Knez Dervan's Serbia and the Ethnogenisis of Balkan Serbs

[Bachus]

And according to you, which place could be the best candidate as the original homeland of the Serbs?

Balkans is original homeland of Serbs because ethno-genesis of Serbs were in the Balkan in Middle Age.
Original holders of Serbian name are not same as modern Serbs.

There is theory that proto-Serbs were Alan (Iranic) tribe Serboi.
Serboi were probably R1a-Z93, G and R1b-Z2103.
R1a-Z93 were the main haplogroup among Iranic people, G is most common among Ossetians (they are known as descandants of Alans) and R1b-Z2103 is present among Ossetians and exist in France and Spain (came with Alans) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Alani_map.jpg



R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2103 (quite common among Albanians) and Caucasian branch of G does not exist among Serbs and if Serbs are related with Serboi then this haplogroup shoulds be present among Serbs.

By the way original homeland of all humans is Africa.

[Crya]

You have genetics and all you say prove with genetics, till then you talk fairy tales.

I’d wish it is simple as that, but it is not. I’ll ask you one question. The most dominant haplogroup in Croatia is I2a. Maybe the original Croatians are R1a only, that had asimilated I2a and shared their genes? Possible? In order to prove something you will need to know some historical facts in conjunction with arheology, etimogy and other relevant disciplines... These you cannot learn in 2 days, more often not even in 2 years. “Till then you talk fairy tales”.

[hrvat22]

I’d wish it is simple as that, but it is not. I’ll ask you one question. The most dominant haplogroup in Croatia is I2a. Maybe the original Croatians are R1a only, that had asimilated I2a and shared their genes? Possible? In order to prove something you will need to know some historical facts in conjunction with arheology, etimogy and other relevant disciplines... These you cannot learn in 2 days, more often not even in 2 years. “Till then you talk fairy tales”.

So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineageoriginating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland andextreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, ofcourse Date: 20 May 2014.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-05/1400615460

May 4, 2017..In fact there is still only one known man who is CTS10228+ S17250- Y4460- Z17855- A2512-, he has paternal ancestry from southeastern Poland.

http://i2aproject.blogspot.hr/2017/0...621-and-i.html

n 2010 has Ken Nordtvedt argued that I-L69.2 is too young not to have been a result of a sudden expansion. According to him I2a1b1 arose not earlier than 2500 years ago in Eastern Europe. He has presumed this to be a consequence from the Slavic invasion of the Balkans, from the area north-east of the Carpathians since 500 CE. In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years. In his last comments about Haplogroup I tree and the conjectured spread map, he locates the start of the I-L69.2 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula.

http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tr...r%20Hg%20I.pdf

The second haplotype of Croats R1a Z280 CTS3402 also has a high frequency in southern Poland but for now it does not know the source of the same ... probably in southern Poland but it needs to be determined.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...ufrQJyWb4fD9zg

Stiljsko, southwestern Ukraine ..there were numerous Croatian sitesVI.-XI. (naseobine, gradina, grobi-what, cult centers). Found richarchaeological material proves that it was oldCroatian township functioned intime from the middle of the IX. to the beginning of XI

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1...8C%D0%BA%D0%BEhttps://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show...ak_jezik=17599

Russian geneticist I. Rozhansky says:2013/10/18 translation from Russian ...Croats haplogroup R1a is represented almost exclusively by the Central Eurasian subcommittee Z280 (as in Eastern Slavs and Carpathians). And Croats, Slovenians, and as, most likely, Serbs dominate several branches that have the common Sneap CTS3402. the geography of these branches is such that it is possible to trace its path from Carpathian side to the Adriatic. The same can be said about "Dinarides" subsidiary subclades I2a1b. Obviously, White Croats and Croats from Carpathians to Adriatic are really close peoples. You can not say this about Lužičani Sorbs and Danubian Serbs - they are too different line

http://pereformat.ru/2013/10/kolybel...j-civilizacii/

DAI 10th century

From Croats, who came to Dalmatia, one part separated, and occupied Illyricum (Illurikon) and Panonian (Pannonian), they also had their own independent prince, who maintained friendly bonds, only through the apostles, with the knight of Croatia.

​But, at that time, Croats lived behind Bagibaree, where they were now White Croats (Belohrobatoi)..

Iraklije 612-641

From letter of Roman Pope Gregory I, year 600.

Because Slavs began to enter through Istria to Italy

etc...

[LABERIA]

Balkans is original homeland of Serbs because ethno-genesis of Serbs were in the Balkan in Middle Age.
Original holders of Serbian name are not same as modern Serbs.

There is theory that proto-Serbs were Alan (Iranic) tribe Serboi.
Serboi were probably R1a-Z93, G and R1b-Z2103.
R1a-Z93 were the main haplogroup among Iranic people, G is most common among Ossetians (they are known as descandants of Alans) and R1b-Z2103 is present among Ossetians and exist in France and Spain (came with Alans) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Alani_map.jpg



R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2103 (quite common among Albanians) and Caucasian branch of G does not exist among Serbs and if Serbs are related with Serboi then this haplogroup shoulds be present among Serbs.

By the way original homeland of all humans is Africa.

I asked about Serbs, not all humans. Seems that you don't have an theory.

[Miroslav]

Knez Dervan's country population which were ancestral to contemporary Sorbs cannot be anyhow dominantly related to I2a-Dinaric when Sorbs have around 65% R1a. Instead to be interested about R1a, no, Serbs must jump once again on the I2a-Dinaric bandwagon because it is a dominant haplogroup on the Western Balkan and as such politically profitable to prove it is of Serbian origin.

Also, note - the frequency in the Czech Republic is a mistake as it represents many samples from a single Czech surname family who tried to trace its mutual origin and relationship (furthermore, they belong to a single branch, it's not the I2a-Dinaric group of SNP branches at all). These contemporary maps are not an evidence, they are mostly useless and misleading for the representation of the past.

[Garrick]

I didn't said that Serbs are Pashtuns. I said that there is an theory, among many others, that indicates as a possible original homeland of the Serbs, the region of Pashtunistan.
How much are related Serbs with Pashtuns in terms of language, genetics, etc, this is an issue that probably in the future scholars maybe will explain it.

Scientists Grey and Atkinson find that Albanian has same root as Indic and Iranian:



It has much greater weight, because it is scientific paper, than what people write in forums. And their paper is not only one.

[Johane Derite]

Scientists Grey and Atkinson find that Albanian has same root as Indic and Iranian:



It has much greater weight, because it is scientific paper, than what people write in forums. And their paper is not only one.

Andrew Garrets 2015 paper has already disproved this, he has a lecture about the faulty method many linguists were using that produced odd results making the indo european language 10000 years old and many languages being in odd branches. Albanian is not on the indic-iranian branch. It is on the same branch with greek/armenian.

[Garrick]

Andrew Garrets 2015 paper has already disproved this, he has a lecture about the faulty method many linguists were using that produced odd results making the indo european language 10000 years old and many languages being in odd branches. Albanian is not on the indic-iranian branch. It is on the same branch with greek/armenian.

In newer comprehensive study:

Willems, Lord, Laforest, Labelle, Lapointe, Di Sciullo (2016), opposite Garrets, again determine: Albanian and Indic & Iranic.

[Crya]

I am referring to Indo-Iranic origin of Albanian language and refering to language tree given by Johane Derite.

I must notice that this is complete nonsense (i am talking about Slavic tree). Placing Slovenian in front of other Slavic languages is, just, funny. After that placing Serbian in front of Macedonian is 2nd nonsense since Macedonian is characterized as archaic Serbian and as such is older then Serbian. From here we can see that even today there is no serious studies conducted regarding the Slavic languages by western scientists, instead they have adopted some ridiculous theories. It is not a secret that Germans have usurp many of the Slavic tribes now days presented as Germanic. One example is Markomanni. But unfortunately it is written in the stone:

STYN. OVVY. UKLOPYEN. BYLIE. JESTI. MERA.
SGODE. KRUKOVUYE. NASS. MARKOMAN. I.
BRETE. SLAVNOV. LITOV. BOYA. NASGA. MAR-
KOMAN. PROYDE. NI. SLAVNOV. STYN . POKOI.
LYTH. V. VIKA.

Prevod (IKAVSKI):
STINA OVA UKLOPLJENA BILJEG JESTE MIRA
ZGODE KRUKOVIJE NAS MARKOMAN(A)
I BRATIJE (BRACE) SLAVNIJEH LITA (LETA) BOJA NASEGA
MARKOMAN PROIDE (PRODJE) NI (NE) SLAVNI STINA (STENA)
POKOJ LIT (LETA) V VIKE (VEKE ILI VJEKE)

Regarding modern Albanian, it is one of the youngest European language. Regarding the roots, i doubt it is Iranic since Iranic and Indic are more linked to Serbian through Sanskrit.

Only few examples of words related to family relations - Serbian vs Sanskrit:

Mayka - Majka (Mother)
Tata - Tata (Dad)
Dada, Baba - Deda, Baba (Grandfather, Grandmother)
Bhrat - Brat (Brother)
Zet - Zet (Brother in law)
Tatku - Tetak (Uncle)

[LABERIA]

Scientists Grey and Atkinson find that Albanian has same root as Indic and Iranian:



It has much greater weight, because it is scientific paper, than what people write in forums. And their paper is not only one.

Excuse me but what have to the origin of Albanian language with the ethnogenesis of the Serbs? I am not going to report your post, because is useless, but honestly i can`t understand this, only an brilliant mind like yours can explain this connection.
From years now, the only your preocupation in this forum is spreading disinformation about Albanians. Albanians are from Africa, Berber tribe, from Asia, from Romania(your funny theory of koçi-boçi from Carpathian mountains), from Bulgaria, now from Iran and India. And i am sure that you will continue to do this in the future for many years, it`s evident that you have some support in this forum.
What i want to remember to you is that this thread is about the ethnogenesis of YOUR nation, not about my nation.
Thanks for your attention.

[Wonomyro]

(...) One example is Markomanni. But unfortunately it is written in the stone:

STYN. OVVY. UKLOPYEN. BYLIE. JESTI. MERA. SGODE. KRUKOVUYE. NASS. MARKOMAN. I. BRETE. SLAVNOV. LITOV. BOYA. NASGA. MAR- KOMAN. PROYDE. NI. SLAVNOV. STYN . POKOI. LYTH. V. VIKA.

Prevod (IKAVSKI): STINA OVA UKLOPLJENA BILJEG JESTE MIRA ZGODE KRUKOVIJE NAS MARKOMAN(A) I BRATIJE (BRACE) SLAVNIJEH LITA (LETA) BOJA NASEGA MARKOMAN PROIDE (PRODJE) NI (NE) SLAVNI STINA (STENA) POKOJ LIT (LETA) V VIKE (VEKE ILI VJEKE)

That's interesting. Could you pls. provide a reference?

[Crya]

To hrvat22

I have read the whole interview with Klyosov that you have linked. Unfortunately you are showing only one comment from Rozhansky which, btw, is saying, citing: "And Croats, Slovenians, and as, most likely, Serbs (since this research is from 2013) dominate several branches that have the common Sneap CTS3402. Thus, we all came from the same area, correct? Regarding, citing: "Lužičani Sorbs and Danubian Serbs - they are too different line". What you want to show with this? Let me enlighten you: root of the word SRB is very old, much older then word Slavs. Some of very important slavists (not Serbians) are saying that in ancient times all the Slavs called them self Serbs which they are supporting with too many toponyms from all over the Europe and more. With that analogy Lusatians Serbs and Balkan Serbs still call them self Serbs like in ancient times. What was common for all the Slavs in ancient times was their language (Continuity of languages among Slavik people is the stronges in Europe). What you said is that Croats came from White Croatia, which could be truth, partially, but only for small amount of people, warriors, who came back to their ancient homeland where still the common people of their own kind were living unprotected, same as Serbs but only in larger number. I have a feeling that you want to show here that there is continuity with Croats but not with Serbs.

[Crya]

That's interesting. Could you pls. provide a reference?

I am unable to provide link since I need to have more then 10 posts which i don’t. Anyway it is Maveo Orbini “Il regno de gli Slavi”

[Wonomyro]

I see, OK.

The old authors were often "merging" Slavs and Goths in their works.

[Johane Derite]

In newer comprehensive study:

Willems, Lord, Laforest, Labelle, Lapointe, Di Sciullo (2016), opposite Garrets, again determine: Albanian and Indic & Iranic.

Just read the study and they say no such thing. It does not claim albanian to be on indic iranian branch.

[hrvat22]

Crya

Regarding, citing: "Lužičani Sorbs and Danubian Serbs - they are too different line". What you want to show with this?

Balkan Serbs have nothing to do with Sorbs.

Let me enlighten you: root of the word SRB is very old, much older then word Slavs.

Historical records say that Serbs get their name in Greece.

Some of very important slavists (not Serbians) are saying that in ancient times all the Slavs called them self Serbs which they are supporting with too many toponyms from all over the Europe and more.

Historical records say that Serbs get their name in Greece.

With that analogy Lusatians Serbs and Balkan Serbs still call them self Serbs like in ancient times.

That analogy is not proven with historical records.

What you said is that Croats came from White Croatia, which could be truth, partially, but only for small amount of people, warriors, who came back to their ancient homeland where still the common people of their own kind were living unprotected,

City of Stiljsko had about 30,000 inhabitants, while in southwestern Ukraine there are about 50 abandoned fortresses which is supposed to belong to White Croats.

I have a feeling that you want to show here that there is continuity with Croats but not with Serbs.

Serbs do not come from White Croatia, and genetics have confirmed that Serbs do not come to Balkans at all.

Today's Serbs are genetic mixture of Croats, Albanians and Vlachs.

[Crya]

Balkan Serbs have nothing to do with Sorbs.






Historical records say that Serbs get their name in Greece.



Historical records say that Serbs get their name in Greece.




That analogy is not proven with historical records.



City of Stiljsko had about 30,000 inhabitants, while in southwestern Ukraine there are about 50 abandoned fortresses which is supposed to belong to White Croats.




Serbs do not come from White Croatia, and genetics have confirmed that Serbs do not come to Balkans at all.

Today's Serbs are genetic mixture of Croats, Albanians and Vlachs.

Wow, my friend, I don't want to comment your history knowledge, and i saw it before but wasn't sure. Now you have shown your real face. It is even pointless to provide you with the facts to disproof what you have said here. Read something, it is from your favorite source of information site wikipedia:

Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.

[LeBrok]

Wow, my friend, I don't want to comment your history knowledge, and i saw it before but wasn't sure. Now you have shown your real face. It is even pointless to provide you with the facts to disproof what you have said here. Read something, it is from your favorite source of information site wikipedia:

Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.

Tone down your ridiculing of other members of Eupedia.

[hrvat22]

Wow, my friend, I don't want to comment your history knowledge, and i saw it before but wasn't sure. Now you have shown your real face. It is even pointless to provide you with the facts to disproof what you have said here. Read something, it is from your favorite source of information site wikipedia:

Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.

I said

Serbs do not come from White Croatia, and genetics have confirmed that Serbs do not come to Balkans at all.

Logical conclusion after that statement is

Today's Serbs are genetic mixture of Croats, Albanians and Vlachs.

Do you understand, nation, group or tribe which considers itself as Serbians genetically do not come to Balkans, only logical conclusion is what I'm quote.

If you have genetic evidence that rejects my statement say it.

[Miroslav]

Some of very important slavists (not Serbians) are saying that in ancient times all the Slavs called them self Serbs which they are supporting with too many toponyms from all over the Europe and more.

You mean debunked and outdated (18th-19th century) theories about Sporoi and Zeriuani? Please spare us this historiographical mythologization, we are living in the 21st century with more advanced scientific research.

[Miroslav]

I have a feeling that you want to show here that there is continuity with Croats but not with Serbs.

In DAI is literally said:

"...entered Serbia and took away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia; and the country was left deserted. Now, at that time these same Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain by the Croats. Seven years afterwards Tzeeslav escaped from the Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia from Preslav, and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting... Serbs living in Croatia and Bulgaria and the rest of the countries... Moreover, many had escaped from Bulgaria and entered Constantinople... And from the rich gifts of the emperor of the Romans he organized and populated the country..."

If the Serbs, like Croats, came as elite warrior caste i.e. minority elite who imposed their political rule, and these accounts represent their history, then it is clear these same Serbs almost vanished, and only a few managed to return and reimpose their rule with Byzantine Empire support in a depopulated territory.

Basically speaking:

• There's a doubtful continuity between R1a dominant Sorbs from Lusatia (White Serbia), which tribes were located in the West and not like White Croatian tribes all along the Carpathian mountains from the Czech Republic to Ukraine, and I2a-Dinaric dominant Serbs from Balkan.
• There's a doubtful continuity between Serbs from Balkan who arrived since the 7th century and contemporary Serbs.

[Crya]

In DAI is literally said:

"...entered Serbia and took away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia; and the country was left deserted. Now, at that time these same Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they were all slain by the Croats. Seven years afterwards Tzeeslav escaped from the Bulgarians with four others, and entered Serbia from Preslav, and found in the country no more than fifty men only, without wives or children, who supported themselves by hunting... Serbs living in Croatia and Bulgaria and the rest of the countries... Moreover, many had escaped from Bulgaria and entered Constantinople... And from the rich gifts of the emperor of the Romans he organized and populated the country..."

If the Serbs, like Croats, came as elite warrior caste i.e. minority elite who imposed their political rule, and these accounts represent their history, then it is clear these same Serbs almost vanished, and only a few managed to return and reimpose their rule with Byzantine Empire support in a depopulated territory.

Basically speaking:

• There's a doubtful continuity between R1a dominant Sorbs from Lusatia (White Serbia), which tribes were located in the West and not like White Croatian tribes all along the Carpathian mountains from the Czech Republic to Ukraine, and I2a-Dinaric dominant Serbs from Balkan.
• There's a doubtful continuity between Serbs from Balkan who arrived since the 7th century and contemporary Serbs

Please provide the link.

[Wonomyro]

Let me enlighten you: root of the word SRB is very old, much older then word Slavs. Some of very important slavists (not Serbians) are saying that in ancient times all the Slavs called them self Serbs which they are supporting with too many toponyms from all over the Europe and more.

The root is indeed old.

The root “srb” existed in archaic Croatian in the meaning “to slurp” or “to suck”. A place where shepherds bring their flocks to drink water was called “srbišće”. The high occurrence of the word in some areas may indicate such places. It is possible that Serbia got its name after the high number of montain rivers where sheperds could find lot of water for their flocks. Then the Balkan Serbs probably got their name from the the region they lived in/occupied, not vice versa. Also we can imagine that the word itself was brought to the region by Croats.

[Garrick]

Just read the study and they say no such thing. It does not claim albanian to be on indic iranian branch.

Close relative to indic-iranian branch, you can see picture.

Quote of authors:

"The Albanian group is also a close relative of the union of the Sanskrit and Persian in the IE language tree"

[Garrick]

Excuse me but what have to the origin of Albanian language with the ethnogenesis of the Serbs?

You mentioned Pashtuns, and you see that in some papers Albanian has same root as Indo-Iranic (where is Pashto).