White Croat genetics in Serbs?

[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, 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:


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, "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:


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, 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, 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..._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.