PDA

View Full Version : I-Z17855 origins



excine
03-02-2021, 05:50 PM
Hey, I'm curious about this subclade, I-Z17855. Anyone know anything about its genetic origin?

broder
03-02-2021, 05:52 PM
Slavic, so spread with their movements.

excine
03-02-2021, 06:01 PM
Slavic, so spread with their movements.

Ah okay, I've seen theories that it was brought by the Bastarni, I guess it's already concluded that it's a Slavic marker. Interesting since a family tested in Sandzak were I-Z17855, but swore that their ancestors were Albanian.

excine
03-02-2021, 06:07 PM
43655

broder
03-02-2021, 06:09 PM
Ah okay, I've seen theories that it was brought by the Bastarni, I guess it's already concluded that it's a Slavic marker. Interesting since a family tested in Sandzak were I-Z17855, but swore that their ancestors were Albanian.

Bastarni theory was simply created by some Serbs with absolutely no basis or evidence whatsoever. Not even worth mentioning.

Plenty of Albanians belong to this lineage today. However, that doesn't mean that they are Slavs, but their ancestors few hundred years ago, or more distantly depending on the clan/family, most certainly were.

excine
03-02-2021, 06:11 PM
Ah okay, thanks for clearing up. You're right about that, haplogroup shouldn't be the main determining factor of current day ethnicity.

vasil
03-02-2021, 06:57 PM
From L621 to S20602 everything is probably Celtic and from S20602 below its Slavic with it being brought to Balto-Slavic area by Boi. Z17855 is a Bulgarian/Eastern Balkan Slavic branch most likely brought with the Antes and in Albanians its definitely Albanised Southwestern Bulgarian(Macedonia) lines.

Velislav
03-03-2021, 01:37 PM
Yes, I-Y3120 (aka YP196 aka S20602) seems to be very Slavic. Everything below Y3120 is connected to the Slavic migrations.

Pheter from this forum made a good map for Z17855 - it is a Bulgarian branch, roughly said.

43665

Pribislav
03-03-2021, 11:01 PM
From L621 to S20602 everything is probably Celtic and from S20602 below its Slavic with it being brought to Balto-Slavic area by Boi. Z17855 is a Bulgarian/Eastern Balkan Slavic branch most likely brought with the Antes and in Albanians its definitely Albanised Southwestern Bulgarian(Macedonia) lines.

That is ridiculous. By the same logic we could say that PH908 is a Serbian branch, which would be false of course, just like your statement above. The mere fact that its (Z17855) TMRCA predates Slavic migrations makes it Slavic, claiming anything more than that would be special pleading.

vasil
03-03-2021, 11:33 PM
That is ridiculous. By the same logic we could say that PH908 is a Serbian branch, which would be false of course, just like your statement above. The mere fact that its (Z17855) TMRCA predates Slavic migrations makes it Slavic, claiming anything more than that would be special pleading.

I am standing behing my statement completely I do agree that Z17855 outside of the Balkans is of pre-Bulgarian Slavic origin but in the Balkans it is definitely from Antes migrating to Eastern Balkans(maybe also Y18331) to later become Bulgarians as far as its presence in Western Balkans is concerned I would even go as far as to say that it spread there during the expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire during Krums dynasty and just to prove that i am not at all unreasonable i will say that i do think that ALL PH908 in the Balkans is originaly Serbian and maybe some S17250>PH908- and there is for sure Serbian input in Western Bulgaria and its strongest in Northwestern Bulgaria where we only have a single Z17855 and its from a village that had settlers from Teteven area(where my father is actually from) which is at the western edge of Central Balkan Mountains on the border with Shops/Torlaks/Northwestern Bulgarians. As far as ethnic identification is concerned i have no problem with people identifying however they want like my PH908 ancestors identified as Bulgarians at least since the Late Middle Ages Z17855 guys from the Western Balkans can identify as Serbs, Macedonians, Albanians but i dont agree with changing history for the sake of an ideology.

capsian
03-04-2021, 06:58 AM
this branch represents the Slavic expansion in the 3rd century CE in the Balkans

Hawk
03-04-2021, 07:48 AM
this branch represents the Slavic expansion in the 3rd century CE in the Balkans

It is 6th century actually. Right after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian

Aspar
03-04-2021, 11:39 AM
I am standing behing my statement completely I do agree that Z17855 outside of the Balkans is of pre-Bulgarian Slavic origin but in the Balkans it is definitely from Antes migrating to Eastern Balkans(maybe also Y18331) to later become Bulgarians as far as its presence in Western Balkans is concerned I would even go as far as to say that it spread there during the expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire during Krums dynasty and just to prove that i am not at all unreasonable i will say that i do think that ALL PH908 in the Balkans is originaly Serbian and maybe some S17250>PH908- and there is for sure Serbian input in Western Bulgaria and its strongest in Northwestern Bulgaria where we only have a single Z17855 and its from a village that had settlers from Teteven area(where my father is actually from) which is at the western edge of Central Balkan Mountains on the border with Shops/Torlaks/Northwestern Bulgarians. As far as ethnic identification is concerned i have no problem with people identifying however they want like my PH908 ancestors identified as Bulgarians at least since the Late Middle Ages Z17855 guys from the Western Balkans can identify as Serbs, Macedonians, Albanians but i dont agree with changing history for the sake of an ideology.

This blog has quite good and detailed analysis of the various I-Y3120 subclades in the Balkans and other countries: http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/

I-Z17855 here is called Din C. It gets painfully obvious that this is a minor subclade of I-Y3120 and percentage wise it's strongest in Romania, North Macedonia and Bulgaria while it's almost inexistent in the western Slavic countries as well as Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia while it's less than <5% in Serbia. It reaches somehow a comparable Eastern Balkan percentage in Montenegro however the difference with the Eastern Balkan is that it's quite minor when compared to it's brother I-PH908 which is quite strong in the western Slavic countries.
The non-existence of I-Z17855 or the very minor presence at least makes me think that the tribes known as Sclavenoi from the Prague-Korcak Culture weren't the progenitors of TMRCA of I-Z17855 but it was a lineage that came in prominence in a group living to the east of these Sclavenoi and such people were the Antes from the Penkovka culture as you correctly mentioned.
I believe that both I-Z17855 and TMRCA were born in Ukraine, somewhere close to Dnieper. These would correspond with the Antes from the historical sources as you correctly pointed out.

After the Goths departed from the region of the lower Danube under the pressure of Huns and after the region was depopulated, a new population, coming from both Prague-Korcak and Penkovka filled the void. This new population that was equally represented by people from both cultures brought both PH908 and Z17855 in equal numbers. We can confidently say that this Slavic population that took this eastern path along the eastern slopes of the Carpathians is the ancestral population of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians.
However when these tribes crosses Danube they settled not only in Bulgaria and Macedonia but also in Dalmatia as well which is well known from historical sources. So some I-Z17855 Serbs and Montenegrins are descendants of these early migrants. The original Serbs didn't migrate through the same path as the Slavic ancestors of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians but they came later and used a different path. When they arrived in the Balkans they subdued the earlier Slavic migrants in Dalmatia and Serbia that must have had equal number of PH908 and Z17855, a picture similar to the one of the Bulgarians and Macedonians. This is very obvious when we look in detail in the Serbian subclades downstream of I-Y3120 which are dominated by PH908.

slavomir
03-04-2021, 03:07 PM
Bastarni theory was simply created by some Serbs with absolutely no basis or evidence whatsoever. Not even worth mentioning.


It is definitely worth mentioning. Maybe you misunderstood it, nobody is claiming that the Bastarnae invaded the Balkans and brought this haplogroup with them.
The theory is that Bastarnae brought it from Western Europe to Ukraine, and proto-Slavs absorbed it there.

vasil
03-05-2021, 04:57 AM
This blog has quite good and detailed analysis of the various I-Y3120 subclades in the Balkans and other countries: http://blog.vayda.pl/en/i2a-dinaric-subclade-y3120-2/

I-Z17855 here is called Din C. It gets painfully obvious that this is a minor subclade of I-Y3120 and percentage wise it's strongest in Romania, North Macedonia and Bulgaria while it's almost inexistent in the western Slavic countries as well as Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia while it's less than <5% in Serbia. It reaches somehow a comparable Eastern Balkan percentage in Montenegro however the difference with the Eastern Balkan is that it's quite minor when compared to it's brother I-PH908 which is quite strong in the western Slavic countries.
The non-existence of I-Z17855 or the very minor presence at least makes me think that the tribes known as Sclavenoi from the Prague-Korcak Culture weren't the progenitors of TMRCA of I-Z17855 but it was a lineage that came in prominence in a group living to the east of these Sclavenoi and such people were the Antes from the Penkovka culture as you correctly mentioned.
I believe that both I-Z17855 and TMRCA were born in Ukraine, somewhere close to Dnieper. These would correspond with the Antes from the historical sources as you correctly pointed out.

After the Goths departed from the region of the lower Danube under the pressure of Huns and after the region was depopulated, a new population, coming from both Prague-Korcak and Penkovka filled the void. This new population that was equally represented by people from both cultures brought both PH908 and Z17855 in equal numbers. We can confidently say that this Slavic population that took this eastern path along the eastern slopes of the Carpathians is the ancestral population of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians.
However when these tribes crosses Danube they settled not only in Bulgaria and Macedonia but also in Dalmatia as well which is well known from historical sources. So some I-Z17855 Serbs and Montenegrins are descendants of these early migrants. The original Serbs didn't migrate through the same path as the Slavic ancestors of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians but they came later and used a different path. When they arrived in the Balkans they subdued the earlier Slavic migrants in Dalmatia and Serbia that must have had equal number of PH908 and Z17855, a picture similar to the one of the Bulgarians and Macedonians. This is very obvious when we look in detail in the Serbian subclades downstream of I-Y3120 which are dominated by PH908.

I agree with you up to the migration south of the Danube of Penkovka or Ipotesti–Candesti as they call it in Romania but after that i think that the Antes that settled in Macedonia and Thessalia were not Z17855 but Y18331 and that is why its so old there on the other hand as i already said Z17855 in Macedonia probably represents the western expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire during Krums dynasty from somewhere arround the Rhodopes and its presence in Montenegrins is due to later migration from Macedonia. As far as PH908 is concerned i dont really buy the crap about Heraclius settling the Serbs and Croats in the Western Balkans as part of a second settlement of Slavs in my opinion it was just an effort to save face from the Byzantine side. The Sclaveni in my opinion are just the Srbi and Hrvati who came from Prague-Korchak culture and the same story in historical sources about them attacking Thessaloniki and then going back north and settling in the Dinaric Alps between the Adriatic and Morava keeps reapeating itself and when you factor in the fact that there was such an attack of Thessaloniki in 550 and Germanus managed to push them back it all starts to make sense. Again to say in my opinion PH908 and S17250>PH908- in Shopluk/Torlak area probably represents some later movement of Serbians east of the Morava and its presence in Macedonia represents even later movements from Shopluk/Torlak area to the south. And because the stuff about ethnicity has to be discused together with this stuff i will say that Bulgarians have to accept the fact that there is Serbian input in Western Bulgaria, Macedonians have to accept that pre-20th century there were only Serbians and Bulgarians and Serbs have to accept that the Slavic speaking population of Montenegro and Kosovo are definitely mixed with Albanians and Bulgarians from Macedonia and just to be safe i am not misunderstood I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE IDENTIFYING HOWEVER THEY WANT.

Aspar
03-06-2021, 01:54 PM
I agree with you up to the migration south of the Danube of Penkovka or Ipotesti–Candesti as they call it in Romania but after that i think that the Antes that settled in Macedonia and Thessalia were not Z17855 but Y18331 and that is why its so old there on the other hand as i already said Z17855 in Macedonia probably represents the western expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire during Krums dynasty from somewhere arround the Rhodopes and its presence in Montenegrins is due to later migration from Macedonia. As far as PH908 is concerned i dont really buy the crap about Heraclius settling the Serbs and Croats in the Western Balkans as part of a second settlement of Slavs in my opinion it was just an effort to save face from the Byzantine side. The Sclaveni in my opinion are just the Srbi and Hrvati who came from Prague-Korchak culture and the same story in historical sources about them attacking Thessaloniki and then going back north and settling in the Dinaric Alps between the Adriatic and Morava keeps reapeating itself and when you factor in the fact that there was such an attack of Thessaloniki in 550 and Germanus managed to push them back it all starts to make sense. Again to say in my opinion PH908 and S17250>PH908- in Shopluk/Torlak area probably represents some later movement of Serbians east of the Morava and its presence in Macedonia represents even later movements from Shopluk/Torlak area to the south. And because the stuff about ethnicity has to be discused together with this stuff i will say that Bulgarians have to accept the fact that there is Serbian input in Western Bulgaria, Macedonians have to accept that pre-20th century there were only Serbians and Bulgarians and Serbs have to accept that the Slavic speaking population of Montenegro and Kosovo are definitely mixed with Albanians and Bulgarians from Macedonia and just to be safe i am not misunderstood I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE IDENTIFYING HOWEVER THEY WANT.

I believe there are no historical accounts that Antes settled on their own in Greece and Macedonia. The Slavic population that settled there were clearly called Sclavenoi by the Roman sources but relying on archaeological sources we also know that there were elements from both Prague-Korcak and Penkovka in Ipotesti-Candesti.
As for I-Y18331, there is no indication these arrived with the Slavs. And if these were Antes you would expect to see them in Bulgaria and Romania as well which we don't.
What we see is quite a diversity of I-Y18331 in Greece and Macedonia. There is also a big Jewish cluster downstream of I-Y18331. The Jews arrived and settled in the Roman Empire first before migrating to other parts of Europe. So this cluster was picked up by the Jews in the Roman Empire before the arrival of the Slavs. There are other indicators that these Y18331 group arrived in Greece and Macedonia earlier than the Slavs. The Chuvash sample on Yfull shares common ancestor with Greeks around the time of the Chernyakhov Culture and just before the Huns arrived from the east. You are probably aware that the Chuvash language is probably the closest thing to proto-Bulgar and the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic confederation. It's not a rocket science to connect the dots here and that members of these subclade would have assimilated into Huns and Romans before the Slavic expansions. It's telling these subclade is missing largely in Bulgarians and Serbs and if ever shows up, they would probably have close cousins in Macedonia and Greece which will indicate a recent migration.

You can't generalize and make it as simple as you've put it. If Sclavenoi were just Serbs and Croats the Roman sources would have called them as such. Instead they called these first migrants Sclavenoi and not Serbs or Croats. It's indicative because they clearly mentioned the Serbs and the Croats as part of another migration. Also I believe the accounts about them doesn't say anything about attacking Thessaloniki but they were invited to settle around Thessaloniki and from there they migrated to their current place. It's important to note that this account is anachronistic and is from the time of Constantine VII Flavius Porphyrogenitus reigning from 6 June 913 to 9 November 959 while he speaks of arrival of the Serbs in the first half of the 7-th century. Because of this, we can't take this account for granted, the same with Gesta Hungarorum written in the 12-th or 13-th century which speaks of Vlachs in Transylvania in the late 9-th century. Furthermore, the first Serbian ruler known by name in the account is Višeslav in c.780 AD. Everything before him is unknown with the first ruler being some unknown Prince.

Another thing is that the Bulgarians but also the Serbs and Croats seem to be of non-Slavic origin. At the time both Serbs and Bulgarians were clearly Slavic, 9-th century, they've started to make alliances with other Slavic tribes or to conquer them, enlarging their territory and assimilating the others. Only from that point on, you can speak about Bulgarians and Serbs. That's what happened when the Bulgarians conquered Macedonia. They imposed their rule to the other Slavic tribes there and from that point only the Bulgarian name survived and the Greeks clearly referred to the Slavic people in Macedonia as Bulgarians. Only from that point on we can speak about Bulgarians in Macedonia, a process that reflects first and foremost the dialectal continuum between the people of Bulgaria and Macedonia.

slavomir
03-06-2021, 04:58 PM
You can't generalize and make it as simple as you've put it. If Sclavenoi were just Serbs and Croats the Roman sources would have called them as such. Instead they called these first migrants Sclavenoi and not Serbs or Croats. It's indicative because they clearly mentioned the Serbs and the Croats as part of another migration. Also I believe the accounts about them doesn't say anything about attacking Thessaloniki but they were invited to settle around Thessaloniki and from there they migrated to their current place. It's important to note that this account is anachronistic and is from the time of Constantine VII Flavius Porphyrogenitus reigning from 6 June 913 to 9 November 959 while he speaks of arrival of the Serbs in the first half of the 7-th century. Because of this, we can't take this account for granted, the same with Gesta Hungarorum written in the 12-th or 13-th century which speaks of Vlachs in Transylvania in the late 9-th century. Furthermore, the first Serbian ruler known by name in the account is Višeslav in c.780 AD. Everything before him is unknown with the first ruler being some unknown Prince.

Another thing is that the Bulgarians but also the Serbs and Croats seem to be of non-Slavic origin. At the time both Serbs and Bulgarians were clearly Slavic, 9-th century, they've started to make alliances with other Slavic tribes or to conquer them, enlarging their territory and assimilating the others. Only from that point on, you can speak about Bulgarians and Serbs. That's what happened when the Bulgarians conquered Macedonia. They imposed their rule to the other Slavic tribes there and from that point only the Bulgarian name survived and the Greeks clearly referred to the Slavic people in Macedonia as Bulgarians. Only from that point on we can speak about Bulgarians in Macedonia, a process that reflects first and foremost the dialectal continuum between the people of Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Actually, there are multiple medieval sources which say Serbs and Croats are Sclavenoi, and even that they originate from Sclavenoi.
Medieval authors clearly viewed them as such, and when Sclavenoi are mentioned, it could just be a less specific name for Serbs, for example.

What does archaeology say on this? Are there traces of 2 waves of Slavic settlement in the Western Balkans?

I also fail to see this paralel between Serbs and Bulgarians. A Bulgar elite subjugated a population of Slavs and Vlachs, and from then on we can speak about Bulgarians.
Serbs on the other hand weren't an elite, they were a large population and settled a compact territory, and expanded very little outside this territory until the 1200s.
The only tribe which Serbs possibly assimilated early on are the Diocleans.

Plashiputak
03-06-2021, 08:50 PM
Yes, I-Y3120 (aka YP196 aka S20602) seems to be very Slavic. Everything below Y3120 is connected to the Slavic migrations.

Pheter from this forum made a good map for Z17855 - it is a Bulgarian branch, roughly said.

43665

So its like the map of the First Bulgarian Empire? Avitohol seed is strong.

vasil
03-07-2021, 08:03 AM
So its like the map of the First Bulgarian Empire? Avitohol seed is strong.

Not Avitohol seed is trong but more like peasant slavic seed is trong.

vasil
03-07-2021, 08:41 AM
I believe there are no historical accounts that Antes settled on their own in Greece and Macedonia. The Slavic population that settled there were clearly called Sclavenoi by the Roman sources but relying on archaeological sources we also know that there were elements from both Prague-Korcak and Penkovka in Ipotesti-Candesti.
As for I-Y18331, there is no indication these arrived with the Slavs. And if these were Antes you would expect to see them in Bulgaria and Romania as well which we don't.
What we see is quite a diversity of I-Y18331 in Greece and Macedonia. There is also a big Jewish cluster downstream of I-Y18331. The Jews arrived and settled in the Roman Empire first before migrating to other parts of Europe. So this cluster was picked up by the Jews in the Roman Empire before the arrival of the Slavs. There are other indicators that these Y18331 group arrived in Greece and Macedonia earlier than the Slavs. The Chuvash sample on Yfull shares common ancestor with Greeks around the time of the Chernyakhov Culture and just before the Huns arrived from the east. You are probably aware that the Chuvash language is probably the closest thing to proto-Bulgar and the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic confederation. It's not a rocket science to connect the dots here and that members of these subclade would have assimilated into Huns and Romans before the Slavic expansions. It's telling these subclade is missing largely in Bulgarians and Serbs and if ever shows up, they would probably have close cousins in Macedonia and Greece which will indicate a recent migration.

You can't generalize and make it as simple as you've put it. If Sclavenoi were just Serbs and Croats the Roman sources would have called them as such. Instead they called these first migrants Sclavenoi and not Serbs or Croats. It's indicative because they clearly mentioned the Serbs and the Croats as part of another migration. Also I believe the accounts about them doesn't say anything about attacking Thessaloniki but they were invited to settle around Thessaloniki and from there they migrated to their current place. It's important to note that this account is anachronistic and is from the time of Constantine VII Flavius Porphyrogenitus reigning from 6 June 913 to 9 November 959 while he speaks of arrival of the Serbs in the first half of the 7-th century. Because of this, we can't take this account for granted, the same with Gesta Hungarorum written in the 12-th or 13-th century which speaks of Vlachs in Transylvania in the late 9-th century. Furthermore, the first Serbian ruler known by name in the account is Višeslav in c.780 AD. Everything before him is unknown with the first ruler being some unknown Prince.

Another thing is that the Bulgarians but also the Serbs and Croats seem to be of non-Slavic origin. At the time both Serbs and Bulgarians were clearly Slavic, 9-th century, they've started to make alliances with other Slavic tribes or to conquer them, enlarging their territory and assimilating the others. Only from that point on, you can speak about Bulgarians and Serbs. That's what happened when the Bulgarians conquered Macedonia. They imposed their rule to the other Slavic tribes there and from that point only the Bulgarian name survived and the Greeks clearly referred to the Slavic people in Macedonia as Bulgarians. Only from that point on we can speak about Bulgarians in Macedonia, a process that reflects first and foremost the dialectal continuum between the people of Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Like slavomir said Sclaveni was probably just a less specific term used by the Byzantines who probably didnt know of the terms Srbi and Hrvati and maybe it originated as a term that united them ie you have the Srbi and Hrvati tribes on their own but together they are the Sclaveni. This thing about the Serbians, Croats and Bulgarians not being Slavs is complete crap and is totaly not supported by anything maybe you can say Bulgarians and Serbs are South Slavs because we mixed with the local population and the Croats show some Celto-Germanic admixture but saying we are not Slavic is insane and btw the Slavic speaking population in Macedonia shows the lowest amount of Slavic admixture out of all Slavs in the world barelly enough to even be considered Slavs and not Vlacho-Albanians now as far as the original Bulgar tribe is concerned yes they werent Slavic but we are obviously not descended from them they just gave the name of the state because they founded it and ruled it. On the subject of Y18331 there is a person from the I2a project with origins from a village in the region of Sliven in Thrace that has ordered Big Y and is predicted to be Y18331>A2512 the origin of the Bulgarian population in lowland Thrace is probably from the Rhodopes, Aegean Thrace and Aegean Macedonia so maybe he makes a branch with the guy from Thasos who is close buy or he is just basal A2512 but no matter what it pushes the clade further east there is also a Thransylvanian who is predicted to be Y18331>A2512>A10959>Y23116 which is the Jewish cluster who are by the way Eastern European Jews and so that line is probably just a local Slavic line that they absorbed which is pretty commong among them so it turns out that my theory about Y18331 coming to the Balkans with the Slavs on the eastern side of the Carpathians isnt that far fetched and of course there is no other such group other than the Antes or it could be that it was brought as an absorbed Antian line by the Kuber group of Bulgars which is a more cringy theory but it doesnt seem at all likely that it was brought with the Sclaveni from the Prague-Korchak culture.

Velislav
03-07-2021, 09:11 AM
So its like the map of the First Bulgarian Empire? Avitohol seed is strong.

Yes, this branch were probably the carriers of the old-Bulgarian Slavic dialect while PH908 were probably the medieval Serbs or Serbo-Croatians. Modern borders and identities matter little in that respect - you can find both SNPs in different countries in the region.

Velislav
03-07-2021, 10:24 AM
This is quite comical

Sclaveni is a term used for tribes north of the lower Danube in the 6th & 7th centuries. Serbs and Croats have nothing to do with that, which are instead west Slavic groups which arrived from central Europe in the 8-9th cc

NB medieval Bulgaria mostly housed Turks (Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans) & Vlachs.
Bulgaria ceased to exist when it was utterly destroyed by the Rus. So-called Second Bulgarian Empire was created by Vlachs; & had little directly to do with the first Bulgaria . The region was then re-Slavonized from macedonia
On the other hand, macedonia is a blend of Romanoi & Slavs

So you registered only to post this nonsense?

-Serbs and Croats are not and weren't West Slavic.
-Mind the difference between Turks and Turkic - not the same thing.
-You don't know much about Bulgaria if you think we aren't Slavic. There is enough historical info about Slavic settlements, the Slavic toponymy and language. Those steppe groups and the Vlachs were there at times but that's not leaving the Slavic character of the Bulgarian population out of the picture.
-Kievan Rus did not destroy the First Bulgarian Kingdom but paved the way for the East Roman empire to do so a bit later.

Moderator
03-07-2021, 10:45 AM
Reminder to all members to keep the discussion civil, even if you disagree with another member.

Members are reminded to review the Terms of Service, which you all agreed to on signing up.

Aspar
03-07-2021, 10:45 AM
snip

Hold your horses...
I have no intention arguing with Serbs and Bulgarians who is more or less Slavic. Probably I wasn't quite clear I guess. What I meant to say is that neither the name of the Bulgarians nor the Serbs and the Croats are of Slavic origin. For the Bulgarians this is more obvious, less so for the Serbs and the Croats because we don't have many accounts about them.
However, their names can be easier to explain with some Indo-Iranic languages than with Balto-Slavic ones. Of course, there are proposals that derive from Balto-Slavic languages but it's not conclusive. I personally believe that explanations such as Russian 'сербать' - to sip or the word 'пасерб' which is with unknown etymology and which can be found only in Russian or Ukrainian are just laughable.

Besides, the first recorded people with that name, "Serboi", lived and were recorded just north of the Cacausus and along Volga. Not really the places where you expect to find early Slavs ain't it?

Other things to mention with the Balkan Serbs is that if we follow that anachronistic account I've written above, there are some cultural elements in relation with them which have their origins in the far east and Asia. Namely, White Serbia, as given in the account of Porphyrogenitus reflects symbolism in relation to the four cardinal directions, a symbolism strictly found in Asia. Black Tortoise of the North, Azure Dragon of the East, Vermilion Bird of the South and White Tiger of the West. White Serbia in that sense would means western Serbia, probably reference for the land of Bohemia and neighboring regions.

Other things are that some early accounts about the Serbs mentioned them how they buried their dead comrades with their horses. Such practice can be observed in a Serbian poem (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1257538?seq=1) about the death of Prince Marko. Such practice is unparalleled in the Slavic world and obviously has its origins again from the far east. Probably Sarmatians in question.

This however doesn't necessarily mean that the Serbs who arrived in the Balkans were non-Slavic, on the contrary, I believe they were Slavic. But this doesn't make all other Slavic tribes in the Balkans Serbs. The Slavs in the earlier accounts in both Romans and Franks are mentioned as Sclavenoi. There is a Frankish account about the Serbs on their borders, that is to say White Serbia, as people of the genus Sclavenoi. So the Serbs were just a tribe in the sea of other Slavic tribes. There is no Serbs in the Miracles of St.Demetrius, they are called Sclavenoi while mentioning many different tribes. There were also many close contacts between the Romans and the Slavs and many Slavic leaders were guests in Constantinople such as Perbundos. What are the chances the Romans or the Byzantines wouldn't know who they are dealing with? Why the 'slav' ending is so widespread in the early Slavs names such as Tomislav, Visheslav, Svyatoslav etc. if the name Sclavenoi was just an exonym? Why they were not Tomiserb, Visheserb, Svyatoserb if the ethnonym was Serb instead?

What you are saying is not scientific and ofc not really the case. Your approach is too simplistic...

vasil
03-07-2021, 10:57 AM
This is quite comical

Sclaveni is a term used for tribes north of the lower Danube in the 6th & 7th centuries. Serbs and Croats have nothing to do with that, which are instead west Slavic groups which arrived from central Europe in the 8-9th cc

NB medieval Bulgaria mostly housed Turks (Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans) & Vlachs.
Bulgaria ceased to exist when it was utterly destroyed by the Rus. So-called Second Bulgarian Empire was created by Vlachs; & had little directly to do with the first Bulgaria . The region was then re-Slavonized from macedonia
On the other hand, macedonia is a blend of Romanoi & Slavs

This is so funny that it isnt ever worth arguing as you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

vasil
03-07-2021, 11:01 AM
Hold your horses...
I have no intention arguing with Serbs and Bulgarians who is more or less Slavic. Probably I wasn't quite clear I guess. What I meant to say is that neither the name of the Bulgarians nor the Serbs and the Croats are of Slavic origin. For the Bulgarians this is more obvious, less so for the Serbs and the Croats because we don't have many accounts about them.
However, their names can be easier to explain with some Indo-Iranic languages than with Balto-Slavic ones. Of course, there are proposals that derive from Balto-Slavic languages but it's not conclusive. I personally believe that explanations such as Russian 'сербать' - to sip or the word 'пасерб' which is with unknown etymology and which can be found only in Russian or Ukrainian are just laughable.

Besides, the first recorded people with that name, "Serboi", lived and were recorded just north of the Cacausus and along Volga. Not really the places where you expect to find early Slavs ain't it?

Other things to mention with the Balkan Serbs is that if we follow that anachronistic account I've written above, there are some cultural elements in relation with them which have their origins in the far east and Asia. Namely, White Serbia, as given in the account of Porphyrogenitus reflects symbolism in relation to the four cardinal directions, a symbolism strictly found in Asia. Black Tortoise of the North, Azure Dragon of the East, Vermilion Bird of the South and White Tiger of the West. White Serbia in that sense would means western Serbia, probably reference for the land of Bohemia and neighboring regions.

Other things are that some early accounts about the Serbs mentioned them how they buried their dead comrades with their horses. Such practice can be observed in a Serbian poem (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1257538?seq=1) about the death of Prince Marko. Such practice is unparalleled in the Slavic world and obviously has its origins again from the far east. Probably Sarmatians in question.

This however doesn't necessarily mean that the Serbs who arrived in the Balkans were non-Slavic, on the contrary, I believe they were Slavic. But this doesn't make all other Slavic tribes in the Balkans Serbs. The Slavs in the earlier accounts in both Romans and Franks are mentioned as Sclavenoi. There is a Frankish account about the Serbs on their borders, that is to say White Serbia, as people of the genus Sclavenoi. So the Serbs were just a tribe in the sea of other Slavic tribes. There is no Serbs in the Miracles of St.Demetrius, they are called Sclavenoi while mentioning many different tribes. There were also many close contacts between the Romans and the Slavs and many Slavic leaders were guests in Constantinople such as Perbundos. What are the chances the Romans or the Byzantines wouldn't know who they are dealing with? Why the 'slav' ending is so widespread in the early Slavs names such as Tomislav, Visheslav, Svyatoslav etc. if the name Sclavenoi was just an exonym? Why they were not Tomiserb, Visheserb, Svyatoserb if the ethnonym was Serb instead?

What you are saying is not scientific and ofc not really the case. Your approach is too simplistic...

We have derailed the Z17855 origins thread enough i think at this point we just agree to disagree.

Aspar
03-07-2021, 11:34 AM
This is just philologists grasping at straws from in the days before archaeology, let alone aDNA, developed
it is an understandible human impulse to look for deep & mysterious links for tribal names, but in all likelihoood there is no actual link
the Bulgars, on the other hand, are indubitably a recent steppic group.

I'm probably not understood well because I love the philosophical approach concerning these matters.
Obviously both Bulgarians and Serbs are Slavic today and both have their Slavic languages. Both have Slavic DNA(if that kind of DNA even exist) in the sense of having medieval and ancient cousins in other Slavic countries.
At the end, it all sums up to the well known egg and the chicken and which one is older.
Simply, my believe is that neither the name of the Bulgarians nor the name of the Serbs, nor the name of the Macedonians for that matter are of Slavic origins and can't be explained well with their Slavic languages and that the people who are the progenitors of the languages they speak today called themselves Slavs, NOT Serbs, NOT Bulgarians, nor Macedonians for that matter.

As for who's given what and to who is a much of a dispute today but some of the most notable and early Slavic works and alphabet were created in the First Bulgarian Empire hands down.