Gedmatch calculators on Vahaduo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

yes, i think when they came, they spoke and spread with them the shtokavian ikavian dialect

the river is called Buna, not Bunja, and it's very small stream, not an actual river, not many people can originate from there. but they could originate somewhere from the larger Herzegovina and Montnegro area.

---

They are from western Herzegovina, where ikavians are (not in Montenegro).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Around what period do you think Bunjevci/Morlach "Vlachs" (you say they were Vlachs before) adopted the Croat identity?

Around the late Middle Ages/post-Ottoman invasion of the Balkans?

If so, around that period, there were only Slavic-speakers in the Dinarics. Do you think they had their own distinct Slavic identity separate to both Serbs and Croats before becoming Croats or what?

---

They could be Vlachs who admixed with Zahumljani, Zahumlje correspond to western Herzegovina. But I am really not sure.
They became part of Croatian nation in 19th century, when modern South Slavic nations were formed. Before that people identified along religious lines, peasants had no sense of ethnic identity (only tribal in some cases), which was introduced to them by educated elites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

yes, i think when they came, they spoke and spread with them the shtokavian ikavian dialect

---

That was more or less the point I was making then. I don't think they can be called Vlachs at the time period they were Croatized if they were Shtokavian-speakers.

Ikavian is only used by Croats today, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feiichy

They could be Vlachs who admixed with Zahumljani, Zahumlje correspond to western Herzegovina. But I am really not sure.
They became part of Croatian nation in 19th century, when modern South Slavic nations were formed. Before that people identified along religious lines, peasants had no sense of ethnic identity (only tribal in some cases), which was introduced to them by educated elites.

---

So you think they're Croatized Zahumljani Slavs and consider the Zahumljani Slavs separate from both Serbs and Croats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Ikavian is only used by Croats today, right?

---

You could say that. But Bosnian muslims spoke ikavian in masses until recently. It was dominant dialect among them.
Among Serbs ikavian is present only in areas such as Kupres and small village or two in Dalmatian Hinterland where they were in contact with Croat majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feiichy

They are from western Herzegovina, where ikavians are (not in Montenegro).

---

it doesn't fit genetically. west Herzegovina is a local Slavic maximum. even those results from an isolated mountain village in west Herzegovina are all at least 30% Baltic, while Bunjevci are 27-29

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

So you think they're Croatized Zahumljani Slavs and consider the Zahumljani Slavs separate from both Serbs and Croats?

---

DAI says Zahumljani were Serbs, but I don't think it's correct because their Prince mentions origins from tribe Litziki in Poland on Vistula river.
In my opinion Byzantine Emperor concluded they are Serbs because at time DAI was written this Sclavinia was under political control of Serbia.

Target: Feiichy_Father
Distance: 2.1956% / 2.19564487 | ADC: 0.5x

64.4 Croat_Split
23.2 Hungarian
12.4 Slovenian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

it doesn't fit genetically. west Herzegovina is a local Slavic maximum. even those results from an isolated mountain village in west Herzegovina are all at least 30% Baltic, while Bunjevci are 27-29

---

Could it be distant Aromanian/Balkan Vlach influence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feiichy

DAI says Zahumljani were Serbs, but I don't think it's correct because their Prince mentions origins from tribe Litziki in Poland on Vistula river.
In my opinion Byzantine Emperor concluded they are Serbs because at time DAI was written this Sclavinia was under political control of Serbia.

---

Okay, just wanted to see where you stand on the issue.

In my opinion, historical sources are usually right unless contradicted/shown to be false.

Here are some other
sources that say Serbia extended past the Drina River (backing the DAI here):

https://i.imgur.com/SU1LBrc.png

Bosnia is mentioned as part of Serb even when not controlled by Serbia for example.

No other Slavic tribes were named around this time period. It seems unlikely they were neither Serbs or Croats or else we would've heard of them.