Knez Dervan's Serbia and the Ethnogenisis of Balkan Serbs

Y DNA of Serbs from Serbia at the day May 5 , 2017

I2a-Din - ​35%

R1a - 19%

E1b - 14%

I1 - 10%

J2 - 7%

R1b - 5%

G2a - 3%

N- 2%

J1 - 2%

I2b - 1%

Q -1%



Link to scientific work?

Without scientific work these results are not relevant.

Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina I2a 30%

Serbians, Reguiero et al. (2012)
I2a 29,1%


Serbs, Aleksandrovac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandrovac (
Todorović et al. (2014)
I2a 35%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Serbs
 
I2*/I2a

Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Croats ... 71.0%
- Bosniaks ... 53.5%
- Serbs ... 32.5%
Croatia ... 37.0%
Serbia ... 34.0%
Slovenia ... 20.5%

---------------------
Vlachs/Aromuns

J2 - 24.5%
R1b - 21.5%
I - 20.50%
E - 16.5%
R1a - 10.0%

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbs, I2a 30%, R1a 13% E1b 20%

This is only data from scientific work for Bosnian Serbs, everything else is not based on scientific work, ie it can not serve as evidence.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/22Kangars/BesenyoGeneticsEn.htm

If we start to add haplogroups from different portals then there is nothing left of statistics, each portal has its own statistics.

We have to keep scientific papers, everything else is a crystal ball and anarchy.
 
Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbs, I2a 30%, R1a 13% E1b 20%

This is only data from scientific work for Bosnian Serbs, everything else is not based on scientific work, ie it can not serve as evidence.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/22Kangars/BesenyoGeneticsEn.htm

If we start to add haplogroups from different portals then there is nothing left of statistics, each portal has its own statistics.

We have to keep scientific papers, everything else is a crystal ball and anarchy.

Stop using data from year 2005 that was 12 years ago, you live in past my dear friend.

Look at Eupedia [video]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml[/video]

Bosnian Serbs according to Eupedia from year 2017

I2a - 32,5%

R1a - 20%

E1b - 17,5%


Deal with it. :29:
 
Stop using data from year 2005 that was 12 years ago, you live in past my dear friend.

Look at Eupedia [video]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml[/video]

Bosnian Serbs according to Eupedia from year 2017

I2a - 32,5%

R1a - 20%

E1b - 17,5%


Deal with it. :29:

Which Eupedia ?

Only scientific work on Planet Earth for Bosnian Serbs is from year 2005.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/22Kangars/BesenyoGeneticsEn.htm

Eupedia dont doing genetic research for Bosnian Serbs, there is no other scientifically based article for Bosnian Serbs. That why it is only evidence, everything else is a children's show.
 
Which Eupedia ?

Only scientific work on Planet Earth for Bosnian Serbs is from year 2005.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/22Kangars/BesenyoGeneticsEn.htm

Eupedia dont doing genetic research for Bosnian Serbs, there is no other scientifically based article for Bosnian Serbs. That why it is only evidence, everything else is a children's show.

[video]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml[/video]


You're jealous because Bosnian Serbs have more R1a than Bosnian Croats. :29:

Bosnian Serbs also have more R1a than Bosniaks, but don't be sad Bosnian Croats have more Vlach I2a Din-south. (y)
 
[video]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml[/video]
Do you understand English?
Only scientific work on Planet Earth for Bosnian Serbs is from year 2005.
Why and on what basis on Eupedia writes differently you need to ask them on Eupedia.My opinion is that they get information from Serbian genetic portal Poreklo, but this is not based on a scientifically article. This is not scientifically based evidence and I can not use it as such. For Bosnian Croats is the same result in the Eupedia as it was and year 2005. because there are not any new scientific work.The same thing is for Bosnian Serbs, we can use as evidence only scientific article. Eupedia, Serbian genetic portal Poreklo, genetic databases in the world, public genetic databases etc.. are not scientifically proven evidence.
 
[video]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml[/video]You're jealous because Bosnian Serbs have more R1a than Bosnian Croats. :29:Bosnian Serbs also have more R1a than Bosniaks, but don't be sad Bosnian Croats have more Vlach I2a Din-south. (y)
How I2a Din-south with 70% can be Vlach origin when Vlachs have and E1b, J2b, R1b types, there is no gene detector at the border to Croatia or Herzegovina which only lets people with I2a Din-south.I2a Din-south with subclade https://yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ is proof that Croats came from White Croata to Balkans.http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf
You're jealous because Bosnian Serbs have more R1a than Bosnian Croats.
Do you hear me..
Only scientific work on Planet Earth for Bosnian Serbs is from year 2005.
If in that scientific work writes that Bosnian Serbs have
Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbs, I2a 30%, R1a 13% E1b 20%
and there is no other scientific work on the Planet Earth, then this is the only genetic evidence of Bosnian Serbs.
 
How I2a Din-south with 70% can be Vlach origin when Vlachs have and E1b, J2b, R1b types, there is no gene detector at the border to Croatia or Herzegovina which only lets people with I2a Din-south.I2a Din-south with subclade https://yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ is proof that Croats came from White Croata to Balkans.http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdfDo you hear me.. If in that scientific work writes that Bosnian Serbs have and there is no other scientific work on the Planet Earth, then this is the only genetic evidence of Bosnian Serbs.

I2a Din-south is Vlach haplogroup, and I2a Din-north is Slavic.

I am I2a Din-north and I am happy because I'm not Vlach (Morlach) origin as majority of Herzegovian/Dalmatian Croats.
 
I'm not Vlach (Morlach) origin as majority of Herzegovian/Dalmatian Croats.
Genetics of Croats and especially Croats from Dalmatia proves migration from White Croatia.For the first time I hear that from White Croatia to Roman Dalmatia come Vlachs (Morlachs). Do you have historical record that proves this migration or and that writes on Eupedia.?
Historia Salonitana 13th centuryFrom the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats.
Nikifor Brienije (1062-1137)..- Croats and Dukljans, again (1073), devastated the entire Illyricum ...- When Croats and Dukljans destroyed Illyricum, "Brijen's father assembled army by.order of Emperor Mihail VII, (1071-1078) and lead against "Dukljans and Croats".
Mehmed-paša Sokolović, great vizier of the Ottoman Empire, issued a year 1566 commandment on the occasion of the Greek Patriarch, in which he says: " Roman Franciscan in Budim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda), Timisoara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timișoara) and Dubrovnik and of all Croatian nation do not ask charity, if that nation belong to the Greek patriarch

Toponyms that Croats brought from Carpatians to Croatia.http://www.kapitaltrade.hr/wp-content/uploads/Toponimi-s-Karpata.jpg

Name Hrvat-Croat


The basic Croatian or Latinized characters of these names are more frequently mentioned in the 13th century in the Zadar surrounding and on Pag, from 14th century in Skradin, Split, Kljuc in western Bosnia and in the Zagreb area, and from the 15th century in the Klis(Dalmatia)surrounding and Budva in today's Montenegro.

https://webcache.googleusercontent....Hrvat_za_HJ_1.docx+&cd=20&hl=hr&ct=clnk&gl=hr


Mehmed Zilli (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi (was an Ottoman explorer who travelled through the territory of the Ottoman Empire)

It is interesting that Evliya Çelebi does not mention Vlachs where it would be expected to be everywhere in the hinterland of the Adriatic. He does not know about Morlachs. All that population he simply calls as Croatians,

http://www.evliyachelebi.org/novi-evlija-autograf-putopisa/

etc..


Venetians were called population of Dalmatia as Morlachs but still to Roman Dalmatia coming Croats from White Croatia and proof for that is I2a Dinaric.
 
There is no evidence that I2a Din-south came from "White Croatia."

"White Croatia" probably did not exist, deal with it.
 
There is no evidence that I2a Din-south came from "White Croatia."

"White Croatia" probably did not exist, deal with it.

If White Croatia does not exist, there existed White Croats.

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

In 2010 has Ken Nordtvedt argued that I-L69.2 is too young not to have been a result of a sudden expansion. According to him I2a1b1 arose not earlier than 2500 years ago in Eastern Europe. He has presumed this to be a consequence from the Slavic invasion of the Balkans, from the area north-east of the Carpathians since 500 CE. In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years. In his last comments about Haplogroup I tree and the conjectured spread map, he locates the start of the I-L69.2 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula.


http://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Tree and Map for Hg I.pdf


So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage
originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and
extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of
course Date: 20 May 2014.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2014-05/1400615460


May 4, 2017..In fact there is still only one known man who is CTS10228+ S17250- Y4460- Z17855- A2512-, he has paternal ancestry from southeastern Poland.

http://i2aproject.blogspot.hr/2017/05/may-2017-draft-trees-for-i-l621-and-i.html


R1a Z280 CTS3402 also has a high frequency in southern Poland, but for now it does not know the source of the same ... probably in southern Poland but it needs to be determined.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1uIEV-Unzie9mLufrQJyWb4fD9zg
 
No historical sources, no scientific sources in this list.

But there are historical sources.

One of them is Latin medieval text by Bavarian Geographer containing a list of tribes in Central-Eastern Europe, it is emerged in 9th century.

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

There is no Croats or White Croats.

Latin text:

Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii.

(1) Isti sunt qui propinquiores resident finibus Danaorum, quos vocant Nortabtrezi, ubi regio, in qua sunt civitates LIII per duces suos partite.
(2) Uulici, in qua civitates XCV et regiones IIII.
(3) Linaa est populus, qui habet civitates VII.
(4-6) Prope illis resident, quos vocant Bethenici et Smeldingon et Morizani, qui habent civitates XI.
(7) Iuxta illos sunt, qui vocantur Hehfeldi, qui habent civitates VIII.
(8) Iuxta illos est regio, que vocatur Surbi, in qua regione plures sunt, que habent civitates L.
(9) Iuxta illos sunt quos vocant Talaminzi, qui habent civitates XIII.
(10) Beheimare, in qua sunt civitates XV.
(11) Marharii habent civitates XL.
(12) Uulgarii regio est inmensa et populus multus habens civitates V, eo quod mutitudo magna ex eis sit et non sit eis opus civitates habere.
(13) Est populus quem vocant Merehanos, ipsi habent civitates XXX.
Iste sunt regiones, que terminant in finibus nostris.

Isti sunt, qui iuxta istorum fines resident.
(14) Osterabtrezi, in qua civitates plus quam C sunt.
(15) Miloxi, in qua civitates LXVII.
(16) Phesnuzi habent civitates LXX.
(17) Thadesi plus quam CC urbes habent.
(18) Glopeani, in qua civitates CCCC aut eo amplius.
(19) Zuireani habent civitates CCCXXV.
(20) Busani habent civitates CCXXXI.
(21) Sittici regio inmensa populis et urbibus munitissimis.
(22) Stadici, in qua civitates DXVI populousque infinitus.
(23) Sebbirozi habent civitates XC.
(24) Unlizi populus multus civitates CCCCXVIII.
(25)Neriuani habent civitates LXXVIII.
(26) Attorozi habent civitates CXLVIII, populus ferocissimus.
(27) Eptaradici habent civitates CCLXIII.
(28) Uuilerozi habent civitates CLXXX.
(29) Zabrozi habent civitates CCXII.
(30) Znetalici habent civitates LXXIIII.
(31) Aturezani habent civitates CIIII.
(32) Chozirozi habent civitates CCL.
(33) Lendizi habent civitates XCVIII.
(34) Thafnezi habent civitates CCLVII.
(35) Zeriuani, quod tantum est regnum, ut ex eo cuncte genetes Sclauorum exorte sint et originem, sicut affirmant, ducant.
(36) Prissani civitates LXX.
(37) Uelunzani civitates LXX.
(38) Bruzi plus est undique quam de Enisa ad Rhenum
(39) Uuizunbeire
(40) Caziri civitates C.
(41) Ruzzi.
(42) Forsderen.
(43) Liudi.
(44) Fresiti.
(45) Serauici.
(46) Lucolane.
(47) Ungare.
(48) Uuisane.
(49) Sleenzane civitates XV.
(50) Lunsizi civitates XXX.
(51) Dadosesani civitates XX.
(52) Milzane civitates XXX.
(53) Besunzane civitates II.
(54) Uerizane civitates X.
(55) Fraganeo civitates XL.
(56) Lupiglaa civitates XXX.
(57) Opolini civitates XX.
(58) Golensizi civitates V.

Picture of the tribes:

Hermann_Geogr_Bavar1.png
 
There is no Croats or White Croats.

Could be a use of a different ethnonym/exonym (for e.g. Chozirozi mentioned alongside Lendizi), toponym, political situation, in the fact they did not live alongside a river or trade routes, among others. The list is incomplete, has many errors, while the map is even less complete and has a hypothetical consideration by an author of dubious reliability. One historical source does not over-weight other even more reliable sources. Actually, you are intentionally making low provocation.

There is no evidence that I2a Din-south came from "White Croatia."


There is no evidence for many things, but considering all the evidence we have, in a such an ideological and two-sided discussion, there is much less probability Dinaric-South came from "White Serbia" which probably even less existed and Serbs than "White Croatia" and White Croats. By historiographical, archeological, ethnogenetic and genetic evidence and viewpoint, that's a fact.
 
No historical sources, no scientific sources in this list.
It does not have to be scientific sources when we have ancestors of Croatian I2a types in southeastern Poland, include brain. Father of mutation https://yfull.com/tree/I-S17250/ is in southestern Poland, from where mutation I-S17250 comes to Roman Dalmatia, Spain?



How do you think that there are no historical sources?

Nestor the Chronicler in his Primary Chronicle (12th century)From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats,
Alfred the Great in his Geography of Europe (888–893) relaying on Orosius, recorded that "To the north-east of the Moravians are the Dalamensae; east of the Dalamensians are the Horithi (Choroti, Choriti; Croats),


Nestor described how many East Slavic tribes of "...the Polyanians, the Derevlians, the Severians, the Radimichians, and the Croats lived at peace" In 904-907, "Leaving Igor (914–945) in Kiev, Oleg (879–912) attacked the Greeks. He took with him a multitude of Varangians, Slavs, Chuds, Krivichians, Merians, Polyanians, Severians, Derevlians, Radimichians, Croats, Dulebians, and Tivercians, who are pagans.

Many Croats also lived in the territory of Bohemia. The Prague Charter from 1086 AD (actually with data from 973) mentions on the Northeastern frontier of the Prague diocese "Psouane, Chrouati et altera Chrowati, Zlasane...". They were probably located around Elbe river in Czech Republic, while others on upper Vistula in Poland.

In the 10th century, Arab historian Al-Masudi in his work The Meadows of Gold mentioned Harwātin or Khurwātīn, between Moravians, Chezchs and Saxons.[

In the Hebrew book Josippon are listed four Slavic ethnic names from Venice to Saxony; Mwr.wh (Moravians), Krw.tj (Croats), Swrbjn (Sorbs), Lwcnj. Those Croats are probably those who were located in Bohemia.


Historia Salonitana 13th centuryFrom the Polish territories called Lingonia seven or eight tribal clans arrived under Totilo. When they saw that the Croatian land would be suitable for habitation because in it there were few Roman colonies, they sought and obtained for their duke...The people called Croats...Many call them Goths, and likewise Slavs, according to the particular name of those who arrived from Poland and Bohemia.

De Administrando Imperio 10th centuryThe Croats at that time ( 610—641)were dwelling beyond Bagibareia (usually considered Bavaria), where the Belocroats(White Croats) are now.(10th century)

The toponyms that Croats brought from the Carpathians to Croatia http://www.kapitaltrade.hr/wp-content/uploads/Toponimi-s-Karpata.jpg

Czech Tribes and Prince's Territorieshttp

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/czechtribes.htm


In this article author describes archaeological excavations in the town of Stiljsko in Ukraine, which enabled researchers to reconstruct some aspects of historical and cultural development in this region during the early middle ages. On the basis of these revelations author points up that in the ninth century there existed one of the greatest fortifi ed settlements of Croats in the eastern-Karpatian region
https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=17599
 
There is much less probability Dinaric-South came from "White Serbia" which probably even less existed and Serbs than "White Croatia" and White Croats. By historiographical, archeological, ethnogenetic and genetic evidence and viewpoint, that's a fact.

White Serbia does not exist, there is no historical record that mentions White Serbia.
 
No historical sources, no scientific sources in this list. But there are historical sources. One of them is Latin medieval text by Bavarian Geographer containing a list of tribes in Central-Eastern Europe, it is emerged in 9th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Geographer There is no Croats or White Croats. Latin text: Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii. (1) Isti sunt qui propinquiores resident finibus Danaorum, quos vocant Nortabtrezi, ubi regio, in qua sunt civitates LIII per duces suos partite. (2) Uulici, in qua civitates XCV et regiones IIII. (3) Linaa est populus, qui habet civitates VII. (4-6) Prope illis resident, quos vocant Bethenici et Smeldingon et Morizani, qui habent civitates XI. (7) Iuxta illos sunt, qui vocantur Hehfeldi, qui habent civitates VIII. (8) Iuxta illos est regio, que vocatur Surbi, in qua regione plures sunt, que habent civitates L. (9) Iuxta illos sunt quos vocant Talaminzi, qui habent civitates XIII. (10) Beheimare, in qua sunt civitates XV. (11) Marharii habent civitates XL. (12) Uulgarii regio est inmensa et populus multus habens civitates V, eo quod mutitudo magna ex eis sit et non sit eis opus civitates habere. (13) Est populus quem vocant Merehanos, ipsi habent civitates XXX. Iste sunt regiones, que terminant in finibus nostris. Isti sunt, qui iuxta istorum fines resident. (14) Osterabtrezi, in qua civitates plus quam C sunt. (15) Miloxi, in qua civitates LXVII. (16) Phesnuzi habent civitates LXX. (17) Thadesi plus quam CC urbes habent. (18) Glopeani, in qua civitates CCCC aut eo amplius. (19) Zuireani habent civitates CCCXXV. (20) Busani habent civitates CCXXXI. (21) Sittici regio inmensa populis et urbibus munitissimis. (22) Stadici, in qua civitates DXVI populousque infinitus. (23) Sebbirozi habent civitates XC. (24) Unlizi populus multus civitates CCCCXVIII. (25)Neriuani habent civitates LXXVIII. (26) Attorozi habent civitates CXLVIII, populus ferocissimus. (27) Eptaradici habent civitates CCLXIII. (28) Uuilerozi habent civitates CLXXX. (29) Zabrozi habent civitates CCXII. (30) Znetalici habent civitates LXXIIII. (31) Aturezani habent civitates CIIII. (32) Chozirozi habent civitates CCL. (33) Lendizi habent civitates XCVIII. (34) Thafnezi habent civitates CCLVII. (35) Zeriuani, quod tantum est regnum, ut ex eo cuncte genetes Sclauorum exorte sint et originem, sicut affirmant, ducant. (36) Prissani civitates LXX. (37) Uelunzani civitates LXX. (38) Bruzi plus est undique quam de Enisa ad Rhenum (39) Uuizunbeire (40) Caziri civitates C. (41) Ruzzi. (42) Forsderen. (43) Liudi. (44) Fresiti. (45) Serauici. (46) Lucolane. (47) Ungare. (48) Uuisane. (49) Sleenzane civitates XV. (50) Lunsizi civitates XXX. (51) Dadosesani civitates XX. (52) Milzane civitates XXX. (53) Besunzane civitates II. (54) Uerizane civitates X. (55) Fraganeo civitates XL. (56) Lupiglaa civitates XXX. (57) Opolini civitates XX. (58) Golensizi civitates V. Picture of the tribes:
Hermann_Geogr_Bavar1.png

These are the names of tribes, not nations. Do you believe that there were as much as 58 Slavic nations, only in that area?

"(35) Zeriuani, quod tantum est regnum, ut ex eo cuncte genetes Sclauorum exorte sint et originem, sicut affirmant, ducant."

Croats were "hidden" under the "Sclauorum" ethnonyme.
 
Wrong.
Dervan.png
Deal with it.
Dervan or Derwan (Latin: Dervanus) was an early King of the Sorbs (fl. 615–636)
Sorbs (Upper Sorbian: Serbja, Lower Sorbian: Serby, German: Sorben), known also by their former autonyms Lusatians and Wends, are a West Slavic ethnic group predominantly inhabiting their homeland in Lusatia
Sorbs and Balkan Serbs they have nothing to do among themselves historically and genetically. Where in historical records is mentioned White Serbia in the area of Lusatia, or elsewhere?
 
Wrong.

Dervan.png


Deal with it.

The territory of "Dervan's Serbia" was full of Croatian ethnotoponyms durring the early medieval period:

Germany along Saale river there were:

Chruuati near Halle) in 901 AD,
Chruuati in 981 AD,[24]
Chruazis in 1012 AD,[24]
Churbate in 1055 AD,[24]
Grawat
in 1086 AD,[24]
Curewate (now Korbetha),
Großkorbetha
(Curuvadi and Curuuuati 881-899 AD) and
Kleinkorbetha,[24] and
Korbetha
west of Leipzig

Some of these are still there. They indicate early Croat presence in the area even though the sources do not mention them. What does it tell us? We shuld allow a possibility that they were mentioned under a different name(s). There are no toponymes to indicate "Slavic" presence so it is natural to suppose that the Croats were "hiddden" under a Slavic ethnonym.
 

This thread has been viewed 83007 times.

Back
Top