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

[hrvat22]

don_joe

This are yDNA result for Bunjevacs in total (Lika, Dalmatia, Bačka):
50.0% - R1a (most of them Z280)
29.0% - I2a Dinaric (so far PH908 is only proven subclade)
10.6% - R1b (eastern and western branches)
2.6% - I1, E1b, G2a and J1

This is what I've seen now, by this obviously migration from western Herzegovina do not exist or smaller percentage of so-called Bunjevacs comes from there. Should be seen which types of R1a they have and then will see from where they comes.

By this genetics, surely they are not Vlachs.

 

[Dumidre]

Based on geography that you guys are presenting here:
free dacians (Carps and all the other tribes after Roman-Dacian wars) +slavs= white Croatians
dacians+romans= vlachs
Common denominator= dacians
I2a common on both= "you do the math"

 

[Sile]

IMO, until we know what the Dacians spoke before they spoke latin , then we are fishing .................they could have spoken anything between thracian and bastanae to Sarmatian

 

[Wonomyro]

don_joe, I do not know if anyone made any paper on Bunjevci genetics. We definitely need one. Thank you hrvat22 for the statistics. Where did you get it from? I was expecting to see I2a on the top but a high percentage of R1a is a quite surprise. Now we see that Bunjevci do not only speak different language then Vlachs but also have different male genetics. It would be however a good thing to inspect their maternal lines and compare them with those of Vlachs and Albanians.

 

[Dumidre]

IMO, until we know what the Dacians spoke before they spoke latin , then we are fishing .................they could have spoken anything between thracian and bastanae to Sarmatian

True, but what we know is that there were numerous... enough that the Roman Empire saw them as a threat, they were hard to "domesticate" they rather wanted to die or live free... they lived around Roman Dacia as Free Dacians... so the genetical pool was definitely there...
As far as the language, I think they did what they had to do to survive...
Apparently there are some tablets out there that reflect the "Dacian language" which, if they are proven to be authentic, will reveal that Dacian Language was similar to pretty much all Indo-European languages: I see old greek, latin, Slavonic words... again, is not proven authentic yet, but it makes it more interesting

 

[don_joe]

Thank you all for your conribution. I just want to make sure that we are not talking about the modern days Bunjevci like in present Vojvodina or nowadays Bunjevci like individuals that identify themselfs as such cause the admixure over centuries could blur the picture. If you could provide some links, I would very much appreciate it.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

 

[Miroslav]

Or maybe I'm too harsh...

The member Hrvat22 is a member from Croatian forum whose bored everyone with his ideological and logically false premises that I-S17250 is of White Croatian origin and all Slavs originate from them, lack of knowledge and understanding of the historiography about the White Croats and White Croatia, his consideration which haplogroups do and do not belong to specific ethnic group, especially with his false and far-fetched "proofs" for undeniable "truth" and so on. You are not too harsh at all. Practically speaking, it is nothing but chauvinistic and romanticized ideologization of population genetics similarly considered by some Serbs, and both do it as a countermeasure for their nation's political conflicts and controversy regarding ethnic origin i.e. with proclaiming that specific Y-DNA haplogroups were exclusively Croatian or Serbian they propagate Greater Croatia or Greater Serbia irredentist belief. It should not be tolerated on Eupedia.

 

[Garrick]

Genetics confirm historical records only for Croat arrival to Balkans.

From 5th century exclusively Croatian.

As far as I know, migration starts from White Croatia or few hundred years earlier.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1uIEV-Unzie9mLufrQJyWb4fD9zg

Already I gave what Dr Francesco Borri (Institute for Medieval Research of the Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna) wrote. Younger people (in this case Croats) took legends of arrival from older people (Bulgarians, Scythians). Porfirogenit had story about Croats because he had goal, he thought they may make good allies against the Bulgars. Dr Borri claims that Croats very late formed as nation, 9-10 century (not as you claim in 5th century).

Quote:
“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. Constantine wrote in the DAI about a Croatian victory against the Bulgars: does this event represent the formation of a new elite on the Dalmatian edges of the Bulgar kingdom? “

“In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scythian Barbarians. “

What we can see, historians very appreciate Dr Borri. For example Slovakian historian Adam Mesiarkin (Comenius Unuiversity in Bratislava) writes, quote:

“We agree with the author* in the question of a „general“ construction of the mentioned parts of the text of DAI”,

*Dr Adam Mesiarkin speaks about author who is Dr Borri.

And after, Dr Mesiarkin argues, quote:

“The fact that Constantine Porphyrogenitus did not have to describe the situation from the first half of the seventh century is not important at this moment. It is important that he wrote down a myth, which lived and stood in the centre of the ethnogenesis, of the memory of the elite – which created a political-ethnic group. They maintain the myth of the arrival to the country with a permission of the emperor – for the absolute right for taking the land.“

“In spite of naming the Croats as Slavs in Latin sources, probably due to their language, Croatian identity was not Slavic. They turned away from the Slavs and Avars in their origo and the Slavic identity probably existed beside the Croatian identity. In addition, it is not the subsequent evolutional phase of the development of Illyrian (if there was something like that) identities mixed with Gothic or Slavic identity. It is something new, created at the time of the changes inside the khaganate and the transformations in the orbit of Frankish domination in Europe.”

You can see contemporary historians in scientific journals write the opposite what you write. They are PhD, experts, authorities and their papers are in world base of science. I told you more time if you want change anything you must write scientific paper and publish in relevant scientific journal otherwise as layman you have no chance, you can be on forums for years and decades and everything will be the same as today.

 

[hrvat22]

don_joe, I do not know if anyone made any paper on Bunjevci genetics. We definitely need one. Thank you hrvat22 for the statistics. Where did you get it from? I was expecting to see I2a on the top but a high percentage of R1a is a quite surprise. Now we see that Bunjevci do not only speak different language then Vlachs but also have different male genetics. It would be however a good thing to inspect their maternal lines and compare them with those of Vlachs and Albanians.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...41;уњевци

 

[hrvat22]

The member Hrvat22 is a member from Croatian forum whose bored everyone with his ideological and logically false premises that I-S17250 is of White Croatian origin and all Slavs originate from them, lack of knowledge and understanding of the historiography about the White Croats and White Croatia, his consideration which haplogroups do and do not belong to specific ethnic group, especially with his false and far-fetched "proofs" for undeniable "truth" and so on. You are not too harsh at all. Practically speaking, it is nothing but chauvinistic and romanticized ideologization of population genetics similarly considered by some Serbs, and both do it as a countermeasure for their nation's political conflicts and controversy regarding ethnic origin i.e. with proclaiming that specific Y-DNA haplogroups were exclusively Croatian or Serbian they propagate Greater Croatia or Greater Serbia irredentist belief. It should not be tolerated on Eupedia.

You can not dispute my claims in this forum or Croatian forum only you know is talk, talk, talk. That says I'm right.

If one man or tribe comes from same place, same time, at same place and that migration is confirmed only in record of Croat arrival, then from White Croatia do not come Bosnians, Dukljans, Montenegrins, Slavs, Dalmatians, Tribals, Vlachs, Zahumljans, Pagans, Serbians, Slovenes etc..this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk.

 

[gyms]

"...this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk."
https://www.scribd.com/document/101...orphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history

 

[Wonomyro]

Garrick, I respect Mr. Borri, but this sentence is probably one of the funniest I've ever seen:

In spite of naming the Croats as Slavs in Latin sources, probably due to their language, Croatian identity was not Slavic.

What makes Slavs as such if not the language... :lol:

In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scythian Barbarians.

Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

 

[hrvat22]

"...this is logic and logic is stronger than yours talk, talk,talk."
https://www.scribd.com/document/101...orphyrogenitus-on-the-oldestDalmatian-history

Do you have genetic logic or you and your friend Francesco-Borri just love talk, talk,talk.?

Quote me a history record where it is mentioned arrival of Croats to Balkan and refute it with today genetic, that would be logic and not only talk,talk,talk.

One more time, to Balkans(most to former Yugoslavia) coming only and exclusively Croats who later divide and become this or that but originally they are Croat origin, as far as I2a is concerned with mutation I-S17250, for R1a types we will see in the future and then bring conclusion. It is undeniable, finally and forever, if someone is upset about this it is his problem. Only thing that he can do is talk,talk,talk.

 

[Wonomyro]

hrvat_22, thank you for the link with the statistics on "Bunjevci". Their genetics is definitely "Slavic". The dialect they use even today in Vojvodina is almost same as the language of the people in Dalmatian hinterland ("stokavian-ikavian"). The same dialect appears in many Croatian medieval texts, e.g. "Croatian Chronicle" found in 15. century in Poljice near the city of Split.

 

[hrvat22]

Garrick, I respect Mr. Borri, but this sentence is probably one of the most funny I've ever seen: What makes Slavs as such if not the language... :lol: Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

What Mr. Borri has with DAI and tenth century?, therefore a hundred people a hundred opinions only genetics is accurate 100%.
They do not prove its claims with genetics and original historical records they just love to talk,talk,talk. This is their only proof.

 

[hrvat22]

hrvat_22, thank you for the link with the statistics on "Bunjevci". Their genetics is definitely "Slavic". The dialect they use even today in Vojvodina is almost same as the language of the people in Dalmatian hinterland ("stokavian-ikavian"). The same dialect appears in many Croatian medieval texts, e.g. "Croatian Chronicle" found in 15. century in Poljice near the city of Split.

That's why say "genetic is 100% accurate", and talk, talk, talk is just talk, talk, talk. Bunjevci are and Vlach origin(by some record) but genetic speaks differently, so we have believe what genetics talking and not talk, talk, talk. They may have called themselves Vlachs or part of them, but they are genetic originally Slavic or Croatian origin.

 

[Garrick]

Garrick, I respect Mr. Barri, but this sentence is probably one of the most stupid I've ever seen: What makes Slavs as such if not the language...

What you criticize is not paper of Dr Borri but Slovakian researcher Adam Mesiarkin. I read his words again, again,... I think he considers that name Croat (Hrvat) is not Slavic and possible some non-Slavic tribe or people existed with that name in Avar khaganate who were not Slavic.

Mr. Borri might be right about Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his imagination in chapters he wrote: 29. 31-36., especially in the story about Serbs. But what about the chapter 30., "Story about the province of Dalmatia", which was obviously written by another author? In that chapter there is a slightly different, cleaner, and probably authentic version of the Croatian migration.

Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century (231, 232 page). Dr Borri highlights the importance of Byzantine in Croatian process creation because their emperors wanted allies against Bulgars. Narrative elements and legends of Croatian migrations are took from older Scythian and Bulgarian sources (224, 225 pages etc).

 

[gyms]

Do you have genetic logic or you and your friend Francesco-Borri just love talk, talk,talk.?

Quote me a history record where it is mentioned arrival of Croats to Balkan and refute it with today genetic, that would be logic and not only talk,talk,talk.

One more time, to Balkans(most to former Yugoslavia) coming only and exclusively Croats who later divide and become this or that but originally they are Croat origin, as far as I2a is concerned with mutation I-S17250, for R1a types we will see in the future and then bring conclusion. It is undeniable, finally and forever, if someone is upset about this it is his problem. Only thing that he can do is talk,talk,talk.

"Do you have genetic logic..."
Do you have Croatian aDNA?

 

[Wonomyro]

What you criticize is not paper of Dr Borri but Slovakian researcher Adam Mesiarkin. I read his words again, again,... I think he considers that name Croat (Hrvat) is not Slavic and possible some non-Slavic tribe or people existed with that name in Avar khaganate who were not Slavic.

It is "possible" too that they also came directly from India riding elephants. But there is no proof of that. Not a single one. I am convinced that some slavic "national" scientists are trying to invent any possible scenario to explain a high incidence of Croatian etnotoponyme all around early medieval "Slavic" world. They just don't want to accept the most obvious scenario, and that is, that the Croatian etnonyme is authentic among slavic speakers. Unfortunately, the same we can't say for the "Slavic" one.

Dr Borri very clear says Croats as ethnic entity emerged 9-10th century (231, 232 page). Dr Borri highlights the importance of Byzantine in Croatian process creation because their emperors wanted allies against Bulgars. Narrative elements and legends of Croatian migrations are took from older Scythian and Bulgarian sources (224, 225 pages etc).

Yes, the name "emerged" as late as in 9-10th century but all around eastern Europe (Ukraine, Poland, Silesia, Lusatia, Bohemia, Karantania, Dalmatia, even in Greece...), not only in the contemporary sources but also in numerous toponymes? How come that? Do we know about any toponyme from the same period based on "Slavic" ethnonyme? Of course not. On the other hand, the chapter 30. describes the events from 9th century so I don't see what Mr. Borry does not understand. According to the source, Croats, as Frankish vasals, defeated Avars and after that setteld in Dalmatia, Panonia and the Iliricum. Avar Khaganate was destroyed around 800 AD which marks the beginning of 9th century, shotly after that event there are first mentions of Croatian dukes in Dalmatia who have tipical slavic names (Vladislav, Mislav, Trpimir, Držislav, Branimir, Krešimir, etc.). Where is the problem?

 

[hrvat22]

"Do you have genetic logic..."
Do you have Croatian aDNA?

No. Do you have Croatian aDNA?