Are South Slavs more Balkan Native than Slavic?

[Guido Anselmi]

We know that the said area was a demographic basin of Dubrovnik Republic. That’s the main reason why Dubrovnik became Slavic over time. The fact, that Slavic speakers of Dubrovnik were historically identified as Croats, indicates that they had to be Croats prior they became citizens of Dubrovnik Republic. It is hard to believe that Dubrovnik Romans would have taught Slavs about their ethnic name.

I used to think the bolded part was true but there is scant evidence for that. We have some evidence that the language used by Slavs was from time to time referred to as Croatian (or sometimes Naski, Ilirski, Slovinski). A Croatian ethnic consciousness south of the Neretva River is a relatively new development. Ragusans considered themselves to be Ragusan and separate from the Vlachs inland.

If there had been any other ethnicity among Catholic Slavs, other then Croatian, we would know about it. In that sense, we could speak only about Bosnian identity. However, it seems that one was more regional and political then ethnic, as medieval Bosnians basically shared the same culture and literacy as Croats and nobody know where to pull the line between two.

The answer being that Bosnian was a regional designation, not an ethnic one. There were Sokci present who then migrated north into Slavonia and who then became Croatians over time. This deals with Bosnia proper (Vrhbosna, Usora, Soli). Terra Incognita is Bosanska Krajina aka Turska Hrvatska. We know that this area was largely depopulated when the Ottomans took it over and resettled with Serbianized Vlachs who sometimes built their churches over pre-existing Catholic ones.

Moreover, there are so many accounts of the Croatian ethnonym far away from “Croatia proper” e. g. in the Bay of Cattaro where the local nobility maintained they Croatian identity throughout centuries. That idicates that Croatian ethnonym was not just a political nor a regional label.

Croatian as an ethnic designation ebbs and flows throughout history. It was at first strongest in the Nin-Knin-Klis Triangle but eventually moved north to Zagreb which took on the central role as it managed to Croatianize Slavonia. At the same time the Turkish push deteriorated Croatian ethnic consciousness in the south as you moved inland from the islands and Zadar to the point where people referred to our language usually as Slovinski or Naski, and much less often as Arvatski. Ilirski came afterwards. It was the noble Kacic Family that did the most to preserve the Croatian name in Central Dalmatia, particularly around Poljica.

Only with the Croatian National Renaissance did this ethnic consciousness return and it was teamed up with the migrations of Croatians from the Dalmatian Highlands and Western Hercegovina who settled Central and Northwestern Bosnia and Bosanska Posavina in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Yet even in the 19th century you had outstanding questions of ethnic affiliation since this was still the Ottoman era under the Millet system. All historians agree that the Serbs in Bosnia were the first to attain a wide ethnic consciousness (by the 1860s or so) due to both their church and their bourgeoisie, with Croatians following suit. You had Franciscans like Jukic who rejected a Croatian national consciousness (and he also rejected a Serbian one) in favour of a Bosnian one that failed. You had Franciscans like Grgo Martic who at first sided with a Serbian consciousness, but then rejected that in favour of a Bosnian one and then later a Croatian one.

In the south the Croatian consciousness was strongest and most consistent around Zadar where even the Venetians called the calvary units there "Croatian Calvary". This makes sense as Zadar, its outlying area and the islands nearby saw a lot of refugees from inland settle there when the Turks stormed Bosnia and inland Dalmatia.

So in the Medieval Era Croatian ethnic consciousness was strongest in Northern and Central Dalmatia (and Lika), then it moved northwards to Slavonia (the old Slavonia centered around Zagreb) while retaining Zadar and Lika. At this time the Sokci began to settle present-day Slavonia which was then Croatianized after the Turks were removed (while many other minorities were also settled there, some assimilated over time while others didn't).

Parallel to that you had the Vlach Catholic Bunjevci migrate from the Dinaric Alps to the environs of Zadar and then Lika (with some going further to Backa). They were incorporated into the Croatian ethnos over the 16th to 18th centuries.

Central Dalmatia, Western Bosna and Hercegovina followed suit by the early 19th centuries with Southern Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) and the rest of Bosna only later on.

 

[LABERIA]

Rather than insult you I'll let Trojet come to my defense when it comes to the issue of ethnicity over the centuries in Balkans.

Every single one of us in this region is guilty of self-aggrandization whether it be Croatians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Greeks, and so on.




No shit.

No need to start with insults, let's try to keep it civil.
Now we know that you put all at the same basket and talk about self-aggrandization, no need to repeat it again, we understand. What you have to understand is that this is a conclusion. Now you have to explain us how you did arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Wonomyro]

No, they made it all the way down to the outskirts of Thessaloniki.

Maybe, but the focus is right now on the western branch. I presented data for Croats and Slovenians and tried to figure out where their “light green component” comes from.

Probably because these tribes of Slavs had not yet achieved ethnogeneis, just like the Slavs, mixed Slavs, or Vlachs, or Proto-Albanians, etc. in Dalmatia, Doclea, etc.

It is because someone decided to call them like that. There was no universal “guide to name the ethnicities” at that time. The earliest local inscription in Dalmatia that represents an ethnonym says “[Branimir] DUX CHROATORUM”. This is how these people called themselves. All other names is just how “others” were calling these people.

Serbs and Croatians who migrated down to the Balkans did not come with fully formed, compact peoples in the sense of the modern ethnos but rather as tribes. We do not know the composition of these tribes. History tells us that these same Serbs and Croats then managed to bring others, whether Slavic or not, under their names as they took root in the West Balkans.

Ethnicity is more than just a tribe. It is a language, culture, consciousness etc. Many tribes with different names can belong to the same ethnicity. Why not?

We have the example of the Sclavinias south of Croatia and west of Raska. Independent principalities that at times came under the rule of Croatians and Serbs. Eventually some were Croatianized, some were Serbianized. For all we know some might have went back and forth. At the same time you had others like the Vlachs in the vicinity who maintained a separate identity but were Slavicized over time. And then the Turks showed up, pushed Croatians to the Adriatic, resulting in a significant loss of Croatian consciousness inland, while new peoples were settled there by the Turks.

Basically there were just Slavs and locals. Slavs in Dalmatia called themselves Croats as early as in 9th century, that’s what we know from them (a stone inscription). Everything else is questionable.

 

[Wonomyro]

I used to think the bolded part was true but there is scant evidence for that. We have some evidence that the language used by Slavs was from time to time referred to as Croatian (or sometimes Naski, Ilirski, Slovinski). A Croatian ethnic consciousness south of the Neretva River is a relatively new development. Ragusans considered themselves to be Ragusan and separate from the Vlachs inland.

Ok, let's clarify that.

The issue with the Croatian ethnonym is that it has two different meanings. One is ethnic and another is political. Contemporary sources were mostly using the political term. Rarely was anyone interested in someone’s ethnicty at that time. People of Dubrovnik were not political Croats, they were Ragusans. However, culturally, they considered themselves Croats. The ethnicity is primarily about language, literature, culture and consciousness:

Ragusan literature, in which Latin, Italian and Croatian languages coexisted, blossomed in the 15th and 16th centuries.

According to Graubard:
.

During the Renaissance era, Venetian-ruled Dalmatia and Ragusa gave birth to influential intellectuals – mostly minor aristocrats and clergymen, Jesuits especially – who kept alive the memory of Croatia and the Croatian language when they composed or translated plays and books from Italian and Latin into the vernacular. No matter that the dialects of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik were different from each other ... and both these dialects were somewhat different from the dialect of Zagreb, capital of the Habsburg-ruled north. They still thought of it as Croatian. ... The Dubrovnik poet Dominko Zlatarić (1555–1610) explained on the frontispiece of his 1597 translation of Sophocles' tragedy Elektra and Tasso's Aminta that it had been "iz veće tudieh jezika u Hrvacki izlozene," "translated from more foreign languages in Croatian.[40]
​

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

Now, the same key you can use to explain why the Croatian ethnonym was "rarely used" in other lands that were not part of Croatia "proper" at the time.

 

[markod]

Maybe, but the focus is right now on the western branch. I presented data for Croats and Slovenians and tried to figure out where their “light green component” comes from.



It is because someone decided to call them like that. There was no universal “guide to name the ethnicities” at that time. The earliest local inscription in Dalmatia that represents an ethnonym says “[Branimir] DUX CHROATORUM”. This is how these people called themselves. All other names is just how “others” were calling these people.



Ethnicity is more than just a tribe. It is a language, culture, self-awareness etc. Many tribes with different names can belong to the same ethnicity. Why not?



Basically there were just Slavs and locals. Slavs in Dalmatia called themselves Croats as early as in 9th century, that’s what we know from them (a stone inscription). Everything else is questionable.

But didn't Frankish historians refer to the inhabitants of Dalmatia as Serbs (Einhard)? I think ethnonyms might have been a rather Fluid thing at the time.

 

[Wonomyro]

Croatian as an ethnic designation ebbs and flows throughout history. It was at first strongest in the Nin-Knin-Klis Triangle but eventually moved north to Zagreb which took on the central role as it managed to Croatianize Slavonia. At the same time the Turkish push deteriorated Croatian ethnic consciousness in the south as you moved inland from the islands and Zadar to the point where people referred to our language usually as Slovinski or Naski, and much less often as Arvatski. Ilirski came afterwards. It was the noble Kacic Family that did the most to preserve the Croatian name in Central Dalmatia, particularly around Poljica.

Again, you mixed up political names with ethnicities. There was no such a thing as "croatization" of Slavonia but two parliaments, Croatian and Slavonian, merged into one. In the beginning, Slavonia was just a synonym for Croatia minus Dalmatia (coastal cities were Romans lived). The name "Slavonia" was used by foreigners. Later, when the northern part of Croatian Kingdom was taken by Hungary they named it Slavonia, and the southern part kept the name Croatia. That has nothing to do with ethnicities.

 

[Wonomyro]

But didn't Frankish historians refer to the inhabitants of Dalmatia as Serbs (Einhard)? I think ethnonyms might have been a rather Fluid thing at the time.

Einhard is not sure, therefore put "dictur" ("some say..."). The source is probably Byzantine. However It could be Croatian too.

Hopefully, Presbyter of Dioclea located the region called Surbia more precisely in the most eastern part of the former Province of Dalmatia, north of Croatia Rubea.

If the Sorabos in Dalmatia are the same people as Sorabos in Lusatia then we must assume that Sorabos are no more then a regional/tribal name, like Braničevci or Timočani.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

Again, you mixed up political names with ethnicities. There was no such a thing as "croatization" of Slavonia but two parliaments, Croatian and Slavonian, merged into one. In the beginning, Slavonia was just a synonym for Croatia minus Dalmatia (coastal cities were Romans lived). The name "Slavonia" was used by foreigners. Later, when the northern part of Croatian Kingdom was taken by Hungary they named it Slavonia, and the southern part kept the name Croatia. That has nothing to do with ethnicities.

No, this is incorrect. They were not synonyms. The Croatian name was not present in today's Slavonia until AFTER the removal of the Turks.

Medieval Slavonia went further west as it encompassed Zagreb. This part of then-Slavonia was not Croatianized until much later than Dalmatia/Lika as the Croatian name moved north but a few centuries prior to present-day Slavonia.

 

[Wonomyro]

No, this is incorrect. They were not synonyms. The Croatian name was not present in today's Slavonia until AFTER the removal of the Turks.

O, yes, this is correct:

Ban of Slavonia (Croatian: Slavonski ban; Hungarian: szlavón bán; Latin: Sclavoniæ banus) or the Ban of "Whole Slavonia" (Croatian: ban cijele Slavonije; Hungarian: egész szlavón bán; Latin: totius Sclavoniæ banus) was the title of the governor of a territory part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia.
(...).
From 1102, the title Ban of Croatia was appointed by the kings of Hungary, and there was at first a single ban for all of the Kingdom of Croatia, but later the Slavonian domain got a separate ban.
​

Medieval Slavonia went further west as it encompassed Zagreb. This part of then-Slavonia was not Croatianized until much later than Dalmatia/Lika as the Croatian name moved north but a few centuries prior to present-day Slavonia.

I am aware of what Slavonia we are talking about.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

O, yes, this is correct:

Ban of Slavonia (Croatian: Slavonski ban; Hungarian: szlavón bán; Latin: Sclavoniæ banus) or the Ban of "Whole Slavonia" (Croatian: ban cijele Slavonije; Hungarian: egész szlavón bán; Latin: totius Sclavoniæ banus) was the title of the governor of a territory part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia.
(...).
From 1102, the title Ban of Croatia was appointed by the kings of Hungary, and there was at first a single ban for all of the Kingdom of Croatia, but later the Slavonian domain got a separate ban.
​

I am aware of what Slavonia we are talking about.

1. I was referring to pre-Pacta Conventa Slavonia which was not under Croatian rule.
2. Croatia only extended to Petrova Gora (some say possibly as far as Pozega) while it was its own independent kingdom
3. The people of the area north of Petrova Gora were not yet part of the Croatian Ethnic Corpus as the Slovinci who resided there became Croatianized only as the Croatian name moved north from Dalmatia/West Bosnia/Lika

Slavonia east of Pozega was only Croatianized after it was liberated from the Turks.

Slovinci were not yet Croats at the time of the Pacta Conventa and it still took some more time for that to happen EVEN if the Croatian Ban ruled over them (which no doubt helped in the process, just as the relocation of the Frankopan and Zrinski-Subic noble families north did). This is no different than the process of Croatianization in Lika in the 18th century as the "Kranjci, Turci, and Bunjevci" became Croats next to the "Plemeniti Hrvati" and Eastern Orthodox soon-to-be Serbs.

 

[Ygorcs]

Yes. Then the origin of the light blue component could be the Central European substrate, as the Balkan countries have little of it.

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/A...09-00551-HTML/image_m/fgene-09-00551-g003.jpg

It's a shame that the analysis above doesn’t have Polish and/or Ukrainian samples included, as these countries are possible sources of Slavic expansion.

We should not forget the Chernyakov culture in Ukraine as a possible source of the light blue component in West and South Slavs due to the admixture with East Germanic peoples prior to the Great Migration.

Third explanation would be that the light blue component comes from the remaining Germanic people in Panonnia like Gepids and Ostrogoths.

The fourth explanation would be that the ancestors of Croats and Slovenians brought the light blue component from Poland and Czechia in 8-9th century.

The latter version is supported by the historical records:

1. De Administrando Imperio; Chapter 30; Story of the Province of Dalmatia, 10th century:



2. Historia Salonitana, Thomas the Archdeacon; 13th century:



It is worth noting that both sources give an account of the Roman (non) presence in Dalmatia:

1. De Administrando Imperio; Chapter 30; Story of the Province of Dalmatia, 10th century:



Chapter 31:



2. Historia Salonitana, Thomas the Archdeacon; 13th century:



According to F. Curta:



Archeology generally confirms the historical recods.

Very interesting. Maybe more than one factor influenced in the gradual accumulation of that light blue, arguably Northwest European component. Reading the excerpts you provided, I was particularly curious about theee things: 1) how much time Croats and their ancestors would have lived in Czechia since they came from their probably more eastern homeland, and if it was for a time long enough to allow some degree of admixture with Germanic and Celto-Germanic people to their west; 2) what on earth happened to the Avars who were apparently still numerous and influential in Croatia and other pars of the Balkans as late as the 10th century, and what their genetic marker (autosomally and in parental markers) must have been, and whether it is still identifiable in the region; 3) and who those Turks that Belocroats are told to have intermarried and had good relations with were in a region as northern as Czechia, and I am maybe wrongfully speculating if by "Turks" they meant the newly arrived Magyar conquerors and their possible Turkic allies.

 

[hrvat22]

That's true. Some contemporary Croatian intelectuals warned about Karadžić's copy-paste activities. Not only that he presented Croatian Shtokavian poetry as Serbian but also presented himself as an author of some.

More on that in this paper (needs translation): http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/68919

Maybe this will help in English.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...xt_of_European_linguistics_in_1_12_19_century

 

[hrvat22]

The Slavic tribes that came in the first wave of settlement prior to the Croatians and Serbians who come in the second wave. You had tribes all the way down to Thessaloniki, some of whom disappeared rather quickly, and others who were assimilated into various other peoples.

You had Slavs settle in places like Pannonia, Roman Dalmatia, Doclea, Moesia, etc. who were neither Croatian or Serb but eventually came under these two. Think about the Branicevci or Timocani.

For now genetics confirm arrival of one tribe (White Croats), at least as far I2a subclades is concerned. It meaning that they coming from one house.

This is confirmed and by Russian historian.

Denis Jevgenjevic Alimov, 38-year-old associate professor of Slavic and Balkan universities in St. Petersburg, author of the recently published an intriguing book "Croat Etnogenesis"-......Question.. Can it be said that Croats and Serbs in those ancient times were one tribe, that they arrived together in these lands?........Answer...With great certainty we can argue that even in those ancient times Croats and Serbs were not one tribe. They are bordered with each other, permeated for centuries, but there is no evidence that they ever were a common tribe or clan.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia

 

[hrvat22]

The only documented record we have that gets into specifics is what Krunoslav Draganovic reported about how seven Catholic parishes in Trebinje went over to Orthodoxy during the 17th century. We don't know what ethnicity (if any at all) these people considered themselves to be prior to and after they converted.

We know that there were Catholics elsewhere in Bosnia during the Ottoman era that converted to Orthodoxy due to institutional pressure against the Catholic Church and especially against Franciscans in favour of the Orthodox Church but records of these conversions are hard to find.

We don't know what ethnicity these Catholics considered themselves to be, if any ethnicity at all.

Administrative census of the Bosnian army (Turkish administration) a large number of Bosnian soldiers with their own(muslim) names are mentioned as Croats, this is yeare 1526. In that list, Croats are mentioned in Nikšić(Central Montenegro), Sandžak, Drina valley(eastern Herzegovina) and throughout the Bosnia.

Ahmed Aličić - List of Bosnian Army before the Battle of Mohač in 1526, in Croatian language.

https://www.scribd.com/document/132...anske-vojske-pred-bitku-na-Mohaču-1526-godine

Derviş Mehmed Zillî (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi was an Ottoman explorer who travelled through the territory of the Ottoman Empire, he mentioned Croats in Foča, Gacko(eastern hercegovina), Central Montenegro (Nikšić)

Gacko (Serbian: Гацко) is a town and municipality located in Republika Srpska, an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is situated in the region of East Herzegovina

Ethnonym Croat exists in eastern Herzegovina.

Personal names Hrvatin (since 1301), Hrvajin(from 1475), Hrvo (from 1475), Hrvoje (from 1475) and Croat (from 1475) in the Middle Ages we find throughout Eastern Herzegovina:

Source in Croatian so you have to translate.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/171401

Red Croatia (Latin: Croatia Rubea, Croatian: Crvena Hrvatska) is a historical term used for the southeastern parts of RomanDalmatia and some other territories, including parts of present-day Montenegro, Albania, the Herzegovina region of Bosnia and Herzegovina and southeastern Croatia, stretching across the Adriatic Sea.
The term was first used in one version of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, which is as a whole dated to have been written in 1298–1300.

 

[Wonomyro]

1. I was referring to pre-Pacta Conventa Slavonia which was not under Croatian rule.

There is no pre-Pacta Conventa "Slavonia". It was called Lower Panonnia or "area between Drava and Sava". The term Slavonia was inroduced by Hungarians (Tothorszag).

Yugoslavian historians believed that there was something special about Slavonia. That's just a myth which fits with Yugoslavian ideological narrative. According to Gračanin, the traditions and language of the Slavs of that area did not differ from the Slavs in Dalmatia.

2. Croatia only extended to Petrova Gora (some say possibly as far as Pozega) while it was its own independent kingdom

That is another myth.

3. The people of the area north of Petrova Gora were not yet part of the Croatian Ethnic Corpus as the Slovinci who resided there became Croatianized only as the Croatian name moved north from Dalmatia/West Bosnia/Lika

"Slovinci" was just a political/regional name. "Slovinj" was the Croatian name for Slavonia. Slovinj-ci means people from Slovinj (Slavonia). Do you understand now? "Slovinci" got their name after Slavonia, not vice versa.

Slavonia east of Pozega was only Croatianized after it was liberated from the Turks.

Then why was the center of the city of Brod (in post Ottoman Slavonia) called "Cravatten Statt" (Croats City) shortly after its liberation?

Slovinci were not yet Croats at the time of the Pacta Conventa and it still took some more time for that to happen EVEN if the Croatian Ban ruled over them (which no doubt helped in the process, just as the relocation of the Frankopan and Zrinski-Subic noble families north did). This is no different than the process of Croatianization in Lika in the 18th century as the "Kranjci, Turci, and Bunjevci" became Croats next to the "Plemeniti Hrvati" and Eastern Orthodox soon-to-be Serbs.

All these different "ethnicities", as you see them because they appear under different regional and social names, were speaking the same language! They basically all share the same origin.

Thanks to genetics we see that they are today genetically homogenous.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

For now genetics confirm arrival of one tribe (White Croats), at least as far I2a subclades is concerned. It meaning that they coming from a one house.

This is confirmed and by Russian historian.



https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31539-Genetics-confirm-migration-of-White-Croats-to-Croatia

Is there a lab anywhere that has tested the DNA of a White Croat? Do we have any graves of White Croats that have been excavated?

 

[Guido Anselmi]

There is no pre-Pacta Conventa "Slavonia".

To cut it short: there is no historical evidence for a Croatian ethnic consciousness in Slavonia (area incorporating both Medieval and present-day Slavonia) prior to the Pacta Conventa. With the area east of Pozega, not prior to the liberation from the Turks.

...unless you can show otherwise.

And no, saying "Slovinci" means "Hrvati" isn't an argument. They had yet to be incorporated into the Croatian corpus. This was a process that took time, a process known as 'ethnogenesis'.

This is what I mean by self-aggrandization. Leaping to "Slovinci means Hrvati" simply isn't correct.

 

[hrvat22]

Is there a lab anywhere that has tested the DNA of a White Croat? Do we have any graves of White Croats that have been excavated?

Genetics of today's living people are telling something and we have to respect it.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

Administrative census of the Bosnian army (Turkish administration) a large number of soldiers with their own names are mentioned as Croats, this is yeare 1526. In that list, Croats are mentioned in Nikšić(Central Montenegro), Sandžak, Drina valley(eastern Herzegovina).

Ahmed Aličić - List of Bosnian Army in the Battle of Mohač in 1526, in Croatian language.

https://www.scribd.com/document/132...anske-vojske-pred-bitku-na-Mohaču-1526-godine

Derviş Mehmed Zillî (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi was an Ottoman explorer who travelled through the territory of the Ottoman Empire, he mentioned Croats in Foča, Gacko(eastern hercegovina), Central Montenegro (Nikšić)



Ethnonym Croat exists in eastern Herzegovina.



Source in Croatian so you have to translate.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/171401

Red Croatia is highly disputable as its rests on very little source material.

We know that there were a lot of Catholics in Eastern Hercegovina during a period under the Ottomans, but they either migrated, converted, or died off.

As of Chelebiya, he simply attached the geographic names to various Muslims, for instance Halid from Skradin (Hrvatistan). That did not indicate ethnicity.

 

[Guido Anselmi]

Genetics of today's living people are telling something and we have to respect it.

Okay, so prove that someone from today is a direct descendant of the White Croats. Please provide an autosomal or Y-DNA test of the person and a family tree that goes back to White Croatia during the Medieval Era.