Talk:Croats/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Origins and Etyomology

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, the above sections are very problematical. Rather than utilizing the nuanced and measured theories that are abundant nowadays, some editors keep insisting on passing off whimsical word-play etymologies as serious work, and even credible Croat scholars dismiss it. Way too much focus on the Tanais inscription, which in all likelihood has absolutely nothing to do with Croats. The Iranic and Gothic theories deserve nothing but passing mention, an interesting but unlikely possibility at most, and nationalistic pseudo-scholarship at worst. Where are the works of Klaic, Magetic, Dzino, etc ?? I plan to changIne this in the near future to make the introductory few segments of this article more credible Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The focus on Tanais inscription is there, but not definitive, it could be removed mention that is "the most widely-hely theory". Where are Iranic and Gothic theories mentioned? What part of work by Klaic, Magetic, Dzino etc. would be add?--Crovata (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of dead-stupid nonsense up there about silly vaguely-"Croats"-sounding inscriptions as such, that's a fact.. -- Director (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole ethonym part can be condensed or removed; and only needs elaboration Theories on the origin of croats article.

The genetics section is suspect, and as someone was saying above earlier, many geneticists should be treated as 'primary sources' becuase their knowledge of general anthropology is cursory at best. If anything, it should be at the bottom of the article.

Lastly, the 'arrival of the Croats' section needs to be updated. Eg there is the thought now that the Croats did not arrive from anywhere. Yes, there were migrations during the "Dark Ages" of the 7th century, etc; however, Croat ethnicity only formed in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, hand-in-hand with the rise of "Croat" zhupani - as manifest by the wealthy 'warrior tombs' around Nin and Biograd na Moru, etc. Ie there was no separate Croat (or Serb) migration in the 610s. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk, agree with your initiative that "Theories on the origin of Croats" article must be be better written, and all theories elaborated. But as I was saying before, there nothing should be removed, neither genetics section. Because of one and only important reason, likely, you are all missing, and that is, there were widely held many theories, from scientific and political views and motives, and if we take only one side from which will write, would be wrong. We need to show the sources, everything what was found about the name Croat (Hrvat), everything what genetic investigations found. But, not the conclusions per se, which some are constantly forcing. There were many conclusions in the past, how Croats were Slavs, how were Goths, or Alans etc. The autochthonous theory is just one of them. The only right thing to do is write how migration did happened, some tribes with Croatian name did come here, how is "unclear whether the Alans (those tribes) contributed much more than a ruling caste or a class of warriors; the evidence on their contribution is mainly philological and etymological." - not known the exact number they came, and that the ethnogenesis did not finish until they settled, mixed with (probably more numbered) autochthonous people, organized a state, that state had a tribal name, and the name passed to all the people who lived in that area. We need to indicate this process, without removing information how other sources did mention White Croats, the historical lines of events concerning Croats etc. When we are talking about Croats it is more difficult task then some imagine. There is no official ethymological conclusion about the origin and meaning of the Croatian name. There is no official theory on the origin of Croats. There is nothing official, and removing information is not a solution, yet, contrary, write how the thesis on the Ethnonym of Croatian name changed over history etc. We need to take care about ourselves to not be taken away with any subjective thinking, only one theory, or contemporary scientific thinking which neglects previous, because in several years even that will change.--Crovata (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If I could recommend something like this for the early medieval part.. and just removed the etymology to the main article on Origins (and below contains some discussion of etymology, also)

The ethonym “Croat” is first attested during the 9th century CE, in the charter of Duke Trpimir; and indeed begins to be widely attested throughout central and eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries. Much uncertainty revolves around the exact circumstances of their appearance given the scarcity of literary sources during the 7th and 8th century “Dark Ages”.

Traditionally, scholarship has placed the arrival of the Croats in the 7th century, primarily on the basis of the De Administrando Imperio. As such, the arrival of the Croats was seen as a second wave of Slavic migrations, which liberated Dalmatia from Avar hegemony. However, as early as the 1970s, scholars questioned the reliability of Porphyrogenitus’ work, written as it was in the 10th century. Rather than being an accurate historical account, the DAI more accurately reflects the political situation during the 10th century. It mainly served as Byzantine propaganda praising Emperor Heraclius for repopulating the Balkans (previously devastated by the Avars) with Croats (and Serbs), who were seen by the Byzantines as tributary peoples living on what had always been 'Roman land'.

Scholars have often hypothesized the name Croat (Hrvat) to be Iranian, thus suggesting that the Croats were actually a Sarmatian tribe from the Pontic region who were part of a larger movement of Slavs toward the Adriatic. The major basis for this connection was the perceived similarity between Croat and inscriptions from the Tanais dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, mentioning the name Horouthos. However, "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names". Whether one accepts the etymological connection or not, anthropological theories suggest that ethnic groups are not static, ancient nations but are perpetually changing. This "seriously undermines any notion of an ‘Iranian component’ in the construction of early medieval Croat identity.” Similar arguments have been made for an alleged Gothic-Croat link. Whilst there is indeed evidence of population continuity between Gothic and Croat times in parts of Dalmatia, the idea of a Gothic origin of Croats was more rooted in the political aspirations of the Croatian NDH party than historical reality.

Contemporary scholarship views the rise of "Croats" as a local, Dalmatian response to the demise of the Avar khanate and the encroachment of Frankish and Byzantine Empires into northern Dalmatia. They appear to have been based around Nin, down to the Cetina and south of Liburnia. Here, concentrations of the so-called "Old Croat culture' abound, marked by some very wealthy warrior burials dating to the 9th century CE. Yet other, distinct polities also existed nearby, such as the Guduscans (based in Liburnia), the Narentines (around the Cetina and Neretva) and the Sorabi (Serbs) who ruled some other parts of “Dalmatia”. Also prominent in the territory of future Croatia was the polity of Prince Liutevid, who ruled the territories between the Drava and Sava (“Pannonia Inferior”), centred from his fort at Sisak. Although Duke Liutevid and his people are commonly seen as a “Pannonian Croats”, “there is no evidence that they had a sense of Croat identity”. Rather, he is referred to as dux Pannoniae Inferioris, or simply a Slav, by contemporary sources. However, soon, the Croats became the dominant local power in northern Dalmatia, absorbing Liburnia and expanding their name by conquest and prestige. Whilst always remaining independent, the Naretines at times came under the sway of later Croatian Kings. Although the the Chronicle of the Priest Duklja has been dismissed as an unreliable record, the mentioned "Red Croatia" suggests that Croatian clans and families might have settled as far south as Duklja/ Zeta.

What happened in the 6th to 9th centuries, between the demise of Roman rule in Dalmatia and the appearance of new polities, is less clear. Archaeological evidence suggests population continuity in coastal Dalmatia and Istria. In contrast, much of the Dinaric hinterland appears to have been abandoned in the early 7th century. In much of the latter region, there is a hiatus of almost a century. The place of origin and timing of the re-colonization remains controversial, however, all available evidence points to the nearby Danubian and Carpathian regions rather than some distant "White Croat" homeland in Poland or Ukraine.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This does not look good. It looks like typical Yugoslav Pan-Slavism.

The ethnonym “Croat” is first attested during the 9th century CE[6], in the charter of Duke Trpimir; and indeed begins to be widely attested throughout central and eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries. [7]

Untrue. The Croatian ethnonym is first attested during the 3rd century CE in the tablets of Tanais, in Greek forms Horoathos (noun) and Horoathon (adjective), precisely "archont Sandorz Horoathos" – 'Duke Sandorz Croat' (good old widely spread formula during Antiquity: title-name-ethnonym) and "synod Horoathon" – 'Croatian senate or Croatian union'. These Croats were the Sarmatian people ruling that city at the time. These records are important because they have shown that Croatian name was spelled completely identically by these Sarmatian Croats as it is by later and modern Croats. "–os" and "–on" are Greek suffixes for nouns and adjectives. Without suffixes this name is spelled Horoat, Horwat or Horvat, phonetic synonyms and 3 almost identical forms graphically. Greek and Latin alphabet were able to record phonetic group '–va-' only as graphic "–oa-" (gr. horoathos, lat. chroatorum, croati,…) or "–ua-" (lat. cruuati, chruathorum,...), only in the Byzantine Latin records phonetic 'v' got its letter: "b" (read like 'v' (Hrobates, Chrobates)). All these forms show that Croatian name was spelled very closely to modern Croatian form 'Hrvat', like Horvat or Harvat (Horoathos, Chorwat, Horvat, Harvat, Arvat) and like Hrovat or Hrvat (Croat, Chruathorum, Cruuati, Chrobates). We know that Horvat is Northern Croatian form of Croatian name, recorded in Ukraine (Chorwat), Poland (Bielochorwat) or modern surname in northern Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Sloavakia and Poland (Horvat).

Interestingly, Pan-Slavic attempt to ruin this etymologic research was partially successful (thanks to political pressure and not to an argument), unable to offer any reasonable criticism they have planted the idea that it was: personal names only similar to Croatian ethnic name, although it is undeniably opposite – they are identical ethnonyms (no study or analysis needed – just reading a record) and not just merely similar personal names.

Croatian ethnonym truly was widely attested throughout eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th century but not because some Croatian expansion in that time, it was because earlier Croatian expansion related to process of Slavicization in the period between the 4th and 7 century.

Much uncertainty revolves around the exact circumstances of their appearance given the scarcity of literary sources during the 7th and 8th century “Dark Ages”.

Of course. But a few sources mentioned Croats, while Yugoslav historiography made this into a circus. Now you are trying to report about the circus?

Traditionally, scholarship has placed the arrival of the Croats in the 7th century, primarily on the basis of the De Administrando Imperio. As such, the arrival of the Croats was seen as a second wave of Slavic migrations, which liberated Dalmatia from Avar hegemony.

Untrue. The arrival of the Croats was seen as a separate wave between 2 waves of Slavic migrations from the Avaric Khaganate. 1st Slavic wave started around 580 and lasted to the 30’s of the 7th century. Croats probably came during the 30’s to stop 1st wave, which they obviously did. However it’s been also proposed that one smaller group came a little bit earlier, during last decade of the 6th century, settled in Savia (Slavonia) for a short period and then pushed by Avaro-Slavic raids to the south, they escaped to Salona. Croatian arrival from White Croatia happened during the 30’s. The most common criticism was why Heraclius called them? Not some true criticism, bearing in mind that Byzantine emperors were always using that method, as well as Roman emperors before them. How had the Langobards come to Pannonia 100 years earlier? Byzant had called them against the Gepides. How had the Kutrigurs come 85 years earlier? Byzant had invited them against the Utrugurs who had been invited by the Gepides. How had the Avars and Ants come to the mouth of Danube 80 years ealier? Byzant had called them against the Gepides. Who was first defender of Byzantine forts at the eastern Danube against Avaro-Slavic breaks to Moesia provinces? Gepides. And we have this case, Byzant called Croats against Avaro-Slavs. Why? Because they were already in conflict with the Avars in the east and north of Pannonian Avaria.

There was no Avar hegemony in the Roman Dalmatia. There were periodical breaks and raids to the south. The southern border of 1st Avar Khaganate was at Drava river. 2nd Slavic wave from 2nd Avar Khaganate started during the 80’s of the 7th century and lasted during the 8th century. At the time the southern Avar border was at Sava river. Therefore the Avars didn’t rule with Dalamtia, but were continually attacking it. White Croats served as Byzantine federats in Dalmatia against the Avars. You can use phrase "Avar hegemony" only for Pannonia, around Danube river. There are no archaeological findings to prove any kind of Avar settlement or "hegemony" to the south of Sava, in Roman Dalmatia.

However, as early as the 1970s, scholars questioned the reliability of Porphyrogenitus’ work, written as it was in the 10th century.[8] Rather than being an accurate historical account, the DAI more accurately reflects the political situation during the 10th century. It mainly served as Byzantine propaganda praising Emperor Heraclius for repopulating the Balkans (previously devastated by the Avars) with Croats (and Serbs), who were seen by the Byzantines as tributary peoples living on what had always been 'Roman land'.[9]

True. But these criticism have nothing to do with studies of Croatian origin or name etymology. It is about ethnic distribution in the 9th and 10th century in the Western Balkans! And you can not use it here as an argument to discredit or hide real nature of Croatian ethnogenesis – its Ukrainian period.

Scholars have often hypothesized the name Croat (Hrvat) to be Iranian, thus suggesting that the Croats were actually a Sarmatian tribe from the Pontic region who were part of a larger movement of Slavs toward the Adriatic.

Untrue. All the earliest Slavic tribal names were of Indo-Iranian origin (not Iranian!), like Anti, Horwati, Sorabi (even Baltic Venedes had had Sarmatian culture in period directly before Germanic and Slavic migrations). However, this fact has never been used to suggest that the Sarmatians were part of a larger movement toward the Adriatic. Yugoslav nationalism and Pan-Slavism had got no any other argument than to imagine and fabricate such "suggestions". Indo-Iranian origin of some early Slavic tribal names means that the Sarmatians and the Scythians had participated in the process of Slavicization earlier (discovered and proposed by the Slavic archaeology 65 years ago). Sarmathic Croats were Slavicized in period 4th to 6th century in Ukraine (same way as their neighbors Ants, the Ants were more to the south-west, Croats more to the north-east). In other words, they were ruling with and giving name to some Proto-Slavs there, gradually becoming Slavs by language.

The major basis for this connection was the perceived similarity between Croat and inscriptions from the Tanais dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, mentioning the name Horouthos.

As alreaedy explained, Horoathos, Horoathon – ethnonym, not personal name. Not similarity, it is phonetic equality to the northern form of Croatian name – Horvat! Graphical difference since Greek alphabet has no other way to record phonetic group '–va-' other way than "-oa-". Or "-ua-" like in some Latin graphics.

However, "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names".

Untrue. Manipulation. In fact. It is difficult if not impossible not to connect it! It’s the same. It is like saying that Horvat is not Croatian ethnonym while Hrvat is. Crazy.

How come connection Langobardi – Lombardi works in the same time? It is much more different, both phonetically and graphically...

Whether one accepts the etymological connection or not, anthropological theories suggest that ethnic groups are not static, ancient nations but are perpetually changing.

Of course. Modern nations are nothing different, they are also not static and are perpetually changing. I don’t see reason to state something like this, like it is something new. But what makes me nervous is how can you or anyone criticize etymology this way? What it has to do with etymology? Are you suggesting that we must always use anachronistic approach? Sorry buddy, it is opposite to any kind of historiographic methodology. One who study etymology doesn't care about anthropology precisely because it is not directly related! How to criticize it with argument that it's not in direct relation? It is already understood and implied!

This "seriously undermines any notion of an ‘Iranian component’ in the construction of early medieval Croat identity.” [10]

Of course, because you presume that their identity was based on our modern scientific definitions. Can you imagine a Croat boy asking his father, 1500 years ago: daddy, are we Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans?

Another problem, you presume that, if Croats are of "Iranian" origin it means they had to have some "Iranian" anthropological component in Dalmatia. What is "Iran" in this story? Modern Iran? No. It is so-called "Iran Superior" – Great Scythia, Russian steppes in our time. Why "Iranian"? – because of Indo-Iranian linguistic macro-group. That is anthropolgy we can see here in the streets every day, especially in northern Croatia, nothing special. However Iranian theory goes with etymology more to the past and to the south from the steppes and points to some Aryans. This has been usually presented by post-WWII ex-Yugoslav authors as something very problematic. Why? No any direct implications to Medieval Dalmatian Croats as some Iranians, it concernes Pontic Croats (if they were Alanic tribe, it only means they came among the first Alans to the west, but the Eastern Europe was already full of other Sarmatians for a millennium at that moment). If we use ethnogentical formula pre-proto-proper they were pre-Croats, their anthropologic characteristics were spreading or bleaching in the Russian steppes. Anthropo-features of those who were proto-Croats in the steppes were spreading or bleaching in Galicia ("Megale" Chrobatia, Red Croatia as its southeastern subregion toward the Black Sea), Galician Croatian antropo-features were spreading or bleaching in Poland, Slovakia, Czech and eastern Germany (White Croats, Black Croats), What Iranian features can one expect in Dalmatia at the end? Iranian nose? Well, I can see all kind of noses here, Iranian, African, Baltic, Celtic, Dinaric, Himalayan, Plutonic... I have no problem with that. Thanks to God, human beings are completely mixed genetically (I don' mean those haplos as some macros, I mean those micro packages carried by DNA that define everything else about or bodies and personalities) and evolution can continue.

One more problem, Slavicization and origin of Slavs, origin of Croats as well, are studied by the Russians and Ukrainians, not by the Balkan authors. Croatian authors lost that opportunity by the end of the WWII, too pitty, it was a moment to implement modern synthesis and clean it from rubbish details... Read Russian and Ukrainian authors who were not burdened with Yugo-nationalist issues. Read Russian archaeologist Alexandr Mayorov (University of St. Petersburg), book "Great Croatia", 2005, about ethogenesis of first Slavic Croats in Ukraine, about their state in Ukraine (4th-6th century) recorded by DAI (Megale Chrobatia) and the Vikings (Hervari), about their culture (2nd and 3rd period of Chernyakov Culture, 1st period was Gothic), etc.

Similar arguments have been made for an alleged Gothic-Croat link. Whilst there is indeed evidence of population continuity between Gothic and Croat times in parts of Dalmatia, the idea of a Gothic origin of Croats was more rooted in the political aspirations of the Croatian NDH party than historical reality.[11]

Iranian theory is from the 18th century and Gothic from the first half of the 20th century, nothing to do with NDH. But after WWII communist regime made use of popularity of these theories in NDH publications during a few NDH years to discredit and discriminate its scientific value. Their political decision was to support Pan-Slavic theory. Politics again. And you seem to know every communist pamphlet. Do you know that Yugoslav regime killed 4 Croatian scholars who were studying links with Indo-Iranians?

Iranian theory is dealing with Croatian etymology and it can be implemented only to ethnogenesis of the Ukrainian Croats, not Dalmatian. White Croats were western extension of the Ukrainan Croats in the 6th and the 7th century caused by the Avar-Ant break in through the Carpathian basin to Pannonia.

Contemporary scholarship views the rise of "Croats" as a local, Dalmatian response to the demise of the Avar khanate and the encroachment of Frankish and Byzantine Empires into northern Dalmatia.[12]

Only when speaking about Medevial Dalmatian Croats. Now you must decide once who are you speaking about. Jumping from (geographically and culturally and ethnogenetically and historically) dislocated etymology of the name to Croatian etnogenesis in Dalmatia, well I don't know, I'm completely lost. And inconvenienced that anything is wrong with that etymology.

They appear to have been based around Nin, down to the Cetina and south of Liburnia.

Archaeology says from Kvarner to Albania in the south. Physically, not politically in that range. Probably not in masses, more likely mixed with the others, probably as an local elite among the others. Where this elite saved their mutual integration and connection, Croatian state was formed, under their name.

Here, concentrations of the so-called "Old Croat culture' abound, marked by some very wealthy warrior burials dating to the 9th century CE.[13]

Why so-called? It is scholar name for the culture of Medieval Croats. Do you hate Croats? If their material culture is so called, are Croats so-called Croats too?

Yet other, distinct polities also existed nearby, such as the Guduscans (based in Liburnia), the Narentines (around the Cetina and Neretva) and the Sorabi (Serbs) who ruled some other parts of “Dalmatia”.

Gudusca (guduča) - Old-Slavic "wood". Guduča fort was near Krka river, undoubtly held by the Croats, all of settlements were held by the Croats there, it falls into narrow nucleus region of the Old Croatian Culture, Nin is just one location, the best known because of rich archaeological findings, regions to the east of Ravni Kotari were tornado tested during the Ottoman wars, later. Guduscans doesn't go into the same sentence with the Narentines and Sorabi. Guduscans are locality, local ethnonym (appellative: city, fort), the Narentians separate tribe named after a river, so location again and Sorabi another tribe with name given still in the Sarmatian form (attested earlier by Pliny the Elder) of unknown location in (what?) Dalmatia, all offered in two short sentences by the Frankish chronicler who never stepped out of France... If you want to be objective, inform about all of aspects of information, or don't inform at all. If you inform about controversy of DAI, you must inform about controversy of Frankish Annals too.

What happened in the 6th to 9th centuries, between the demise of Roman rule in Dalmatia and the appearance of new polities, is less clear. Archaeological evidence suggests population continuity in coastal Dalmatia and Istria. In contrast, much of the Dinaric hinterland appears to have been abandoned in the early 7th century. In much of the latter region, there is a hiatus of almost a century. The place of origin and timing of the re-colonization remains controversial, however, all available evidence points to the nearby Danubian and Carpathian regions rather than some distant "White Croat" homeland in Poland or Ukraine.

Well, there is a map of toponyms found in Croatia and elsewhere in Europe, I was impressed how many completely identical toponyms is there all the way to the Baltic, in range from the Eastern Germany, Moravia, northern Slovakia, Poland to Ukraine. BTW, Ukrainians and Croats are the only "Ikavians" in the Slavic speaking world. And White Croatia with its parts in Slovakia and Moravia was nothing distant. It's even mentioned in that context. And Slavic archaeology have shown that the most of the Avaro-Slavs who settled in Illyricum had come from behind of the Carpathians. More or less same distance as White Croatia, or even longer. And Bulgarians came all the way from the western China, it's normal. It happens every day. And no controversy about it? Who is teaching you that everything must be controversial about the Croats, by default. Older history of any European people is already controversial enough because of an older age and poor remains, anyway I don't see so much insisting on controversy in other similar "ethnic" articles in Wikipedia.

Reading the article, your little discussion and your proposal for the article I have a feeling that I still live in Yugoslavia 40 years ago with final God's touch of confused Djino and philosopher Curta. Read Russians and Ukrainians. Start from the end, from A. Mayorov, use his references to find other supplies. They're in it for 60 years without interruption. Bye. 37.244.170.201 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. Can't you realize your OR speculations cannot stand against credible sources. These "yugoslav pan-slavist" theories you talk of came from the 21st century writers of Croat (Ancic, Dzino, Budek) and German decent (Wolfram, Pohl). Even older Croatian historians: Garasnin, Goldstein, Magetic do not support what you're rambling on about. So, then, neither the 'brainwashed" Yugoslav -era pan-Slavists support you nor do any credible 21st centrury ones (!) Clearly, in addition to cowering behind your annonymous IP, you're also apparently quite stupid.

You can speculate all you want about whether Gudusca means tree, Goth or Mars. I don't care. We're using Anglophone , respectable literature - not propaganda. Croats did not come from Iran, and Bulgarians did not come from "China". This is not "anti-Croat", but anti-BS. It doesn't matter who the article is about, but all Balkan articles are often full of nationalistic BS. So do yourself a favour, stop chest-thumping and go read some of the good recent literature (which will be duly presented on the article, shortly), not the nonsense you probably read on YouTube.Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your answer gives a good insight into the characteristics of your personality and presence on this site.

It doesn't matter what you think.

I haven't written "My opinion is..."

Can't you realize your OR speculations cannot stand against credible sources.

What are OR speculations? ...I have checked, aha, original research. Well, there was not any kind of my original research here, there are sources, question is according to which criteria you chose reliability and pick sources? You who think you are encyclopedic reporter took up the position in relation to the scientific debate and decided to present one side of the debate by showing it as a real situation and the final conclusion. Who gave you the right to access the issue as its participant and judge the outcome of the debate when the debate has no such conclusion and no conclusion at all? I notice you've been already warned by other user to show the whole state without taking a personal position, and without a trial when there is no scientific consensus, and I'm about to explain why is that so, not what is right or not!

These "yugoslav pan-slavist" theories you talk of came from the 21st century writers of Croat (Ancic, Dzino, Budek) and German decent (Wolfram, Pohl). Even older Croatian historians: Garasnin, Goldstein, Magetic do not support what you're rambling on about.

No. Pan-Slavic theory is older, it's from the 19th century. But communist regime supported it, in a strange way. Scientists have been forced to adapt or lose their careers. Once politics intervene in science effects are long-lasting and it takes time to be cleared.

Garasnin - You mean Garašanin? Serbian publicist and politician from the 19th century, Greater Serbian ideologist and author of "Načertanije" - Greater Serbian political program? Very nice source to edit article "Croats". According to Načertanije Croats don't exist as well as many other Europan Slavs, all are Serbs. Goldstein is not particularly appreciated, his agenda is WWII, but he is an author of statement about "personal names on Tanais tombstones" -Tanais tombstones!!! He studied the matter so deeply that he did not even know that Tanais tablets were not tombstones, but public boards on buildings in Tanais! And you cite him: "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names". Škegro (2005) has destroyed Goldstein, but you don't know anything about it! As well as you know nothing on the matter at all.

Margetić for the most of time bounced around Proto-Bulgarian theory of Croatian origin (etymology Koubratos). Is Koubratos better and closer to Horvat than Horoathos? Younger are floating at the moment, there's 50 years long black hole of healthy synthesis. It makes problem because it needs new start form the past and not only fresh upgrade. In the same time Russians and Ukrainians study origin of the Croats in their countries since Croats played significant role there in the past. I'm pointing to these authors who really have something to say on the matter.

So, then, neither the 'brainwashed" Yugoslav -era pan-Slavists support you nor do any credible 21st centrury ones (!) Clearly, in addition to cowering behind your annonymous IP, you're also apparently quite stupid.

You are a very rude and ill-mannered person. The most of your answer is ad hominem. I'm not any kind of IP with OR, actually I'm some initials X.Y. with Dr. lecturer on university, department of archaeology. And you who ever you are not familiar with this issue to such an extent that you could decide which sources can be used to obtain drinkable content, at the same time informative enough and sufficiently objective.

No credible authors support me? Really? Garašanin and Goldstein are credible on the matter? What with Vinski who had to keep his mouth shut for 45 years not to avoid destiny of some of his coleagues? Now he speaks freely. And what with very good analysis of Ivan Supičić (Rano doba hrvatske kulture, 1997), what with the most prominent Croatian linguist R. Katičić: "the Iranian theory is the least amazing Croatian name etimology of of all existing" (Pitanje o podrijetlu Hrvata..., 1999) - do you need translation? Since stupid debate because of political interference during 45 years was not 'what is the most plausible theory, it was something like which theory is most unlikely when viewed from the position of a modern southern Slavs who must insist on its Slavism from Africa to the Universe, so it would not accidentally compromise the attempt to form a single artificial Yugoslav nation, Katičić must say (because of “claim - response” scientific method) what is the least amazing at the end, instead to say what is the most plausible which is the real meaning of his statement.

We're using Anglophone, respectable literature - not propaganda.

Why would Anglophone mean respectable? You have mentioned Djino. Have you ever read Djino? Do you know his thinking about the other Anglophone literature on the history of Croatian and neighboring regions? Anglophone literature was just repeating (and not discovering something new) what was alredy writen as acceptable middle stream in Yugoslavia and was critic on that scale, which means that there is a lot of literature that deals with completely the wrong side of the problem, no matter of author’s language.

Croats did not come from Iran, and Bulgarians did not come from "China".

It is your own decision - where did one come from? Russians know from where the Croats came from, it's their field of study. And Bulgarians... Have you ever heard about nomadic yellow sand cheramics in Pannonia in th 8th century (material from very specific location near the Yellow sea coast in China), related to the 2nd Avar Khaganate, linked to the Hazars, or Proto-Bulgarians, or... depending on author. Someone has crossed a huge way. Never mind, I don't expect fulfilled global insight into anything on the matter from you, after all.

So do yourself a favour, stop chest-thumping and go read some of the good recent literature (which will be duly presented on the article, shortly), not the nonsense you probably read on YouTube

Thank you for teaching me this way. I will copy/paste and print this debate to show my students what kind of people are editing wikipedia and why wikipedia is not reliable or desirable for any kind of use.

if someone has a brain here it would be nice to try to write an objective and informative text instead of this egocentric ignorant sputum. Bye people. 31.45.134.59 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good riddence ! According to you, credible, peer-reviewed sources are to be disregarded because they are all 'brain-washed', 'confused' and 'philosophers'; rather we should take you OR verbotenus. If you really are a 'lecturer", then I feel sorry for your students. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you wrote "Brain-washed" twice, not me. Nice to meet you, Brain-Washed. It's enough to see construcion of your text. You don't know what you're talking about, etimology, anthropologics, history, etnogenesis, time, place, context... scientific debate, who, when, what,... nothing. All taken out of context, out of age, out of place, out of date, out of debate... mixed into a salad and served as stinky fast junk food that even my dog wouldn’t have sniffed. you don't understand history as a process. Just filling wikipedia forms with no real knowledge of the content.

You've got it all wrong. I didn say I'm a Croat, I'm Polish. At the moment I'm working with my Croatian colleagues in Croatia, just finished some Iron Age escavations. Beatiful people, Croats. My 4th job here in last 30 years, not counting a few summers at the Adriatic. Beatiful country as well, been always impressed how snowy white knife sharp stone falls into the softest and the bluest sea in the world. Živjeli! Bog! :) And you Slovenski will be an example shown to my students in Poland. :)

I woudn't say that Croatian academy produced any radicals. It's always politics producing radical ideas and pushing selective proposals into the front, demonizing the other. Croatian academy is perhaps the most serious one in the region and Croatia doesn’t have such radicals like Serbia, Albania or even my country, Poland, sometimes. It's all bloated and exaggerated about Croats, you contribute to such an impression, and not presenting the real situation and knowledge.

I was directing you twice to Russian and Ukrainian authors, you have ignored me completely. There takes place the study of Croatian ethnogenesis for half a century, it is a few dozen authors. You must consider that European Croats possess several ethnogenesis in the post-Roman and early medieval times, Dalmatian was the last one. Every of its own formula. But transfer of name doesn’t go with trade, it goes with people. You cannot discard etymology of the name just because it is dislocated from Dalmatia. There is no controversy about "Iranian" etymology, we know about it for a long time. Dalmatian and Ukrainian Croats share the same etymology. And Vistulans in Poland, sure. :)

It doesn’t change the nature of Croatian ethnogenesis in Dalmatia in any way. You have presented Croatian etymology and ethnogenesis as a child play with glue and stuff around the house after a fight with mamma and daddy.

If you lie about the Slavic peoples and their academies, scholars, politics, history and culture, you shouldn't call yourself "Slavic" and even less a "wolf".

Nice tool "view history". 95.168.116.11 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to go on ad nauseum, and i dont care about your personal attacks. Fact is, what I constructed and collected source wise is far better than you could ever do, with your biased and primitive knowledge. According to your thinking, the Germans are from Italy, because "Germani" is a Latin word.

To start with , read this, [1], then read Dzino's book, read Florin Curta's parts on Serbs and Croats [2]. You might even learn something. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP above is completely right. Instead of joining your "discussion", I'm offering a summary of A. Mayorov, Velikaya Horvatia (University of St. Petersburg, 2006):

"The permanent contacts with the Iranian-speaking peoples, mostly Sarmathians, were the important feature of the ethnogenesis and the early history of the Slavs in the region near the East Carpathians during the period of their coexistence for several cen­turies.

The appearance of the ancient tribal union of the Croats with the name of probably Iranian origin had become one of the results of ethnical and cultural synthesis of the Slavs and the Iranians. The Slavs of the Upper Dniester having become the part of the Croatian tribal group inhabited the new territories in Central Europe and the Balkans during the process of the Great Slavonic settlement.

De administrando imperio by Constantine the Porphyrogenitus is the first written test containing the information on the origin and the history of Croats’ settling, Great and White Croatias. Both the names, “Great” and “White Croatia”, correspond to the traditional geographical nomination known to the contemporary Science. Decoding of the symbols of the colour in the names of the peoples and the lands is based mostly on the analogies in the Sino-Tibetan, Iranian, Turkic and Mongolian languages, while the closest parallels for the names with the adjective great are found in the European toponymy. And still, the simultaneous use of several symbolical names to produce the ethni­cal and geographical names must be accepted as artificial one. The case of Constantine the Porphyrogenitus’ Great and White Croatia (“Great Croatia, called White...”) is explained by the intention to agree the contradiction between different, sometimes competitive, versions of the history of the Croats.

The name “Great Croatia” origins in the common Slavonic and European tradition connecting the meanings great and old to indicate the territory the people had lived before at, pre-motherland, sometimes having been already abandoned and kept only in memory.

Byzantine emperor’s information on the early Croatian history corresponds to and concerns the meaning of “Great Croatia” as the territory of pre-motherland of the Croatian people the following migrating resulted in new names, that of the land — “White Croatia”, and that of the people “White Croats”, took place from. The ideas of Great and White Croatia differ not only as the historical and typo- logical ones, they do not mean the same geographical place. This conclusion is based on the direct indications of Constantine himself compared with the other sources. If one can surely put White Croatia with its White Croats on the Upper Elbe and the Up­per Vistula, the land of Great Croatia, the historical pre-motherland for the Croats must be looked for to the East of the Carpathians and may be in Transcarpathia. The ancient Croats cannot be connected with tribes of the Ants’ group, representatives of the Penkovo archaeological culture only. The region the Croats lived in covers the Sclavenian area of the Prague-Corchak archaeological culture including the Smaller Poland. This testifies the Croatian union having formed in the epoch preceding the first reliable Slavonic archaeological cultures — in the Chemyachovo time.

The earliest written evidence of the name connected directly with the ethnonym “Croats” in the form of the anthroponym “Croat” is seen in the inscriptions dated back to the 1-2 c. found in the ancient Greek city of Tanais in the mouth of the Don. The anthroponym “Croat”, probably, belonged to the members of the Alanian-Sarmathian tribe living in this region. Their leaders had certain position in the town community of Tanais. The fact, that Croats belonged to the Sarmathian-speaking environment is shown by the morphological similarity of the names: Sarmatae and Croats (slav. horvatU, Lat. Chroates). Still there are no traces of the Croats living to the West of the Don river in the first centuries A. D. This situation could have changed only in the process of the Great Migration. The ethnonym Croates seems to be slavonized, as well as its first bearers, after the tremendous ethnic processes had taken place during the Huns’ invasion. In all probability, the Croats’ appearance in Central Europe and in the Balkans was connected with the Avars’ invasion. According to the archaeological and linguistic data the Croats had been already slavonized that time. It means that the Slavs had taken the name of Croats earlier. Since the greater part of the Alans who took part in the Huns’ conquest broke off and moved to the West together with the Goths and other German tribes in the beginning of the 5th c., the proposed contacts of the Alans and the Slavs of South-Westem Europe and the Carpathian region particularly could have taken place in the beginning of the Huns expansion only, therefore they could not be long.

The suggestion that the Slavs’ adoption of the Iranian name Croats (horvatU) resulted not from the process of the multiethnical synthesis but from the intensive political interaction having influenced strongly the Slavonic peoples in the turbulent epoch of the Great Migration seems the most probable.

The important role played by the Alans in the Slavic wars with the Goths and the overthrowing of their power resulted in the spreading of the name Croats among the Dniester Slavs. Having become the allies of the Huns, the Alans-Tanaites appeared the main force of their army acting against the Goths in the south of Eastern Europe. The decisive battle of the river Erax (localized in the basin of the Dniester) where the Goths were finally defeated by the joined Slavs and Alans acting as the part of the Huns’ army and forced out off Eastern Europe was undoubtedly the tuming-point in the ancient Slavic history.

It is naturally to propose the Slavic inhabitants of the Dniester-Carpathian region to be strongly influenced just the same as the Slavs of the Ants group by the Alans and be governed by the chiefs of the Alans who apparently represented the Huns’ authority. Just as the Ants — the union of the Alans and the Slavs — had formed on the ground of the prolonged ethnic synthesis of the Slavs and the Iranians so did the Croa­tian group form on the ground of the previous centuries-long interaction of the Slavs and the Sarmathians in the Dniester region.

The Alanian Croats must have ruled the Dniester Slavic lands for some time. They could have married some of the local Slavic chiefs to make their authority legal. The name Croats gained among the Slavs the sacral importance since it was connected with the victory over the Goths and their yoke shaken off.

The Upper Dniester region together with the nearby territories between the Dni­ester and the Pruth are considered to be the primary territory the ancient Slavic tribal formation appeared at. Afterwards it gradually extended and covered both sides of the Carpathians. For example the Croats inhabited the upper current of the Tyssa river behind the Carpathians. In the last quarter of the 4th — middle of the 5th cc. the Croats probably reached the Upper Vistula and settled in Smaller Poland (however, it could have happened later). Still the region of the Upper Vistula (unlike the territories to the East of the Carpathians) cannot be the initial territory of the Croatian ethnogenesis — the pre- motherland of the Croats, afterwards called “Great Croatia”. The Slavonic population of Smaller Poland identified themselves as White, i. e. West Croats. Only that very part of the Croatian ethnos that had appeared as a result of occupying new territories could bear such a name. The appearance of the tribal union of the ancient Slavs in the Carpathian region who took afterwards the name of Croats, could be dated back to the last quarter of the 4th — middle of the 5th cc.

This book is capital work about the early Croatian history, it is based on many studies in Russia and Ukraine, Mayorov is archaeologist but his synthesis is based on multidisciplinary works of many authors, including his own. Knowing how Wikipedia works, I doubt anyone will take it into consideration, whatever... 89.201.156.205 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The Iranian theory is mentioned in the article (!) its just that it is duly followed up by the fact that it is rejected by almost every mainstream historians, both inside and outside Croatia. And again, I highlight, the works referenced in the current version are mostly those of Croat and German scholars written in the past decade or so. So you cannot make claims of Communist Pan-Slav conspiracy and other such non-sense. Magetic, Ancic, Supicic [3], Dzino, etc etc all reject it.

I am sorry, Mr Zhena (the blast from the past), if this disagrees with your personal viewpoint. But wikipedia is not here to focus on nationalist-narratives, but to represent the currently emerging concensus opinions of reputable specialists. And whilst thanking you for bringing another source to the fore, I doubt any mainstream, peer-reviewed, Western journal would ever publish such a whimsical, uncritical piece. Although written in 2005, it reads like it was written in 1922. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Now let's see what a constructive, nuanced and critical approach to the question of "White Croatia" and the ethonym "Hrvat" suggests (for anyone interested):

White Croatia and the arrival of the Croats: an interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the oldest Dalmatian history

Jagic´’s ideas strongly influenced later scholar-ship and his theory was partially re-proposed by John Bagnell Bury, who however thought that White Croatia, despite being an imaginary land,found its origins in ancient Croatian tribal sagas that the emperorsimply collected and divulgated

Croats as an ethnic group formed at the edges of the Avar kingdom, anticipating Walter Pohl, who, developing an intu-ition of Otto Kronsteiner’s, suggested that the name Hrvat should beused of warrior groups settled by the Avars at the limits of their empireand who developed in an ethnic group only in the aftermath of the Carolingian conquest of Avaria. The idea was recently followed by Patrick Geary, who pointed out how this vision could explain the spread of the name without recourse to the migration model.

Moreover, Huw Evans highlighted the many logistical issues arising from a long-distance migration (assuming that White Croatia was located in Galicia), and demonstrated the absence of traces of seventh-century moves from central Europe in the so-called Starohrvatska Kultura

Despite those highly influential contributions, the idea of a northern fatherland covered with snow (which in some later historiography was destined to become merely one stage of a longer march beginning on the shores of the Black Sea or as far as eastern Iran) and of the long march on the quest for a ‘place in the sun’ survived, offering an ideological strength superior to all the other alternatives, finding its place in the romantic paradigm and being almost universally accepted in non-scholarly environments

Milo Barada suggested that the Croats were a group formed at the edges of the Avar empire and Walter Pohl proposed the Croats to be border guards of the Avar empire, developing in an ethnic group only in the ninth century. I suggest that we should date this process even later. Constantine wrote in the DAI about a Croatian victory against the Bulgars: does this event represent the formation of a new elite on the Dalmatian edges of the Bulgar kingdom? Perhaps the confrontation with the Bulgars was the first attestation of this group of men who were called Hrvati by their neighbours, or who chose the name for themselves; a prestigious name also in other areas of central and eastern Europe

In conclusion, we can assert that the Croatian migration did not take place, but that Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to describe the Landnahme of Scythian Barbarians. What instead happened is that, following their rise in the military and political context of the Balkans, new elites took a visibleposition in Dalmatia and, as recorded in the tenth century, were given the name Croats, a name which was also found in other areas of central and eastern Europe. Although it is still very difficult to explain how names recur in sources independent of one another and in very distant places,for reasons still unknown to us it is possible that the Dalmatian Croats referred to other groups who shared their name, as Belocroats.

The wide spread of the place name Hrvat could suggest its derivation from geographical characteristics, but the fact that we have no satisfactory etymology in different linguistic groups makes every hypothesis very speculative. The name’s meaning is however unimportant, which is sadly ironic if we consider that the Croatian name was the basis of the most nationalist and racist theories about the Croatian people and their history. What we can say is that the ethnonym is attested between the ninth and tenth centuries in many areas of central and eastern Europe,together with others which may be found both north and south of the Carpathians in slightly different forms (Serbs/Sorbs, Abrodits/Obrodits). In reality there is no reason to suppose that those different attestations are evidence of the division of unique peoples, neither is theRe any way to prove that the people described with the same name shared something more than the name itself.

• I haven't read the entire discussion, but I'd like to point out that there is the article [[Name of Croatia]] which specifically deals with etymology of the Croatian ethnicon. However, ethnogenesis and etymology are two completely different issues, and I don't think it's wise to conflate them indiscriminately as the introductory section Croat ethnogenesis does at the moment. Modern nation-states were invented in the 19th century, and the 9th-century Croats have nothing to do with the 21st century Croats. Nationalists are obsessed with proving otherwise (on both Croatian and Serbian side, fueling each other's imagination into ever-deeper and prestigious "history"), constructing elaborate theories without a shred of evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

here, here. The above discussion ensued because I suggested the ad nauseum discussion on "hrvat" be drastically reduced and bit less of a folk-tale style narrative Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I suggest the opposite - provide a comprehensive scholarly treatment so as to leave no space for nationalist propaganda. I must say that the summary of theories that you provided is actually quite good :) Two additional articles too keep an eye on are Names of the Serbs and Serbia and Origin_of_the_Serbs#Early_historical_records_of_the_Serb_name. As usual, bullshit Iranian theories are overemphasized. Which is funny because you can count the number of provable Iranian borrowing in Proto-Slavic on the finger of one hand. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan. I think the place for expansion is duly in the Origins of Croats article. I intend to also update the Serbs article too, and others. Its all a matter of time - as its time consuming and one has to deal with anonymous editors crying foul, whilst all Im doing is removing the nationalist BS and outdated hypotheses. The whole idea of Iranian theory of anyone (Croats, Serbs, Poles) is to artificially exagerate the antiquity of those respective nations to 7th century BC Persia, or other such nonsense. It appears some people are uncomfortable with the fact that the political ancestor of their modern nation did not exist until c. 800 AD; and they take it as a personal afront to even suggest it; despite the fact that's the reality.

Perhaps those people will be less hysterical if they realize that such is the story all European nations. The 'building blocks' of future Germans, Danes, French; only appeared c. 800s - 900s, and of course, even then they were naught but the personal possessions of various Dukes, Princes and kings. Nothing approaching nations existed until a century or so ago (when ethnic/ nation groups had to be 're-born' {ie re-invented}), and the average peasant (95% of the population) had no idea what a Croat or a "Sarmatian" actually were. This goes for even ""nations"" with a long -recorded history - Greeks and Persians. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Iranians and Slavs

I see no reason to call the "Iranian theories" summarily "bullshit". Of course, when nationalists operate with monolithic (or even "pure") ethnic groups in an essentialist fashion and present a simplistic notion of "ancient Iranian tribe takes over Proto-Slavic language, migrates towards Adriatic and wham! is the Croats", then that is bullshit, I agree completely. But the idea of some component of Iranian origin – whether a "tribal core", an upper class, or whatever – is hardly implausible. There are few unambiguous Iranian borrowings in Slavic, but there are a couple, and historic contacts are not only plausible in principle but also, I think, receive support from other evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert on Slavic-Iranian contacts, but the idea that Iranian tribes (Alani, Roxolani, Aorsi, Iazyges etc.) were partly absorbed into the Slavic ethnic pool strikes me as extremely plausible and seems to be favoured by scholars as well. In the early period (6th/7th century), it even appears to be difficult to distinguish between Slavs and Iranians. So there is every reason to suspect that (even very early on) Iranians, along with (largely Romanised and Hellenised) Ancient Balkanic, Celtic- and Germanic-speaking peoples, early Turkic-speaking groups and perhaps others, participated in the ethnogenesis of Croats, Serbs and other Slavic tribes in the early medieval period, even contributing some tribal names. I don't see any problem with this scenario, quite the opposite. It's the most plausible scenario I can think of. If the Slavs really emerged from where their origin is traditionally sought, the Iranian Sarmatians were even their neighbours. Currently, the article seems to be excessively negative towards the mere assumption of Iranian contribution, and it completely eludes me why (it's hard not to suspect Pan-Slavic ideology at work, indeed). That's why I requested clarification and pointed out contradictions with other articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: The problem is not the idea per se, but the lack of true evidence. What is the Iranian etymon of the Croatian ethnicon, i.e. Proto-Slavic *xruwāte? The only indication of Iranian origin is indirect - the initial /x/ - which has other equally plausible sources as well. The traditional theory goes that it irregularly reflects the supposed Iranian *xarvat- < *harvant- "that which posseses women; female", supposedly connected with matriarchy on Azov littoral (Gluhak 1990:270). But the problem is there is no attestation of an actual Iranian tribe carrying such name. It cold be indeed an Iranian equivalent of Indo-Aryan *sar-ma(n)t > Sarmatian - but such parallel would predate Indo-Iranian split and the change *s > *x (unless that operated synchronically? then it could simply be Iranianized form and it was not two peoples but one). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but – whatever its etymology – as a personal name in Scythian/Sarmatian context, Horo(u)athos is well-attested, and it just so happens that early attestations of the name of the Croats are spelt the same way. And the Serboi are indeed attested as a tribal name, making for a striking (possible) precedent. And a few other observations. That's no more than circumstantial evidence, cumulative at best, but not that bad. (I don't see any way to plausibly derive *xruwāte from *sar-ma(n)t-, whatever its meaning – a name which has to be assumed is Iranian and not Indo-Aryan and reflects Iranian – perhaps even Scythian – sound laws, on the face of it. Clearly, *harwa(n)t- makes more sense phonetically. Though *harahwat- is also an attractive possibility; this could well be the origin of Horo(u)athos, and thus possibly also the ethnonym of the Croats. And *harahwatī – i. e., Arachosia – is indeed an unambiguously Iranian toponym, if not the origin of a derived ethnonym – which does not seem to be attested – as well!) And the fact remains that *xruwāte simply has no better etymology. I'm not against alternative etymological explanations, such as the Germanic one, but they have even less evidence going for them. So by your standard, they would be even more "bullshit". And that's what I was calling you out for. There's simply no argument in there to glibly dismiss the Iranian theory as nonsense. Similarly, Slovenski Volk roundly dismisses the Iranian and Gothic hypotheses as nationalist pseudo-scholarship (despite the support from certainly non-nationalist, serious German and other neutral, non-Croat scholars) without presenting a better alternative to account for the etymology. That's not just unfair or intellectually dishonest, that's wilfully deceptive, pure propaganda.

I note that there is no real Slavic etymology to be found anywhere. Which – by this standard of you guys – makes the Slavic hypothesis the most "bullshit" theory of them all. (I'm only talking about the name, of course – and applying your reasoning. Again, I'm not trying to imply that the Croats have no Slavic admixture at all and are pure Iranians or anything like that, of course!)

Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten. If there's a better explanation, I'm thrilled to hear it. As it stands, the Iranian theory is eminently plausible, if purely conjectural. But for all its defects, it's the best guess of what amounts to just not very many plausible attempts at explanation. In regione caecorum rex est luscus. Which appears to be precisely the reason why the Iranian hypothesis is still the most widely held. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: If we accept cultural assimilation, both Iranic and Slavic groups are related to each other. Is it possible that all Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and the other Iranics extincted completely? Or they assimilated into other groups like Slavs? Both Iranic and Slavic are large ethno-linguistic groups, so close contacts and relations between some of them are possible. I don't say Iranian theory is strong, but there is no point to remove it or call it as BS. It's better to clarify it. I saw Theories on the origin of Croats and its talk page. It seems that Iranian theory have a considerable number of supporters/fans in Balkan (according to anonymous users' comments). So if WP doesn't provide clear and enough info about that theory, they will use other sources. A clear and detailed "Iranian theory" section is a good solution. --Zyma (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Do you plan to create such a section? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a section on another related article OR a new article is better. Their contacts (languages, culture, influences, nomadic peoples relations, archaeological studies, and other related stuff.). That new article/section needs expert editors and I'm not an experienced editor on those topics. Why you don't start it on your sandbox sub-page? It will be a good article if you have enough expert scholary sources. --Zyma (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have nearly enough relevant sources at home. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Books isn't helpful enough or the sources aren't available on GBs? --Zyma (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship view

The statement "Contemporary scholarship views the rise of "Croats" as an autochthonous, Dalmatian response etc...." is written in the context of the further article sections about the creation of early Croatian principality, but do not understand how much is related to the actual theme of the section "Croatian ethnogenesis"? The statement claim provides a good counterbalance of a fairly well written and NPOV text, but as far I am concerned, and as is stated in the newly re-written article Origin hypotheses of the Croats, the autochthonous idea is not modern scholarship view about the early Croats ethnogenesis. The statement claim is cited from unknown page of [a source] where I could not find such a claim, indicating to Original research. Yes, the source talks about the the autochthonous (Slavs etc.) and Frankish political activites against Avars and formation of the early principality, but in the early 9th century, and nothing about Croatian ethnogenesis. Could someone explain the claim?--Crovata (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RV

Why were my edits reverted? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You added new content without providing appropriate references. For example, "In the south, while having periods of independence, the Naretines also "merged" with Croats later under control of Croatian Kings." instead of "Whilst always remaining independent, the Naretines at times came under the sway of later Croatian Kings." and "and city of Drač in today's Albania" at the end of "...might have settled as far south as Duklja/Zeta." are mere speculation without appropriate sources to back it up. If you were indeed just expanding the text using already provided references, you'll have to note that at the end of each statement you add (e.g. the Harvard citation). Feel free to make the changes but please provide suitable references too. ProKro (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, is it now good? Narentines are not mentioned as separate ethnicum after Croatian kings established their rule there... Kačići are mentioned as Croatian nobility... If it is needed, I can give references to Croatian nobility of Kačić's...--Čeha (razgovor) 18:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Learn how to make references. You added one reference and it is a map. You can do better than that. Come on, your IQ is 150. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, link is from book of Nada Klaić, and since it speaks about geographical position (city of Drač in Albania)...

I added another reference for Neretljan's. As for other two edits (they did not have any references before) and changes seem prety logical;

Main (proto)Serbian state is in the east of ex Roman Dalmatia (Raška), and in every map of that time, Serbs are mentioned at the east of that province (ex. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg ).

As for the Liudevit, it is just different wording he is, due to the lack of "evidence that they had a sense of Croat identity" referred to as dux Pannoniae Inferioris, or simply a Slav, by contemporary sources. exchanges "there is no evidence that they had a sense of Croat identity". Rather, he is referred to as dux Pannoniae Inferioris, or simply a Slav, by contemporary sources., which just "shifts" focus. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is English Wikipedia and you need to learn how to make references. Please stop editing the article because now you are going to make break 3RR, and that would not be good. Use the talk page first. Obviously you do not have a consensus and you have more then one user who is against your changes, and it was explained why. Discuss the problems you have with the article here and do not engage in a edit war. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? The user who is against this changes is you... What is the problem? As you see, I did everything you asked of me... --Čeha (razgovor) 23:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. what's the concrete problem? I made 4 changes, given references to 2 of them and fixed/refrased other 2 (of which one did not have any reference)? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna

Please stop edit warring and present your problems with the article here. That is how Wikipedia works. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get back at editors who did not side with you during a dispute with another editor is pathethic and immature, and worst of all it is disruptive. For anyone else that might be reading this, this is how Tuvixer responds to an attempt to discuss an issue. This is a rather trivial matter, but I will not be bullied. If you truly have a problem grasping what pleonasm is or if you intend to continue being spiteful, I will have no second thoughts about bringing this to a higher level. Surtsicna (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Again personal attacks. Please refrain yourself from this and present your problems with the article. That is how Wikipedia works. Please discuss your problems here. Tnx. You are changing the article and by my opinion you are doing it completely wrong so please stop editing the article and say why do you want this changes. No phrases please, explain why. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are being completely incoherent. Not only did I explain everything in great detail, I also did not attack you. I merely stated that spiting someone is immature, pathethic and disruptive. Don't you agree? I repeat my kind request that you stop reverting something so painfully non-controversial simply out of spite. Otherwise I will take this to an administrators' noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer, I also don't see the point in your edits... you're reverting something so trivial and making problems out of nowhere. Surtsicna's wording is far more simple. --AnulBanul (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Croats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313054015/http://crohis.com/knjige/Sisic%20-%20pregled/18.%20Slavac%20-%20Dmitar%20Zvonimir.PDF to http://crohis.com/knjige/Sisic%20-%20pregled/18.%20Slavac%20-%20Dmitar%20Zvonimir.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100812064744/http://www.turizam-vzz.hr:80/en/posjetite/varazdin/ to http://www.turizam-vzz.hr/en/posjetite/varazdin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129021933/http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=68 to http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=68
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.croates.at/haupt/gesch_fr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Croatian descendants in Turkey

There are plenty of sources in which states that in Turkey live circa 10 million people of Croatian descendants. The fact is that there live millions of descendants of Croats. I found plenty of web pages on which states that approximately 10 million Croatian people live in Turkey. The sources are not just Croatian, there are also some Bosnian and even Serbian articles about that. Here are some of them:

• Najbrojnija hrvatska 'dijaspora': Čak 10 milijuna Turaka ima hrvatske korijene?
• Najbrojnija dijaspora: Hrvatske korijene ima čak 10 mil. Turaka | 24sata
• NEVJEROJATNA SPOZNAJA: 10 milijuna Turaka ima hrvatske korijene?!
• 10 milijuna turaka ima hrvatsko porijeklo - PORTAL TJEDNO
• Najbrojnija dijaspora: Hrvatske korijene ima čak 10 mil. Turaka
• Najbrojnija dijaspora: Deset milijuna Turaka vuče korijene iz Hrvatske
• SLAVNI TURSKI SULTAN I HRVATI Sulejman veličanstveni: Iz povijesti u sapunicu
• Najbrojnija dijaspora: Hrvatske korijene ima čak 10 milijuna Turaka

Same approximations have articles about French people, or Italian people. And both of these two articles have no sources, you have at least 15 sources about Croats in Turkey.

Article about Croats must have that information, because that is the fact, and articles about other nations have approximate number of their descendants. --BrunoMed (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• They weren't sent to Turkey, they were sent to the Ottoman Empire, and could have ended up anywhere within that empire. They have also been so "genetically diluted" over the past 500 years that they're no longer Croats, because being 1/100 Croat, or less, doesn't make anyone a Croat, or any other nationality for that matter. And on top of that there's no proof for all of those children having been what we today refer to as Croats, since there were people of many different nationalities/origins living in that area. Simple logic, try it, you might like it. Thomas.W ^talk 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that English people, Russian and Serbs hate Croats, please be the first one of those three nationalities and don't hate. There were sent directly to Turkey, not to Greece, not to Albania or Egypt, directly to Turkey. And they couldn't have ended up anywhere, that is the problem. I advised you to look the articles about French or Italian people. You will see that 45 million people of French ancestry with no sources. Or delete that information on all pages about nations such as English, French or Italian people and their ancestry or I will keep doing this for a long time. And try to learn something about European history, you will definitely like it. --BrunoMed (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And how do you think that situation came about? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a pile of rubbish, it has nothing to do with "hating Croats", it's all about it being a ridiculous claim. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to post silly nationalistic claims published in tabloids in order to artifically boost the number of Croats or any other nationality. Thomas.W ^talk 14:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I′m not doing this because im Croat, I′m doing it because that is the fact, it is not ridiculous. Im definitely not nacionalist even opposite, but I love truth, and I live my people, same as you. I don't read any tabloids and that sources are definitely not the tabloids. That is in Serbian blood to ″artifically″ boost the number of Serbs. I didn't boost anything, I have just puta a approximate number of Croats in Turkey. --46.188.174.187 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of this nonsense? Should I read something about that in the wonderful edit summaries? This information, "true" or not, is irrelevant and WP:UNDUE. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, Gerard, I don't care, believe in whatever you want. I know the truth, but other readers of Wikipedia won′t know it. And the point is the true, and also that the Dutch people hate Croats. Bye. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And no one looks the edit summaries. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I look at edit summaries. I also look at your messages here and my conclusion is that these edits are not made by someone who is here with the idea to make a useful contribution to an article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"That is in Serbian blood to ″artifically″ boost the number of Serbs." I mean, really...... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Noone cares about you and your unimportant nation. --BrunoMed (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

All right, enough. BrunoMed, focus on content and not on contributors or who hates who. Consider this a discretionary sanctions warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It should either be removed or updated. The information is over 10 years old and quite dated now since new genetic sequencing tools have been used.--63.145.59.74 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

^Agreed. The LGM Theory has been scientifically debunked. Can a certified geneticist revise this?--130.212.79.197 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This genetics section is really bad. It's all from 2003 back when population history was inferred from Y-chromosomes. If no one wants to rewrite it based on current science, it should be removed. It's better not to have a genetic section than to present false information. People reading this might not know about recent advances in ancient dna. 2600:1702:890:73F0:D31:BFAA:E601:A367 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Care to try a hand at rewriting it? I don't know enough about the subject, but if you do, be bold and give it a shot. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Tito

Let's best continue the discussion here: Before adopting Pan-Slavism Broz initially identified as a Croat, per refs 20-22 in his article, so certainly it makes sense to acknowledge that. Secondly, while he was of both Croatian and Slovenian origin, the Croatian part is what's relevant here as the article is about -- Croats. Besides, one doesn't need to have a 100% homogenous origin to identify as part of an ethnicity. Thirdly, please remain WP:CIVIL and don't call other editors' good faith and informed contributions "mind-boggling", "dubious", etc. Daß Wölf 05:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Croats. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Broz Tito image should be removed

The Tito article says he is slovene-croat (but himself considers ethnic Yugoslav - or south slavic), so i recomend to put in the description that he is slovene-croat, or remove the image John L. Booth (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)