Knez Dervan's Serbia and the Ethnogenisis of Balkan Serbs

(...) 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?
 
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? :D 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.
 
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”
 
I see, OK.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"
 
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).
 
Samo u tvojim mitomanskim snovima.

You have genetics, historical records and refute my statement.

That's why Eupedia is genetic forum to prove something while we are here. If I'm wrong and you prove that I will respect it.
 
You have genetics, historical records and refute my statement.

That's why Eupedia is genetic forum to prove something while we are here. If I'm wrong and you prove that I will respect it.

There is no genetic evidence that Serbs are conected with Croats, Albanians and Vlachs, but there is a genetic evidence that large part of Croats are Serbian origin, deal with it. :grin:
 
There is no genetic evidence that Serbs are conected with Croats, Albanians and Vlachs, but there is a genetic evidence that large part of Croats are Serbian origin, deal with it. :grin:

You are the joker hahahaa.. how is it possible that there is no genetic evidence that Serbs are conected with Croats when you clame that Croats are genetic Serbs.

Joke to the side, please show genetic evidence and historical records that support you clame, till then you talk fairy tales.
 

This thread has been viewed 81748 times.

Back
Top