ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 18, 2010 9:54:25 GMT -5
Not to mention by this statement 'Slavs aren't a pure people, all Slavic groups are mixed with one or more other groups' he is denying well documented facts // So you believe serbs are pure slavs, that has not mixed with others? By the way, read the ancient sources on the Serboi.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 18, 2010 10:21:59 GMT -5
Not to mention by this statement 'Slavs aren't a pure people, all Slavic groups are mixed with one or more other groups' he is denying well documented facts // So you believe serbs are pure slavs, that has not mixed with others? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL ;D ;D ;D ;D Now you really made me laugh ;D I described in one of my previous comments about core territories of Slavs. Slavs living in other territories are mixed. YES that includes Serbs too, but Serbs weren't mixed with Asians but Balkan locals Check illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=slaviceurope&action=display&thread=31162&page=1 not a word of Serboi PS. I suggest you to check "Savari" ;D
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 18, 2010 12:01:29 GMT -5
Now you really made me laugh ;D I described in one of my previous comments about core territories of Slavs. Slavs living in other territories are mixed. YES that includes Serbs too, but Serbs weren't mixed with Asians but Balkan locals I see. Another Serb believing in fairytales... The idea of this purity of the Serboi (check Plinii) and only mixing with the "proper people" is so racist and unscientific that it is not even funny. Novi 2 indeed. I guess those fairytales make serbdome so attractive to racists.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 18, 2010 12:54:26 GMT -5
Now you really made me laugh ;D I described in one of my previous comments about core territories of Slavs. Slavs living in other territories are mixed. YES that includes Serbs too, but Serbs weren't mixed with Asians but Balkan locals I see. Another Serb believing in fairytales... The idea of this purity of the Serboi (check Plinii) and only mixing with the "proper people" is so racist and unscientific that it is not even funny. Novi 2 indeed. I guess those fairytales make serbdome so attractive to racists. Serbs(Slavs from Germany, Czech and Poland) came to Balkan and mixed with Balkan indigenous people(Celts, Romans, Greeks, Thracians...) depends from the region. Whats racist about that?!?! There was not any Serboi tribe or any other Turkic tribe in the time when Serbs-Slavs came. Even recent genetic evidence confirms it
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 18, 2010 13:04:03 GMT -5
Ulf, on one side we have people like Pazar and Gyrro who don't stop talking about the purity of Serbs.. these are people who have zero credentials on the matter, people who base pretty much everything they post on some old school Yugoslav propaganda. On the other hand, we have people with credentials who's job is actually the study of history and historic facts.. I will mention that the Russian professor was teaching at the University of Toronto which is one of the most prestigious schools in Canada. I doubt they'd hire some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
But, I guess it's easier to live in denial..
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 18, 2010 14:13:59 GMT -5
Look, I am not claiming that Serbs are PURE SLAVS, I am only claiming that Serbs don't have anything to do with Iranic groups or Turkic groups of people
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 18, 2010 16:06:39 GMT -5
The Avars were Turkic, they didn't just disappear.. they were absorbed by others, and have without a doubt left at least some trace. During the Second Bulgarian Empire, Tsar Kaloian had sent Cuman contingents to assist Serbia against the Magyars. Many Cumans were settled in what is present day Southern Serbia and Northern Macedonia, though I guess that would still classify as contribution to the Bulgarian ethnogenesis and not necessarily the Serbian one. Not to mention that during Ottoman Rule the Turks would have likely left some genetic traces on the Balkans in all countries. To entirely deny all such genetic contributions is just not logical.
The modern day Bulgarian ethnos is formed by three main ethnic groups, Bulgars, Slavs, and Thracians.. however, there are maybe some 10 other ethnic groups that have contributed to our ethnogensis to some extent or another. The modern day Greeks are also the result of the ethnic amalgamation of a whole bunch of different ethnic groups. The modern day Turks are also a blend of many different ethnic groups.
Generally, the greater the empires of the past the greater the mix. A modern day example would be the US. It's like trying to say that Americans today are in fact English, or mainly English; and we all know that you can't really determine which ethnic group is the dominant component of what constitutes a modern day American.
I think that the Irranic tribes have played a significant role in the early ethnogenesis of modern day Balkan Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 18, 2010 17:39:07 GMT -5
The Avars were Turkic, they didn't just disappear.. they were absorbed by others, and have without a doubt left at least some trace. During the Second Bulgarian Empire, Tsar Kaloian had sent Cuman contingents to assist Serbia against the Magyars. Many Cumans were settled in what is present day Southern Serbia and Northern Macedonia, though I guess that would still classify as contribution to the Bulgarian ethnogenesis and not necessarily the Serbian one. Not to mention that during Ottoman Rule the Turks would have likely left some genetic traces on the Balkans in all countries. To entirely deny all such genetic contributions is just not logical. The modern day Bulgarian ethnos is formed by three main ethnic groups, Bulgars, Slavs, and Thracians.. however, there are maybe some 10 other ethnic groups that have contributed to our ethnogensis to some extent or another. The modern day Greeks are also the result of the ethnic amalgamation of a whole bunch of different ethnic groups. The modern day Turks are also a blend of many different ethnic groups. Generally, the greater the empires of the past the greater the mix. A modern day example would be the US. It's like trying to say that Americans today are in fact English, or mainly English; and we all know that you can't really determine which ethnic group is the dominant component of what constitutes a modern day American. I think that the Irranic tribes have played a significant role in the early ethnogenesis of modern day Balkan Slavs. You left me speechless after this. Such ignorance....and I used to thought of you as one of smarter members of this forum
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Sept 18, 2010 17:52:28 GMT -5
lol @ ignorance 1) Serbs are essentially Dinaric and there are many Norics(not to be confused with Nordics). South Mediterranean looking folks are minority and large % of them are Atlanto-Mediterranean(those are commonly Serbs that have Macedonian, south Serbian, Croatian or Herzegovinian roots), and not those typical south-eastern Mediterranean types common for all non-ex-Yugoslav countries 2) Serbs don't have their roots from Dagestan or whatever, but eastern Germany, Western Poland and Czech Republic territory. 3) Check Czech-Moravian language and you will see that huge amounts of words are SAME as in Serbian Those things I wrote are FACTS! I agree. There is something very un-Mediterranean about Serbs. I think Albanians are also mostly Med & most similar to Romanians. Ive always been under the impression that Serbia had a strong mediterranean presence, from reading but also from what Ive seen, Serbs are particularly more mediterranean and darker featured when compared to for example Bosnians and Croats. Even my non-Balkan friend has commented on how Serbs and Bosnians (as in Bosniaks) here in Sweden look different, with Bosniaks being lighter ... and the Serbian community in Sweden is largely from Bosnia & Krajina, arguably lighter than Serbs from Serbia proper (minus Vojvodina, where I'd guess people are pretty light since the original Slavic element would be stronger). Coon seems to be of this opinion as well;
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Sept 18, 2010 18:22:14 GMT -5
Albanians proper Med's. Also many of those Dinaric looking people in Albania are actually Dinaricized Mediterraneans, at least for my eye as they look different then Yugoslavs Albanians actually fit the Dinaric model better than any other people in the Balkans imo. Dinaric facial characteristics are primarily large and convex nose, wide face, and flattened back part of the head. Serbs (and other southern Slavs) also fit the Dinaric type in some ways (very tall and slender bodies, prominent chin, etc) but their facial features are more central and eastern European, and less Dinaric proper. Dinaric is defined as being a med type so it doesn't make sense to call them Dinaricized Mediterraneans. Dinarics are supposed to be dark. If anything, southern Slavs who look Dinaric are probably Noric.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Sept 18, 2010 18:58:35 GMT -5
Albanians proper Med's. Also many of those Dinaric looking people in Albania are actually Dinaricized Mediterraneans, at least for my eye as they look different then Yugoslavs Albanians actually fit the Dinaric model better than any other people in the Balkans imo. Dinaric facial characteristics are primarily large and convex nose, wide face, and flattened back part of the head. Serbs (and other southern Slavs) also fit the Dinaric type in some ways (very tall and slender bodies, prominent chin, etc) but their facial features are more central and eastern European, and less Dinaric proper. Dinaric is defined as being a med type so it doesn't make sense to call them Dinaricized Mediterraneans. Dinarics are supposed to be dark. If anything, southern Slavs who look Dinaric are probably Noric. I can agree at that. Perhaps that's how real Dinarics look like, but then Yugoslavs are more likely Norics or some other type because they got lighter features then Albanians
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 18, 2010 19:57:43 GMT -5
"Pyrros man it's awkward listening to you & especially Novi constantly flame the Bulgarians... especially when you should know that 99% of Serbs simply view Bulgarians as a similar friendly slavic Orthodox neighbour."
Yeah, they are great friendly neighbours they love us to recognise my serbian kosovo region as a second Albanian state, they claim half of serbia as their territory, their nationalistic party is calling on serbia to give up their ancient western outlands.....while we naive and dumb idiots have given Bulgarian businessmen to build factories over in their ancient capital of Nish.
Why would you care anyway, as long as your republica srpska is not effected, whats to worry, just keep up the friendly relations and serbia will be reduced to only republica srpska.
deluded fool!.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Sept 18, 2010 20:02:46 GMT -5
I can agree at that. Perhaps that's how real Dinarics look like, but then Yugoslavs are more likely Norics or some other type because they got lighter features then Albanians Yes. But it's not just about being lighter though. There are also some light Albanians too but Serbs (for example), even the dark type of Serb, still generally don't fit the Dinaric stereotype completely. Here is an example. The guy's in the video clip below all are south Slavs and would generally be described as Dinaric because they are tall, have dark hair and fairly chiseled features but, I don't think they are completely Dinarics. And if we use the guy below specifically; He has the dark hair and the pointy chin but, his nose is straight and small and the back of his head doesn't have the Dinaric slope. Also, his face is too narrow and looks more northern European actually.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Sept 18, 2010 20:06:14 GMT -5
Btw, (completely unrelated, but) Ana Nikolic is a babe and is one of my ideal type of woman. ;D
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Sept 18, 2010 20:21:33 GMT -5
I can agree at that. Perhaps that's how real Dinarics look like, but then Yugoslavs are more likely Norics or some other type because they got lighter features then Albanians Yes. But it's not just about being lighter though. There are also some light Albanians too but Serbs (for example), even the dark type of Serb, still generally don't fit the Dinaric stereotype completely. Here is an example. The guy's in the video clip below all are south Slavs and would generally be described as Dinaric because they are tall, have dark hair and fairly chiseled features but, I don't think they are completely Dinarics. And if we use the guy below specifically; He has the dark hair and the pointy chin but, his nose is straight and small and the back of his head doesn't have the Dinaric slope. Also, his face is too narrow and looks more northern European actually. Actually that guy looked like a text-book example of a dinaric. A nose doesnt have to be very big and crooked to be 'dinaric' -- many dinarics have straight noses or normal but convex noses, and that guy has a convex dinaric nose actually, not the typical northern european nose. Same goes for occipital flattening; you dont have to have a completely flat head to be dinaric, it's just thta it as a phenomenon is more associated with dinarics than others bcs of the generally shorter skulls (bracychephaly) -- not to mention cradles help the process and make heads even flatter. Ive witnessed this with my own people; older generations that were cradled as babies have flatter heads at the back, whereas the younger generations much less so, and with the really young ones (born in the '90s and onwards) almost all have perfectly round heads. Generally, speaking from my pwn experience, Serbs are more dolychephalic, i.e. have longer skulls than say Bosnians and especially Montenegrins.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Sept 18, 2010 21:10:33 GMT -5
Actually that guy looked like a text-book example of a dinaric. A nose doesnt have to be very big and crooked to be 'dinaric' -- many dinarics have straight noses or normal but convex noses, and that guy has a convex dinaric nose actually, not the typical northern european nose. Same goes for occipital flattening; you dont have to have a completely flat head to be dinaric, it's just thta it as a phenomenon is more associated with dinarics than others bcs of the generally shorter skulls (bracychephaly) -- not to mention cradles help the process and make heads even flatter. His nose is actually straight, it looks crooked in that picture because it's missing a pixel when I captured it. Watch the video. Either way, if a person doesn't have all those Dinaric features you just mentioned, then how are they Dinaric? Because they are tall and bony? Either way, like ulf said, Slav Dinarics and Albanian Dinarics are definitely different. Maybe the "Dinaric" classification can be split into two. Ive witnessed this with my own people; older generations that were cradled as babies have flatter heads at the back, whereas the younger generations much less so, and with the really young ones (born in the '90s and onwards) almost all have perfectly round heads. This is possible. Even here in Australia, I look at pictures of Anglo-Saxon people from 100 years ago (football teams pictures) and the people then had larger heads and smaller bodies, whereas nowadays, the offspring of those same people are taller and more slender. So it's possible that certain characteristics of all Balkan people are also evolving at a very fast rate. Especially with diet changes recently.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 18, 2010 23:46:38 GMT -5
Pyrros man it's awkward listening to you & especially Novi constantly flame the Bulgarians... especially when you should know that 99% of Serbs simply view Bulgarians as a similar friendly slavic Orthodox neighbour. man, you came to the party late and lost many episodes from the past. the truth is i like bulgarians as well. all except Ruse/Assan/Aziz. I like Ioan tho. tell me, how non-awkward you would sound, if you had (e.g.)andromeda to write 24x7 about how Bosnian Serbs are really ex-croats, or smth equivalent, or that Serbdom never existed in Bosnia, you know the classic fanfare. Would you be so cool? Would you be so cool, if he referred to you as Serbianized Croat? hell no, of course. Well allow Novi to defend his Serbdom. I cannot get your logic on the matter. not at all.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Sept 19, 2010 2:00:44 GMT -5
Pyrros man it's awkward listening to you & especially Novi constantly flame the Bulgarians... especially when you should know that 99% of Serbs simply view Bulgarians as a similar friendly slavic Orthodox neighbour. man, you came to the party late and lost many episodes from the past. the truth is i like bulgarians as well. all except Ruse/Assan/Aziz. I like Ioan tho. tell me, how non-awkward you would sound, if you had (e.g.)andromeda to write 24x7 about how Bosnian Serbs are really ex-croats, or smth equivalent, or that Serbdom never existed in Bosnia, you know the classic fanfare. Would you be so cool? Would you be so cool, if he referred to you as Serbianized Croat? hell no, of course. Well allow Novi to defend his Serbdom. I cannot get your logic on the matter. not at all. I never called Bosnian Serbs ' Ex-Croats.' LOL. Bosnian Serbs are Serbs only west of the Drina ( i.e. Bosnia's currently defined political borders.) When discussing ancestors , particularly of the Bosnian Serbs , its likely that a majority of them were Ottoman settlers from different parts of the Ottoman Empire including Serbia. There is both genetic and historical evidence for this. Of course this would not be true of all Bosnian Serbs. The Herzegovian Serbs and the Serbs in the South East regions of Bosnia probably have ancestors originating there since the Serbs as a people settled in the Balkans ( ca 7-9th century). No one with any historical knowledge would deny centuries of Serb influence in Bosnia its just when certain people on the opposite end of the spectrum insist that the ONLY relevant aspect of BiH and its history was its Serb influence. Bosnia may have been settled and ruled by medieval Croat and Serb tribes but it was unique and developed its own identity distinct of what we consider Croatian and Serbian and it wasn't just because of the Turks since this happened much sooner. Oh and back to the topic. I think Croats and Serbs carry an Irano-Persian name. Linguistically we are Slavs. As for our ancient ancestors , we probably have more roots in the ancient Illyrian populace than Slav one. The further south you go it becomes less Slav-Germanic and more Illyrian. Oh and back to the names. There is strong evidence in support of Croat being of Persian origin and nothing really disputes that. It could have a Slav root since a 'hrvac' means wrestler or grappler. Were they named after fighters of some sort? A certain Byzantine emperor in the Middle Ages mentions that 'Croat' in the native Croat tongue means something like ' those who occupy or own much land.' I don't see the connection but maybe he made one. The same Emperor suggests that 'Serb' is not an ethnic label but a social one. He claims the Serbs received their namesake from the Roman Emperor who considered them slaves and servants ( he mentions Serb means slave or servant). He was probably wrong but wrote it in such as way since within his realm the Serbs served him loyally , for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Sept 19, 2010 5:27:34 GMT -5
Ive always been under the impression that Serbia had a strong mediterranean presence, from reading but also from what Ive seen, Serbs are particularly more mediterranean and darker featured when compared to for example Bosnians and Croats. Even my non-Balkan friend has commented on how Serbs and Bosnians (as in Bosniaks) here in Sweden look different, with Bosniaks being lighter ... and the Serbian community in Sweden is largely from Bosnia & Krajina, arguably lighter than Serbs from Serbia proper (minus Vojvodina, where I'd guess people are pretty light since the original Slavic element would be stronger). Coon seems to be of this opinion as well; Well first of all Donnie you are talking siht, and second of all you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not going to concern myself too much with what an Albanian living in Sweden with Bosniak Muslim friends is going to come up with anecdotally. It's more than obvious where your bias will lie. And Krajina/Bosnia Serbs are not notably different than other Serbs. Vojvodina was largely populated by Serbs from SE Serbia, & Krajina largely by Serbs from former Raska (Montenegro/Hercegovina). Hercegovinan Serbs were always there. So that's the part you don't know what you are talking about. The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians; 45 per cent of eyes are pure brown (Martin #2-4), as against 20 per cent which are pure or nearly pure light. Over 55 per cent have black or dark brown hair, while light browns and blonds come to less than 10 per cent. The beards are, of course, often lighter than the head hair. The skin is brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total. It is unlikely that the prevalence of brunet pigmentation among the Serbs came from a Slavic source, and as we shall presently see, the high incidence of dark eyes can hardly be called Dinaric. By elimination we must suppose that the Serbs, in their sojourn in northern Macedonia. accumulated a strong brunet tendency. Whatever Donnie. You guys are Med and it's quite logical since you are far more native to the Balkans. True Med we could have only inherited from people such as yours. I can see why Albanians are massive fans of Coon but he got a lot of stuff completely and utterly wrong with which has unfortunately allowed Albanians to feed them selves pretty lies. Dinaric perhaps with a little adjustment is far more appropriate for any one of the south slav peoples over Albanians. Denikers map clearly shows mostly slavic people as Dinaric. Albanians are the odd ones out in the sea, which also makes Ulf suggestion (which I though of long ago) with you guys being Dinaricised very plausible. A slavic influence when looking at your toponyms for one is really undeniable. Concerning just skin pigmentation, honestly I think Serbs are darker even than Albanians and Greeks, as for the rest of the stuff concerning physical anthropology, Albanians fail. You guys are a bunch of boxing, fighting, gangster Meds (nothing a Greek couldn't handle) and we are Dinaric basketballers. I know it must suck that we got the better deal but never mind you can feel better about having rosy cheeks and looking like "white people" in that way only Albanians can carry on about so much while we enjoy tanning our tannable skin every summer.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 19, 2010 5:51:38 GMT -5
if you had (e.g.)andromeda to write 24x7 I never .... (bla bla bla)man, if you hadn't missed the "e.g." part that would save you from writing yet another essay. Anyways, i read your text, its normal what you write. Add to this that the Serbs in Krajna might trace their their roots *before* the ottomans came. They might have gone there from Ipiros. I speculate some time between 1000 and 1400. Or maybe after the battle of Kosovo, when Greece fell into ottoman hands.
|
|