Bosnians/ ethnic groups there

[Dianatomia]

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

I am not equating medieval Balkan Slavs with the 'modern' notion of Serbs and Croats (AND Bulgarians if you will), because the modern notion of nationhood has developed in the last two centuries. Moreover, during that time some groups (like the Bosniacs and Macedonian Slavs) have developed modern identities of their own.

In medieval times the notion of being Serb, Croat or Bulgarian may have been vague. But, this does not alter the fact that all modern Slavic nations in the Balkans can trace their roots to medieval Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians. It is no coincidence that Ottoman documents, a few centuries after your reference(1180), refer only to Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians. Not simply Slavs and certainly not Bosnians.

So I guess my point is that, in between the Balkan Slavs and the modern Serbs and Croats, there have also been Serbs and Croats with a vague medieval ethnic connotation. Many ancestors of the Bosniacs belonged to that group.

 

[Yetos]

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

The point you just pass is the change of religion,
Bosnia become total Slavic losing all the before cultures,
then at Ottoman times some Slavs (Serbs or Croats) change religion,
that means they change culture,
these Slavs create a new culture are the Bosnians,
in fact the 3 mainly Slavic - Islamic cultures are the original Pomaks, the Albanian Gorani and the Serb-Croat Bosnians,
Any effort to claim that Bosnians where Slavs from Antiquity or another culture at Medieval, is just not wise,
Simply Bosnia change culture LAST in Balkans when change of religion happened,
In Bosnia some families might be from proto-Serbs or from proto-Croats who enter Balkans,

THE THING THAT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND, IS THAT EXCEPT DALMATIA, ALL THE REST AREA, TODAY'S IS AFTER RELIGION MAINLY NATIONALITIES,

All modern Balkanic nationalities are after a common thing, some memories, which for Bosnians are mainly late, new, cause before they had common memories with Serbs and Croats,

Just think, Kossovo, is it a nationality? No it is a state, yet it may become in future,
same with Bosnia, it become nationality when Islamization start,
until then it was Serb or Croat,

 

[Templar]

But, this does not alter the fact that all modern Slavic nations in the Balkans can trace their roots to medieval Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians.

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.

which for Bosnians are mainly late, new, cause before they had common memories with Serbs and Croats,

There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

 

[Dianatomia]

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.

Sure, there were subtribes or tribal societies with little ethnic conciousness. Not a rare phenomenon at all. These kind of tribes would have been present all over the balkans in medieval times and not just the Bosnian region. Likewise, not all Slavs in Bosnia belonged to tribal societies. Some considered themselves just as Serb as many serbs in Serbia.

There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

I think we should pose the question the other way around, since there is even lesser evidence of distinct medieval Bosnians.

How can we - in a medieval sense - distinguish the Slavs from Bosnia from the Slavs from Serbia and Croatia?
The only way to do that is by cherry picking, because under the same criteria we could distinguish slavic tribes in the medieval regions of serbia.

On the other hand, when one asks how we can distinguish Croats and Serbs in medieval times. That becomes more clear.

 

[Yetos]

That isn't true, there were many other minor Slavic tribes.



There is no evidence at all that Medieval Bosnians considered themselves either Croat or Serb.

ok, let me 'swallow' what you say,
I ask you now
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BOSNIANS CONSIDERED THEM SELVES AS LOCAL FROM ANTIQUITY?
IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN EXPRESSION OF NATIONALITY BEFORE OTTOMAN EMPIRE?
(Don't answer with some movements of some rulers in effort to control power)

except Dalmatia the rest in area are just like Greeks and Turks in many areas
It is hard to distinguish who is really Turk or Greek especially in agricultural areas cause the main difference is religion, in 1900 you could identify a village by its church if had bells or minarets
but it was difficult to identify people,

 

[zanipolo]

Again, if at some point of time a tribe has been absorbed by the people living in the region of what is now Bosnia, that doesn't mean that they did not identify themselves as Slavs or Serbs at some later point of time. Many tribes have been absorbed by many peoples at different points of time.

If you propose this hypothesis as to find an explenation for the etymology of the name, that's much appreciated. However, if you want to prove that Bosniacs were 'always' something else rather than Slavs or Serbs (as the author tries to advocate), then for the above reason I find it rather irrelevant and pseudo-scientific.

Bosniacs today obviously do not consider them to be Serbs or Croats. That's fine and they have every right to feel as they wish, but they can not change the fact that historically they are essentially a branch of that cultural mainframe which took a different path.

whats a serb and a croat to you?

The only true genetic slavs are poles and ukraine people, the rest are iranic, turkic, thraci etc etc who became slavic only due to linguistic reasons i.e, they leant the slavic tongue.
I have never found where bosnians originated genetically, but they could be illyrian or thracian as far as I am concerned

 

[Templar]

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BOSNIANS CONSIDERED THEM SELVES AS LOCAL FROM ANTIQUITY?

It is irrelevant. I just said what they were NOT (and there is plenty of evidence for it), not what they were. Due to the rough and isolated terrain, there were likely several different "ethnic identities" within the region of modern Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am just trying to dispel the propaganda that they considered themselves Serb and Croat. Catholics in Bosnia didn't consider themselves Croatian until the 1800s rise of nationalism, neither did most Orthodox (except maybe a few at the Serbian border, and the descendants of Serb border-guards at the Northern border with Croatia).

 

[Templar]

On the other hand, when one asks how we can distinguish Croats and Serbs in medieval times. That becomes more clear.

That is due to the less mountainous terrain of Serbia and Croatia. Both the Serb and Croat identity started as a small group of people, and then grew as they assimilated other tribes. In Bosnia this wasn't really achieved, although it was starting to. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, a distinct Bosnian identity did form, but it wasn't fully crystallized yet.

 

[Yetos]

That is due to the less mountainous terrain of Serbia and Croatia. Both the Serb and Croat identity started as a small group of people, and then grew as they assimilated other tribes. In Bosnia this wasn't really achieved, although it was starting to. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, a distinct Bosnian identity did form, but it wasn't fully crystallized yet.

Exactly,
That is the point, I am pointing,
the difference among family, tribal and nation,
in antiquity Dorians and Ionians were different tribals, yet shame nation,
Bosnia as nation and not as families or tribes, before the Ottoman's are considered mainly as Serb and second as Croat nation, yet the unification movement that created after the change of religion in families, villages tribes create a new nation ID, so maybe Bosnians were not proto-Serb or proto-Croat who enter at 5-6th century AD but until Ottoman empire are considered part of Serb and Croat nations,

 

[Templar]

Exactly,
That is the point, I am pointing,
the difference among family, tribal and nation,
in antiquity Dorians and Ionians were different tribals, yet shame nation,
Bosnia as nation and not as families or tribes, before the Ottoman's are considered mainly as Serb and second as Croat nation, yet the unification movement that created after the change of religion in families, villages tribes create a new nation ID, so maybe Bosnians were not proto-Serb or proto-Croat who enter at 5-6th century AD but until Ottoman empire are considered part of Serb and Croat nations

That wasn't my point. My point was that Serbia and Croatia both created nationhood, by assimilating people in their respective countries. In Bosnia, it was hard for any one group to dominate and assimilate others, due to the mountainous terrain and low population base. The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Stop claiming that they were Serb and Croat (they were especially not Serb, since the vast majority of the population were Catholic). Show evidence, or stop such propaganda. That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

 

[mihaitzateo]

No, this is completelly different.
Name Bozna is for sure derived from Slavic word: Bog (God).

BTW, Bosnia is Din-S. There's no Din-S bearers in Romania.

Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south.
No one did tests in north-west Romania till now where that village,Bozna is located.
In north-east is about 40% I2-a din south.

 

[mihaitzateo]

some say

[SIZE=+1]A Gothic tribe Besi moved to the territory of todays Bosnia 80 years before Slavs; the tribe remained after the Slav arrival from the east. The name Bosnia originated from the name of this tribe; personal name Besim is one of the oldest Bosnian names.
http://www.ex-yupress.com/ljiljan/ljiljan1.html
[/SIZE]

That document is full of wrong information like:
"It is well known that Goths had blond hair. There aren't any blond Slavs. How come there are so many blond individuals among Bosniacs if they are Slavs?"
Original slavs are a group from north-east Europe,related to scandinavians.
Sure they were also mostly blue eyed and lots of them had light hair,with a lot with blonde hair.
Nazist "scientists" were not actually scientists,but pseudo-scientists since they said slavs are mixed with asians and "inferior race",but autosomal DNA tests proved that there is very few asian admixture in slavs from Rusia or Belarus or Poland.
(They have over 90% european DNA with Belarus over 95% european DNA on autosomal tests.)
And Poland on autosomal DNA tests have plenty of nordic DNA,same with Rusia or Belarus.Most DNA on autosomal DNA in Russia,Poland,Belarus is nordish DNA (do not remember exactly how much,like over 70% or so.)
On autosomal DNA population of south Sweden is clustering most close to population of Norway and after to population of Poland.Sweden and Norway have above 20% mediteranid DNA on autosomal DNA.
No ideea about autosomal DNA in Serbia,Bosnia,Montenegro but after how they look there is plenty of caucasian DNA here,on autosomal DNA I am referring.
In Romania and Bulgaria was about 25% or something like that caucasian DNA,on autosomal tests.

 

[Eldritch]

That document is full of wrong information like:
"It is well known that Goths had blond hair. There aren't any blond Slavs. How come there are so many blond individuals among Bosniacs if they are Slavs?"
Original slavs are a group from north-east Europe,related to scandinavians.
Sure they were also mostly blue eyed and lots of them had light hair,with a lot with blonde hair.
Nazist "scientists" were not actually scientists,but pseudo-scientists since they said slavs are mixed with asians and "inferior race",but autosomal DNA tests proved that there is very few asian admixture in slavs from Rusia or Belarus or Poland.
(They have over 90% european DNA with Belarus over 95% european DNA on autosomal tests.)
And Poland on autosomal DNA tests have plenty of nordic DNA,same with Rusia or Belarus.Most DNA on autosomal DNA in Russia,Poland,Belarus is nordish DNA (do not remember exactly how much,like over 70% or so.)
On autosomal DNA population of south Sweden is clustering most close to population of Norway and after to population of Poland.Sweden and Norway have above 20% mediteranid DNA on autosomal DNA.
No ideea about autosomal DNA in Serbia,Bosnia,Montenegro but after how they look there is plenty of caucasian DNA here,on autosomal DNA I am referring.
In Romania and Bulgaria was about 25% or something like that caucasian DNA,on autosomal tests.

Romanians look closer to Bulgarians and Albanian than they do to Ukrainians.

 

[Yetos]

That wasn't my point. My point was that Serbia and Croatia both created nationhood, by assimilating people in their respective countries. In Bosnia, it was hard for any one group to dominate and assimilate others, due to the mountainous terrain and low population base. The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Stop claiming that they were Serb and Croat (they were especially not Serb, since the vast majority of the population were Catholic). Show evidence, or stop such propaganda. That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

The differences among Greeks and Albanians are more clear than in Bosnia,

I still don't understand you,
in one post you say that Bosnians are Slavic tribes, in another post you say that they were assimilated (meaning locals non Slavic)
maybe we must rewrite history and the known Slavic migrations name it Bosnian instead of Severi Serb Croat etc

for first time I hear that at Slavic migration in Balkans Bosnians came,
assimilation of neighborhood means that new comers assimilate the older one,
that means that Bosnians were not Slavic,

BUT

You are equating Balkans Slavs with Croats and Serbs. Minor Slavic tribes already existed in the Western Balkans before the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. Of-course these Slavs would find refuge in Bosnia where the terrain is very mountainous, during the Croat/Serb migrations.

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats - or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule - in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

Better choose if Bosnians were Slavic or pre-Slavic population


it is impossible to claim Slavic population before the entrance of Serbs Croats in that area
since Severi are connected with Slavo-Bulgarian population Gorani etc
I have not heard of Bosnian entrance in Slavic migrations in Balkan, although I maybe am wrong, which I doubt until now.

 

[Templar]

it is impossible to claim Slavic population before the entrance of Serbs Croats in that area

No it is not. It is well known that other smaller Slavic groups were already in the Balkans before the Serbs and Croats.

I still don't understand you,
in one post you say that Bosnians are Slavic tribes, in another post you say that they were assimilated (meaning locals non Slavic)
maybe we must rewrite history and the known Slavic migrations name it Bosnian instead of Severi Serb Croat etc

In Croatia, one big group (the Croats), conquered rival Slavs and the population of Illyricum . Over time, they assimilated them. Same thing in Serbia, except it was done by Serbs. In Bosnia, this didn't happen due to the rough and rugged terrain. It took several hundreds of additional years, for a common identity of the inhabitants to form. It was just about formed, right before the Ottoman invasions.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Bessi were not a gothic tribe,but a thracian tribe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessi
The vlachs are being described as descendants of bessi and dacians in some writing.

 

[Leviawan]

~~~~~~~~~

thats Great thanks

 

[Dianatomia]

The Bosnian identity was already in existence before the Ottoman conquest, but it was a very new identity.

Bosnian identity? There was no such thing. There never was. Not even during the Ottoman empire. And why is it so important to proove a Bosnian identity was formed before the Ottoman conquests? It is there now. No one can say anything about it.

That would be like me saying that all Greeks are in reality Orthodox Albanians.

I can't see the connection. Are you suggesting that the difference between Slavs in medieval Bosnia and Serbia is the same as Byzantine Greeks and Albanians?

Well, this is exactly my point. There is - even in medieval times - a fine line between Greeks and Slavs, Greeks and Albanians, an even less clear line between Serbs and Croats. But the line between say Catholic and Orthodox Slavs in Bosnia and other Slavs is extremely vague. Therefore the burden is upon you to prove why we should consider that there was a distinct Bosnian identity. I find it hard to believe that an orthodox slav in Bosnia felt that he had more in common with a catholic Slav in bosnia than an orthodox slav in Serbia. In fact, if it wasn't for religion, it's highly likely that bosnia would have been split between Serbs and Croats after the fall of the Ottoman empire.

 

[Templar]

I can't see the connection. Are you suggesting that the difference between Slavs in medieval Bosnia and Serbia is the same as Byzantine Greeks and Albanians?

The connection is that its wrong and offensive.

Bosnian identity? There was no such thing. There never was.

The medieval Bosnian kingdom was neither Serb nor Croat. What else was it if not Bosnian?

 

[Templar]

"Originally, e.g. in Constantine Porphyrogennetos' De administrando imperio (tenth century) Bosnia was simply considered a part of Serbia. Later, although still treated as a part of Serbia, it assumes a somewhat different position, as witnessed by John Kinnamos in twelfth century, who notes that "the river Drina which takes its origin somewhat higher up and divides Bosnia from the rest of Serbia", but also that "Bosnia itself is not subjected to the Serbs' grand župan, but is a tribe which lives and ruled separately".

Note the "is a tribe which lives and ruled separately".