Talk:Origin hypotheses of the Croats

Most Widely Accepted !???

It was confirmed in a symposium held by the Iranian cultural counsellorship in the capital city of Zagreb in 1998, that croats are of Iranian origin and last time I checked Croatian history books, it said that Croats come from an Iranian origin! So how do you conclude that the Slavic theory is the most widely accepted theory!!!!????

" ZAGREB, Croatia, Oct 15, 2000 (Hina)

"Finally, it has scientifically been proven that Croatians are of Persian origin," exclaimed triumphantly representatives of a scholarly society for the study of Croatians' descent (ZDPPH) last week.

Nedjeljko Kujundzic, the head of the society established in 1992 for just the purpose to help endeavours aimed at "the promotion of the truth about the Iranian descent of Croats," held a news conference last Wednesday when he presented 'final' evidence on this matter. Last Friday, a book entitled "Indo-Iranian Origin of Croats" by writer and historian Mate Marcinko was presented as well.

Two society members, Ivan Biondic and Andrija-Zeljko Lovric, toured Iran last July. There they saw a plaque called "Tablet from Tanais", and heard, as they say, a dialect which resembles the Kaikavian dialect of the Croatian language.

Biondic explained that in the end of the 19th century two stone tablets were discovered with Greek inscriptions of ancient Croat names from the Ancient port of Tanais at the Sea of Azov. The tablets, which date back to 2nd and 3rd century B.C., have early Croatian ethnonyms - Horoathos, Horauathos and Horvathon.

The society's president Kujundzic said that the 'tamburitza' - a Croatian folk instrument - was also preserved in its original form by certain Iranian tribes.

According to him, Swedish geneticists have confirmed, in 75 percent of cases, that Croats are of Iranian origin.

Biondic added that this theory had also been confirmed by American and Canadian Slavists.

In this context he resolutely and completely rejected a thesis of some historians and the belief that the Croats are of Slavic descent" " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pametna antenna (talk • contribs) 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

This press release is written in a tone common to many pseudo-science tracts. With phrases like "Finally, it has scientifically been proven that Croatians are of Persian origin"... I think scientists usually don't make such bold pronouncements without qualifying them.

Could there have been some migration from Persia to the area around present-day Croatia? Sure. Are all Croats of "Iranian" descent? That might be stretching things. And the assertion that these fellows heard something resembling Kaikavian in Iran... a minor, modern dialect of Croatian existing in isolation for over 2000 years is quite far-fetched from a historical-linguistic standpoint. The dialect fits squarely within the Croatian language and actually shares similarities with Slovenian.

All the factoids here seem calculated to amaze or convince people who only know a little bit about history, linguistics, etc. These things are being presented as facts when in fact they are not universally or even widely accepted. Regarding edits to the main article, please have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. There's nothing wrong with covering this material as long as it's presented properly. I know that many well-meaning people who believe in such theories will go ahead and reference pseudo-scientific works to defend it. I'm not necessarily against the theory, I'm just against using questionable scholarship to defend it. Twalls 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The only genetic connection is of the Y-DNA haplogroup I that can be found in some isolated regions of northern Iran - in Kurdish populations. However, those residuals are perfectly consistent with the theory that the Balkans served as an ice age refuge during the last glacial maximum. As Sforza and others have shown using PCA and genetic dating, Europe was the origin for the mutation that defines HG I (M170). The small isolated spots of it that can be found elsewhere are the consequence of migrations from Europe. There is no scientific controversy about that - the currently available data and the current theories are perfectly consistent. The pseudoscientific attempts to place modern day Croats as the descendants of Persians based on genetic evidence is silly at best.

As for the linguistic evidence and the idea of cultural origins rather than genetic origins I can't say anything. I have however not seen any credible scientific articles on the subjects that are more specific than being wild speculations. Unlike in the case of the genetic data, on the linguistic front there (as far as I can tell) doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence against a theory of cultural fusion. But that's a far cry from claiming that it is that way. --Denoir 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Nedjeljko Kujundzic, Swedish geneticists confirmed that in 75 percent of cases Croats are of Iranian origin. Where are such results documented in any scientific journals that are peer reviewed by genetic experts. I could not manage to find. The genetic evidence used in this article “Theories on the origin of Croats” is cited from credible scientific journals. Therefore it is clear that at the genetic point of view, what Nedjeljko Kujundzic presents can only be simply considered as an unsubstantiated claim. Genetic evidence is undeniable in determining the origins of a people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.17.55 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Genetic evidence is undeniable in determining the origins of a people." - that's absolute rubbish, and no valid genetics expert would lay claim to such an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.35 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic "Evidence"

'Furthermore the national name "Croat" is of Iranian origin. According to the Russian Vselod Miller the name "Croat" comes from the Iranian word Hor-va (t)u meaning: the sun’s bed or path. M. Vasmer derives the Croatian name from Hu-urvata meaning, "friend"'

Shouldn't it be one or the other? And what does the Greek "Horoathos" refer to?

'And the terms used to designate the high officials among the Croats, "kral, ban, zupan", are of Iranian origin. ... Even the Croatian words used to designate religious concepts are Iranian: God, religion, sacrifice, paradise, Easter; to cry out (for), to implore, to predict, and so on.'

Where are the comparative lists, and can these be easily verified? In my understanding, the standard Croat words for these concepts are of Slavic origin (God = Bog, etc.). Are there words for these concepts, current or archaic, that are particular to Croatian and not other Slavic tongues? Slavic and Indo-Iranian are separate branches of Indo-European, so if other Slavic languages (especially the South Slavic ones) exhibit cognates similar to the purported Croatian-Iranian parallels, it would be because of the common IE linguistic heritage and not a particularly unique Croatian-Iranian connection.

Twalls 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, and I am not familiar with the Gothic hypothesis, but consider sound shifts from PIE to Common Germanic and Common Slavic, which strike me as at least as plausible as sound resemblances to Indo-Iranian.

1. In most cases, PIE *K -> Common Germanic H and Common Slavic S
2. In most cases, PIE *Bh -> East Germanic B (initial) or B (pronounced as V, intermedial)
3. In most cases, PIE *T -> Common Germanic Þ

Since the Croatian language is generally recognized to be south Slavic, I'm not sure how to explain the sound-shifts in the name. Note that these might come from applying the Germanic sound-shifts to K-R-Bh or K-R-B but not from applying these same sound-shifts to S-R-V or S-R-B. Perhaps another editor can explain this? Jacob Haller 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to counter the above "theories". As an Iranian, I have never heard of the words like "ban", "zupan", or"hor-va". That is pure nonsense. The person who wrote that above has no idea about the "Iranian". Need I also say that there is no "Iranian" language? We speak Farsi, which is Persian language, not Iranian. On top of all that, the genetic make-up of Croats (or Hrvats, as they call themselves) is predominantly R1a, which is Slavic genetic marker. Iranian dominant(Persian to be precise) y haplogroup is J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.20.41 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Genetic evidence

It's very important to know that the numbers shown here represent the results for Croatia (mainland), an investigation was made for whole SEE area and that's how the pattern is defined. Some parts of Croatia was not included in that pattern and that goes especially for central part of the seaside region (Dalmatia). In the same time results from Bosnia show a very high frequency of I1b haplo group among Croats in Bosnia (72%), meaning that population of Dalmatia could have high I1b frequency pretty high too (50% minimum). Some upcoming investigation would give more exact procents than those represented here. 83.131.130.226 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What does genetics have to do with anything? Most of these theories involve mutual assimilation between the local population and one or more migrating groups. The migrating groups either come from central Europe, e.g. Poland, from Pontic Europe, e.g. Ukraine, or both.

I mean, this isn't Slavs vs. Germans vs. Iranians ... it is Slavs, and possibly before that Goths from Ukraine and SE Romania, and possibly before that Alans and/or Sarmatians from Ukraine and... Jacob Haller 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Genetics give admixture pattern of some modern ethnic group, so it helps to reconstruct some historical process together with other disciplines: history, archeology,... In this case it shows predominance of pre-Indo-European element, and fact that it was obviously found in autochtonuous population - Illyrian tribes. Zenanarh 10:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Genetic evidence collected throughout the Jugoslav theory is sketchy at best and is anything but conclusive. Even if taken as a whole, combining all the known works, we are still dealing with such a small precentage of local population that making any conclusions about the genetical make-up of Hrvats is largely speculative. Batagglia et al., cited in this article, use 170 Hrvat samples collected from Hrvatska and Bosna. Siiri Rootsi doctorate study (S. Rootsi was also collaborating in Battaglia's study) came up with completely contrary results. Acording to his tests, about 53% of Hrvats i Hrvatska are of R1a, haplogroup, the R1b takes another 20%+/-, and the I group (with al three sub-groups included) the rest. According to his findings, Hrvats are massively pure Slavs. His study also shows that there more Srbi with the haplogroup I than the Croats. He found 35% of Srbi to have the I haplogroup. In absolute numbers terms, that is way more than in Hrvatska. Interestingly, the only area where Hrvati were of almost exclusive I haplogrop family, was in Hercegovina, the southern part of Bosna, where all three "people" have the same I group of genes as a dominant gene by far. Which irrefutably proves that the Srbi, Hrvati and "muslimani" (Bosanci) are indeed one and the same people. Hrvati are by far the smallest group in Hercegovina, with close to 700 000 of people and 75% of males carry the haplogroup I gene. Bosnians are the largest group and 57% of males carry the I haplogroup gene. Serbs are slightly smaller in numbers than Bosnians and about 40% of males carry the I haplogroup gene. Brotherhood without the unity, to paraphrase now redundant Jugoslav motto. And it keeps getting interesting still: even with such a high percentage of the I genes, Hrvati are still the smallest group of those who have it in absolute numbers. Srbi, with near 40% have about twice as many males with the gene, and Bosanci obviously lead the pack by outnumbering Hrvati three times and then some.

Now, ow about the rest of the people who do not have the I gene? In all three groups the remainder (25% among Hrvati, 60+% among Srbi and 43% among Bosanci are almost exclusively carryinng the R1a haplogroup, or pure Slavic gene. There are about 10% of Persians and Turks among Bosanci and that's it.

It is clear from currently available numbers, inconclusive in a greater scheme of things, that even on that Slavic front the picture is consistent. The genetic pool of Jugoslavs is predominantly Slavic and Ilirian. No Iranian "roots" for either of the groups, despite the mamooth efforts by nationalists and far right whiners from every side. And that fits snugly with the history, as fragmented as it is: Ilirians have always had the tendency to fight everyone and anyone (Demostenes described them as people who are so obsessed with themselves, they would divide themselves to the atoms (this is my tribe, that is yours; this is my creek, that is your meadow), and while being busy fighting each other, they would still gladly take on invaders' names and language just so they are not the same as their cousins and neighbours over the hill. And they are still today hard at it, as even this page atests, sadly.

In conclusion, a comprehensive analysis of as big a group of individuals as possible (ideal would be all, but that may not be easy to achieve) in all of Jugoslav republics would be the only conclusive evidence of genetic image on the ground, and it would once and for all settle the legends, myths and political nationalism that is still today as rampant as ever. My take, after 20 years of analysis on the ground, is that All Jugoslav territories are a dual mixture of Slavs and Ilirians. And that majority of aggressive nationalist leaders are of I haplogroup stock. It will be interesting to see what will eventually come up, if anyone manages to do the full analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.230.45 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Professor Unsigned, I am impressed by your scholarship (if that is the appropriate term) and your "20 years of analysis on the ground". The very fact that you write the following, "All Jugoslav territories", "And that majority of aggressive nationalist leaders are of I haplogroup stock.", "it would for once and for all settle the legends, myths and political nationalism that is still today as rampant as ever." and "Brotherhood without the unity, to paraphrase now redundant Jugoslav motto. And it keeps getting interesting still: even with such a high percentage of the I genes, Hrvati are still the smallest group of those who have it in absolute numbers. Srbi, with near 40% have about twice as many males with the gene, and Bosanci obviously lead the pack by outnumbering Hrvati three times and then some."...tells me in the clearest terms what your agenda is (and the point of your comment/discussion). Also your bias. You can make it unsigned but your (Jugo)goal is very clear to anyone informed enough to perceive it. Justmyhumbleopinion (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, humbly opinionated, you are quite wrong. Your comment reeks nationalism that did you all in I'd say. I tend to agree with the above unsigned, whose points are more valid than yours since you quote numbers sucked out of the thin air and pretend that they are the absolute results. The genetic studies done in the past 20 years, courtesy of people like you killing those who you disagree with, confirm that the two predominant y-haplogroups in the ex Jugoslav republics are the R1a, and I in a few variants, I2a being the more dominant than the others. If you cared to read at least the Siri Rootsi et al analysis, or Perkovic, you would realise how wrong you are. But you are one of those who claim to be of "Iranian" origins, it seems to me. And as I wrote above, as Iranian I can assure you that you are nothing even remotely close to us. You are Slavs and/or Ilirians. You need to learn to live with the truth finally, once and for all.

Non sense

THe 2 sentences :

"And the third conclusion is that modern-day Croats may not have that much genetically in common with the Croats of the proto-Slavic origin. The R1a haplogroup that is usually at 40-60% levels in most Eastern European countries is at 35% within the Croat population."

Croats have 35% R1a, compared to a range of 40-60% in other slavic countries. I do not think this is a very significant difference. Whilst it IS lower, how does the writer of this article jump to the conclusion that they don;t have much genetic commonality.

A better conclusion is that Croats have are a more mixed race compared to Poles, eg, although still genetically Slavic, and certainly culturally.

?

Whilst there is a consensus that the Slavs assimilated some of the Illyrain tribes when the reached the Balkans.

Does anyone know whether any of the other tribes that 'raided' the balkans previously left any contribution to modern day population. Specifically Celts and Goths ???

Iranian origin

I think that this article focuses too much on the Iranian theory , and does not clearly highlight that it is a theory that is incorrect, or at best, overexaggerated.

I think a person who otherwise knows little croat history will come away thinking "croats are iranian", just from the length of discussion about iranian roots, compared to the 2 lines about the most likely slav theory.

It should begin and conclude with a statement highlighting that the theory merely stems from a few linguistic hypotheses that are circumstantial and unproven. Anyone can propose a theory , know matter how unlikely this is.

Of course it does. The theory is not widely held, and exhibits aspects of pseudoscience (see my comments from Dec 2006 on alleged linguistic similarities), but it is noteworthy. I believe the point of the article was to address this theory in particular. But you're right, it could and should be made more balanced. Twalls 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to edit blank theories - Gothic, Avar and Bulgarian and expand autochtonuos theory. As soon as I can. By the way recent investigations of historians and other scientists find these elements as main in forming of Croatian ethnicity: Illyrians (plus Celts), Ostrogoths and Sclavens. It seems that Illyrians are the major part. All 3 groups gave their contribution to Croatian culture. It doesn't mean that Iranian theory is incorrect, since that is a theory about the name and some ancient traditions. It's hard to expect that Iranian ethnos can be found among modern Croats. Slavic theory has another problem. Renaissance writers used "Slavs" as name of all habitants in the Balkans, so it produced "South Slavs". The point is that under that nominative different ethnic groups were hidden. Zenanarh 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my POV: I think the Iranian theory shouldn't merely be dismissed as pseudo-science just because it opposes the established Slavic theory - according to which there was a Slavic homeland somewhere, from which the Slavs for some reason moved southwards, destroying all the Illyrians and populating the Balcans - but the Iranian theory section of the article should be rewritten, because currently the language and the style are inappropriate. I myself am Slovene and to me it is clear that Croat is a Slavic language, resembling more or less all other Slavic languages, but this doesn't necesserily conflict with the theory of Iranian (or should it be called Sarmatian?) origin of the name Croats. Similarly it applies for the Serbs. They definitely speak a Slavic language, yet an ancient Sarmatian tribe called Serboi by the Greeks is well known from historic sources. This tribe moved southwards and settled in the Balcans as early as the second century AD when Ptolemy mentioned a city called Serbinum in the locality of what is nowadays Gradiška (BIH). No reason why the same shouldn't apply also for early Croats. In my mind the only serious question can be, if it was these Sarmatian Croats and Serbs, who brought Slavic language to the Balcans and then assimilated the Illyrians once they established themselves as the ruling elite, which would explain 1) the genetic continuation from paleolithic in the Balcans and 2) why some medieval and subsequent authors reffer to Croats as Illyrians. Or was it the other way around - did these non-Slavic (Sarmatian) speaking Croats and Serbs mix with the Illyrians both genetically and linguistically, thus producing South Slavic. Should then in this light Illyrian and Sarmatian be considered as two separate branches of proto-South-Slavic? One thing is clear - ethnogenetic processes were not as simple as the Slavic (Carpathian) sixth century arrival theory would have us believe.

To echo the above comment with my POV - I think people get caught up in trying to provide a nineteenth century one-size-fits-all potted origin for 'peoples'. Political, linguistic and genetic aspects of a nation are three separate things, and can have three different origins. It is quite possible that the Bulgarians are similar here - they obviously are Balkan in their genetics, are Slavic in their language, but are known to be Turkic in their political origins (not to mention Greek Orthodox in their religion). The Sarmatian theory has been applied to Croats, Serbs (and Sorbs) and also Polish aristocracy - this is described in some detail by Norman Davies in God's Playground (I think) and is not what I would call pseudoscience. Trying to conjure up a single theory for 100% of the population of modern Croatia would be pseudoscience, but because ignorant people take these things too far is not a reason to dismiss these strands. Maybe this article (and others like it) should not only separate out 'theories' by 'genetic', 'linguistic' and so on, but should turn that around and say that these things can only explain the genetics and the language and the separate culture as discrete aspects of the people.Stevebritgimp 08:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I never did hear about the Gothic theory. But then again, I'm sure not many Croats know of Venetic theory of Slovene origin. Not even to speak of the Etruscan, the Scandinavian and the Langobardian theories :-) Could you please explain or edit the Gothic theory? 58.4.148.227 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothic theory doesn't stand alone. It just supplements other theories concerning some influences and partly ethnicity. A several medieval authors were equalizing Goths=Gethae - Slavic speakers and some other Goti=Sclavi . Many Croatian rulers in first few centuries had suffix -mir added to name as title sign, German and Gothic suffixes were -meir and -mer for same purpose. Also Croatian ruling title Ban can be connected to Germanic Bann (holy person). Croatian Medieval State developed from Liburnia Tarsatica state, the same area was previously populated with groups of OstroGoths after conquering Dalmatia. There are some evidences that Dalmatians were finally fighting for Gothic side. Arianism in early Medieval Dalmatia was brought by Ostrogoths, Croatian state under Bans had Arianic Christian church... Zenanarh 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this theory bsaed on "-mir" ending? I think we Poles shoudl advocate ZGothic origin of Poles (Kazimierz aka Casimir -- "he he preaches the peace" seems to be wrong explanation:), Włodzimierz aka Vladimir, and common names attested in middle ages such as Spicymir etc..) :) Szopen (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the mix is allegedly present only in the unpreserved "De Regno Sclavorum" or "Liber Methodus". Goths and Slavs aren't really mixed historically at all. And the origin of the Ban (title) most surely has nothing to do with the Goths, it was taken from the Avars. I hear that about the Ostrogoths for the first time in my life. How sure are you about that? --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The croatians are just hell bent on prooving that they are not slavenes but something else, croats are similar to nazis who once also tried to define themselves as some other ethnicity than they really were. Croatia has many similarities to world war 2 nazi germany, this being one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.23 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is rubbish propaganda, this is not a forum for you to spill your biased views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.17.55 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could not have said it better myself, bravo unsigned commenter from Jan 4, 2008! Justmyhumbleopinion (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As Iranian myself I am getting tired of this ridiculous debate you "europeans" conduct, and still manage to believe yourselves "educated". Croats are NOT Iranians, period. I wrote my comments above in linguistic paragraph. Some ignorant wrote some words from croat language,, like "ban", "zupan", "hor-va", etc, and boldly claimed that they are from "Iranian" language. Well, I for one, do not recognise these words. No idea what they would mean. Please educate me on FARSI language. I am listening. In the meantime, get this into your stubborn, ignorant European heads: croats are Slavs and Ilirians, if that is who teh I-haplogroup bearers are.

Iranians have predominantly J-haplogroup. The group that does NOT exist in croatia in any meaningful shape or form. You are genetically the same as Serbs. Time to turn around and start living with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.20.41 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was the Iranian theory section deleted?

What's the point in having an article on the theories of the origin of Croats, if one of the existing theories is just deleted? Currently only the Slavic 'arrival theory' is presented, and then mixed in the following paragraphs with autochtonous (Illyrian) theory on the basis of genetic research done within the Paleolithic continuity theory on the origin of Indoeuropeans. As said above, the Iranian/Sarmatian theory section was poorly written and referenced, and should be re-written, but not simply deleted. It doesn't matter if one agrees with a particular theory or not, but rather it is about the sociological fact that several theories exist among the Croats. All should be properly presented along with the criticism. The photo of the Tanais stone with its inscription is a relevant piece of information, when it comes to the Iranian theory, why delete it? In its current form the article should not be merged with the Croats article. Better to delete it entirely as it is no longer serving its purpose: to present DIFFERENT theories on the origins of Croats, not just one theory. 61.26.29.48 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags

What's explanation for these tags, Disputed ans Synthesis? Also I wonder why is the article destroyed in last few months, just because it was unfinished? Zenanarh (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If tag cant be explained it should be removed. Dromadar (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger tag

No to merger. Dromadar (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is broken. there is nothing here that has any merit. the question can be fully addressed at Croats. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy... I'm going to repair it... Zenanarh (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

well, please do. Pending that, I have made it a section redirect. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at: Analysis of population genetics shows statistical differences between Lemkos and other Slavic or European populations.

References

what the . . .

"also because Ostrogorski claims that the Slavs, who had tried to take Thessaloniki in 597, invaded Crete in 623, but the sources for his thesis are not clearly known, and because Alexandria was taken by Khosrau II of Persia in 616, but Heraclius recovered it a few years later. Here could be a link to the linguistic Persian theory, too." Sigh. Persian has none/nada/zero links to the Serbo-Croatian dialect that today is called Croatian (outside of IE). And claims of some sort of Croatian invasion of the island of Crete is nonsense, as the editor points out the author of the book has no sources listed. Can we get goofball fringe stuff out of articles such as these, please? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

References

This article is a Joke trying to obscure the Iranian theory which is in fact the most prevalent

It is true that Croats today are undoubtedly a South Slavic people for they speak a Slavic language. However, the proto-Croats, as it has been proved, were an Iranian-Sarmatian tribe that subjugated Slavs (either in central Europe or the Balkans) eventually passing on their name to the Slavs they ruled. So when speaking of the "origin of Croats" one may approach the question from several levels. Genetically, the Croats are probably not "Iranian" to any great extent, but ethnologically they are certainly Iranian in origin. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right , the article is a joke, but not becuase if is "hiding" the Iranic theory, but becuase it is edit by half-wits who keep pushing their own POV, whatever that may be, and not modern theories by non-pseudoscholars which all confirm that the "Croats" was foremost a political formation which took place in northern Dalmatia in the 9th century, then later became a general ethnic term. The only migration that took place was somehat earlier, from Pannonia, and not from Iran, or Sweden. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Croats are not of Iranian origins

I tried to respond to some of the talk comments, but the "Iranian" theory keeps returning by tose fervent suppiorters who seem only to be armed with their zealous nationalist/ideological agenda. Croats are trying to pant a picture of themselves being "different" from the Serbs, but the genes just do not support that nonsense. I am Iranian, my haplogroup is J-M172. Raise your hand, o ye "croats" who share that group! Not a single one. Ok, now that we have cleared that up, I would also to call a lie the claims that some obscure words in croat dialect, are of supposed "Iranian" provenance. Like "ban", "zupan", and hor-va" said to mean something about some paths and sun, it,s there at the top for those interested. All these "examples" are unbeknown to me, and I should know a little bit of FARSI, which is the actual language of Iran. None of these words are Farsi words. Hence, they are not Iranian, just as croats are NOT Iranians.

I hope this should put an end to that pseudo "theory" about croats being "Iranians". They are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.20.41 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nordtvedt

@Crovata why is Nordtvedt unreliable? Why did you remove sourced content?? Please abide by the rules of Wikipedia, if you want to remove sourced material first start a discussion here on the talk page, and explain your behavior, which has been very disruptive. You can't remove sourced content at will. Seek for a consensus, and I beg you stop edit warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer Are you serious? That are not peer-reviewed reliable sources (of which one expired) released in some scientifical journal, book, or documents like every normal source we would use (it fails WP:IRS). That are only messages between two persons, which have no value at all for an encyclopedia. Kenneth Nordtvedt has long experience in genetic genealogy, but his a physicist, not geneticist and historian. There's no need to discuss such obvious issue. Currently am searching for reliable sources for all main Y haplogroups related to the Croats, don't bother.--Crovata (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Transliteration of Χοροάθος with H

@Miki Filigranski: (diff) The Greek letter Χ is transliterated with ch, kh, and sometimes x. This is common sense; transliterating it with H is misleading because the latter indicates a rough breathing. --Z 10:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Medieval Croatian tribes in the 10th century.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)