Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: I-Z17855 origins

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    154
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Slavic + Thracian
    Nationality
    Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y31991
    mtDNA (M)
    HV-T16311C!
    Y-DNA (M)
    I-S17250

    Bulgaria European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Plashiputak View Post
    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Velislav For This Useful Post:

     Vokil (03-07-2021)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    154
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Slavic + Thracian
    Nationality
    Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y31991
    mtDNA (M)
    HV-T16311C!
    Y-DNA (M)
    I-S17250

    Bulgaria European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob. View Post
    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.

  4. #23
    Generic Mod Account
    Posts
    2,977
    Sex
    Omitted

    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.
    Forum Reminders - Please remember to:
    Report any problematic content Adhere to Anthrogenica Hidden Content Discuss respectfully Be mindful of sharing user data (both yours and others) English language only in main forum area PM 'Moderator' for basic maintenance tasks or information about member suspensions or bans

  5. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    499
    Ethnicity
    Macedonian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y16729
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by vasil View Post
    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 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...
    Last edited by Aspar; 03-07-2021 at 10:58 AM.
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

  6. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Sex
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Ethnicity
    NW Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-Y151633>I-FT10714
    mtDNA (M)
    H4d

    Bulgaria North Macedonia Greek Macedonia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob. View Post
    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.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to vasil For This Useful Post:

     Vokil (03-07-2021)

  8. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Sex
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Ethnicity
    NW Bulgarian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-Y151633>I-FT10714
    mtDNA (M)
    H4d

    Bulgaria North Macedonia Greek Macedonia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    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 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.

  9. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    499
    Ethnicity
    Macedonian
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-Y16729
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob. View Post
    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.
    Distance to: Aspar_scaled
    0.01995435 35.00% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2 + 65.00% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02156914 40.60% HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av1 + 59.40% ITA_Rome_MA:RMPR65
    0.02223177 55.20% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2:I8215 + 44.80% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19
    0.02300447 61.80% BGR_IA:I5769 + 38.20% UKR_Chernyakhiv_Legedzine:MJ19

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. R1b- L2 Origins
    By Celticvikings in forum L2
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2021, 07:58 AM
  2. Origins of AMH:
    By Boreas in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 05:00 AM
  3. My origins
    By Afshar in forum Turkish
    Replies: 216
    Last Post: 08-17-2017, 03:06 PM
  4. GPS origins
    By firemonkey in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 08:10 PM
  5. M64. Origins ?
    By rick_r in forum R1b-Z2103/Z2105
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 06:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •