Are South Slavs more Balkan Native than Slavic?

[Crya]

You should know at least basics. There was no “Hungarian Empire”. Croatian noblemen were vassals to Hungarian king as well as Hungarian noblemen were vassals to the same king. Hapsburgs were elected by Croatian Parlament in 16^th century:

Vassal is vassal.

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

Serbia was a non-existing entity during the Ottoman occupation. During that period the “Serb” ethnonym was hardly mentioned. All Orthodox people in the Empire were called Rum, which means (Byzantine).


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

False and irrelevant. What name Ottomans used to call occupied territories was for their own usage and have had no influence on ethnonyms. Ethnonyms have existed among Serbs as well as among other people on occupied territories such as Albanians, Bulgarians...

There was no “Hungarian army at our back”. Hungarians were hardly managing their own kingdom. Ottomans managed to take Buda (Hungarian capital), almost Vienna, but never Zagreb.

See highlighted

The Croatian troops were led by the Ban of Croatia, Thomas Erdődy, and major forces from the Duchy of Carniola and the Duchy of Carinthia were led by Andreas von Auersperg, nicknamed the "Carniolan Achilles".

I am talking about facts. Glorious Serbian fightings against Turks were more a myth then a reality. On Kosovo Battle there were also Croatian and other foreign units fighting on the Serbian side. One of them was John of Palisna with his Knights of Saint John:

The bells were ringing in Notre-Dame...

Would it be disrespectful to mention that some Serb nobility refused to fight as they were in peace with Ottomans.

And?

Some Serbs also escaped (Branković) during the battle and left Bosnians to continue the fight.

That was a myth.

 

[Fatherland]

True. There were 10.000 Croats in the battle of Kosova. There were also Albanians, Vlachs and Bulgarians. It was an Balcanic coalition.

1515
John Musachi:
Brief Chronicle on the Descendants of our Musachi Dynasty


Source:
Extract from: Breve memoria de li discendenti de nostra casa Musachi. Per Giovanni Musachi, despoto d'Epiro. Published in: Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues publiées avec notes et tables généalogiques, ed. Charles Hopf, Berlin, 1873, p. 270 340. Translated from the Italian by Robert Elsie. First published in R. Elsie: Early Albania, a Reader of Historical Texts, 11th - 17th Centuries, Wiesbaden 2003, p. 34-55.

P.S.
Various sources suggest that the most numerous troops were the Albanian and that they were placed in the front rows.
Can you search in your sources for this book please:
Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, knj. 4, Zagreb, 1960. Page 467 is of my interest.

Serbia stole this historical battle from us, who were really there fighting it!

Vuk Karaziz, the biggest thief of history with the creation of modern Serbia.

 

[Wonomyro]

We're in agreement then: a unified Croatian language doesn't exist outside of modern political narratives. An exclusively Serbian language doesn't exist either. It's all dialects of a Serbo-Croatian ancestral language and their distributions don't correspond to national borders or ethnic identities.

I created a simplified genetic tree of "Serbo-Croatian" language:

[TABLE="width: 45%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Kajkavian
[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Chakavian
[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"](Croats)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Shtokavian:[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Ikavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"](Croats)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → (I)jekavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats, Serbs)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Ekavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats, Serbs)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

(I dropped Torlakian on purpose as linguists disagree about its ancestral language.)

It seems that only two sub branches deserve to be called Serbo-Croatian.

In terms of (linguistic) genetics, Serbs have higher frequency but lower variability. Croats have lower frequency but higher variability.

Similar pattern can be observed in polycentric languages like English and Spanish. I hope that everyone must agree that In case when more nations use a polycentric language, the highest genetic variability of spoken dialects is observed in a country/nation of origin of the language.

 

[Wonomyro]

...............................

 

[markod]

I created a simplified genetic tree of "Serbo-Croatian" language:

[TABLE="width: 45%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Kajkavian
[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Chakavian
[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"](Croats)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Shtokavian:[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Ikavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"](Croats)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → (I)jekavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats, Serbs)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] → Ekavian[/TD]
[TD="width: 33%"] (Croats, Serbs)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

(I dropped Torlakian on purpose as linguists disagree about its ancestral language.)

It seems that only two sub branches deserve to be called Serbo-Croatian.

In terms of (linguistic) genetics, Serbs have higher frequency but lower variability. Croats have lower frequency but higher variability.

Similar pattern can be observed in polycentric languages like English and Spanish. I hope that everyone must agree that In case when more nations use a polycentric language, the highest genetic variability of spoken dialects is observed in a country/nation of origin of the language.

We are interested in the ancestral language of those dialects - you max call it whatever you want.

Dialect diversity is higher in Croatia of course, but that doesn't tell us much. Štokavian elements appear in Church Slavonic Text already in the 13th century.

 

[Wonomyro]

Vassal is vassal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_in_Cetin

Technically, every nobleman is a kind of vassal except the ruler himself, and he wasn't even Hungarian.That further means that Croats were not subdued to Hungarians. It is clear that Croats have sovereignty to elect the ruler they wanted.

Little Croatia, exhausted after 100+ years long struggle with the powerful Ottoman empire, reduced to minimal territory, could not manage the war by itself any longer.

False and irrelevant. What name Ottomans used to call occupied territories was for their own usage and have had no influence on ethnonyms. Ethnonyms have existed among Serbs as well as among other people on occupied territories such as Albanians, Bulgarians...

They ended Serban Churh and put the believers under the jurisdiction of Patriarch in Constantinople. So the Orthodox believers were no longer Serbs but “Byzantines” (Rum). That’s how it works in Orthodox Christian world. (The same way Montenegrins became “Serbs”.).

The Croatian troops were led by the Ban of Croatia, Thomas Erdődy, and major forces from the Duchy of Carniola and the Duchy of Carinthia were led by Andreas von Auersperg, nicknamed the "Carniolan Achilles".

Of course, Austrian military help was a part of a contract between Croatian Parliament and Hapsburgs.

The bells were ringing in Notre-Dame...

The battle was actually seen as a victory looking from the Catholic coalition side.

 

[Wonomyro]

We are interested in the ancestral language of those dialects - you max call it whatever you want.

I do. Croats have been doing it during the last 1000+ years. Every of three dialects was, at least ones, called "Croatian" in the local sources, or the speakers called themselves Croats, before 19th century.

Dialect diversity is higher in Croatia of course, but that doesn't tell us much. Štokavian elements appear in Church Slavonic Text already in the 13th century.

Why do you think that diversity doesn't tell us anything? Genetics is genetics. Same rules apply when we study origin of haplogroups.

 

[td120]

...under the jurisdiction of Patriarch in Constantinople. So the Orthodox believers were no longer Serbs but “Byzantines” (Rum). That’s how it works in Orthodox Christian world. ...

Remarks for the sake of objectivity:
During Ottoman times the Orthodox Balkan population south of Danube was under the spiritual jurisdiction of three autocephalous bodies- the Patriarchate of Constantinople ; The Patrciarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid(latter two terminated by the Ottomans nearly at the same time in the second half of XVIII c. in favor of Constantinople) . The flock of these three comprised many Orthodox enthnic groups,including non-Slavic speakers.
All these enthic groups kept on using their language and ethnic identifications . They might have been lumped together under the general label of "Rum-millet" by the Ottomans but all parties were quite well aware of their affiliations...from the millet-başı in Φανάρι and the veziers to the local sipahi , qadi and beq. Thankfully these ethnic groups never fused into one . Nor any adopted the ethnic identity of the other en masse (South and Eastern Balkans).

 

[hrvat22]

Remarks for the sake of objectivity:
During Ottoman times the Orthodox Balkan population south of Danube was under the spiritual jurisdiction of three autocephalous bodies- the Patriarchate of Constantinople ; The Patrciarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid(latter two terminated by the Ottomans nearly at the same time in the second half of XVIII c. in favor of Constantinople) . The flock of these three comprised many Orthodox enthnic groups,including non-Slavic speakers.
All these enthic groups kept on using their language and ethnic identifications . They might have been lumped together under the general label of "Rum-millet" by the Ottomans but all parties were quite well aware of their affiliations...from the millet-başı in Φανάρι and the veziers to the local sipahi , qadi and beq. Thankfully these ethnic groups never fused into one . Nor any adopted the ethnic identity of the other en masse (South and Eastern Balkans).

Do you know anything about original history data for Serbs in the Turkish period?

For now I know only two records of the Serbs in Croatia, "law for Cetina Vlachs" in which are mentioned Serbs, Vlachs and Croats, and migration to Žumberak where Vlachs and Serbs are mentioned, possible exist some other record . The vast majority of records mention the Vlachs that have nothing to do with Serbs. Where Vlachs have disappeared?

In eastern Croatia there are about ten or more? records about Rascians which could have a connection with Serbs but there are also records about Vlachs. Fact is that in the area off Rascia in the historical records of that time and Croats are mentioned, whether and they come with this Rascians?

 

[Ygorcs]

A Bronze Age sample from Croatia could be called Illyrian or proto-Illyrian. There is a PCA plot witin a PDF file, which compares ancient samples with the modern ones:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...me_series_from_coastal_and_hinterland_Croatia

The sample plots near present day Bulgarians. It is obviously slightly northernly shifted from present day Albanians but still much closer to Albanian-Greek cluster then to present day Croats.

This PCA seems to favor what I had proposed in a comment many pages previously in this thread: that the model used to estimate the impact of Slavic migrations using Poland and Albania samples as proxy populations would probably inflate the presumes Slavic contribution in countries like Croatia and Slovenia because that model assumes that Illyrians of the northern Balkans were like modern Albanians, but it is very likely that they had already been exposed to more northern influences and probably received both northwest and northeast genetic input, pulling them slightly northward in relation to Albanians in the southern Balkans. Therefore I think the Slavic contribution in Croatia and Slovenia must have been very large indeed, but probably not as much as some have estimated on the assumption that the entire Dinaric area was inhabited by people exactly like Albanians.

 

[Crya]

They ended Serban Churh and put the believers under the jurisdiction of Patriarch in Constantinople. So the Orthodox believers were no longer Serbs but “Byzantines” (Rum). That’s how it works in Orthodox Christian world. (The same way Montenegrins became “Serbs”.).

I believe that this statement has already been confirmed by other users and shown wrong as I pointed before.

Of course, Austrian military help was a part of a contract between Croatian Parliament and Hapsburgs.

There is one joke. Mouse and elephant were crossing the bridge. Suddenly the mouse turned to an elephant and said: "Man we are rumbling so hard". Maybe I got it wrong but I was under impression that you were trying to highlight contribution of Croatians and diminish contribution of Serbs in preventing the Turks to take our lands.

The battle was actually seen as a victory looking from the Catholic coalition side.

True since Tvrtko sent massage to Trogir stating victory. Even today it is not clear whether it was victory or defeat. Anyway battle has weakened Serbian army to a great content while from the other side Turks had man power reserves and soon they were able to recover despite the fact that both armies were wiped out during the battle together with their leaders. One more fact coming in favor of Serbian victory or at least draw is that Serbia continued to rule with their own princes until 1459 when was finally conquered.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

This thread is a disaster for the simple reason that too many people are extrapolating too little genetic data, and then even worse they are tying it to linguistics and ethnic identities across time and space.

We know the rough contours both autosomally and patrilineally in the Balkans and there are shared pools between the various peoples that exist today.

What we don't know is how large the groups of arriving Slavs were when they migrated into the Balkans, and which earlier groups of Slavs assimilated into Serbs and Croats (since those were the only two West Balkan Slavs for centuries and centuries).

And beyond that, one must remember that identities have historically often been fluid.

 

[markod]

This PCA seems to favor what I had proposed in a comment many pages previously in this thread: that the model used to estimate the impact of Slavic migrations using Poland and Albania samples as proxy populations would probably inflate the presumes Slavic contribution in countries like Croatia and Slovenia because that model assumes that Illyrians of the northern Balkans were like modern Albanians, but it is very likely that they had already been exposed to more northern influences and probably received both northwest and northeast genetic input, pulling them slightly northward in relation to Albanians in the southern Balkans. Therefore I think the Slavic contribution in Croatia and Slovenia must have been very large indeed, but probably not as much as some have estimated on the assumption that the entire Dinaric area was inhabited by people exactly like Albanians.

Good call. IIRC there were additional movements into the area mainly coming from the eastern Alps in the Iron Age associated with Hallstatt. These could have brought even more broadly 'northern' ancestry.

 

[hrvat22]

This PCA seems to favor what I had proposed in a comment many pages previously in this thread: that the model used to estimate the impact of Slavic migrations using Poland and Albania samples as proxy populations would probably inflate the presumes Slavic contribution in countries like Croatia and Slovenia because that model assumes that Illyrians of the northern Balkans were like modern Albanians, but it is very likely that they had already been exposed to more northern influences and probably received both northwest and northeast genetic input, pulling them slightly northward in relation to Albanians in the southern Balkans. Therefore I think the Slavic contribution in Croatia and Slovenia must have been very large indeed, but probably not as much as some have estimated on the assumption that the entire Dinaric area was inhabited by people exactly like Albanians.

Genetic links between Illyrians and northern tribes very likely exist, but after arrival of Slavs to the Balkans, "northern" or not originally Illyrian do not flee to Italy or still flee? Is that genetic visible somewhere? Or you think about some R1b tribes, but as far as I can see that R1b first comes to the Balkans and then goes to Western Europe.

We have problem that we do not know if this similarity is somewhere established by the basic R1b haplotype or based on younger branches, etc. Because I saw some Kosovars partially as Western Europeans autosomaly and it is by my opinion because of this "basic" R1b i.e. I mean on the basis of couple of markers old 4,5 etc thousand years which is in common with Western European R1b?

 

[Johane Derite]

This PCA seems to favor what I had proposed in a comment many pages previously in this thread: that the model used to estimate the impact of Slavic migrations using Poland and Albania samples as proxy populations would probably inflate the presumes Slavic contribution in countries like Croatia and Slovenia because that model assumes that Illyrians of the northern Balkans were like modern Albanians, but it is very likely that they had already been exposed to more northern influences and probably received both northwest and northeast genetic input, pulling them slightly northward in relation to Albanians in the southern Balkans. Therefore I think the Slavic contribution in Croatia and Slovenia must have been very large indeed, but probably not as much as some have estimated on the assumption that the entire Dinaric area was inhabited by people exactly like Albanians.

Its only natural that the southernmost and northernmost illyrians would shift in one direction more than the other. Albanians are the surviving branches of illyrians that didnt assimilate into Roman identity, Greek orthodox, serb orthodox, fyrom orthodox, catholic croatian, and so represent only one segment or section of the illyrian spectrum. I agree that the genetic slavic impact can be inflated by reading already existing NW and NE clines as slavic impact,etc. With respect to Ydna though the effect of slavs is quite significant
I would like to see dalmation speakers results before their assimilation into the croatian ethnos. Test their remains if there are any, to see how they plot also.

 

[Wonomyro]

Remarks for the sake of objectivity: During Ottoman times the Orthodox Balkan population south of Danube was under the spiritual jurisdiction of three autocephalous bodies- the Patriarchate of Constantinople ; The Patrciarchate of Peć and the Archbishopric of Ohrid(latter two terminated by the Ottomans nearly at the same time in the second half of XVIII c. in favor of Constantinople) . The flock of these three comprised many Orthodox enthnic groups,including non-Slavic speakers. All these enthic groups kept on using their language and ethnic identifications. They might have been lumped together under the general label of "Rum-millet" by the Ottomans but all parties were quite well aware of their affiliations...from the millet-başı in Φανάρι and the veziers to the local sipahi , qadi and beq. Thankfully these ethnic groups never fused into one . Nor any adopted the ethnic identity of the other en masse (South and Eastern Balkans).

I fully agree with that. That was actually my point. Ethnic labels used by Church authorities are not reliable in determining the real ethnicities on Balkans.

They might have been lumped together under the general label of "Rum-millet" by the Ottomans

Yes, but later, after Patriarchate of Peć was reestablished (former Serbian Church seat), a new/old general label reappeared – “Serb”.

Here is the map of the territories where Patriarchate of Peć got a jurisdiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patriarchate_of_Peć_in_the_16th_and_17th_century.png

More or less, all Orthodox Christians within the map became Serbs in 19-20th century. As opposite, no Catholic nor Muslim who lived in the same territories, used same language, shared the same ancestry, no one became Serb. Only Orthodox believers became members of a modern Serb nation.

 

[Wonomyro]

This PCA seems to favor what I had proposed in a comment many pages previously in this thread: that the model used to estimate the impact of Slavic migrations using Poland and Albania samples as proxy populations would probably inflate the presumes Slavic contribution in countries like Croatia and Slovenia because that model assumes that Illyrians of the northern Balkans were like modern Albanians, but it is very likely that they had already been exposed to more northern influences and probably received both northwest and northeast genetic input, pulling them slightly northward in relation to Albanians in the southern Balkans. Therefore I think the Slavic contribution in Croatia and Slovenia must have been very large indeed, but probably not as much as some have estimated on the assumption that the entire Dinaric area was inhabited by people exactly like Albanians.

Yes, we might get to that conclusion. However, this is only one sample from Bronze Age. A thin steppe ancestry could have faded away during the Iron Age. Roman period was especially turbulent as Romans were replacing peoples all around the Empire.

 

[hrvat22]

More or less, all Orthodox Christians within the map above became Serbs in 19-20th century. As opposite, no Catholic nor Muslim who lived in the same territories, used same language, shared the same ancestry, no one became Serb. Only Orthodox believers became members of a modern Serb nation.

Here we have to add fact that and part of Croats move to Orthodoxy regardless of arrival newly Orthodox population, as well Croats no matter which religion belong also mix with Orthodox Vlachs groups. We also have records of Croatians in "Orthodox" areas so and they probably come as Orthodox people to Bosnia or Croatia. We know who are today Orthodox in Croatia or Bosnia. Also exist and migration from Dinaric Croatian areas to Serbia. That's why genetics is important becouse we can see origin of these peoples. Normally, Vlachs also become and Croats, but that is in smaller percentage.

 

[hrvat22]

This thread is a disaster for the simple reason that too many people are extrapolating too little genetic data, and then even worse they are tying it to linguistics and ethnic identities across time and space.

We know the rough contours both autosomally and patrilineally in the Balkans and there are shared pools between the various peoples that exist today.

What we don't know is how large the groups of arriving Slavs were when they migrated into the Balkans, and which earlier groups of Slavs assimilated into Serbs and Croats (since those were the only two West Balkan Slavs for centuries and centuries).

And beyond that, one must remember that identities have historically often been fluid.

If you want talk about genetics based on your Y haplotype J-M241 you probably have a male ancestor who comes with Vlachs in the area of western Herzegovina. This is proof of some migration probably from Albanian, Montenegrian etc direction. Now you need see what historical records say about your village and that area. It will be interesting to see in the future from where your male ancestor come from. You will not be less Croat but you'll know from where your male ancestor come from.
There is also possibility that your male ancestor is an assimilated Illyrian from the 7th century. You will see that when you get deeper into genetic research.

 

[Wonomyro]

I believe that this statement has already been confirmed by other users and shown wrong as I pointed before.

I was't wrong but I'm afraid that you didn't understand the point.

There is one joke. Mouse and elephant were crossing the bridge. Suddenly the mouse turned to an elephant and said: "Man we are rumbling so hard". Maybe I got it wrong but I was under impression that you were trying to highlight contribution of Croatians and diminish contribution of Serbs in preventing the Turks to take our lands.

As you can see, "mice" were resisting the constant Ottoman attacks for more then hundred years on their own, before the Habsburgs joined in.

Although its strength was depleted from the constant conflicts on the border, late in the 16th century Croatian fortified cities were able to hold Ottoman forces at bay.[11] During this period Ottoman Bosnian forces had made several attempts to seize major forts and towns across the Una and Sava rivers. On 26 October 1584 smaller Ottoman units were defeated at the battle of Slunj, and on 6 December 1586 near Ivanić-Grad.[7] However, Ottoman raids and attacks were increasing and the Croatian nobility were fighting without Habsburg support
(...)
Ottoman forces had around 7-8,000. On 24 July the Ottomans started besieging Sisak, but lifted the siege after 5 days of fighting and heavy losses, leaving the region of Turopolje ravaged. These events encouraged the Emperor to make more effort in order to stop the Ottomans, whose actions were halted by the winter.[7][15]

Finally. Toma Bakač Erdődy and Blaž Đurak (commanders of "mice"!) and their soldiers ("mice") had a key role during the Battle of Sisak:

Christian Europe was delighted at the grandiose reports of the victory at Sisak. Pope Clement VIII praised the Christian military leaders, sending a letter of gratitude to Ban Erdődy, while King Philip II of Spain named Erdődy a knight of the Order of Saint Saviour. The Diocese of Zagreb built a chapel in the village of Greda near Sisak to commemorate the victory and the bishop decreed that a Mass of thanksgiving should be held every 22 June in Zagreb. The cloak of Hasan Pasha was given to the Ljubljana Cathedral.[21] Blaž Đurak, commander of the Sisak garrison, was awarded by the Croatian Parliament for his contribution to the victory.[22]

Some Serban web sites listed the Battle of Sisak as "Serb victory". How pathetic!