I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

[hrvat22]

Garrick

Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century

If De administrando imperio says that Croats coming in 7th century to Roman Dalmatia, Ilirik and Panonia and Roman records says that Slavs coming in 6th century, where they disappeared until 9th century. Obviously Dr Borri finds Croatians in the Balkans only from first mention of Croatian name, before that there were Turkmens.

If genetics says that Croats came in 9th century to Roman Dalmatia we respect that, but this is not yet the case.

 

[gyms]

No. Do you have Croatian aDNA?

How do you defeat those pesky ******? Follow our 10 ways to successfully destroy a *****!
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/10-ways-destroy-online-commenting-*****/84427/

 

[hrvat22]

How do you defeat those pesky ******? Follow our 10 ways to successfully destroy a *****!
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/10-ways-destroy-online-commenting-*****/84427/

Do you have genetic and historical records that dispute my statements or just love to talk, talk, talk.

 

[Garrick]

If De administrando imperio says that Croats coming in 7th century to Roman Dalmatia, Ilirik and Panonia and Roman records says that Slavs coming in 6th century, where they disappeared until 9th century. Obviously Dr Borri finds Croatians in the Balkans only from first mention of Croatian name, before that there were Turkmens.

If genetics says that Croats came in 9th century to Roman Dalmatia we respect that, but this is not yet the case.

Dr Borri is very clear:

"The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. I propose that the migration was instead a literary pattern deployed by the emperor in order to explain the complex developments which brought a new elite, called Croats, to a leading position in tenth-century Dalmatia."

Practically Dr Borri highlights that Croats emerged in 10th century what is later than his colleague from Institute for Medieval Research of Austrian Academy of Science, Dr Walter Pohl who argues that Croats emerged as ethnic group in 9th century. Croatian historian Vidovic speaks about 9th century as Dr Pohl.

And some Croats agree with Dr Borri. We can like or dislike what Dr Borri writes but he is big authority in European historian science today.

You can't understand, carriers of different haplogroups could come earlier, it is linked with Croatian identity which emerged in 10th century according to Dr Borri. In other words, if there were Slavic, Avar, Bulgarian, and other groups before the 10th century in Dalmatia and wider beyond, they didn't have Croatian identity. Again, Dr Borri is very clear. If you more likes Dr Pohl, he puts emergence of Croats in 9th century.

You can see respectable historian experts emergence of Croats put in the 9th or 10th century and your hypothesis about the 7th century (or earlier) and the mythical land of origin is rejected. If you try to oppose these historians you must write scientific paper, prove your hypothesis and publish in relevant Journal, it is only path, forums don't help.

 

[APO276]

Dr Borri is very clear:

"The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine. I propose that the migration was instead a literary pattern deployed by the emperor in order to explain the complex developments which brought a new elite, called Croats, to a leading position in tenth-century Dalmatia."

Practically Dr Borri highlights that Croats emerged in 10th century what is later than his colleague from Institute for Medieval Research of Austrian Academy of Science, Dr Walter Pohl who argues that Croats emerged as ethnic group in 9th century. Croatian historian Vidovic speaks about 9th century as Dr Pohl.

And some Croats agree with Dr Borri. We can like or dislike what Dr Borri writes but he is big authority in European historian science today.

You can't understand, carriers of different haplogroups could come earlier, it is linked with Croatian identity which emerged in 10th century according to Dr Borri. In other words, if there were Slavic, Avar, Bulgarian, and other groups before the 10th century in Dalmatia and wider beyond, they didn't have Croatian identity. Again, Dr Borri is very clear. If you more likes Dr Pohl, he puts emergence of Croats in 9th century.

You can see respectable historian experts emergence of Croats put in the 9th or 10th century and your hypothesis about the 7th century (or earlier) and the mythical land of origin is rejected. If you try to oppose these historians you must write scientific paper, prove your hypothesis and publish in relevant Journal, it is only path, forums don't help.

Have you read the text you reject with that fancy argument? I bet that scholar isn't even able to read what he rejects.

 

[Wonomyro]

This is the excerpt from the De Administrando Imperio, chapter 30. "Story of the Province of Dalmatia":

Now, after the said Slavs had settled down, they took possession of all the surrounding territory of Dalmatia; but the cities of the Romani took to cultivating the islands and living off them; since, however, they were daily enslaved and destroyed by the Pagani, they deserted these islands and resolved to cultivate the mainland. But they were stopped by the Croats; for they were not yet tributary to the Croats, and used to pay to the military governor all that they now pay to the Slavs. Finding it impossible to live, they approached the glorious emperor Basil and told him all the above. And so that glorious emperor Basil ordered that all that was then paid to the military governor they should pay to the Slavs, and live at peace with them, and that some slight payment should be made to the military governor, as a simple token of submission and servitude to the emperors of the Romans and their military governor. And from that time all these cities became tributary to the Slavs, and they pay them fixed sums: the city of Spalato, 200 nomismata; the city of Tetrangourin, 100 nomismata; the city of Diadora, 110 nomismata; the city of Opsara, 100 nomismata; the city of Arbe, 100 nomismata; the city of Yekla, 100 nomismata; so that the total amounts to 710 nomismata, exclusive of wine and various other commodities, which are in excess of the payments in cash. The city of Ragusa is situated between the two countries of the Zachlumi and of Terbounia; they have their vineyards in both countries, and pay to the prince of the Zachlumi 36 nomismata, and to the prince of Terbounia 36 nomismata

Does this text sound like a literary work? Even the exact amounts were specified...

 

[hrvat22]

Garrick

The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source,

You have genetics, you do not need

any other source

.

any other source

is without genetic dead letter on paper.

That there is no genetics we would never know whether is DAI true or false.

 

[Wonomyro]

This post is empty.

 

[Wonomyro]

Dr Borri is very clear: "The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine.

Realy not? What about Historia Salonitana?

Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum or the History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Croatian: Povijest biskupa Salone i Splita), commonly known simply as the Historia Salonitana, is a chronicle by Thomas the Archdeacon from the 13th century which contains significant information about the early history of the Croats. It was first published by Johannes Lucius.[1] An extended version of this work, known as the Historia Salonitana maior was published in the 16th century,[2] and critical editions of both have been republished by Nada Klaić (Belgrade: Naucno delo, 1967).[3] The chronicle gives an account of the arrival of the Croats:

From the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Salonitana

Not to mention Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja...

 

[Wonomyro]

Dr Borri is very clear: "The migration, although becoming an important element in nationalist thought, is not confirmed by any other source, neither contemporary, nor later, being reported only by Constantine.

Realy not? What about Historia Salonitana?

Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum or the History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Croatian: Povijest biskupa Salone i Splita), commonly known simply as the Historia Salonitana, is a chronicle by Thomas the Archdeacon from the 13th century which contains significant information about the early history of the Croats. It was first published by Johannes Lucius.[1] An extended version of this work, known as the Historia Salonitana maior was published in the 16th century,[2] and critical editions of both have been republished by Nada Klaić (Belgrade: Naucno delo, 1967).[3] The chronicle gives an account of the arrival of the Croats:

From the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Salonitana

Not to mention Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja...

 

[Wonomyro]

Here is the conclusion of the article of F. Borri:

In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on theliterary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scyth-ian Barbarians. What instead happened is that, following their rise in the military and political context of the Balkans, new elites took a visible position in Dalmatia and, as recorded in the tenth century, were given thename Croats, a name which was also found in other areas of central and eastern Europe. Although it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places, for reasons still unknown to us it is possible that the Dalmatian Croats referred to other groups who shared their name, as Belocroats. The many attestations of this ethnonym and place name reached Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who in order to explain this recurrence deployed the classic model of migration, a model which many authors had used to explainthe ethnic geography of the surrounding world from the beginning of historiography itself

This sentence is important:

"... it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places, for reasons still unknown to us ".

Not "unknown", but more likely deliberately ignored.

 

[don_joe]

The historical data is pretty scarce, it's an open arena for all kind of biased interpretations. I just wonder how much more will we know in 10 years from now. I have high hopes. There are many myths on all sides to be broken.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

 

[Garrick]

In principle it should be trust in the experts as scientists from Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science. People should read whole text of Dr Borri and they would understand about narrative and legendary elements in emperor’s story and his motives for alliance Byzantine with Croats against Bulgarians.

Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9^th or 10th century. Dr Borri put emergence of Croatian identity in 10^th century but Croatian historians think that document where is mentioned Dux Croatorum from 9^th century should be valued as first document with Croatian name. Croatian historian Vidovic writes that Croatian identity was present in the middle of 9^th century. Therefore question between historians about emergence of Croats is if 9^th or 10^th century, not before.

History is known, don’t listen nationalists who like to confuse. When Slavs arrived in the Balkans from 6^th century chronicles of that time were marked them as Sclaveni (Greek Sklavenoi) and Antes. National identities emerged later.

Europe 650 AD

Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian. There are more hypothesis if it is Avarian, Iranian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Scythian etc. I appreciate Croats and don’t want enter in speculative discussions, it question is not solved.

But in Slavic word it is almost normal that Slavic nations have non-Slavic ethnonymes. For example Bulgarian Slavs took name which is not Slavic. Slavic Macedonians too. And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians". Why people create such constructs? To give greater importance to their nation? It is wrong approach but nationalists don’t care if someone wants to follow them.

Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym. Even for Czech people is not sure is it Slavic or no. And some small Slavic nations as Kashubians seems have no Slavic ethnonym.

 

[Wonomyro]

In principle it should be trust in the experts as scientists from Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science. People should read whole text of Dr Borri and they would understand about narrative and legendary elements in emperor’s story and his motives for alliance Byzantine with Croats against Bulgarians.

First we should distinguish what in DAI is a "emperor’s story", and what is not. Historians mostly agree that the chapter 30. does not belong to the original Constantine's work and it is probably added to it after his death. If the text was not written by Constantine, than how can we talk about "emperor's motives"?

Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9th or 10th century.

They were mentioned under different names as it was clearly stated in Historia Salonitana:

"The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs..."

When they appeared in Dalmatia, Croats didn’t wear T-Shirts with their etnonyme on it so everybody could know how they called themselves. In the beginning of the 9th century it wasn’t possible for them to write down their name in their own language. How could any foreigner know what a hell the word “Hrvat” (Croat) mean? What do you think how many people know even in 20th century how Finns call themselves?

Dr Borri put emergence of Croatian identity in 10th century but Croatian historians think that document where is mentioned Dux Croatorum from 9th century should be valued as first document with Croatian name. Croatian historian Vidovic writes that Croatian identity was present in the middle of 9th century. Therefore question between historians about emergence of Croats is if 9th or 10th century, not before.

Here is the duke's Branimir inscription dated to 888 AD: "DVX CRVATORṼ COGIT[AVIT]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branimir_Inscription This is also worth noting:

possibly older reference to a Croatian ethnonym is attributed to a charter of duke Trpimir I of Croatia from the year 852. However, its original is lost, and only a 1568 copy is preserved, leading to doubts on the authenticity of the claim

But Croatian history did not start in the year 888. Before Branimir there were other dukes. We can easily extrapolate Croatian presence back to the beginning of the 9th Century.

History is known, don’t listen nationalists who like to confuse. When Slavs arrived in the Balkans from 6th century chronicles of that time were marked them as Sclaveni (Greek Sklavenoi) and Antes. National identities emerged later.

During the first decade of the century it was fashionable for historians to deny the migration. Influence of the early Y-DNA studies ? Possible. Now it changes again and we expect new generation of historians to give us more plausible explanations. Btw. you noticed well that the ethnonyme Sklavenoi was invented by Greeks.

Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian. There are more hypothesis if it is Avarian, Iranian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Scythian etc. I appreciate Croats and don’t want enter in speculative discussions, it question is not solved.

Are we talking about the origin of the word or the origin of the people? Croatian ethnonym most probably has a root in Iranian languages, but this is far from being the only Iranian loanword in early Slavic. Consider another word of Iranian origin - “bog” (god), which is present in all Slavic languages and represents one of the most basic terms of any society. Btw, as a Serb, don’t you agree that religion sometimes plays a key role in forming of nations?

But in Slavic word it is almost normal that Slavic nations have non-Slavic ethnonymes. For example Bulgarian Slavs took name which is not Slavic. Slavic Macedonians too. And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians". Why people create such constructs? To give greater importance to their nation? It is wrong approach but nationalists don’t care if someone wants to follow them.

Bulgarian case is not same as Croatian. Slavs in Bulgaria got their name after the country they lived in. Slavs outside Bulgaria never identified themselves as Bulgarians. On the other hand, Croatian ethnonyme was recorded in almost all areas where Slavs migrated: Poland, Ukraine, Czechia, Lusatia, Slovenia, Austria, Montenegro, Greece, Macedonia, Belarus, … the name they obviously brought with them from their homeland. I never heard about “White Macedonians” theory. What does it have to do with Croatian history. I don’t get the point.

Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym. Even for Czech people is not sure is it Slavic or no. And some small Slavic nations as Kashubians seems have no Slavic ethnonym.

Except maybe Poles and Czechs, what do you think when those nations got their present names?

 

[don_joe]

This is a very interesting discussion but I think that we've strayed into etymology. I'm personally more interested in ethnogenesis and composition of modern peoples in the Balkans. This thread is about how I2a-Din came to this area.

 

[Milan.M]

"Administrando imperio" that book was originally written in Greek,the name we know today is added later.
Tibor Zivkovic after studying the book for 20 years came to conclusion that chapter 30 is added later and whatever chapters are dealing with this "stories".Also no humanist or historian knew that "story" prior Johannes Meursis publish it in Latin 16/17th century.
Prior works from Mauro Orbini who use this book as source there is no trace of this story,or priest of Dioclea who tell us different story and all other prior historians take foreigners like Dandolo.
The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora).
I very much doubt the emperor was so "literate".

Bit later,Johannes Lucius a Venetian who today Croats call him "Ivan Lucic" started propagate this story and with his edition on historia Salonitana.

 

[Wonomyro]

Distribution of the Italian admixture in Europe: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Italian

 

[hrvat22]

Garrick

Nobody mentions Croats in Dalmatia and wider before 9^th or 10th century.

What this has to do with Croat arrival to the Balkans.?
Who are the Slavs in Istria and Dalmatia year 600, 640, 642.

Italians today call Croats as Slavs, it does not mean that Croats not exist.

1154 g. - The Arabic geographer, cartographer and travel writer Muhammad Al-Idrisi (1099-1164), describing Croatia (Bilad Garwasija), writes in his work "Kitab al Rudjar" the following:
"Ragusa(Dubrovnic), Ragusah is away from Ston 30 miles. (Residents) are Dalmatians who have many boats for long sailing. This is the last town in Croatia (Garwasijah)".

For some in 12th century we are Dalmatians, for others we are Chinese but we are still Croats.

Croatian ethnonym is not Slavic what Croatian scientists highlight, not only non-Croatian.

What does this have to do with arrival of Croats from White Croatia.?

Croatian ethnonym is Azerbaijani origin, and what now? what it has to do with origins of Croats.?

Croats are Slavic and Speaks Indo-European Slavic Language but their major I2a is not Indo-European origin. Therefore language, ethnonym, name, surname, music, dance, folk costume, etc.. They have nothing to do with the origin of man, tribe, people etc..except in Serbia where this is only proof of origin, genetics are not important to them.

And these days in Skopje we can hear about "White Macedonians"

Maybe they come from White Macedonia to Macedonia, what does this have to do with arrival of Croats from White Croatia.?

Really only Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and Slovenians have undeniable Slavic ethnonym.

When is first mentioned this ethnonym and in which area??

 

[hrvat22]

Milan.M

The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora).

I do not know what's funny for you or not, but genetics has confirmed DAI and story of Croatian arrival.
Or to translate, story of Croatian arrival writen by Konstantin VII. Porfirogenet is true.

 

[Wonomyro]

The most funny thing for me is that Emperor Constantine himself said that the word Croat in Slavic mean "one who posses much land" and compare it with Greek word χώρα (chora). I very much doubt the emperor was so "literate".

I trust more to an English translation:

‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’

Btw. this "etimology" was probably emperor's own invention in order to aid his son, young emperor, easier memorize foreign names. (DAI was written for the purpose of education!). I browsed the web a little and find a topic on memory technics. There is one called "memorizing by association":

Investigate and note intuitive relationships between the elements and your own experience. This is called memorizing by association. The relationships don't need to be rational, only memorable (interesting, funny, enjoyable) and inspirational.

https://www.wikihow.com/Memorize

Here is an example they provided:

If you're memorizing Article 1 of the US Constitution, for example, it begins, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress...," you might imagine a congressman in a vest, with a power cord dangling out of his pocket.

It is obvious that 2 "vests" have nothing in common but the second one help us memorize the former. The same can be said about the word "chora". Imagine a conversation in Greek:

Q: What is the name of that nation who occupied much territory?
A: Let me think ... much territory...borders...chora... yes - Horvati!