Knez Dervan's Serbia and the Ethnogenisis of Balkan Serbs

[Bachus]

Sorbs and Balkans Serbs are not same people,

Sorbs were not part of Serbian tribe from eastern Germany they lived north of Serbs. Sorbs adopted Serbian name because they were in state federation with Serbs, name of Sorbs before they adopted Serbian name were ​Wends.

Serbs came from eastern Germany in VII century, of course that modern Serbs are not 100% same people as Sebs from VII century because of mixing with native Balkanites.

Same is with Croats, modern Croats are not same people as Croats which lived in White Croatia.
Western Ukrainians, Rusyns and southern Poles are closer to White Croats than modern Croats from Croatia.

Modern Magyars are not same people as proto-Magyars.
Modern Tukish people are not same people as Oghuz Turks.
Modern French are not same people as Franks.
Modern Germans are not same people as ancient Germanics.
Modern Italians are not same people as Romans.
Modern Greeks are not same people as ancient Greeks.
Modern Spaniards are not same people as ancient Iberians.
Modern northern Indians and Pakistanis are not same people as ancient Indo-Aryans.
Modern Iranians are not same people as ancient Persians.
Modern Egyptians are not same people as ancient Egyptians.
Modern Mexicans are not same people as Maya and Aztec people.
Modern Finns are not same people as ancient Finno-Ugric people.
Modern English people are not same people as Angle and Saxon tribe from Middle Age.

 

[hrvat22]

Bachus

Sorbs were not part of Serbian tribe from eastern Germany they lived north of Serbs. Sorbs adopted Serbian name because they were in state federation with Serbs,

Give me historical information about Serbs in that area.

Balkan Serbs are named in the Balkans in Greece, therefore no Serbs exist around Sorbs.

Before that they come from a place called

in a
region called by them Boïki,

 

[Miroslav]

Sorbs were not part of Serbian tribe from eastern Germany they lived north of Serbs. Sorbs adopted Serbian name because they were in state federation with Serbs, name of Sorbs before they adopted Serbian name were Wends.

Serbs came from eastern Germany in VII century, of course that modern Serbs are not 100% same people as Serbs from VII century because of mixing with native Balkanites.

Your list is another typical denial of historical and genetic evidence which oppose the generally promoted theory by Serbian DNA Project. The generalizations are not definitive in the same amount for each of these listed groups. Sorbs were not part of the Serbian tribe because they were the same people with same ethnonym (Sorbs=Serbs). At the time there were no two separate populations with different but similar ethnonyms (Sorbs, Serbs). You are factually wrong, and the assertion that Sorbs adopted the Serbian name is a lie, while the name Wends was actually an exonym by the Germans used for Slavic people in general, including for the So(e)rb tribe. Basically with your saying that the modern Serbs are not the same as Serbs from VII century Eastern Germany because of mixing with native Balkanites you admit that dominance of I2-Dinaric in modern Serbs is of foreign origin because Sorbs have over 60% R1a and absence of any significant percentage of haplogroup I2 in general.

 

[Wonomyro]

It is interesting that Balkan Serbs, unlike Sorbs in Lusatia, actually do not use a root form "Srb", as it is usually translated to English (Serb) and other foreign languages. They use the from "Srbin" which should be properly translated to English as “Serbian”. Srbian means “one from Serbia”. I’ve never heard them to say “Srb” for themselves. It is always “Srbin”.

It seems that "Srbin" became a "real" ethnonym over time. Croatian sources until middle 19. century regularly call their country Servija (Servia) and its population Servijani (Servians).

 

[Miroslav]

We are going off topic with linguistics, but just to add. Servia and Servians is the same as Serbia and Serbians (v=b), while in medieval Serbian documents like Dušan's Code (14th century) are used terms such as "Sebri", "Srbljin", "Srbljem" etc. -in is a suffix, as well as -at in "Hrvat" (and some supposed same or similar Iranian origin of hrv=srb), it is also recorded "Surbia", "Serbulia", "Sorbulia", in Lusatia due to influence by Germans changed Serb to Sorb. Heinz Schuster-Šewc considered origin from Indo-European *serbh- / *sirbh- / *surbh- (meaning "sip", "breast-feed", "flow").

 

[Wonomyro]

We are going off topic with linguistics, but just to add. Servia and Servians is the same as Serbia and Serbians (v=b), while in medieval Serbian documents like Dušan's Code (14th century) are used terms such as "Sebri", "Srbljin", "Srbljem" etc. -in is a suffix, as well as -at in "Hrvat" (and some supposed same or similar Iranian origin of hrv=srb), it is also recorded "Surbia", "Serbulia", "Sorbulia", in Lusatia due to influence by Germans changed Serb to Sorb. Heinz Schuster-Šewc considered origin from Indo-European *serbh- / *sirbh- / *surbh- (meaning "sip", "breast-feed", "flow").

Don't worry, @Miroslav, we are still on topic. I am just using linguistics to support what you already concluded from genetics. I agree with all what you said above except that there is no analogy between Hrv-at and Srb-in. Here is why:

1. "Croat" was never "Hrv", always "Hrvat". There is no "Cro" except as an abbreviation...:grin:

2. Lusatian "Serb" is just "Srb" not "Srbin".

e.g.

Lower Sorbian: Serb
Czech: Srb
Ukrainian: серб
...
Serbian: Srbin (exception!)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Serb#Translations

3. Srbin is analogue to Hrvatin (plural: Hrvatini).

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatini (Hrvatini = people from Croatia)

That means that "Srbin" is "Serbian" the same way as "Hrvatin" is "Croatian". Original ethnonyms are therefore "Srb" and "Hrvat", not "Srbin" and "Hrvat".

This tells us that Balkan Serb(ian)s got their name after the region (Serbia), not vice versa.

 

[Garrick]

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.

No.

Bavarian Geographer doesn't mention Croats.
...

Historians are scientists, as all scientists they base their scientific papers on the facts, not speculations.

We already discussed the Croatian name in Dalmatia, it is mentioned first time in 9th century, not before.

No one Frankish chronicle, or Eastern Roman chronicle, or any other source mention Croats before 852.

For example Duke Borna was named as "Duke of Dalmatia and Liburnia".

About Croatian name, what is right question, I will continue in another thread.

 

[Wonomyro]

No.
Bavarian Geographer doesn't mention Croats.

So what? Other sources do. Toponyms do.

Historians are scientists, as all scientists they base their scientific papers on the facts, not speculations.

There are many historians and many theories.

We already discussed the Croatian name in Dalmatia, it is mentioned first time in 9th century, not before.

They were mentioned as Slavs. Hopefully there are two inscriptions of duke Branimir from 9th century: "dux Sclavorum" and "dux Chroatorum". The two were obviously synonyms. The Branimir’s predecessors had Slavic names too. We have no reason not to believe that they also called themselves Croats.

No one Frankish chronicle, or Eastern Roman chronicle, or any other source mention Croats before 852.

They mention Slavs. These were the same guys as I showed you above.

For example Duke Borna was named as "Duke of Dalmatia and Liburnia".

So what?