Were the Croatians originally Slavic?

though when provoked by Croat nationalists, I like to emphasize the clues indicating potential Turkic origin of Croats... I am pretty sure their tribal identity was Slavic, and before that probably Celtic... same holds for Serbs...

in fact I think I2 are Cimmerians/Gomer people and original Celts but more about that on link http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26549-Celtic-Serbian-parallels/


Russian primary chronicle enlists Croats (as well as Serbs and Carantanians (Slovene of today) in Danubian Slavs...according to it they have migrated to north due to pressure of Vlakhs (read Roman empire) to the lands of Lyakhs (read Lech or Poles)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/218/PVL-selections.pdf



Byzantine emperor historian places white Serbia in land they themselves called Boika thast he places beyond Turkia( = north of Hungary) neighbouring white Croatia and Frankia ...from many reasons this land can only be Bohemia... according to him they have also originally dwelt there and we know that Celtic Boii originally dwelt there and that Celtic Scordisci spread roughly from there to area of Serbia...and that from Serbia they entered Thrace and Asia minor as Celtic Serdi...

white Croatia would be Slavic settled area east of white Serbia ... roughly Slovakia, south Poland, west Ukraine.... the core of this white Croatia is more or less Galicia which is same as Bohemia local source of I2a2...

very term Galicia tells us that these people might have originally been Gals or Celts, perhaps a branch of Helveti... Celtic ancestors of Serbs on other hand would be Scordisci/Serdi /Boii..

Byzantine emperor historian tells us that both Croats and Serbs were called "white" prior to Balkan settlement... this could be same as Wends/Vindelici/Veneti.... Sorbs of east Germany (in Serbia known as Lusatian Serbs) are still called Wends.. Vindelici are Celtic people..

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al...istrando imperio&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

look at Galicia area in east Europe
term is clearly same origin as Galatia in Asia minor and Galia in France, that is about Celtic settlement ...

250px-Ukraine-Halychyna.png

250px-Galiz20.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

those are cores of I2a areas...

Haplogroup_I2a.gif



white Croatia is considered more or less same area as Galicia... now look at early Slavic tribes... in Galicia are white Croats...

Kievan_Rus%27_historical_map_980_1054.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_East_Slavic_states


Its enough to go into Serbia, and look at the people, you guys(most of you) can pass as N. African, Levantine or Turk.
Your 3 fingers salute theory of Serbs was funniest one( since you even dont know recent history), as well your theories as Proto Serbs= ancestor of Germans.

That map of I2a2 is incorrect, since Serbs from Bosnia ( and they territoriality hold 50% of it) have less of it than Croatians from Slavonia.


Didn't even had the need to read rest of your post.
Your theoris in general, are typical for Serb, a nation without their own culture or language, infested with low self esteem, overcompensating in search for better past
 
Dalmatians where illyrian people with there own language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language

Dalmatian, was used to communicate with latinized/Italian minority during middle ages, it is language similar to Venetian.
It was used longest in Dubrovnik, as they were independent City-state that had political contact with Venetians a lot.

Oldest artifacts, and texts written in Croatian glagolithic script are in fact from Dalmatian region, Dalmatian wasnt even called Dalmatia after Croats settled, it was called Croatia. Only after Venetian took over it was renamed Dalmatia.
It was a core of Croatia, and from dalmatia Croatians expanded northwards towards Slavinje/Zagreb.


____________________

you serbs are actually very similar to these guys, as i know one of your distinguished "historian" claimed Greeks also



... must be those "Egyptian" genes eh!
 
Last edited:
Dalmatian, was used to communicate with latinized/Italian minority during middle ages, it is language similar to Venetian.
It was used longest in Dubrovnik, as they were independent City-state that had political contact with Venetians a lot.

Oldest artifacts, and texts written in Croatian glagolithic script are in fact from Dalmatian region, Dalmatian wasnt even called Dalmatia after Croats settled, it was called Croatia. Only after Venetian took over it was renamed Dalmatia.
It was a core of Croatia, and from dalmatia Croatians expanded northwards towards Slavinje/Zagreb.


____________________

you serbs are actually very similar to these guys, as i know one of your distinguished "historian" claimed Greeks also



... must be those "Egyptian" genes eh!

As for my question, are croats originally slavs. Can you answer this,

its a pity that the croats renamed ragusa into dubrovnik , this distorts history, you do not see a name change for the veneti in ancient or modern times, you do not see much of a name change from etruscan to tuscan, sicel to sicilian, lombard to lombardia. ............. if in roman times the dalmatian coast was Dalmatae , it would always remain so named in italian people. Same as there is always a Constantinople and not a Istanbul.
 
First of all, sub variant of haplogroup I spread in western Balkan (and southern Croatia too) is I2a2 Dinaric and there is no single evidence that this haplogroup was in western Balkan since Lgm in continuity. On the contrary all proves suggests that it was spread primeraly with Slavic peoples in 6 th century. It is opinion of all leading geneticists and it was recently incorporated in wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)
Croats have high percent of I2a2 Dinaric haplogroup, but only in southern parts of Dalmatia and in Herzegovina region. It is exactly the regions where during Ottoman reign were great migrations of population. Dalmatia for example, change almost entirely its previous medieval population. So, the medieval Croats which lived in Dalmatia moved mostly on islands or northward, or in Italia. New people (mostly I2a2 Dinaric ) came from region of Herzegovina and Montenegro and settled in Dalmatia, and hose were not ethnically Croats, they adopted Croatian name later. They simply called themselves Slavs, like it was in Dubrovnik and very often Serbs.
The real Croats you may today find in the region of chakavian dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakavian_dialect

and genetic analisys of island Krk (the real Croats) shows prevalance of haplogroup of R1a over I2a2. The same situation is for the rest of mainland Croatia. So, I do believe that it is possible that Croats were not Slavs initiallly (maybe some Sarmatian or Turkic component among the Slavs) and that they were predominantly R1a.

It is true that I2a2 is probably not hier since LGM because it would be more equaly disperced like mthDNA haplogroups that are in Europe since LGM . Few strong clusters of I2a2 could sugest and total apsence on other regions showing it is haplogroup that have mooved recently ( compared to LGM ) . Also it is to young to be hier since LGM , and there is not much divercity which should be expected if that is the case . But there is also no any evidence that I2a2 is Slavic , first Slavs are formed recently , Jordanes mentions they were called diferently ( Spores ) , so they would carry mainly Scythian R1a - around Pripyat were is probably originating place of Slavic languague , and some I2a2 received by mixing with Sarmatians who use to rule over them . I2a2 in Ukraine is of Roxolans who use to live there , in Moldavia and Romania from Ants also Sarmatian tribe - you can say by they names , in Hungary by Yaziges , in Czech, Bavaria and Saxonia Anhalt by Serbs and Croats , in Aragon in Spain , Sardinia and Lybia by Alans and Vandals , ... Pliny cleary says Serboi/Siraci and Haruatas were Sarmatians .
After they gain Dalmatia from Turks Austrians resetled Croats that have escaped in todays Slovenia back in Dalmatia , only small percentage of Dalmatian catolics are Serbs that converted to catholicism . Islands ( Krk) are actually better for observing situation before settling of Croats because they are the places were old population have survived Avar attacks.
 
That gypsy is talking BS lol, its comparative to trash scavenger talking about quantum physics.

Usually from some standpoint of Serb farytails, where all white people on Earth are descendants of Serbs.

Funny thing is that Serbs were always called Vlach by us, even today in some areas its common.
They, with help of ottoman buddies were very active in Bosnia, they spread or assimilated like bacterial infection.

I can always recognize a true Serb, he looks like North African.
We see them as sort of malign gypsies.
They are like pests.
Serbs and Croats have same Sarmatian origins , so if Serbs are gypsies so Croats are . Yo u called Serbs Vlachs because it is specific millitary cast in Ottoman Turkic state - they dont pay all taxes , geting land for plaughing and make war for that . Because Serbs were brought to Croatia and Bosanska Krajina ( land setled by Croatians - speacked and writed Ikavski during Midle Ages) in that status by Turks you called them Vlachs .It is true that Serbs use to mix with indigenous populations more then Croatians ( E1b1b , J ,G ) but genes are yet very simillar
 
The closest people to Serbs are Croats and the closest people to Croats are Serbs. Am I right or wrong?

But their mentality is not the same. Croats are more like other fascists all over the world (like Turkey, Syria and other fascist regimes that love to terrorize and intimidate innocent people) and Serbs are very friendly and kind folks. Why?
 
Nether Serbs or Croats are innocent in general , some of them are , but some just like to kill they own brothers . Nema rata dok ne udari brat na brata ( There is no real war , till brother atacks his brother - old Serbian and Croatian saying )
 
The closest people to Serbs are Croats and the closest people to Croats are Serbs. Am I right or wrong?

But their mentality is not the same. Croats are more like other fascists all over the world (like Turkey, Syria and other fascist regimes that love to terrorize and intimidate innocent people) and Serbs are very friendly and kind folks. Why?

You cannot judge all croats on the basis of 1 or 2 idiots, I think that guy is ustasha hence his bias.
If you were to put 10 serbs and 10 croats in a room and I told you to pick which ones are serbs and which ones are croats you would not be able to do so. Croats know this too. the whole goth/croat theory was put into place by hitler and the ustasha because hitler hated slavs and needed an excuse for favoring croats. prior to that the only non slavic croat origin theory was illyrianism nothing to do with goths. of course there were germanic and celtic settlements in the region but no more then the rest of the balkans.

and Dalmat if you are indigenous to dalmatia you have serb blood whether you like it or not. catholicism does not change bloodlines. serbs were in dalmatia before croats.
 
You are right you couldnt pick who is Serb and who is Croat . But there is more Gotic blood in ex -Yu then in rest of Balkans : remember Theodoric kingdom and his borders ? And no Serbs were not in Dalmatia before Croats : 1) if you speak about Roman province of Dalmatia Constantinus Porphirogenetos in De administratio imperio says Croats setled in Dalmatia and Serbs around Thessaloniki , then Serbs decided to go back , but after crossing Danube they thurned back and settled next to Croats -so Croats were first 2) if you speak about today Dalmatia , Knin and Nin were capitolcities of Croatian kings , Serbs settled there in XVI century like Turkic soldiers with Vlach status.
 
You are right you couldnt pick who is Serb and who is Croat . But there is more Gotic blood in ex -Yu then in rest of Balkans : remember Theodoric kingdom and his borders ? And no Serbs were not in Dalmatia before Croats : 1) if you speak about Roman province of Dalmatia Constantinus Porphirogenetos in De administratio imperio says Croats setled in Dalmatia and Serbs around Thessaloniki , then Serbs decided to go back , but after crossing Danube they thurned back and settled next to Croats -so Croats were first 2) if you speak about today Dalmatia , Knin and Nin were capitolcities of Croatian kings , Serbs settled there in XVI century like Turkic soldiers with Vlach status.

Croats have more R1a & I2 than Serbians and Bosnians.
Croats have less R1b & J2 than both the Serb and Bosnian population.
 
Croats have more R1a & I2 than Serbians and Bosnians.
Croats have less R1b & J2 than both the Serb and Bosnian population.
There is biger diference betwen North Greece and South Greece genes , then betwen Croatian and Serbian genes I allready explained R1a , R1b and J2 in thread Who were and are Serbs ( or something like that ) . As about I2a2 there is not such big diference Serbia 38,5% , Croatia 42% , Bosnia 50% ( Croats 71%, Bosniaks 44% , Serbs 31% , but there is small number of Croats -around 15% , and they mostly live in Herzegovina were is highest density of I2a2 )
 
Bodin
some of the first serb settlements were on the adriatic coast of southern dalmatia (and bosnia), pagania, zachlumia, travunia are all part of dalmatia today. of course the northern part was croat first. then it went back and forth (bosnia too) between serb and croat rule, this map is 800 AD. I have seen earlier maps but I can't find any right now. I know I have earlier maps in a few books.
WestBalkans800.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/WestBalkans800.png
 
There is biger diference betwen North Greece and South Greece genes , then betwen Croatian and Serbian genes I allready explained R1a , R1b and J2 in thread Who were and are Serbs ( or something like that ) . As about I2a2 there is not such big diference Serbia 38,5% , Croatia 42% , Bosnia 50% ( Croats 71%, Bosniaks 44% , Serbs 31% , but there is small number of Croats -around 15% , and they mostly live in Herzegovina were is highest density of I2a2 )

You need to look at the trends, if you only look at the frequencies you will make an erroneous assumption like, 'Bosniacs have more I2 because the frequency in 'Bosnia' is 50%.

Greece has an overall and clear trend that distinguishes it from the rest of the Balkans. More R1b, J2 and E than the Slav population (Serb, Croat, Bosniac, Bulgarian, FYROM and Montenegrin).

What is your goal by emphasizing the difference between North and South Greece?
 
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic
 
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic

Croatian propaganda is less in your face but it's no better. Slovenia is probably the exception out of the Slavic nations. It sits there and doesn't say a word because their economy is relatively strong and people don't need propaganda to value themselves. Slovenia was influenced by Europe (Tyrol, Austria, Veneto) whereas the rest of Yugoslavia was in a hole, a very deep hole with factories.
 
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic

Suddenly I understand why how-yes-no claims what he claims! :petrified:
 
Bodin
some of the first serb settlements were on the adriatic coast of southern dalmatia (and bosnia), pagania, zachlumia, travunia are all part of dalmatia today. of course the northern part was croat first. then it went back and forth (bosnia too) between serb and croat rule, this map is 800 AD. I have seen earlier maps but I can't find any right now. I know I have earlier maps in a few books.
View attachment 5083
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/WestBalkans800.png
Yes you repeated all the things I said in my previous posts , first Serbian states were in Tribunia , Canale , Helm -Zachlumia ( name since XII century ) , Narbona ( Pagania since christianisation ) , I didnt try to denie that I just said you are not right claiming Serbs are in Dalmatia before Croats .And that guy from Dalmatia is catholicized Serb - that is simply not thruth because after Austria took Dalmatia from Turks she brought back escaped Croatians from Slovenia and Hungary , thats all that I claiming
 
You need to look at the trends, if you only look at the frequencies you will make an erroneous assumption like, 'Bosniacs have more I2 because the frequency in 'Bosnia' is 50%.

Greece has an overall and clear trend that distinguishes it from the rest of the Balkans. More R1b, J2 and E than the Slav population (Serb, Croat, Bosniac, Bulgarian, FYROM and Montenegrin).

What is your goal by emphasizing the difference between North and South Greece?
Bosnia and Herzegovina has 50 % I2a2 , and Herzegovina by itself has 71 % I2a2 , I clearle said Bosniaks have 44% I2a2 , I didnt try to claim anybody has less or more I was just presenting facts.
So the " Slav population have clear trend to, that distinguishes it from rest of Balkans - more I2a2 , I1a , and less of E1b1b1 ,R1b, J and G.
What is you / goal by emphasizing the difference betwen Serbs and Croats , I just tried to say there is double amount of I in north ( 21% ) than in south , central and east Greece ( 12% ) , and in south there is more I2*B than in north , there is also more R1a and R1b and less of G , E1b1b and J. Thanks for answering
 
@Dorianfinder

As my slavic friends have said to me ( 1 croat and 1 slovene ) , from the 1960s , the yugoslav government used a "propaganda" book called
Srbi.......narod najtariji by Olga Lukovic-Pjanovic
to tell of slavic dominance in Europe in ancient times.

Basically it states that from 4500BC all europe from the rhine river, the alps and all the balkans , except the Morea was habitated by slavs, they then moved to mesopatamia.

What can I say .....I have seen the book , but I cannot read slavic
Me to is trying to fight against that kind of "history" . Ofcourse being Serbian nationalist I would like if Serbians would be oldest nation of the world , but it is simply not the truth . And I wouldnt going to use lies to glorify my nation , because I think that would only harm it , showing it like foolish . First of all I think Serbs are not the Slavs at all( which is clearly shown with lack of R1a genes which is present in more than 50% in Slavs ) , but Sarmatians . But if what your guys are claiming that I2a2 is aboriginal to Europe is true , than Serbs and Croats are older nations of Europe ( Which I do not believe but you do ).
 
Me to is trying to fight against that kind of "history" . Ofcourse being Serbian nationalist I would like if Serbians would be oldest nation of the world , but it is simply not the truth . And I wouldnt going to use lies to glorify my nation , because I think that would only harm it , showing it like foolish . First of all I think Serbs are not the Slavs at all( which is clearly shown with lack of R1a genes which is present in more than 50% in Slavs ) , but Sarmatians . But if what your guys are claiming that I2a2 is aboriginal to Europe is true , than Serbs and Croats are older nations of Europe ( Which I do not believe but you do ).

Your Achilles heal is the 37% I2a found on the island of Sardinia. Not to mention that Sarmatia had very high R1a.

Conclusion:
The lack of R1a in Serbs makes the Sarmatian theory unlikely.

The diffusion of I2a was from the Balkans to the Danube and Wallachia-Moldova.

I2a is concentrated along the West coast of the Dinaric Alps and Sardinia. I2a spread out from this region. The 12a in ancient Sarmatia appears to have been insignificant or extremely low! let me explain ...

Early Byzantine-era migration from the Balkans is what formed the unique Wallachia-Moldovan Principality. Wallachia means foreigner and I2a is centered in the previous States of Wallachia where history is clear that Balkanic peoples settled here.

The Bulgarian Kingdom cut the Wallachia-Moldovan Principalities off from the south Balkans from as early as the 10th century. The Bulgarian influence spread Cyrillic but Wallachia-Moldova was predominantly under anti-Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople who made continuous efforts to settle Orthodox Greeks & Serbians to strengthen Orthodoxy in the Polish and Hungarian dominated region! The remnants of these Orthodox Balkanic settlers are the Vlachs or 'Foreigners' in Romania.

Today, political sampling and categorization allocates individuals sampled from this region to modern Romania but they were until recently Wallachia-Moldovans, this is why Romania has 26% I2a and the Vlachs have over 20%.

800px-Ukraine_topo_en.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 251068 times.

Back
Top