Haplogroup

[phoenix[illusion]]

Instead of searching some historical sources, we have genetics, that can tell us a lot

this is a map of Haplogroup I


more about haplogroup:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

by this site we get to this conclusion:
Croats: 42%I2a, 29%R1a
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 50%I2a, 13,5%R1a
Albanians: 24,5%J2, 17%I2a, 16%R1b
Serbs: 29%I2a, 24%E1b1b
Greeks: 27%E1b1b, 25%J2 (Greeks and Serbs have almost same percent in E1b1b)
etc.

[slavic_crusader]

i dont think genetics are accurate, becuase its early and seems to me impossible. Becuase of the place of study and who and so forth..... R u sure its really reliable??

[phoenix[illusion]]

i dont think genetics are accurate, becuase its early and seems to me impossible. Becuase of the place of study and who and so forth..... R u sure its really reliable??

it's more reliable than all those post-war theories, with no evidence.

[slavic_crusader]

i suppose so, But still....of what i said earlier about the how they conduct research in the place and who they conduct on and so forth, can be a great problem

[NikeBG]

I also don't think genetics can be accurately used to define specific national and/or ethnic history. It's ok when accounting large groups in the distances of many thousands of years (i.e. prehistory), but in the terms of written history it's still largely corrupt. Not to mention its basic "flaw" that it defines only genetic changes, while much more important in historical terms are the cultural ones (religion, language, way of life etc). And, of course, not to further mention the relative lack of "density" of research in some areas (like ours), the varying and sometimes contradictory results did by different research groups, often with certain predefined political aims.

[slavic_crusader]

yes ur right

[MeAgain]

I find that chart confusing and vague at best. For example, if you look at "R1a", it says: "Balto-slavic, Myceaean Greek, Macedonian". Is this a guess whether it's one or all of them (???), because these are three diverse groups of people, both in tearms of physical appearance and geography, within and relative to each-other.

[slavic_crusader]

yea thats true....

[NikeBG]

Well, there are some linguistic and cultural connections between the ancient Balts and Thracians (I think first proposed by Jonas Baskanavicius and later supported by Ivan Duridanov) and between the ancient Thracians and Myceneans, but, IMO, it would be a too far fetch to even think about connecting them in one group. Especially since Balkanic is included in a different group altogether. So, yes, another "flaw" of genetics I forgot to mention - often messy and unexplainable results.

[slavic_crusader]

that is a very good point. I was also trying to say something like that. With the place and who they study and so forth which may make it unreliable or inaccurate... But anyways u pinned piont it.

[Visarion]

Very nice! I made some studies regarding genealogy of people around the world and discovered some very interesting things! for example "I" is the true European haplogroup and it appeared during the Ice Age in the Balkans.

It seems that these people had a very advanced culture and invented the first alphabet! When the Ice Age was over some of the inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula migrated North and settled in Scandinavia.

They probably came from Mesopotamia and brought the "J2" chromosome in Europe. "J2" suffered a mutation and became "I2" in the Balkans and "I2" became "I1" in Scandinavia!

[phoenix[illusion]]

well, i think that this can tell us a lot. for example, lets take a look at R1a. It's a balto-slavic haplogroup
so this should be it:



We can see that most of Slavic states have that haplogroup (R1a), but with Serbia has less than others.
This could prove the theory of Serbians as small tribes who conquered local tribes

also we can see I2a2 haplogroup, which should be Dinaric, Danubian. So as we can compare, that should be Dacians and others who lived on Balkan (Dinaric Alps)
and as we can see, Serbia has I2a2 haplogroup, so as the Croatians and Bosnians (the most). It is a haplogroup of locals who lived on Balkan before Serbs and Croats. We can see that balto-slavic haplogroup, but less than Dinaric, Danubian, so by that, it means that balkan people are more local tribes, then Slavs, which means that Slavs came in lesser number, but more powerful than other tribes, and slavicized local tribes

[phoenix[illusion]]

And it quite makes sense if we take a look at R1b halpogroup.
It is Italic, Celtic and Germanic haplogroup. If we look at the Spain and Portugal, we can see that that group is dominant, which makes sense, cause on Spain lived Celtiberians, which is Celtic tribe, Romans (a bit less, but still italic) and later Vandals, germanic tribe.
Also E1b1b can bee seen, but much less then R1b, and that haploid group was carried by North Africans, which makes sense, if we look at Berbers, Moors who invaded Spain and Portugal

[Bosnian_King]

;
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

This shows that Bosnia is the biggest concentration of peoples of the so called "Illirian" or "pre-slavic" DNA right?

[phoenix[illusion]]

This shows that Bosnia is the biggest concentration of peoples of the so called "Illirian" or "pre-slavic" DNA right?

yup, something like that, cause that haplogroup is Dinaric, Danubian (so tribes that lived around Dinaric Alps and Danube), and Bosnian has 50% of it.
well, somebody will call me pessimistic, or anti-slavic, but i'm really just searching for the real clues.
i just abandoned all theories and all that i know, to find the real answer, instead of proving something that i've read or learned from history books.

[Bosnian_King]

yup, something like that, cause that haplogroup is Dinaric, Danubian (so tribes that lived around Dinaric Alps and Danube), and Bosnian has 50% of it.
well, somebody will call me pessimistic, or anti-slavic, but i'm really just searching for the real clues.
i just abandoned all theories and all that i know, to find the real answer, instead of proving something that i've read or learned from history books.

The firma Igenea from Switzerland also concluded that Bosnians have most of those haplogroup. It seems that different DNA research companies throughout the world come with the same conclusions which is good. It is also very interesting that the the "Ilirian movement" was the most active in Bosnia and Dalmatia in the 19. century and that Catholic priests wrote about the "Ilirian roots" of Bosnians and Dalmatians. But we would have to wait for some years and then we probably will know it for sure. History was always written from political perspective.

[phoenix[illusion]]

The firma Igenea from Switzerland also concluded that Bosnians have most of those haplogroup. It seems that different DNA research companies throughout the world come with the same conclusions which is good. It is also very interesting that the the "Ilirian movement" was the most active in Bosnia and Dalmatia in the 19. century and that Catholic priests wrote about the "Ilirian roots" of Bosnians and Dalmatians. But we would have to wait for some years and then we probably will know it for sure. History was always written from political perspective.

well, yes in one way, but more in nationalistic way history is written.
look at my post 492
you can see that Dushan is talking about Bogumils (Krstjani) as major religion in Bosnia, and Catholicism as main, but by the Pope power. Definitely breaks theory of orthodox as main religion in medieval Bosnia by Serbian nationalist. Still, it is said that one part of Bosnians are orthodox
And he speaks of Bosnians as brothers by language they speak, so not heritage

I'm just speaking as the realist, not nationalist. I love Serbia, I am Bosnian Serb, but I must say that medieval Bosnia has it's own history, not like some Serbs or Croats says that it was part of Serbia or Croatia (well it was in some centuries, but as conquered realm). Still, I can't deny that there we're no Serbs and Croats. There were, for sure, many of vlastela were Croats or Serbs, Bosnia was always and is mixed nation and religion area, cause it was on border of different religions and nations through the centuries

[Visarion]

medieval Bosnia has it's own history

.I agree! Bosnians were pretty strong and even reppeled the Hungarian invasion in Dalmatia! In the 14th century the Ban of Bosnia became king and controlled Rascia, Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia! Stephan Tvrtko was the first Bosnian king!

[phoenix[illusion]]

Agree! Bosnians were pretty strong and even reppeled the Hungarian invasion in Dalmatia! ..In the 14th century the Ban of Bosnia became king and controlled Rascia, Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia! Stephan Tvrtko was the first Bosnian king!

well, they didn't control Rascia or Croatia, just the parts of it
here's the map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_XIV_c.jpg

he just called himself King of Rascia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and the Littoral.
Bosnia was strong, but not that much. Strong to survive between Hungary and Serbia.
Bosnia fell soon after Serbia. We cannot tell about Bosnia as strong factions of balkan, just a stable faction, which succeeded to stay alive

[Bosnian_King]

well, yes in one way, but more in nationalistic way history is written.
look at my post 492
you can see that Dushan is talking about Bogumils (Krstjani) as major religion in Bosnia, and Catholicism as main, but by the Pope power. Definitely breaks theory of orthodox as main religion in medieval Bosnia by Serbian nationalist. Still, it is said that one part of Bosnians are orthodox
And he speaks of Bosnians as brothers by language they speak, so not heritage

I'm just speaking as the realist, not nationalist. I love Serbia, I am Bosnian Serb, but I must say that medieval Bosnia has it's own history, not like some Serbs or Croats says that it was part of Serbia or Croatia (well it was in some centuries, but as conquered realm). Still, I can't deny that there we're no Serbs and Croats. There were, for sure, many of vlastela were Croats or Serbs, Bosnia was always and is mixed nation and religion area, cause it was on border of different religions and nations through the centuries

The theory of an "orthodox Bosnia" was broken a long time ago by the most respected serbian historians like Cirkovic, Corevic and Dinic. About 2 years ago I wrote on this forum:"There were no Orthodox christain churches in Bosnia; the only orthodox churches in todays Bosnia and Herzegovina are situatied in the region of Hercegovina." And everybody of the serbs attacked me and they began to send me photographs of orthodox churchs from central Bosnia etc. But the only thing I did was quoting the serbian historian Sime Cirkovic who wrote exactly the same in his book "The history of the Serbs- Sime Cirkovic." I do not care if there were orthodox christians in Bosnia or not. If they all were Budhist; I do not care about it. But if you are making a mod then it is good to be historical correct. That was my only motif to write about it.

The Bosnian kings always supported the Bosnian church. This even amateurs and "hobby historians" can read from the writing of the bosnian kings and bans. It is nice that you discovered it yourself from the writings of Dushan himself. People who are interested in history know this. When the Turks came to the borders with Bosnia the last Bosnian king decided to convert himself to catholicism and to destroy the faith of the Bosnian Church in the hope to get help from the Pope. It is funny that we know that the pope did not help him and Herzegovina was full of refugees, Bosnians of the bosnian faith who fled from Bosnia to Hercegovina; to escape the killings of this last Bosnian king. It is funny to read the letter to the pope from this last Bosnian king Stephen Tomasevic in which he writes: "If Bosnians see that they will not enter this war at their own; they will fight with more courage..." The pope off course did not help Bosnia.

Many of the Bosnian nobles were serbs and croats. This is true. Hrvatinici, Horvati, Vlatko Vukicic etc. But this is logical because Bosnia conquered like 40% of todays Croatia and 10% of Todays Montenegro. In Bosnia itself; the territory which we call "jezgrena Bosna" and which is the territory of the initial Bosnian state from the time of Ban Kulin, I do not believe that there were any serbs or Croats. Because the name "Serb" or "Croat" was never recorded here. And from the beginning (11. century) everybody (the Bysantese emperor, Pope, Hungarian king etc.) talk about:"Bosnians, Serbs and Croats" , so he makes a distinction. And all the Bosnian kings and bans are talking also about "Bosnians and Serbs" or "Bosnians and Croats", "Bosnians and Vlachs" etc.

The first time that big parts of Croatian land come under Bosnian control is during the expansion of Tvrtko I Kotromanic. When he conquers the area around todays Banja Luka; the Croatian nobleman Hrvoje Vukicic Hrvatinic joins his state; he gives him land. And he invites Hrvoje Hrvatinic at the "so called" Bosnian stanak" or "Bosnian meeting" in Visoko in Central Bosnia where all nobleman of Bosnia came together from time to time. And from the first meeting where also this Croatian nobleman was present; Tvrtko writes a letter which was preserved. He wrote:

"And Hrvoje Vukicic came to me with his Croats.......... And about this fact the noble Bosnians can justify."

So it is very clear that Tvrtko makes a very clear distinction between the Bosnian nobleman and this Croat Hrvoje who was totally integrated into the Bosnian state (he had the right to join the Bosnian Council) but still he was considered as an ethnical Croat.

The same thing Tvrtko does with another Croat when he gives to him the Castle of Kljuc; calling him a "Croat" and he also writes at the end of the letter:"About this justify the Bosnian nobleman (Dobri Bosnjani).

So it is true that there were Croats and Serbs in Bosnia but the context is very important.

good luck