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

hrvat22 said:
Or to translate, story of Croatian arrival writen by Konstantin VII. Porfirogenet is true.
Click to expand...

You should read Dr Francesco Borri again, again, again, maybe you will understand.

...
hrvat22

One question.

When are you sick do you go to the doctor or witch doctor?

Doctors are experts but you're running away from the experts.

But unfortunately witch doctors will not heal you.

According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.

Laymen sometimes seem to know better than experts but that's because they have touched some matter superficially and do not have enough knowledge about the subject.

For the hundredth time I tell you, write and publish scientific paper in a relevant scientific journal where you will refute with serious proofs of your hypothesis the existing science, otherwise forums can not help you.
 
Hopefully there is always second opinion:

Mayorov A.B. 2006: Great Croatia; Ethnogenesis and the early history of the Slavs. Publishing house of St. Petersburg University, 209 pages, ISBN: 5-288-03948-8
Click to expand...

Russian scientistes are the last who could be blamed for Croatian nationalism.
 
Garrick said:
According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.
Click to expand...

No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.
 
Wonomyro said:
No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.
Click to expand...

No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.

For example, Croatian historian Vidovic, and historian Dzino who is Croatian origin, clearly say Croatian identity "hrvatski identitet" for 9th century, it is same as Austrian scientist Dr Pohl.

Dr Dzino:

"Pojava hrvatskog identiteta u 9. stoljeću nastaje baš tu, u neksusu između globalnih promjena i tradicija lokalnoga indigenog pučanstva
koje shvaća ove promjene na svoj specifičan način i prilagođava ih svojim okolnostima i poimanju tradicije."

It can be translate as:

"The emergence of Croatian identity in the 9th century occurs precisely in the nexus between the global changes and the traditions of the local indigenous population who understands these changes in their specific way and adapts them to their circumstances and the perception of tradition. "

But according Dr Borri it is later:

"Who, therefore, were the Croats? At the moment this question is still difficult to answer. Milo Barada suggested that the Croats were a group formed at the edges of the Avar empire and Walter Pohl proposed the Croats to be border guards of the Avar empire, developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later."

"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."
 
Garrick, you are making a serious mistake. You ignore the criticism of Vidovic, Pohl, Borri, as well give their viewpoint undue weight and validity although it represents a minority viewpoint.
 
Garrick said:
Wonomyro said:
No, the Croatian state emerged in 9th century in Dalmatia, not the identity.
Click to expand...

No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.
Click to expand...

The fact that Croats and Serbs "understand each other" is due to a Serbian language reform that occured in early 19. century. I don't understand your point.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEGarrick/QUOTE]


Dr Francesco Borri is stronger than genetics, hahahaha he did not write DAI and his comment is as good as your comment.

When are you sick do you go to the doctor or witch doctor?
Click to expand...

This is penicillin for you... https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia

According historian experts, PhD scientists, Croatian identity emerged in 9th or 10th century in Dalmatia and surrounding, as we have trust in doctors who are specialists for medicine, we have trust in scientists who are experts for history.
Click to expand...

Genetics is stronger than a psychiatrist.

For the hundredth time I tell you, write and publish scientific paper in a relevant scientific journal where you will refute with serious proofs of your hypothesis the existing science, otherwise forums can not help you.
Click to expand...

It was in the Stone Age, today you just look at genetics and everything is clear.
 
Garrick
Click to expand...
No, you know that Serbs and Croats (and Bosniacs, too) all understand each other, because language is practically same.
Click to expand...
All time I saying that main haplotype of these people comes from White Croatia, logically they have same language when they have same common ancestor or common ancestors.
The emergence of Croatian identity in the 9th century
Click to expand...
Written records indicate that Croats come from White Croatia in 7th century. It is possible that Croatian identity occurs in 19th century but Croatians still comes in the 7th century.What identity has to do with coming of the Croatians.?
developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later."
Click to expand...
We have Dalmatians, Istrians, Slavs, Hercegovinians, etc.. maybe Croatians do not exist at all. Twilight Zone. :confused:
 
Miroslav said:
Garrick, you are making a serious mistake. You ignore the criticism of Vidovic, Pohl, Borri, as well give their viewpoint undue weight and validity although it represents a minority viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I read critiques of them only from some Croatians, otherwise in the Europe and world they are very respectable and what is important, Institute of Medieval Research in Vienna, a department of the Austrian Academy of Science established standard. Even some Croatian historians, who are opposite side, avoid contradicting this Institute to not be shamed or dismissed as quasi scientists.

Things are clear, all chroniclers in the seventh and eighth centuries speak exclusively about the Slavs. Croatian identity emerged later.

What is origin Croatian ethnonym it is not clear, there are a lot of very different theories. But it is very important issue which can solve some dilemmas.

For example if Croatian ethnonym is Avarian than there is a high probability that Croats, or maybe better Proto-Croats, were Avarian elite surrounded by Slavs. Austrian researcher Kronsteiner highlights Croats were warrior class of Avar Khaganate, responsible for guarding the borders and controlling the Slavs, who made the defense belt of the center of Avarian state.

But I don't want speculate further about Croatian ethnomym because it is wider topic and requires new thread.

Some people think about DAI as Holy Scripture, however scientists (as Dr Borri) clearly gave essential interpretation of DAI. There will always be some worshipers of DAI who will treat it as sacred book and reject science but we see worshipers in many other things, for example people who worship earth as flat.

But fortunately, what enter in the world's knowledge base are rigorous scientific papers and books (what is basis for human progress), not illusions.
 
Wonomyro said:
Dr Dzino is under the influence of Romainan scholar F. Curta who is a famous "antimigrationist" so nobody should be surprised. In his work he completely denies any Slavic demographic influence. They interpret all available sources in a way to fit to their premises. Ten years ago they might think that genetics is on their "side", but it seems that they bet on a wrong horse...
:grin:
Click to expand...

Be careful of migratioanalists, they are the biggest fabricators of lies on this planet.......they state anything and everything and also discard all proof of who they are.
 
Milan.M said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I think that the English translation is more accurate:

‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’
Click to expand...

Well, that “etymological” detail is particularly challenging. The word obviously doesn’t have such meaning in “the Slav tongue” but most probably in Greek (χώρα). It is a direct proof that Constantine was making up things, especially due to the fact that the same information does not exist in chapter 30! This is the additional reason why we should trust chapter 30 version as more truthful.

But why would Constantine do that? The reason might be very simple if we recall the purpose of the document and that is the education of the young emperor. Constantine used a memory technique called "memorizing by association" to make easier for the young emperor remember foreign peoples' names, especially to distinguish Croats from Serbs which was quite difficult task for Byzantines.

I browsed the web a little and find a topic on that technique:

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.
Click to expand...

To illustrate this, let’s imagine a conversation:
Q: What is the name of that nation who occupied much territory?
A: Let me think ... much territory...borders...chora... yes! - Chorvati!
 
Wonomyro@
With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century.
Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book.
Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam.
Any coincidences?
Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a bit later Venetian from 17th century.
Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above?

And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you.
 
hrvat22 said:
Written records indicate that Croats come from White Croatia in 7th century.
Click to expand...

No, chronicles from 7th and 8th century speak only about Slavs.

First time Croatian name is mentioned in Latin charter in 9th century (Dux Chroatorum).

Scientists argue if Croatian identity in Dalmatia and surrounding emerged in 9th century or 10th century, but not before.

De Administrando Impero is not chronicle, it is written in 10th century, much after arrival of Slavs.

It is manual for the use of son of Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine VII.

Dr Francesco Borri and other experts of Institute of Medieval Research, Vienna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science, explained essence of DAI, narrative and legendary elements, and motives of Emperor to have Croats as allies against Bulgars.

Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.
 
Milan.M said:
Wonomyro@ With all due respect but i trust none of those "chapters",and i believe they are later edition added by late readers,like i said there is no indication that that story was known to any historian prior the Dutch Johannes Meursis edition in Latin in the 16/17th century. Find me any historian prior him that used this source and many did used the book. Just a bit later like i said firstly Johannes Lucius a Venetian from Trogir will use this in his De regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae published in Amsterdam. Any coincidences? Why would "mythomans" from South Slavic origin tell different stories like priest of Dioclea,like Mauro Orbini and even foreign like Dandolo than a Venetian from 17th century. Political reasons might be the cause,but why i should trust them more than the said above? And you alone can choose what the "truth" can be for you.
Click to expand...
Why should we trust the story from the chapter 30? Because it's elements can be recognized in other sources. If you like I can list them and we can discuss them in more detail.
 
hrvat22 said:
Dr Francesco Borri is stronger than genetics, hahahaha he did not write DAI and his comment is as good as your comment.
Click to expand...

This is what laymen think about scientists, science is complex and complicated, laymen with much less knowledge (superficial) think that "know" more.

Dr Francesco Borri is scientist for respect, as all scientists in Institute of Medieval Research, Venna, a department of Austrian Academy of Science.

You laugh at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and you think you know more of them!?, nonsense.

It is childish, honestly if you want be in subject you must learn much more, study history and do serious scientific work, and after that you should write scientific paper and publish in reputable scientific journal, the laughing at the scientists in forum is not helpful.

Genetics doesn't say what you think, we can see some Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats have same subclade and it is what genetics say, whole construct further is your imagination.
 
Wonomyro said:
Why should we trust the story from the chapter 30? Because it's elements can be recognized in other sources. If you like I can list them and we can discuss them in more detail.
Click to expand...
List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.
 
Garrick said:
Science explained but of course always will be worshipers about DAI as Holy Scripture, as there are worshipers who think that earth is flat.
Click to expand...

Sadly, only you here show the “worshipper” behaviour towards the work of Dr. Borri. You are accepting whatever they claim without any criticism. I’ve already presented you at least three weak points in his work. The map of the Italian related genetics all over the Mediterranean is the most convincing one. It show that even Bulgaria has more Italian-like ancestry then the neighbouring eastern Adriatic coast. How can it be like that without a dramatic demographic change after a fall of Roman Empire. How can we completely disregard all historical sources where each of them mention some kind of mass migration that occurred in that period?

We have so far:
1. Linguistic evidence – Yes, I can almost read Polish even I've never learned that language.
2. Genetic evidence - Autosomal and Y-DNA data show the relations with the area of S-I Poland, W-Ukraine.
3. Historical sources: DAI, “Historia Salonitana”, “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”,…

How much more do we need? And who do you think here is a nationalist?
 
Last edited:
Milan.M said:
List that chapter and give me other source with such elements but from earlier works and not later works which can be copied or influenced from this one.
Source ealirer than Johannes Meursis edition that is 16/17th century.
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to do that. This is the part of the 30. chapter:

But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, (...), who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them.
Click to expand...

The fight and win over Avars is known form Frankish sources:

The Royal Frankish Annals makes mention of a Wonomyrus Sclavus (Vojnomir the Slav) active in 795. Eric of Friuli, sent Vojnomir with his army into Pannonia, between the Danube and Tisza, where they pillaged the Avars' dominions
Click to expand...

Wonomyrus (Vojnomir) is typical Croatian medieval name, especially due to a high occurrence of the "-mir" suffix in Croatian dukes' and kings' names: Brani-mir, Trpi-mir, Kreši-mir, Zvoni-mir, Munci-mir... Vojnomir:

...according to Francis Dvornik, he launched a joint counterattack with the help of Frankish troops under King Charlemagne in 791, successfully driving the Avars out of Croatia.
Click to expand...

So far we can safely make a conclusion that Franks have Slav vassals before the fall of the Avar state. Let’s go back to the chapter 30:

For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country (…)
Click to expand...

There is more of it of course...
 
That is all good,but where you find a story similar to this one,that Belocroats dwelled beyond Bavaria? that from there came to Dalmatia,let alone fighting against Avars which can be written any time.In Frankish annals Wendish or Sclavene king Samo fought also the Avars,Sclavenes in Greek sources fought also the Avars and so on.. leave that alone.
Wonomyrus Sclavus (Slav) with Eric of Friuli can be Carantanian (ancestor of Slovenes) and that is not just Croat name.
I am interested in confirming the "emperor" story of this migration in other sources.

And who is Francis Dvornik i am asking older sources not interpretation of historians.

What was former country of the Croats? who wrote that,give me sources not interpretations.
 
Wonomyro said:
1. Linguistic evidence – Yes, I can almost read Polish even I've never learned that language.
2. Genetic evidence - Autosomal and Y-DNA data show the relations with the area of S-I Poland, W-Ukraine.
3. Historical sources: DAI, “Historia Salonitana”, “Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja”,…
Click to expand...
The historic sources you listed here my friend are not at all similar to one another,as far i know in both Historia Salonitana and Chronicle of Dioclea the Slavs are Goths in reality.In real world today they aren't neither are in DAI.

I also wrote prior who edited Historia Salonitana,Venetian Johannes Lucius and published it along with the new "translation" of DAI by Johannes Meursis(perhaps to support his new theory) in the regno Dalmatiae and Croatiae,but the Goths still remained Slavs in Historia Salonitana,still much was need to be done to be changed that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 571365 times.

Back
Top