Talk:Origin hypotheses of the Serbs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article

Hmm... Panonian, I am not sure, but I think that you made an article according to some very POV statment of User:Olgeralbanian. This page should be, at least, reorganized. Also, this article isn't written in encyclopedic manner. --Millosh 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, the User:Olgeralbanian posted sections about origin of Serbs in the articles about Serbia and History of Serbia. Some of his statements were POV, but he also posted some interesting facts, so, I transferred entire section into this new article, and also tried to change some POV statements and to improve article with more interesting facts. I agree that article need more work, but is it really necessary to place statement about neutrality in the article? Please say, what exactly you consider not neutral here, and how you would change this? User:PANONIAN

---

Hmmm... (again). Yes, article is very interesting, but... This is one POV. I don't know if it is true, but there is no any note which treat Serbs as Slavic tribe. And this is the most common explanation for origin of Serbs. So, we have a lot of work on this article. --Millosh 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Milosh, please see if article is better now. Give me more suggestions how to improve it? User:PANONIAN

---

I called User:Joy to join us. He is working on related history articles. However, I think that the content of this article should be named with something like "Pashutian theory of origin of Serbs", or hipothesis. There are other Serb/Rasan names of places (lake Sirbonis in Egypt) and people (Etrurscans was called Rascians), but it is not (yet?) relevant theory. The point is that we are not ethonolgiests and we don't know a lot about this matter. So, I am afraid that this can become (or that can become to look like as) theory of relations between "Amoeabas and Serbs". --Millosh 15:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didn't see relevant bibliography (except for location of places). And Wikipedia is not primary source nor the place for research... However, I don't think that this article should be deleted, but I think that it would stay here for a long time as POV (even as moved into some other name). At least until we gather enough of informations. --Millosh 15:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, I posted some literature there (Especially interesting is book named Stari Srbi, at least if we talk about Iranian theory of Serb origin). Now, my idea is that we post here all theories about Serb origin. This Iranian/Pashtun theory is only one of many, so it should stay here under separate subtitle (which is already there). The other theories should be also mentioned under separate subtitles and then we will have decent article. Do you agree? When I created this article, I merged 2 different articles in it: one claimed that Serbs are of Ibero-Caucasian origin, and other claimed that Serbs are of Turkic origin. I changed this and elaborated Iranian theory, which is more accepted among the researchers. However, I think it would be not bad to write more about Caucasian or Turkic theory, as well as Slavic, Etruscan, etc. Also, this is only article about the origin of Serbian name, since genetically Serbs are mostly descendants of Illyrians. User:PANONIAN

---

The main problem with these kinds of stories is that they tend to miss pointing out that all the evidence is actually very circumstantial and partial, and that it's based on phylological and etymological considerations, and this is very shaky compared to something dug out of the then-contemporary historical records or from archeological findings. As long as the latter evidence doesn't confirm the former one, one must not fail to emphasise that they are interpolation, and after that the story can follow in its old path. --Joy [shallot] 22:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ararat

i just wanted to propose that if you assume that the flood story with noah is true, and you assume that the boat landed on mt ararat, and you can strech the word sheba into serb, then you have a beginning of the serbian people. plus, you can also explain the indo-iranian language root since mt ararat is in iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.233.176 (talk • contribs) 17 July 2005

---

Actually, the mount Ararat is in Turkey, but that is not the point. Besides Serb toponyms and other traces of Serb name in history, there are only 4 cases, in which name Serb is exclusivelly designation for the people:

• 1. Serbs in Balkans (South Slavic people)
• 2. Serbs/Sorbs in Germany (Western Slavic people)
• 3. Serboi in Asiatic Sarmatia, north Caucasus (Eastern Iranian people)
• 4. Sarbans in Afghanistan (Eastern Iranian people)

User:PANONIAN

Genetic link to Illyrians

Genetically Serbs are not mostly descendants of Illyrians! Croats are. I1b Y-chromosome haplo-group is found mostly in Croatian population. According to recent investigations: I1b has its frequency maximum in Herzegovina (72%) which is almost populated by Croats and which is the area where Croats were not mixing with other entities a lot. I1b in Croatia = 38% (continental Croatia), in Serbia and Montenegro = 20% (mostly in Montenegro, in Serbia very low frequencies, Montenegrians deny that they are Serbs, their language is more similiar to Croatian than to Serbian), following the frequency and dispersion of I1b leads to conclusion that Dalmatia has very high frequency too. And Dalmatia is not populated with Serbs, except some colonies which date from last few hundred years - descendants from Serbia during Otoman wars.83.131.155.69 07:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Serb Physical similarities with Iranians

Physical anthropology accepts the idea that Serbs are a particular kind of "slavs", the father of physical anthropology dr Carleton Steven Coon makes this statment on the racial profile of serbs;

The Living Slavs (Chapter XII, section 12) by dr.Carleton Steven Coon 1930.

"The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians; 45 per cent of eyes are pure brown (Martin #2-4). The skin is brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total. It is unlikely that the prevalence of brunet pigmentation among the Serbs came from a Slavic source, and as we shall presently see, the high incidence of dark eyes can hardly be called Dinaric" http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII12.htm

While Illyrians were pure Dinarics this makes serbs not related to native Albanians (Illyrians).Trojani 08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trojani you should not make UP your on little theories. You are dabbling in pseudo- science and you do not actually know what you are talkling about. This website is not an opportunity for promoting you Albanian terrorist ideologies !

Sources

How interesting this hypothesis is one must account for the following:

• Serbian today has more then 600 words of Celtic origin, many names or rivers and towns in Serbia are Celtic of origin; but you will not hear me say that Serbs are Celts.
• Because a word looks like Srb doesn't mean that it is derived from e.g. Sarab. Especially since the words we see here are in different languages. A perfect example would be the name of Croatia-->Krabatin, Latynze, Corbavia and Liburna. You need more "proof"
• Serbs are not descendants of Illirians. There could be some mix but the Illirians were wiped out by the previous invading tribes such as the Goths, Celts etc.

I would like to see some real sources and possibly quotes. I know that the Croats have a similar theory and if you put it in place with the bible then it makes sense. However, speculation will not get you there. Good luck and best regards,

SGS webteam [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGS (talk • contribs) 3 August 2005‎

---

According to anthropology, Serbs are mostly descendants of Dinaric peoples, and that mean Illyrians. Illyrians were not wiped out by the invading tribes. They simply moved to mountains and they are known under the name of Vlachs in history. Slavic Serbs mixed with these Vlachs during the last 1,400 years. Even today, you have non-Slavicized Vlachs in eastern Serbia. User:PANONIAN

---

PANONIAN, do you understand the word descendancy? 213.100.205.149 17:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

This word can have several meanings. In this case, the meaning is anthropological, of course. PANONIAN 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Disambiguation link repair

This page links to Slovak, which is a disambiguation page and so shouldn't be linked to from the article namespace. Could someone with the ability to edit this page please do so? Agentsoo 19:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Recovering material

My guess is that a bunch of the material cut in this edit at Serbs could find a home in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 09:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Illyrians and Thracians

Damir, why do you find ridiculous that Serbs have assimilated Illyrians and Thracians ? Before the Serbs came to that region, it is clear that it was not empty. There were Romans, but they were mainly in the cities, such as Naissus/Niš. The less accessible places were inhabited by the pre-Roman populations, such as Illyrians and Thracians. bogdan 18:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious to note that the Illyrians were no longer residing in that region when the Serbs arrived. How come? Well if you would check some valid sources in proper history books you will see that the region has been subjected to raids from Goths, Ostro-Goths, Avars, and Celts. All of them had the policy to spare none. Also then there is the beautifull item most Illyrian lovers forget is that Illyria was never a state! It was called Illyria by the Romans and Greeks but the people in that region were most of the time, tribal, not related to each other and didn't even speak the same language. SGS 12:21, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Dear SGS,

I'm no expert on ancient/medieval Balkan history but I have studies quite a lot of West and North European ancient/medieval history and based on knowledge about how such things (migration and the formation of nations) happened in Western Europe it would seem unlikely that today's Serbs are not the result of a mixture of peoples who have lived in the region before and after the arrival of the Serb 'tribe' in the 600s. After all, wasn't the Serb tribe itself a mix of Slavs and Iranians (and maybe others)?

I have never heard any proof that the region of Serbia was somehow devoid of inhabitants when the Serb tribe(s) arrived from Poland (or wherever exactly they arrived from). Just as the Iranian Serb tribe (if that was indeed the case) established itself as masters over the Slavs in Poland the 'new' Serb tribe undoubtedly established itself as masters over the local peoples in the region, in time forming what today is seen as the Serb nation/people.

It might interest you to know that both the Goths and the Avars are often described as being confederations of various tribes/peoples, some of different ethnicity, rather than a culturally and ethnically coherent people.

This runs counter to the traditional 19th century view of nations/peoples as being more or less distinct historical entities.

Regards Osli73 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osli,

Yes I am aware that the Avars and most other groups were confederations. Serbs are mixed, of course I am in no way advocating this(The Ottomans didn't have a picknick for 500 years ;-) ) but they did manage to stay fairly seperate and capable of retaining their tribal name while most other migrating sub-tribes lost track of that. Serbs are from what we are currently seeing from both new historical research and DNA research mostly non-Slavic. Simply put Serbs speak a Slavic language but are not your typical Slavic tribe as you state. There is no such thing as a "ethnical" pure race, I do not advocate this and hence also my comments on the Illyrians! As for the Iranian thing, it is a theory that is under development. I know of some people that are very activly engaged in this and it opens up a lot of interesting questions but it still remains very speculative.

Yes I agree, 20th century statehood can in no way be compared to political/confederate entities around that early time. There is a but, Serbs moved into Germany before making a push southwards. What we know now is that around 600+ AD they entered Serbia under guidence of the "Unknown Archont" (We do not have his name, but we do have the genealogy and names of his sons), and entered organised in 1 wave at Stari Vlah which is in today's Serbia. According to Greek sources the land was marooned besides some pockets of Celts in that region. Serbs mixed with them (hence the fact that Serbian knowns more then 600 words and toponyms of Celtic origin)

As for the land being marooned. I presume you speak Greek since you studied history. Strabo has some very interesting reports on the "Balkans". That are functioned as a conduate before 600 AD and besides some mountain ranges the rest of the land is fairly easy accesible when one holds the proper strategic points. That is also one of the reasons the Romans and Greeks preferred the whole region to be 1 province. That makes it easier to control and manage. What my main objection is is that because the region was called Illyria and its inhabitants Illyrians people jump from that point to the point that all of those people that lived there were related to one another.

The mixing of the DNA pool is a ongoing process, in that sense there is nothing new under the sun :-)

Hope this clarifies what I mean.

Regards,

Regards SGS 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I removed a bunch of not completely wikified text that was copy-pasted from this page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7681/origins.html The list of toponyms didn't belong here anyway, since it was original research. bogdan 18:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; it was a thorn in the eye anyway. A large part of those were based on s(e)rebro (silver) root in any case. I wonder, though, if "S(e)rb" and "s(e)rebro" are cognates; none of the theories listed mentions that possibility, which looks plausible to me (although it's just my theory). Duja 09:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I returned this part, I will rewrite and wikify this section tomorrow. Now I go to sleep. PANONIAN (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

In Caucasus region (Daghestan,Avaria)we find toponims SABARIB (ava.="In Sabar"; "Sabar" is for cauc-avars unknown,tribe?) "Avarsko-russkij slovar'.M.Saidov.Moskva.SE.1967

The title

Since this article mostly consists of accounts of theories which have no wide acceptance among historians, the current title is misleading.

I think I (or someone of the same mind) moved it from History of Serbs for exactly that reason :-) Duja 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On a more general note, the fact that similar words appear in different places has very little value for proving anything. There are about 15 consonants and 5 vowels which are widely used in world's languages, and a Roman writer could write down only few thousand different foreign 4-phoneme morphemes. Or to make it more obvious: words that sound like "Serb" mean many things in different languages, and without hard data and extensive historic sources, which simply don't exist for that place and period, claiming that Serb comes from "svrbeti" or "srbeti" (to itch in Serbian and Slovenian), or from "serve" has just as much basis in reality as claiming that it comes from an Iranian tribe whose name a Roman writer wrote down as Serboi. Zocky | picture popups 12:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I moved the article to Theories on the origin of Serbs, to make it match the content. Zocky | picture popups 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Aryan race once again?

Wikipedia is infected! Lord Loxley 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That map is a fake

The description of the map said that it is a map of Serbia in the 9 centary, this map is fake because as i have said it many times before the country was called Ragska and the boders seem much greater then it realy was. Another thing where is Red Croatia latter called in the 11 centary as the Kingdom of Duklja. --Marbus2 5 13:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Country was called Serbia in the 9th century. Its eastern part was called Raška and western part Bosnia, but together they were called Serbia. Red Croatia is fictional term that never existed as political unit but was only an unofficial designation used by Croats for these 4 principalities. PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Country was not called Serbia in the 9th century. Serbs lived only in Raška. It seems that you are using Serbian history literature from 19th century which is coloured with nationalism. Even the most of Serbian history says that the name of Serbs is mentioned for the first time in 9th century for population of Raska (which was not organized as a state and didn't have a ruler or king) who was in the war with Bulgaria. Incorrect and controversial map can not be the part of encyclopedia or better to say can not be the basis for funny theories or conclusions. 89.172.68.155 10:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NO . The map is correct. It matches that described by German source from 200 years ago

c. 1097 AD

Duja's (and my) reason for recent revert

"The bottom line is: all the Balkan peoples are a mix of indigenous peoples and settlers, the genetic issue is moot, and similar conclusions be reached (or not reached) for all neighboring peoples. (See related Noel Malcolm's book which pertains more to Kosovo, but I don't see a reason why it should be much different elsewhere around)." Ancient Land of Bosoni

I think you're excercizing a WP:POINT here; there's lot of crap in the article, but you selected to delete the one sentence I actually agree with (and you probably would, as I don't see what's actually wrong with it, being pretty broad):

Genetically and anthropologically, Serbs are descendants of Slavic and indigenous peoples of the Balkans (Vlachs, Illyrians, Thracians, etc.).

It was unsourced, though, much like the rest of the article, so I don't give much damn about it. (For the uninitiated: the exchange on genetic origins started at Talk:Bosniaks). Duja► 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is that you didn't allow me to write the exactly same thing in the Bosniaks article because it was a myth? So why do you agree when the same thing is written in a serbian article, but not in a bosnian one? Ancient Land of Bosoni

It wasn't the same thing: the one in Bosniak article, digested, reads like "Although they speak the Slavic language, Bosniaks are (chiefly) or Illyrian origin". Maybe that even wasn't the intention, but that's how it came out. The one here is far more broader. Duja► 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the name "srb" and "hrb", it is easy to find the origin. we look to slavik language first. what is common in slavik language? well, first we must say that neither srb or hrb occur in the slavik dialect.

with that said, since we know in the slavik language the "hard r" is common, and we find both the hard r in srb and hrb, what happens if we take it out?

sb, and hb.

we know in the ancient world s is usually pronounced sh, and b is pronounced with eb so we might change sb to sheb. same for hrb.

heb and sheb.

the only palce we can find both heb and sheb is hebrew and sheba, as in the semetic people. with the genetic evidence this throy becomes more likely, and if we look at familiar customs such as marriage within the tribe or the marriage of ones cousin as some serbs do, middle eastern origins become even more likely. if we also look at location, close to turkey, and just general appearences we find some of the lost semetic people, which are the best in the whole world.

Let's be serious

Guys,

With all due respect,someone here should read books by Maria Gimbutas, a famous and recognised Euro-American linguist. Try "The History and Origin of Slavs". Let's talk about facts and try not to reinvent the wheel. Gimbutas was the first one to talk about the origins of name "Serbi" or "Harvi". The name comes from ancient writen documents on Slavic invasion of Balkans. The name "Serbs" or "Serves" simply denotes "people" or "shepherds" in proto-Slavic. The chronicles were writen by Sarmatians and translated by Byzantines. Sarmatans, like all proto-Persians, used "X" symbol for "S" sound ("Xerox' is actually pronounced "Seros"). Greeks transcribed it into their "X" and pronounced it "H". The conversion of "A" into "E" and "B" into "V" is common in European Languages, specially in Greek and Spanish. You do the math...Anyway, read Maria Gimbutas, not me. She explains very simply and logically how Serbs and Croats came to Balkans as one single SLAVIC tribe.The rest was lost in translation and religion.... And please, save us from "Iranian" and Bosnian theories! The (Iranian) Sarmatians were only chronicians on invading Slavs, they were not the population's part. Read Maria Gimbutas! Any Public Library has her books. User:BB

Aryan Serbians

The Sabirs (Sabars) were N-Caucasian People and lived in Daghestanian Avaria. The Avarian mtDNA like more Iranian and Slavs than Caucasian (or Daghestanian) Peoples. See about it http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Variation in the Caucasus (2004). But "Serebrjannoje" in Georgia and Azerbaidshan is pure russian Word. Non-Russian Toponym is in Avaria. 'SABARIB'(= In Sabar or "In territorry of Sabars")--Warhunne 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranian theory

I agree . The Iranian theory sounds like a load of waffle. It just isn;t plausible.

I can make a theory like 'Serb comes from the ancient martian word meaning blah blah ..."

Pure and simply, Serbs are the product of the Slavic tribes and native illyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.245.111 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2007

Genetics

Why is so much time spent on the origin of the name, the slavic migration theory, etc. etc. and so little time on the genetics? The former tells us very LITTLE about who the modern Serbs are as a people. Slavic migrations consistute so much of this article, yet they seem to constitute a relatively small part of the origin of most of the Serbs living today. --TC

Error

I suspect there is an inaccuracy about the Sorbs, stating that they are the descendents of Serbs that remained in white Serbia (east Germany). This is a common error. Sorbs are actually the descendents of Polabian Slavs (ie similar to Poles), but are referred to as Sorbs becuase they live in the area formerly inhabited by the Serbs. What serbs remained in Germany were assimilated by the Saxons Hxseek 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive PoV fringy garbage

Not only that this article lacks at least a few dosen inline references for extremely controversial claims it propounds, but most of the etymologies presented in it are some imaginative creations that look as if they've been copied from some 15th-century scholastic dictionary in which Ancient Greek and Latin words have been derived from Hebrew by means of arbitrary postulated ad-hoc devised sound changes.

Esp. this part:

Maybe Sarmoi > Serboi, Srb from lit. sarma `gray, white weasel' [common PIE b > w mutation]. Both root names Hrv (Croat) and Srb (Serb) are interchangeable: s > h, b > v phonetic mutations. Srb (Serb) could be the origin of the latter Hrv (Croat).

Croat etymon (partially discussed here in its own article) is provably not related to Serbian etymon, and no major scholar correlates these two ethnicons as far as I know. Connecting them in a way that derives Croat name from Serbian looks to me like some another Greater Serbian theory according to which Croats are "catholic Serbs" (Karadžić, Šešelj etc.).

The same can be put forth for connecting Serbs and Sorbs (genetically, linguistically and historically completely different people), Pashtuns, Scythians...whatnot. Phrases such as "Lusatian Serbs" are laughable.

Please use extensive inline citations for every of those claims, citing reliable sources. A number of theories listed here fringe and thus have no place at Wikipedia. That includes books like Srbi, narod najstariji by Olga Luković- Pjanović all its later spin-offs.

This article should be either stubbed, blanked or redirected to History of the Serbs. Some of the material can be reused to write the article Name of Serbia, that should deal with etymological theories on Serbian ethnonym. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)