Bosnians/ ethnic groups there

[Gosh]

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

Can you present any document which will show that "Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south"?

Unfortunately, this forum became a place for misinforming and for cheap nationalistic satisfactions.

 

[Gosh]

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

We have no any historical documents which can support your thesis.
Even more, we have a lot of documents from medieval Bosnian rulers where they mentioned Serbs and Croats (but mainly- Serbs).
Where we can read some document which says that in Bosnia lived some Bosnians (except in a geographical sense)? As far as I know there weren't such a medieval nation. It was a state named Bosnia but there were not an ethnic group with that name. There were Serbs or Croats, only. All known sources talks about that.

If you're living in Paris or in London, for example, you can't say that there exist some Parisian or London nation.

Results of genetic tests clearly shows that it is the same population shared between modern Bosnians, Serbs and Croats in the central part of former Yugoslavia.

 

[MOESAN]

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

without any reference to the political problems of nowaday It seams to me that the name 'Bosnia' appears very lately in history (XII°? XIII° century?) as country name - it is that kind of medieval territory arbitrary cut as many other in other territory - I red in Wikipedia that before it was vaguely included in a Croat territory - at that time there was no mention of muslim religion on all these lands - to come back to the genetics, it find interesting to study apart Croat Bosnians, self identified Bosniak Bosnians and Serb Bosnians and to compare them to Croatia Croats and Serbia Serbs (without Belgrad, a melting place) and to other surrounding regions, without take any other criteria in account - but even like that, I find that the differences of distributions between all these populations doesn't show evidence of completley different history - for Y DNA I should be tempted to say that Bosnia Bosnians have more southern ties (Y-E1b?) , southern BUT ancient in Balkans, and that Croats show more Central European Ties (Y-I2a1b) - I find sensible thinking that all these 2 Y-HGs are ancient enough in these lands, even if we can suppose that Y-I2a2a could have beeen reinforced by true slavic invasions or colonizations, associated these times with some new Y-R1a from the Steppes (more than one) - I add that for me typical Bosniaks don't show evidence of a heavy Turkic apport (the anatolian one, because the asiatic turkic apport seams very light in Turkey yet) - so to speak shortly I believe that central Bosniaks (mountainous districts) have a LITTLE BIT more of autochtonous population in their ancestry (I mean mesolithical-neolithical times, not in the paleolithical sense) - BUT I SEE NO CUT FRONTEER between all these West Balkans populations, only gradients... for ancient peoples, it appears that the most of linguists and archeologues fall in accord for to place the Illyrian territories in what we call today Bosnia-Hercegovina and Dalmatian Croatia (not Alabnia) - is that to say that the present day Bosniaks are the direct descendants of the previous Illyrians: hard to decide... surely they keep in their genome a lot of the genes shared by old Illyrians, difficult to be more precise and affirmative - I believe (lacking more precise AND EXTENSIVE SNPs surveys about the Y-I2a1b of ex-Yougoslavia that a big part of Y-I2a1b there is not so old as someones believe, and that not all of these brother SNPs are come there with medieval Slavs - the peaks of 'dinaric' types and Y-I2a1b in dalmatian Croats and bosnians Croats , so in western and coastal part put me to HAZARD (waiting well) that these I2a-s could have came down there from North (Central Europe) and not only East, an that Illyrians (in this precise sense of inhabitants of Illyria) could have been rich for I2a1a even if not exclusive of other HGs - - in every case history and past are over - and present day ethnic problems concern more future than past, more sentiments of appartenance than ancient ligneages - France can't go back to Gauls times, and the old moving limits and namings of Balkans can't be taken as references to build future (see Israel) - I resume: the most of inhabitants of Northwestern Balkans share more common ancestors than 'alien' ancestors

 

[Templar]

We have no any historical documents which can support your thesis.

"In mid 12th Century, the chronicle Primorju (Maritima) from Duklja, in which White and Red Croatia are separated, are contrasted to Serbia or Zagorje (Surbia, Transmontana), composed of Bosnia and Raska.55 With such a prevalent sentiment, it's not surprising that even the Pope's decrees from late 12th and early 13th Century, using the information coming out of Dubrovnik, mistakenly identified Serbia with Bosnia (regnum Servillie, quod est Bosna).56 At the time when those Papal decrees were written, during the reigns of Ban Kulin and Ban Matej Ninoslav, Bosnia was not a part of Serbia, but memories of Bosnia's initial position vis a vis Serbia in the beginning of the 12th Century still abounded, especially in the cities of Upper Dalmatia (Bar, Dubrovnik). In accordance with such beliefs, and with the activities of the Dubrovnik public office, terms "Srblin" and "Vlah" had made their way into Bosnian public documents. That means that the term "Srblin" in Ninoslav's documents was not a reflection of the national consciousness in Bosnia, but was rather a late result of political influences of Serbia before the establishment of a Bosnian state. That is why we cannot take those terms as being accurate when describing the national consciousness of Bosnia in the first half of the 13th Century. Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

 

[Eldritch]

without any reference to the political problems of nowaday It seams to me that the name 'Bosnia' appears very lately in history (XII°? XIII° century?) as country name - it is that kind of medieval territory arbitrary cut as many other in other territory - I red in Wikipedia that before it was vaguely included in a Croat territory - at that time there was no mention of muslim religion on all these lands - to come back to the genetics, it find interesting to study apart Croat Bosnians, self identified Bosniak Bosnians and Serb Bosnians and to compare them to Croatia Croats and Serbia Serbs (without Belgrad, a melting place) and to other surrounding regions, without take any other criteria in account - but even like that, I find that the differences of distributions between all these populations doesn't show evidence of completley different history - for Y DNA I should be tempted to say that Bosnia Bosnians have more southern ties (Y-E1b?) , southern BUT ancient in Balkans, and that Croats show more Central European Ties (Y-I2a1b) - I find sensible thinking that all these 2 Y-HGs are ancient enough in these lands, even if we can suppose that Y-I2a2a could have beeen reinforced by true slavic invasions or colonizations, associated these times with some new Y-R1a from the Steppes (more than one) - I add that for me typical Bosniaks don't show evidence of a heavy Turkic apport (the anatolian one, because the asiatic turkic apport seams very light in Turkey yet) - so to speak shortly I believe that central Bosniaks (mountainous districts) have a LITTLE BIT more of autochtonous population in their ancestry (I mean mesolithical-neolithical times, not in the paleolithical sense) - BUT I SEE NO CUT FRONTEER between all these West Balkans populations, only gradients... for ancient peoples, it appears that the most of linguists and archeologues fall in accord for to place the Illyrian territories in what we call today Bosnia-Hercegovina and Dalmatian Croatia (not Alabnia) - is that to say that the present day Bosniaks are the direct descendants of the previous Illyrians: hard to decide... surely they keep in their genome a lot of the genes shared by old Illyrians, difficult to be more precise and affirmative - I believe (lacking more precise AND EXTENSIVE SNPs surveys about the Y-I2a1b of ex-Yougoslavia that a big part of Y-I2a1b there is not so old as someones believe, and that not all of these brother SNPs are come there with medieval Slavs - the peaks of 'dinaric' types and Y-I2a1b in dalmatian Croats and bosnians Croats , so in western and coastal part put me to HAZARD (waiting well) that these I2a-s could have came down there from North (Central Europe) and not only East, an that Illyrians (in this precise sense of inhabitants of Illyria) could have been rich for I2a1a even if not exclusive of other HGs - - in every case history and past are over - and present day ethnic problems concern more future than past, more sentiments of appartenance than ancient ligneages - France can't go back to Gauls times, and the old moving limits and namings of Balkans can't be taken as references to build future (see Israel) - I resume: the most of inhabitants of Northwestern Balkans share more common ancestors than 'alien' ancestors

I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2

 

[MOESAN]

I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2

it is your rights and I agree there is no proof - as I said, it is for me only a possibility, a guess, because Slovenians show less Y-I2a1a and are considered as more tied to Italics, Veneti (without take in account the celtic influence) - Balkans are so a meeting place if not a melting place!

 

[Yetos]

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

Note after the fall of Constantinoupolis at 4rth Crusade there were 4 Greeks major and about 6-7 minor
their names were Epirus Nice Pontus Mustras
what that mean? they were not all 4 Greeks? No surely they were but they create different rulers,
Different rules and revolt does not create nationality


the thing you must notice is that local rulers were powerfull and always wanted the love of their people,
I do not deny that in Bosnia might not be a so central Serb or Croat feeling cause big rulers were away and local pay taxes to the Big ones,
but that does not change nationality, neither a movement of autonomy,
true nationality starts when a new culture is born


the best example I can give is Dusan,
his name in History is Dusan of Serbia but his capital was Skopjie which today is Makedonia, and far from the central heart of Serbia of today?
but what that means? should we name Dusan today Dusan of Makedonia?

many here do not deny that Bosnia is nationality today,
they deny that Bosnians were pre-Slavs locals as ethnicity, and that Bosnia had nationality identification before Ottoman empire,
for many here Bosnians are Serbs and Croats who create a nationality id much later than the arrival of S Slavs in Balkans

Tribal and local rulers are not nationality,
Monaco is independent, local rulers autonomy and tribal but is it a nation?

 

[zanipolo]

I really doubt Illyrians were heavy in I2a2

check the link near the bottom, it states the Ydna of the "9 main illyrian tribes"

http://www.anthroinsula.org/resources/Iliri-english text version.pdf

 

[mihaitzateo]

Can you present any document which will show that "Most present group Y haplogrup in Romania is I2-a din south"?

Unfortunately, this forum became a place for misinforming and for cheap nationalistic satisfactions.

Go search on inet,there are plenty documents who are saying this.
Even the table from here is giving I2-a din south as most present in Romania with about 26% or so.
On wikipedia there is also a map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HaplogroupI2.png
That is for I2-a1b HG (think that is both I2-a din south and I2-a din north).
There is a document made about Neamt county,but I am tired of linking it,is last time I link it:
http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5868/1/Varzari_Alexander.pdf

 

[Gosh]

"In mid 12th Century, the chronicle Primorju (Maritima) from Duklja, in which White and Red Croatia are separated, are contrasted to Serbia or Zagorje (Surbia, Transmontana), composed of Bosnia and Raska.55 With such a prevalent sentiment, it's not surprising that even the Pope's decrees from late 12th and early 13th Century, using the information coming out of Dubrovnik, mistakenly identified Serbia with Bosnia (regnum Servillie, quod est Bosna).56 At the time when those Papal decrees were written, during the reigns of Ban Kulin and Ban Matej Ninoslav, Bosnia was not a part of Serbia, but memories of Bosnia's initial position vis a vis Serbia in the beginning of the 12th Century still abounded, especially in the cities of Upper Dalmatia (Bar, Dubrovnik). In accordance with such beliefs, and with the activities of the Dubrovnik public office, terms "Srblin" and "Vlah" had made their way into Bosnian public documents. That means that the term "Srblin" in Ninoslav's documents was not a reflection of the national consciousness in Bosnia, but was rather a late result of political influences of Serbia before the establishment of a Bosnian state. That is why we cannot take those terms as being accurate when describing the national consciousness of Bosnia in the first half of the 13th Century. Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

I won't answer on all your post
to be short as much as I can (I'm not an expert for history of Balkans but I know many things about that).

I understand that you want to defend a prevalent point of view between Bosnians today (not Serbs or Croats from Bosnia). I'm not against that. But, there's a very obvious fact related with the whole population in that region. Bosnians, Serbs and southern Croats share mainly the same haplogroup. That haplogroup isn't Illyric (as some of your guys enjoy to write on forums) but it is even younger than I2a1 between (for example) Ukrainians (many guys who write about I2a1 simply don't understand this simple truth).

That means only one thing. People from almost 3/4 parts of Croatia, almost whole Bosnia and more than !/2 of Serbia and Montenegro share the same roots and have the same origins.

I agree that people in medieval Bosnia didn't have national consciousness because that thing didn't exist in that period of time. Modern European nationalism started in 18-th century. That people in 12th century simply had consciousness about their origins and about their relatives (or maybe, tribes), The only unsolved question is: were they ethnic Croats, Serbs or Bosnians?

 

[Gosh]

Quite the opposite then, they are the proof of its lagging development in terms of national sentiment. It needs to be reiterated that the equality "Srblin" = an inhabitant of Bosnia appears in only three documents of Ban Matej Ninoslav and there is no mention of it in any of the later works and documents."

I don't intend to protect Serbs or someone else but this is not true. A few years ago I have read about that things and many sources talks about Serbs in Bosnia. Even the earliest written documents talks about Serbs in today's Bosnia (Einhard, Porphyrogenite etc...). According to them , they lived in Bosnia even before they settled today's Serbia.

Something as shown on this map:


[h=3][/h]

 

[Templar]

That means only one thing. People from almost 3/4 parts of Croatia, almost whole Bosnia and more than !/2 of Serbia and Montenegro share the same roots and have the same origins.

There were Slavs in Bosnia BEFORE the arrival of the Serbs and Croats. This is well documented. They came with the Avars, and conquered the Balkans. Then the Byzantines asked the Serbs and Croats to defeat these Slavs inreturn for land. They never fully took Bosnia because of the terrain, though they influenced it over time (language-wise, and such).

 

[Gosh]

Maybe they were there but this map clearly shows situation described by Byzantine Tzar Porphyrogenite.

As you can see, Bosnia was mainly part of Serbia of that time.

BTW if some Slavs arrived in Bosnia before Slavic migrations there weren't bearers of I2a1 Din-S, for sure. Only Din-N and R1a1.

As you know, I2a in Bosnia is predominantly Din-S (as in western Serbia and coastal Croatia).

 

[Templar]

BTW if some Slavs arrived in Bosnia before Slavic migrations there weren't bearers of I2a1 Din-S, for sure. Only Din-N and R1a1.

You have no evidence of that, you are just randomly presuming that to fit the hypothetical scenario that you created.

As you can see, Bosnia was mainly part of Serbia of that time.

Just because a region (part of a region in this case) gets conquered, doesn't mean that the population is transformed. The English controlled Ireland for hundreds of years, did the Irish become English? No they didn't, but they were INFLUENCED by them. The same applies to Bosnia and its neighbors. Temporary Croatian and Serbian rule affected Bosnia, but not to the extent that the population began considering themselves Serb/Croat. They clearly called themselves "Bosnjanin".

 

[zanipolo]

So what is the origin of Bosnians because the other south slavic people are a combination of turkic, thracian and iranic.

The stories I have been told
1- they where Illyrian
2- they where gothic
3 - they where scythians ( slavs)
4 - they where Thracian
5 - they where avars ( turkic)

 

[Eldritch]

So what is the origin of Bosnians because the other south slavic people are a combination of turkic, thracian and iranic.

The stories I have been told
1- they where Illyrian
2- they where gothic
3 - they where scythians ( slavs)
4 - they where Thracian
5 - they where avars ( turkic)

They are clearly Slavs.
High I2a2 + R1a

 

[zanipolo]

They are clearly Slavs.
High I2a2 + R1a

i was talking genetically and not linguistically .

The only true genetic slavs ( by slavic scholars ) are poles and ukraines

No Hg belongs to no race , so what this i2a2 + R1a

 

[MOESAN]

I came back on my own affirmations (believings) - about Illyrians and Bosnia and others:
it appears that linguistically illyrian, when expelled a lot of other ancien languages mistaking the old surveys, would be very close to ancient albanian, thracian and dacian, and classed into satem I-Ean - the roman Illyricum was a big bag where were put by the Roman Empire a lot of different peoples and cultures (the hesitations about the classification of language can be explained by this fact) - apparently the very place of true Illyrians would have been between South Dalmatia, South Bosnia and grecian Epire about the beginning of our era -I have no personal thought because here I'm incompetent to decide anything - but if that is true, we can think they would have had a lot of Y-E1b among them (look at the Kossovars) -
COON thought (I report his thoughts) the most of the sepultures found in Bosnia date since the Iron Age only -the 'dinaric' type present in these tombs (associated with some 'corded' and other few types) came from North, said he - from Austria or South Germany, they have broader jaws than the 'dinaric' type of present day Albania (we can imagine that the prevalent 'dinaroid' trait, the occiput flattening with brachycephaly, masked some different crossings between North and South 'dinarics') - so HE imagined a colonization from North, very recent - Celts only? I doubt. Something else? I don't know but surely a reinforcement of Y-I2a1b and perhaps some Y-I2a2 and Y-R1b (U152?)... these people didn't disappear before Slavs "invasions" but only mixed with these Slavs and the "autochtonous" Y-E1b - the narrowing of the jaws in South could be the result of crossings with kinds of dolichocephalic 'mediterraneans' producing the south dinaric type because of distinct dominent features in the crossings (skull # face)?

 

[Dianatomia]

The connection is that its wrong and offensive.

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

We can analyse if something is wrong or not, but if it is offensive is rather irrelevant.

A Bosnian Kingdom doesn't constitute a Bosnian Identity. The amount of kingdoms which had nothing to do with seperate identities are too much to list. Moreover, it was a very short lived kingdom.

 

[Gosh]

You have no evidence of that, you are just randomly presuming that to fit the hypothetical scenario that you created.


Just because a region (part of a region in this case) gets conquered, doesn't mean that the population is transformed. The English controlled Ireland for hundreds of years, did the Irish become English? No they didn't, but they were INFLUENCED by them. The same applies to Bosnia and its neighbors. Temporary Croatian and Serbian rule affected Bosnia, but not to the extent that the population began considering themselves Serb/Croat. They clearly called themselves "Bosnjanin".

Yes, I have no evidence of that and I'm only presuming everything, but your words are unbeatable historical truths. A little bit funny, I think.

Your writings is much more related with contemporary politics than with historical facts. I know that kind of people which are ready to believe in anything which can make them happy.

The same thing as Slavic Macedonians and their belief that they are sons of Alexander the Great. They built some monuments to him and his father. Does it means that it is a truth?

For Macedonians under strong political influence it is nothing but truth, but for the rest of world it is just a good joke.