[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - Iranian origin of Croats and Serbs

[slavic_crusader]

Sure thanks

[Carpathian Wolf]

whos today that is thracian or illiriyan?

Pretty much most of the people in western and southern balkans. Technically Romania too since Dacians are Thracian too.

"Thracians" doesn't cover "Illyrians", they're two different groups (and Illyrians appear later). There's a proposed "Thraco-Illyrian" group for the transitional zones, but that's about it.

Yea I think it does considering the material culture and proximity.

If we'd go with this game, I would accept nothing else than "Neolithic guy with unknown ethnonym". Though, in order to call someone "Illyrian who speaks a Slavic language", you'd have to put a greater priority on genetics than culture. And I'd say culture is far more important in terms of ethnic identification than genetics.

That can be argued though. Culture can be changed, genetics can't. If it bugs you so much let's say you (since you're Bulgarian) are more Thracian than someone from Vietnam.

So, assumptions are bad, unless they say we're all Thracians, whatever Thracian can be interpreted as?

No? It's simply that the Balkan people all have a Thracian substratum which influenced them much more than slavs or avars or bulgars etc.

[SerbianInfantry]

No, I'm a Serb.

[Vojdoo]

I say listen to every word that Carpathian Wolf says. He is unrecognized genius, so do this now and you won't regre when he get famos.

[Bagatyr]

I say listen to every word that Carpathian Wolf says. He is unrecognized genius, so do this now and you won't regre when he get famos

[NikeBG]

Yea I think it does considering the material culture and proximity.

Well, you'd have to disagree with most researchers on the matter, who clearly separate Illyrians from Thracians. Of course, if I can use your example, it's expectable that an Illyrian would be closer to a Thracian than to a Vietnamese, but that's not much of a point.

That can be argued though. Culture can be changed, genetics can't. If it bugs you so much let's say you (since you're Bulgarian) are more Thracian than someone from Vietnam.

Genetics can't be changed? Now that's a new one. True, they're harder to change than culture, if that's what you meant. But they're still quite unimportant in an ethnodefining sense than culture. Which is why so many ethnoses appear and disappear, including the oh-so-numerous Thracians.

No? It's simply that the Balkan people all have a Thracian substratum which influenced them much more than slavs or avars or bulgars etc.

The main substratum on the Balkans is the pre-Thracian Neolithic one and that would have even been the logical conclusion according to your line of logic (if you hadn't prefered to stop with the Thracians, of course).

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well, you'd have to disagree with most researchers on the matter, who clearly separate Illyrians from Thracians. Of course, if I can use your example, it's expectable that an Illyrian would be closer to a Thracian than to a Vietnamese, but that's not much of a point.

Most researchers? Have you counted all of them? Show me a list. Or are you making hyperbole statements?

Genetics can't be changed? Now that's a new one. True, they're harder to change than culture, if that's what you meant. But they're still quite unimportant in an ethnodefining sense than culture. Which is why so many ethnoses appear and disappear, including the oh-so-numerous Thracians.

Yea you can't change genetics. I will never be Bengali no matter how hard I try. When I speak of Thracians I don't just refer to their culture but also their genetics, their blood, their physical sense. Like that you can say most or at least many Thracians are actually Greeks because many adopted Greek language. But the fact of the matter is they're still Thracian even if they are part of the Greek cultural realm.

I don't know what your aversion to Thracian substratum of Bulgarians is.

The main substratum on the Balkans is the pre-Thracian Neolithic one and that would have even been the logical conclusion according to your line of logic (if you hadn't prefered to stop with the Thracians, of course).

That is very possible but it is also very possible that the edges of the Black Sea (which at the time was a much smaller lake) could have acted as a cradle of civilization. This isn't my theory but one of the main theories concerning indo-european origins. In that sense the Thracians would be those "pre-Thracian Neolithic people" you are referring to. In any case we don't have much information on the pre-Thracian Neolithic people, Thracian themselves or not.

[NikeBG]

Most researchers? Have you counted all of them? Show me a list. Or are you making hyperbole statements?

Hyperbole statement, of course. You don't expect me to count researchers one by one when I hardly even have the time to post, do you?

Yea you can't change genetics. I will never be Bengali no matter how hard I try. When I speak of Thracians I don't just refer to their culture but also their genetics, their blood, their physical sense. Like that you can say most or at least many Thracians are actually Greeks because many adopted Greek language. But the fact of the matter is they're still Thracian even if they are part of the Greek cultural realm.

You can't be a Bengali, but if you sleep with a Bengali, the result would be half-you and half-Bengali. And that's only one-generation distance. What's left about a hundred or so.

I don't know what your aversion to Thracian substratum of Bulgarians is.

I have no aversion towards it at all. On the contrary. I just don't like Pan- talks (from Pan-Slavism, through Pan-Turkism, to Pan-Thracism or Pan-Bulgarism or whatever).

That is very possible but it is also very possible that the edges of the Black Sea (which at the time was a much smaller lake) could have acted as a cradle of civilization. This isn't my theory but one of the main theories concerning indo-european origins. In that sense the Thracians would be those "pre-Thracian Neolithic people" you are referring to. In any case we don't have much information on the pre-Thracian Neolithic people, Thracian themselves or not.

It's not possible - it's probable. But I fail to see the logic in the statement that "the Thracians would be those "pre-Thracian Neolithic people". It's like saying that the Humans are those pre-Human Humanoid apes.
And we don't have much *written* information about the Neolithic people. Otherwise, we have a whole field of Prehistorical Archaeology and I even personally know some of the researchers in that area and they're doing some quite fine job, I might say.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Hyperbole statement, of course. You don't expect me to count researchers one by one when I hardly even have the time to post, do you?

Then why make such statements that you can't back up? I for one noticed similarity in the warrior material culture of Thracians/Dacians/Illyrians. For example the falx/rhomphaia/sica which all three used. I'd definitely say the Illyrians were at least partially related with the Thracians if not completely. I mean we don't really see a large genetic or cultural difference between Yugoslavs and Bulgarians do we? And don't tell me that's because of the "slavic culture" cause we can see that it is distinct from what we see in Russia and Poland and even Ukraine.

You can't be a Bengali, but if you sleep with a Bengali, the result would be half-you and half-Bengali. And that's only one-generation distance. What's left about a hundred or so.

That wasn't what I was referring to.

I have no aversion towards it at all. On the contrary. I just don't like Pan- talks (from Pan-Slavism, through Pan-Turkism, to Pan-Thracism or Pan-Bulgarism or whatever).

I haven't said Pan anything although since you brought it up it would be nice if the Balkan people were unified and not just political tools for Russia or the west or papism and mohamedanism.

It's not possible - it's probable. But I fail to see the logic in the statement that "the Thracians would be those "pre-Thracian Neolithic people". It's like saying that the Humans are those pre-Human Humanoid apes.
And we don't have much *written* information about the Neolithic people. Otherwise, we have a whole field of Prehistorical Archaeology and I even personally know some of the researchers in that area and they're doing some quite fine job, I might say.

Well look at that. Same patterns and material culture in Romania for at least some 8,000 years and that is just showing one of the cultures. And still today we have that so it is safe to say that the Thracians preserved those aspects. Especially considering how similar Romanian and Bulgarian (as well as Serbian) folk clothing is. Really the only reason we see Thracians as distinct from the "pre Thracian people" is because that is around the time Greeks first start mentioning them. We really have no good reason to believe they aren't one in the same people which extended from the Swiss Alps to Anatolia.



===================

Edit:

Really trying to find the origin of Serbs or Croats or even Bulgars is pretty inconsequential to the people living in those countries currently. Serb, Croat, Bulgar, those are just names that were adopted from one of the many migratory people who passed through those regions and established rule. If Serbia would have been called "Avaria" instead we'd be trying to find out the origin of the Avars, but that wouldn't tell the origin of the people living there which is the Thraco/Illyrian substratum everyone in the Balkans has.

[Vojdoo]

That wasn't what I was referring to.

Yes, we alredy know what you are saying. If someone have offspring with Thracians then he and his childrens become Thracians.

[NikeBG]

Then why make such statements that you can't back up? I for one noticed similarity in the warrior material culture of Thracians/Dacians/Illyrians. For example the falx/rhomphaia/sica which all three used. I'd definitely say the Illyrians were at least partially related with the Thracians if not completely. I mean we don't really see a large genetic or cultural difference between Yugoslavs and Bulgarians do we? And don't tell me that's because of the "slavic culture" cause we can see that it is distinct from what we see in Russia and Poland and even Ukraine.

Genetics is a completely unrealiable argument. Material culture might be similar in some cases, but it doesn't remove the fact that the Illyrians appeared later on and are not considered to be a part of the Thracian family. And I have no intention to back anything up for you - if you want to believe the whole Balkan Peninsula was one big happy Thracian party - good for you. I'll stick with what I've read and everything I've read (except a few crappy autochtonists, whose works aren't usable even for toilet paper, alas) says that the Thracians and Illyrians were different people.

That wasn't what I was referring to.

Your example wasn't what I was refering to either.

I haven't said Pan anything although since you brought it up it would be nice if the Balkan people were unified and not just political tools for Russia or the west or papism and mohamedanism.

Yeah, I like to dream too, from time to time...

Well look at that. Same patterns and material culture in Romania for at least some 8,000 years and that is just showing one of the cultures. And still today we have that so it is safe to say that the Thracians preserved those aspects. Especially considering how similar Romanian and Bulgarian (as well as Serbian) folk clothing is. Really the only reason we see Thracians as distinct from the "pre Thracian people" is because that is around the time Greeks first start mentioning them. We really have no good reason to believe they aren't one in the same people which extended from the Swiss Alps to Anatolia.

You can try to find that quote from Aleko Konstantinov about the Mexican and Bulgarian folk-costumes which I had translated some weeks ago in some thread on this board, if you want.

Really trying to find the origin of Serbs or Croats or even Bulgars is pretty inconsequential to the people living in those countries currently. Serb, Croat, Bulgar, those are just names that were adopted from one of the many migratory people who passed through those regions and established rule. If Serbia would have been called "Avaria" instead we'd be trying to find out the origin of the Avars, but that wouldn't tell the origin of the people living there which is the Thraco/Illyrian substratum everyone in the Balkans has.

Yes, poor people from just half a century ago, who hadn't heard of the wondrous thing called genetics, which could tell them that national and ethnical identity is based on these so-called genes and not on a whole number of cultural factors, just because... well, just because, nothing else...

[Carpathian Wolf]

Genetics is a completely unrealiable argument. Material culture might be similar in some cases, but it doesn't remove the fact that the Illyrians appeared later on and are not considered to be a part of the Thracian family. And I have no intention to back anything up for you - if you want to believe the whole Balkan Peninsula was one big happy Thracian party - good for you. I'll stick with what I've read and everything I've read (except a few crappy autochtonists, whose works aren't usable even for toilet paper, alas) says that the Thracians and Illyrians were different people.

Completely unreliable? More hyperbole? The fact that the genetics of the Balkans are pretty much identical shows a homogeneous substratum. That's a fact.

Where did the Illyrians "appear" from? Illyrian itself is a GREEK term.

Your example wasn't what I was refering to either.

You quoted it.

Yeah, I like to dream too, from time to time...

I'm happy for you.

You can try to find that quote from Aleko Konstantinov about the Mexican and Bulgarian folk-costumes which I had translated some weeks ago in some thread on this board, if you want.

They look nothing alike.

Yes, poor people from just half a century ago, who hadn't heard of the wondrous thing called genetics, which could tell them that national and ethnical identity is based on these so-called genes and not on a whole number of cultural factors, just because... well, just because, nothing else...

What? Don't try to use sarcasm because you aren't very good at it. Just make your point.

[NikeBG]

Completely unreliable? More hyperbole? The fact that the genetics of the Balkans are pretty much identical shows a homogeneous substratum. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that every single research of the Balkan genetics shows absolutely different results. So much for that crap...

They look nothing alike.

Not according to the eyewitnesses at the world expo in Chicago from the early 20th century, which Aleko Konstantinov writes about.

What? Don't try to use sarcasm because you aren't very good at it. Just make your point.

I've already made my point over and over again. If you prefer not to pay attention to it - your choice, it's your dream-world.

[Carpathian Wolf]

It's also a fact that every single research of the Balkan genetics shows absolutely different results. So much for that crap...

When you get into specifics? Yes. When you keep it vague, no. Trust me if i came up to you and told you "i'm Bulgarian" or "i'm Serbian" there is nothing on my face that will tell you other wise. You wouldn't know the difference.

Not according to the eyewitnesses at the world expo in Chicago from the early 20th century, which Aleko Konstantinov writes about.

Pix or it didn't happen.

I've already made my point over and over again. If you prefer not to pay attention to it - your choice, it's your dream-world.

Settle down sifu sarma, you're getting too mystical and wise for me.

[NikeBG]

When you get into specifics? Yes. When you keep it vague, no.

Oh, sorry, I was too blind to notice any of your own specifics.

Trust me if i came up to you and told you "i'm Bulgarian" or "i'm Serbian" there is nothing on my face that will tell you other wise. You wouldn't know the difference.

So? If I come to you (or a Western European) and tell you "I'm Bulgarian", you or most Westerners wouldn't believe me. And yet it doesn't make me any less Bulgarian. Then again, if you go even to Iran, you'll find many people who can easily be considered Bulgarian/Romanian/Serbian etc (though, of course, many would also be different and note that I'm not an Eastern Iranian supporter).

Pix or it didn't happen.

Pics of your own birth or it didn't happen (post-delivery pics are invalid).

Settle down sifu sarma, you're getting too mystical and wise for me.

Sorry, it's not my fault, it's just my nature.


Edit: Btw, how come you didn't take part in this thread? It certainly seems to be "your thing" (you know, "there are really no Slavs on the Balkans, you're all us" etc).

[Bagatyr]

Pics of your own birth or it didn't happen (post-delivery pics are invalid)

[SerbianInfantry]

People who reach for genetics are just confused and try to figure out who they are. Or think they are supreme in any way so they try to impose their genetics on every other human in the world.
But no matter to me. All you say, prove, do, doesn't matter. You know why? 'Couse I'm still 100% Serb
Am I right, or am I right? Oh, yea! High Five guys!

[Carpathian Wolf]

Oh, sorry, I was too blind to notice any of your own specifics.

I wasn't pointing out any.

So? If I come to you (or a Western European) and tell you "I'm Bulgarian", you or most Westerners wouldn't believe me. And yet it doesn't make me any less Bulgarian. Then again, if you go even to Iran, you'll find many people who can easily be considered Bulgarian/Romanian/Serbian etc (though, of course, many would also be different and note that I'm not an Eastern Iranian supporter).

Why, because you might have light hair? So what? That's not a strictly Germanic thing.

Pics of your own birth or it didn't happen (post-delivery pics are invalid).

I asked you for pictures showing Bulgarian and Mexican folk clothing and you retort with a stupid joke.

Sorry, it's not my fault, it's just my nature.


Edit: Btw, how come you didn't take part in this thread? It certainly seems to be "your thing" (you know, "there are really no Slavs on the Balkans, you're all us" etc).

Because the thread sort of focused on stupid genetic maps trying to pin point exactly what "the slav gene" is. I rely on history and migratory patterns of humans for my claims (although not really my claims.)

People who reach for genetics are just confused and try to figure out who they are. Or think they are supreme in any way so they try to impose their genetics on every other human in the world.
But no matter to me. All you say, prove, do, doesn't matter. You know why? 'Couse I'm still 100% Serb
Am I right, or am I right? Oh, yea! High Five guys!

You're completely right. When i was speaking of Serbs I was speaking of the Serbs who first appeared in the Balkans before mixing with the local populations. You aren't THAT kind of Serbs or at least not very much so. But you are 100 percent Serbian in today's sense. Just like I might have Kypchak ancestry as well but it would be silly to say "i'm a Kypchak." Well to an extent maybe...but also what else?

[slavic_crusader]

does anyone know any intellectuals for gothic,iranian and slavic and i even heard for chinese who promote these theories?

[clandestino]

Don't know about Croatian historians but in Serbian these theories usually end up mentioned with couple of words in some footnote. Of course there is quite a lot of '' alternative '' researchers who are arguing for this kind of theories, however there usually don't have any formal education in history nor any credentials so no one actually take their theories seriously, except for the some common people who don't have basic knowledge of history.
This is not quite related but there is one example how this theories work, recently on some forum I saw series of maps representing '' Serbian toponyms '' all around the world, basically some guy collected all the place names in the world even distantly resembling the name '' Serb '' and '' Ras '' and put them on the map. For example in Sweden there is like 50 places called '' Sörby '', at first look it really looks like '' Srbi/Serbi '' however it's meaning in Swedish has absolutely no connection with the Sebs cause it simply means '' southern village '' or '' village in the swamp ''. So this theories have to be taken with great precaution and skepsis cause the similarity is usually just superficial and can't withstand any half-serious analysis. But if you are semi-educated nationalistic enthusiast this theory would sound perfectly correct to you and will be just another proof that Serbs lived everywhere and that all people are in fact descending from the Serbs