.
I'm sorry, I ment Venedi turning into Veleti (Wieleci). My mind must have tricked me, that you made such assumption, yesterday when catching up and reading fast.

Slavonac
25-09-14, 11:22
Why do you speak lies?
Istra was in Austro Ungarian Empire till 1918.
In 1918.-1945. Istra was part of Italy.
1945.-1991. part of Yugoslavia.
1991.+ Croatia.

That Treaty os Osim you are speaking about was only act in which Italy accepted the real facts because till then Italy claimed Istra was theirs and in real it was part of Yugoslavia.

So Istra was only for short period Italian 27 years. And Italian people were never dominant in Istra.

Sile
25-09-14, 11:50
Why do you speak lies?
Istra was in Austro Ungarian Empire till 1918.
In 1918.-1945. Istra was part of Italy.
1945.-1991. part of Yugoslavia.
1991.+ Croatia.

That Treaty os Osim you are speaking about was only act in which Italy accepted the real facts because till then Italy claimed Istra was theirs and in real it was part of Yugoslavia.

So Istra was only for short period Italian 27 years. And Italian people were never dominant in Istra.

you speak lies..I supplied a link, you never did

Ike
25-09-14, 13:43
You're both talking about couple of different things.

Garrick
25-09-14, 14:06
i have seen croatian people, many of them look germanic. i heard they have austrian ancestor. i dont believe they are mostly slavic as like serbian people

You can see haplogroups of Serbs, Croats and another Slavic nations.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Serbs are probably mostly descedants of Thracians, they have haplogroups as typical Balkan peoples.

I1: 8.5, I2a: 33, I2b: 0.5, R1a: 16, R1b: 8, G: 2, J2: 8, J1: 0.5, E1b1b: 18, T: 1, Q: 1.5, N: 2

These amounts of haplogroups are atypical for Slavic nations.

For example:

Ukraine:
I1: 3.5, I2a: 13, I2b: 0.5, R1a: 45, R1b:7.5, G: 2.5, J2: 7, J1: 1, E1b1b: 5.5, T: 1, Q: 1, N: 7.5
Slovakia:
I1: 6.5, I2a: 16 , I2b: 1.5, R1a: 41.5, R1b: 14.5, G: 4, J2: 2, J1: 1, E1b1b: 6.5, T: 0.5, Q: 0.5, N: 3
Slovenia
I1: 9, I2a: 20.5, I2b: 1.5, R1a: 38 , R1b: 18, G: 1.5, J2: 2.5, J1: 0, E1b1b: 5, T: 1, Q: 0, N: 0
Croatia:
I1: 5.5, I2a: 37 , I2b: 1, R1a: 24, R1b: 8.5, G: 2.5, J2: 6, J1: 1, E1b1b: 10, T: 0.5, Q: 1, N: 0.5

Stears555
01-10-14, 11:23
Croatians are not slavic

Melancon
01-10-14, 14:03
so my believes are correct when I say that Bosnians Croatians and Serbs are the same people-nation divided by religion and politics?

I exclude dalmatians and some Monte-Negrins

They are the same peoples now that they share a Yugoslav culture and other indigenous peoples and cultures are now mixed with the invading and all encompassing Slavic culture.

Vedun
05-10-14, 10:25
Croatians are not slavic

No, they are probably Hungarians right? :)

Vedun
05-10-14, 10:29
Why do you hate Slavic cultures so much? You have no idea how enriched they are... Go from town to town and you will meet varied cuisine, traditions, festivals, dialects,...

"They are the same peoples now that they share a Yugoslav culture and other indigenous peoples and cultures are now mixed with the invading and all encompassing Slavic culture."
Do you really think that other cultures aren't "mixed"? Do you think that Irish, German, Italian people don't have any mixed cultures??

"invading and all encompassing Slavic culture". Who was more invading if not your ancestors in USA, who wiped out almost all native American Indians and their cultures? Speak for yourself! Tell me for example how many natives were wiped out by Russians? Do these tribes live in Reservation (concentration) camps?

Slavonac
05-10-14, 15:54
you speak lies..I supplied a link, you never did

I didnt supply link because forum didnt allow me to, but informations that I wrote are well known and anyone can check them in any relevant source.
You are just Italian nationalist thats all.

Stears555
05-10-14, 16:56
They are the same peoples now that they share a Yugoslav culture and other indigenous peoples and cultures are now mixed with the invading and all encompassing Slavic culture.

There is no Yugoslav culture. Orthodox and Western christian Catholic territories are parts of an entirelly different civilization.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png

Garrick
05-10-14, 18:46
Why do you hate Slavic cultures so much? You have no idea how enriched they are... Go from town to town and you will meet varied cuisine, traditions, festivals, dialects,...

"They are the same peoples now that they share a Yugoslav culture and other indigenous peoples and cultures are now mixed with the invading and all encompassing Slavic culture."
Do you really think that other cultures aren't "mixed"? Do you think that Irish, German, Italian people don't have any mixed cultures??

"invading and all encompassing Slavic culture". Who was more invading if not your ancestors in USA, who wiped out almost all native American Indians and their cultures? Speak for yourself! Tell me for example how many natives were wiped out by Russians? Do these tribes live in Reservation (concentration) camps?

He is not Hungarian, he is ethnic Albanian.

Vedun
05-10-14, 21:24
According to Stears555 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/49128-Stears555) I did not know I am Mongol(Chinese) lol

Thank you for finally finding my secret ancestry, I think my life is complete now...

(PS, why is Albania marked as a Buddhist country on that map above?)

Stears555
05-10-14, 21:31
According to Stears555 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/members/49128-Stears555) I did not know I am the Mongol(Chinese) lol

Thank you for finally finding my secret ancestry, I think my life is complete now...

(PS, why is Albania marked as a Buddhist country on that map above?)

I can not agree about India at all... India is a diverse, multi cultural, multi ethnic, multi religious country... I can not avoid that, but I have to say it loud and clear... Person who created that map is a total idiot... lol

The map is about dominant civilizations (based on mostly dominant religions) and NOT A detailed RELIGIOUS MAP! It was created by Samuel Huntington.

Vedun
06-10-14, 16:02
Do you think that I am christian? My country is secular...Christianity is a derivative of Brahminic , Shivaitic (Vedic) 'cults' which were transformed into Abrahamic (A aleph (in Phoenician ("old Hebrew") means "it is" which is opposite to the Sanskrit form for A which stands for "against" or "opposite to" (Abrahamic cults worship Brahmanic ghosts (demons); that's why it was the name of "Abraham" intentionally written as "ABRAM" in 'old' Testamen - which simply means "BRAHMAN"(shortened into Brama) (Vedas)) & his 'wife' Sarah which derives from Vedic Saraswati river (1st place where our ancestors brought oral (Sama) Vedas to India and wrote first Rg Veda (Rek Veda))...
All current Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are an offspring of Egyptian Asurism (cult of Osiris; Egyptian Osiris (Aser) was not of "egyptian" origin at all... and all first rulers of Egypt weren't from Africa either,... they originally came from current Iraq, Ukraine & India... This includes the 'egyptian' god Horus (Greek (Ptolemaic) transmutation of Egyptian Heru or Horo, which came from current place of Ukraine & Russia, partially Bulgaria, Romania, Greece & was called Horo or Hors (Slavic god Hors)...
This 'egyptian' cult remained until today in all those lands, called Horovod or Khorovod; Hor's cycle (dance)...
Amun Ra came from Dogonic & Chaldean Nommo ('atlantean' deity of Seas and rivers (Amen is spoken in every chant in Abrahamic prayers; as "Amen"... which stands for something similar to Vedic "Aum" (Ommmmm)... which was added to the cult of Ra or "Raa", which was another Vedic cult & solar deity & dynasty of Rama (described in Ramayana)...
Hathor came from the mother of Hors, this is Mehet Weret or Mehurt Weret; where Mehurt was also pronounced as Mohoth or Mehet, which was a fusion of 2 "egyptian" cults: Mat's or Ma'at's (Mother; Venus) & Vedic Moksha or Slavic Mokosh for example... Weret was Svarga or "Milky way", her milk which flew from her Heavenly udders(Milky way), feeding her son Hors or Horo (Horus) (Pleiades)...Mokosha; Mokoš (K transmuted into H and Sh into Th) or Meheth was the Egyptian (Vedic) Svarga (from this term comes Slavic god Svarun or Svarog / which is Vedic Varuna,...).
Those were all the names of "Antediluvian" solar dynasties & 'gods', which started around the year 32 350 BCE), & which were also described in the list of "Zep tepi" dynasties of Egypt, by Manetho...

Current Christianity came from Egypt to Rome & to Byzantium... all original 'christian' symbols in Bulgaria (Sofia) & Constantinople (Tsargrad /Tsarigrad (current Istambul)) include Vedic (Brahmanic) symbolism...

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/93/6c/f9936ce57ba0e9af384fa3c9840a7ee8.jpg

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01493/hyfr21adishanka_HY_1493423e.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5n9dc_nVzWE/TKbeyfcBxGI/AAAAAAAAAgE/V8LvS9JLu5c/s1600/Gautam+Buddha%5B1%5D.jpg

Abrahamic cults do not "recognize" the process of reincarnation and higher worlds than just Astral world("heaven", Sheol, Duat, Niflheim, Nav, Nirvana)...but our native Brahmanic, pre-Abrahamic "Christianity" recognized higher worlds than just Nav... Those worlds were for example Prav (realm of gods), Iriy, Svarga...Svarga is the realm of the Milky way (Mehet Weret; Moksha, a total liberation, higher realm in Svarga (Loka). There exist higher worlds, Brahmaloka which is the entire visible (and not visible) Cosmos (Jivaloka / Brahma)...

From old Egyptian perspective, the Christ(krishna: "Incarnated god(into a flesh), from above...) is a "living" Pharaoh, incarnated god (Horus) into a human flesh... That's why it was also called the "Twice born one"(dvija) in Vedas (in Sanskrit)... Krishna means "Incarnated god(into a flesh), from above... (and not "black one"), which is a Hindu invention.

Ike
06-10-14, 21:51
He is not Hungarian, he is ethnic Albanian.

I've always suspected he is not Hungarian. His first post was Whaaat?, then second WTF?! and after I've seen the third I was like This kind of behavior would only make Hungarians look stupid, and he is aware of it, and he is doing this on purpose. He can't be Hungarian.

Slavonac
11-10-14, 16:00
It would be interesting if some more Croatians would write their Y DNA here and region they are from.

My opinion is that data which is official and other researches done in Croatia arent very good and scinetific I think that percentage of I2 isnt so big. I think authors of these researches tried to show Croatians like old pure nation which I dont think it is. I think in real Croatia has much more mixture of haplogruops.

And this chart which separates world by religion is funny. Croatia is more western not because catholick religion, its western becasue we were mainly and long part of Austrian Empire and Bosnia and rest was part of Ottoman Empire.

BaltoHeritageNorway
14-03-15, 02:37
Well, Croatia is mostly (Hrvatska) a nation of the modern world and in a region that is both small and quite lush to live in. It also has a long history of residence/populated towns. Very often the idea of a modern nation's People as "similar" to an ancient people has low significance for reality, but naturally rises in countries that recently in history achieved Independence (or recently got back to independence). Most nations are composed by many streams of ethnic groups through a long time of history. The least genetically complex ethnic groups in Europe according to the Genographic seems to be the irish, the finnish, and the euskadian North Spanish (basque) . The name Hrvatska sounds to me like a grammatical slavification of Horvath, which is a hungarian name. The hungarians are genetically very European/old South eurasian, but in language very ugric /branch of the finno-ugric past that belongs more to the Northern old Russia and the later North Baltics, parts of east/North Scandinavia, and Estonia/Finland. The problem is that names, religion, language, cultural issues, do not necessarily follow the genetic ancestry. Also the genetic ancestry is found out about step by step. There are many lineages behind each individual. Some genetic traits survive. Others do not. Some "rest" and then reappear. However as we had many immigrants from former Yugoslavia into Norway after the civil Balkan war, I saw differences in the appearances /facial features between the croats, the kosovans and the bosnians, so there must have been a time long enough for separation of population groups to form such specialities . The hard question is when these pinpoints for a group appeared or anchored. The full genetic map of an individual is highly complex.

BaltoHeritageNorway
14-03-15, 02:50
Yes, before the viking age ,the romans rules most of South Europe and spread the old greek and old etruscan-roman lineages across Southern Europe ,North Africa and western Middle east. After this, the barbarian tribes increased their attacks on roman colonies and on Rome itself, mixing into the populations of former celts, gauls, romans and other ancient groups. The goths took over many of the areas in Southern Europe, from Spain in the west to black sea region in the East. Before this, the goths started expanding (at around 100 AD) from eastern Scandinavia; in roman history "Scandza" and "Gothascandza". The first expansion went into the area that today is Poland and the Baltic states, and the next went into western Scandinavia, eastern Europe and Southern/Central Europe. The last gothic language existed in Crimean peninsula/Krim as late as the 1600s. Later, the moslim expansions came into parts of Southern Europe, where countries like Bosnia, Spain and Turkey has been heavily affected in various ways.

Sile
14-03-15, 03:34
There is no Yugoslav culture. Orthodox and Western christian Catholic territories are parts of an entirelly different civilization.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png

Shinto for Japanese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

Tomenable
14-03-15, 18:14
An anthropological paper about Croats:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf


(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. Conversely, the 5 analyzed Iranian sites exhibited no similarity with the early medieval Croat sites and were all located in the diametrically opposite part of the scatter plot. These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)

Drago
22-03-15, 01:58
Croats are slavs.

Rethel
27-03-15, 16:09
Anyway after reading many books, I decided to ask the question to the slavs in this forum. Link below is interesting

I think, that right question should be: who were the first croat-name-bearing people in anciet times.

It could be Slavs, Scythians or Iranians.

Today, Croats from Croatia are slavic, because they
speak slavic language. This is the only criterion.

We can ask of course how many Croats are haplo-Indoeuropeans.
And the answer for that is very simply - this will be the percentage
of some paternal haplotypes, which were associated with first man
who were the begginer of indoeuropean people. ;-)

RobertColumbia
16-07-15, 18:08
The question above has always been talked about when visiting croatian friends/families. The arguements range from being forced to become slavic or not. An alphabet ( slovenians as well) which has always been Latin based instead of Cyrillic based. A religion from the west roman empire - Catholic instead of the East Roamn Empire - Orthodox....

Alphabets can be changed much more easily than spoken languages. This was probably even more true in former days when literacy was not as common since the "average" person might not need to be retrained on the new alphabet since they didn't know any alphabet at all to begin with. We can see alphabets changing due to religious and cultural reasons, but religious conversion seems to be a major one. Celtic and Germanic-speaking peoples dropped their own alphabets and adopted the Roman one on conversion to Roman Catholicism. The Arabic alphabet prevailed in Persia on the conversion of most people to Islam. This can be seen in India/Pakistan today, with the Hindi and Urdu languages being more or less the same when spoken but written using different alphabets.

Gosh
22-07-15, 10:33
According to data which I was able to see a few months ago in a GG forum, perhaps 4/5 of Croats share practically the same genetics with Serbs. Even more, they share practically the same language with them. It is the same population sharply separated by religion.

Bosnian muslims are from the same story.

Gosh
22-07-15, 10:35
I think, that right question should be: who were the first croat-name-bearing people in anciet times.

It could be Slavs, Scythians or Iranians.

Today, Croats from Croatia are slavic, because they
speak slavic language. This is the only criterion.

This is the only proper way of thinking

Angela
22-07-15, 14:54
Language doesn't necessarily determine ethnicity. Berbers, many of whom now speak Arabic, are not Arabs. These changes occur because of conquest. While that conquest may be accompanied by some new genetic influx, the proportions necessary for language change can vary widely. I think that kind of standard is as misguided as saying that religion determines ethnicity.

7378

Standing at the Gateway to Europe, Kovacevic et al:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

How different are the Slavic speaking people of the Balkans from the Greeks? They're far more similar to them than they are to Poles. As for the differences among them, they are negligible even at this level of resolution.

Piro Ilir
22-07-15, 15:10
Croatians are not slavic
What they are?

Piro Ilir
22-07-15, 15:38
Language doesn't necessarily determine ethnicity. Berbers, many of whom now speak Arabic, are not Arabs. These changes occur because of conquest. While that conquest may be accompanied by some new genetic influx, the proportions necessary for language change can vary widely. I think that kind of standard is as misguided as saying that religion determines ethnicity.

7378

Standing at the Gateway to Europe, Kovacevic et al:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

How different are the Slavic speaking people of the Balkans from the Greeks? They're far more similar to them than they are to Poles. As for the differences among them, they are negligible even at this level of resolution.
Did Croatian language have any paleo balkanic substrate . Have they any word in their language of ancient Hellenic, Latin or Albanian and vlach origin. They have on their y-DNA lineage population I 2a but if they don't have any ancient word on their language this mean that their mix with locals wasn't significant.
During the 5-6 century AD thracians were assimilated or migrated into West Balkans, forced by the bulgars. Those people probably mixed with the Albanians there.

Piro Ilir
22-07-15, 16:04
Language doesn't necessarily determine ethnicity. Berbers, many of whom now speak Arabic, are not Arabs. These changes occur because of conquest. While that conquest may be accompanied by some new genetic influx, the proportions necessary for language change can vary widely. I think that kind of standard is as misguided as saying that religion determines ethnicity.

7378

Standing at the Gateway to Europe, Kovacevic et al:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

How different are the Slavic speaking people of the Balkans from the Greeks? They're far more similar to them than they are to Poles. As for the differences among them, they are negligible even at this level of resolution.
I sow carefully your map DNA here, Angela. All the Slavic population you mentioned, are closer to the Greeks because they have in their regions large population of Albanians [emoji23]. Macedonia and Kosovo have the largest Albanian population after the Albanian state. Montenegrins are close to Greeks because they are half Albanians. And Macedonians too. Many Muslim Albanians were assimilated by Muslim bosniaks during the last century. As I know there is no connection and intermixture between Slavic languages and Greek language , nor Latin language. But there is a lot of between the Albanian tongue and and Greek and Latin languages. Also we have the intermixture between the Albanian tongue and Slavic tongues. Conclude by your self

Милан М.
22-07-15, 16:07
To be Croat (Hrvat) one doesn't need an Iranian,Schythian or whatever origin.

Ike
23-07-15, 08:57
I sow carefully your map DNA here, Angela. All the Slavic population you mentioned, are closer to the Greeks because they have in their regions large population of Albanians [emoji23]. Macedonia and Kosovo have the largest Albanian population after the Albanian state. Montenegrins are close to Greeks because they are half Albanians. And Macedonians too. Many Muslim Albanians were assimilated by Muslim bosniaks during the last century. As I know there is no connection and intermixture between Slavic languages and Greek language , nor Latin language. But there is a lot of between the Albanian tongue and and Greek and Latin languages. Also we have the intermixture between the Albanian tongue and Slavic tongues. Conclude by your self

Better conclusion from that chart would be that Albanians are just a mix of Greeks, Romans and Slavs. Most of their genome is, and their language, and customs. If you want to pinpoint Albanians out of forementioned triplet, you should look for the elements that are not inherent to those three populations.


Did Croatian language have any paleo balkanic substrate . Have they any word in their language of ancient Hellenic, Latin or Albanian and vlach origin. They have on their y-DNA lineage population I 2a but if they don't have any ancient word on their language this mean that their mix with locals wasn't significant.
During the 5-6 century AD thracians were assimilated or migrated into West Balkans, forced by the bulgars. Those people probably mixed with the Albanians there.

Except for the fact that there is not a single evidence of Albanian existence on Balkan in the 5th century.

Johannes
23-07-15, 13:42
I have been to Austria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia and I found that the Croats do not look like Serbs or Poles. They look more like Hungarians or Austrians. Of course they are mixed but tend not to look like Serbs. No wonder they hate each other. Serbs look very similar to Greeks, Albanians or Bulgarians -- in other words, more Semitic or Eastern Mediterrenean. The Croats are more closer to Illyrians, Celts, and Germanics than Slavic or Greek. I21a is probably Germanic (Gothic) as the Germans occupied the whole of Slovakia, Eastern Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Bosnia, and northern Serbia for a long time (100BCE-500 AD). The "Croats" eventually adopted Slavic language probably because the nobility was Slavic speaking or they were flooded with Slavic conquerors.

Piro Ilir
23-07-15, 14:19
Better conclusion from that chart would be that Albanians are just a mix of Greeks, Romans and Slavs. Most of their genome is, and their language, and customs. If you want to pinpoint Albanians out of forementioned triplet, you should look for the elements that are not inherent to those three populations.



Except for the fact that there is not a single evidence of Albanian existence on Balkan in the 5th century.
Linguistically it can't be. It's just impossible. Nonsense. All what I mentioned at the post above about the language, are loan- words. Albanian tongue is completely a different branch of IE language, and you know it. Every kid of the Europe know this [emoji6]. I doubt you don't know too.
As we know the Illyrian language, was not a written language, so it's impossible to find some ancient tablets at the Illyrian capital (Scutar) . At least till today. The loan words, especially those of ancient Latin origin showing us the Illyrian- albanian continuity. As I read by linguists albanologs, the split between the two branches of Albanian language (gheg northern, tosk southern) had started during the ancient times, before the Slavic invasion on the region. Which clearly mean that those people are living in those regions for millennia. Which mean that tosk Albanians were living in Epirus regions in south Albania and north west Greece, since ancient times.
Have Croatian language ancient loan words? If they have some, we should accept that they have some pre Slavic origin either. Albanian language is too much latinized. It's linguistically impossible that old Albanians came to the region after the 10 century , as are saying all the time some Greek and Serb nationalists . Albanian, Greek and Celtic language are somehow a cultural wealth for Europe. But Basque is on the top list

Trojet
23-07-15, 15:19
Linguistically it can't be. It's just impossible. Nonsense. All what I mentioned at the post above about the language, are loan- words. Albanian tongue is completely a different branch of IE language, and you know it. Every kid of the Europe know this [emoji6]. I doubt you don't know too.
As we know the Illyrian language, was not a written language, so it's impossible to find some ancient tablets at the Illyrian capital (Scutar) . At least till today. The loan words, especially those of ancient Latin origin showing us the Illyrian- albanian continuity. As I read by linguists albanologs, the split between the two branches of Albanian language (gheg northern, tosk southern) had started during the ancient times, before the Slavic invasion on the region. Which clearly mean that those people are living in those regions for millennia. Which mean that tosk Albanians were living in Epirus regions in south Albania and north west Greece, since ancient times.


Of course he knows it, as well as anyone else who has done some research on this, but yet some of these guys here still choose to recycle the same old BS about Albanians. Obviously, they have an agenda here and want to make Albanians seem that they are some "recent arrivals" to present areas.

You proved your argument with lingustical evidence regarding this. Genetic evidence also supports the idea that Albanians have been to present areas since at least the Bronze age and that they are the least mixed people in the Balkans. But then again it is worthless arguing with some of these people because they will never accept this. That's why if I was you, I wouldn't even waste my time because their job here is to make Albanians seem that they are "recent arrivals", even though they know this is not true.

Милан М.
23-07-15, 15:25
Linguistically it can't be. It's just impossible. Nonsense. All what I mentioned at the post above about the language, are loan- words. Albanian tongue is completely a different branch of IE language, and you know it. Every kid of the Europe know this [emoji6]. I doubt you don't know too.
As we know the Illyrian language, was not a written language, so it's impossible to find some ancient tablets at the Illyrian capital (Scutar) . At least till today. The loan words, especially those of ancient Latin origin showing us the Illyrian- albanian continuity. As I read by linguists albanologs, the split between the two branches of Albanian language (gheg northern, tosk southern) had started during the ancient times, before the Slavic invasion on the region. Which clearly mean that those people are living in those regions for millennia. Which mean that tosk Albanians were living in Epirus regions in south Albania and north west Greece, since ancient times.
Have Croatian language ancient loan words? If they have some, we should accept that they have some pre Slavic origin either. Albanian language is too much latinized. It's linguistically impossible that old Albanians came to the region after the 10 century , as are saying all the time some Greek and Serb nationalists . Albanian, Greek and Celtic language are somehow a cultural wealth for Europe. But Basque is on the top list
No such thing as Illyrian language,we don't know was all "Illyrian" tribes related to eachother,what we know is region called Illyrian by Greco-Roman ethnographers with no clear picture on ethnic origin of the same people,Albanian language has heavy borrowings from Slavic half and more toponyms in Albania itself are of Slavic origin and near to all in Kosovo.Influence from other languages Albanian is "Latinazied" so what if is it?that mean that your culture had more borrowing from the cultures mentioned prior.Bear in mind Albanians are mentioned first in 12 century,first alphabet in the 20th century,almost all your words for sea,fish and stuff are from other languages.Slavic language has great matching with the Thracian language,some of the first IE in the Balkans,so we don't need much Greek or Latin loanwords,since we know that Greek and Romans also borrowed from Thracians including their deities.

Милан М.
23-07-15, 15:44
And for the record up until 19th century Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians,their language Illyrian,their Alphabet Illyrian by the Austro-Hungarians,Habsburgs,Franks etc,i don't think that mean much,only shift was made later when Albanian state needed to be created,which today is dismissed.Since in Illyricum both Centum and Satem languages were spoken from ancient times especially in the Adriatic coast Dalmatia and Istria.

Trojet
23-07-15, 16:19
And for the record up until 19th century Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians,their language Illyrian,their Alphabet Illyrian by the Austro-Hungarians,Habsburgs,Franks etc,i don't think that mean much,only shift was made later when Albanian state needed to be created,which today is dismissed.Since in Illyricum both Centum and Satem languages were spoken from ancient times especially in the Adriatic coast Dalmatia and Istria.

You are doing a terrible job of trying to rewrite history. This argument is laughable at best to any serious historian or linguist. There is no connection between Slavic languages and Illyrian or Thracian languages.

It is well known as well as recorded that original Slavs migrated to the Balkans from north starting in the 6th century AD. In the Balkans throughout the centuries they assimilated a good number of Illyrians and Thracians (evident from Y-DNA studies), so some words in south Slavic languages are borrowings from these indigenous populations (Illyrians, Thracians).

The southernmost Illyrian and probably some Thracian tribes who didn't get assimilated bacame known as Albanians. This is pretty simple, and accepted by every serious linguist or historian, and will not waste my time arguing over this anymore. I just wanted to correct you.

Милан М.
23-07-15, 16:28
You are doing a terrible job of trying to rewrite history. This argument is laughable at best to any serious historian or linguist. There is no connection between Slavic languages and Illyrian or Thracian languages.

It is well known as well as recorded that original Slavs migrated to the Balkans from north starting in the 6th century AD. In the Balkans throughout the centuries they assimilated a good number of Illyrians and Thracians (evident from Y-DNA studies), so some words in south Slavic languages are borrowings from these indigenous populations (Illyrians, Thracians).
I does not rewrite history that's true,you like it or not,that is what your supreme leader did Enver Hodza from which all Albanians today live in some Illyro-Mania,for the migration you talk about is never proven,so again negative,just someone wish,no those Thracian" and Illyrians are what they are,enormous sources as well from the Greeks even after that 6th century,Slavs were called by their older names such is Triballian,Moesians,Getae,that is in the books from which i can support it with evidence,unlike your theories which are much more pseudo.

Aaron1981
23-07-15, 16:43
The question above has always been talked about when visiting croatian friends/families. The arguements range from being forced to become slavic or not. An alphabet ( slovenians as well) which has always been Latin based instead of Cyrillic based. A religion from the west roman empire - Catholic instead of the East Roamn Empire - Orthodox.

Anyway after reading many books, I decided to ask the question to the slavs in this forum. Link below is interesting


Fast forward a few years to aDNA when we have remains from Vucedol. No R1a, no I2-M423. What we do have is R1b in the Bronze Age period. We also have R1b from neighbouring La Tene in Austria around ~2000 years ago. The Slavs are not indigenous to Croatia, at least not in ancient times.

Ike
23-07-15, 19:23
Linguistically it can't be. It's just impossible. Nonsense. All what I mentioned at the post above about the language, are loan- words. Albanian tongue is completely a different branch of IE language, and you know it. Every kid of the Europe know this [emoji6]. I doubt you don't know too.

It is not completely different. It is at least 95% similar.



As we know the Illyrian language, was not a written language, so it's impossible to find some ancient tablets at the Illyrian capital (Scutar) . At least till today. The loan words, especially those of ancient Latin origin showing us the Illyrian- albanian continuity. As I read by linguists albanologs, the split between the two branches of Albanian language (gheg northern, tosk southern) had started during the ancient times, before the Slavic invasion on the region. Which clearly mean that those people are living in those regions for millennia. Which mean that tosk Albanians were living in Epirus regions in south Albania and north west Greece, since ancient times.

No one is saying that those people didn't live in those regions for thousands of years, but we have no evidence that they were Albanian in those times.


Have Croatian language ancient loan words? If they have some, we should accept that they have some pre Slavic origin either. Albanian language is too much latinized. It's linguistically impossible that old Albanians came to the region after the 10 century , as are saying all the time some Greek and Serb nationalists . Albanian, Greek and Celtic language are somehow a cultural wealth for Europe. But Basque is on the top list

No it doesn't mean that. If Roman army prevailed in Italy, and reconquered Balkan, so that Balkan Slavs started speaking Vulgar Latin, would that mean Illyrian-Croatian continuity? No it wouldn't. Just like nothing you say proves BC continuity of Albanians.



Of course he knows it, as well as anyone else who has done some research on this, but yet some of these guys here still choose to recycle the same old BS about Albanians. Obviously, they have an agenda here and want to make Albanians seem that they are some "recent arrivals" to present areas.

Those are the current facts. It doesn't mean they are final. Every school book agrees that Albanian origin is obscure. If you have other facts you're free to present them, otherwise stop this nonsense.



It is well known as well as recorded that original Slavs migrated to the Balkans from north starting in the 6th century AD. In the Balkans throughout the centuries they assimilated a good number of Illyrians and Thracians (evident from Y-DNA studies), so some words in south Slavic languages are borrowings from these indigenous populations (Illyrians, Thracians)..

One could apply the same logic to Albanian language.

Sile
23-07-15, 21:28
Fast forward a few years to aDNA when we have remains from Vucedol. No R1a, no I2-M423. What we do have is R1b in the Bronze Age period. We also have R1b from neighbouring La Tene in Austria around ~2000 years ago. The Slavs are not indigenous to Croatia, at least not in ancient times.

Vucedol culture as per past historians, from 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 years ago have always stated it is proto-illyrian culture, I have never seen an argument which states otherwise

Trojet
24-07-15, 15:34
Vucedol culture as per past historians, from 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 years ago have always stated it is proto-illyrian culture, I have never seen an argument which states otherwise

He is not saying that Vucedol is not a Proto Illyrian culture. He is pointing out that the current most frequent haplogroups in Croatians, I2a-Din and R1a, were not found in Bronze age Vucedol, at least not so far. Therefore they likely came later to the area, most likely with Slavic migrations.

Piro Ilir
25-07-15, 13:49
And for the record up until 19th century Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians,their language Illyrian,their Alphabet Illyrian by the Austro-Hungarians,Habsburgs,Franks etc,i don't think that mean much,only shift was made later when Albanian state needed to be created,which today is dismissed.Since in Illyricum both Centum and Satem languages were spoken from ancient times especially in the Adriatic coast Dalmatia and Istria.
That majority of modern scholars accept that Albanian tongue, descent or evolved by Illyrian language.

Piro Ilir
25-07-15, 13:53
And for the record up until 19th century Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians,their language Illyrian,their Alphabet Illyrian by the Austro-Hungarians,Habsburgs,Franks etc,i don't think that mean much,only shift was made later when Albanian state needed to be created,which today is dismissed.Since in Illyricum both Centum and Satem languages were spoken from ancient times especially in the Adriatic coast Dalmatia and Istria.
If those Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians, this doesn't mean they really were. They don't have any Latin and Greek loan words on their language. This mean they didn't lived there during the long Roman invasion.

Piro Ilir
25-07-15, 14:32
No such thing as Illyrian language,we don't know was all "Illyrian" tribes related to eachother,what we know is region called Illyrian by Greco-Roman ethnographers with no clear picture on ethnic origin of the same people,Albanian language has heavy borrowings from Slavic half and more toponyms in Albania itself are of Slavic origin and near to all in Kosovo.Influence from other languages Albanian is "Latinazied" so what if is it?that mean that your culture had more borrowing from the cultures mentioned prior.Bear in mind Albanians are mentioned first in 12 century,first alphabet in the 20th century,almost all your words for sea,fish and stuff are from other languages.Slavic language has great matching with the Thracian language,some of the first IE in the Balkans,so we don't need much Greek or Latin loanwords,since we know that Greek and Romans also borrowed from Thracians including their deities.
If you had read ancient writers, you know well that they described that Illyrians were one and only ethnic people. Today among scholars is a dispute about some of the illyrian tribes origin. Some of them as the Veneti probably were not Illyrians. During the Roman conquest ancient Roman writers wrote that the inhabitants of the areas around today basin Drin river were Illyrians proper dicti, but even the other illyrian tribes were akin. In ancient Roman sources is well documented the Slavic migration, but there is not even a single source mentioning any kind of Albanian migration. Albanians didn't came there with helicopters [emoji23]. The term illyrian was replaced with the term Albanian over time during the history. The name Illyrian into Albanian was replaced during the years when the East Roman empire was very weak during the time of barbaric migration. What is the surprise about this. Thus happens all the time during history. There are many Slavic toponyms because of the Slavic invasion. There are still some Latin toponyms either. The only moment in history when is a lack of sources about Illyrians and Albanians is the moment when Slavs were very powerful and the Byzantium was not present throughout the region. It was called the dark age. Precisely during this time the "Illyrian" name was replaced by the "Albanian" name.

RobertColumbia
25-07-15, 14:51
If those Serbs and Croats were called Illyrians, this doesn't mean they really were. They don't have any Latin and Greek loan words on their language. This mean they didn't lived there during the long Roman invasion.

Do note that the opposite is not necessarily true - the fact that a language has Latin and Greek loanwords does not indicate that its Roman-era speakers were under Roman occupation. In many cases, the loanwords came later via peoples who were descended from and/or had themselves been occupied by Romans.

Piro Ilir
25-07-15, 14:52
No loan words of ancient Hellenic and Latin origin into the Slavic languages. Many loan words of Latin origin into the Albanian language some of them of archaic Latin. Some loan words of the Albanian language predates the Roman conquest, and these words are of ancient Hellenic origin. Modern vlach and Romanian language have no words of archaic Latin origin, but albanian language has. All this mean that Albanian language is evolve on those areas.

LeBrok
25-07-15, 17:59
No loan words of ancient Hellenic and Latin origin into the Slavic languages. Many loan words of Latin origin into the Albanian language some of them of archaic Latin. Some loan words of the Albanian language predates the Roman conquest, and these words are of ancient Hellenic origin. Modern vlach and Romanian language have no words of archaic Latin origin, but albanian language has. All this mean that Albanian language is evolve on those areas.
It means that it evolved close to places where ancient Greek and Roman was spoken. South Italian peninsula fits this location better than Balkans.

Taranis
25-07-15, 18:36
No loan words of ancient Hellenic and Latin origin into the Slavic languages. Many loan words of Latin origin into the Albanian language some of them of archaic Latin. Some loan words of the Albanian language predates the Roman conquest, and these words are of ancient Hellenic origin.

Actually, here you both right and wrong: there are Greek loanwords in Slavic, but they mostly came from medieval Greek into Old Church Slavic, and not into Proto-Slavic. In contrast, Albanian contact with Greek was much earlier (for example the Albanian word for apple, "mollë", is borrowed from Greek "mēlo" or "μηλο"). Proto-Slavic does have a few Latin borrowings actually, for example the words for vinegar (Latin "acetum", Polish "ocet"), wine (Latin "vinum", Polish "wino") or donkey (Latin "asellus", Polish "osioł"). The largest part of loanwords in Slavic actually comes from Germanic.


Modern vlach and Romanian language have no words of archaic Latin origin, but albanian language has. All this mean that Albanian language is evolve on those areas.

This statement is a contradiction. Of course Romanian has words that are of archaic Latin origin, it is a Romance language after all.

Trojet
25-07-15, 19:31
It means that it evolved close to places where ancient Greek and Roman was spoken. South Italian peninsula fits this location better than Balkans.

I hope this is a joke lol... Otherwise it would be the latest crazy theory of Albanian being evolved in a different place other than where presently Albanian spoken.

Pirro Ilir described it perfectly as well as to some point Taranis. The earliest Latin loanwords to Albanian date BC. We know that the Illyrians living in present Albania were the first to be occupied by the Romans, so some of these archaic Latin words are only found in Albanian. As far as Ancient Greek loanwords go, the earliest loanwords are dated BC as well.

All this is just another evidence that Albanian evolved pretty much in the same areas where presently spoken (southernmost Illyrian tribes who didn't get Romanized or later Slavicized). Genetics is pointing to the same conclusion.

I'm no linguist expert, but I know these basic historical and linguistical facts that BTW are accepted by every serious linguist and historian. Then again I wonder how this thread got turned into a debate about the origin of Albanian.

Sile
25-07-15, 20:58
I hope this is a joke lol... Otherwise it would be the latest crazy theory of Albanian being evolved in a different place other than where presently Albanian spoken.

Pirro Ilir described it perfectly as well as to some point Taranis. The earliest Latin loanwords to Albanian date BC. We know that the Illyrians living in present Albania were the first to be occupied by the Romans, so some of these archaic Latin words are only found in Albanian. As far as Ancient Greek loanwords go, the earliest loanwords are dated BC as well.

All this is just another evidence that Albanian evolved pretty much in the same areas where presently spoken (southernmost Illyrian tribes who didn't get Romanized or later Slavicized). Genetics is pointing to the same conclusion.

I'm no linguist expert, but I know these basic historical and linguistical facts that BTW are accepted by every serious linguist and historian. Then again I wonder how this thread got turned into a debate about the origin of Albanian.

You need to recheck your history for occupation of modern albanian lands

bronzeage - Dorians
-then corinthians , all along the coast
-then Epirotes who allowed 2 Illyrians tribes to enter around 400BC
-then epirotes where annexed by Macedonians around 300BC
-then part annexed by Romans in 198BC in first macedonian war
-then the remainder in second Macedonian war against Romans in 146BC

- Romans built the biggest road in the Balkans stretching from Durrazzo to Istanbul. this also is the very important major road that linked the 2 Roman empire later on

Ike
25-07-15, 21:41
I hope this is a joke lol... Otherwise it would be the latest crazy theory of Albanian being evolved in a different place other than where presently Albanian spoken.
Does it really shake your world to even consider a possibility that you ancestry could be like 500 km from where you are now. Does it really have to be less than 50 km? Does it give you a migraine or arrhythmia?


Pirro Ilir described it perfectly as well as to some point Taranis. The earliest Latin loanwords to Albanian date BC. We know that the Illyrians living in present Albania were the first to be occupied by the Romans, so some of these archaic Latin words are only found in Albanian. As far as Ancient Greek loanwords go, the earliest loanwords are dated BC as well.
That doesn't prove that Albanians were there in BC era. How would you know that an alleged BC ancient loanword didn't enter Albanian in like 5th or 11th century? You really think that Greek language was standardized in those times? The fact that officials in Constantinople used a different form of word in 8th century, doesn't prove that the whole Balkan was using it, and that the old term was still not in use up high in Greek and Macedonian mountains for centuries to go.


All this is just another evidence that Albanian evolved pretty much in the same areas where presently spoken (southernmost Illyrian tribes who didn't get Romanized or later Slavicized). Genetics is pointing to the same conclusion. No it doesn't. If you have looked carefully into facts you would have seen, for example:



although some Albanian toponyms descend from Illyrian, Illyrian toponyms from antiquity have not changed according to the usual phonetic laws applying to the evolution of Albanian.
Latin loanwords into Albanian show East Balkan Latin (Proto-Romanian) phonetics, rather than West Balkan (Dalmatian) phonetics.
the scarcity of Greek loan words also supports a Dacian theory


Etc. There are many more contradictions that need to be resolved , before you could even start making that claim.


Genetics is pointing to the same conclusion.
No it doesn't. We don't know the original Albanian Y-DNA mix, and E-V13 diversity hotspot is not on the territories populated by Albanians today.


I'm no linguist expert, but I know these basic historical and linguistical facts that BTW are accepted by every serious linguist and historian. Then again I wonder how this thread got turned into a debate about the origin of Albanian.
Facts are accepted, but not your explanations. The number of facts you're referring to is too small to draw conclusions from them like you do.


Then again I wonder how this thread got turned into a debate about the origin of Albanian.
It turned in #125, when our new member Piro tried to assert that Albanians assimilated Thracians.

Trojet
25-07-15, 22:03
You guys like IKE, SILE aka VETTOR, GARRICK, are quoting too much wikipedia and are acting like you are some kind of experts. Your anti Albanian agenda is pretty evident. Again you try to make Albanians seem like they are some "recent arrivals" by cherry picking every unproven theory, and without providing any proof.

I'm sorry, but you will never succeed convincing anybody who has done some research, except people who share your agenda.

Albanians are really autochthonous, and Kosova will never be again part of Serbia, so please stop dreaming and accept the reality :)

Oh and BTW, I will never be afraid to protect and show my nationality (if that's what anyone has a problem with) just like anyone else shouldn't be afraid to do the same about their nationality. I'm willing to have a debate about serious things, but not about unproven cherrypicking theories that clearly show agenda/propaganda. I'm aware that there is countless unproven theories about other Balkan ethnicities too, but I choose not to bring them up cause I know they are such, and don't have any hatress or agenda about any ethnicity.

Ike
25-07-15, 22:25
Albanians are really autochthonous, and Kosova will never be again part of Serbia, so please stop dreaming and accept the reality :)

At least we all know your agenda now. Don't worry, Kosovo is not even in question. Kosovo population is really young, estimated to 1500 years ago. None of us is connected with Dardanians who lived there in BC times. We were talking about Albanians.

Trojet
25-07-15, 23:51
At least we all know your agenda now. Don't worry, Kosovo is not even in question. Kosovo population is really young, estimated to 1500 years ago. None of us is connected with Dardanians who lived there in BC times. We were talking about Albanians.

There is no "agenda" with that statement I made. I just brought the possible reasons why you dismiss anything us Albanians say. We have had previous discussions on other threads and you guys dismiss every fact me and other Albanians bring up and put up your own cherry picking unproven theories to support your agenda. I have nothing against you guys. I just feel like some of you have a backwards mentality and need to move on on certain issues.

As far as Dardania goes, besides them being considered an illyrian tribe and the name "Darda" meaning "Pear" in Albanian, we have no "concrete" proof who is connected with Dardanians now, but it would be safe to assume that people living around ancient Dardania (Albanians, Serbs, Macedonians) have a lot of Dardanian ancestors.

Trojet
25-07-15, 23:54
Double post. Please delete.

Ike
26-07-15, 00:27
There is no "agenda" with that statement I made.
I just brought the possible reasons why you dismiss anything us Albanians say. We have had previous discussions on other threads and you guys dismiss every fact me and other Albanians bring up and put up your own cherry picking unproven theories to support your agenda.

Well, maybe if you stopped using internet as a background for you political games....
Cherry picked or not, you have to reconcile them all. Do you realize that? Otherwise, no continuity.



I have nothing against you guys. I just feel like some of you have a backwards mentality and need to move on on certain issues.
I wish you had a lot more against me, and that you built a 10m concrete wall against Yugoslavia. That would have been best. Your indifference is killing me :)


As far as Dardania goes, besides them being considered an illyrian tribe and the name "Darda" meaning "Pear" in Albanian, we have no "concrete" proof who is connected with Dardanians now, but it would be safe to assume that people living around ancient Dardania (Albanians, Serbs, Macedonians) have a lot of Dardanian ancestors.

Why would it be safe? We have numerous data saying that population of that parts of Balkan was annihilated during military campaigns of Romans, Macedonian, plagues, etc...
I mean, it is possible, but we don't even have a single DNA evidence.

Gosh
01-08-15, 13:06
I have been to Austria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia and I found that the Croats do not look like Serbs or Poles. They look more like Hungarians or Austrians. Of course they are mixed but tend not to look like Serbs. No wonder they hate each other. Serbs look very similar to Greeks, Albanians or Bulgarians -- in other words, more Semitic or Eastern Mediterrenean. The Croats are more closer to Illyrians, Celts, and Germanics than Slavic or Greek. I21a is probably Germanic (Gothic) as the Germans occupied the whole of Slovakia, Eastern Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Bosnia, and northern Serbia for a long time (100BCE-500 AD). The "Croats" eventually adopted Slavic language probably because the nobility was Slavic speaking or they were flooded with Slavic conquerors.

I have also visited many of these countries but I don't share the same view with you.
a) I2a1b (not a), has frequency cca 37% between Croats, 35% between Serbs and 42% between Bosniaks (muslims)
b) R1a is cca 22% between Croats and 14-17% between Serbs and Bosniaks.

If you know these information you will understand that it is merely the same population. You are talking here about phenotype it is something rather different thing compared with Y-chromosome ancestry.
Yes, you're right, Serbs looks more like Bulgarians, Greeks or Albanians because they are geographically more close to them than Croats.



The Croats are more closer to Illyrians, Celts, and Germanics than Slavic or Greek

Frankly, this is a pure BS. We don't know how Illyrians looked like. Croats from Dalmatia are visually much more similar to Serbs than to Celts and Germans. People from the north-west Croatia is very similar to Slovenians. They looks like Hungarians, Slovaks or western Ukrainians.

Ike
01-08-15, 13:13
Yes, you're right, Serbs looks more like Bulgarians, Greeks or Albanians because they are geographically more close to them than Croats.

Not the Serbs dude, Serbians do.

Piro Ilir
02-08-15, 14:05
It means that it evolved close to places where ancient Greek and Roman was spoken. South Italian peninsula fits this location better than Balkans.
First time I hear this theory. North West Greek dialect and doric dialect on Albanian language dismisses your theory.

Piro Ilir
02-08-15, 14:22
Actually, here you both right and wrong: there are Greek loanwords in Slavic, but they mostly came from medieval Greek into Old Church Slavic, and not into Proto-Slavic. In contrast, Albanian contact with Greek was much earlier (for example the Albanian word for apple, "mollë", is borrowed from Greek "mēlo" or "μηλο"). Proto-Slavic does have a few Latin borrowings actually, for example the words for vinegar (Latin "acetum", Polish "ocet"), wine (Latin "vinum", Polish "wino") or donkey (Latin "asellus", Polish "osioł"). The largest part of loanwords in Slavic actually comes from Germanic.



This statement is a contradiction. Of course Romanian has words that are of archaic Latin origin, it is a Romance language after all.
Romanian is a romance language, but it was formed later than the period of the first Roman invasion in Balkans. Illyrians were the first people submitted by the Romans. After them the tracians and the Helens. The romance language which are still spoken in Balkans show a later period of evolution. Albanian language shows a earlier period of interference by the Latin. The only logical problem between Illyrian and modern Albanian language is the division satem- centum. Albanian is satem and the Illyrian was unknown. There are evidences of centum in illyrian, and likewise of satem. Tracian show a strong evidence of satem too, but we don't have much words by the tracian language, either.
But although I read sources which saying that all this division satem centum is not too much reliable.

Piro Ilir
02-08-15, 14:36
You need to recheck your history for occupation of modern albanian lands

bronzeage - Dorians
-then corinthians , all along the coast
-then Epirotes who allowed 2 Illyrians tribes to enter around 400BC
-then epirotes where annexed by Macedonians around 300BC
-then part annexed by Romans in 198BC in first macedonian war
-then the remainder in second Macedonian war against Romans in 146BC

- Romans built the biggest road in the Balkans stretching from Durrazzo to Istanbul. this also is the very important major road that linked the 2 Roman empire later on
You mentioned the famous via egnatia, above. The real split between the two Albanian dialects tosk and gheg was after this ancient road was built. This ancient highway is the borderline between the two dialects. Further north of this road lives the ghegs, and further south lives the tosks. This road made itself the borderline between the Albanian branches. This is another proof that Albanians were living there. Linguistic evidences show that Albanian language spoken on this areas predated the Slavic migration.

Piro Ilir
02-08-15, 14:47
Do note that the opposite is not necessarily true - the fact that a language has Latin and Greek loanwords does not indicate that its Roman-era speakers were under Roman occupation. In many cases, the loanwords came later via peoples who were descended from and/or had themselves been occupied by Romans.
My point was that if the Serbs don't have an early interference in their language by any ancient language from which we have written evidences, this means they don't have any possibility to has any connection with the Illyrians nor with any other ancient tribes. Albanian, Greek and Romanian language shows too interference between them. The language is a clue. If we are serious, we can't ignore it.

Piro Ilir
02-08-15, 14:56
At least we all know your agenda now. Don't worry, Kosovo is not even in question. Kosovo population is really young, estimated to 1500 years ago. None of us is connected with Dardanians who lived there in BC times. We were talking about Albanians.
At least, you need to bring any argument about your unproven theories. Probably as we know, the dardanians were one of the largest Illyrian tribes.

Tomenable
02-08-15, 15:08
Albanians are really autochthonous

I thought those were Neanderthals who were really (!) autochthonous, not Albanians?: :thinking::shocked:

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/110815_r21179_g2048-1200.jpg

Ike
02-08-15, 17:54
You mentioned the famous via egnatia, above. The real split between the two Albanian dialects tosk and gheg was after this ancient road was built. This ancient highway is the borderline between the two dialects. Further north of this road lives the ghegs, and further south lives the tosks. This road made itself the borderline between the Albanian branches. This is another proof that Albanians were living there. Linguistic evidences show that Albanian language spoken on this areas predated the Slavic migration.

So your view is that Albanians were frogs? Having problem crossing the highway?



At least, you need to bring any argument about your unproven theories. Probably as we know, the dardanians were one of the largest Illyrian tribes.

This could be a good starting point for you to think about when creating the wild theories about Albanian history:

"For instance, the high degree of sharedcommon ancestry among Albanian speakers might be because most of these originated from a small village rather than uniformly across Albania and Kosovo."

"This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years."

"These individuals share similar numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations as do individuals in other parts of Europe, implying that the Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one."


source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3815v1.pdf

LeBrok
02-08-15, 18:10
First time I hear this theory. North West Greek dialect and doric dialect on Albanian language dismisses your theory. It is no theory, but a prediction based on your hypothesis. You should have read your post again to understand the context.

Trojet
02-08-15, 20:06
I thought those were Neanderthals who were really (!) autochthonous, not Albanians?: :thinking::shocked:

Autochthonous relative to our Slavic neighbors. You know exactly what I mean, don't act so ignorant.

Now back to topic everyone. This thread is not about the origin of the Albanians.

Sile
02-08-15, 20:11
You mentioned the famous via egnatia, above. The real split between the two Albanian dialects tosk and gheg was after this ancient road was built. This ancient highway is the borderline between the two dialects. Further north of this road lives the ghegs, and further south lives the tosks. This road made itself the borderline between the Albanian branches. This is another proof that Albanians were living there. Linguistic evidences show that Albanian language spoken on this areas predated the Slavic migration.

The question is, ............IMO, the Ghegs and Tosks are a completely different ethnic race from each other in ancient times. Different, in culture, language and DNA

Trojet
02-08-15, 20:13
The question is, ............IMO, the Ghegs and Tosks are a completely different ethnic race from each other in ancient times. Different, in culture, language and DNA

Your opinion doesn't matter because time and time again you have been proven wrong. Opinions are often based on facts which you don't provide any besides just expressing your anti Albanian agenda all over the internet.

Sile
02-08-15, 20:18
Romanian is a romance language, but it was formed later than the period of the first Roman invasion in Balkans. Illyrians were the first people submitted by the Romans. After them the tracians and the Helens. The romance language which are still spoken in Balkans show a later period of evolution. Albanian language shows a earlier period of interference by the Latin. The only logical problem between Illyrian and modern Albanian language is the division satem- centum. Albanian is satem and the Illyrian was unknown. There are evidences of centum in illyrian, and likewise of satem. Tracian show a strong evidence of satem too, but we don't have much words by the tracian language, either.
But although I read sources which saying that all this division satem centum is not too much reliable.

The theory that Illyrians came from around modern Hungary and headed west and south-west over time has never been disputed , even though it is noted for 100 years before many many historians.

Illyrians also also attached to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vu%C4%8Dedol_culture

as Proto-illyrians, again always noted and never disputed.

Ancient greeks did note that Thracians occupied modern serbia and montenegro before the Illyrians arrived there.

Sile
02-08-15, 20:21
Your opinion doesn't matter because time and time again you have been proven wrong. Opinions are often based on facts which you don't provide any besides just expressing your anti Albanian agenda all over the internet.

I am not anti-anyone ................I am anti-fabrication, something you seem to thrive on.............I give you questions on ancient albanians that you cannot answer, it must mean you know very little about ancient Albanians or you are not even an Albanian. Have you followed your Albanian family line?

Sile
02-08-15, 20:24
Your opinion doesn't matter because time and time again you have been proven wrong. Opinions are often based on facts which you don't provide any besides just expressing your anti Albanian agenda all over the internet.

The Thread is about Croatians and not Albanians .....................I suggest you stop yacking about Albanians and talk about them in an Albanian thread.

Trojet
02-08-15, 20:29
I am not anti-anyone ................I am anti-fabrication, something you seem to thrive on.............I give you questions on ancient albanians that you cannot answer, it must mean you know very little about ancient Albanians or you are not even an Albanian. Have you followed your Albanian family line?

Show me what I have fabricated? It is not my fault that you have a problem with history and trying to rewrite it. You are acting ridiculous to even question my nationality zanipolo, aka vettor, aka sile. What do u think I am? Or what do u think my Y-DNA says?

Language, archeology, and genetics all point to the same conclusion that Albanians are descendant of Paleo-Balkan populations who have inhabited roughly the same areas since the Bronze age. I dare anyone to bring facts that this is not true, otherwise please back to topic about Croatians.

Trojet
02-08-15, 20:42
Double post. Please delete.

Yetos
02-08-15, 21:18
You mentioned the famous via egnatia, above. The real split between the two Albanian dialects tosk and gheg was after this ancient road was built. This ancient highway is the borderline between the two dialects. Further north of this road lives the ghegs, and further south lives the tosks. This road made itself the borderline between the Albanian branches. This is another proof that Albanians were living there. Linguistic evidences show that Albanian language spoken on this areas predated the Slavic migration.

ha?

so 1200 AD is before 800 BC?

Yetos
02-08-15, 21:22
First time I hear this theory. North West Greek dialect and doric dialect on Albanian language dismisses your theory.

?????

and I thought that Albanian is language of its own,

now you mix it again with Greek dialects?

joeyc
02-08-15, 21:48
No they are Turkic Avars.

Ike
03-08-15, 00:28
Show me what I have fabricated? It is not my fault that you have a problem with history and trying to rewrite it. You are acting ridiculous to even question my nationality zanipolo, aka vettor, aka sile. What do u think I am? Or what do u think my Y-DNA says?

Language, archeology, and genetics all point to the same conclusion that Albanians are descendant of Paleo-Balkan populations who have inhabited roughly the same areas since the Bronze age. I dare anyone to bring facts that this is not true, otherwise please back to topic about Croatians.

For the fifth time in this forum. I dare you to present a single proof that those Paleo Balkan people that are Albanians today were also Albanians just 1000 years ago. And open a separate thread.

DuPidh
03-08-15, 01:38
For the fifth time in this forum. I dare you to present a single proof that those Paleo Balkan people that are Albanians today were also Albanians just 1000 years ago. And open a separate thread.
Roman sources. They state that Illyrians inhabited the region.
The amount of E v13, J2b, I2a ballkanic came from slavisized Illirians. Croatian language shows that its original site was south Poland border with Ucraine. Current slavic population living there does not have this haplogroups.

Trojet
03-08-15, 02:42
For the fifth time in this forum. I dare you to present a single proof that those Paleo Balkan people that are Albanians today were also Albanians just 1000 years ago. And open a separate thread.

I have given you numerous sources such as this (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453) and this (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/The-Roman-Empire#toc42643) my ignorant Slavic friend, but your job is to deny everything Albanian, so there is no point for me to continue.

http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453 (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453)
http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/The-Roman-Empire#toc42643

Ike
03-08-15, 10:32
Roman sources. They state that Illyrians inhabited the region.
The amount of E v13, J2b, I2a ballkanic came from slavisized Illirians. Croatian language shows that its original site was south Poland border with Ucraine. Current slavic population living there does not have this haplogroups.

1. A single Illyrian corpse with any of those haplogroups please?

2. What do you mean they don"t have these haplogroups? Half of Europe's got like ~10 % of E-V13. Are you certain that they didn't also have it in the 4th century? There is a huge probability that there was 10x more Slavic E-V13 that entered Balkan, than autochthonous ones.

3. How do you connect these with Albanians anyway. There is a timehole of 1000 years between.



I have given you numerous sources such as this (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453) and this (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/The-Roman-Empire#toc42643) my ignorant Slavic friend, but your job is to deny everything Albanian, so there is no point for me to continue.

http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453 (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc129453)
http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/The-Roman-Empire#toc42643
Do you understand a concept of a fact? What you gave up there are not facts or proofs, but opinions. And separate thread dude...

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 13:32
I thought those were Neanderthals who were really (!) autochthonous, not Albanians?: :thinking::shocked:

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/110815_r21179_g2048-1200.jpg
Yes, the Neanderthals were the real autochtonous. But we are talking about the people who are still alive

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 13:51
So your view is that Albanians were frogs? Having problem crossing the highway?




This could be a good starting point for you to think about when creating the wild theories about Albanian history:

"For instance, the high degree of sharedcommon ancestry among Albanian speakers might be because most of these originated from a small village rather than uniformly across Albania and Kosovo."

"This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years."

"These individuals share similar numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations as do individuals in other parts of Europe, implying that the Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one."


source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3815v1.pdf
No. You misinterpreting my view. Albanians or the Albanian language survived from the Latin influence only on some isolated small pockets throughout south Illyria and Epirus. This is what I read from the serious linguists. Via egnatia was as a Latin gap between the two branches of the Albanian. This gap separated the two branches, but not only these. We had other ancient roads which divided other sub dialects of the Albanian. Ancients roads were a latinized area, where the Albanian language disappeared. If we see the ancient maps where the Roman roads crossed the territory, we will see the map of the division of the modern Albanian dialects. It can't be a coincidence

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 14:05
The question is, ............IMO, the Ghegs and Tosks are a completely different ethnic race from each other in ancient times. Different, in culture, language and DNA
No. As we read from serious linguists, they are not different. They are two branches of the Albanian ethnicity. They have many differences, as already have the Greeks. What is here that you don't understand. I think the first earlier division started 2300 years ago. The Hyllirians of the south, became culturally too close with the Hellenic culture (epirots tribes). Their ruling class became partly helenised. This helenised process was interrupted by the Roman invasion .(mollosians were totally killed , slaughtered and enslaved by the Romans) .

Yetos
03-08-15, 14:12
No. As we read from serious linguists, they are not different. They are two branches of the Albanian ethnicity. They have many differences, as already have the Greeks. What is here that you don't understand. I think the first earlier division started 2300 years ago. The Hyllirians of the south, became culturally too close with the Hellenichttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#8156131) culture (epirots tribes). Their ruling class became partly helenised. This helenised process was interrupted by the Roman invasion .(mollosians were totally killed , slaughtered and enslaved by the Romans) .

or the oposite?
they were Greeks and aromani who got Albanized

could be, right|?

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 14:13
The theory that Illyrians came from around modern Hungary and headed west and south-west over time has never been disputed , even though it is noted for 100 years before many many historians.

Illyrians also also attached to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vu%C4%8Dedol_culture

as Proto-illyrians, again always noted and never disputed.

Ancient greeks did note that Thracians occupied modern serbia and montenegro before the Illyrians arrived there.
The problem with ancient Greek writers is that they were too contradictory in too many things. There is not a trusted borderline what was Hyllirian, tracian, dacian, etc. Scutar looks like a tracian word. Although it is just a toponym.

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 14:17
ha?

so 1200 AD is before 800 BC?
I don't see your point here

Piro Ilir
03-08-15, 14:20
?????

and I thought that Albanian is language of its own,

now you mix it again with Greek dialects?
There was an interference by those ancient Hellenic dialects, on Albanian language. What is the surprise

Trojet
03-08-15, 16:25
or the oposite?
they were Greeks and aromani who got Albanized

could be, right|?

Or as I would like to say: northwest "Greeks" are hellenized Orthodox Albanians and Aromanis, since they are genetically closer to Albanians than southern Greeks.

Ike
03-08-15, 16:29
No. You misinterpreting my view. Albanians or the Albanian language survived from the Latin influence only on some isolated small pockets throughout south Illyria and Epirus. This is what I read from the serious linguists. Via egnatia was as a Latin gap between the two branches of the Albanian. This gap separated the two branches, but not only these. We had other ancient roads which divided other sub dialects of the Albanian. Ancients roads were a latinized area, where the Albanian language disappeared. If we see the ancient maps where the Roman roads crossed the territory, we will see the map of the division of the modern Albanian dialects. It can't be a coincidence

If you had ever seen a southern and northern Albanian you'd be certain they are of totally different ethnicity. That is the cause for different language, not the Romans or their road. Only God knows how many peoples were Albanized down there...

Trojet
03-08-15, 17:03
If you had ever seen a southern and northern Albanian you'd be certain they are of totally different ethnicity. That is the cause for different language, not the Romans or their road. Only God knows how many peoples were Albanized down there...

This is ridiculous to say the least. Different dialect doesn't mean different language/ethnicity. And please show us proof who "Albanized" these people otherwise stop japping your mouth.

I can't believe I have been arguing with someone who doesn't even know the difference between dialect, language and ethnicity.

Yetos
03-08-15, 20:02
Or as I would like to say: northwest "Greeks" are hellenized Orthodox Albanians and Aromanis, since they are genetically closer to Albanians than southern Greeks.

you say so,
blood nucleotid say different

Sile
03-08-15, 21:00
No. As we read from serious linguists, they are not different. They are two branches of the Albanian ethnicity. They have many differences, as already have the Greeks. What is here that you don't understand. I think the first earlier division started 2300 years ago. The Hyllirians of the south, became culturally too close with the Hellenic culture (epirots tribes). Their ruling class became partly helenised. This helenised process was interrupted by the Roman invasion .(mollosians were totally killed , slaughtered and enslaved by the Romans) .

Considering that the bulk of illyrian tribes sat in Bosnia, slovenia and croatia and that Vudedol culture was proto-Illyrian, the only logical scenario is this

Bosnia ......were many Illyrians who gained some slavs after 600CE became slavic later

Croatia .....were illyrians who became slavic due to the settlement of many slavs

Dalmatia............were illyrian as much as Bosnians who became slavs very late in time.

slovenian and eastern Austrians ( noricum area )..........were illyrians who became firstly bavarians then slavs , then east austria became bavarian again.

The percentage of illyrians who became albanians is very very small, we see this in the DNA

from top to bottom, ......which ancient ethnicity make up the albanians
Dardanians
Epirotes
Macedonians
Illyrians
Corinthinan Greeks
Dorians

Clearly you must realise that the Ghegs are "proper Albanians" and the Tosks are less so

But since Brittania states that Albanoi first appeared in 200CE ( common era (after christ )), it would be logical to say from this date, there was no longer any Dardanians, Illyrians and Dorians..so claiming any of these ethnicities is a fabrication

Sile
03-08-15, 21:06
And I can't believe that you never answered any of my questions. You want proofs? Test these Albanian kids, and prove yourself they are of same origin :)

7388

Don't bother with the guy he is not an albanian , does not know the history and only knows the propaganda given to him from the 19th century to today by the Albanian government.

Finalise
03-08-15, 22:33
Ike please stop commenting. Your comments are embarrassing. Sile, by what I've read, the two major cities in Illyria were Rizon in Montenegro, and Shkodra in Albania. Ironically, these seemed to have been subdued first, while it was the less subdued northern tribes that took part of the "last" revolt against Tiberius' army before the battle of the Teutoburg forest. Russia's biggest part is technically in Asia, but it's the European powers that held the most power. Likewise, the southern tribes, especially the ones that had contact with the Doric world were the biggest centers.

Trojet
04-08-15, 00:39
But since Brittania states that Albanoi first appeared in 200CE ( common era (after christ )), it would be logical to say from this date, there was no longer any Dardanians, Illyrians and Dorians..so claiming any of these ethnicities is a fabrication

Since you like to quote Britannica encyclopedia and are accusing me of "fabricating" history, this is what it says about Albanian history: (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc42639)

data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Similarly, the Albanian language (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Albanian-language) derives from the language of the Illyrians (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Illyrian-language), the transition from Illyrian to Albanian apparently occurring between the 4th and 6th centuries ce. and

Illyrian culture is believed to have evolved from the Stone Age (http://www.britannica.com/event/Stone-Age) and to have manifested itself in the territory of Albania toward the beginning of the Bronze Age (http://www.britannica.com/event/Bronze-Age), about 2000 bce). The Illyrians were not a uniform body of people but a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans (http://www.britannica.com/place/Balkans), from what is now Slovenia (http://www.britannica.com/place/Slovenia) in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus (http://www.britannica.com/place/Epirus), which extends about halfway down the mainland of modern Greece (http://www.britannica.com/place/Greece). In general, Illyrians in the highlands of Albania were more isolated than those in the lowlands, and their culture evolved more slowly—a distinction that persisted throughout Albania’s history.

Not much different from what I have been saying. As we can see now you are the one who fabricates and tries to manipulate my nation's history, so please stop it because you are embarrasing yourself. BTW of course I am Albanian and proud of it. I also carry a Y-DNA haplogroup that the highest percentage is found among Albanians than anywhere else in the world, and is considered a Neolithic Balkan marker:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2dkehbc.gif

Sile
04-08-15, 01:20
Since you like to quote Brittanica encyclopedia and are accusing me of "fabricating" history, this is what it says about Albanian history: (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc42639)
and


Not much different from what I have been saying. As we can see now you are the one who fabricates and tries to manipulate my nations history, so please stop it because you are embarrasing yourself. BTW of course I am Albanian and proud of it. I also carry a Y-DNA haplogroup that the highest percentage is found among Albanians than anywhere else in the world, and is considered a Neolithic Balkan marker:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2dkehbc.gif

If the Albanoi are first noted in history in the balkans in 200AD and the Illyrians disappeared by 5BC ................then who says the migrating Albanoi can claim Illyrian ethnicity?
You might as well give Illyrian claims also to croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians and Austrians

Finalise
04-08-15, 01:48
Sile, actually Paleo Balkanic tribes were mentioned in name up until the start of the Middle Ages. The Great Illyrian revolt happened from 6-9 AD, which is 10-15 years after 5 BC. Illyrians along with Dacians and Thracians were often mentioned up until 500 AD, since many officials of Rome were from here. I guess there could be a possibility that the Albanoi were some sort of Dacian-Thracian tribe that migrated there, but we have no records of such a thing.

Sile
04-08-15, 02:02
Sile, actually Paleo Balkanic tribes were mentioned in name up until the start of the Middle Ages. The Great Illyrian revolt happened from 6-9 AD, which is 10-15 years after 5 BC. Illyrians along with Dacians and Thracians were often mentioned up until 500 AD, since many officials of Rome were from here. I guess there could be a possibility that the Albanoi were some sort of Dacian-Thracian tribe that migrated there, but we have no records of such a thing.

yes , I stand corrected in the dat eof 9 AD , but the 4 year revolt led by "Bosnian" Illyrians ..led by Bato
Bato belonged to the indigenous Daesitiates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daesitiates) tribe,[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bato_%28Daesitiate_chieftain%29#cite_note-2) whose homeland was in what is today central Bosnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_%28region%29), and at the critical point in time he chose to lead his people in their struggle against their Roman occupiers. From 33 BC, the Daesitiates were under Roman rule as a semi-independent peregrine civitas.
was the last we saw of any illyrians who where externinated and broken up into smaller groups and where resettled in the alps ( austria, italy and switzerland ), france and Britain

The mix of Illyrian-dacian-thracian was only mentioned in Pannonia ( modern Hungary) , they where also mentioned with celts.

Pannonia ( hungary ) has been meontioned on more than a few occasions as being the homeland of Illyrians.

we then have Noricum in Austria as ancient Illyrians who started to merge with the celts in around 700BC

RobertColumbia
04-08-15, 03:41
No. As we read from serious linguists, they are not different. They are two branches of the Albanian ethnicity. They have many differences, as already have the Greeks....

Good point. Many ethnicities have branches. Irish people and Welsh people have differences, but are all Celtic. Russians and Poles are both Slavic, but they are not identical.

Ike
04-08-15, 08:52
Since you like to quote Britannica encyclopedia and are accusing me of "fabricating" history, this is what it says about Albanian history: (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc42639) ...

Written by Elez Biberaj.
Chief, Albanian Service, Voice of America, United States Information Agency, Washington, D.C. Author of Albania: A Socialist Maverick and others.

You must love USIans for this. OK, for the sixth time - give us facts. How exactly does Albanian descend from Illyrian. Examples, please?




Which of these tribes were Albanians? Maybe Shqiptars were named Scirtari? I see connection between skirt and tribe of Albanoi that wears kilts.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Illyrians.jpg

Yetos
04-08-15, 21:08
Since you like to quote Britannica encyclopedia and are accusing me of "fabricating" history, this is what it says about Albanian history: (http://www.britannica.com/place/Albania/Cultural-institutions#toc42639)
and


Not much different from what I have been saying. As we can see now you are the one who fabricates and tries to manipulate my nation's history, so please stop it because you are embarrasing yourself. BTW of course I am Albanian and proud of it. I also carry a Y-DNA haplogroup that the highest percentage is found among Albanians than anywhere else in the world, and is consideredhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#14668401) a Neolithic Balkan marker:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2dkehbc.gif

again you tell us nothing,
and if your hg is the one I guess then you are a pre-neolithic Thracian Bulgarian

Yetos
04-08-15, 21:13
yes , I stand corrected in the dat eof 9 AD , but the 4 year revolt led by "Bosnian" Illyrians ..led by Bato
Bato belonged to the indigenous Daesitiates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daesitiates) tribe,[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bato_%28Daesitiate_chieftain%29#cite_note-2) whose homeland was in what is today central Bosnia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_%28region%29), and at the critical point in time he chose to lead his people in their struggle against their Roman occupiers. From 33 BC, the Daesitiates were under Roman rule as a semi-independent peregrine civitas.
was the last we saw of any illyrians who where externinated and broken up into smaller groups and where resettled in the alps ( austria, italy and switzerland ), france and Britain

The mix of Illyrian-dacian-thracian was only mentioned in Pannonia ( modern Hungary) , they where also mentioned with celts.

Pannonia ( hungary ) has been meontioned on more than a few occasions as being the homeland of Illyrians.

we then have Noricum in Austria as ancient Illyrians who started to merge with the celts in around 700BC

I know noricum is where the Illyrian started and descent to limits of Greece,
I know Roman Illyricum which was not illyria proprie Dicti
But I do not know Iapyges and othertribes of Illyricum as Illyrians
besides Demetrius unified Illirians with Greeks in his anti-Roman campaign,
but nobody mentions the ALBOCENSE

Piro Ilir
04-08-15, 23:11
If you had ever seen a southern and northern Albanian you'd be certain they are of totally different ethnicity. That is the cause for different language, not the Romans or their road. Only God knows how many peoples were Albanized down there...
I don't see on them a strong difference. Only you see such stuffs. There are no proofs about your claim. Albanians were the last who got independent from the Ottomans, so probably they couldn't have the chance to assimilate any other larger population. The Serbs became earlier than the Albanians independent, so they assimilated too many vlachs and Albanians there. Are there still Vlachs on Serbia, or they are all assimilated by the Serbs. What is the situation of indigenous inhabitants of vojvodina. Is there still a Hungarian majority, or they are assimilated by the Serbs. Maybe they need their independence either. Lets make a referendum there

Piro Ilir
04-08-15, 23:29
Considering that the bulk of illyrian tribes sat in Bosnia, slovenia and croatia and that Vudedol culture was proto-Illyrian, the only logical scenario is this

Bosnia ......were many Illyrians who gained some slavs after 600CE became slavic later

Croatia .....were illyrians who became slavic due to the settlement of many slavs

Dalmatia............were illyrian as much as Bosnians who became slavs very late in time.

slovenian and eastern Austrians ( noricum area )..........were illyrians who became firstly bavarians then slavs , then east austria became bavarian again.

The percentage of illyrians who became albanians is very very small, we see this in the DNA

from top to bottom, ......which ancient ethnicity make up the albanians
Dardanians
Epirotes
Macedonians
Illyrians
Corinthinan Greeks
Dorians

Clearly you must realise that the Ghegs are "proper Albanians" and the Tosks are less so

But since Brittania states that Albanoi first appeared in 200CE ( common era (after christ )), it would be logical to say from this date, there was no longer any Dardanians, Illyrians and Dorians..so claiming any of these ethnicities is a fabrication
The center of the Hyllirians kingdom was Scutari, located in North west Albania. We don't know what was the center of the dardanian kingdom. Hyllirian DNA is unknown yet, so your statements are wrong. We know only a little from the tracian DNA. It is not secure either. The sources of Roman empire saying that the population of West Balkan was too rare when the barbarian migration started. So probably west Balkan Slavs mixed too rare with the locals, especially with the Hyllirians, who were remained a very small population from the Latin assimilation. When the Slavs arrived in west balkan they didn't found many Hyllirians there on the mountains.
The language is the clue, not the DNA. DNA is only a side indicator to understand further

Ike
05-08-15, 02:40
I don't see on them a strong difference. Only you see such stuffs.

Only me? It's easy to find people who have been there and have eyes:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=1423164&t=1475690

Trojet
05-08-15, 02:43
again you tell us nothing,
and if your hg is the one I guess then you are a pre-neolithic Thracian Bulgarian

What do u know about haplogroups? Nothing....
So you should stick to what you think you now. As I said J2b-L283 is a neolithic Balkan marker found at the highest frequency among Albanians. There was no "Bulgarians" in the Neolithic and of course nobody knows what haplogroups Thracians were made of. I was just making a point to Sile, aka Zanipolo, aka Vettor that I happen to carry one of the main Albanian Y-DNA haplogroups since he questioned whether I have explored my family line.

Trojet
05-08-15, 02:57
Ike please stop commenting. Your comments are embarrassing. Sile, by what I've read, the two major cities in Illyria were Rizon in Montenegro, and Shkodra in Albania. Ironically, these seemed to have been subdued first, while it was the less subdued northern tribes that took part of the "last" revolt against Tiberius' army before the battle of the Teutoburg forest. Russia's biggest part is technically in Asia, but it's the European powers that held the most power. Likewise, the southern tribes, especially the ones that had contact with the Doric world were the biggest centers.

I wouldnt bother with Sile, aka Zanipolo, aka Vettor. I actually thought he was half way serious, but he has lost any credibility he might have had. He is turning into a puppy of some of these Slavic forumers which are hiding behind a computer screen and throwing desperate attacks at Albanians and see if anything sticks. Even on a thread about Croatians?

Sile
05-08-15, 03:12
The center of the Hyllirians kingdom was Scutari, located in North west Albania. We don't know what was the center of the dardanian kingdom. Hyllirian DNA is unknown yet, so your statements are wrong. We know only a little from the tracian DNA. It is not secure either. The sources of Roman empire saying that the population of West Balkan was too rare when the barbarian migration started. So probably west Balkan Slavs mixed too rare with the locals, especially with the Hyllirians, who were remained a very small population from the Latin assimilation. When the Slavs arrived in west balkan they didn't found many Hyllirians there on the mountains.
The language is the clue, not the DNA. DNA is only a side indicator to understand further

The centre was not Scudari , it was much further north...........by the time the illyrians entered modern Albania the ancient Macedonians already ruled the area. Please read the history of Alexander the great father Philip and his many wars against the encroaching illyrians from the north.

Illyrian DNA is known, its I2a , R1b , G2a, and others and some 8% of E-v13...............the Illyrians are very mixed, because they are not ONE ethnicity

Sile
05-08-15, 03:15
I wouldnt bother with Sile, aka Zanipolo, aka Vettor. I actually thought he was half way serious, but he has lost any credibility he might have had. He is turning into a puppy of some of these Slavic forumers which are hiding behind a computer screen and throwing desperate attacks at Albanians and see if anything sticks. Even on a thread about Croatians?

Your fabrication is improving....I target slavs as much as Albanians , I also target, italians, Greeks, Celts etc etc................its not the race I target, it is the propaganda you comment on. It has zero historical truth.

You need to post in this site without being an Albanian..........then you might not be annoying anymore

Trojet
05-08-15, 03:16
The centre was not Scudari , it was much further north...........by the time the illyrians entered modern Albania the ancient Macedonians already ruled the area. Please read the history of Alexander the great father Philip and his many wars against the encroaching illyrians from the north.

Illyrian DNA is known, its I2a , R1b , G2a, and others and some 8% of E-v13...............the Illyrians are very mixed, because they are not ONE ethnicity

Show us some ancient Illyrian Y-DNA to support your claim. There is none yet.
So then since clearly you just fabricated a lie about ancient Illyrian Y-DNA, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously about other claims you are blabbering about???

Trojet
05-08-15, 03:28
Your fabrication is improving....I target slavs as much as Albanians , I also target, italians, Greeks, Celts etc etc................its not the race I target, it is the propaganda you comment on. It has zero historical truth.

You are accusing me of "fabricating" things, without even pointing to what I have fabricated.


You need to post in this site without being an Albanian..........then you might not be annoying anymore

Oh... So now I actually am Albanian to you? On the previous page you said this about me:
Don't bother with the guy he is not an albanian
You guys are embarrassing yourselves lol... you're all over the place hahaha.

Sile
05-08-15, 20:41
You are accusing me of "fabricating" things, without even pointing to what I have fabricated.



Oh... So now I actually am Albanian to you? On the previous page you said this about me:
You guys are embarrassing yourselves lol... you're all over the place hahaha.

I had to say Albanian for yourself to respect you as you stated you are Albanian ( as I need to rely on your avatar )

Do you see me bringing my nationalistic support for Italians on this forum? .............I suggest you check where your ancestors are from and even then do not bring your nationalistic views to this forum.

Sile
05-08-15, 20:47
Show us some ancient Illyrian Y-DNA to support your claim. There is none yet.
So then since clearly you just fabricated a lie about ancient Illyrian Y-DNA, how is anyone supposed to take you seriously about other claims you are blabbering about???

The DNA of old yugoslavia shows to a high degree what was "Illyrian" DNA. since I2a seems the majority in the area and that recent DNA tests also shows Remedello culture in northern Italy states also I2a,................... one need to concludes, that I2a in northern Italy and northern "old yugoslavia" was proto-illyrian/proto-raetic, especially since the northern adriatic sea was once land and not sea.
G2a is also found there as an ancient marker

Eldritch
06-08-15, 16:59
The DNA of old yugoslavia shows to a high degree what was "Illyrian" DNA. since I2a seems the majority in the area and that recent DNA tests also shows Remedello culture in northern Italy states also I2a,................... one need to concludes, that I2a in northern Italy and northern "old yugoslavia" was proto-illyrian/proto-raetic, especially since the northern adriatic sea was once land and not sea.
G2a is also found there as an ancient marker
I2a in remedello is of the Sardinian variety so not similar at all compared to the Slavic I2a which is pretty much connected to the arrival of Slavs in Balkans.

Trojet
06-08-15, 23:00
I2a in remedello is of the Sardinian variety so not similar at all compared to the Slavic I2a which is pretty much connected to the arrival of Slavs in Balkans.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to correct him on this other than me, cause I would've been accused again of "nationalistic views".

Sile is making up false stories about ancient Illyrian Y-DNA which we don't have any yet (somehow he is trying to connect it with present Slavic haplogroups). Just like he is distorting other historical facts above when he said "Macedonians" ruled present day Albania before Illyrians got there.

Garrick
07-08-15, 00:47
Your fabrication is improving....I target slavs as much as Albanians , I also target, italians, Greeks, Celts etc etc................its not the race I target, it is the propaganda you comment on. It has zero historical truth.

You need to post in this site without being an Albanian..........then you might not be annoying anymore

Sile, some Romanian scientists argue that Albanians are Free Dacians who lived in present day Moldavia, eastern part of Romania and southern Ukraine. What is interesting in these areas today there are a lot of Albanian toponyms. If this theory is correct Albanians came to present day Albania between 5-10 century.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Albanians_as_a_migrant_Dacian_people.png

Ike
07-08-15, 01:38
Thank you. I was waiting for someone to correct him on this other than me, cause I would've been accused again of "nationalistic views".

Sile is making up false stories about ancient Illyrian Y-DNA which we don't have any yet (somehow he is trying to connect it with present Slavic haplogroups). Just like he is distorting other historical facts above when he said "Macedonians" ruled present day Albania before Illyrians got there.

And we thank you for falling into this trap. So, why then you and your Albanian friends claim continuity, when you obviously have no idea about genetic imprint of Balkan in the times before 10th century? What's all this you write about?



...studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians...



Now genetics aside, same question for the language? How do you know the language of Illyrians?



Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians, the transition from Illyrian to Albanian apparently occurring between the 4th and 6th centuries ce.



However, the Illyrian data, consisting mainly of hydronyms, toponyms, and personal names and appearing in no inscriptions, may not be sufficient to sustain any clear identification of linguistic affinities. (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages#Relation_to_Albanian))

RobertColumbia
07-08-15, 17:04
...Now genetics aside, same question for the language? How do you know the language of Illyrians?

I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that there was just one "Illyrian" language. Consider it from the perspective of history. Suppose an archaeologist 2000 years from now tries to piece together European history from the fragments that remain after the Great Crisis of 2355 and is unsure of whether or not Swiss people spoke the same language as Belgians or whether or not there were separate "Swiss" and "Belgian" languages. It might not even occur to him to seriously consider the fact that both Switzerland and Belgium were multilingual countries.

Garrick
07-08-15, 18:05
I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that there was just one "Illyrian" language. Consider it from the perspective of history. Suppose an archaeologist 2000 years from now tries to piece together European history from the fragments that remain after the Great Crisis of 2355 and is unsure of whether or not Swiss people spoke the same language as Belgians or whether or not there were separate "Swiss" and "Belgian" languages. It might not even occur to him to seriously consider the fact that both Switzerland and Belgium were multilingual countries.

You can be right, and Illyrians could be conglomerate of different tribes.

But it don't change picture about Albanian.

In Romanian and Albanian has several thousands same or similar words, some of these words have Dacian origin.

In Eastern Romania, Moldavia,Southern Ukraine there are many many Albanian toponyms.

It is obviuos that in there areas Albanians lived once.

What is interesting Albanian linguists know for these facts but from some reason they try to find Pelasgian and Illyirian links with Albanian which don't exist, even Pelasgian has no link with Illyrian, what everything turns into circus.

We will eternally discuss about these tales, but Pelasgian probably is Colchian/Kartvelian and Illyrian probably formed somewhere in today's Italy.

Ike
07-08-15, 20:29
I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that there was just one "Illyrian" language. Consider it from the perspective of history. Suppose an archaeologist 2000 years from now tries to piece together European history from the fragments that remain after the Great Crisis of 2355 and is unsure of whether or not Swiss people spoke the same language as Belgians or whether or not there were separate "Swiss" and "Belgian" languages. It might not even occur to him to seriously consider the fact that both Switzerland and Belgium were multilingual countries.

We don't, yet our Albanian friends are left free here to spread their "evidence" in the form of word guessing like :

Singidunum = Singidun + um (Latin sufix) = sing i dun = sing i don't = Unsung city - An old English town on the Danube

Sile
07-08-15, 21:57
Sile, some Romanian scientists argue that Albanians are Free Dacians who lived in present day Moldavia, eastern part of Romania and southern Ukraine. What is interesting in these areas today there are a lot of Albanian toponyms. If this theory is correct Albanians came to present day Albania between 5-10 century.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Albanians_as_a_migrant_Dacian_people.png

I know about this , but I was referring to .......who owned the land of albania at the time and not the people.

If we go back to philip II he took the land and held it until Philip V...........Phililp V was in alliance with Hannibal and Syria against Rome. Rome moved into albania prior to the hannibal invasion of Italy to deny macedonia a sea passage to resupply Hannibals armies once it reached Italy.
Rome made Albania a Roman protectorate

After Rome beat Hannibal in the battle of Zama ( macedonia supplied Hannibal with 3000 troops in that battle ), Rome targeted Philip V , they attacked him for the next 50 years.

to conclude, the few illyrian tribes in northern albania entered the area while Philip II was around ,( courtesy of this Philip II ) as the "illyrian tribes" where escaping from other illyrian tribes .

There was no illyrian movement into northern albania from the death of Philip II and the death of Alexander the great ........the macedonians and the illyrians north of the DRIN river had a treaty of peace.

What did the Romans note/write about the area once it became a Roman protectorate during the Hannibal wars ...............I have still to find out.

Trojet
08-08-15, 02:37
@sile @ike @garrick: :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Garrick
08-08-15, 22:59
I know noricum is where the Illyrian started and descent to limits of Greece,
I know Roman Illyricum which was not illyria proprie Dicti
But I do not know Iapyges and othertribes of Illyricum as Illyrians
besides Demetrius unified Illirians with Greeks in his anti-Roman campaign,
but nobody mentions the ALBOCENSE

It can be true.

One my Romanian friend told me that not only in Moldavia and Eastern Romania and Southern Ukraine, even in Western Romania there are Albanian toponyms. But sometimes is hard that someone precise determines if the word is Albanian or Romanian because their languages are quite similar.

For example, Buri (Burs) is considered generally as Dacian tribe. But burrë in Albanian is man, husband, lord. Probably Buri were Dacian tribe but it is possible that among them there were Albanians, Buri were big tribe.

Romanian scientists consider tribes Karpi and Costoboci as possible Albanian, and these tribes were more Eastern in comparing with Buri. Albocese were on the Western side from Buri.

For Carpi tribe their name is attested as Albanian, because karpë in old Albanian is rock, and it is linked with Carpatian mountines. What is interesting and today in Carpatian mountines there are Albanian toponyms.

For Costoboci it is possible to find some links, for example Boci is Albanian surname. There are more Boci surname in Albania than in all countries in the world together. And probably several Boci in Germany, Italy, Greece etc. are Albanian origin.

For Albocense it is interesting Albanians don't like to speak about them. But it is attested as tribe and Albocense and Costoboci can be found in the ninth tabula of Europe of Ptolemy’s Geography.

It is known that what we know as Dacian tribes they were not only ethnic Dacian (Romanian), there were among them Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Scythian, Albanian, Sarmatian tribes.

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 13:16
Only me? It's easy to find people who have been there and have eyes:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=1423164&t=1475690
The Albanian scholars argue that the tosks evolved mostly from the epirot tribes and the gheg evolved from the Hyllirians. Both are the branches of one ethnicity. I don't see any argument for disputes on your post

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 13:35
The centre was not Scudari , it was much further north...........by the time the illyrians entered modern Albania the ancient Macedonians already ruled the area. Please read the history of Alexander the great father Philip and his many wars against the encroaching illyrians from the north.

Illyrian DNA is known, its I2a , R1b , G2a, and others and some 8% of E-v13...............the Illyrians are very mixed, because they are not ONE ethnicity
First time I hear that the Hyllirian DNA in known. As I know we don't have any Hyllirian DNA study. I see you don't have knowledge about Hyllirians. The two important most earlier centers of the Hyllirians were one on modern Bosnia, and one on modern Albania (Mat region) . This is well-known among scholars. These centers represent an earlier settlement which predates the Alexander the great. When the Romans decided to invade the Balkans, there was the kingdom of hylliria with the capital Scutari. There was the last stronghold of the Hyllirians against the Romans. Scutari was the real Hyllirian city that we know. During the bronze age and before, the west Balkan was an area too rare populated . If I remember well the center in Bosnia was in glasinac. Scutari was mentioned during the iron age.

Rethel
09-08-15, 13:45
Why are you writing Hylirians?

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 13:45
The DNA of old yugoslavia shows to a high degree what was "Illyrian" DNA. since I2a seems the majority in the area and that recent DNA tests also shows Remedello culture in northern Italy states also I2a,................... one need to concludes, that I2a in northern Italy and northern "old yugoslavia" was proto-illyrian/proto-raetic, especially since the northern adriatic sea was once land and not sea.
G2a is also found there as an ancient marker
You mean north Italy and north Yugoslavia. You mean the ancient Veneti, Etruscans etc. They probably were not Hyllirians. Scholars saying that the earlier Hyllirians archeological settlements were in Bosnia (glasinac) and in Albania (Mat) . Veneti were not Hyllirians. Liburni are very disputed among scholars. Probably they were not. During the Roman time, Hyllirian proper dicty were called (from the Roman writers) the people living on the area around basin of Drin river and further south.

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 14:02
Sile, some Romanian scientists argue that Albanians are Free Dacians who lived in present day Moldavia, eastern part of Romania and southern Ukraine. What is interesting in these areas today there are a lot of Albanian toponyms. If this theory is correct Albanians came to present day Albania between 5-10 century.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Albanians_as_a_migrant_Dacian_people.png
No, linguistically it's impossible. Between Vlachs and Albanians was a huge and long coexistence. Romanians settled there after the Slavic migration, migrating there from south. Modern Romanians are Roman colons who mixed with tracians and Hyllirians and few Slavs. The clergy and the church vocabulary of the Albanian language show an earlier linguistic evolution. It is archaic. This show that Albanians became Christians before the tracians and especially from the dacians. Dacians tracians and Hyllirians might be the branches of the same ethnicity. This is a theory among the scholars, but it's not yet accepted.

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 14:17
I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that there was just one "Illyrian" language. Consider it from the perspective of history. Suppose an archaeologist 2000 years from now tries to piece together European history from the fragments that remain after the Great Crisis of 2355 and is unsure of whether or not Swiss people spoke the same language as Belgians or whether or not there were separate "Swiss" and "Belgian" languages. It might not even occur to him to seriously consider the fact that both Switzerland and Belgium were multilingual countries.
Yes, I agree. We just trying to suppose here. Those ancient tribes were moving all the time. There was not a real border among them. But probably there was an Hyllirian language, but we don't know yet what really was Hyllirian. The Veneti were called as Hyllirians by the ancient Hellenes, but the modern scholars deny this. But the ancient hellenes writers said that when they visited the Hyllirian coasts, their core was somewhere on Montenegro or scodra lake. Also the Romans called as Hyllirian proper dicty, the people living around Drin basin river. The river start on ohrid lake and finish on scodra lake

Piro Ilir
09-08-15, 14:29
It can be true.

One my Romanian friend told me that not only in Moldavia and Eastern Romania and Southern Ukraine, even in Western Romania there are Albanian toponyms. But sometimes is hard that someone precise determines if the word is Albanian or Romanian because their languages are quite similar.

For example, Buri (Burs) is considered generally as Dacian tribe. But burrë in Albanian is man, husband, lord. Probably Buri were Dacian tribe but it is possible that among them there were Albanians, Buri were big tribe.

Romanian scientists consider tribes Karpi and Costoboci as possible Albanian, and these tribes were more Eastern in comparing with Buri. Albocese were on the Western side from Buri.

For Carpi tribe their name is attested as Albanian, because karpë in old Albanian is rock, and it is linked with Carpatian mountines. What is interesting and today in Carpatian mountines there are Albanian toponyms.

For Costoboci it is possible to find some links, for example Boci is Albanian surname. There are more Boci surname in Albania than in all countries in the world together. And probably several Boci in Germany, Italy, Greece etc. are Albanian origin.

For Albocense it is interesting Albanians don't like to speak about them. But it is attested as tribe and Albocense and Costoboci can be found in the ninth tabula of Europe of Ptolemy’s Geography.

It is known that what we know as Dacian tribes they were not only ethnic Dacian (Romanian), there were among them Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Scythian, Albanian, Sarmatian tribes.
Alba is an Latin word. So enough with this. Has nothing to do with the origin of the Albanians. It is found on Caucasus and in Scotland. Albanian were called a Hyllirian tribe which inhabited a region in Albania. Has nothing to do with all this dispute. First mention was at 150 ad.

Garrick
09-08-15, 16:48
Why are you writing Hylirians?

Good question, fair, and reputation.

He writes: Hylliran; y is sound between u and i, and ll is l; in Albanian l is ly, because Albanians much more use ly.

Why does he write it? Because Hyllirian "seems more Albanian". He tries to put all us to think Albanians are descendants of Illyrians, even in this unfair way.

In archaic Albanian hyll is star.
...

Albanians are from Moldavia, Eastern Romania and South Ukraine, they were Free Dacian tribes, probably Carpi and Costoboci, maybe more.

In these areas were very crowded when tribes from Asia entered.

Probably Huns forced Albanians to leave these areas, first they settled in Panonian plain, but and there were dangerous, and they came to today's Albania.

Balkans was depopulated and they came to areas where lived Armanji and Greeks.

Albanians nothing to do with Illirians and Pelasgians.

Ancient origin of Albanians is probably Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus (before Moldavia, Eastern Romania).

gyms
09-08-15, 18:55
Good question, fair, and reputation.

He writes: Hylliran; y is sound between u and i, and ll is l; in Albanian l is ly, because Albanians much more use ly.

Why does he write it? Because Hyllirian "seems more Albanian". He tries to put all us to think Albanians are descendants of Illyrians, even in this unfair way.

In archaic Albanian hyll is star.
...

Albanians are from Moldavia, Eastern Romania and South Ukraine, they were Free Dacian tribes, probably Carpi and Costoboci, maybe more.

In these areas were very crowded when tribes from Asia entered.

Probably Huns forced Albanians to leave these areas, first they settled in Panonian plain, but and there were dangerous, and they came to today's Albania.

Balkans was depopulated and they came to areas where lived Armanji and Greeks.

Albanians nothing to do with Illirians and Pelasgians.

Ancient origin of Albanians is probably Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus (before Moldavia, Eastern Romania).

You are a genius!

Yetos
09-08-15, 20:43
http://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png[/IMG] (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#42574603) is an Latin word. So enough with this. Has nothing to do with the origin of the Albanians. It is found on Caucasus and in Scotland. Albanian were called a Hyllirian tribe which inhabited a region in Albania. Has nothing to do with all this dispute. First mention was at 150 ad.


Oh really?

why you do not search how many Albas exist or existed in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia?
like Alba Iullia
is it true Belingrad older name was also Alba?

come on?
Anju/Huniades were Kumans and Romanians from Romanian Alba,
why you hide your shelf the truth?


Alba Alps Alpen etc has same meaning, with Greek Aλφειος/πελεκος/Λευκος Slavic Bjialo Germanic weis white, Latin Blanco, which in Albanian is bardhe
come on,

Sile
09-08-15, 20:48
You mean north Italy and north Yugoslavia. You mean the ancient Veneti, Etruscans etc. They probably were not Hyllirians. Scholars saying that the earlier Hyllirians archeological settlements were in Bosnia (glasinac) and in Albania (Mat) . Veneti were not Hyllirians. Liburni are very disputed among scholars. Probably they were not. During the Roman time, Hyllirian proper dicty were called (from the Roman writers) the people living on the area around basin of Drin river and further south.

Herodotus is the historian that stated the veneti where Illyrians, but he was wrong because in 2011 DNA states the Veneti where from northern Anatolia.
Roman historian Strabo states Illyrians are from the north, modern eastern-austria, croatia, bosnia
Roman historian Livy states Illyrians are from the north as per strabo and Veneti are from northern Antolia.

Herodotus was also wrong about the etruscans .......he states they are from lydia in anatolia ........how was their no association between lydians fighting against Phygians in central anatolia circa 500BC and not not being associated with etruscans in italy if etrucans came from lydians? .........surely historians would have stated they where the same people if the story of etruscans by herodorus was correct.

I have yet to see a Roman historian mentioning any albanians even though the major road running in the middle of Albania was built by Romans. I see no Roman surveyor mentioning any Albanians after the romans travelled all around albania looking for metals.

Trojet
10-08-15, 02:56
I have yet to see a Roman historian mentioning any albanians even though the major road running in the middle of Albania was built by Romans. I see no Roman surveyor mentioning any Albanians after the romans travelled all around albania looking for metals.

So Albanians were brought by aliens after the Romans left present day Albania? I'm waiting for Sile aka the Slavic puppet, or one of these Slavic speakers suggest this hypothesis.

Piro Ilir
10-08-15, 12:06
Good question, fair, and reputation.

He writes: Hylliran; y is sound between u and i, and ll is l; in Albanian l is ly, because Albanians much more use ly.

Why does he write it? Because Hyllirian "seems more Albanian". He tries to put all us to think Albanians are descendants of Illyrians, even in this unfair way.

In archaic Albanian hyll is star.
...

Albanians are from Moldavia, Eastern Romania and South Ukraine, they were Free Dacian tribes, probably Carpi and Costoboci, maybe more.

In these areas were very crowded when tribes from Asia entered.

Probably Huns forced Albanians to leave these areas, first they settled in Panonian plain, but and there were dangerous, and they came to today's Albania.

Balkans was depopulated and they came to areas where lived Armanji and Greeks.

Albanians nothing to do with Illirians and Pelasgians.

Ancient origin of Albanians is probably Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus (before Moldavia, Eastern Romania).
You again are wrong. This is coming to be an attitude for you. I use some times Hyllirian- Ilirian- Hillirian- Illyrian and in other forms just because there was not only one way when we read in different sources for them. It has nothing to do with the Albanian language. In whatever form you write it, it has a meaning on the Albanian language. Anyway, what is the meaning on the Serb language? A huge part of words from the hillirian origin, have an Albanian meaning . Likewise as the goodness Aphrodite.

Piro Ilir
10-08-15, 12:09
Why are you writing Hylirians?
I read it in different sources in different forms. Hyllirian, Illyrian, Ilirian, Hillyrian, etc . We don't know what was the exact from

Piro Ilir
10-08-15, 12:19
Oh really?

why you do not search how many Albas exist or existed in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia?
like Alba Iullia
is it true Belingrad older name was also Alba?

come on?
Anju/Huniades were Kumans and Romanians from Romanian Alba,
why you hide your shelf the truth?


Alba Alps Alpen etc has same meaning, with Greek Aλφειος/πελεκος/Λευκος Slavic Bjialo Germanic weis white, Latin Blanco, which in Albanian is bardhe
come on,
I don't see your point here. Alba probably is not connected with the yllirians. It is a word by Latin origin. Maybe connected with the word alps . It was mentioned in Albania during a time when probably the yllirians were living mostly on mountains. The mountains of Albania are too high and too steepest. That is why they called them Albanians. People living on mountains. The plains and the cities and the coasts were almost latinized.

Ike
10-08-15, 12:27
Why are you writing Hylirians?

Probably because of #219 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26473-Were-the-Croatians-originally-Slavic?p=464074&viewfull=1#post464074). In their nationalistic obsession, Albanians sometimes forget it was an exonym :grin:




So Albanians were brought by aliens after the Romans left present day Albania? I'm waiting for Sile aka the Slavic puppet, or one of these Slavic speakers suggest this hypothesis.

No, they were always there. There is abundant list of evidence of books, tablet and inscriptions, dated from 0-800 AD, left by Roman (Byzantine) emperors born in the places where Albanians have lived, where they cherish their non Greek ancestry in Proto Albanian language.

Piro Ilir
10-08-15, 12:30
Herodotus is the historian that stated the veneti where Illyrians, but he was wrong because in 2011 DNA states the Veneti where from northern Anatolia.
Roman historian Strabo states Illyrians are from the north, modern eastern-austria, croatia, bosnia
Roman historian Livy states Illyrians are from the north as per strabo and Veneti are from northern Antolia.

Herodotus was also wrong about the etruscans .......he states they are from lydia in anatolia ........how was their no association between lydians fighting against Phygians in central anatolia circa 500BC and not not being associated with etruscans in italy if etrucans came from lydians? .........surely historians would have stated they where the same people if the story of etruscans by herodorus was correct.

I have yet to see a Roman historian mentioning any albanians even though the major road running in the middle of Albania was built by Romans. I see no Roman surveyor mentioning any Albanians after the romans travelled all around albania looking for metals.
As far as I know, the scholars agree about Veneti. They think they were not illyrians. About the tribe Liburni, there is still a dispute among them. They still don't agree about the Liburni. About Dalmatians the majority of them agree. Dalmatian was an illyrian tribe. Interesting is the position of the mesapians on modern south east Italy. They are very important for the Hyllirian- Albanian continuity. If the mesapi were illyrians ,there is a strong possibility that Albanians probably evolved from the tracians. But it looks that mesapians were not illyrians. The Albanian theory of some nationalist Slavs is really ridiculous for the people who have some knowledge on the issue. It is an insult for our intelligence

Piro Ilir
10-08-15, 12:43
So Albanians were brought by aliens after the Romans left present day Albania? I'm waiting for Sile aka the Slavic puppet, or one of these Slavic speakers suggest this hypothesis.
Albanian tribe of the Hyllirians, is well documented by the ancient sources. (Ptolemy and others) 150 ad on the region around modern Kruja- Mat . Albanopolis was the center. Located on the area near Kruja, if I remember well, modern Zgerdhesh,but I might be wrong.

Trojet
10-08-15, 14:02
Albanian tribe of the Hyllirians, is well documented by the ancient sources. (Ptolemy and others) 150 ad on the region around modern Kruja- Mat . Albanopolis was the center. Located on the area near Kruja, if I remember well, modern Zgerdhesh,but I might be wrong.

Yep, that would be correct! I was just making fun at their ridiculous hypothesis thus far.

Trojet
10-08-15, 14:11
Double post.

Trojet
10-08-15, 14:14
Why don't we discuss some hypothesis about Serb origins. This one states that Serbs were originally an Iranian/ Sarmatian tribe originating somewhere in the Caucausus and then migrated to present day Poland area. After mixing with Slavs in Poland area where they founded White Serbia, supposedly they became Slavicized, and then obviously migrated to the Balkans sometime after the 6th century AD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_hypotheses_of_the_Serbs#Iranian_theory
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Migrations_serbes_avant_1000.png

Милан М.
10-08-15, 14:18
Albanian tribe of the Hyllirians, is well documented by the ancient sources. (Ptolemy and others) 150 ad on the region around modern Kruja- Mat . Albanopolis was the center. Located on the area near Kruja, if I remember well, modern Zgerdhesh,but I might be wrong.
Why do you call yourself Sqiptar instead of Albanian? in our sources Albanians are Arbanas,but you find it derogatory even the name that you use for yourself Sqiptar,why is that?

Милан М.
10-08-15, 14:21
Why don't we discuss some hypothesis about Serb origins. This one states that Serbs were originally an Iranian/ Sarmatian tribe originating somewhere in the Caucausus and then migrated to present day Poland area. After mixing with Slavs in Poland area where they founded White Serbia, supposedly they became Slavicized, and then obviously migrated to the Balkans sometime after the 6th century AD:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Migrations_serbes_avant_1000.png
The name Serb is old name and found from Germany to India,Caucasus,Afghanistan,Balkans,it's connected with IE people.

Yetos
10-08-15, 19:32
I read it in different sources in different forms. Hyllirian, Illyrian, Ilirian, Hillyrian, etc . We don't know what was the exact from


COME ON MAN,

FACE THE TRUTH ONCE IN YOUR LIFE

TERMINATION ILLYRIAN IS A GREEK EXONYM,
THE GREEK NAME THEM ILLYRIANS,
LIKE THE ROMAN CREATED THE TEMINATION GERMANS,
Germans never name their name as Germans,
Romans name them so
so Illyrians never name their nation as Illyrians,
Greeks name them so,


SO ANY EFFORT TO COMPINE IT WITH HYLL HAS NO MEANING

AN EXONYM IS AN EXONYM,

HE WHO TURNS THE EXONYM INTO AN INNERNAME (endonym esonym) AND TRIES TO GIVE MEANING IS JUST .... NOT SERIOUS

now back to your school to learn your propaganda poem correct

Yetos
10-08-15, 19:38
Yep, that would be correct! I was just making funhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#3736126) at their ridiculous hypothesis thus far.

are you kidding us?

even today Albanian Archaiologists dig and dig and dig and still say we will found Albanopolis,
but they never did,
they found all ancient Greek and Roman and what ever cities,
EVEN COLHIAN COLONY ULCINE
but not Albanopolis, why?

Yetos
10-08-15, 19:44
Albanian tribe of the Hyllirians, is well documented by the ancient sources. (Ptolemy and others) 150 ad on the region around modern Kruja- Mat . Albanopolis was the center. Located on the area near Kruja, if I remember well, modern Zgerdhesh,but I might be wrong.

AND YOU STIIL FABRICATE HISTORY,
NOW YOU TELL US AGAIN THAT HYLLIRIANS WAS AN INNER NAME, AND NOT AN EXONYM GIVEN BY GREEKS,
EVEN THE SMALLEST SCIENTISTS UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE AMONG ENDONYM AND EXONYM,
BUT IN ALBANIA SEEMS YOU DON"T, CAUSE YOUR PROPAGANDA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO,

Anyway can you give tell us the others?
you said Ptolemy and Others,
WHICH OTHER?
CAUSE I KNOW NO ONE ELSE SAY ALBANOI IN ILLYRIA EXCEPT PTOLEMY,
NEITHER STRABO NEITHER ELSE,
there is also another one who say about Albanoi at Caucasus,

Sile
10-08-15, 20:25
As far as I know, the scholars agree about Veneti. They think they were not illyrians. About the tribe Liburni, there is still a dispute among them. They still don't agree about the Liburni. About Dalmatians the majority of them agree. Dalmatian was an illyrian tribe. Interesting is the position of the mesapians on modern south east Italy. They are very important for the Hyllirian- Albanian continuity. If the mesapi were illyrians ,there is a strong possibility that Albanians probably evolved from the tracians. But it looks that mesapians were not illyrians. The Albanian theory of some nationalist Slavs is really ridiculous for the people who have some knowledge on the issue. It is an insult for our intelligence

The veneti where invaders into italy ~1200BC, the original people where the Euganei .........Friul ( eastern area of Euganei ) where Illyrians which is why the towns of Oderzo and Trieste have illyrian names.

The Liburni have been around since 900BC , they where seafarers, raiders and transporters of people, they lived next to the veneti. they spoke Venetic but where referred sometimes as illyrians

The liburni took the Iapyges to south italy to become the messapic people..........the language of the Iapyges and messapics are the same.
Eventually the messapics gained a lot of epirote migratnts and mixed with these .............later phyrrhus the epirote king invaded Rome via his association with these messapics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapyges
The Iapyges are from modern Zagreb area( croatia )...they had no access to the coast of the adriatic sea.

Another tribe the Liburni took to Italy was the Picene...........north Picene retained their illyrian language and southern Picene took on the italic-Umbro language...eventually north picene and south picene had completly different language.

Sile
10-08-15, 20:34
Why don't we discuss some hypothesis about Serb origins. This one states that Serbs were originally an Iranian/ Sarmatian tribe originating somewhere in the Caucausus and then migrated to present day Poland area. After mixing with Slavs in Poland area where they founded White Serbia, supposedly they became Slavicized, and then obviously migrated to the Balkans sometime after the 6th century AD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_hypotheses_of_the_Serbs#Iranian_theory
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Migrations_serbes_avant_1000.png

your mixing croatian and serbian history
The serbs in majority of ethnicity are thracians from the Triballi tribe ( one of the 4 major thracian tribes ), which is why still to today their coat of arms bears the boar symbol of the triballi............there was slavic elements into serbia to convert these triballi linguistically into slavs.

The Croatians is a different matter......they have also been associated with Alans and Avars

Trojet
11-08-15, 00:57
your mixing croatian and serbian history
The serbs in majority of ethnicity are thracians from the Triballi tribe ( one of the 4 major thracian tribes ), which is why still to today their coat of arms bears the boar symbol of the triballi............there was slavic elements into serbia to convert these triballi linguistically into slavs.

The Croatians is a different matter......they have also been associated with Alans and Avars

First of all, I'm not mixing anything. If you click the link and actually spend some time reading that theory, you will find out that it is about the Serbs, and not the Croatians.

Secondly, it is true that Serbs have absorbed some Paleo Balkan people into their ethnogenesis. But here we are talking about the original Serbs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_hypotheses_of_the_Serbs#Iranian_theory

Theory about Iranian origin of the Serb ethnonym assumes that ancient Serbi / Serboi from north Caucasus (Asiatic Sarmatia) were an Sarmatian (Alanian) tribe.[21] The theory subsequently assumes that Alanian Serbi were subdued by the Huns in the 4th century and that they, as part of the Hunnic army, migrated to the western edge of the Hunnic Empire (in the area of Central Europe near the river Elbe, later designated as White Serbia in what is now Saxony (eastern Germany) and western Poland). After Hunnic leader Attila died (in 453), Alanian Serbi presumably became independent and ruled in the east of the river Saale (in modern day Germany) over local Slavic population.[21][22] Over time, they, it is argued, intermarried with the local Slavic population of the region,[21][22] adopted Slavic language, and transferred their name to the Slavs.[23] According to Tadeuš Sulimirski, similar event could occur in the Balkans or Serbs who settled in the Balkans were Slavs who came from the north and who were ruled by already slavicized Alans