|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 17, 2011 0:58:35 GMT -5
^ Chento, you would agree its just a regional thing, not an ethnicity one as Ivo insinuates.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Aug 17, 2011 1:26:03 GMT -5
I would tend to agree that the 'Mediterranean' element is far more prevalent amongst Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanians then it is for Serbs and Croats. What you call 'mediterranean' we call 'Turkish,' 'Eastern,' and 'Oriental.' Among the Balkan groups I would say we Croats and some of the Albanians inherit the Med traits. You don't really have this in Macedonia do you :
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 17, 2011 2:32:22 GMT -5
"I would tend to agree that the 'Mediterranean' element is far more prevalent amongst Macedonians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanians then it is for Serbs and Croats." We can base this from a geographical view only, not one that ivo implies derives from ethnicity (Bulgarian, Serb) i.e, Pontids are Bulgarians and Dinarics are Serbs. If that were the case then we Serbs arn't Serbs because original Serbs were from the Nordic stock. Taking ivo's stupidity one further, then Danube BuLgari arn't Bulgars because originally they were Mongoloids. So, yes, from a geographical view, as you move further south towards Greece the mediterrean element gets stronger. Process of dinaricization was found even among Vinca bearers. The 6th-7th century Slavic invaders to Balkan were all robust leptodolicomorphic types as researches from Kosovo and some parts of Macedonia proved. Check it: www.scribd.com/doc/15785320/Zivko-Mikic-Anthropological-Traces-of-Slav-Presence-in-Kosovo-and-Metochia
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 17, 2011 12:56:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 18, 2011 0:09:01 GMT -5
^ idiot, serbs are not Turks. Dagestanis are your kin people. Why do you keep saying this?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 18, 2011 1:07:22 GMT -5
Lol Pazar, be cool bro. Calm down, count to ten, take deep breathes.
Now, let me break this down for you once more.. the general consensus in scholarly circles these days is that the old Serbs were an Irannic tribe.
And Irannic peoples were found all around the area of Dagestan.
Clear enough for ya?
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Aug 18, 2011 1:09:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 18, 2011 1:26:02 GMT -5
Hahaha, Serbian - Iranian theory is ridiculous
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 18, 2011 1:36:14 GMT -5
Ulf, the same can be said for Croats. Contemporary scholars are going in that direction for Bulgars as well.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 18, 2011 1:38:10 GMT -5
Also, the Iranian tribes of the past were not entirely similar to the modern day Iranians. Iranians today have a very heavy Arabic contribution to their ethnic gene pool.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 18, 2011 1:41:28 GMT -5
Ulf, from your link above (Zivko Mikic) can you post it here, l can't seem to get into this website.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 18, 2011 1:49:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 18, 2011 1:53:44 GMT -5
Ivo, relax, l don't go retarded like yourself behind a computer screen, l have the truth with me, there is no need. This Irannic theory is not so clear cut to me because all Indo-Europeans originated from one Proto group, this means that slavs, germanics, greeks etc....came from this group. Yes, l conceed that Slavic and Baltic is closest to Irannic, as slavic and baltic is more archaic than Germanic or latin, but l say closest because they are part of the Satem branch, not Centum. It could very well be that Slavic/Irannic and Baltic groups diverged away from their Indo-European homeland after the initial split, first by, todays groups of the Centum branch (Roman, Greek, Germanic etc....).
You never know, maybe Irannic groups split off from a Slavic/Irannic proto tribe?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 18, 2011 2:02:34 GMT -5
^ I'm not an expert on this. I've simply stated what I've observed. And that is that nowadays, scholars and historians seem to be going in the direction of Irannic origin for Croats, Serbs, and Bulgars.
These tendencies seem to be gaining noticeable popularity.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 18, 2011 2:04:51 GMT -5
Also, the Iranian tribes of the past were not entirely similar to the modern day Iranians. Iranians today have a very heavy Arabic contribution to their ethnic gene pool. I have absolute no reason to believe in this. Original Serbs have no touching points with Dagestanians or Caucasian region, rather with other Slavs in Baltic regions like for example Polabian Slavs. Now its totally another thing that Serbian government in late 19 and early 20 century completely fucked up the very little Slavic which left out of Serbs by assimilating Vlachs(especially under Karadjordjevic dynasty)
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 18, 2011 2:14:37 GMT -5
You should probably know that there are, or have been, theories that the Russians originally derived from Iranic tribes; particularly, the Roxolani. Though, this theory is not popular at all, and has been firmly displaced by the theory that the original Russians were actually Varangians.
I have also come across theories that draw parallels between early Slavs and early Irannians. So, as Pazar suggested above, about Irannic groups diverging from Slavic groups.. this may be plausible, who knows. But again, my knowledge on this topic is limited.
Arsenije was a the man for these sort of discussions, it be cool if he contributes to this.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Aug 18, 2011 2:24:31 GMT -5
You should probably know that there are, or have been, theories that the Russians originally derived from Iranic tribes; particularly, the Roxolani. Though, this theory is not popular at all, and has been firmly displaced by the theory that the original Russians were actually Varangians. I have also come across theories that draw parallels between early Slavs and early Irannians. So, as Pazar suggested above, about Irannic groups diverging from Slavic groups.. this may be plausible, who knows. But again, my knowledge on this topic is limited. Arsenije was a the man for these sort of discussions, it be cool if he contributes to this. I am not familiar with this sort of theories. I can only tell you about West Slavs, they were 1st time mentioned by Romans and were called Veneti(Roman historians considered them as Germans), later in middle age they were known as Wends and then they divided in smaller tribes. From this very same tribes Serbs originates
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 18, 2011 9:21:18 GMT -5
^ idiot, serbs are not Turks. Dagestanis are your kin people. Why do you keep saying this? Because the oldest and reliable sources mention that the Serbs lived there. I ve posted them countless time, but you never cared to comment, but you are quick to comment the "asian origin" of Bulgarians. As I said in some other post a Bulgarian saying comes to mind: the thief shouts "Catch the thief".
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 19, 2011 0:38:47 GMT -5
^ see, you don't explain yourself very well, when the serbs you say lived there, the region wasn't called Dagestan, correct?
PS not too far away from the homeland of today's turkish dagestanis, the Nordic indo-europeans had their homeland (Southern Russia). Where was the original homeland of your mongol BuLgari? Mongolia?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Aug 19, 2011 4:48:36 GMT -5
^ Shutch yer pie hole duuumboooo.
|
|