White Croat genetics in Serbs?

[Jana]

I found some interesting posts while browsing Serb DNA forums.It seems quite a few Serbs with slavic haplogroups have matches among Carpathian Slavs and area of southern Poland/west Ukraine.

Examples:


The fact that only one SNP shares Rusyn with Ukraine-Lemko speaks of an older relationship, certainly from the period before migration. This would mean that this branch of the haplogroup R1a may have entered the processes of Serbian ethnogenesis in the north and that it came to the Balkans with the Serbs. Of course, more SNP tests will be needed for more members of this branch, but for now it seems to me that this branch is another good candidate for the proto-Serbian haplogroup. Other Slavic haplogroups present among Serbs also show a clear connection with Galicia and the Ruthenian population of Lemko.Suffice it to mention only I2-PH908> FT14506.


As far I can see, Bochniak or Bochnak surname should be of Lemko Rusyn origins, and Siennów is not far away from the region settled by Rusyns. So if your grandma line is of Rusyn origins, we could expect the same for your paternal line. It wouldn't be unusual, since Serbs have lot of Ydna matches among Rusyns and other populations of Carpathian highlanders.

Anyway, your closest matches in A22312 group are among Serbs, but that connection could be quite old, from the period of Slavic migrations in early middle ages. We should wait the end of Yfull analysis to see time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA).

Ofcourse, what this guy says is pure wishful thinking since medieval tribe of Serbs has no connection with Rusyns or Galicia/Carpathians, it is exact location where white Croats were recorded.

from english wiki about Lemko:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemkos


Several hypotheses account for the origin of the Hutsuls, however, like all the Rusyns, they most probably have a diverse ethnogenetic origin. The Lemkos (and other Carpatho-Rusyns) are considered to be descendants of the medieval White Croats, and a Vlach/Romanian migration in the 14th and 15th centuries.

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


White Croats, or simply known as Croats, were a group of Slavic tribes who lived among other West and East Slavic tribes in the area of Bohemia, Lesser Poland, Galicia (north of Carpathian Mountains) and modern-day Western Ukraine. They were documented primarily by foreign medieval authors and managed to preserve their ethnic name until the early 20th century, primarily in Lesser Poland. It is considered that they were assimilated into Czech, Polish and Ukrainian ethnos, and are one of the predecessors of the Rusyn people.


It is thought that White Croats were part of the Antes tribal polity who migrated to Galicia in the 3rd-4th century, under pressure by invading Huns and Goths.

Jozef Šafárik (1795–1861) and Lubor Niederle (1865–1944) placed ancient Croatia in Eastern Galicia, and extending west to the Vistula River.

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

White Serbia,on the other hand, was located in different part of central Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Serbia



According to Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1898), Gyula Moravcsik (1949) and Jaroslav Rudnyckyj (1962–1972) unlike Croats, there is no proof that Serbs ever lived within Bohemia or in Eastern Galicia, only that they lived near Bohemia

The first group of scholars argued the homeland existed between rivers Elbe and Saale, the second in the upper course of rivers Vistula and Oder, and the third from Elbe and Saale to the upper course of Vistula

[Lucas]

Autro-Hungary used to distinguish White Croat ethnicity in their censuses in Galicia. I read mother of Jan Paul II has such nationality in their Austro-Hungarian documents.
But it was made to divide Polish nation there.

[cass]

E.Carpathia looks like a proper direction of Croatian/Hercegovinian cradle.

afaikr Czekanowski supposed that Nordoid Hutsuls of some valleys are the remains of White Croats.

http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/wp-content/uploads/Ris.-5.38.jpg

other nations
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=5590

[MoroLP]

Will try to be concise although could go in more details, but perhaps will leave it out for another article of my blog (where updated PH908 subclades migration (https://southslavsdna.blogspot.com/2019/07/)).

This image, 98676, with my additional edit of black and blue lines, shows in the simplified manner the general migration waves of the Slavs to the Balkans. The main Eastern route via the Eastern Carpathians (black) and another Western route via the Moravian Gate (blue). The image in comparison to other similar images is seemingly based on archaeological research.

1) According to the historiographical data on the migration of the Serbs and (White) Croats to the Balkans: the 7th-century Frankish source by Fredegar mentions the Serbs in 630-631 as a tribe that was for a long time ruled by the Frankish kingdom, indicating that they settled the Saale-Elbe valley since the 6th century and the same is stated in DAI, and that unsuccessfully revolted against the Franks during the Samo's union. According to DAI's origo gentis one brother took "half of the folk" and "came as the refugee to Heraclius".

1.1) According to the historiographical data, we don't know why, how and from where the Serbs came to the Saale-Elbe valley in present-day Germany, but know that were already present at the mentioned valley before the migration to the Balkans, that there is not a single evidence that Serbs ever lived in Eastern Galicia only that they lived near Bohemia, that the 18-19th century ethnonym of the Boykos (as well as Lemkos and Hutsuls) have nothing to do with the toponym of Boiki (Bohemia) mentioned in De Administrando Imperio, and the Ukrainian & Russian etc. scholarship unanimously consider Rusyns i.e. the population of Galicia and Eastern Carpathians as the descendants of the White Croats, but also that those Croats who arrived to the Balkans were not from there yet from Bohemia or other region in the West.

1.2) So, a part of the Serbs arbitrarily migrated to the South for no exact reason but probably in the context of the unsuccessful war with the Franks, at least while there was still a Slavic political alliance of Samo that stretched south to Carniola (until 658). They asked for protection from Emperor Heraclius and first settled in the province of Thessaloniki, but for some reason they decided to return, when they crossed the Danube they changed their minds and moved to the area of the Western Balkans which was previously devastated by the Avars and Slavs. So Serbs are not mentioned in the context of the arrival and wars against the Avars either in the North or in the South. Eventually can be considered that arrived near Thuringia in the North as refugees from the Avarian rule or even less were some Avarian border guards for the boundary with the Germanic peoples. Their local migration in the Balkans from the perspective of mobility and voluntary decision does not indicate how they could have been particularly numerous. They founded their own Sclavinia, assimilated with the natives and other Slavic tribes.

1.3) After the arrival, according to the detailed and credible description from DAI, between 850-931 happened 80 years which is approximately 3 generations of civil war and war against the more numerous and powerful Bulgaria, which must have left a huge demographic mark on the population of Serbia because is mentioned the constant flight and death of the elite and later explicit depopulation of Serbia in which the majority of the population moved to Bulgaria, a minority fled to Croatia, and then happened a planned repopulation of Serbia by the population from surrounding countries. Demographic events like this cannot be ignored because indicate a discontinuity between populations from different periods and as such the contemporary distribution could be misleading for the early medieval period and connection with a single medieval tribe. To this event must be additionally added the effects of demographic events during plagues, the Ottoman conquest, subsequent Balkan and World Wars and so on.

2) According to the archaeological data (Sedov) there happened a Slavic migration of middle Danube Avaro-Slav type of culture and that this migrant group has brought the S(o)erbian language and identity, and that contemporary Upper Sorbian dialect, which is spoken by the majority of Lusatian Sorbs, is related to that culture.

2.1) A part the linguistic consideration, the archaeological data could give a clue from where the Serbian tribe arrived to the valley in the North, and that is from somewhere around the middle Danube valley. However, the culture in the Danube valley is generally related to the Slavs and is not an evidence for a single tribe, in this case of the Serbs, and additionally that previously arrived (and lived as a formed tribe) in the Carpathians and even if presumably did they again were not the only tribe that (could have) arrived from that direction.

2.2) This archaeological data and thesis problematize the migration of the Serbs to the Balkans because gives different possibilities: A) according to data, they moved from the Middle Danube region to Polabian region and then their branch returned to the Balkans and settled in Thessaloniki and / or province of Dalmatia B) part of them remained in the Danube region where they settled and branch moved to Polabian region and their part additionally returned to the Balkans and settled in Thessaloniki and / or province of Dalmatia C) part remained in the Danube region and settled in Thessaloniki and / or Dalmatia, and the branch moved to Polabian region from where never returned.

3) According to the genetic (genealogical) data the highest diversity of contemporary PH908 (DYS448=19) and ancestral Carpathian-Dniester cluster (DYS448=20) is in Western Ukraine, South-Eastern Poland, and Belarus, and as such the haplogroup migrated via Eastern Carpathians to the Balkans.

3.1) The tribes of Serbs at the time of migration and later was located exclusively on the territory or border of today's Germany, where are from now only two subclades of PH908 with some partial connection to contemporary Serbs (Z16983 > A493, FT16449 > Y99608 and FT16499 > MF2888), while contemporary Sorbs in Lusatia have 0% PH908 - so for now can be only argued that a small part of the PH908 could have been related with the tribe of Serbs. The fact that subclades located in Southern Poland, Ukraine and Russia were found among contemporary Serbs is not a confirmation of relation and arrival with the some "Proto-Serbs" at all, on the contrary, it creates a problem because not all subclades could come with one tribe which according to data never lived there, including the mentioned subclade I-FT14506.

If some men belong to subclades whose bearers are exclusively or primarily in Southern Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and there are also in Bulgaria, then it can be hardly argued that their medieval ancestors came with one particular tribe, in this case of Serbs for who there's no data that ever lived there in those centuries and most probably have nothing to do with the Carpathians or previous activity of the Pannonian Avars, later of the Bulgars, etc. only with a rebellion initiated only in the 7th century. It is not based on any data, evidence, fact, it is ignorant because is going against the facts including that other tribes actually lived in that region among them specifically the Croats. Also, the Slovenes as Southern Slavs closest to the Western Slavs and Sorbs have a miserably low frequency and variation of PH908. Additionally, the social organization of the tribes and events at the time exclude the nationalistic-romantic idea that the population which carried a specific tribal identity was always the same and didn't change.

So, PH908 in Serbia and near countries is much more likely to be associated with general Slavic archaeological culture that existed in the Danube valley, which expanded from Carpathians and from there to the Danube valley in various directions by many Slavic tribes of which the Serbs, perhaps (!), were only one of them. Other tribes are Timočani, Braničevci, seven Slavic tribes from Bulgaria, and many tribes who surely settled and lived near Thessaloniki and not like Serbs who only came and went away from Thessaloniki. This is seemingly further supported by the detailed description of DAI of depopulation of Serbia and repopulation from near countries in the 10th century.

It doesn't mean that the specific genetic ancestry i.e. some specific PH908 subclades are or most probably are of (White) Croatian origin. Seemingly there's archaeological connection between regions inhabited by Croats in Ukrainian Eastern Carpathians and Bohemia which indicate migration from East to the West direction. However, as mentioned in 2.2, the migration of the Croats can be also explained differently, and that is also done in scholarship. So, the migration of the Croats and Serbs from Bohemia & Germany mentioned in DAI could be based on traditional legends interpreted in the contemporary Byzantine political knowledge which knew that some groups of Serbs and Croats lived in that regions in the 9-10th century and drew parallels with previous event but the events probably were not the same in the 7th century.


There exist several hypotheses on the date and historical context of the migration to the Adriatic Sea, most often being related to the Pannonian Avars activity in late 6th and early 7th century.[104][105] It is considered that the uprising happened after failed Siege of Constantinople (626),[106][107] in the period of the Slavic uprising led by Samo against the Avars in 632,[108][109] or 635-641 when the Avars were defeated by Kubrat of the Bulgars, which are also interpreted as revolts when were already settled.[110] As the Avars were enemies of the Byzantine Empire the involvement of Emperor Heraclius on the side of Croats cannot be entirely excluded.[107] Their exact place of migration is uncertain, while some scholars considered it to be around Bohemia and Polabia, other argued to be in Eastern Carpathians and Galicia according to historical-archaeological and linguistical data about the main movement of the Avars and Slavs,[111] and that "served as a direct link between Eastern and Southern Slavs".[112]

When are taken into account all historical, archaeological and genetical data is more logical and plausible that Croats and Serbs represent a revolt of already settled or in near-vicinity population, while the Croats and Serbs in Bohemia & Germany arrived from the East Carpathians and / or middle Danube valley and never returned back. In this sense, the Croats would directly descend from the Carpathian Croats and not indirectly via Bohemian Croats, and as such we would have a direct historical and genetical link between contemporary populations in Western Balkans and a medieval Carpathian tribe.

[MoroLP]

E.Carpathia looks like a proper direction of Croatian/Hercegovinian cradle.

other nations
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=5590

The book by geneticist Oleg Balanovsky can be downloaded at Academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/27499287/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B4_% D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D0%91%D0%B0%D 0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0% B9_%D0%9E.%D0%9F_2015_.pdf) (2015).

[Mingle]

There was likely more than one White Serbia (as well as White Croatia). The Serbs that were living in the greater Lusatia region probably came from Ukraine/Carpathia before settling there. A second Serbia is mentioned by Frederick I where he mentions that Hungarians had to pass Serbia en route to Pannonia. If they had to pass Serbia to reach their current location, it implies that Serbs used to live in modern Ukraine before migrating to Lusatia.


"The position of northern Serbia seems to have been known to another Latin author (Frederick I, patriarch of Aquileia) since the beginning of the 10th century. Namely, in the document written between ca. 900 and 921, it is said that the Hungarians moved to Pannonia from Serbia (Ungarorum gens a Servia
egressa in Pannoniam)."



There was also a second White Croatia in Bohemia (in the same region of Central Europe as White Serbia). Before migrating to Southeastern Europe, the White Croats likely passed through Bohemia before settling in Dalmatia/Croatia.

http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg



The info was previously mentioned by vbnetkhio here (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?308291-White-Serb-Sorb-gedmatch-result!&p=6363202&viewfull=1#post6363202), I'm just paraphrasing.

So basically, there were two White Serbias, one in the Elbe Basin (Lusatia/Bohemia area) and one in Carpathia/Ukraine.

And there were also two White Croatias in the same regions, one in the Elbe Basin and one in Carpathia/Ukraine.

Also, both modern Serbia and Croatia received Antes/Sclaveni input from far eastern Europe prior to the later Slavic migration that came from Central Europe, which could also explain some matches:

https://i.imgur.com/qbfUa4r.jpg

[MoroLP]

There was likely more than one White Serbia (as well as White Croatia). The Serbs that were living in the greater Lusatia region probably came from Ukraine/Carpathia before settling there. A second Serbia is mentioned by Frederick I where he mentions that Hungarians had to pass Serbia en route to Pannonia. If they had to pass Serbia to reach their current location, it implies that Serbs used to live in modern Ukraine before migrating to Lusatia.





There was also a second White Croatia in Bohemia (http://labphys.tf.czu.cz/CeskeKmeny.jpg) (in the same region of Central Europe as White Serbia). Before migrating to Southeastern Europe, the White Croats likely passed through Bohemia before settling in Dalmatia/Croatia.



The info was previously mentioned by vbnetkhio here (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?308291-White-Serb-Sorb-gedmatch-result!&p=6363202&viewfull=1#post6363202), I'm just paraphrasing.

So basically, there were two White Serbias, one in the Elbe Basin (Lusatia/Bohemia area) and one in Carpathia/Ukraine.

And there were also two White Croatias in the same regions, one in the Elbe Basin and one in Carpathia/Ukraine.

Also, both modern Serbia and Croatia received Antes/Sclaveni input (https://i.imgur.com/qbfUa4r.jpg) from far eastern Europe prior to the later Slavic migration that came from Central Europe, which could also explain some matches.

Sorry, but there wasn't. You're misunderstanding the sources.

White Serbia is never recorded in the historical sources. It is an invented term due to the mention of "White Serbs" in DAI, who lived in "Boiki" (Bohemia). As such, the so-called "White Serbia" and even "White" Serbs are invented according to the analogy of "White / Great Croatia" and "White Croats". Also, it doesn't make sense that exist Western Serbs (White) when don't exist Eastern Serbs like in the case of Carpathian Croats, exist only Southern Serbs who could be Eastern Serbs from the Byzantine perspective.

As said previously, the Serbs didn't arrive to Lusatia from Carpathians because the archaeological data indicate they came from middle Danube valley, and not even directly to Lusatia (only afterwards). There is no mention of second Serbia in the Carpathians in the source by Zivkovic, those who cited him obviously didn't cite or understand correctly:


The position of northern Serbia seems to have been known to another Latin author since the beginning of the 10th century. Namely, in the document written between ca. 900 and 921, it is said that the Hungarians moved to Pannonia from Serbia (Ungarorum gens a Serviaegressa in Pannoniam).453 This Servia is able to be only the same White Serbia as mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

This is again cited from "Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku II, ed. F. Kos, Ljubljana 1906", N334 (https://archive.org/details/gradivozazgodov00kosgoog/page/n344/mode/2up), where's said:
Federicus patriarcha sedit annis Lili. Iste mirabiliter ecclesiam gubernavit. Hujus tempore imperante Karolo III Ungarorum gens a Servia egressa in Pannoniam, quae adjungitur finibus ecclesiae Aquilegensis, primitus venit et ejectis Avaris ibi habitare coepit. Erat enim gens crudelissima, carnem comedens humanam et sanguinem bibens pro potu. Quos Federicus patriarcha repressit et longius effugavit, reddens Hesperiae pacem, quae caput extat Italiae. Super cujus sepulchrum in Aquilegia est epitaphium...

During the time of Frederick I of Aquileia 901–922, and other chapters according to which in those years Hungarians plundered Italy and Carantania, doesn't indicate anything about Carpathians. Hungarians were already settled in Pannonia in that period and the Latin author, mistakenly, recorded that the Hungarians moved to Pannonia from Serbia during one of these raids. Possibly during retreat or whatever they passed through Serbia i.e. Slavic land. In other words, this Latin source as such is problematic as most probably doesn't refer whatsoever to some Northern Serbia. It does if you read part of the sentence completely ignoring the whole context of the document and other events related to it. This was also a poor attempt by Zivkovic to find a new source about Northern Serbia, but not like it is the only criticism of his study on DAI.

[Mingle]

White Serbia is never recorded in the historical sources. It is an invented term due to the mention of "White Serbs" in DAI, who lived in "Boiki" (Bohemia). As such, the so-called "White Serbia" and even "White" Serbs are invented according to the analogy of "White / Great Croatia" and "White Croats". Also, it doesn't make sense that exist Western Serbs (White) when don't exist Eastern Serbs like in the case of Carpathian Croats, exist only Southern Serbs who could be Eastern Serbs from the Byzantine perspective.

Well, I always thought of "White Serbia" as just a convenient name to refer to the region in the northern half of Europe that Serbs lived in before their migration to the Balkans to distinguish it from modern Serbia. Even if it was invented later, I don't think its a problem.

Are you sure that "white" meant "west" rather than "north"? According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction#Northern_Eurasia), "white" meant "north" in Slavic cultures. Their citation is Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary. If it meant "north", that would make more sense.


As said previously, the Serbs didn't arrive to Lusatia from Carpathians because the archaeological data indicate they came from middle Danube valley, and not even directly to Lusatia (only afterwards). There is no mention of second Serbia in the Carpathians in the source by Zivkovic, those who cited him obviously didn't cite or understand correctly:

This is again cited from "Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku II, ed. F. Kos, Ljubljana 1906", N334, where's said:

During the time of Frederick I 901–922, and other chapters according to which in those years Hungarians plundered Italy and Carantania, doesn't indicate anything about Carpathians. Hungarians were already settled in Pannonia in that period and the Latin author, mistakenly, recorded that the Hungarians moved to Pannonia from Serbia during one of these raids. Possibly during retreat or whatever they passed through Serbia i.e. Slavic land. In other words, this Latin source as such is problematic as most probably doesn't refer whatsoever to some Northern Serbia. It does if you read part of the sentence completely ignoring the whole context of the document and other events related to it. This was also a poor attempt by Zivkovic to find a new source about Northern Serbia, but not like it is the only criticism of his study on DAI.


Okay.

The Latin source seems to refer to Serbia as being modern Ukraine based on the phrase "Ungarorum gens a Servia egressa in Pannoniam", but its possible that Frederick I was mistaken when when he wrote that as you said.

[MoroLP]

Are you sure that "white" meant "west" rather than "north"? According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction#Northern_Eurasia), "white" meant "north" in Slavic cultures. Their citation is Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary. If it meant "north", that would make more sense.

In historiography it is generally considered that it's related to the cardinal direction of the Steppe i.e. not of Slavic culture and as such means West and their homeland is somewhere in the East. However, from Byzantine and local perspective it makes more sense to be North from the specific population in the South. We also have White (Northern) and Red (Southern) Croatia in the province of Dalmatia.

[Ljubic]

What happened to the Croatian noble they wanted to test genetically? We had a thread about him last year in the Croatia section of the forum

[vbnetkhio]

Sorry, but there wasn't. You're misunderstanding the sources.

White Serbia is never recorded in the historical sources. It is an invented term due to the mention of "White Serbs" in DAI, who lived in "Boiki" (Bohemia). As such, the so-called "White Serbia" and even "White" Serbs are invented according to the analogy of "White / Great Croatia" and "White Croats". Also, it doesn't make sense that exist Western Serbs (White) when don't exist Eastern Serbs like in the case of Carpathian Croats, exist only Southern Serbs who could be Eastern Serbs from the Byzantine perspective.

As said previously, the Serbs didn't arrive to Lusatia from Carpathians because the archaeological data indicate they came from middle Danube valley, and not even directly to Lusatia (only afterwards). There is no mention of second Serbia in the Carpathians in the source by Zivkovic, those who cited him obviously didn't cite or understand correctly:

and where did they live before settling in the middle Danube valley?




This is again cited from "Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku II, ed. F. Kos, Ljubljana 1906", N334 (https://archive.org/details/gradivozazgodov00kosgoog/page/n344/mode/2up), where's said:

During the time of Frederick I of Aquileia 901–922, and other chapters according to which in those years Hungarians plundered Italy and Carantania, doesn't indicate anything about Carpathians. Hungarians were already settled in Pannonia in that period and the Latin author, mistakenly, recorded that the Hungarians moved to Pannonia from Serbia during one of these raids. Possibly during retreat or whatever they passed through Serbia i.e. Slavic land. In other words, this Latin source as such is problematic as most probably doesn't refer whatsoever to some Northern Serbia. It does if you read part of the sentence completely ignoring the whole context of the document and other events related to it. This was also a poor attempt by Zivkovic to find a new source about Northern Serbia, but not like it is the only criticism of his study on DAI.

this Latin source mentions Hungarians expelling Avars from Pannonia. it looks like it's describing the initial Hungarian conquest.

[vbnetkhio]

I found some interesting posts while browsing Serb DNA forums.It seems quite a few Serbs with slavic haplogroups have matches among Carpathian Slavs and area of southern Poland/west Ukraine.

Examples:





Ofcourse, what this guy says is pure wishful thinking since medieval tribe of Serbs has no connection with Rusyns or Galicia/Carpathians, it is exact location where white Croats were recorded.

from english wiki about Lemko:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemkos



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






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

White Serbia,on the other hand, was located in different part of central Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Serbia

why do you think Croats have a claim on the entire east Carpathian region?

here's a realistic map from Croatian Wikipedia which shows early medieval mentions of the Croat tribe:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Croats_in_10th_century.jpg

there is enough space in the east Carpathians for White Serbs and a couple of other Slavic tribes too.

[Maintenance]

Why are they called "White Croats" ?

[vbnetkhio]

Well, I always thought of "White Serbia" as just a convenient name to refer to the region in the northern half of Europe that Serbs lived in before their migration to the Balkans to distinguish it from modern Serbia. Even if it was invented later, I don't think its a problem.

Are you sure that "white" meant "west" rather than "north"? According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction#Northern_Eurasia), "white" meant "north" in Slavic cultures. Their citation is Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary. If it meant "north", that would make more sense.



Okay.

The Latin source seems to refer to Serbia as being modern Ukraine based on the phrase "Ungarorum gens a Servia egressa in Pannoniam", but its possible that Frederick I was mistaken when when he wrote that as you said.

In Bohemia Charvate and Charvatce (Croats and little Croats) are mentioned. These Croats were never called "white", somebody correct me if i'm wrong.

Only those in Galicia (and those in the Balkans later) were specifically mentioned as White Croats, so could it in fact mean East?
or just a tribal name given for another reason, unrelated to steppe terminology?

[MoroLP]

1) and where did they live before settling in the middle Danube valley?

2) this Latin source mentions Hungarians expelling Avars from Pannonia. it looks like it's describing the initial Hungarian conquest.

1) We don't know and can only guess. Historiography and archaeology give different conclusions. Claiming that the Serbian tribe originates from Carpathians is extrapolation based on archaeological and genetical data which is in this case used for positive confirmation bias. The thesis is not based in a scientific manner.

2) That document could be used to argument various things and as such loses credibility to be reliable. Pannonian Avars were defeated already in the late 8th century, what happened is Hungarian conquest and assimilation of Slavic-Turkic speaking population in Pannonia in late 9th and early 10th century.

[MoroLP]

Why do you think Croats have a claim on the entire east Carpathian region?

Here's a realistic map from Croatian Wikipedia which shows early medieval mentions of the Croat tribe:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Croats_in_10th_century.jpg

There is enough space in the east Carpathians for White Serbs and a couple of other Slavic tribes too.

This is not a realistic map as the author doesn't even knows where are placed Ukrainian Croats. It doesn't even place them properly in the Ukrainian regions and near the Gords where the scholarship places the Carpathians Croats. All the Southwestern regions of Ukraine, see Ukrainian Carpathians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Carpathians), which are literally at the Carpathians and not only outside the mountain range, is considered as their land. Also they are not only placed in the region of Western Ukraine but also to the near South-eastern Poland (Galicia). We know there were other Slavic tribes near them to the East and West, but there's no point arguing that there was place for another tribe which was never mentioned inhabiting there from 7th to 10th century. That's not an argument, then we are not discussing anymore any factual possibility.

Croats were called "white" in only two historical sources. First is Constantine VII in De Administrando Imperio (10th century) in which although are clearly placed near Bavaria and the Franks they are also plundered by the Pechenegs etc. which indicates that the chapters were based on different archival sources and narratives which knew something about the Carpathian Croats or perhaps the Croats inhabited all the narrow Carpathian territory in between the Czech and Ukrainian Croats as some scholars think. Second is Nestor the Chronicler in his Primary Chronicle (12th century).

Eastern i.e. Carpathian Croats are never mentioned as "white" in historical sources.

[vbnetkhio]

1) We don't know and can only guess. Historiography and archaeology give different conclusions. Claiming that the Serbian tribe originates from Carpathians is extrapolation based on archaeological and genetical data which is in this case used for positive confirmation bias. The thesis is not based in a scientific manner.

Based on the archaeological data, Panonnian Slavs came trough the Ukraine>Moldova>Wallachia route. See that map Mingle posted on the previous page, it's made by the Czech archaeologist Zdeněk Váňa.
The questions are, did a tribe with the name Serb already form before they settled in Pannonia? and did some stay behind in Ukraine, Moldova or Wallachia?


2) That document could be used to argument various things and as such loses credibility to be reliable. Pannonian Avars were defeated already in the late 8th century, what happened is Hungarian conquest and assimilation of Slavic-Turkic speaking population in Pannonia in late 9th and early 10th century.

It doesn't say defeated in a battle, just expelled. Surely some of these Slavic-Turkic locals (i.e remains of Avars) fled when the Hungarian raids began.

Let's look at some other things mentioned in the paragraph: in the time of Charles III (879 – 929), a tribe called Hungarians, who eat human flesh and drink blood, entered Pannonia trough Serbia, expelled the Avars, and started living there. Patriarch Frederick defeated them and they fled, leaving Italy in peace. His tombstone reads: ...

so it's a short summary of the entire Hungarian initial raids and their settlement of Pannonia, and raids of North Italy. not just one raid.

[vbnetkhio]

This is not a realistic map as the author doesn't even knows where are placed Ukrainian Croats. It doesn't even place them properly in the Ukrainian regions and near the Gords where the scholarship places the Carpathians Croats. All the Southwestern regions of Ukraine, see Ukrainian Carpathians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Carpathians), which are literally at the Carpathians and not only outside the mountain range, is considered as their land. Also they are not only placed in the region of Western Ukraine but also to the near South-eastern Poland (Galicia). We know there were other Slavic tribes near them to the East and West, but there's no point arguing that there was place for another tribe which was never mentioned inhabiting there from 7th to 10th century. That's not an argument, then we are not discussing anymore any factual possibility.

What about Moldova (the country and the region in Romania) ? Were any Croats mentioned there?



Croats were called "white" in only two historical sources. First is Constantine VII in De Administrando Imperio (10th century) in which although are clearly placed near Bavaria and the Franks they are also plundered by the Pechenegs etc. which indicates that the chapters were based on different archival sources and narratives which knew something about the Carpathian Croats or perhaps the Croats inhabited all the narrow Carpathian territory in between the Czech and Ukrainian Croats as some scholars think. Second is Nestor the Chronicler in his Primary Chronicle (12th century).

it makes more sense Constantine VII confused the 2 groups of Croats which were separate. There are Moravians mentioned inbetween.



Eastern i.e. Carpathian Croats are never mentioned as "white" in historical sources.

didn't you say Nestor mentions them? Also, i believe in some Polish chronicles Poles are recorded as conquering the Croats (without "white" if i remember right.)

In one of the versions of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea (Pop Dukljanin) Croats are called "Hrvati Bili"

"Od Dalme do Valdemina prozva Hrvate Bile, što su Dalmatini Nižnji."

http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/ljetopis_popa_dukljanina_hrvatska_redakcija.htm

[MoroLP]

Based on the archaeological data, Panonnian Slavs came trough the Ukraine>Moldova>Wallachia route... The questions are, did a tribe with the name Serb already form before they settled in Pannonia? and did some stay behind in Ukraine, Moldova or Wallachia?

Answer to the first question would be since the Serbs are mentioned in 630s as a tribe which was for a long time under Frankish rule, implying late 6th and early 7th century, while the expansion of the Slavs was between early 6th and mid 7th century, they were at least in that period a formed tribe, and it is vague if could have been a formed tribe before the expansion and arrival to the Balkans.

Answer to the second question would be clearly no because there is not a single historical record that claims some did stay behind like in the case of the Croats. The Serbs are very early mentioned among Wends, for unknown reason, which isn't necessarily related to the archaeological data and consideration as possible carriers of middle Danube valley culture. It is almost impossible to surely correlate archaeological data with a specific tribal identity, these are two different dimensions, one is social and fluid, other is material and general. Archaeologist already have hard time differentiating between broad groups like Slavs, Gepids, Goths, Avars and so on, differentiating sub-group tribal identities is impossible from archaeological perspective. Relating them is a bold claim related to historical perspective, but exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, and there aren't really exceptional evidence for both the Serbs and Croats, they are thin threads.

[MoroLP]

What about Moldova (the country and the region in Romania)? Were any Croats mentioned there? Didn't you say Nestor mentions them? Also, i believe in some Polish chronicles Poles are recorded as conquering the Croats (without "white" if i remember right.)

I don't remember reading any connection with the region of Moldova, they were mentioned in relation to the Southwestern Ukraine and Southeastern Poland. Yes, Nestor mentions them as White Croats but with the Serbs and Carinthians, and other West Slavs, which could imply both Southern or Western Croats, but not the Eastern Croats. He does mention Eastern Croats, but without the designation of "white", so those in the West could be "white" in the sense of Western from the Eastern Croats or Northern from the Southern Croats.

According to chronicles, both Kievan Rus in late 10th century and Poland in late 10th or early 11th century conquered the Croats. In other words, some Croats who were West of Kievan Rus and within or East of Lesser Poland.

[vbnetkhio]

Answer to the first question would be since the Serbs are mentioned in 630s as a tribe which was for a long time under Frankish rule, implying late 6th and early 7th century, while the expansion of the Slavs was between early 6th and mid 7th century, they were at least in that period a formed tribe, and it is vague if could have been a formed tribe before the expansion and arrival to the Balkans.

Answer to the second question would be clearly no because there is not a single historical record that claims some did stay behind like in the case of the Croats.


There is this mention of Servia we already discussed. Another thing, not a historical source, but very important for this, is that Moldovans used to call their local east Slavic dialect Serbian.



The Serbs are very early mentioned among Wends, for unknown reason, which isn't necessarily related to the archaeological data and consideration as possible carriers of middle Danube valley culture. It is almost impossible to surely correlate archaeological data with a specific tribal identity, these are two different dimensions, one is social and fluid, other is material and general. Archaeologist already have hard time differentiating between broad groups like Slavs, Gepids, Goths, Avars and so on, differentiating sub-group tribal identities is impossible from archaeological perspective. Relating them is a bold claim related to historical perspective, but exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, and there aren't really exceptional evidence for both the Serbs and Croats, they are thin threads.

but to put it simple, Serbs could have arrived there either through the "Czecho-Slovak" Slavic migration route or from the Middle Danube, right? and the Middle Danube theory agrees more with genetics.


I don't remember reading any connection with the region of Moldova, they were mentioned in relation to the Southwestern Ukraine and Southeastern Poland. Yes, Nestor mentions them as White Croats but with the Serbs and Carinthians, and other West Slavs, which could imply both Southern or Western Croats, but not the Eastern Croats. He does mention Eastern Croats, but without the designation of "white", so those in the West could be "white" in the sense of Western from the Eastern Croats or Northern from the Southern Croats.

According to chronicles, both Kievan Rus in late 10th century and Poland in late 10th or early 11th century conquered the Croats. In other words, some Croats who were West of Kievan Rus and within or East of Lesser Poland.

ok, interesting, so White Croats could indeed be the western ones.

[MoroLP]

There is this mention of Servia we already discussed. Another thing, not a historical source, but very important for this, is that Moldovans used to call their local east Slavic dialect Serbian... but to put it simple, Serbs could have arrived there either through the "Czecho-Slovak" Slavic migration route or from the Middle Danube, right? and the Middle Danube theory agrees more with genetics.

As we already discussed that mention of Servia is problematic and neither Zivkovic relates it to the Carpathians. Regarding the Moldovan dialect, can you give some more information? How is that information important if on the first glance, knowing when dialects form and then only later people call them in a specific manner and for various reasons, is seemingly modern and anachronistic and doesn't have any relation whatsoever in the context of Early Middle Ages?

Yes, the Serbs among the Wends could have migrated there from two different routes. Saying that the Middle Danube theory agrees more with genetics is a bold claim, more like confirmation bias. Knowing, according to current results, how low is the frequency and variety of PH908 in Germany & Czech Republic, that I2 as a whole is almost absent from the Sorbs who also mainly have another subclade of R1a > M458 > L260 not or rarely found among the contemporary Serbs - according to Occam's razor there's some serious issues with the hypotheses about the origin and migration of the tribe of Serbs. There are just too many assumptions not based on direct evidence and with too much ignorance of the context, other tribes, time periods and effects which affect a population. The contemporary genetical results do not clearly and directly support the hypotheses.

[vbnetkhio]

As we already discussed that mention of Servia is problematic and neither Zivkovic relates it to the Carpathians. Regarding the Moldovan dialect, can you give some more information? How is that information important if on the first glance, knowing when dialects form and then only later people call them in a specific manner and for various reasons, is seemingly modern and anachronistic and doesn't have any relation whatsoever in the context of Early Middle Ages?

it was mentioned by user Aspirin on this forum. In medieval Moldova there were Romanian newcomers, and an older Slavic population which was previously ruled by Kievan Rus. The east Slavic dialect of the local Slavs was one of the official languages, and it was called sîrbie/сырбие. Why would that be? Maybe these local Slavs had a conscousness of a distant Serb origin?

I can find it only briefly mentioned on Russian sites by googling "сырбие". maybe Moldovan members here could post more information from Moldovan sources.



Yes, the Serbs among the Wends could have migrated there from two different routes. Saying that the Middle Danube theory agrees more with genetics is a bold claim, more like confirmation bias. Knowing, according to current results, how low is the frequency and variety of PH908 in Germany & Czech Republic, that I2 as a whole is almost absent from the Sorbs who also mainly have another subclade of R1a > M458 > L260 not or rarely found among the contemporary Serbs - according to Occam's razor there's some serious issues with the hypotheses about the origin and migration of the tribe of Serbs. There are just too many assumptions not based on direct evidence and with too much ignorance of the context, other tribes, time periods and effects which affect a population. The contemporary genetical results do not clearly and directly support the hypotheses.

It's anachronistic to connect Lusatian Sorbs with Serbs in the context of early Slavic migrations. A Serb tribe, and later a Serb tribal alliance were both originally mentioned in east of the Elbe, in today's Saxony and Thuringia, not in Lusatia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatia) . In Lusatia, there was a Luzicani tribal alliance and a Milcani tribal Alliance. The Milcani area (upper Lusatia) was first reffered to as Serbian around the year 1200, and the Luzicani area (Lower Lusatia) a Serb ethnonym is mentioned in 1548. These are the earliest mentions i could find, and this is long after the period of initial Slavic migrations. The Serb ethnonym somehow spread later to the Luzicani and Milcani, we can only discuss how and why, but it's not important for this discussion.

Also, if we look at archaeology, in the sixth century, Lusatia was settled by Slavs from Silesia, this was a branch of a larger Polish or Lechitic migration, which has a strong correlation with R-L260, while Slavs in Saxony/Thuringia came from Bohemia and the Middle Danube, and these two areas (Lusatia and Saxony/Thuringia) were separated by a densely forested area, and had a different archaeological culture. It is expected that these two groups of Slavs won't have the same Y-dna haplogroups.

So let's just look at the Slavic Y-DNA in the Saxony and Thuringia areas. Slavic R1a seems much more numerous. it falls under small local subclades, which are absent in Hungary and the Balkans, like these https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-YP445/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y35225/

Then, there are I-A815, I-PH908, and R-YP4278 which have a strong correlation with the Ukraine>Moldova>Wallachia route. These haplogroups are much less numerous than the former, which would fit with a smaller warrior group from the Middle Danube, arriving later to an area which was already densely populated by Slavs. They would then unite a dozen local tribes under their rule and form the Sorbian tribal alliance.

If we forget what i just said and just use Occam's razor, it would be : There is PH908 among Serbs, there is PH908 among Germanized Sorbs, therefore the early Slavic Serbs/Sorbs spread this haplogroup. But there's no need to simplify it like this.

[MoroLP]

Interesting, we need more information on that. Knowing how languages and dialect evolve and are named for now I cannot take it seriously enough without reliable sources. It is in the realm of "what if", and on this "what if" is based another "what if" of an ancient Serb origin. Too much assumptions, needs verification and proof.

Again, Sedov and other scholars connect Upper Sorbian dialect due to difference between dialects and population with the Serbian tribe which possibly brought the Middle Danube culture. It is very important to discuss how and why the Serb ethnonym spread to other tribes, which again, other scholars consider as smaller tribes of the Serbs itself because are mentioned centuries later compared to 7th century mention of the Serbs, and it is highly unlikely the ethnonym spread without any anthropological-genetical exchange, and the proximity between them isn't so great to be ignored. I understand your viewpoint and go in favor of it (where is based enough on valid arguments), but claiming there was no connection between them because genetic results don't go into favor of preheld belief or thesis is confirmation bias and as such another viewpoint could be more true.

The tribe of the Serbs could spread it, but in what amount and what subclades because we are not dealing with the spread of PH908 itself either yet its subclades. If are only two subclades, plus few more of other haplogroups, that's more plausible then many subclades of a single haplogroup, but again, while discussing these migrations of the Serbs (and Croats) is too much ignored the fact they represent a confederation of smaller tribes or clans and that many other tribes migrated as well. We most probably won't ever know the real truth, especially not about one specific single tribe.

[MoroLP]

Regarding Moldovan dialect, think that found Aspirin's post (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?307735-Who-are-%8Aokci-and-Bunjevci&p=6355973&viewfull=1#post6355973), but there's no source and don't see any ancient Serbian connection yet as expected then contemporary political-liturgical influence.

[vbnetkhio]

Interesting, we need more information on that. Knowing how languages and dialect evolve and are named for now I cannot take it seriously enough without reliable sources. It is in the realm of "what if", and on this "what if" is based another "what if" of an ancient Serb origin. Too much assumptions, needs verification and proof.


I'm not arguing this dialect in Moldova had any similarity to Serbian. My understanding is that during Kievan Rus the local dialects of Slavic tribes lost their specificites, and an Old East Slavic language with a dialectal continuum was formed. So this dialect was just similar to West Ukrainian dialects. But the local Slavic population might have kept a tradition of a distant Serbian origin.



Again, Sedov and other scholars connect Upper Sorbian dialect due to difference between dialects and population with the Serbian tribe which possibly brought the Middle Danube culture.


Well, i think the scholars contradicted themselves here a bit. These are 5 tribal alliances mentioned in the 9th century:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D 0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D 1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0% BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B C%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8 %D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC_9._%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0.svg

and this is the supposed dialectal map in the 9th century, the green dotted line separates Upper and Lower Sorbian:

https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0:% D0%9B%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D 1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8_%D1%83_9._%D0%B8_11._%D0%B2%D0%B5 %D0%BA%D1%83.svg

Now, if the western and eastern tribes came from different migration waves, were separated from each other by natural barriers, formed separate states (tribal alliances), which only temporarily united on some occasions to fight the Franks, why would the dialects form like that? why would Milcani and and the southern half of proper Sorbs speak the same dialect?

To me it would make more sense the language of proper Sorbs and Dalemintians was completely lost to German assimilation, and Upper Sorbian is a direct descendant of the Milcani language, and Lower Sorbian of Luzicani language.



It is very important to discuss how and why the Serb ethnonym spread to other tribes, which again, other scholars consider as smaller tribes of the Serbs itself because are mentioned centuries later compared to 7th century mention of the Serbs, and it is highly unlikely the ethnonym spread without any anthropological-genetical exchange, and the proximity between them isn't so great to be ignored. I understand your viewpoint and go in favor of it (where is based enough on valid arguments), but claiming there was no connection between them because genetic results don't go into favor of preheld belief or thesis is confirmation bias and as such another viewpoint could be more true.


Scholars already noticed this spread of the Serb ethnonym, long before genetics were around.

In Bohemia and western Poland, there are many settlements which are assumed to have been founded by the Sorb refugees from Saxony. There we also find Y-DNA connections to Saxony and the Balkan Serbs. So Sorbs of course weren't frozen in place east of the Elbe, but migrated around.

But why are there no such toponyms and Y-DNA traces, or so extremely few of them, in Lusatia? It's as if migration of proper Sorbs into Lusatia was nonexistant.

Perhaps "Sorb" somehow took the meaning of border guard, and those Slavs currently at the German border were automatically Sorbs? Like "Vlach" was originally an ethnicity, and later a social caste. The Franks had a "limes Sorabicus" despite there were other tribes along that border, not only Sorbs. Maybe there's a connection there.



The tribe of the Serbs could spread it, but in what amount and what subclades because we are not dealing with the spread of PH908 itself either yet its subclades. If are only two subclades, plus few more of other haplogroups, that's more plausible then many subclades of a single haplogroup, but again, while discussing these migrations of the Serbs (and Croats) is too much ignored the fact they represent a confederation of smaller tribes or clans and that many other tribes migrated as well. We most probably won't ever know the real truth, especially not about one specific single tribe.

i agree. but every new BIG Y test from these regions gives us more insight.

[Ion Basescul]

Regarding Moldovan dialect, think that found Aspirin's post (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?307735-Who-are-%8Aokci-and-Bunjevci&p=6355973&viewfull=1#post6355973), but there's no source and don't see any ancient Serbian connection yet as expected then contemporary political-liturgical influence.

First time I'm hearing that Slavic dialects from Moldova were called Serbian. In the middle ages, we had Ruthenian and Russian mentioned, by which the authors usually meant Ruthenian anyway.
But interestingly enough, Sîrbu (https://nume.casata.md/index.php?l=ro&action=viewnume&id=59842) (Serb) is the 7th most popular surname in Moldova. Its derivative and probably more archaic, Sîrghi (https://nume.casata.md/index.php?l=ro&action=viewnume&id=59890), falls into top 200.
I know that in Wallachia, Bulgarians were often times called Serbs, so maybe this is just another example of a naming mistake.

[Dušan]

Yeah, I would be great that Moldova is our ancient homeland. :thumb001:

[Bosniensis]

Yellow Bosniak blood in Red Croats and Pink Serbs

Someone should make a thread about that.

[vbnetkhio]

First time I'm hearing that Slavic dialects from Moldova were called Serbian. In the middle ages, we had Ruthenian and Russian mentioned, by which the authors usually meant Ruthenian anyway.
But interestingly enough, Sîrbu (https://nume.casata.md/index.php?l=ro&action=viewnume&id=59842) (Serb) is the 7th most popular surname in Moldova. Its derivative and probably more archaic, Sîrghi (https://nume.casata.md/index.php?l=ro&action=viewnume&id=59890), falls into top 200.
I know that in Wallachia, Bulgarians were often times called Serbs, so maybe this is just another example of a naming mistake.

What could be the reason for that? Maybe there was an early contact between Romanians and Serbs, and then later Romanians called any Slavic group "Serb" ?

[Ion Basescul]

Yeah, I would be great that Moldova is our ancient homeland. :thumb001:

Germany is more likely, considering the connection with Sorbs.
In Moldova's case, I'd guess that the founders of Moldova, who were from Maramures in Romania, used Vlach support and wealth in their colonisation of the region. Knowing that Vlachs were mostly chilling around today's Bosnia/Serbia and South of them, it is not hard to imagine that when they finally settled down, they adopted surnames that point to their place of origin.

[Ion Basescul]

What could be the reason for that? Maybe there was an early contact between Romanians and Serbs, and then later Romanians called any Slavic group "Serb" ?

I didn't look into this, but I've just google translated the first article that I found.

"The name Sârbu comes from the ethnic name Serb, Serb, a person who is part of the basic population of Serbia or is from there.

The researchers point out that “the Sârbu ethnic group has an unexpected spread among the Daco-Romanians, as a first name for men, but more frequently as a family name. The feminine first name Sârbca, Sârbsca, Sârca also appears as a toponym. In Wallachia, especially from the sec. From the 15th century onwards, ethnic Serb generally referred to the Southern Slavs, Serbs and Bulgarians, and the Slavonic language, until the 15th century. In the 19th century, it was called "Serbian", "Serbian language". The numerous South-Danubian elements, Serbs and Bulgarians, seeking refuge from the oppression of the Ottoman yoke, took refuge in the Romanian principalities, entering the clergy, the boyar and the merchant class, through fairs ”. All of them were identified by the names Serbian and Serbian, although among them were Bulgarians.


In the Moldavian documents, in 1462, Nicoară Sârbescul is attested, a divan boyar, master in many villages; in 1620 - Ştefan Sârbul from Iaşi, witness; in 1778 - Pancă Sârbul, abbot of the Floresti monastery.


In the Census of the population of Moldavia from 1774, in the villages of the land. Orhei-Lăpuşna, many people were identified by the Serbian ethnonym, not yet a family name. In the village of Parcani, nine people were identified by the Serbian ethnonym and a Serbian breast Mihalachi, along with a Russian Mihalachi. In the village of Sărăteni: Stanciul, Serbian and Sava, Serbian; in Zăhăicani: Dumitru, the Serb and Cole, the Serb, a volunteer; in Lăpuşna: Stoian, the Serb; in Ustia: Irimia, the Serb; in Jora de Jos: Neculai, the Serb, etc., etc. And the first names of some of them are South Slavic: Stanciul, Stoian, Cole.
A little later, in Bessarabian documents, Serbian appears as a family name. In the Orhei documents, in 1786 the Sârbeni pe Răut estate is attested; in 1795: Andrei Sârbul from the Chisinau Fair; in 1796: Dumitru Sârbul from Leuşeni; in 1813: Stoian Sârbul, witness to the sale of some embarrassments from the Bravicea estate. In the documents of Lăpuşna, in 1780, Andrei Sârbul is attested, a coupe from Chisinau, a borderline.


Today, in the republic, the name Sîrbu, written with î from i, is carried by 14548 people, with â from a, Sârbu, 167 people are registered."

[Dušan]

Germany is more likely, considering the connection with Sorbs.
In Moldova's case, I'd guess that the founders of Moldova, who were from Maramures in Romania, used Vlach support and wealth in their colonisation of the region. Knowing that Vlachs were mostly chilling around today's Bosnia/Serbia and South of them, it is not hard to imagine that when they finally settled down, they adopted surnames that point to their place of origin.

Autosomal genetic of most Serbs is too eastern for Germany, or surrounding Slavs, like Czechs.
This is route which most Slavs settled to Balkans.

https://i.imgur.com/qbfUa4r.jpg

[vbnetkhio]

Germany is more likely, considering the connection with Sorbs.
In Moldova's case, I'd guess that the founders of Moldova, who were from Maramures in Romania, used Vlach support and wealth in their colonisation of the region. Knowing that Vlachs were mostly chilling around today's Bosnia/Serbia and South of them, it is not hard to imagine that when they finally settled down, they adopted surnames that point to their place of origin.

There were Aromanians coming to Moldova? in which century? And How were they diferrentiated from the regular Romanians, were they called Machidoni?

[Ion Basescul]

There were Aromanians coming to Moldova? in which century? And How were they diferrentiated from the regular Romanians, were they called Machidoni?

No, we didn't have any Aromanian migration here, at least if we go by the chronicles. But I'd guess that the surname Sirbu was introduced by people who migrated from the Balkans, be they Aromanian, Serb, Bulgarian, etc.

[MoroLP]

As said, this far-fetched Moldovan dialect claim has nothing to do with early medieval Serbian or Slavic origin. It is common logic and knowledge. It is becoming a little bit pathetic on what kind of false argumentation is forced ancestry of the tribe of Serbs which was never recorded in the Carpathians or Moldova.

[Dušan]

As said, this far-fetched Moldovan dialect claim has nothing to do with early medieval Serbian or Slavic origin. It is common logic and knowledge. It is becoming a little bit pathetic on what kind of false argumentation is forced ancestry of the tribe of Serbs which was never recorded in the Carpathians or Moldova.

You and Feiichy are pathetic trying to connect Serbian genetic with "white Croats".

[MoroLP]

You and Feiichy are pathetic trying to connect Serbian genetic with "white Croats".

Where I tried that? If pointing out that some thesis is based on false arguments and confirmation bias means being anti-Serb then you have some identity crisis and are playing identity politics with genetics. Instead of giving ad hominem comments find better and valid arguments, but good luck with that, outside much what vbnetkhio and I said aren't any.

[Jana]

You and Feiichy are pathetic trying to connect Serbian genetic with "white Croats".

What? I just mentioned two subclades of PH908 who have connections with Rusyns among Serbs. Rusyns are said to descend from white Croats, simple as that.
You should leave out nationalistic wishful thinkning out of this.

Z16983 among Croats could be of white Serb origins due to it's link with Germany/Czechia and it shouldn't bother any normal Croat.

[Jana]

Today I spoke with Serbian man who belongs to A5913 on Facebook and he was very kind, nothing like some people here.
His deep origin is Herzegovina (Popovo Polje) if I understood correctly, while my father's is very near in Ljubuški area.

Who do we descend from, Croats, Serbs, Zahumljani/Neretljani or some unknown Slavic tribe doesn't bother me, and probably we will not find out soon.
Whoever those Slavs are I am fine with and happy to have such paternal ydna, and their origin won't change or threaten who I am :)

[Aspirin]

What could be the reason for that? Maybe there was an early contact between Romanians and Serbs, and then later Romanians called any Slavic group "Serb" ?

Nobody called every Slavic population Serbs here. The term Serb indeed had a very broad meaning, but was applied only for Southern Slavs who came here (Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins). Eastern Slavs were allways called Russians (Ukrainians as a etnicity didn't existed till second half of 19th century).

The reason why the language was named sometimes Serbian, I think it's because of strong cultural and religious ties with Balkan Slavs, despite of our location in Eastern Europe near the Eastern Slavs, and far away from the most Southern Slavs.

It is known, what in late 14th century, Serbs were the most influential Slavic people in the Balkans, some Serbian monks came here, so this can be another reason. Contection with the Balkans is seen in local religious architecture too, Old Russian influence is absent in Medieval Moldavian architecture.