Talk:Serboi

Sarmatians

Well, I agree that article about Sarmatian Serboi shoud exist, but most of the article content is taken from Origin of Serbs. I think that this article should to speak only about Sarmatian Serboi, until they became Slavicized. Everything after that belong to the articles Origin of Serbs and History of Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. The article should be fully reviewed in a deletionist style. --Sugaar 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

@Sugaar complete article has to be reviewed and rewritten as it has completely missed the topic Pixius talk 10:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There not much about the Sarmatian Serboi themselves and the theoretical connection with the Sarmatian or Slavic early Serbs in Central Europe is generally which can be found in the literature, and belongs both here and Origin of Serbs, but not History of Serbs.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I move the following passage from mainspace because it looks like blatant original reasearch. The tone is not encyclopaedic, no references are provided. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point in the history of the Serboi, this Old Sarmatian language stood side by side with the Slavic language in White Serbia (mentioned by the Byzantine emperor, Constantine Porphyrogenitus), and likely even in the first 300 years leading up to the formation of the Serb state in the Balkans in the 9th century.

Since the modern Ossetian language derived from ancient Sarmatian, we can search for the origin of Serboi and Sarmatians if we compare relationships between languages of Iranian stock. The Ossetian language is a member of Eastern Iranian branch of Iranian languages, along with Pashtun, Yaghnobi and languages of the Pamir. The original homeland of the Sarmatians was probably in the region where these eastern Iranian languages are spoken today, somewhere between Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan.

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, in his Book Of Ceremonies66, calls the Croats and Serboi "Krevatas and Sarban", who were located between Alania and Tsanaria. The information that Serboi were mentioned under the name Sarban is important because there is a Pashtun tribal group in Afghanistan named Sarbans, and that could mean that these Pashtun Sarbans are ancestors or relatives of Sarmatian Serboi. There is an old Pashtun legend which say that father Pathan (Pashtun) had 4 sons: Sarban (Serb), Batan, Ghurghusht and Karan (Croat?). This legend could suggest that Sarmatian Serboi and Croats were actually descendants of Pashtun tribes.

"Siberian Serbs", "the river Volga in the Caucasus", etc.

This is the finest piece of crackpotship I have removed from mainspace in a long while. LOL! --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Serboi were mentioned by Plinius the Younger in the first century AD (69-75) as living on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov in his Geographica. In the 2nd century, Herodotus writes in his Persian Wars that Serboi (Serboi, Sirboi - Serboi, Sirboi) live behind the Caucasus, near the hinterland of the Black Sea. In the fourth century the Carpathians are mentioned as Montes Serrorum (Serboi mountains?) by the Roman emperor Licinius.

In the Caucasus, the homeland of the Serboi, 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 Serboi language.

The Serboi possible migrated in two directions from the Caucasus, northwest and northeast. Those who went northwest became overlords to the Slavs. There they established a mighty empire and became slavicized. Konstantine Porfirogenitus called this "White Serbia". Their descendants are known as Lusatian Serbs/Sorbs today and despite immense Germanization, there are still a few thousand left. These are called 'White Serbs'.

There is theory that the other branch of Serboi maybe moved northeast to the southern base of the Urals, settled there for a period of time. We can call them 'Volga Serbs'. They possible moved to the east and went deep into Siberia and left its traces in the names of cities and towns along the coast of the Sea of Japan. They faded out with onslaught from the Mongols. These we can call 'Siberian Serbs'. It seems likely that Siberia was named after this Old Serboi tribe.

White Serbs were probably completely Slavicized by the 6th century. The descendants of these Slavicized White Serbs are today's Lusatian Sorbs. One branch of these White Serbs have left White Serbia, and according to Porfirogenitus, came to the Balkans (7th century), invited by Heracleus, defeated the Avars and were given Macedonia to inhabit. There they took the already settled Slavs (who began arriving in the 5th and 6th centuries) under their control and mixed with them to form modern Serb nation in the Balkans.

White for "West"

Since the white colour was for steppe peoples a traditional designation for the west, name 'White Serbia' actually could mean "Western Serbia".

This is an interesting idea (cf. White Horde), but it needs to be sourced. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be sourced ? Interesting idea ? Man Ghirla : Hands off of this article ! If you don´t even know why White Russia is called white you really should write about Germans or something about cooking...

Genetic criticism?

The "criticism" makes no sense. The haplogroups listed as a "proof" against the Iranian theory (E3b1, J...) are old Balkan haplogroups inherited from the Pre-Slavic population, nothing more or less. Slavs, as well as Iranians, were characterized by Y-haplogroup R1a1, and if we don't dissect this haplogroup in more detail, the problem can't be solved. By the way, there exist studies showing a much higher percentage of R1a1 in Serbians.

I do hope that the authors of this article are well aware of the origin of Croatians and Serbians in the Carpathian basin, independently confirmed by Czech and Croatian legends, as well as by reports of Konstantinos Porphyrogenetos. 82.100.61.114 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbinum

Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that Ptolemy spoke of a city called Serbinum on the locality of present day Gradiška (in modern Bosnia and Hercegovina) as early as second century AD. This means that Serbs/Serboi were living in the Balkans already in the antique, which presents a huge obstacle to the claim that the Sarmatian (allegedly Iranian) tribe Serboi first settled in "White Serbia", became Slavicized there, and only thereafter moved to the Balcans.

Also, the Lusatians are called Wends in English and Wenden in German, thus indicating their Venetic origin, not Sarmatian. 219.21.138.48 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ćirković reference

Based on my reading of the two pages via google books, I don't think this reference is exactly appropriate for our intro sentence here:

• Ćirković, Sima M.; Tošić, Vuk (2004). Tošić, Vuk (ed.). The Serbs. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-0-631-20471-8.

That's an introduction to the book that just says:

The origins of the Serb people are sought not in Pliny and Ptolemy, [...]

So Ćirković probably acknowledges the existence of these two mentions in Pliny and Ptolemy, but doesn't go further than that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of the Serbs

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't see proof of the equivalency. See also a lot of conflicting information above. It doesn't look like much more than a fringe theory developed around a few bits of data. I also found an article on the Serbian wiki - Iranian theory on Serb origin that talks about Serboi and Serbinum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic map

The text on the map does not say "Серби" - the print has 6 letters, not 5. PANONIAN? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is because it is written in archaic language that was used before Vuk Karadžić's reform. Letter "Ь" does not have its sound and original Cyrillic name from map (Сербьи) is same as modern Cyrillic "Серби" or Latin "Serbi". PANONIAN 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_sign PANONIAN 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but why NO ONE EVER LOOK how that sign is read in old-slavic or at least how everyone translates that sign?! They ALWAYS translate it as A. So, Serbs are not Serbs but Sarb+something. Letter b (in original its hard b sign) which usually translates S -> Z or it could be read as SArb... or Zerb.