|
Post by uz on Jul 15, 2011 18:21:15 GMT -5
All of the southern-Slavs have inter-mixed period.
TO claim that the "IC" is specifically Serbian is a long shot, yet it doesn't seem to be far from par. The Serbs are the orignal "Southern-Slavs, so depending how you look at it, Krivos is not that wrong.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 15, 2011 18:24:12 GMT -5
The original "Serb-Tribe", that derived from the Slavic group is the oldest and longest standing tribe-name since. The other tribes have either assimilated with others, changed-names, or got extinguished one way or another.
The "IC" is comparable to the Scots and how they use the "MC" (in the beginning of their last names), like McGregor, McLeod, McEwen, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 15, 2011 18:33:06 GMT -5
All of the southern-Slavs have inter-mixed period. TO claim that the "IC" is specifically Serbian is a long shot, yet it doesn't seem to be far from par. The Serbs are the orignal "Southern-Slavs, so depending how you look at it, Krivos is not that wrong. Serbs aren't the original 'south Slavs' because Serbs didn't have a specific identity in the 7th century. Remember , they were 'named' by outsiders and we don't even know what they called themselves. They didn't even name their land " Serbia" until much later on while Croatia and Bulgaria already existed. On top of that Serbs are certainly not the 'original' south Slavs in the Western Balkans because A. We see no trace of a particular Serb identity there and B. even the Byzantine Emperor eluded to the fact that the 'Serbs' ( whatever they are) arrived after the Croats. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani...^ From the Emperor's own records. It's quite possible that non-Slavic speaking people fungled up 'Serb' and 'Slav' together and apart since both mean essentially the samething in Latin and Greek so the Serbs could've come before as nameless Slavs with the Turkic invaders or what we're dealing with is a separate Serb and Slav meaning. I think Krivo might be right but doesn't understand the implications of what he proposes.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 15, 2011 18:38:23 GMT -5
The original "Serb-Tribe", that derived from the Slavic group is the oldest and longest standing tribe-name since. The other tribes have either assimilated with others, changed-names, or got extinguished one way or another. The "IC" is comparable to the Scots and how they use the "MC" (in the beginning of their last names), like McGregor, McLeod, McEwen, etc. IT WASN"T EVEN A "TRIBE" because the Slav/Serb name is of NON SLAVIC origin given to these people the Greeks and Romans called 'slaves.' We know the 'Serbs' ( i.e. your Serbs) didn't call themselves neccessarily Slavs or Serbs because A. They called their country 'Rascia' long before 'Serbia' in the Balkans and B. they were 'Wends' ( Germanic name) until they opted for a Latinized version 'Serbs' 'Slavs' or 'Sorbs' in the north. They were nameless Slavs , that's what Serb/Slav means , a nameless Slav that is percieved by others ( Greeks and Latins) as shoddy , poor , and slavish. Your specific Balkan Serb identity came much later with Saint Sava making your group of Slavs their own church.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 15, 2011 18:42:39 GMT -5
The Serbs were a tribe, how do you just "give" a name to them and at the same time have this "name" spoken of in the far-east, China and India.
Since you want to get technical, present-day Serbia, in no way represents the home-land of the Serb people. "Serbia" is too new for that. Our "borders" stretch out way further than that, our hand and foot-prints are all over the Balkans, ESPECIALLY throughout the whole Yugo-states.
The initial date-arrival of the Southern-Slavs into the Balkans is totally, unknown. Only assumptions based on what our friendly neighbours say. Think of how the times were back then, you think they came as one-giant wave? They were not that organized, nor did they care about "politics" and "rule" -this came later. We never had ONE ruler or ONE rule system. We developed the new identity, and a state (Rascia) because of empirical-threats. If it weren't for the Byzantines, who knows where we would be.
They contained us, because they disliked us, all of our "rulers" disliked us, we were a nightmare to control. The Romans in particular couldn't stand us, hence the perk of Croatia, lol. The Turks tried to but couldn't exterminate us, the Byzantines have written accounts of how the Serb people never obeyed Byzantine Law, and constantly did the opposite of what was expected. Sure they invaded "Serbia" but we seem to forget about the town/cities that were un-invadable. Straight anarchy.
Serbs were the ones stricly known for their guerrilla warfare tactics constantly at war with the enemry, many of THESE tribes-men came from present-day Montenegro, even when it didn't make sense they would attack regiments. This was our nature; to always take on the oppressor no matter what the odds are.
|
|
|
Post by kendjelic on Jul 15, 2011 19:11:50 GMT -5
I think I'm going to have to side with Prisojanin here. I do know enough to not say 'ic' is Croat only or Serb only. What I don't know is where my family was prior to the 1750's. Some of my records are from Berzence, Hungary (Somogy co) and that after the Turks were kicked out of that town, Croats were invited there to sort of recolonize it. This place is very close to Zdala and Gola where my fam comes from. So who knows, they could have been in that group or they could have came from Serbia for all I know. When I get time, I may post a pic of my Grandfather, Father and myself. To me, my Grandpap and my Dad do not look like most Croats I've seen. My dad is so dark that when coming across the border from Mexico during vacation he was stopped because they thought he was an illegal immigrant lol. My mom is super light skinned so I am not too dark myself. My dad is half Northern Italian so that might be those genes. Brother , unfortnately get used to how some Serbians are. They tend to try to claim things that don't belong to them ... as if something is lacking in their own ethnos that fills them with envy , especially towards their neighbors. Of course not every Serb is like some of these Cetniks here so keep that in mind. Personally I think it goes back to their identity-less Slav history which is why Serbs have a weaker 'united' identity today. Just my musings though , I don't claim to be a historian. And hardly anyone knows their ancestry passed a couple centuries ago , its near impossible to know since records are sparse , one can only assume. Franciscans and later land administrators kept records of baptismals and land deeds connected to my family but those only date back to about what your records date back to. Are you sure your father isn't half south Italian? On average northern Italians have a lighter complection ( left over from the Italicized Franks , Lombards , Normans , etc). Southern Italians tend to look more like Greeks and even northern Africans ( Moors) and appear darker as a result. I also have some Ukrainian ( Rusyn) and Czech in my ancestry which I think is pretty cool. Yeah I'm sure. Way north Italy, both my Great Grandparents were from the north. We still have relatives over there. Not sure where those genes come from. We're also plagued with a nice size convex nose...I mean big lol.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 15, 2011 19:44:10 GMT -5
You mean the famous Roman nose?
|
|
|
Post by kendjelic on Jul 15, 2011 22:05:54 GMT -5
You mean the famous Roman nose? Lol. That would be it hahaha. Maybe even a bit larger.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 16, 2011 7:43:46 GMT -5
^ I have the same kind of nose lol
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jul 16, 2011 8:50:23 GMT -5
Convex noses aren't unusual in the Balkans at all, convex noses are as a rule Dinarid and anything but a convex nose implies non-Dinarid admixture. As for the etymology of the word "Slav", it's most likely from the word "Slovo" meaning "Word" denoting people who speak/understand the same language. And as for South Slavs and their origins read a bit of this: www.scribd.com/doc/8699791/Noel-Malcolm-Origins-Serbs-Albanians-and-VlachsNo problem.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 16, 2011 10:06:33 GMT -5
Except that Slavs didn't call themselves 'Slavs' as far as we know. That name stuck only after foreigners ( Greeks and Romans) used it to describe Slav speaking peoples. At first the term was derogatory since Slavs encroached upon valuable land but then became standard among the Slavs themselves. Consider this , how many Slavs actually called their land 'Slavia' until much much later ? Lets see , lets start with the history of the Slavs that were basically without a tribal name = Serbs , Slovenes , Sorbs , and Slovaks. - Serbs named their country Raska. Even from so-called 'White Serbia' we don't even know what their country was called. There is no record of 'Serbia' anywhere until its rise in the Balkans many centuries later. Serbs were slav speaking Rascians, Wendo-Lusatians. - Slovaks were slav speaking Moravians. - Slovenes were slav speaking Carantanians. They named their principality Carantania. Lets contrast this to actual tribes of people that were slav speaking. I.e. they already had an identity. -Case in point. Croats ( Hroabatorum , Chroabatorum). Croats called themselves Croats. Croats already had an existing homeland 'Great' or 'White' Croatia before they even came to the Balkans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland_under_Boleslaw_Chrobry.jpgWhen they arrived in the Balkans they called their country Croatia and outsiders even recognized it as such even though they also referred to Croats as 'Slavs' at times because of the language. They divided their country into 3 main providences , White Croatia , Red Croatia , and Pannonian Croatia , no other names among themselves although some outsiders did call Pannonian Croatia , for example , 'Sclavinia' because of the Slav tougue. Bulgarians - virtually the same thing. Bulgarians , now slavophones , called their country Bulgaria while 'Serbia' in the Balkans didn't yet exist. Again , Croats called themselves Croats , Bulgarians called themselves Bulgarians , Serbs called themselves 'Slavs' or 'Rascians.' I am in agreement with Krivo that 'Serb' is a derivation of 'Slav' and at times the two are jumbled up , usually by non Slav speakers in history , to mean the same thing i.e. first shoddy uncivilized people , then a languistic and geographical commonality, then , in the case of Balkan and Lusatian Serbs , Slovenes , and Slovaks , a new ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jul 16, 2011 11:20:17 GMT -5
Why would they only call a specific ethnic group for Slaves? There was a clear distinction between these Slavs and other ethnic groups that invaded, I don't see why the Greeks and Romans only made derogatory terms for the Slavs but not any of the other "Barbarian" peoples. The term 'Sclavinoi' was a misunderstanding based on the already used Slov/Slav. The theory that it comes from "Slov", is much more likely, seeing as it fits well with the fact that ethnonyms have a meaning which denotes understanding of a language. The Albanian ethnonym 'Shqiptar' is a perfect example of that, coming from the word shqipoj (to speak clearly) denoting that a 'Shqiptar' is a person who is intelligible as he speaks an intelligible language. Along with 'Slov' meaning someone who speaks the same language, one has the term 'Nemac' denoting foreign people. Which is similar to the ethno-linguistic dichotomy Deutsch-Wälsch. How many Germanic peoples actually called their land 'Germania', how many Latin countries did the same and etc. It's not that very important. Lets see , lets start with the history of the Slavs that were basically without a tribal name = Serbs , Slovenes , Sorbs , and Slovaks. Not necessarily, the ethnonym 'Serb' is likely to be of Iranian origin and this term was used before they came to the Balkans: www.scribd.com/doc/8699791/Noel-Malcolm-Origins-Serbs-Albanians-and-Vlachs
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 16, 2011 11:43:13 GMT -5
^ Serbs have settled through the Iranian planes, they were not Iranic, they were travelling from the far-East.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jul 16, 2011 11:49:47 GMT -5
TBH I don't know all the reasons why the Greeks and Romans called these people 'Slavs' but the origin of the word is clearly Latin and Greek. Even Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos , the Byzantine Emperor in the 10th century described them " 'Serbs' in the tongue of the Romans is the word for 'slaves', whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes, and 'tzerboulianoi' for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans."
We don't know if Slavs called themselves Slov/Slav/or Serbs this early in the game. The name is probably a foreign term like 'Wend' because we know some slavophone tribes called themselves by an actual name such as the Croatians , Bulgarians , and Rascians.
Speculation as opposed to the Romans and Byzantines that wrote exactly what they meant by the term. It's a foreign name given to slavophones.
Slov means 'letter' which denotes writing in which Slavs didn't have their own particular written language until much later with Cyril and Methodius. 'Jezik' would be more tantalizing as evidence.
You're missing the point. Slavophone Croats called their land Croatia, Bulgars - Bulgaria , Kievian Rus - Russia , Moravians-Moravia , Carantians - Carantia , Rascians -Rascia , etc. The Slav ( /Serb term) is a foreign element to the slavophones themselves until it was accepted by the Slavs themselves later in history i.e. the creation of Serbs , Slovenes , Slovaks , etc.
Nah , probably not Iranian. Probably Latin for slave just like 'slav.' Remember , its important to know what the Serbs or Slavs called themselves this early in time.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jul 16, 2011 17:28:28 GMT -5
TBH I don't know all the reasons why the Greeks and Romans called these people 'Slavs' but the origin of the word is clearly Latin and Greek. Even Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos , the Byzantine Emperor in the 10th century described them " 'Serbs' in the tongue of the Romans is the word for 'slaves', whence the colloquial 'serbula' for menial shoes, and 'tzerboulianoi' for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being slaves of the emperor of the Romans."It's not reliable to use a Byzantine Emperor to back up your theory. If the Romans And Greeks really misunderstood the meaning of 'Slav' and wrongfully derived it from Sklaboi 'slave', then they can hardly be a reliable source. We do know that there was a group of people called 'Serboi', they were mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2th century, these Serboi were Sarmatians; Indo-Iranians. The -oi was an old Greek suffix that Ptolemy probably added to the name, therefore it would probably be 'Serb' even. One thing is certain and that is that the ethnic term 'Serb' is much older than the meeting of Slavs with Romans and Greeks. But it's not reliable to rely on Roman and Byzantine writing in this case; as told they can have wrongfully thought of the term 'Slav' as an ethnonym stemming from 'Slave'. Linguistics also support 'Slav' as not being an ethnonym of foreign origin. It's 'Slovo', my mistake. But how they call their land is hardly relevant as there will always be some exceptions, the first Slavic state in what is Slovakia today was the Principality of Nitra for example and not Slovakia, that doesn't mean the term 'Slovakia' is foreign. Early principalities didn't necessarily have names that related to the peoples of that principality, states didn't base themselves on ethnicity at that time. The term 'Serb' is probably a foreign element, although whereas I believe it to be of Iranian origin, you believe that it's of Roman/Greek origin. It's not that important though as 'Bulgar' and 'Rus' are non-Slavic ethnonyms as well. However, as mentioned earlier we have the Serboi that were mentioned as early as in the 2th century by Ptolemy, I think it's very possible that the modern Serbs at least got their ethnonym from the Serboi. No, lol. The Serboi were mentioned specifically as an Indo-Iranian people; That doesn't mean that the Serbs are Indo-Iranians originally, just that they got their ethnonym from an Indo-Iranian people. That is by no means something unique among the Slavs, you have the Russians from the originally Viking 'Rus' and the Bulgarians which were originally an Indo-Iranian or a Turkic people.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jul 16, 2011 17:59:45 GMT -5
We're talking in technicalities here. These "Serbs" migrated from further East than just Iran, they may have settled, but the migration was nowhere near targeted. I'm not talking about Iran, I'm talking about Sarmatians which were an Indo-Iranian people and they were a little bit further to the west than you think.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 16, 2011 18:14:05 GMT -5
@ Odel, I was mistaken what you were referring to. Here's some quotes I found; * Herodotus (11,6) (5th century BC), and Diodor from Sicily (1,30) mention the lake named Serbonis (Σερβυνιδοζ) in lower Egypt. Tacitus, ca. 50 AD): described the Serboi tribe near the Caucasus, close to the hinterland into the Black Sea. Many consider this theory as a very probable one taking some distant linguistic similarities with today's Caucausus people's such asIngus hi, Chechens Ptolemy (150 AD): "between the Keraunian mountains and the river Pa, live the Orineians, Valians andSerbs." (Geographia V, s. 9). Ptolemy also mention the city in Pannonia namedSer binum (present day Gradiškain Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina). This well known ancient scientist one more time points out to the Caucasus placing Serbs close to Black Sea riviera The earliest possible association of Serbi with Slavs is fromProcopius (6th century), who says that Antaeand Sclavenes (Slavs) originally had the common name Sporoi, which has been claimed as a corruption ofSr bi (Serbs). The Serbs came from the north from what is now the Czech Republic region. In his book "Hrvati i Srbi, dva stara različita naroda" Dr. Dominik Mandić disputes the theory that the Serbs are of Iranian origin and claims that they were actually anAlarodian people. He dismisses the Iranian theory because it is based solely on the fact that the area where the Serboi ethnonym is first mentioned (near the Sea of Azov) was home to the Iranian Sarmatians, and this led historians to falsely jump to the conclusion that the Serboi themselves were also Iranian The Serbs were mentioned as Serboi by Pliny the Younger in his Geographica in the first century AD (69-75) as living on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. In the 5th century, Herodotus writes in his Persian Wars that Serbs (Serboi, Sirboi) live behind the Caucasus, near the hinterland of the Black Sea. In the fourth century the Carpathians are mentioned as Montes Serrorum (Serb mountains?) by the Roman emperor Licinius There is a theory that the other branch of Sarmatian Serbs maybe moved northeast to the southern base of the Urals, and settled there for a time. We can call them 'Volga Serbs'. They possibly moved eastwards, deep into Siberia, leaving traces in the names towns along the coast of the Sea of Japan.These we can call 'Siberian Serbs'. It is even possible that Siberia was named after this Old Serb tribe In the Caucasus, the homeland of the Sarmatian Serbs, they left their traces around the river Volga (Araxes in Greek). In modern Georgian, that river is called "Rashki". This name was used by Balkan Serbs as a name for their first state and is found wherever the name Serb is found in clusters indicating settlements. It is often used to designate hydronyms and likely meant 'river' or 'water' in Old Serb. Serb lands in the 9th Century. 10th-century geographer Ibrahim ibn Yaqub placed the people of "Saqalib" in the mountainous regions of Central Balkans, west of the Bulgarians and east from the "other Slavs" (Croats), thus in the Serb lands. The Saqalib had the reputation of being "the most courageous and violent". The origin of the name Serb from an Indo-European root seems most probable. Serbian toponyms in their homeland in the Caucasus are often remote to Slavic tongues, but close to Iranian. www.scribd.com/doc/21800418/Theories-on-the-Origin-of-the-Serbs@ Priso; Perhaps the Cro's were mentioned first during the 7th century, but clearly the Serb/Serboi/Srbi name has been mentioned during the 1st century, not sure what your previous point was. Most likely, according to ancient observations, this name is even older. Scholars have suggested that the Indo-European root *ser- 'to watch over, protect', akin to Latin servare 'to keep, guard, protect, preserve, observe' . Not slave, or to serve. There is also refrencing of the "Serbs" being related to the Pashtun or Pathan people. This is one of the 10 lost tribes of Israel. So depending our far one wants to go back, who really knows the origin?
|
|
|
Post by Username on Jul 20, 2011 0:37:41 GMT -5
Kendjelic sounds Croatian more than anything.. Serbian? Don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jul 20, 2011 10:52:50 GMT -5
Yes, forgot to add that the name is of Croatian background. Sorry bout the previous post but Priso and I tend to go way off original topic.
|
|
|
Post by katiekay325 on Mar 12, 2012 3:52:15 GMT -5
i read your post im not sure if you will get this since you posted this almost a year ago but if you do please contact me i'm 3'd generation in america my great grandfather was ivan kendjelic he came from croatia to my families knowledge we are the only kendjelic here in america i speak to my family in croatia on a weekly basis im interested if theres something here as far as in a relation, please contact me back
|
|