Who are the purest Slavs racially?

[Smeagol]

What I mean, is who d you think is racially most similar to the old Slavs? (Nordid (Aryan), and Baltid).

Wait for poll.

[fenix978]

I vote Belarussians and Ukrainians, because I think that early Slavs belonged mainly to Baltic race which is present in the highest percent among these two nations.

Russians on the other hand have more Nordid, Pontid and Uralic influences.

I am also not sure about Poles, what is percent of pon-Baltics among them...

[Trun]

Bulgarians.

[fenix978]

Bulgarians.



So you say that early Slavs were mainly Pontids? :cool:

[Trun]

So you say that early Slavs were mainly Pontids? :cool:

Early Slavs stronk.

[morski]

What I mean, is who d you think is racially most similar to the old Slavs? (Nordid (Aryan), and Baltid).

Wait for poll.
Source?

[fenix978]

Early Slavs stronk.



Hm... Latvians, Lithuanians and Prussians were linguistically related to Slavs but they are allmost 100% Baltid + Nordid.

[Smeagol]

Source?

From Carleton Coon's races of Europe:

''for numerous descriptions of the early Slavs, assiduously collected by Niederle, occur in the writings of Byzantines, Arabs, and Persians.101 With only one exception, these make the Slavs tall, spare, and blond or ruddy. They were often confused with Germans, and this fact strengthens the likelihood that they were predominantly of light pigmentation.''

''If the evidence of literary sources makes the early Slavs Nordic in stature and pigmentation, that of ostcology makes them the same in the metrical and morphological sense. In brief, all of the earliest Slavic skeletal material, dating mostly from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, falls, by ,groups if not as individuals, into one or more of the Nordic categories already found to be characteristic of Iron Age Indo-European speaking peoples.''

[Lemon Kush]

Sorbs

[Ultra]

I vote Belarussians and Ukrainians, because I think that early Slavs belonged mainly to Baltic race which is present in the highest percent among these two nations.

Russians on the other hand have more Nordid, Pontid and Uralic influences.

I am also not sure about Poles, what is percent of pon-Baltics among them...
Pontid and general dark complexion is much more prevalent in the Slavic population in Ukraine than the one in Russia. I'm pretty sure Baltid is more common among Russians as well.

[morski]

From Carleton Coon's races of Europe:

''for numerous descriptions of the early Slavs, assiduously collected by Niederle, occur in the writings of Byzantines, Arabs, and Persians.101 With only one exception, these make the Slavs tall, spare, and blond or ruddy. They were often confused with Germans, and this fact strengthens the likelihood that they were predominantly of light pigmentation.''

''If the evidence of literary sources makes the early Slavs Nordic in stature and pigmentation, that of ostcology makes them the same in the metrical and morphological sense. In brief, all of the earliest Slavic skeletal material, dating mostly from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, falls, by ,groups if not as individuals, into one or more of the Nordic categories already found to be characteristic of Iron Age Indo-European speaking peoples.''

A bit outdated, no?

[fenix978]

Pontid and general dark complexion is much more prevalent in the Slavic population in Ukraine than the one in Russia. I'm pretty sure Baltid is more common among Russians as well.


OK than I that say that Belarussians are purest Slavs.

[Smeagol]

A bit outdated, no?

No. Both the writings by contemporaries, and skeletal evidence support the fact that old Slavs were predominantly Nordoid.

[Artek]

It's quite cautious to assume that they were rather in dark blonde-medium brown spectrum and rather blue than brown-eyed with rather low mesocephalic cranial index = therefore Nordoid or Nordo-Mediterranoid(let's say Pontoid) made up an AVERAGE phenotype. If pure means average, that was probably the "pure" phenotype.

[fenix978]

No. Both the writings by contemporaries, and skeletal evidence support the fact that old Slavs were predominantly Nordoid.



I think that ruling class among early Russians were Norids of Viking origin, but majority of ordinary people were mainly Baltic.

[Artek]

I think that ruling class among early Russians were Nordids of Viking origin, but majority of ordinary people were mainly Baltic.
Scandinavian users themselves contradict the whole "Scandinavia-is-pure-Nordid" thing, so why am I expected to care about what you say? The majority of ordinary people up to the medium phase of Middle Ages were Nordoid(not "pure" Nordid!), at least metrically-wise.
Pigmentation might have varied but they weren't largely Baltic(I assume you think of Baltid phenotype) in the cranial sense.

I've voted for the Belarussians anyway.

[Ivan Kramskoï]

Central/Southern Russian

[Insuperable]

Source?

And what is it that you think, that proto Slavs were similar to Balkan people? After all the genetics research being posted and numerous discussions one would think you joined TA yesterday.

[Argang]

I think that ruling class among early Russians were Norids of Viking origin, but majority of ordinary people were mainly Baltic.

That influence in Slavs is probably exaggarated a bit, though it's real. Contemporary accounts about appearences on the other hand tend to be, well, lets be polite and say Tacitus didn't get a representative sample of everyone living north of Romans, hence everyone is big tall redhead.

According to later studies slavs were clearly distinguishable from at least Scandinavians in Roman age and Medieval age.






http://s12.postimg.org/f9jirzpod/Bez_tytu_u.png
"Dąbrowski (...) used for his research 168 male and female skulls of the Roman period, including 28 skulls classified as Przeworsk culture and 140 as Wielbark culture. Author has proven, that skulls classified as Przeworsk culture are not morphologically different from skulls classified as Wielbark culture, which means, that they are not distinguishable as two different populations. (...) In his comparative research Dąbrowski uses skulls classified as Chernyakhovsk culture (90 male skulls and 94 female skulls) and craniological materials from the Early Medieval period: Eastern Slavs - 835 male skulls and 456 female skulls, Western Slavs - 2652 male skulls and 2246 female skulls. Skulls were from various burial-grounds and represented, in case of Eastern Slavs, such ethno-tribal groups as: Dregowicze, Krywicze, Polanie, Radynicze, Siewierzanie, Słowenie, Wiatycze. In case of Western Slavs groups were distinguished basing on geographical-historical criterion: Czechs, Lesser Polans, Mazovians, Moravians, Pomeranians, Slovakians, Silesians, Greater Polans. Between 15 mentioned groups of Early Medieval Slavs Dąbrowski, thanks to data about individual sizes of skulls, counted so called D2 Mahalanobis biological distances. The analysis of this data has proven, that there exists a certain tendency that groups located closer to each other in geographical space, are more similar to each other. One such common group consists of skulls of Western Slavs, the other one of skulls of Eastern Slavs. (...) similar intergroup ties are present in case of both sexes. (...) Results of analyses published by Dąbrowski (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007) have been complemented by studies with use of new statistical methods and by larger number of chronologically diversified populations. Using matrixes of biological distances, present in Dąbrowski's work from 2007, we conducted comparative analysis of same morphorogical features of skulls in diachronic approach, that is comparing populations of the Roman period to Slavic populations. We have established a very high level of similarity between populations of both Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhovsk cultures to Slavic population (ill. 5, 6). Obtained by Dąbrowski (2007) and confirmed by us with use of another method, results of analyses indicate that populations living in basins of Oder and Vistula rivers during the period of Roman influences, were no different in terms of morphology from populations living in the same area during the Early Medieval period. Moreover, results of Dąbrowski's research have been complemented by comparative analysis of Roman period populations (populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures) with populations of basins of Oder and Vistula rivers from Medieval period as well as with Medieval populations from Scandinavia (cf. Piontek 2006, 2007, Piontek and others 2007). In our comparative analysis we used the method of counting biological distance (square Euclidean distance) and the method of arranging matrixes according to Ward's method. Dendrogram divided the examined set of populations into two subgroups: the first subgroup - Medieval populations from basins of Oder and Vistula and Roman period populations, the second subgroup - Medieval and Late Medieval populations from Scandinavia and Western Pomerania. After comparing 22 populations in terms of 6 defined morphological features of skull it has been proven, that populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures are characterized by very high level of morphological similarity with Medieval populations from basins of Vistula and Oder rivers. On the other hand, populations of these Roman period cultures bear no morphological resemblance to populations from Scandinavia, that is to populations to whom populations of Goths who allegedly lived in basins of Vistula and Oder rivers during the Roman period should be very similar, and with whom Roman period populations are often being ethnically identified."

[Weedman]

Belarussians

[fenix978]

Scandinavian users themselves contradict the whole "Scandinavia-is-pure-Nordid" thing...


I know that Vikings were not 100% pure Nordids, but most of them were indeed Nordid.

[Artek]

I know that Vikings were not 100% pure Nordids, but most of them were indeed Nordid.
And many Slavs. So that's not a huge difference. Vikings probably also introduced some Borreby phenotypes, that are hardly Nordoid in any sense :)

[morski]

No. Both the writings by contemporaries, and skeletal evidence support the fact that old Slavs were predominantly Nordoid.

Few considerations.

In my opinion early Slavic evolved naturally as a lingua franca of the mixed barbarians living in the Hunnic, Avar and Bulgar tribal confederations in the European steppes, from Panonia to the Nothern Black Sea. I don't buy into the Pripyat marshes mantra. The basis of this common language was the older Balto-Slavic dialects with Iranic and Germanic adstrates.

The Eastern Romans were predominantly East Meds, Anatolids, Armenoids and Levantines, so for them a medium to light brown haired people were, of course, blonde or ruddy.

About the size of the skeletal remains - the Asen royal family of Bulgaria are known from sources and burials to have been about two meters tall in a time when Western knightly armor could accommodate 160cm. blokes, Nordid or not, so that's irrelevant.

Slavic spread so rapidly and on such a great territory not because of conquest and population replacement, but because of the relatively egalitarian social structure that the groups speaking it used to practice, so the phenotypical variety was big early on.

I believe the closest modern populations to the very early Slavs would be Ukranians, Ruthenians, Southern Russians and South Slavs. The more northern Slavs like Poles, Belarussians and Northern Russians are previous speakers of Baltic, Uralic and to a lesser extent Germanic languages who adopted common Slavic at a later time.

[Sandman]

Poles are the purest Slavs. Belarussians are too mixed with Balts. Russians mixed with Ugro-finns.

[morski]

Poles are the purest Slavs. Belarussians are too mixed with Balts. Russians mixed with Ugro-finns.

Poles are a fringe Slavic population, so I doubt that.

[RussiaPrussia]

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif


Lithuanians

[Alexq]

if belarusians are purest slavs, then modern day Macedonians, Bulgarians and most serbs look nothing alike them.

[Harkonnen]

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif


Lithuanians

So does this component peak in Lithuanians? If so maybe you should call it Baltic instead of Slavic.

[fenix978]

Poles are the purest Slavs. Belarussians are too mixed with Balts. Russians mixed with Ugro-finns.



What is estimate racial composition of Poles in percent of Baltids, Nordids, Pontids, Alpines, CMs and Dinarics?

[fenix978]

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif


Lithuanians



Lithuanians and Latvians often claim that they are not related to Slavs. And Latvian language doesn't sound Slavic at all to me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUOoSP-lcHc

[Not a Cop]

Poles are the purest Slavs. Belarussians are too mixed with Balts. Russians mixed with Ugro-finns.

Finno-Ugrics of Russia are not very different from Slavs in therms of phenotypes, they are mostly Nordid\Baltid only with East-Baltid and some other Uralic influences making the different.

[morski]

Finno-Ugrics of Russia are not very different from Slavs in therms of phenotypes, they are mostly Nordid\Baltid only with East-Baltid and some other Uralic influences making the different.

Probably because their Slavic speaking neighbours are slavicised Ugro-Finnics themselves.

[Roy]

Thre's no such a thing as ''Slavic race'' so this is silly question to come up with.

[Sandman]

What is estimate racial composition of Poles in percent of Baltids, Nordids, Pontids, Alpines, CMs and Dinarics?

From my personal observation is that none of these subtypes do not have an absolute majority. Here where I live relatively the less is the type of Dinarid.

[Not a Cop]

Probably because their Slavic speaking neighbours are slavicised Ugro-Finnics themselves.

Not really, anthropology of Russians have been studied very well, inclunding tonns of ancient material, everything points to overwhelmingly Slavic orgin of Russians only with exceptions in North-Eastern parts of country.

[fenix978]

From my personal observation is that none of these subtypes do not have an absolute majority. Here where I live relatively the less is the type of Dinarid.


In that case Poles cannot be purest Slavs.



Probably because their Slavic speaking neighbours are slavicised Ugro-Finnics themselves.


On the other side, the question is what percent of Finns and Estonians have Slavic origin? :eek:

[Argang]

Not really, anthropology of Russians have been studied very well, inclunding tonns of ancient material, everything points to overwhelmingly Slavic orgin of Russians only with exceptions in North-Eastern parts of country.

Sevruk posted (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?18171-North-Pontid-Type/page19&p=2286814#post2286814)some bit from a study that said mordovian Mokshas have a lot of north pontid type. That's pretty interesting because genetically they cluster with North Russians, and I don't know if that type is common in, say, Vologda region.

[morski]

Not really, anthropology of Russians have been studied very well, inclunding tonns of ancient material, everything points to overwhelmingly Slavic orgin of Russians only with exceptions in North-Eastern parts of country.

Right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Slavic_peoples_6th_century_historical_map.jpg

[morski]

Right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Slavic_peoples_6th_century_historical_map.jpg

Only in my opinion the core lands should be positioned even further South.

[Artek]

Only in my opinion the core lands should be positioned even further South.
Because no one else thinks that you are right

[Hadouken]

belarusians maybe ?

[morski]

Because no one else thinks that you are right

I suspect I'm closer to the truth than any of you.

[Artek]

I suspect I'm closer to the truth than any of you.
Going after your way of thinking, West Slavs would be Baltic or Germanic language shifters. Language shifts took the place(the case of Hungarians, Irish etc.) but were more recent and documented. This one is totally non-verifiable.

[morski]

Going after your way of thinking, West Slavs would be Baltic or Germanic language shifters. Language shifts took the place(the case of Hungarians, Irish etc.) but were more recent and documented. This one is totally non-verifiable.

The fairy tale of the pure Nordid Slavs crawling out of the Pripyat marshes is also totally non-verifiable.

[Not a Cop]

The fairy tale of the pure Nordid Slavs crawling out of the Pripyat marshes is also totally non-verifiable.

Why not? Y-dna and carinometry pretty much verifies the continium going from Poland to Russia trough baltic states and Belarus.

[Artek]

The fairy tale of the pure Nordid Slavs crawling out of the Pripyat marshes is also totally non-verifiable.
I've never thought of Slavs crawling out of Pripyat Marshes, I totally agree with the map you've posted.
A quick expansion from such small and inhospitable homeland like Pripyat Marshes is impossible, they must have been numerous and quite widespread before. Pripyat Marshes is a part of Prussian propaganda, that gave vast areas of Central Europe to Germanics.

[morski]

I've never thought of Slavs crawling out of Pripyat Marshes, I totally agree with the map you've posted.
A quick expansion from such small and inhospitable homeland like Pripyat Marshes is impossible, they must have been numerous and quite widespread before. Pripyat Marshes is a part of Prussian propaganda, that gave vast areas of Central Europe to Germanics.

Then lets apply logic to the problem. While superior agricultural practices that facilitate demographic booms can certainly explain the rapid takeover of lands in a north-eastern vector into the Finno-Ugric domain they certainly fail to explain the penetration into the more advanced Roman Balkans and the equally advanced Baltic and Germanic North-West. So Slavic expansion must have been based both on demographic booms and voluntary assimilation of alien groups into the Slavic culture, because of its egalitarian nautre. So my original point stands. Considering the Urheimat of the Slavs was the Ukraine and Central Europe the closest modern groups to the early Slavs phenotypically speaking would be the Ukrainians and Ruthenians.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Scottish people, no doubt.

[Not a Cop]

Then lets apply logic to the problem. While superior agricultural practices that facilitate demographic booms can certainly explain the rapid takeover of lands in a north-eastern vector into the Finno-Ugric domain they certainly fail to explain the penetration into the more advanced Roman Balkans and the equally advanced Baltic and Germanic North-West. So Slavic expansion must have been based both on demographic booms and voluntary assimilation of alien groups into the Slavic culture, because of its egalitarian nautre. So my original point stands. Considering the Urheimat of the Slavs was the Ukraine and Central Europe the closest modern groups to the early Slavs phenotypically speaking would be the Ukrainians and Ruthenians.

Actually balts are another interesting thing in makeup of E. European population - they lived in relatievly rich lands with wide opportunities for agriculture, fishing and hunting, i do'nt think that while their neighbours expanded extensively they stood locked to small areas near baltic sea.

[morski]

Actually balts are another interesting thing in makeup of E. European population - they lived in relatievly rich lands with wide opportunities for agriculture, fishing and hunting, i do'nt think that while their neighbours expanded extensively they stood locked to small areas near baltic sea.

That's why I assume that Slavs in the North are largely former Baltic speakers.

[RussiaPrussia]

Lithuanians and Latvians often claim that they are not related to Slavs. And Latvian language doesn't sound Slavic at all to me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUOoSP-lcHc

baltics and slavs used to be one folk, but slavs were more influenced latter one by other people especially germanic. Baltics just stayed there where they were born, you can even say baltic language is how slavic language used to be.

[Trun]

Few considerations.

In my opinion early Slavic evolved naturally as a lingua franca of the mixed barbarians living in the Hunnic, Avar and Bulgar tribal confederations in the European steppes, from Panonia to the Nothern Black Sea. I don't buy into the Pripyat marshes mantra. The basis of this common language was the older Balto-Slavic dialects with Iranic and Germanic adstrates.

The Eastern Romans were predominantly East Meds, Anatolids, Armenoids and Levantines, so for them a medium to light brown haired people were, of course, blonde or ruddy.

About the size of the skeletal remains - the Asen royal family of Bulgaria are known from sources and burials to have been about two meters tall in a time when Western knightly armor could accommodate 160cm. blokes, Nordid or not, so that's irrelevant.

Slavic spread so rapidly and on such a great territory not because of conquest and population replacement, but because of the relatively egalitarian social structure that the groups speaking it used to practice, so the phenotypical variety was big early on.

I believe the closest modern populations to the very early Slavs would be Ukranians, Ruthenians, Southern Russians and South Slavs. The more northern Slavs like Poles, Belarussians and Northern Russians are previous speakers of Baltic, Uralic and to a lesser extent Germanic languages who adopted common Slavic at a later time.

Plausible. The only thing I might consider doubtful is whether Eastern Romans were Levantine-alike since many of them were Illyrians, Thracians and Dorians.

If anything, phenotypically speaking, I don't think early Balkan Slavs were that different from the local population, and even Bulgar newcomers (at that time the border between Bulgar and Slavic wasn't probably that thick, at least for some tribes - they communicated somehow, and probably in Slavic). Let's remember Greeks called Thracians "redheads", so ancient descriptions of taxonomy are rather not trustworthy.

[morski]

Plausible. The only thing I might consider doubtful is whether Eastern Romans were Levantine-alike since many of them were Illyrians, Thracians and Dorians.

If anything, phenotypically speaking, I don't think early Balkan Slavs were that different from the local population, and even Bulgar newcomers (at that time the border between Bulgar and Slavic wasn't probably that thick, at least for some tribes - they communicated somehow, and probably in Slavic). Let's remember Greeks called Thracians "redheads", so ancient descriptions of taxonomy are rather not trustworthy.

At the time of the Slavic expansion into the Balkans the ERE encompassed these lands:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Roman_Empire_600_AD.PNG

So overall they should have been rather varied in phenotype, but in my opinion the major elements were East Med, Anatolid, Armenoid and Levantine, since those were found in the most populous provinces. I don't have to mention Eastern Romans like Leo the Armenian or Presbyter John from Syria.:laugh:

[morski]

Just look at this and tell me who looks what.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Bulgars.jpg

[arcticwolf]

Wut? What's with the Poles are Germanic BS? Are you fellas on drugs?

You all should know Poles are the Most Slavic. What's there to discuss? The results of this poll a very suspicious! :laugh:

[fenix978]

baltics and slavs used to be one folk, but slavs were more influenced latter one by other people especially germanic. Baltics just stayed there where they were born, you can even say baltic language is how slavic language used to be.


Oh really? Latvian sound to me more like Finno-Ugric language.

[Zaycev]

Poles

[arcticwolf]

Oh really? Latvian sound to me more like Finno-Ugric language.


LOL

Are you saying Balts are Finnics? I think there is general notion out there that latvian is a Baltic language. It may have some Finnic influences due to proximity of Latvians to Finnic population, which is not surprising.

Are you saying Latvian is a Finnic language?

Where is Karl when you need him? :laugh:

[fenix978]

LOL

Are you saying Balts are Finnics? I think there is general notion out there that latvian is a Baltic language. It may have some Finnic influences due to proximity of Latvians to Finnic population, which is not surprising.

Are you saying Latvian is a Finnic language?

Where is Karl when you need him? :laugh:


No I am not saying that. I've just said that Latvian sound to me more like a Finnic than Slavic language. And I do know that Latvian is related to Lithuanian and old Prussian.

[Kalimtari]

Belarusians, no doubt

[ALSh]

Mothers of Slaves, Russia

[Styrian Mujo]

Lithuanians and Latvians, even though they don't speak Slavic they are closely related to Slavs (Balto-Slavs) and are racialy closest to the ancient Slavs before they expanded and mixed with non-Balto-Slavic peoples.

[arcticwolf]

Lithuanians and Latvians, even though they don't speak Slavic they are closely related to Slavs (Balto-Slavs) and are racialy closest to the ancient Slavs before they expanded and mixed with non-Balto-Slavic peoples.

Interesting thèory, and I think you've nailed it. Especially Lithuanians as Latvians have Finnic influence. If Ihad to point to the most likely original Slavic look I would go with Lithuanian.

Very good and the most accurate post so far!

[PowerControls]

Me and my family.

[Lisa]

I vote Belarussians and Ukrainians, because I think that early Slavs belonged mainly to Baltic race which is present in the highest percent among these two nations.

Russians on the other hand have more Nordid, Pontid and Uralic influences.

I am also not sure about Poles, what is percent of pon-Baltics among them...
Belarusians and Ukrainians have more darker hair color than Russians. Even southern Russians lighter than Ukrainians and Belarusians.

[arcticwolf]

Belarusians and Ukrainians have more darker hair color than Russians. Even southern Russians lighter than Ukrainians and Belarusians.


Lisa we know all that. The dark Slavs are the real Slavs. That makes you ..... not very Slavic.

how do you feel about that? :laugh:

[morski]

Me and my family.
That is when you are not wearing your SS uniform.:p

[arcticwolf]

That is when you are not wearing your SS uniform.:p

You too Morski?

I used to like you, no more! :laugh:

[morski]

You too Morski?

I used to like you, no more! :laugh:
:pout:

[arcticwolf]

:pout:

Why do you hate us? :laugh:

[Diërker]

Belarussians are the fathers of the Slavic peoples.

[Trun]

Belarussians are the fathers of the Slavic peoples.

As far as I know, it wasn't Belorussians who created a Slavic alphabet and baptized many Slavs.

[Peikko]

Ukrainians. Slavs were a mixed bunch from the start.

[Diërker]

As far as I know, it wasn't Belorussians who created a Slavic alphabet and baptized many Slavs.

Which group did then.

[Not a Cop]

Which group did then.

Greeks

[morski]

Greeks

You as a Russian should be more respecful to the two Bulgarian waves of cultural influence your people have received in the 11th and 14th centuries.

[Sandman]

This discussion leads to nowhere.

[Trun]

This discussion leads to nowhere.

Unless someone has a few ancient Slavs at home, it won't lead to anywhere even if it reaches 108329843937489269563258963895 pages.

[Mark]

My vote goes to Poland.

I think Polabian and Sorbs are the purest. But I admit, I might be a little biased. :D

[morski]

My vote goes to Poland.

I think Polabian and Sorbs are the purest. But I admit, I might be a little biased. :D

Utter bull of course.

[StonyArabia]

Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians, and Poles to, and also they are the real Indo-Europeans.

[Smeagol]

It's probably South Russians.

[thevendetta]

South balkanites like Macedonians, Bosnians have Thraco-illyiran blood so are pretty mixed. Purest are probably Russians and Ukranians, although there is some mixed Asiatic ancestry.

[Crn Volk]

Belarussians

[Hevo]

East-Poles, South-Belarusians and North Ukrainians.

[fenix978]

East-Poles, South-Belarusians and North Ukrainians.



Yeah, it seems that these populations have the smallest Mongoloid, Nordid or Pontid influences.

[Windischer]

armenians and vietnamese

[Thrabul]

None of them. "Slavs" is a linguistic term, not racial.

[fenix978]

None of them. "Slavs" is a linguistic term, not racial.


Maybe today, but 1000 years ago it was not so.

[Windischer]

Maybe today, but 1000 years ago it was not so.

it was the same.

[Foxy]

Western Ukrainians/eastern Polish.

[Artek]

it was the same.
So let's say 2000 or more years :)

[inactive_member]

Western Ukrainians/eastern Polish.

Western, Ukrainians, SE Poles and Slovaks.


http://imageupper.com/s02/1/5/J13909871332023389_1.png

http://imageupper.com/s02/1/5/J13909871332023389_1.png

[Keep Shake It]

belarussians or poles between them

[Sockorer]

I'm curious as to why so many people voted Bulgaria, since Bulgarians are one of the least pure of the bunch.

[Keep Shake It]

I'm curious as to why so many people voted Bulgaria, since Bulgarians are one of the least pure of the bunch.

probably just for lulz

[DarknessInside]

Belorussians + Poles. But Belarus have more.

[Lithium]

There is no such thing as a Slavic race. There is slavic culture though and its center was Bulgaria. Especially for Orthodox Slavs.

[Permafrost]

The proof that old Slavs belonged craniometrically to the Nordid phenotype is overwhelming. There is NO dispute about it. Later, they underwent reduction/brachycephalization/borealization and Baltid phenotypes became more dominant.

http://i61.tinypic.com/30136gi.jpg

The truth is that the ancient Slavs would turn in their graves if their were to catch a glimpse of the todays Balkanite bushmen claiming Slavic ancestry. I know this fact makes them butthurt, but tbh it ain't my problem.

[Insuperable]

...Balkanite bushmen...

:D

Like you I don't see what is the point of putting South Slavs (except Slovenes) into poll or including into this discussion.

[Rugevit]

The proof that old Slavs belonged craniometrically to the Nordid phenotype is overwhelming. There is NO dispute about it. Later, they underwent reduction/brachycephalization/borealization and Baltid phenotypes became more dominant.



There are some published studies on craniometry of northern Slavs confirming brachycephalisation occuring between 13-18th centuries.

[Permafrost]

:D

Like you I don't see what is the point of putting South Slavs (except Slovenes) into poll or including into this discussion.

Even more hilarious, Bulgarians got seven votes!!!! :D I know we're making light of it but the fact that people consider them archetypical Slavs is more of a tragedy than anything else.

About Slovenia I agree partially, while north Slovenians absorbed noble Celtic blood, those of us who have ancestry from the south and also west (Goriška, Istra, Dolenjska, Primorska and part of Notranjska basically) are still sailing the same Bantu-Illyrian boat as the rest of them Balkanites. Just take a walk through the seafront of Koper and you will see phenotypes like these -

http://www.erevija.com/files/pictures/2013/02/03/5352421.jpg

http://www.veza.sigledal.org/media/Slike/Clanki/2011-2/AnjaR/osebe/thumbnail/larger_iztokmlakar2011-foto-radovan-ok-600-x-400.jpg

[Faklon]

http://i61.tinypic.com/30136gi.jpg



The first looks like Krzysztof Warzycha or something,the second maybe to member Artek.

[Jana]

Even more hilarious, Bulgarians got seven votes!!!! :D I know we're making light of it but the fact that people consider them archetypical Slavs is more of a tragedy than anything else.

About Slovenia I agree partially, while north Slovenians absorbed noble Celtic blood, those of us who have ancestry from the south and also west (Goriška, Istra, Dolenjska, Primorska and part of Notranjska basically) are still sailing the same Bantu-Illyrian boat as the rest of them Balkanites. Just take a walk through the seafront of Koper and you will see phenotypes like these -

http://www.erevija.com/files/pictures/2013/02/03/5352421.jpg
http://www.veza.sigledal.org/media/Slike/Clanki/2011-2/AnjaR/osebe/thumbnail/larger_iztokmlakar2011-foto-radovan-ok-600-x-400.jpg

So you are a self-hater ;)

No need to insult South Slavs which Slovenes belong too, we are diverse. ''Bušmen'', lol tell that to Montetenegrins and Herzegovians compared to whom majority of Slavs are midgets. Definitelly we are not close to original Slavic look, I don't think anyone is except Belarussians, some Russsians and Poles.

I don't think those souhern Slovene phenotypes are representative at all, because I live half an hour from Slovenija(Primorje), and visit often. Just like people from Primorje and Istria most Slovenes from near the border look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids.


IMO

[Insuperable]

So you are a self-hater ;)

No need to insult South Slavs which Slovenes belong too, we are diverse. ''Bušmen'', lol tell that to Montetenegrins and Herzegovians compared to whom majority of Slavs are midgets. Definitelly we are not close to original Slavic look, I don't think anyone is except Belarussians, some Russsians and Poles.

I don't think those souhern Slovene phenotypes are representative at all, because I live half an hour from Slovenija(Primorje), and visit often. Just like people from Primorje and Istria most Slovenes from near the border look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids.


IMO

People from Primorje and IstrIa look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids?

http://i.qkme.me/363l9q.jpg

[Jana]

People from Primorje and Istra look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids?

http://i.qkme.me/363l9q.jpg

Yes to me :D They have strong Celtic vibes. My best friend can pass for Brit. Should I post photos?

[Insuperable]

People from Primorje and IstrIa look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids?

http://i.qkme.me/363l9q.jpg

They look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids. Those from northern Croatia look like Slovaks. Eastern Croats look like Hungarians. Southern Croats look like Bantu.

[Highlands]

Russians, Belarusian, Ukraine, Poland

[Permafrost]

So you are a self-hater ;)

No need to insult South Slavs which Slovenes belong too, we are diverse. ''Bušmen'', lol tell that to Montetenegrins and Herzegovians compared to whom majority of Slavs are midgets. Definitelly we are not close to original Slavic look, I don't think anyone is except Belarussians, some Russsians and Poles.

Slovenes belong to the WEST SLAVIC group by genesis, while contact with south Slavs over the ages made them being grouped together with the latter. Do not forget, old Slovenes lived together with tribes like Moravians in Samo's polity.

That I am 'insulting' anyone is nothing but your presumption, as you presume my calling Balkanites "Bushmen" is an insult. It is not. I find it an appropriate term for neolithic populations (which Balkanites are).


I don't think those souhern Slovene phenotypes are representative at all, because I live half an hour from Slovenija(Primorje), and visit often. Just like people from Primorje and Istria most Slovenes from near the border look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids.

Do not tell me what my family looks like. Take my maternal grandfather for instance, originally from Ilirska Bistrica, olive pigmented, dinarid fellow with black hair and eyes. My paternal grandmother on the other hand who has Styrian ancestry has very different phenos, being mostly baltid.

This is no random anectode, even if the majority of south Slovenes are not like the ones I posted, they are very much darker compared to northerners like Carinthians, Styrians and Upper Carniolans.


People from Primorje and IstrIa look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids?

http://i.qkme.me/363l9q.jpg

In fact, if anyone is to look Austrian/North Italian/Slav then those are Dalmatians.

[Rugevit]

Estonians could have been included in the poll. They are so much like Russians in many ways.

[Jana]

They look like Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids. Those from northern Croatia look like Slovaks. Eastern Croats look like Hungarians. Southern Croats look like Bantu.

Here are two 100% Primorje Croats, their look is very represenatative for region. Please don't qoute pics, I'll remove them soon.

Removed

[Rugevit]

Slovenes belong to the WEST SLAVIC group by genesis, while contact with south Slavs over the ages made them being grouped together with the latter. Do not forget, old Slovenes lived together with tribes like Moravians in Samo's polity.

So did Croats and Serbs. Many references about white Croats between western Ukraine, southern Poland and Czech Republic, while some Slavs still identify themselves as Serbs in Lusatia.

[Insuperable]

In fact, if anyone is to look Austrian/North Italian/Slav then those are Dalmatians.

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w382/AelitaDiAg/Tumblr/aceventura-hoah-good-job.gif


Here are two 100% Primorje Croats, their look is very represenatative for region. Please don't qoute pics, I'll remove them soon.


Seeing these two Primorje Croats changed my whole perception.

[Rugevit]

Many peoples of Orthodox faith in the Balkans such as Vlachs assumed Serbian ethnicity in the last several hundred years. I may be wrong.

[Jana]

Slovenes belong to the WEST SLAVIC group by genesis, while contact with south Slavs over the ages made them being grouped together with the latter. Do not forget, old Slovenes lived together with tribes like Moravians in Samo's polity.

I agree. If not for Hungarian invasion, probably today Slovenes would be grouped with other West Slavs.


That I am 'insulting' anyone is nothing but your presumption, as you presume my calling Balkanites "Bushmen" is an insult. It is not. I find it an appropriate term for neolithic populations (which Balkanites are).
no they are not. They are more HG derived, at least Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs.




Do not tell me what my family looks like. Take my maternal grandfather for instance, originally from Ilirska Bistrica, olive pigmented, dinarid fellow with black hair and eyes. My paternal grandmother on the other hand who has Styrian ancestry has very different phenos, being mostly baltid.

This is no random anectode, even if the majority of south Slovenes are not like the ones I posted, they are very much darker compared to northerners like Carinthians, Styrians and Upper Carniolans.

Slovenes are very different looking compared to rest of South Slavs except NW Croats. I noticed that from since I was 8, when we went skiing to Slovenia. I tought you were Slavic-speaking Austrians :D
Every family fas exceptions. My Danube Schwabian grandmother is alpine brunette type. My Bosniak ancestors were East Nordic type, and Dalmatian grandmother looks very exotic, like a Avar leftover. You can really find all kind of diversity in every South Slavic family.


In fact, if anyone is to look Austrian/North Italian/Slav then those are Dalmatians.
I think they look closer to Montenegrins and Herzegovians in general.

[Insuperable]

Deleted.

[Insuperable]

I agree. If not for Hungarian invasion, probably today Slovenes would be grouped with other West Slavs.


no they are not. They are more HG derived, at least Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs.





Slovenes are very different looking compared to rest of South Slavs except NW Croats. I noticed that from since I was 8, when we went skiing to Slovenia. I tought you were Slavic-speaking Austrians :D
Every family fas exceptions. My Danube Schwabian grandmother is alpine brunette type. My Bosniak ancestors were East Nordic type, and Dalmatian grandmother looks very exotic, like a Avar leftover. You can really find all kind of diversity in every South Slavic family.

I think they look closer to Montenegrins and Herzegovians in general.

Idk skank, you often sound like full of shit. The only thing we have to establish here is who is more delusional, you or me.

[Permafrost]

So did Croats and Serbs. Many references about white Croats between western Ukraine, southern Poland and Czech Republic, while some Slavs still identify themselves as Serbs in Lusatia.

Yes, but that was not quite my point.

It is sensless to talk about south, west, and east Slavs 1000 years ago when they were relatively close phenotipically and linguistically. What we can do though is talk in relatives: who on the average managed to remain closer to West Slavs among Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?

Did the Serbs live in collectively-oriented zadrugas, or did they have individualistic lifestyles like Lechitic tribes, Moravians and Slovenians?

Were Serbo-Croats under the HRE leadership like Slovenes and Czechs?

What about R1a percentages?

Do Serbs and Croats erect the maypole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maypole) (mlaj) like West Slavs and Slovenes?

Phenotypes?

So on the average Slovene traditions, life-style, culture and haplogroups have some idiosyncrathic commonalities which links them to West Slavs more so than Serbs and Croats. I also contend that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are more distant one from the other than some people on the forum think, although there is much room to elaborate here.

[Jana]

Idk skank, you often sound like full of shit. The only thing we have to establish here is who is more delusional, you or me.

I saw what you wrote. I was never impolite towards you nor plan to be. Maybe we are both delusional.

Peace :)

[Jana]

There are no Serbo-Croats and we are not the same! (in every way)

That is an insult for both sides.

[Insuperable]

I saw what you wrote. I was never impolite towards you nor plan to be. Maybe we are both delusional.

Peace :)

According to you people on your island (from where one side of your family comes from) are blond, blue eyed and tall. Just on the island next to that one short and dark and the island next to that one is characterized for having many redheads. According to you the reason why the former are blond, blue eyed and tall is that because they came from Herzegovina (and yet they are similar to them as you say). Delusion at its best. It just reminds me how you make other Croats Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids and those from the south as Bantu-Vietnamese hybrids.

Obviously I am the one who is less delusional by saying (and thinking) that southern Croats are darker the rest on average, but not as you make them to be.

You are one so confused female that you don't know what you are saying anymore.

[Permafrost]

no they are not. They are more HG derived, at least Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs.


http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w382/AelitaDiAg/Tumblr/aceventura-hoah-good-job.gif

I honestly have no idea what people here have against Dalmatians, they looked like a westerly bunch to me on my last trip to Split. Although I don't know the nuances, I remember once one Dalmatian man (in his 60ies) telling me that "Half of Dalmatia has its roots in Herzegovina". I found it hard to believe though that descendants of Venetian settlers on the coast look like HGians.

Don't get me wrong, N. Italian still means neolithic bantu. Unfortunately Europe should have started implementing anti-immgration laws at the beginning of the neolithic, now it's too late.


Slovenes are very different looking compared to rest of South Slavs except NW Croats. I noticed that from since I was 8, when we went skiing to Slovenia. I tought you were Slavic-speaking Austrians :D
Every family fas exceptions. My Danube Schwabian grandmother is alpine brunette type. My Bosniak ancestors were East Nordic type, and Dalmatian grandmother looks very exotic, like a Avar leftover. You can really find all kind of diversity in every South Slavic family.

What a coincidence, my paternal grandfather was partially Danube-Swabian too :D It is in fact through him that I learned to speak German (if you caught some of my German posts in the Austrian/German sections). Although the surname I bear is found exlusively among Bavarians.

There is indeed great difference in phenotypes for such a small land, from Venetian Slovenes to Prekmurians it's almost like worlds apart.

NW Croats are indeed similar to Slovenes, just like people from Dolenjska are similar to those Croats, because there was a lot of Slovene-Croat population exchange during Ottoman times. For example there are places in Gorski Kotr inhabited entirely by descendants of the people from Idria, if you find me a telephone book from such a place I could tell you exactly which surnames have a likely Idrian origin.

The same goes in reverse, people in Dolenjska have some Croat surnames, or even Slovenized Turkish like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toma%C5%BE_%C5%A0alamun)

[Permafrost]

There are no Serbo-Croats and we are not the same! (in every way)

That an is insult for both sides.

Do you read what I write till the end, or only the part you like so you can strawman me?

From the same post -


I also contend that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are more distant one from the other than some people on the forum think, although there is much room to elaborate here.

Of course Serbs and Croats are different, I put them together in that instance because they both were non-HRE lands in contrast to Slovenia (even though technically some parts of Croatia were under imperial territory).

[Jana]

According to you people on your island are blond, blue eyed and tall. Just on the island next to that one short and dark and the island next to that one is characterized for having many redheads. According to you the reason why the former are blond, blue eyed and tall is that because they came from Herzegovina (and yet they are similar to them as you say). Delusion at its best. It just reminds me how you make other Croats Austrian/North Italian/Slav hybrids and those from the south as Bantu-Vietnamese hybrids.

Obviously I am the one who is less delusional by saying (and thinking) that southern Croats are darker the rest on average, but not as you make them to be.

You are one so confused female that you don't know what you are saying anymore.

They are. They are migrants from Western Bosnia who came down to Herzegovina before reching Zlarin. Toponyms confirm it, as I told you before. Island Žirje was rumored to have ancient Greek colonist ancestors and we came to conslusion there is no proof for that. But they look very mediterranean. Island Karprije does have redheads. You have to take into account that those islands are very small and isolated, they didn't mix a lot since they were settled. These are just stereotypes we have about each other, with no anything scientific to back it up.

About ''Avar'' grandmother, she's from Hvar, not Zlarin (my maternal grandfather is Zlarinian). I never mention Hvar because I have no connection to it and visited only once. In fact she looks very mongoliod, short, black straight hair, round face and slanted eyes. Not Southern Croatian looking at all. I will upload her photo when I find it. And you Know that Asiatic haplogroups were find on Hvar: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92148-An-Asian-Trace-in-the-Genetic-Heritage-of-the-Eastern-Adriatic-Island-of-Hvar

Legend say Mongols were chasing Hungarian King (I think Bela IV) who found shelter in Trogir. Their Kan died so they were ordered to retreat to Mongolia. Some refused to, and crossed the Adriatic to nearby Hvar where they settled. According to my paternal grandmother looks, and Y-DNA findings, it is posssible. For now, let's consider it a urban legend.

PS Southern Croats are darker than average for sure. Sorry for off-topic.

[Jana]

Permafrost, yeah I wasn't sure if you were Austrian or Slovene until you revealed it :D

NW Croats are Kajkavian speakers and dialect is close to Slovenes, so I agree about closeness of two polulations and some intermingling.

Northern Italians plot further south (or in line) than Bulgarians from what I've gathered on 23andme GSM. For example Serbs have much more Northern shifted genetics compared to them (N.Italians). Stefan_Dusan poster was very norhtern shifted Serb and he looked like unmixed Dinaric. Phenotpye doesn't always reflect genotype. Original Slav is still there, no matter how diluted.

PS I plot with Hungarians. Slovenes plot more to the north than both other South Slavs and Hungarians it seems. No suprise for me.

[Rugevit]

Yes, but that was not quite my point.

It is sensless to talk about south, west, and east Slavs 1000 years ago when they were relatively close phenotipically and linguistically. What we can do though is talk in relatives: who on the average managed to remain closer to West Slavs among Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?

Did the Serbs live in collectively-oriented zadrugas, or did they have individualistic lifestyles like Lechitic tribes, Moravians and Slovenians?

Were Serbo-Croats under the HRE leadership like Slovenes and Czechs?

What about R1a percentages?

Do Serbs and Croats erect the maypole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maypole) (mlaj) like West Slavs and Slovenes?

Phenotypes?

So on the average Slovene traditions, life-style, culture and haplogroups have some idiosyncrathic commonalities which links them to West Slavs more so than Serbs and Croats. I also contend that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are more distant one from the other than some people on the forum think, although there is much room to elaborate here.

I don't doubt Slovenes affinity to the western Slavs. They were geographically, culturally and linguistically closer to Pannonian Slavs (western Slavs?). They still are closer to the western Slavs. I meant all Slavs came to the Balkans from the north contrary to Illyrian bollocks hypothesis. Some southern Slavs mixed more than others in the course of the last 1,000-1,200 years. Many ancestors of Slovenes probably were the most stubborn group of Slavs in that region refusing to assimilate into Austrian culture.

[Rugevit]

MDLP 22 are among few projects that has autosomal data on most Slavic population including Slovenes and Lusatian Sorbs. Slovenes show clear genetic affinity to Slovaks and Czechs more than other southern Slavs, while Lusatian Sorbs are more eastern than Czechs. They are similar to central Ukrainians and Poles.

Spreadsheet with data (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0)
The PCA based on those data : http://postimg.org/image/xyxlmyv17/full/

[Permafrost]

I don't doubt Slovenes affinity to the western Slavs. They were geographically, culturally and linguistically closer to Pannonian Slavs (western Slavs?). They still are closer to the western Slavs. I meant all Slavs came to the Balkans from the north contrary to Illyrian bollocks hypothesis.

Point taken. I agree that those fringe theories espoused by people like Epirot on this forum are ridiculous. I swear if I hear one more "but there was no confirmed migration from north to south" I'm going to vomit.


Some southern Slavs mixed more than others in the course of the last 1,000-1,200 years. Many ancestors of Slovenes probably were the most stubborn group of Slavs in that region refusing to assimilate into Austrian culture.

It is a sort of sensitive topic to Slovenes.

There was a considerable Germanization effort during the periods of the HRE and Austria-Hungary, yet the Dukes of Carniola (Historical region in Slovenia) which were Habsburg nobility for the most HAD to take the enthronement oath both in German and Slovenian.

During the Carinthian plebiscite in 1920 many however decided to remain Austrian and not join the kingdom of SHS because they mostly thought that being led by a Serbian king was a disgrace. Hence now you have a lot of Slovene people identifying as Austrian.

http://media05.regionaut.meinbezirk.at/2010/09/21/2520703_web.jpg

"Mama, do not vote for Yugoslavia, because I'll have to enroll in King's Peter army"

[Insuperable]

I honestly have no idea what people here have against Dalmatians, they looked like a westerly bunch to me on my last trip to Split. Although I don't know the nuances, I remember once one Dalmatian man (in his 60ies) telling me that "Half of Dalmatia has its roots in Herzegovina". I found it hard to believe though that descendants of Venetian settlers on the coast look like HGians.

What a coincidence, my paternal grandfather was partially Danube-Swabian too :D It is in fact through him that I learned to speak German (if you caught some of my German posts in the Austrian/German sections). Although the surname I bear is found exlusively among Bavarians.

There is indeed great difference in phenotypes for such a small land, from Venetian Slovenes to Prekmurians it's almost like worlds apart.

NW Croats are indeed similar to Slovenes, just like people from Dolenjska are similar to those Croats, because there was a lot of Slovene-Croat population exchange during Ottoman times. For example there are places in Gorski Kotr inhabited entirely by descendants of the people from Idria, if you find me a telephone book from such a place I could tell you exactly which surnames have a likely Idrian origin.

The same goes in reverse, people in Dolenjska have some Croat surnames, or even Slovenized Turkish like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toma%C5%BE_%C5%A0alamun)

I also have no idea. I noticed how Sisak/Jelisava subtly wrote against people from southern Croatia in many of her posts. I noticed because I am also aware of some things only Croats know. I PMed her and it turned out I wasn't delusional. She started spitting against them. P.S. Why is that guy Slovenized Turkish?


They are. They are migrants from Western Bosnia who came down to Herzegovina before reching Zlarin. Toponyms confirm it, as I told you before. Island Žirje was rumored to have ancient Greek colonist ancestors and we came to conslusion there is no proof for that. But they look very mediterranean. Island Karprije does have redheads. You have to take into account that those islands are very small and isolated, they didn't mix a lot since they were settled. These are just stereotypes we have about each other, with no anything scientific to back it up.

They are from Western Bosnia and that is why they are blond. Sure thing. Imo Croats from Western Bosnia are darker compared to southern Croats based on numerous students from there I saw while studying in Split, unless they were replaced by aliens.


About ''Avar'' grandmother, she's from Hvar, not Zlarin (my maternal grandfather is Zlarinian). I never mention Hvar because I have no connection to it and visited only once. In fact she looks very mongoliod, short, black straight hair, round face and slanted eyes. Not Southern Croatian looking at all. I will upload her photo when I find it. And you Know that Asiatic haplogroups were find on Hvar: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?92148-An-Asian-Trace-in-the-Genetic-Heritage-of-the-Eastern-Adriatic-Island-of-Hvar

Wow, she is now from Hvar and I really do wonder why you mention it right now.


Legend say Mongols were chasing Hungarian King (I think Bela IV) who found shelter in Trogir. Their Kan died so they were ordered to retreat to Mongolia. Some refused to, and crossed the Adriatic to nearby Hvar where they settled. According to my paternal grandmother looks, and Y-DNA findings, it is posssible. For now, let's consider it a urban legend.

Ah, you and your stupid urban legends. I almost forgot about your Tartars in Rijeka. You just show how uninformed or disinformed you are. Fist of all those strange haplogroups found on that island have no connection with Mongols whose ass was kicked. Its origin is older. If you read papers they are found there due to the founder effect meaning that incoming Croats in the 7th century found massively outnumbered Avar individuals on those areas. For starters these individuals were also most likely autosomally quite different from the original population after establishing Avar Khaganate in Central Europe. People in Hvar there look just like from any other place from Croatia. Like I said it all comes down who is more delusional, you or me. You are full of shit, btw.

I have to say that

[Permafrost]

Permafrost, yeah I wasn't sure if you were Austrian or Slovene

Neither that is entirely correct, in fact I assure you I don't speak a word of standard Slovene :D (which I find to be an ugly language), even though other Slovenes on this board understood me well. Slovenian culture is everything I've been brought up with though.



NW Croats are Kajkavian speakers and dialect is close to Slovenes, so I agree about closeness of two polulations and some intermingling.

Northern Italians plot further south (or in line) than Bulgarians from what I've gathered on 23andme GSM. For example Serbs have much more Northern shifted genetics compared to them (N.Italians). Stefan_Dusan poster was very norhtern shifted Serb and he looked like unmixed Dinaric. Phenotpye doesn't always reflect genotype. Original Slav is still there, no matter how diluted.

PS I plot with Hungarians. Slovenes plot more to the north than both Sloth Slavs and Hungarians it seems. No suprise for me.

The part about neolithic immigration was a joke, thought it would be funny.

Anyway I also wanted to say that Croats here should disregard what people like that Bosniak-Slovene or a certain other individual spred about Slovenian - Croatian relations. No sane Slovene I met considers NW Croats as Slovenes simply because they speak kajkavian.

In fact the Slovene language is not considered as kajkavian at all, Kajkavščina refers uniquely to the Croatian dialect.

[Permafrost]

I also have no idea. I noticed how Sisak/Jelisava subtly wrote against people from southern Croatia in many of her posts. I noticed because I am also aware of some things only Croats know. I PMed her and it turned out I wasn't delusional. She started spitting against them. P.S. Why is that guy Slovenized Turkish?

LOL I believe we can close the case on this one.

In all seriousness, Dalmatia was the first and foremost heavily settled area by Slavic Croats in the past. Also the heavy influx of atlantid settlers is not to be underestimated.

As for the Slovenized Turkish, it is because his ancestor must have been a Turk asylum seeker who settled NE Slovenia. I don't remember the tale exactly but they were political dissidents of the empire who were granted lands by the Duke. There are other such Turko-Slovene surnames.

[Jana]

They are from Western Bosnia and that is why they are blond. Sure thing. Imo Croats from Western Bosnia are darker compared to southern Croats based on numerous students from there I saw while studying in Split, unless they were replaced by aliens.

They came in the middle ages. And nobody mentioned ''blond'' but light pigmented.


Wow, she is now from Hvar and I really do wonder why you mention it right now.
She was always from Hvar. What is your problem? How could I be half Dalmatian Islander if my mother is half ''Danube-Swabian''? My both parents are half-Islanders BUT MY ISLAND IS ZLARIN AND NOTHING ELSE!!


Ah, you and your stupid urban legends. I almost forgot about your Tartars in Rijeka. You just show how uninformed or disinformed you are. Fist of all those strange haplogroups found on that island have no connection with Mongols whose ass was kicked. Its origin is older. If you read papers they are found there due to the founder effect meaning that incoming Croats in the 7th century found massively outnumbered Avar individuals on those areas. For starters these individuals were also most likely autosomally quite different from the original population after establishing Avar Khaganate in Central Europe. People in Hvar there look just like from any other place from Croatia. Like I said it all comes down who is more delusional, you or me. You are full of shit, btw.
You uncivilsed Herzegovian brute! I accept that maybe Mongols in Hvar is bullshit. But yes it's urban legend, just like Tatars on Grobnik. Think about it what you wish. I don't know how Hvarans look, but I know how my grandmother looked like:
[IMG]removed

[Jana]

We can conclude that South Slavs are not close to old Slavs.

[Insuperable]

They came in the middle ages. And nobody mentioned ''blond'' but light pigmented.
She was always from Hvar. What is your problem? How could I be half Dalmatian Islander if my mother is half ''Danube-Swabian''? My both parent are half-Islanders BUT MY ISLAND IS ZLARIN AND NOTHING ELSE!!
You uncivilsed Herzegovian brute! I accept that maybe Mongols in Hvar is bullshit. But yes it's urban legend, just like Tatars on Grobnik. Think about it what you wish. I don't know how Hvarans look, but I Know how hy grandmother looked like

I don't give a fuck what your grandmother looks like since she is not representative of anything. You don't even know how many ethnicities make your Danube-Swabian part. You have no island, you are just another self-proclaimed Croat whose every post is an urban legend.


LOL I believe we can close the case on this one.

xDxDxD


In all seriousness, Dalmatia was the first and foremost heavily settled area by Slavic Croats in the past. Also the heavy influx of atlantid settlers is not to be underestimated.

It is not important that it was first settled by Slavic Croats. Just like it was first settled area likewise from there come the first accounts of mixing with the Roman population. That is the beginning of modern population. What I don't like is how some want to make them look more different from others than what they already are. Like Balkanpower who wrote the other day how some individual can't pass in southern Croatia, but can easily pass in northern Croatia. It is like they are aliens in their own country.

'God knows' I saw many swarthoids during my life, but I don't see why are these people that different from people from other regions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsMZ9eBbMDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikB8bwSYDP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjbgH47ewLQ

@Permafrost

Do these people from Hvar look typical Croats to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghihsp3sD7A

[Rugevit]

We can conclude that South Slavs are not close to old Slavs.

Not according to the poll. Bulgarians are going strong! ;)

[Prism]

It is not important that it was first settled by Slavic Croats. Just like it was first settled area likewise from there come the first accounts of mixing with the Roman population. That is the beginning of modern population. What I don't like is how some want to make them look more different from others than what they already are. Like Balkanpower who wrote the other day how some individual can't pass in southern Croatia, but can easily pass in northern Croatia. It is like they are aliens in their own country.

'God knows' I saw many swarthoids during my life, but I don't see why are these people that different from people from other regions.

I'm a bit lost here are you agreeing with me or disagreeing we me ? Either way what you state, you explain it very well :thumb001:
Don't be so harsh on Strah od letenja/ feichy , man it's a bit too much , although she doesn't know much (according to you), she hasn't done anything mean against you.

[Insuperable]

I'm a bit lost here are you agreeing with me or disagreeing we me ? Either way what you state, you explain it very well :thumb001:
Don't be so harsh on Strah od letenja/ feichy , man it's a bit too much , although she doesn't know much (according to you), she hasn't done anything mean against you.

I am harsh now and tomorrow I will probably be sorry if not half an hour from now on, but I have decided today not to hold things inside me, but just to spit them out and relieve my inner self. No need to allow of build up of 'negative energy' inside of me because of someone else. Fuck everyone.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Sorbs

[Prism]

I am harsh now and tomorrow I will probably be sorry if not half an hour from now on, but I have decided today not to hold things inside me, but just to spit them out and relieve my inner self. No need to allow of build up of 'negative energy' inside of me because of someone else. Fuck everyone.

You've got that balkan bad temper just like me xD , yeah I honestly do the same, I get angry say a lot of shit and then I apologise. You should take up boxing or some martial arts, that helps when you're angry to release stress , that's why I do it. She doesn't deserve your rage IMO.

Btw I said that member could've passed easily in the north , but that she still passed in the south but atypically.

[Insuperable]

You've got that balkan bad temper just like me xD , yeah I honestly do the same, I get angry say a lot of shit and then I apologise. You should take up boxing or some martial arts, that helps when you're angry to release stress , that's why I do it. She doesn't deserve your rage IMO.

If I keep buying keyboards at this rate I will end up broke.xD Joking:p


Btw I said that member could've passed easily in the north , but that she still passed in the south but atypically.

Nope. It was what I wrote. After quoting you, you changed your opinion, but granted you probably have just expressed yourself better.

[Skerdilaid]

They basically all are mongrels. They mixed with anyone that literally moved, so who fucking knows what original Slavs were?

[Prism]

If I keep buying keyboards at this rate I will end up broke.xD Joking:p



Nope. It was what I wrote. After quoting you, you changed your opinion, but granted you probably have just expressed yourself better.


Haha.

No I didn't change my opinion, look : http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?171304-Can-I-pass-in-your-country/page2
All I did was re-write the same expressed in a more understandable way.

I said she wouldn't pass typically meaning she would pass atypically.

[Insuperable]

Haha.

No I didn't change my opinion, look : http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?171304-Can-I-pass-in-your-country/page2
All I did was re-write the same expressed in a more understandable way.

I said she wouldn't pass typically meaning she would pass atypically.

You wrote can't pass typically, but in the north she can easily. I don't agree. I don't agree that she can pass atypically in the south and easily typically in the north.

[Prism]

You wrote can't pass typically, but in the north she can easily. I don't agree. I don't agree that she can pass atypically in the south and easily typically in the north.

Ok, but my point was I didn't change my opinion.

[Insuperable]

Ok, but my point was I didn't change my opinion.

You didn't change your opinion, it is my fault.

[щрбл]

I'm the purest Slav here. Everyone else belongs to the sad sea of sorry mongrels illegally occupying the original Slavic lands. :bounce:

[Prism]

You didn't change your opinion, it is my fault.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I accept it, if I'm right, I'm right.
But I never change my opinion ;)

[Roy]

What is that ''purest'' supposed to mean? How do you want to tell?

[Highlands]

Me

[Jana]

I don't give a fuck what your grandmother looks like since she is not representative of anything.
She is, since she is from Hvar. But I never claimed such strongly ''mongoloid'' influenced look is common anywhere in Croatia.

You don't even know how many ethnicities make your Danube-Swabian part.
Aha :P

You have no island
Uuu, now you pissed me off. We have strong feelings towards our Zlarin, deal with it. I'm theirs! We are close-knit tribe.

you are just another self-proclaimed Croat whose every post is an urban legend.
You may reconsider it:http://i.imgur.com/cRTMiax.png?1
Although your claim on origin of Asiatic haplogrups on Hvar blows mine. I have no problem admiting it.

It is not important that it was first settled by Slavic Croats.
True, people don't know that our early statehood started in Dalmatia.

Just like it was first settled area likewise from there come the first accounts of mixing with the Roman population. That is the beginning of modern population.
I agree.

What I don't like is how some want to make them look more different from others than what they already are.
For us Croats differences are easy to see. Not many countries have such striking sifference in their regions, from climate, way of life, food production and many other things. I say differences are smaller than people make them to be, but usually I have no trouble to guess from which region of Croatia people are when they are in group. Individually it's much harder.

It is like they are aliens in their own country.
The are not, but im sure group of Bavarians will be identifed as southerners in Hamburg, or groups of Venetians as northerners in Calabria. Fuck those who wish all people looked the same, as some soulless clones of ''tem Aryans'' of Northern lands. Every country should value their own look the most.

[Jana]

Not according to the poll. Bulgarians are going strong! ;)

But they really can consider themself birthplace of Slavic culture. It would be great insult towards Bulgarians to say they aren't Slavs!

OT: proto-Slavic homeland:
http://i.imgur.com/9D4KLRw.png
http://i.imgur.com/kZZyKfz.png

And this historical Quote may be interesting:
Procopius stated the Slavs “are tall and especially strong, their skin is not very white, and their hair is neither blond nor black, but all have reddish hair’’. They are neither dishonourable nor spiteful, but simple in their ways, like the Huns (Avars)”. "Some of them do not have either a tunic or cloak, but only wear a kind of breeches pulled up to the groin”.

[Rugevit]

But they really can consider themself birthplace of Slavic culture. It would be great insult towards Bulgarians to say they aren't Slavs!


Nice photoshop skills.

I don't think Slavs in many countries consider Bulgaria to be the cradle of Slavic culture. Religion and writing is only one aspect of the culture, albeit an important one. That's what old Bulgarians offered to other Slavs having lived close to the Byzantium.

[Permafrost]

xDxDxD

*Cough* *Cough* Jelisava is of course a very respected memeber of our little internet community, she contributed greatly with her knowledge, argumentations and insightful conclusion, although what leaves me most in deference of her person is her remarkable ability to stay focused on the subject at hand, and not stray off from the topic with unrelated nonsense.

Also, IIRC the epithet of "Croatian Dacul" conferred to her was very much improper and most of all, unsanctioned.


It is not important that it was first settled by Slavic Croats. Just like it was first settled area likewise from there come the first accounts of mixing with the Roman population. That is the beginning of modern population. What I don't like is how some want to make them look more different from others than what they already are. Like Balkanpower who wrote the other day how some individual can't pass in southern Croatia, but can easily pass in northern Croatia. It is like they are aliens in their own country.

'God knows' I saw many swarthoids during my life, but I don't see why are these people that different from people from other regions.

@Permafrost

Do these people from Hvar look typical Croats to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghihsp3sD7A

I remember you saying 'Well it's not like I'm gonna speak English if I see a blonde Dalmatian" LOL!

The guy on 1:25 in the background looks Indian to me, rather than Croat.

[Jana]

Nice photoshop skills.
Where?


I don't think Slavs in many consider Bulgaria to be the cradle of of Slavic culture. Religion and writing is only one aspect of the culture, albeit an important one. That's what old Bulgarians offered to other Slavs having lived close to the Byzantium.
Probably not, But there isn't much Slavic culture to begin with. For orthodox Slavs Bulgaria gave their contribution. Apart from other Catholic Slavs, Croats in general feel closer to non-slavic countries such as Italy or Hungary because we shared history with them. In general

BiH is obvious exception, because of Croats there.

[Linebacker]

The Baltic area.

[Rugevit]

Where?

On the maps that show no information on the kind of evidence they are based upon.





Probably not, But there isn't much Slavic culture to begin with. For orthodox Slavs Bulgaria gave their contribution. Apart from other Catholic Slavs, Croats in general feel closer to non-slavic countries such as Italy or Hungary because we shared history with them. In general

BiH is obvious exception, because of Croats there.

We're discussing Slavic culture in historic context. Did Croats use Glagolitic/Cyrillic alphabet in the past? I read somewhere Croats were using these alphabets. Were Croats baptised into Catholicism or Orthodoxy initially? I know Poles and Czechs were baptised into Catholicism, while eastern Slavs adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium rather than Bulgaria. There are pre-Christian traditions shared by all Slavs that played a part in shaping modern Slavic cultures.

[Arhat]

On the maps that show no information on the kind of evidence they are based upon.

.

Most Historians locate Proto-Slavic Homeland between the Vistula and Middle Dnjepr Region (Kiev). Here are also the oldest slavic river names found. West of the Vistula East Germanics (Goths,..) once lived and east and south of Kiev Scythians lived. North of the Pripyat Marches most river names seem to be Baltic and Balts dominated large parts of Belarus once and still lived there in historical times. So it is best to assume that Proto-Slavs originated somewhere in eastern Poland, Western/Central Ukraine or Southern Belarus. I don't see how this map is not accurate.

[Jana]

On the maps that show no information on the kind of evidence they are based upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs
Other one is from Macedonian blog. xD


We're discussing Slavic culture in historic context. Did Croats use Glagolitic/Cyrillic alphabet in the past?I read somewhere Croats were using these alphabets
We used Glagolic, it's our original script.


Were Croats baptised into Catholicism or Orthodoxy initially?
Croats accepted Christianity very early, between 7-9th century. First contact with Christianity appeared in 641, before the church split, but it was with the West, not Byzantinum.


There are pre-Christian traditions shared by all Slavs that played a part in shaping modern Slavic cultures.
Yes, they were cool :)

[Permafrost]

Procopius stated the Slavs “are tall and especially strong, their skin is not very white, and their hair is neither blond nor black, but all have reddish hair’’. They are neither dishonourable nor spiteful, but simple in their ways, like the Huns (Avars)”. "Some of them do not have either a tunic or cloak, but only wear a kind of breeches pulled up to the groin”.

You're selling us short with the quote though, Procopius talks about the Sclaveni and Antae, so we don't know exactly to what population he refers to. Since the quote dates from the 6th century it is possible he may be referring to proto-Slavs, and Antae is sometimes regarded as an Iranic word.

Here another map on old Slavic metrics (I believe 12 - 13th century) from the same source where I posted the previous skulls.

http://i61.tinypic.com/hv8d3a.jpg

Note that Bulgarians were very much brachycephalic (even more so than Croats in Bosnia), although nothing compared to Russian populations that absorbed Finnics. North Croats had more dolicocephalics compared to Styrians, although they had a fairer share of brachycephalics too.

The author contends that dolicochephaly likely means they were Nordic, especially since she considers other parameters like length-height index, breadth-height index, as well as nasal and orbital indexes.

[Rugevit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs
Other one is from Macedonian blog. xD


We used Glagolic, it's our original script.


Croats accepted Christianity very early, between 7-9th century. First contact with Christianity appeared in 641, before the church split, but it was with the West, not Byzantinum.


Yes, they were cool :)


Okay, thanks. The wiki article states that Croats adopted 'western Christianity' between VII and IX centuries which was spread from southern Dalmatia towards Pannonia. The language of religion was Slavic and the alphabet was Glagolitic.

[Insuperable]

She is, since she is from Hvar. But I never claimed such strongly ''mongoloid'' influenced look is common anywhere in Croatia.

You claim it is common on Hvar while I say it is not. She is, since she is from Hvar. Puuhlease. I haven't dug deeper regarding those strange haplogroup, clades or something. I have just superficially read papers, but after finding haplogroup C in prehistoric Europe I wouldn't be surprised if I read something else in the future. Plus I have been there.


You may reconsider it:http://i.imgur.com/cRTMiax.png?1

So? You are half Croat. One quarter of your ancestry is Danube Swabian, but as you have told me that part of your family is mixed with everyone from these Danube areas plus you are not sure are they part Greek or Jewish. Their break down might turn out to be similar to Croatian. And one quarter of your ancestry is Bosniak which is more or less similar to Croatian so it is nothing surprising that overall you come out to be closest to Croatian. But I must say I am a little surprised you didn't come out as 50% Croat (Bosniak, Danube Swabian) and 25% Bantu + 25% Vietnamese (because of your southern part).


*Cough* *Cough* Jelisava is of course a very respected memeber of our little internet community, she contributed greatly with her knowledge, argumentations and insightful conclusion, although what leaves me most in deference of her person is her remarkable ability to stay focused on the subject at hand, and not stray off from the topic with unrelated nonsense.

Also, IIRC the epithet of "Croatian Dacul" conferred to her was very much improper and most of all, unsanctioned.

Hahaha. Man, I just love your extremely underrated humour and reading your posts. I died when I came to that part about her ability to stay focused on the subject at hand.


I remember you saying 'Well it's not like I'm gonna speak English if I see a blonde Dalmatian" LOL!

xD Don't want to be labeled as cherrypicker. xD:p


The guy on 1:25 in the background looks Indian to me, rather than Croat.

I think he would be perceived differently IRL because of pixelated picture, him probably being tanned and standing away. Not saying there are no dark types like that.:p

[Jana]

@Permafrost

Interesting table. Maybe those Proto-Slavs/Antes that Procopius described lookd like that ''Kurgan'' type, which even has a thread here. It's something like robust nordid with cro-magnon admixture who have some kind of dirty blond/brownish hair that can look like reddish maybe. (was reading trough Aherne posts xD) IMO that type is suspicious one but would fit better than gracile East Nordid regarding the old Slavs.

In Croatia today Dalmatians are long-headed and Central Croats round-headed, haha. Those long-headed Dalmatians would be better grouped in tall mediterranean than nordid cathegory, in the end they live on mediterranean.


...
+ voted Belarussians in the poll.

[Not a Cop]

Procopius stated the Slavs “[B]are tall and especially strong, their skin is not very white, and their hair is neither blond nor black, but all have reddish hair

How can you have trust in this if it's well known that Slavs are the least redheaded meta-ethnicity in Europe?

[Jana]

You claim it is common on Hvar while I say it is not.
I claim those haplogruopus are more common on Hvar, not such looks! Jebote, što treba Kineski pisat.


So? You are half Croat. One quarter of your ancestry is Danube Swabian, but as you have told me that part of your family is mixed with everyone from these areas plus you are not sure are they part Greek or Jewish.
No, I am more than half Croat. I think those Danube Swabians mixed with Hungarians and JEWS. Because of their socio-economic standing and very liberal views, I think they were crypto-Jews from Pest. Who hide it, no suprise. I don't know yet, but will find out. GEDmatch didn't help a lot, except Hungarian from Budapest result I get on MDLP xD

And one quarter of your ancestry is Bosniak which is more or less similar to Croatian so it is nothing surprising that overall you come out to be closest to Croatian.
1/8th, but it's male line so they were considered Bosniak. And those Bosniaks are converted Croats from NW Bosnia as most people are. No Wonder it was called ''Turkish Croatia'' when it fell to the Ottomans.


Dear Solin, I think you are pissed because you are pure Croat and don't really cluster with other Croats in our cluster on 23andme, while me, mutt with possible Jewish blood do. You should stop with attacks and we should return to topic. East and West Slavs have more to do with original Slavs than South Slavs so let's keep our argument outside this topic.

[Jana]

How can you have trust in this if it's well known that Slavs are the least redheaded meta-ethnicity in Europe?

Just posting the qoute, nothing more. It doesn't have to be correct.

[Prism]

Just poting the qoute, nothing else. It doesn't have to be correct.

I heard something like the original Slavs were tall, strong and blond, with a tanned skintone. Don't know who said it though, I think I read it on Wikipedia.

[Rugevit]

Most Historians locate Proto-Slavic Homeland between the Vistula and Middle Dnjepr Region (Kiev). Here are also the oldest slavic river names found. West of the Vistula East Germanics (Goths,..) once lived and east and south of Kiev Scythians lived. North of the Pripyat Marches most river names seem to be Baltic and Balts dominated large parts of Belarus once and still lived there in historical times. So it is best to assume that Proto-Slavs originated somewhere in eastern Poland, Western/Central Ukraine or Southern Belarus. I don't see how this map is not accurate.

Sounds plausible.

If we want to find the original home-land of proto-Slavs we need to trace the origin of proto-Slavic language, as the language have a single ancestor, while modern populations have numerous genetic ancestors.

There are known scholars who suggested there was a time and place where Balto-Slavic transitional dialects were spoken. Some of the speakers of the transitional dialects were assimilated into Baltic communities, while other into Slavic communities. The region in which those dialects were spoken is pointed to present day Belarus. It's possible that some people moved south in forest zones of northern and north-western Ukraine where proto Slavic language evolved in contacts with Iranic speakers.


Russian linguist F.P Filin on home of proto-Slavic language
"... the abundance of names for varieties of lakes, swamps and forests in vocabulary of common Slavic language speaks for itself . The presence of names for various animals and birds living in the forests and swamps , trees and plants of the temperate forest-steppe zone; fish typical of this area, and at the same time the lack of common Slavic names of the specific features of the mountains, steppes and the sea, provides unambiguous material for making inferences about the ancestral home of the Slavs ... The ancestral home of the Slavs , at least in the last century of their history [i.e. common Slavic ancestral home of the last century] was in forest band of the temperate forest zone rich in lakes and swamps located away from the the sea , mountains and steppes. However, our assumption is not definite ... The temperate zone area with lakes and marshes located in the area from the middle reaches of the Elbe and the Oder Rivers in the west to Desna River [North-eastern Ukraine, western Russia] in the east. Such a vast Slavic ancestral home could not be at least in the early stages of the development of a common Slavic language, because the separation of the language from the Indo-European dialects , and its development as a single coherent system requires close and constant communication of its carriers for a lengthy time. (Filin 1962 pp. 122-123).

Polish scholar Rostafinski stated, whom other scholars repeated over the years, that Slavs didn't know beech, larch and fir-trees, while the Balts didn't know beech, larch, fir and yew trees. The eastern border of the area in which Beech trees grow runs between modern Kaliningrad (Russia, Baltic coast) in the north and Odessa [Ukraine] in the south. Further east of the border line Beech trees don't grow . Forest-swampy zone of eastern Europe in which Beech tree doesn't grow. This is possible homeland of Slavic speakers proposed by linguists marked by green arrows on the map http://oi57.tinypic.com/334qfjc.jpg

The earliest archaeological cultures accepted to be Slavic, which often used as a reference for comparison to other archaeological cultures by archaeologists are

-The Korchak archaeological culture, North-western Ukraine and south-western Belarus in VI- VII centuries.
-The Prague archaeological culture spread over southern Poland , Czech Republic , Slovakia and north-western Ukraine , northern Romania and Moldova in VI- VII century.
-Penkov archaeological culture, south-western to eastern Ukraine attributed to the Antes. (Iranic, Slavic and Germanic)
-Kolonchinsk archaeological culture , Norh-eastern Ukraine, south-eastern Belarus and western Russia in V- VII century.

In searching earlier Slavic archaeological cultures, there have been numerous proposals that pre-date the the above mentioned archaeological cultures such as the Przeworsk (2BC-4AD) on the territory of Poland and the Dniepro-Dvinsk (8BC-4AD) and Stroked-ceramic archaeological culture (7 BC-5 AD) on the territories of Belarus and western Russia. The problem with the Przeworsk is that the culture was quite different from the succeeding Prague-Korchak cultural horizon. In addition, Tacitus visiting central Poland in 98AD placed Germanic tribes in central Poland. The problem with the Dniepro-Dvinsk and Stroked-ceramic cultures is that the area has abundance of Baltic hydronyms as you correctly pointed out. There are so many Baltic hydronyms (more than 80%) that scholars could not ignore them. However, the most similar archaeological culture to the earliest known Slavic archaeological culture (the Prauge-Korchak horizon) is that of the Balts on the territories of Belarus. This was a statement by the leading Russian archaeologist in relation to Baltic Dniepro-Dvinsk and Stroked-ceramic archaelogical cultures People of Stroked-ceramic, Dniepro--Dvinsk and Tushemlinsk archaeological cultures were those of some other Balts differing in psychologically and culture from their western relatives [who were Balts of Lithuania represented by eastern Lithuanian Kurgan culture]. Therefore, there’s a tendency to name those people the Dnieper Balts , who were a special group. Could that group be the Balto-Slavic rather than Baltic ?

Seeing similarities between Stroked-ceramic and Dniepro--Dvinsk (presumingly to be Baltic) cultures and the fact there is linguistic evidence to suggest that original homeland of Slavic language was forest zone professor of comparative linguistics H. Birnbaum and others proposed a hypothesis that people of Dniepro-Dvinsk culture (Dnieper Balts) were a Balto-Slavic group of people speaking a transitional dialect.

In addition, all Slavic languages have ancient layers of Germanic and Iranic loanwords. It's likely proto-Slavic speakers lived close to Germanic and Iranic speakers at some point in time, which would place them on territories of present day western / south-western/ north-western Ukraine/south-eastern Poland.

All in all the forest-swamp zone of Belarus was the original home-land from which ancestors of Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) speakers moved south in forest-steppe zone, where Slavic language was developed separately from Baltic languages. Baltic and Slavic languages are most similar languages, so the original Slavic speakers must have lived not far from the Baltic speakers initially.

The map Feiichy posted is accurate enough.

[Insuperable]

U
I claim those haplogruopus are more common on Hvar, not such looks! Jebote, što treba Kineski pisat.

They can't be more common there than somewhere else since that is the only place where they were found with no presence in surrounding islands and places.

Edit: or if I remember correctly there were found one or two individuals around Zagreb with Hap F with no connection with islands.


No, I am more than half Croat. I think those Danube Swabians mixed with Hungarians and JEWS. Because of their socio-economic standing and very liberal views, I think they were crypto-Jews from Pest. Who hide it, no suprise. I don't know yet, but will find out. GEDmatch didn't help a lot, except Hungarian from Budapest result I get on MDLP xD

1/8th, but it's male line so they were considered Bosniak. And those Bosniaks are converted Croats from NW Bosnia as most people are. No Wonder it was called ''Turkish Croatia'' when it fell to the Ottomans.

Yes, but it is still surprising how come you aren't 25% Bantu and 25% Vietnamese. There are no converted Croats there btw, population was displaced.


Dear Solin, I think you are pissed because you are pure Croat and don't really cluster with other Croats in our cluster on 23andme, while me, mutt with possible Jewish blood do.

Nope. This has nothing to do with me, but was waiting when you will say something similar nevertheless.

[Rugevit]

How can you have trust in this if it's well known that Slavs are the least redheaded meta-ethnicity in Europe?

Light brown (rusy) could be reddish in the eyes of Romans. Light brown is common phenotype in Slavs.

[Jana]

U
U? xD


They can't be more common there than somewhere else since that is the only place where they were found with no presence in surrounding islands and places.
Edit: or if I remember correctly there were found one or two individuals around Zagreb with Hap F with no connection with islands.
Okay, understood.


Yes, but it is still surprising how come you aren't 25% Bantu and 25% Vietnamese.
If you think that I want to show Southern Croats as Bantu, it's far from truth.


Nope. This has nothing to do with me, but was waiting when you will say something similar nevertheless.
I mentioned it only after you revealed my mongrel orgins :D

Let's make final peace! Zakopajmo ratne sjekire više !

[Prism]

Light brown (rusy) could be reddish in the eyes of Romans. Light brown is common phenotype in Slavs.

True, I have light brown hair ( so people say, even been called dark blonde once or twice :confused: ) and a lot of my Slavic friends ( they're not South Slavic btw ) have a hair colour similar to mine, but a shade darker than mine. My hair also goes reddish brown in the Summer, and it was blonde up until I was 3-4.

[Insuperable]

U? xD


Okay, understood.


If you think that I want to show Southern Croats as Bantu, it's far from truth.


I mentioned it only after you revealed my mongrel orgins :D

Let's make final peace! Zakopajmo ratne sjekire više !

You had your mongrel origins written in your profile for some time and you left me no choice. :p
Ok, let's make peace!:hug2:

[Not a Cop]

Light brown (rusy) could be reddish in the eyes of Romans. Light brown is common phenotype in Slavs.

I still doubt it, considering that Roman Empire encompassed such rich in red hair regions as France, Belgium and Britain, though rusy is not a colour, but rather a wide range including colours from dark blonde to medium brown.

However i do agree with you on point of Slavic homeland being located somewhere in bordering regions of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Poland.

[Rugevit]

I still doubt it, considering that Roman Empire encompassed such rich in red hair regions as France, Belgium and Britain.

However i do agree with you on point of Slavic homeland being located somewhere in bordering regions of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Poland.

In summers under sunlight light brown does look reddish. In fact, some people describe it as reddish.

[Prism]

In summers under sunlight light brown does look reddish. In fact, some people describe it as reddish.

And what about the type of hair, I heard Slavs usually have fine thin hair, do you know anything about this matter ?
I have coarse thick hair, which I think most south slavs do ( I think it would be a balkan trait not a Slavic one ), I'm not sure.

[ЛыSSый]

russians/belorussians/polaks

[Insuperable]

^^^ Allow me to translate Davai's post - sponsored by Vojislav Seselj.

Chakavians and Kajkavians are the original Croats and modern Stokavians are Serbs. Basically Serbs, Serbs everywhere. Why do you still call Hungarians mongoloids, how come is that not boring to you? They are more European genetically.

[Jana]

I think Davai wants to say Kajkavians are Slovenes, Štokavians Serbs and only Chakavian Croats. It's Serb nationalist propaganda, from times of Vuk Karadžić :rolleyes:


I never said Slovenians speak Kajkavian, though Kajkavian is EXPLICITLY INFLUENCED BY SLOVENE.
It is for sure.


Slovenians call Croats backstabbers.Not sure from who you pick this from, but I imagine from Serbs.Theres another proverb "everything souther from Kolpa is čefur".
Why would they? Only dispute with Croatia is about the border (Piranski zaljev) and that's it. Our relations are neutral imo, not friendly but not hostile either in political sense. Average people get along fine as most people everywhere do :)



SLAVONIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia

The name Slavonia originated in the Early Middle Ages. The area was named after the Slavs who settled there and called themselves *Slověne. The root *Slověn- appeared in various dialects of languages spoken by people inhabiting the area west of the Sutla river, as well as between the Sava and Drava rivers—South Slavs living in the area of the former Illyricum. The area bounded by those rivers was called *Slověnьje in the Proto-Slavic language. The word subsequently evolved to its various present forms in the Slavic languages, and other languages adopted the term.

now Windic March, which is explicitly referring to Slovenians..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windic_March#Etymology

Derived from the name Wends (Wenden) for Western Slavs settling in the Germania Slavica contact zone, the medieval German term windisch referred to the Slovene language; not to be confused with Wendische, the historic German term for the Sorbian-speaking population in Lusatia. Furthermore the medieval geographic term "windisches Land" referred to the Croatian region of Slavonia exclusively.[1]

In the 6th and 7th century the term Windische was used by Bavarian settlers to refer to the Slavic population in the East Alpine principality of Carantania, called Veneti in Latin sources after the ancient Adriatic Veneti tribes.

Em, mediveal Slavonia is not same as modern Slavonia. It's borders changed trough history. Sometimes (far back ago) area around Zagreb was included in Slavonia, today it's not. And real Slavonia was a swamp for a long time, difficult place to live, many different people lived there in the past, but it was always known as land of Slavs, hence the name. There was no national feeling of identity among people who occupied most of Europe anyway until 19th century.


So now we can conclude that SLAVONIA = SLOVENIA = Pannonian mongrel gypsies who got Croatized, but also mixed a lot with mongoloids during their administration.
You forget that Slavonians don't speak Kajkavian! They are Štokavian speakers, and Slovenia never included modern-day Slavonia in it. From your own article:

''From 1127 to 1131 the margavial territory was further expanded in several campaigns by the Counts of Weichselburg (or Weichselberg, modern Višnja Gora) against Croatia in the union with Hungary. Backed by the Archbishop of Salzburg, they conquered the territory around Metlika up to the Kolpa River in the southeast, the later White Carniola (Bela krajina) region.''
It means it was expanded by force, not on ethnic claim...


my point still stands, both of you are utterly bastardized one to another even though everybody hates Croat.
There are almost none Slovenes in Slavonia, but it's Croatia's most diverse region. They look diffeent than Slovenes too, I can understand if someone says NW Croats and Slovenes are close, but Slavonians and Slovenes? Different in every way.

By your logic, you could say Torlak speakers in Southern Serbia are Serbicized Bulgarians because dialect is influenced by Bulgarian.

[Arhat]

russians/belorussians/polaks

What is about Ukrainians (except of Carpathians)? They are certainly as much as close to Proto-Slavs as the Slavic ethnicities mentioned above. Or do you include Ukrainians in Russians? Slavic homeland included large parts of northern/central Ukraine and the Kiev culture is a good candidate for the earliest distinct Slavic culture.

[Arhat]

Russia the mother home of all the slavs!

Russians are very close to Proto-Slavs but Proto-Slavs did not originate in areas which are today part of Russia. The hydronyms are either Baltic or Finno-Ugrian.

[Rugevit]

Of course not, Slovenians call Croats backstabbers.Not sure from who you pick this from, but I imagine from Serbs.Theres another proverb "everything souther from Kolpa is čefur".

but let us revision some of these proverbs.


I wish I could understand intricacies of southern Slavs' historical relations.

[Vorg]

What is about Ukrainians (except of Carpathians)? They are certainly as much as close to Proto-Slavs as the Slavic ethnicities mentioned above. Or do you include Ukrainians in Russians? Slavic homeland included large parts of northern/central Ukraine and the Kiev culture is a good candidate for the earliest distinct Slavic culture.

Anthropology says: In the Middle Ages, the population of Ukraine is constantly changing. The strongest nomadic component is in central Ukraine - Middle Dnieper.

[Rugevit]

Anthropology says: In the Middle Ages, the population of Ukraine is constantly changing. The strongest nomadic component is in central Ukraine - Middle Dnieper.

Strong nomadic component was found in steppe zone of Ukraine. In forest-steppe zone people had physical appearance that we'd consider European. Also, the skeleton of people (height and shape of skull) is constantly changing subject to social and economic factors. It has been shown by anthropologists. People of regional Kiev, Zhytomir, Chernihiv are no less similar to original Slavs than any other Slavs.

[Vorg]

Strong nomadic component was found in steppe zone of Ukraine. In forest-steppe zone people had physical appearance that we'd consider European. Also, the skeleton of people (height and shape of skull) is constantly changing subject to social and economic factors. It has been shown by anthropologists. People of regional Kiev, Zhytomir, Chernihiv are no less similar to original Slavs than any other Slavs.

You know Russian? About origin of Nomadic admixture in Central Ukraine - http://slavanthro.mybb3.ru/viewtopic.php?t=5886

And also: Рудич Т.О. Населення Середнього Подніпров’я І—ІІ тисячоліття за матеріалами антропології. К.: Майдан, 2014. С 193-199

Если мы снова обратимся к антропологической карте Европы или к сравнительной табл. 4.10, то увидим, что в пределах Европы увеличение ширины лица населения во второй половине 2 тыс. н. э. наблюдается для земель Украины, для территорий Румынии и земель бывшей Югославии. Во всех трех случаях одной из причин этого может быть определенный биологический контакт с восточным (преимущественно тюркоязычным или степным) населением.
Здесь мы подходим к третьему важному отличию позднесредневековых украинцев Среднего Поднепровья от древнерусских групп. В позднесредневековых группах Среднего Поднепровья фиксируется сочетание относительно большой в славянском масштабе ширины лица с тенденцией к ослаблению его горизонтального профилирования. Такое сочетание признаков для широколицых восточнославянских групп древнерусского времени не было характерным. Все известные на сегодня широколицые древнерусские мужские выборки являются хорошо профилированными (Великанова, 1975; Рудич, 2003с).
Для объективности отметим, что современное население, которое локализуется на территории юга Ровенщины, севере Львовщины и Тернопольщины, и относится к волынскому варианту центральноукраинской антропологической зоны (Дяченко, 1965), характеризуется широким низким лицом, относительно слабо профилированным в горизонтальной плоскости и четко очерченным носом. Но экстраполировать морфологический тип современного населения на позднесредневековые популяции того же региона не корректно, могло иметь место перемещение населения на этих территориях во второй половине 2 тыс. н. е. Теоретически мы можем представить себе, что жители северо-западных районов Украины в эпоху позднего средневековья имели такой же антропологический тип, что и современные. Тогда, вновь таки теоретически, выходцы из этих земель вполне могли привнести определенное ослабление горизонтального профилирования в среду позднесредневекового населения Среднего Поднепровья. К большому сожалению, антропологического материала эпохи позднего средневековья из названных земель нет, поэтому проверить эту гипотезу пока невозможно, хотя она довольно перспективна.
Очевидно, при формировании антропологического состава украинцев Среднего Поднепровья эпохи позднего средневековья одними перемещениями в середине восточнославянского массива не ограничилось. Мы можем иметь дело с участием в формировании населения региона иноэтнических компонентов (поляков, литовцев, представителей тюркских народов и др.). Среди иноэтнических компонентов стоит остановиться, в первую очередь, на выходцах из степной зоны. Именно влияние отдельных групп степняков или их потомков на формирование антропологического состава населения Центральной Украины эпохи позднего средневековья и мог повлечь некоторое ослабление горизонтального профилирования лица ряда популяций региона 15-17 вв. Он мог также способствовать заметному увеличению ширины лица и более существенном, по сравнению с другими группами Европы, увеличению черепного указателя. Сочетание значительной ширины лица с ослаблением горизонтального профилирования лица и брахикранией характерны для многих групп кочевников Евразии различных хронологических периодов (по крайней мере от эпохи раннего железа до нового времени).
Среднее Поднепровье на протяжении многих веков находилось в зоне существенных степных воздействий, хотя возможно корректнее говорить о южном векторе антропологических связей. Поэтому значительной проблемой для антропологов является необходимость связать эти влияния с конкретным хронологическим срезом и, в тех случаях, когда это возможно, конкретизировать группы кочевников, из которых они происходят. Массив кочевников (а позже и оседлого населения, имеющего корни в кочевых популяциях) восточноевропейских степей от эпохи раннего железа до позднего средневековья был достаточно пестрым в культурном, языковом и антропологическом плане. Среди них были представлены народы, которые характеризовались ярко выраженными европеоидными признакам, группы, занимавшие промежуточное положение между монголоидной и европеоидной расой, а также популяции с монголоидным комплексом. Группы эти проживали разные отрезки времени в степных регионах, которые на современной карте Украины занимают большую часть ее нынешней территории. Интенсивность степных воздействий в различных районах лесостепной зоны периодически менялась. Одним из таких районов было Среднее Поднепровье.
Для 1 тыс. до н. е. и первых веков новой эры среди степных групп украинских степей доминировали иранцы. Известный антрополог Т.И. Алексеева в свое время высказывала мнение, что значительное влияние в формировании славянского населения этого региона имел иранский антропологический слой. Именно этим она объясняла определенную специфичность морфологического комплекса полян. В ранних трудах исследовательница склонна была думать о генетической линии, которая простиралась от поздних скифов через часть населения черняховской культуры Среднего Поднепровья к группам полянских территорий 10-13 вв. Автор обращала внимание на то, что эта сквозная линия является иранской, хотя именно этот момент часто упускают при цитировании (Алексеева, 1973). В последних своих работах Т.И. Алексеева (Алексеева, 1999) не исключала возможности, что иранские влияния на этой территории могли иметь и более позднее (средневековое происхождение). Здесь стоит вспомнить, в первую очередь, средневековых аланов, которые были одной из составляющих населения салтовской культуры, но периодически появлялись на наших территориях и в более позднее время. О присутствии кочевого компонента, который связывали именно с аланами, в сериях древнерусской эпохи с полянских и полесских земель писали С.П. Сегеда (2001, с. 274), П.М. Покас, Р.У. Гравер (1999b, с. 210).
Но антропологическая традиция считает доминирующим для средневековых аланов долихокранный, относительно узколицый морфотип (салтовский) с характерно резкой горизонтальной профилировкой лица. Этот морфотип с ярко обозначенными европеоидными чертами. То есть, связывать с тенденцией к ослаблению горизонтальной профилировки лица жителей Среднего Поднепровья среднего, а тем более позднего средневековья, с потомками собственно средневековых аланских групп нет оснований, если только этноним аланы не использовалось в широком смысле. Более реалистичным является то, что некоторое ослабление горизонтальной профилировки могли привнести в славянское среду выходцы из многочисленных групп, которые связывают, главным образом, с тюркоязычным миром.
В украинских сериях 15-17 вв., наряду с компонентами, которые можно связать с древнерусскими славянскими (древлянскими, волынскими, тиверскими и полянскими) группами, фиксируется наличие брахикранного с широким лицом, которое ослаблено в горизонтальной плоскости на верхнем уровне, морфотипа. В антропологической литературе этот морфотип часто фигурирует под названием зливкинского или сармато-салтовского. Название, которое было предложено в свое время нашими российскими коллегами (Герасимова, Рудь, Яблонский, 1987), может вызвать определенные возражения, но оно вполне логично.
Сарматы, для которых также был характерен данный комплекс были генетически связанны с носителями салтово-маяцкой культуры, находились в сложных отношениях субстрата и суперстрата с различными тюркоязычными группами. Кроме сарматов различных хронологических и территориальных групп, в которых он является доминирующим, этот комплекс характерен для основного массива населения Хазарии, некоторых районов Северного Кавказа, для древнеболгарских групп различных территорий. На землях Украины он характеризовал болгарскую (зливкинскую) часть салтово-маяцкой культуры, жителей средневековых городов Крыма 10-15 в., был одной из составляющих оседлого населения Нижнего Поднепровья 12-15 вв. и Пруто-Днестровского междуречья 14-16 вв.
Отдельные серии из могильников древнерусского времени Среднего Поднепровья (Григорьевка, Бучак, Яблоневка, некоторые группы из Киева) характеризуются несколько ослабленной горизонтальной профилировкой лица и меньшим углом носа. Само по себе ослабление горизонтальной профилировкой лица (особенно если оно фиксируется только на назомалярном уровне) не всегда можно связывать со степным влиянием, возможны другие объяснения. Это может быть проявлением обычной вариабельности. Некоторое снижение горизонтальной профилировки лица в комбинации с меньшим углом носа, кроме степняков, также характеризует финно-угорские популяции или славянские, сформировавшиеся на финно-угорском субстрате. Присутствие выходцев из этих земель в среднем Поднепровье также исключать нельзя. Для нас на данном этапе анализа прежде всего важно то, что все упомянутые древнерусские популяции отмечались достаточно узким лицом и меньшим носовым углом. Есть, специфическое сочетание значительной ширины лица с ослабленным его горизонтальной профилировкой и с большим черепным указателем, который составляет комплекс, характерный для многих популяций кочевников и наиболее всего проявляется в населения Среднего Поднепровья именно в послемонгольский период. В период от монгольского нашествия эпохи Руины количество черепов, которые имеют морфологических комплекс, который может быть связан с выходцами из круга степняков или их потомков, на христианских могильниках Среднего Поднепровья достигла пика для этой территории. Она повлияла и на средние характеристики населения региона эпохи позднего средневековья. Но это не значит, что степные группы, которые его привнесли, появились в наших степях исключительно после монгольского нашествия. Возможно, что демографические, политические, экономические, культурные изменения в Среднем Поднепровье способствовали тому, что барьер между славянами и древними (домонгольскими) жителями Степи стал более тонким, а вхождение степняков в славянское среду - более интенсивным.
Как эти антропологические данные вписываются в исторический контекст? Славянские группы древнерусской эпохи данного региона на протяжении веков жили рядом с миром кочевников (печенегов, половцев, торков и др.), находились с отдельными группами населения Степи то в состоянии конфронтации, то в союзнических и торговых отношениях, о чем хорошо свидетельствуют летописи и исторические исследования (Толочко, 1999; Моця, 1993, 2000; Бубенок, 2004; Ельников, 2009). Не последнюю роль в жизни Среднего Поднепровья древнерусского времени играл союз Черных Клобуков, который существовал в Поросье. Этот полукочевой союз был образован в 12 в. печенегами, торками, берендеями, присутствовали и аланы, но этим не исчерпывался его этнический состав. Черные Клобуки несли вассальную службу у киевских князей. Такую же службу несли и отряды «диких половцев», скорее всего, достаточно пестрых в этническом плане. Но к сожалению, антропологический материал, который четко можно связать именно с Черными клобуками, отсутствует. В распоряжении ученых есть только материалы по антропологии половцев и печенегов степных районов Украины. На раннем этапе такого соседства религиозные и культурные различия могли тормозить вхождение кочевников в славянское среду. Хотя упоминания о браках представителей княжеской династии с половецкими женщинами отмечаются летописцами, но, скорее всего, массовый характер такие межэтнические браки тогда еще не получили. Со временем отдельные группы кочевников обращались в христианство. для ускорения этого процесса, как считается, была создана епископская кафедра в г. Юрьев.
Часть кочевого населения постепенно переходила к оседлой жизни. Об этом четко можно говорить по материалам Нижнего Поднепровья, где сложилась в 12-15 вв. довольно интересная ситуация. Оседлое население региона характеризуется значительной пестротой - аланы, болгары, представители кочевых групп, этническая интерпретация которых не всегда возможна. Исследователи фиксируют присутствие славянского компонента (Литвинова, 2012), хотя говорить о существенном славянский влиянии не стоит. На этих территориях все же преобладали аланы и болгары. Болгары доминировали прежде всего в женских сериях из Каменки, Каир, Мамай-Сурки, Благовещенки, аланы - среди мужчин на могильниках Мамай-Сурка и Благовещенка. Существенное влияние антропологического типа, который характеризовал в свое время болгарскую часть салтово-маяцкой культуры, на формирование физического типа местного населения отмечался Л.В. Литвиновой (Литвинова, 2005) также на могильнике Торговица Кировоградской области, который датируется серединой - второй половиной 14 в. Присутствие кочевого компонента с монголоидной примесью фиксируются на могильниках Каиры и Мамай-Сурка.
Оседлое население Нижнего Поднепровья теоретически могло стать одним из источников пополнения состава жителей Среднего Поднепровья в послемонгольский период. Мысли о вкладе нижнеднепровцев в формирование антропологического состава украинцев высказывались антропологами В.П. Алексеевим (1969) и Л.В. Литвиновой (2012). Но надо отметить, что также можно говорить о вхождении в состав оседлого населения Нижнего Поднепровья 12-14 вв. и украинцев 15-17 вв. близких компонентов, хотя в различных пропорциях. Если на Нижнем Поднепровье в мужских сериях наиболее ощутима аланская составляющая, то в украинских сериях 15-17 вв., Рядом со славянскими компонентами (древлянскими, волынскими, тиверскими и полянскими) больше фиксируется наличие зливкинского (сармато-салтовского) компонента, который можно связать с древними болгарами. Возникает несколько парадоксальная ситуация - на позднесредневековых могильниках Среднего Приднепровья лучше читаются следы древнеболгарской составляющей, но довольно слабо - аланской. То есть, если в послемонгольский время существовала миграция населения вверх по Днепру, то в ней преобладали носители именно зливкинского типа, который связывают с потомками болгар.
Еще одной исходной территорией для степных типов может служить Пруто-Днестровское междуречье, население которого в средневековье представляли как сармато-салтовский (зливкинский) тип, так и широколицые типы славян (Великанова, 1975). Когда на позднесредневековом могильнике Среднего Поднепровья (Чигирин) среди населения присутствуют оба морфотипа, вполне можно связывать это с выходцами из Пруто-Днестровского региона. К популяции с Вышгорода морфологически и статистически также достаточно близки серии из этих территорий - Старого Орхея и Лимбаря, в которых фиксируется европеоидная широколицая «сарматская» основа, на которую указывала еще Г.С. Великанова (1975, с. 124).
Теоретически возможен еще один вариант исходных территорий для широколицих форм - это Северный Кавказ. Тема связей Черкащщины (с территории которой происходят Чигиринский и Субботовском могильники) с Кавказским регионом периодически возникала в трудах историков начиная с 18 в. Черкесов, как ветви Черных Клобуков, обитавших в районе Тмутаракани, а затем мигрировали из Предкавказья в Приднепровье, видели в качестве основателей города Черкассы и одной из составляющих казачества на ранних его стадиях (Яковенко, 2009, с. 179). Ряд топонимов из Приднепровья действительно можно связать с Кавказом (Тищенко, 2010). Брахикранный широколицый с тенденцией к ослаблению горизонтального профилирования лица, но со значительным выступлением носа морфотип характеризует определенную часть населения Кавказа и Предкавказья периода средневековья, хотя для Кавказского региона в целом характерна резкая (практически эталонная для европеоидов) профилировка лица (Алексеев, 2009). Для кавказских групп характерны также более высокие лица, чем средние характеристики позднесредневековый могильников Черкащины. При работе с индивидуальными черепами на кладбищах в Чигирине и Субботове попадаются отдельные черепа со значительной высотой лица, может быть следствием нормальной вариабельности, но иногда возникает в комплекс, который вполне можно связать с широколицыми группами Кавказа. Количество таких черепов незначительно, поэтому существенно они не могли повлиять на общие характеристики населения.
На отдельных черепах из погребений 16-17 вв. Среднего Поднепровья фиксируется также комбинация признаков, которую трудно связать с болгарами, а тем более с аланами (в узком смысле этнонима). Это брахикранные черепа с большими размерами лица, которые уплощены на верхнем и среднем уровне и малым углом костей носа. Они эпизодически фиксируются на разных могильниках Украина: Вышгород, Чигирин, Суботов, Меджибож. Четко о монголоидности или монголоидном влиянии мы можем говорить лишь в тех случаях, когда перечисленные признаки представлены единым комплексом, что является следствием исторической корреляции. Если на черепе фиксируется лишь одна из перечисленных признаков, то это может отражать обычную вариабельность. В домонгольскую эпоху наиболее четко на нашей территории монголоидные черты проявлялись в группах печенегов и половцев Украины, а также в сборной серии кочевников южных районов, имеющих противоречащую этническую интерпретацию. Для послемонгольского периода можно назвать часть ногайцев и мусульманского населения, хотя в целом они антропологически достаточно пестрые (Круц, 2003). Для этих популяций также характерна брахикрания, широкое лицо с ослабленным профилированием. Но практически все перечисленные группы (исключая население Крыма) отмечаются существенной высотой лица и орбит, а на позднесредневековых могильниках Украины не наблюдается существенного повышения лица и орбит.
Суммируя предварительный осмотр материала можно отметить, что степной компонент на могильниках эпохи позднего средневековья Среднего Поднепровья, главным образом, стоит связывать с носителями зливкинского типа, для которых не характерна значительная высота лица и орбит. Тип связывают с древними болгарами, или с населением, которое формировалось на болгарском субстрате и имело существенную болгарскую составляющую. Одиночные черепа с определенной монголоидностью на могильниках 15-18 вв. хотя и фиксируются, но количество их незначительно, они практически не влияют на антропологическую ситуацию. Следует заметить, что антропологи, к сожалению, не владеют информацией о морфологических типах целого ряда степных групп средневековья (торков, берендеев и др.). Мало исследованы кочевые группы украинских степей 14-18 вв. Именно это мешает конкретизировать происхождения кочевых влияний на могильниках позднего средневековья Среднего Поднепровья.

https://pp.vk.me/c624924/v624924114/341c2/emeK0M_xML8.jpg

[Vorg]

Central Ukrainians

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr8hg.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr24lg.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr34kc.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr47ci.gif

[Arhat]

Anthropology says: In the Middle Ages, the population of Ukraine is constantly changing. The strongest nomadic component is in central Ukraine - Middle Dnieper.

I was talking about historical Ukrainian regions like Kiev, Zhitomir, Cherniiv, and Volnyia and not about recently ukrainized regions like Carpathia and Southern Ukraine, where all kind of people settled during the last centuries and adopted Ukrainian or Russian identity (Balkanites, Hungarians, Germans,..). The nomadic impact is close to zero and steppe Tatars were just genocided by Ukrainians and Russians. In carpathia nomads never lived and people are darkest here so the swarthiness of Carpathians has nothing to do with steppe influences. By the way Cumans were described as light skinned and light haired. Modern Crimean Tatars are a mix of Greeks, Slavs, Caucasians and a bit real steppe Tatars so they are not representative for the original steppe population. Ukrainians outside the southwest/Carpathia and without recent foreign ancestry are exact like South Russians and the more northern ones(Kiev, Cherniiv,..) are very close to Belarusians. So yeah if Ukrainians are black or whatever than South Russians are it too. It is close to self trolling when you try to present Ukrainians as "black" when nobody outside of eastern Europe knows the difference between Ukrainians and Russians.

[Vorg]

I was talking about historical Ukrainian regions like Kiev, Zhitomir, Cherniiv, and Volnyia and not about recently ukrainized regions like Carpathia and Southern Ukraine, where all kind of people settled during the last centuries and adopted Ukrainian or Russian identity (Balkanites, Hungarians, Germans,..). The nomadic impact is close to zero and steppe Tatars were just genocided by Ukrainians and Russians. In carpathia nomads never lived and people are darkest here so the swarthiness of Carpathians has nothing to do with steppe influences. By the way Cumans were described as light skinned and light haired. Modern Crimean Tatars are a mix of Greeks, Slavs, Caucasians and a bit real steppe Tatars so they are not representative for the original steppe population. Ukrainians outside the southwest/Carpathia and without recent foreign ancestry are almost exact like South Russians and the more northern ones(Kiev, Cherniiv,..) are very close to Belarusians. So yeah if Ukrainians are black or whatever than South Russians are it too.

Emmm...What are you talking about? A meaningless set of words.

[Vorg]

Strong nomadic component was found in steppe zone of Ukraine. In forest-steppe zone people had physical appearance that we'd consider European. Also, the skeleton of people (height and shape of skull) is constantly changing subject to social and economic factors. It has been shown by anthropologists. People of regional Kiev, Zhytomir, Chernihiv are no less similar to original Slavs than any other Slavs.

I'm not just talking about the shape of the head, but also aboutthe horizontal profile of face, nose shape, etc.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Xk8elpLFPMc/TyU3PQLQuJI/AAAAAAAAA9k/JSpkhS0gI3Y/s1600/bunak128%255B1%255D.jpg_rand%253D58978987088758.jp g

[Rugevit]

You know Russian? About origin of Nomadic admixture in Central Ukraine - http://slavanthro.mybb3.ru/viewtopic.php?t=5886


Middle Dniepr of Ukraine is already steppe zone. I explicitly mentioned Zhytomir, regional Kiev and Chernihiv regions. Also, few are taking seriously Soviet school anthropology even in Russia in the context of ethnogenesis of people. Occasionaly it is used in the absence DNA studies. This is the chart based on autosomal DNA tests from Eurogenes k8 ( median values for the populations have been used). Notice how Erzya and Moksha came out most similar to Corded Ware sample, while Ukrainians to Bell Beaker sample (central-western European Bronze age) : http://postimg.org/image/nmzkeb46l/full/

[ЛыSSый]

not all, actually, also we are have and north-looking phenotypes too

Central Ukrainians

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr8hg.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr24lg.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr34kc.gif
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/ukecentr47ci.gif

[Rugevit]

I'm not just talking about the shape of the head, but also aboutthe horizontal profile of face, nose shape, etc.

These are modern-day physical characteristics of Ukrainians. There need to be a comparison between modern and ancient samples. There are few studies that compare modern day population to ancient populations. And how can nose shape be measured in ancient population if nose is made of cartilage and decay as all other soft tissue.

[Arhat]

Emmm...What are you talking about? A meaningless set of words.

Says the troll. Your obsession with Ukrainians is quite creepy and I am already waiting on your" proofs" about Ukrainians originating in Congo. Get a life and care about the Chechens who steal Russian money and humiliate Russians every day but yeah it is so much easier to be an internet warrior and posting racist bullshit about Ukrainians than to fight against corrupt leaders in Russia and Chechens. I like Russians but reading this kind of cheap propaganda everywhere is just annoying.

[Rugevit]

Emmm...What are you talking about? A meaningless set of words.

Vir9 makes sense to me.

[Vorg]

Says the troll. Your obsession with Ukrainians is quite creepy and I am already waiting on your" proofs" about Ukrainians originating in Congo. Get a life and care about the Chechens who steal Russian money and humiliate Russians every day but yeah it is so much easier to be an internet warrior and posting racist bullshit about Ukrainians than to fight against corrupt leaders in Russia and Chechens. I like Russians but reading this kind of cheap propaganda everywhere is just annoying.

You got the wrong address. Thread "Fucking Russians" is in other section.

[Pausanias]

Since when the macedonians are slavs? Was Alexander the Great a slav king? :mmmm:

Slavomacedonians in any case.

[jatt]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4023/4547823612_5eb01b0d60_z.jpg


original slav looked like this...Aryans

something happened n they look like this now.. unfortunately

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5936&d=1286215324

[щрбл]

Since when the macedonians are slavs? Was Alexander the Great a slav king? :mmmm:

Slavomacedonians in any case.

They are Bulgarian.

[jatt]

there are some slavs whom retained their ancient look somewhat like this slav actor

http://www.vecernji.hr/media/slika/68/335743.jpg

[Rugevit]

there are some slavs whom retained their ancient look somewhat like this slav actor


How do you know how ancient Slavs look if the Slavs don't know where their original homeland is?

[Arhat]

You got the wrong address. Thread "Fucking Russians" is in another section.

I like Russians ( I am half Russian and half non slavic) but I just can not read this ridiculous propaganda here. Russia is fucked up by Chechens, Oligarchs and "zombies", who believe anything media or Putin tells them but the only thing you and others care are Ukrainian fascist Gay Zionist Nazis or whatever you think they are. Yeah Ukraine should be part of Russia but Russia should not act like IS and should not create a useless war which is just weakening both Ukraine and Russia. I get that you want to dehumanize Ukrainians so that it is easier to kill them but from my personal experience Ukrainians are naive pussies and loved "us" Russians before "we" started to kill them but yeah it is always easier to beat a women than to beat a man.

[jatt]

How do you know how ancient Slavs look if the Slavs don't know where their original homeland is?

slavs are Aryanic people... modern genetics proved it. Aryan origin is now proved to be in northern india, Pakistan, south Afghanistan and south eastern iran. Of course they will look like the people they originated from..

[Sockorer]

Northern Indians are the purest Slavs(one can look at the accounts of Tacitus for confirmation), modern Slavs are just a mix of Indians and Red Nordics.

[Vorg]

I like Russians ( I am half Russian and half non slavic) but I just can not read this ridiculous propaganda here. Russia is fucked up by Chechens, Oligarchs and "zombies", who believe anything media or Putin tells them but the only thing you and others care are Ukrainian fascist Gay Zionist Nazis or whatever you think they are. Yeah Ukraine should be part of Russia but Russia should not act like IS and should not create a useless war which is just weakening both Ukraine and Russia. I get that you want to dehumanize Ukrainians so that it is easier to kill them but from my personal experience Ukrainians are naive pussies and loved "us" Russians before "we" started to kill them but yeah it is always easier to beat a women than to beat a man.

I do not forbid you to have your own point of view.

[jatt]

Northern Indians are the purest Slavs(one can look at the accounts of Tacitus for confirmation), modern Slavs are just a mix of Indians and Red Nordics.
I am not sure about their mixture with Nordics but they probably mixed with indigenous European people. when Aryans migrated to Europe they had a genetic mutation making them white. skin colour is determined by a tiny lets say a changed to b in their DNA. over the years environment have affected their phenotype as well.

[Smeagol]

slavs are Aryanic people... modern genetics proved it. Aryan origin is now proved to be in northern india, Pakistan, south Afghanistan and south eastern iran. Of course they will look like the people they originated from..

You realize you're in the minority with those views right? Lets see a source of modern genetics ''proving'' this..

[Vorg]

slavs are Aryanic people

[MagnusAurelius]

slavs are Aryanic people... modern genetics proved it. Aryan origin is now proved to be in northern india, Pakistan, south Afghanistan and south eastern iran. Of course they will look like the people they originated from..

Everyone should ignore Jatt. He is an Indian with an inferiority complex who believes Indians are racially pure and the "original" Aryans who populated Europe so long ago. Genetics proves him wrong, infact all European haplogroups do not even originate in India, even if R1A originates in India, R1A Europeans are a different subclade so they are not direct descendants from R1A Indians.

Also the fact that the oldest Haplogroup R person was a Caucasian found in Siberia more than 20,000 years ago, Haplogroup R, the ancestor of R1B and R1A so even if R1A originates in India, racially pure Haplogroup R Caucasians originally migrated into the Indian Sub continent and mixed with the primitive Australoid natives, this probably happened during late Paleolithic times.

"Paleolithic mammoth hunters

Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years ago). This haplogroup has been identified in the remains of a 24,000 year-old boy from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013). This individual belonged to a tribe of mammoth hunters that may have roamed across Siberia and parts of Europe during the Paleolithic. Autosomally this Paleolithic population appears to have contributed mostly to the ancestry of modern Europeans and South Asians, the two regions where haplogroup R also happens to be the most common nowadays (R1b in Western Europe, R1a in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia, and R2 in South Asia)."

This guys delusional posts on Indian racial purity and people from India migrating into Europe first should be ignored.

[Vorg]

Everyone should ignore Jatt. He is an Indian with an inferiority complex who believes Indians are racially pure and the "original" Aryans who populated Europe so long ago. Genetics proves him wrong, infact all European haplogroups do not even originate in India, even if R1A originates in India, R1A Europeans are a different subclade so they are not direct descendants from R1A Indians.

Also the fact that the oldest Haplogroup R person was a Caucasian found in Siberia more than 20,000 years ago, Haplogroup R, the ancestor of R1B and R1A so even if R1A originates in India, racially pure Haplogroup R Caucasians originally migrated into the Indian Sub continent and mixed with the primitive Australoid natives, this probably happened during late Paleolithic times.

"Paleolithic mammoth hunters

Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years ago). This haplogroup has been identified in the remains of a 24,000 year-old boy from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013). This individual belonged to a tribe of mammoth hunters that may have roamed across Siberia and parts of Europe during the Paleolithic. Autosomally this Paleolithic population appears to have contributed mostly to the ancestry of modern Europeans and South Asians, the two regions where haplogroup R also happens to be the most common nowadays (R1b in Western Europe, R1a in Eastern Europe, Central and South Asia, and R2 in South Asia)."

This guys delusional posts on Indian racial purity and people from India migrating into Europe first should be ignored.

Aryans, who conquered the Indian subcontinent, a foothold there, gradually lost their military-democratic organization. Raja, who had previously chosen by community of free and equal, gradually turned into a hereditary monarch. Because of the a racially alien influence. If at first the higher castes consisted exclusively of the Aryans, then over time they began to include the chiefs and priests of conquered Dravidian (black) peoples.
Aryans, who conquered the ancient states of Asia Minor too were subjected to the same detrimental effect. And even faster than their Indian brothers. After all, they did not even create a hard racial-caste filters.
The most powerful state of Eastern Aryans was the Persian Empire. Although the ruling class in this multiracial conglomerate consisting of white people by the initial blood, their mentality was already so mutilated alien influences that the Greeks considered them barbarians. Because they worshiped the King of Kings, not knowing that a true warrior is born, live and die free.

[Rugevit]

Genetically Slavs are north-eastern European originally being similar to their immediate neighbours. Europeans are a separate branch genetically and linguistically. AFAIK there is more genetic diversity in China than in Europe . There is some genetic continuum on the fringes of Europe. Aryan, Indian R1a and similar statements is a waste of time.

[jatt]

yep ignore the logicz and accepted one guy originated in somewhere just about 24000 years ago .. now why is haplogroup r rare in north Asians then.. because some spaceship shifted the people to india and Europe and mongoloids got shifted to north asia.. lol very believable


Humans first originated in Africa from where they first migrated to india and it is here where haplogroup R originated some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago...As of June 2009, the most recent study dates the origin of haplogroup R to 66.8kya (thousand years ago) with a 95% confidence interval of 52.6-81kya.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Soares_et_al_2009-1)
South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) lies on the way of earliest dispersals from Africa and is therefore a valuable well of knowledge on early human migration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migration).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Karmin-3) The analysis of the indigenous haplogroup R lineages in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) points to a common first spread of the root haplotypes of M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)), N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(mtDNA)), and R along the southern route some 60–70 kya.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Palanichamy-4)
Haplogroup R has wide diversity and antiquity among varied ethnic status and different language families in South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia). In Indian western region among the castes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) and southern region among the tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_India) show higher haplogroup diversity than the other regions, possibly suggesting their autochthonous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthonous) status.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Maji-5)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

r1a1 is subclade of r and is known as Aryan genetic marker.

[jatt]

Genetically Slavs are north-eastern European originally being similar to their immediate neighbours. Europeans are a separate branch genetically and linguistically. AFAIK there is more genetic diversity in China than in Europe . There is some genetic continuum on the fringes of Europe. Aryan, Indian R1a and similar statements is a waste of time.

well its not waste of time. 99.9 % of human genome is same in all humans.. .1% is different but these are informative. if we look into particular section of mitochondrial dna or dna haplotypes we get to know the genetic similarities of people. people with similar haplotypes are closely related than people with different haplotypes. this can tell a common ancestors

[Rugevit]

yep ignore the logicz and accepted one guy originated in somewhere just about 24000 years ago .. now why is haplogroup r rare in north Asians then.. because some spaceship shifted the people to india and Europe and mongoloids got shifted to north asia.. lol very believable


Humans first originated in Africa from where they first migrated to india and it is here where haplogroup R originated some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago...As of June 2009, the most recent study dates the origin of haplogroup R to 66.8kya (thousand years ago) with a 95% confidence interval of 52.6-81kya.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Soares_et_al_2009-1)
South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) lies on the way of earliest dispersals from Africa and is therefore a valuable well of knowledge on early human migration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migration).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Karmin-3) The analysis of the indigenous haplogroup R lineages in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) points to a common first spread of the root haplotypes of M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)), N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(mtDNA)), and R along the southern route some 60–70 kya.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Palanichamy-4)
Haplogroup R has wide diversity and antiquity among varied ethnic status and different language families in South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia). In Indian western region among the castes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) and southern region among the tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_India) show higher haplogroup diversity than the other regions, possibly suggesting their autochthonous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthonous) status.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Maji-5)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

r1a1 is subclade of r and is known as Aryan genetic marker.




R1a1 is not just common among Slavs. It's common among Scandinavians (between 20-30%). In Finno-Ugrians 40-50% (Erzya, Estonians, Vepsian). In Balts around 40%. In Turkic Tatars and Chuvashes. All have European branch of R1a1. The separation between Asian and European clades is around 5000 years. In Asia and Europe R1a probably went through a bottle-neck. No-one has tested Y-DNA of the Aryans. However, people of Yamnaya from Samara - the homeland of PIE - were tested for R1b.

[jatt]

Genetically Slavs are north-eastern European originally being similar to their immediate neighbours. Europeans are a separate branch genetically and linguistically. AFAIK there is more genetic diversity in China than in Europe . There is some genetic continuum on the fringes of Europe. Aryan, Indian R1a and similar statements is a waste of time.

Genetically Slavs are north-eastern European originally being similar to their immediate neighbours. Europeans are a separate branch genetically and linguistically. AFAIK there is more genetic diversity in China than in Europe . There is some genetic continuum on the fringes of Europe. Aryan, Indian R1a and similar statements is a waste of time.

well its not waste of time. 99.9 % of human genome is same in all humans.. .1% is different but these are informative. if we look into particular section of mitochondrial dna or dna haplotypes we get to know the genetic similarities of people. people with similar haplotypes are closely related than people with different haplotypes. this can tell a common ancestors

[Rugevit]

well its not waste of time. 99.9 % of human genome is same in all humans.. .1% is different but these are informative. if we look into particular section of mitochondrial dna or dna haplotypes we get to know the genetic similarities of people. people with similar haplotypes are closely related than people with different haplotypes. this can tell a common ancestors

The genetic closeness is a relative measure. Europeans form a separate genetic cluster based on autosomal DNA (read as DNA stored in 22 out of 23 chromosomes) in comparison to other peoples of the world. Y-DNA and mtDNA are sex markers. Frequencies of Y-DNA and mtDNA could be the result of bottle-neck or founder effects.

[jatt]

R1a1 is not just common among Slavs. It's common among Scandinavians (between 20-30%). In Finno-Ugrians 40-50% (Erzya, Estonians, Vepsian). In Balts around 40%. In Turkic Tatars and Chuvashes. All have European branch of R1a1. The separation between Asian and European clades is around 5000 years. In Asia and Europe R1a probably went through a bottle-neck. No-one has tested Y-DNA of the Aryans. However, people of Yamnaya from Samara - the homeland of PIE - were tested for R1b.

indian doest have r1b ..it simply ist Aryan haplotype. it can be found among Africans too. those theories of Aryans origin from yamanaya etc got out dated. they were beased on speculations , misinterpretation and shifting of timelines to suit a agenda.. modern geneticz, archeology and linghuistic evidence have disapproved the theories.

[jatt]

The genetic closeness is a relative measure. Europeans form a separate genetic cluster based on autosomal DNA (read as DNA stored in 22 out of 23 chromosomes) in comparison to other peoples of the world. Y-DNA and mtDNA are sex markers. Frequencies of Y-DNA and mtDNA could be the result of bottle-neck or founder effects.
yep that's true.. of course they will cluster with other Europeans. mutations kept on occurring every 500 so generations and people intermarried etc plus the environment was similar. what I am talking about is Aryan genetic marker r1a1. that originated in india and got dispersed in Europe.. we don't care how close European are to themselves. its just that Aryans were origianally similar to us not some blond eye blond hair people.

[DarknessInside]

there are some slavs whom retained their ancient look somewhat like this slav actor

http://www.vecernji.hr/media/slika/68/335743.jpg

So this Serb is similar to Ancient Indo-Iranians? Start a new thread and post more male and female images of your version of Aryan. Because there are some similar threads, but your thread/version will be interesting.

[jatt]

So this Serb is similar to Ancient Indo-Iranians? Start a new thread and post more male and female images of your version of Aryan. Because there are some similar threads, but your thread/version will be interesting. he is somewhat close but the effect of skin mutation has altered his phenotype a bit in my opinion and I intend no disrespect. he is fine looking for his age

[MagnusAurelius]

yep ignore the logicz and accepted one guy originated in somewhere just about 24000 years ago .. now why is haplogroup r rare in north Asians then.. because some spaceship shifted the people to india and Europe and mongoloids got shifted to north asia.. lol very believable


Humans first originated in Africa from where they first migrated to india and it is here where haplogroup R originated some 60,000 to 70,000 years ago...As of June 2009, the most recent study dates the origin of haplogroup R to 66.8kya (thousand years ago) with a 95% confidence interval of 52.6-81kya.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Soares_et_al_2009-1)
South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) lies on the way of earliest dispersals from Africa and is therefore a valuable well of knowledge on early human migration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migration).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Karmin-3) The analysis of the indigenous haplogroup R lineages in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) points to a common first spread of the root haplotypes of M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)), N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(mtDNA)), and R along the southern route some 60–70 kya.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Palanichamy-4)
Haplogroup R has wide diversity and antiquity among varied ethnic status and different language families in South Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia). In Indian western region among the castes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) and southern region among the tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_India) show higher haplogroup diversity than the other regions, possibly suggesting their autochthonous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthonous) status.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Maji-5)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

r1a1 is subclade of r and is known as Aryan genetic marker.




Your link is not even R1A1, it is MTDNA (genetic marker from the mother)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

Caucasians are not native to the Indian Sub continent, why else would India today have a registry for "Indigenous peoples"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples#South_Asia.2FIndian_Sub continent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_people None of them look Caucasian at all, these people look like a mix between Australoids and Mongoloid Asians.

Y-DNA Haplogroup R itself does not originate in South Asia, this has been proven, it was pure Caucasians who migrated into India and mixed with the Indigenous people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207#Origins

Haplogroup R* was found in the remains of a Palaeolithic boy MA-1 (Mal'ta) near Lake Baikal in Siberia, dating to 24,000 years ago.[1]

You can keep denying this evidence in favor of your delusions.

[Vorg]

Your link is not even R1A1, it is MTDNA (genetic marker from the mother)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

Caucasians are not native to the Indian Sub continent, why else would India today have a registry for "Indigenous peoples"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples#South_Asia.2FIndian_Sub continent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_people None of them look Caucasian at all, these people look like a mix between Australoids and Mongoloid Asians.

Y-DNA Haplogroup R itself does not originate in South Asia, this has been proven, it was pure Caucasians who migrated into India and mixed with the Indigenous people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207#Origins

Haplogroup R* was found in the remains of a Palaeolithic boy MA-1 (Mal'ta) near Lake Baikal in Siberia, dating to 24,000 years ago.[1]

You can keep denying this evidence in favor of your delusions.

Yes, this guy (jatt) makes a very serious, children's mistakes :picard1:

[jatt]

Yes, this guy (jatt) makes a very serious, children's mistakes :picard1:

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n7/full/jhg201442a.html

does this ^ makes sense

endof the day it is r1a1 which is Aryan component originated in india we r talking about... who cares where r originated.

from the based on scientific studies ..........
The observation of R1a* in high frequency for the first time in the literature, as well as analyses using different phylogenetic methods, resolved the controversy of the origin of R1a1*, supporting its origin in the Indian subcontinent. Simultaneously, the presence of R1a1* in very high frequency in Brahmins, irrespective of linguistic and geographic affiliations, suggested it as the founder haplogroup for the population. The co-presence of this haplogroup in many of the tribal populations of India, its existence in high frequency in Saharia (present study) and Chenchu tribes, the high frequency of R1a* in Kashmiri Pandits (KPs—Brahmins) as well as Saharia (tribe) and associated phylogenetic ages supported the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins, confronting the concepts of recent Central Asian introduction and rank-related Eurasian contribution of the Indian caste system.

[jatt]

Your link is not even R1A1, it is MTDNA (genetic marker from the mother)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(mtDNA)

Caucasians are not native to the Indian Sub continent, why else would India today have a registry for "Indigenous peoples"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples#South_Asia.2FIndian_Sub continent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_people None of them look Caucasian at all, these people look like a mix between Australoids and Mongoloid Asians.

Y-DNA Haplogroup R itself does not originate in South Asia, this has been proven, it was pure Caucasians who migrated into India and mixed with the Indigenous people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207#Origins

Haplogroup R* was found in the remains of a Palaeolithic boy MA-1 (Mal'ta) near Lake Baikal in Siberia, dating to 24,000 years ago.[1]

You can keep denying this evidence in favor of your delusions.


http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html


http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n7/full/jhg201442a.html

don't wanna believe in my words.. read the scientific study conducted and its now well eastablised the origin of r1a1 is in india..prepared by reseachers themselves not me... Aryan migration to india theory falls flat on its face, it was based on biblical adam eve stories and faked timelines and some illogical reasoning...

[Prism]

prove me wrong and I will bow like a gentlemen that I am, admitting I was wrong and apologise.



Yeah right, you're always proven wrong, especially by me and you never apologise.

[Jana]

The only original Croat dialect is Chakavian, because its not mongrel.
Ufff, all three dialects are Croatian dialects and part of our diversity! Simple. Influences are other thing, and natural one. Just like Serbian language has TWO different dialects...PS Chakavian was even spoken in NW Bosnia at one point, it's interesting trivia.


prove me wrong and I will bow like a gentlemen that I am, admitting I was wrong and apologise.
How to prove you, you are set in your belifs. Vuk was nationalist and politicaly inspired, it's well known. Why would Croats deny Serbian language is intelligible with Stokavian Croatian? It is, but each of us have our own identity, and without your own language, your nation is useless.


even though I like to insert racis pamphlets, you should not take my words to your heart.I still stay very objective on topic and most of the stuff I write is true.Average person whether its Bosniak, Slovenian or Serb doesent think this way.Its only a sub-culture stereotype (nigga jokes), obviously you must realise Croat is the most disliked ethnic group out of all south-slavs.Croat is to me like Belgrade foppish brat who thinks world spins around him, but in reality nobody gives 3 fucks about him.
Alright :eviltongue: I heard this kind of thing a lot from Serbs, calling my Croat friends ''stuck-up pussies'' blabla. Reality is Croats are more tolerant than Serbs, we don't have such burning nationalism and Imperial ambitions in 21st century. You have to admit Serbia has always been agressive nation who wanted to expand, especially to the west. Pan-South Slavism was Croatian idea who wanted unity of all Slavs, but Serbs acted as big Brother who wanted to be the main player and dictator.
Look up events in 1st Yugoslavia, I am sure you know them. Croatia was never imperialist country that wanted to take others land (you may say because it couldn't but whatever ;)), while Serbia is completely different story.


like you came to a conclusion in your previous paragraph.Zagreb was integrated part of Slavonia, therefore they DID speak Kajkavian.
They speak Kajkavian to this day, but never identify with Slavonia. This is known too, so whatever, I see your point.


I dont intend to go down refuting out of context copy-pastes like this.Slavonia was integrated part of Carantorum prior to date you quoted, but eventually broke down to smaller feuds under German and Italian clerical jurisdiction.Like you Croats pride yourselves how you defended Serbs from Bvlgar mongols, so did Slovenians defend Croats from mongoloids, franks etc.Sometimes even combining all three specimens jointly serb-slovenian-croat, but eventually Slovenians gave up and seek protection from Bavarians, hence their Caranthanian Kingdom disintegrated to insignificant local feuds.In reality Serbs were small nation and Croats even smaller, very tiny, just one of the Serb tribes like Montenegrins, Bosnians etc.
Yes, we are both small nations and were small but Serbs don't want to accept it!! They dream of greater-Serbia even today, in Croatia radical movements are on margins and insignificant while the same cannot be said for Serbia. Šešelj, entire leadership of current Serbia, rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović etc. Sorry, you are free to do what you want but such things are unimaginable in Croatia, we distanced ourself from NDH past. Don't want to turn this into politics, but Serbia didn't change a lot since 1990s.


whats even funnier is that even though local lords (zachlumi,duklja,travuni) were responsible to acknowledge superior rulers of Serbia, Slavonians did not do so with Croats..

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_sabor

Dva sabora su uglavnom funkcionirala odvojeno, a zajedno su vijećala samo u osobito važnim prilikama. Slavonski sabor je 1515. odbio pomoć banu Petru Berislaviću za obranu prostora južno od Velebita uz obrazloženje da su slavonski staleži „po starom običaju dužni braniti samo svoju kraljevinu,“ dakle Slavoniju, ali ne i Hrvatsku. S druge strane, slavonski je sabor birao svoje predstavnike na ugarski sabor, što hrvatski sabor nije činio. Takav odnos je u potpunosti kuliminirao početkom 1527. godine kada je hrvatski sabor u Cetinu samostalno izabrao Ferdinanda Habsburškog za hrvatskog kralja, a slavonski u Dubravi Ivana Zapolju.
Well, there was triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia afterwards. Croatia was always the central part while Slavonia and Dalmatia had their own identity. It doesn't mean they weren't part of Croatian Kingdom. About election of Habsburgs, Slavonians were naturally close to Hungarians so they elected Ivan Zapolja. It just shown how each of thee historical Croatian regions had high degree of autonomy! :)



this is your Croat map

http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografija/albums/userpics/10001/Sl_%202_%20Zupe%20Lika,%20Gacka%20i%20Krbava%20u%2 0srednjem%20vijeku.jpg

though "panonska Hrvatska" is a fake Hrvatska, there never was Panonska Hrvatska, only Slavonia.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7467/golec013mapa.jpg

Zagreb shaded in Kajkavian. xD

etcetc.
You see Bosnia was largely part of Croatia at least. Today shape of Croatia is unnatural but still only minority of Croats are claiming Bosnia, because now Croats in there are minority and it is inhabitated by people who have Bosniak, Serb identity so it would be really stupid to claim it.


yes there are, they were just mongolized then croatized afterwards.Obviously their national identity got washed-off afterwards.How do you think those Slovaks came to Vojvodina????Bought an aeroplane ticket in 9th century and flew down to their brother Serbs??
Slovaks and Czechs came as colonists, same as Germans did in Slavonia, under Maria Theresa I THINK (not sure). Probably it was same in Vojvodina, or are you talking about something much much before (9th century)? I don't Know about that.



not its other way around, they are bulgarized Serbs.

but this goes both ways with you and Slovenians.Everything from Pomurje/Međimurje, down trough Dolenjska/Notranjska to Primorska is bastardized with Serbo-Croats one way or another.

https://books.google.rs/books?id=92S7E1MPBy0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl#v=onepage&q&f=false

Damn you are stubborn Davai! History is complex enough in our areas and hard to understand! Everybody passed trough ''the Balkans'' and mixed, there are tons of assimilated or semi-assimilated ethniciteis in here, because there was never short of people. It's hard to know who was who, and what belonged to whom, and how did people feel at that time. Impossible even. What matters to me is that today every modern country has it's identity and right to freedom! For Croats identity is tied to our Kingdom, name and religion, same for Serbs. We are closly related cousins of course, from times of White Croatia/White Serbia up north until today, but our historical experiences are totally different. We should respect each others and live in peace. This is f'''''g longest reply I remember writing, I'm dead now. Hopefully others will have understanding for our off-topic debate in this thread, we are hot-headed people after all! Pozdrav i mir!

[StormBringer]

You see Bosnia was largely part of Croatia at least. Today shape of Croatia is unnatural but still only minority of Croats are claiming Bosnia, because now Croats in there are minority and it is inhabitated by people who have Bosniak, Serb identity so it would be really stupid to claim it.


I don't know about that, I've stumbled on that Herceg-Bosna forum, they sure love drawing 1001 variant of division of Bosnia xD

[Jana]

I don't know about that, I've stumbled on that Herceg-Bosna forum, they sure love drawing 1001 variant of division of Bosnia xD

Croats from Croatia gave up on such toughts long ago. Maybe because Croats are in worst position in BiH now they feel that way, they are in really bad position.:( You should ask Solin about that subject. They need equal status and rights as Bosniaks and Serbs for sure !

[StormBringer]

Croats from Croatia gave up on such toughts long ago. Maybe because Croats are in worst position in BiH now they feel that way, they are in really bad position.:( You should ask Solin about that subject. They need equal status and rights as Bosniaks and Serbs for sure !

Indeed, it's pretty ironic that Croats who pretty much grinded us to a halt in Bosnia and brought us to negotiating table, ended up losing a lot of the political autonomy within Federation couple of years after the end of the war.They should be able to reclaim at least what they had at the end of the war, imo, doubt OHR and foreigners will be able to re-establish the grip they held back then, we'll see how Čović manages.

[Jana]

Guess you are right. I know very little about situation in Bosnia unfortunately so cannot write anything smart :P But want the best to the country and all people in it! For better future :)

[MagnusAurelius]

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html


http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n7/full/jhg201442a.html

don't wanna believe in my words.. read the scientific study conducted and its now well eastablised the origin of r1a1 is in india..prepared by reseachers themselves not me... Aryan migration to india theory falls flat on its face, it was based on biblical adam eve stories and faked timelines and some illogical reasoning...


The Aryan migration into India is FACT! You still ignore the fact that the Ancestor of both R1A1 and R1B is Haplogroup R-M207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M207 The origin is not in India, this is the fact you always ignore in favor of your two delusional fantasies, that Indians are racially pure and that Caucasians(Aryans) are indigenous to the Indian sub continent.

Haplogroup R* was found in the remains of a Palaeolithic boy MA-1 (Mal'ta) near Lake Baikal in Siberia, dating to 24,000 years ago.[1]

So even if Y-DNA R1A1 does originate in India which your link strongly proves, it does not matter because Haplogroup R people originally migrated into India, this marker mutated and became R1A1 in India, that is why it probably originates in India.


Your own link says "ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c)." Haplogroup R is the ancestral Haplogroup to all these lineages and they came from far outside of India. You have been proven wrong, it is obvious Caucasians(Aryans) are not native to the Indian sub-continent, more proof to back this up was my previous post of the indigenous peoples of India, none of which look Caucasian and most look like a mixed between Mongoloids and Australoid's.

So if Caucasian(Aryans) are native to the Indian Sub-continent then why the hell does India have a registry for Indigenous people? I think the Indian government obviously knows the Indo-Aryan invasion theory and all Aryans arriving around 1500BC has been proven false but why would they still classify some Indians as Indigenous? It is obviously because it is well known in India that the Aryans and Haplogroup Y-DNA R1a1 people were originally not native to the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples#South_Asia.2FIndian_Sub continent

[MagnusAurelius]

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n7/full/jhg201442a.html

does this ^ makes sense

endof the day it is r1a1 which is Aryan component originated in india we r talking about... who cares where r originated.

from the based on scientific studies ..........
The observation of R1a* in high frequency for the first time in the literature, as well as analyses using different phylogenetic methods, resolved the controversy of the origin of R1a1*, supporting its origin in the Indian subcontinent. Simultaneously, the presence of R1a1* in very high frequency in Brahmins, irrespective of linguistic and geographic affiliations, suggested it as the founder haplogroup for the population. The co-presence of this haplogroup in many of the tribal populations of India, its existence in high frequency in Saharia (present study) and Chenchu tribes, the high frequency of R1a* in Kashmiri Pandits (KPs—Brahmins) as well as Saharia (tribe) and associated phylogenetic ages supported the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins, confronting the concepts of recent Central Asian introduction and rank-related Eurasian contribution of the Indian caste system.

Your link is a study done in Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47–55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2; published online 9 January 2009. Updated information according to this study proves many R1A1 subclades did not even originate in India.


Hahahaha, so the origin of Haplogroup R itself does not matter? You are living in a fantasy, Indians are not racially pure, Aryans are not indigenous to India. So if the origin of Haplogroup R does not matter, then did R1A1 (assuming it originates in India) magically appear there with no migration path link with the ancestor group Haplogroup R? That is impossible.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/2012/10/finally-some-inmproved-knowledge-of.html

All the data on the geography of top level "asterisk" paragroups is from Underhill 2010, already mentioned above. It suggest a West Asian origin for R1a overall and spread to West and East since the R1a1a level or lower.

Most genetic studies also prove R1A1 originates outside of India, what you linked proves a certain subclade of R1A1 originates in India, this is because Haplogroup R/R1A1 people migrated into India and at some point it mutated and became a different sub clade of R1A1 that originates in India.

All the data on the geography of top level "asterisk" paragroups is from Underhill 2010, already mentioned above. It suggest a West Asian origin for R1a overall and spread to West and East since the R1a1a level or lower.

R1a* ··> Iran, Persian Gulf, Turkey
R1a1 (L120/M516, L122/M448, M459, Page65.2/SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2)
R1a1* ··> Iran, Caucasus, Greece, Scandinavia

R1a1a1b2 (S202/Z93) ··> India, Central Asia

Your own link even supports the information of this newer study.

"ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c)." R1a being the ancestral lineage originating outside of India. Did you even read that Journal link? It proves a subclade of R1A1 originates in India, it does not prove R1A itself is indigenous to India.

Your link also has genetic evidence that proves the migration theories.

" The competing main models (the first of them based on shared IE languages) suggest that contemporary Hindu Indians are descendants of primarily West Eurasians who migrated from the Near east, Antolia and the Caucasus 3000–8000 years ago,13, 14 which has been supported by the demic diffusion model1, 22 and validated by molecular genetic data.7, 11 The second model, based on molecular genetic data, mainly the Y-chromosomal M17 marker (R1a1 haplogroup), suggests the migration of IE people from Central Asia to India.23 Another model suggests that later on ‘not alone but a package’ of Y-haplogroups migrated from Central Asia, introducing the caste system to India.7 Yet another model suggests the late Pleistocene heritage of tribal and caste populations, with limited recent gene flow between them24 and the largely South Asian origin of Indian caste communities, indicating no major genetic influx either with the development of agriculture or with the spread of the Indo-Aryan (IE) language family.12 It has also been suggested that there was a minor influence from Central Asia and the pre-Holocene and Holocene era, not Indo-European expansions, which shaped the pre-existing South Asian gene pool.9 Alternatively, another recent study21 has suggested that distinct paternal distribution patterns exist among caste and tribal populations and tribals have contributed to the lower caste groups (schedule castes) as well as expansions and establishment of Indo-European populations as upper castes. All these proposed hypotheses make the question of the origin of the caste system and the relationship among these hazy and obscure."

The conclusion of that article also states that many R1A lineages were not even observed, even further supporting the origin of R1A itself (ancestor to all R1A subclades) comes from outside of India.

However, there is a scanty representation of Y-haplogroup R1a1 subgroups in the literature as well as in this study. The known subgroups (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c), which are defined by binary markers M56, M157 or M87, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1), were not observed. In such a situation, it is likely that this haplogroup (R1a1*) is a polyphyletic (or paraphyletic) group of Y-lineages. It is, therefore, very important to discover novel Y chromosomal binary marker(s

The fact is, R1A1 itself has more than 1 ancestor which is why the first origin of this Haplogroup is not strickly limited to India.

polyphyletic
(of a group of organisms) derived from more than one common evolutionary ancestor or ancestral group and therefore not suitable for placing in the same taxon.

Your own link proves R1A1 has many indigenous origins that are not limited to India so your evidence has even proved your opinion WRONG! :picard2:

[Jana]

Hahahaha, so the origin of Haplogroup R itself does not matter? You are living in a fantasy, Indians are not racially pure, Aryans are not indigenous to India. So if the origin of Haplogroup R does not matter, then did R1A1 (assuming it originates in India) magically appear there with no migration path link with the ancestor group Haplogroup R? That is impossible.

And what is racially pure exactly?? You mean Aryans mixed with Dravidians? They did. But Dravidians are considered primarly Caucasoid by some, and by other Australoid-Caucasoid mix. It's not really clear. They have ASI. Modern South Asians have Caucasoid, Australoid and Mongoloid admixture in different degree, depends on region. But, who say those Aryans that conquered South Asia were pure ''whites'' either? Pashtuns and North Indian Indo-Aryan speakers have strong ANE component, it peaks in Kavkazians and some south Asians, imo that is real Eurasian component. I think those recial divisions of today weren't the same in the past.

Claiming racial purity is kinda crazy with new findings we have now. Some in here even claim neolitics aren't real Europeans either, but dirty WOGs ::lmao.
And they are in Europe, well....since the neolithic.


This forum is not always in line with the real world. What's the fascination with Aryans?? Just like Slav who doesn't speak Slavic isn't Slav in my eyes, only Indo-Aryan speaker can identify as Aryan, it's their language. And identity, just like Slavic is cultural term first.

[Jana]

you have much to learn my dear.

some slovenians with Anton Korošec in lead read the May declaration first time in Austrian parliament demanding unified state, while Croats kept their mouth stfu during sauerkrauts booing the shit out of their "bros".So much for Croat "pan-slavism". xD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Koro%C5%A1ec

In 1907, Korošec was elected to the Reichsrat as a member of the Slovenian People's Party, where, as president of the Yugoslav Club, he read out the May Declaration, which called for all South Slavs to be unified in one state unit within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Following the break-up of Austria-Hungary, the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, of which Korošec was the president, declared the creation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on 29 October 1918.

in fact, based on these very same events and the merit of Croat contribution to formation of south-slavic state, Serbs never acknowledged to Croats equal rights.Hence you got butthurt since Slovenians had more rights than you did, hence how your =U= movement is formed.But this is a story for another time..

croats were nowhere to be seen, somewhere in the background lol.

Ok, will try to learn!

But you have to read about them:http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement)

:P

[Sisak]

you have much to learn my dear.

some slovenians with Anton Korošec in lead read the May declaration first time in Austrian parliament demanding unified state, while Croats kept their mouth stfu during sauerkrauts booing the shit out of their "bros".So much for Croat "pan-slavism". xD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Koro%C5%A1ec

In 1907, Korošec was elected to the Reichsrat as a member of the Slovenian People's Party, where, as president of the Yugoslav Club, he read out the May Declaration, which called for all South Slavs to be unified in one state unit within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Following the break-up of Austria-Hungary, the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, of which Korošec was the president, declared the creation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on 29 October 1918.

in fact, based on these very same events and the merit of Croat contribution to formation of south-slavic state, Serbs never acknowledged to Croats equal rights.Hence you got butthurt since Slovenians had more rights than you did, hence how your =U= movement is formed.But this is a story for another time..

croats were nowhere to be seen, somewhere in the background lol.

^^even if it were true, it's totally unimportant now in the 21st Century. It is stupid wikipedia article that does not mean anything.

[Jana]

We can continue discussion when you return :D It was major movement too, and some Serbs pearticipated in it.

[Antimage]

i think most similar to protoslavs are eastslavs and poles

[Jana]

this is pure sheeptarism, illyrian movement was a debate club at best.This is Croat antemurale myth, quasi "south-slavic pioneers", while truth is far from that.

but this is off-topic now, what I want us to debate is Sclavonia.You still dont prove me when did Croats call themselves Sclavonians.I want to talk about these mongrel gypsies. xD

so, to make a short recap..

Slavonia/Sclavonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia) = Sclavenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sclaveni&redirect=no) = Slovenia = Slovakia

Sclauonia oder Windisch Marck ("http://db.nsk.hr/HeritageDetails.aspx?id=983) <----- Zagreb Library

and since Slavonians refer to themselves Slověne and so do Slovenians refer to themselves Slovene, while in historic frame Germans refer to Slovenians specifically Windisch, living in Windisch Marck ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windic_March).Hence it would be logical to conclude Sclavonia = Slovenia.

Serbs and Croats never refer to themselves Slovene, this was simply a name applied to us by others since we speak Slavic language.This does not mean we truly were "Slovene".

The debate Club!!! It was MAJOR movement in Croatian culture, when base of our language was formed! Without Illyrian movement, modern Croatian would be very very different I think!

Slavonia is just a regional name! It was Croatian since Croats arrived in here and formed Red Croatia. Why are there no Slovenian surnames in Slavonia than?? Look, unfortunately I hvae to go and will be back to add some toughts. You want to make Northern Croats Slovenes, and it ain't right! :D

We are really poluting the thread with our debate tho :))) Pozz

[Jana]

OT: is baltid phenotype proto-Slavic or proto-Baltic?? Could it be known? Thanks in advance.

[Vorg]

OT: is baltid phenotype proto-Slavic or proto-Baltic?? Could it be known? Thanks in advance.

Most likely, Baltid (that what is meant by him here) - is result of Middle-Age's brachycephalication and borealisation

[Tekken]

Anything farthest away from Scandinavia, as you have Nordid ancestry there. (Baltics, Central-East Europe, etc).
The so called "Ostbaltische rasse".

My guess for purest Slavs are the few Pure Russians with 100% slav ancestry and no mongoloid admixture.

I've seen some moscow people who are this, aswell as rural Russian villages but NEVER in the Asian part of Russia (but in Russia proper)

[Not a Cop]

My guess for purest Slavs are the few Pure Russians with 100% slav ancestry and no mongoloid admixture.


Russians are a mixture of Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and balts, there is basicly no 100% slav russians.

[Arhat]

Russians are a mixture of Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and balts, there is basicly no 100% slav russians.

Pre-Slavic Russia was probably more PIE-like than today and had less Neolithic farmer admixture, which probably increased a little because of Slavic immigrants from the southwest. So estimating Slavic admixture among modern Russians is almost impossible because local Balts and Finno-Ugrians were similar to Proto-Slavs but just more northeastern shifted. But I am sure it is very high and in many cases higher than pre-Slavic ancestry.

[Not a Cop]

Pre-Slavic Russia was probably more PIE-like than today and had less Neolithic farmer admixture, which probably increased a little because of Slavic immigrants from the southwest. So estimating Slavic admixture among modern Russians is almost impossible because local Balts and Finno-Ugrians were similar to Proto-Slavs but just more northeastern shifted. But I am sure it is very high and in many cases higher than pre-Slavic ancestry.

It hard to do using K8, but possible using other ways. Also FU and Baltic people of Russia weren't similar, for example Mordovians have a bit less WHG than Russians, while Karelians and Vepses have more. However Slavic part is still largest and most likely makes over 50% in modern Russians.

[Vorg]

Pre-Slavic Russia was probably more PIE-like than today and had less Neolithic farmer admixture, which probably increased a little because of Slavic immigrants from the southwest. So estimating Slavic admixture among modern Russians is almost impossible because local Balts and Finno-Ugrians were similar to Proto-Slavs but just more northeastern shifted. But I am sure it is very high and in many cases higher than pre-Slavic ancestry.

At the moment, Russian youth by their cephalometric parameters approaching to some Corded-populations

[Arhat]

At the moment, Russian youth by their cephalometric parameters approaching to some Corded-populations

I don't trust any anthropological studies because you can find exactly the same looking people in different populations with very different genetics and they are often unreliable. But from a genetic point of view Russians are closest to PIEs and Corded Ware. Just Lithuanians are maybe even a bit closer. But many non-Slavic Finno-Ugrians in Russia are closer to PIEs than Slavic Russians , who entered Russia from the southwest and made modern Russians more western and southern shifted

[Rugevit]

I don't trust any anthropological studies because you can find exactly the same looking people in different populations with very different genetics and they are often unreliable. But from a genetic point of view Russians are closest to PIEs and Corded Ware. Just Lithuanians are maybe even a bit closer. But many non-Slavic Finno-Ugrians in Russia are closer to PIEs than Slavic Russians , who entered Russia from the southwest and made modern Russians more western and southern shifted

Erzya and Moksha are closest to Corded Ware. Then northern Russians, who have a known Finnic admixture. : http://postimg.org/image/53im9h2e1/full/

But Slavs did not come from northern Russia or middle Volga where Erzya and Moksha live. Slavic migrations into Russia were from the west. Proto Slavs could be genetically similar to Baltic Prussians or Lithuanians. That's just a guess.

[Vorg]

I don't trust any anthropological studies because you can find exactly the same looking people in different populations with very different genetics and they are often unreliable. But from a genetic point of view Russians are closest to PIEs and Corded Ware. Just Lithuanians are maybe even a bit closer. But many non-Slavic Finno-Ugrians in Russia are closer to PIEs than Slavic Russians , who entered Russia from the southwest and made modern Russians more western and southern shifted

Lithuanians were exposed to greater Brachycephalization than Russians, for example. Anthropological studies proves it.


many non-Slavic Finno-Ugrians in Russia are closer to PIEs than Slavic Russians

Only Mordovians

[Arhat]

Erzya and Moksha are closest to Corded Ware. Then northern Russians, who have a known Finnic admixture. : http://postimg.org/image/53im9h2e1/full/

But Slavs did not come from northern Russia or middle Volga where Erzya and Moksha live. Slavic migrations into Russia were from the west. Proto Slavs could be genetically similar to Baltic Prussians or Lithuanians. That's just a guess.
Quite ironic that northern Russians and russian Finno-Ugrians, who were bashed as "Non-caucasians and Siberians" by some idiots on this forum,are closest to Corded Ware. Proto-Slavs were probably somewhere between Belarusians and Ukrainians on this PCA map.

[Vorg]

Quite ironic that northern Russians and russian Finno-Ugrians, who were bashed as "Non-caucasians and Siberians" by some idiots on this forum,are closest to Corded Ware. Proto-Slavs were probably somewhere between Belarusians and Ukrainians on this PCA map.

Northern Russians - Slavs (northern wave of Slavic colonisation) + PaleoEuro (These northern paleo-Europeans were the basis of most of the peoples of Northern Europe) (proved by scientists Balanovsky's and others, 2011).

[Vorg]

Erzya and Moksha are closest to Corded Ware. Then northern Russians, who have a known Finnic admixture. : http://postimg.org/image/53im9h2e1/full/

But Slavs did not come from northern Russia or middle Volga where Erzya and Moksha live. Slavic migrations into Russia were from the west. Proto Slavs could be genetically similar to Baltic Prussians or Lithuanians. That's just a guess.

Erzya, apparently, - originally were Indo-Europeans, who later passed into Finnish language

[Rugevit]

Quite ironic that northern Russians and russian Finno-Ugrians, who were bashed as "Non-caucasians and Siberians" by some idiots on this forum,are closest to Corded Ware. Proto-Slavs were probably somewhere between Belarusians and Ukrainians on this PCA map.

Some crazy people thought Czechs were Mongols 70-75 years ago. The genetics have shown some of the Slavic groups in north-eastern Europe are as European as one can be. Somewhere between Belarusians and Ukrainians on this plot would be Poles and Russians of Smolensk (border of Belarus). There is little about Poles being proto-Slavic except for north-eastern Poles. Russians of Smolensk can be good candidates too. ;)