White Croat genetics in Serbs?

**Jana** · 05-14-2020, 10:56 AM

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** · 05-14-2020, 11:56 AM

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** · 05-14-2020, 12:21 PM

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.

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

**MoroLP** · 05-15-2020, 01:03 AM

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).

This image, Slavic_Culture_Spread.jpg, 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** · 05-15-2020, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by cass

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 (2015).

**Mingle** · 05-15-2020, 04:24 AM

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.

The info was previously mentioned by vbnetkhio here, 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:

**MoroLP** · 05-15-2020, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

The info was previously mentioned by vbnetkhio here, 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.

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, 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** · 05-15-2020, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by MoroLP

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, "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** · 05-15-2020, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Mingle

Are you sure that "white" meant "west" rather than "north"? According to Wikipedia, "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.