We are dealing with the I2a-Din haplogroup and its migration paths. Now we see another evidence that supports its origin from, or nearby, the territory of the early medieval White Croatia.
Hardly an evidence, it's only an assumption on the Chodove movement and ancestry.
Czech wiki: "Velký význam však sehrálo přijetí Nábských Srbů (Chodů) Boleslavem I. za strážce západní hranice."
I cannot find that in the Czech wiki.
It is also no accident that the primitive shapes of ear-rings with various trinkets found at Věstonice have some analogues in South Bohemia (Lékařova Lhota) and also in the southern most tip of the territory of the Serbians living along the Naab River (Matzhausen).
This is out of context. Chodove live in Western Bohemia while this quote is relating to South Moravia and South Bohemia, and dated to "the end of the Great Moravian Empire period and later".
These are all Czech sources.
I don't see anything relevant. Fringe theory is a fringe theory, no matter from where, language or reliability is the source.
Along Dalmatian coast there were Travunia, Zachumlia and Pagania. According to the first degree historical source, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Narentines (Pagania), Zachumlians, Travunians are explicitly of Serbian origin descending from those Serbs who settled the area in time of Heraclius.
DAI is more often a political rather than historical source. That quote is most probably a Emperor's invention because at the moment these principalities became under Serbian rule in the 10th century, due to the Serbian political expansion under Časlav who was supported by the Byzantines. If you want to consider that the source is saying the truth then population of Dioclea, for which is not mentioned such a thing, is not of Serbian origin. Also, more importantly, according to the source Serbia became completely desolated and was resettled. That was described in details so it was certainly based on archival sources, contrary to exceptional claims about something centuries ago.
The area where Portifogenitus places the settlement of Croats is of course to the West, there we see spike of R1a, especially R-Y2608 in Chakavian Croats... These facts give better insight as to what the original White Croatian haplogroup might be, R-Y2608 being the number one, but also there are some other branches such as R-Y132940 who likely migrated with them. / Now that you mention it some Serbs are R-L260 and not only that they are R-Y2905+. I took a look at Sorb R1a's and the dominant Sorb haplotype is basically certainly R-Y2905 whose TMRCA is 2000 ybp, so there might be some connection there. There is in Croats R-Y132940 cluster but they are Y2905-.
Most probably both Serbs and Croats were predominantly R1a. Good analysis of Sorb & Serb R1a. People should waste less time on PH908 and focus more on R1a.
I know it must be convenient for many Croats to lump some Narentine I-Y3120's into White Croats, but Narentines were not White Croats, and Portifogenitus, who of any sources we have is the most competent to speak about their origins because he must have gained this information first hand from their chiefs, said they were of Serb origin. But I think there likely are I-Y3120 White Croatian clades too.
Well, you're doing the same thing, lump and accept what is convenient to you from DAI, and ignoring what is not. We don't know if Narentines were or not directly and how much related to the Croats. DAI is obviously referring to the Sorbs in the centuries it was written, directly relating Sorbs and Serbs, and yet "many Serbs" tend to ignore and neglect that. The previous assumptions you made were according to the results of contemporary Croatian and Serbian population in the South, with founder effects and else, while if we want to know what was the Y-DNA haplogroup proportion in those so-called White Serbs and White Croats tribes we should analyze their ancestral & contemporary population in the North, especially if they were in isolation. Otherwise we are not proving the thing we claim to prove.
Regional study of Czechs, in Western Czech R., in Klatovy I-P37 is 14.6 %. Klatovy are one of Chodove centers.
If you put that in the context of the study of Sorbs then can be made some parallels, otherwise it is not saying anything. What is the % of Dinaric-South in Klatovy?
Sedov (and other Russian and German archeologists) Luzichani and Milchani belonged to Tornov archeological culture whereas Serbs who lived in modern Czech-German border belonged to Ryusen culture.
Except that Sedov relates Sorbs with Lusatian Slavs, and Sorbs with Serbs.