|
Post by terroreign on Jan 8, 2011 17:56:51 GMT -5
^Haplogroups don't mean a thing. And when it comes to culture, that traditional Montenegrin & Serbian dress more closely resembles Ossetian, than Albanian, is more than enough evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 8, 2011 18:01:51 GMT -5
Excuse me...how comes Serbs originate from centràl Europe, according to some, and now they suddenly became Ossetians?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 8, 2011 18:12:19 GMT -5
^Noone has ever claimed they come from central Europe. If you're meaning the Sorbs of Eastern Germany, they migrated there from the east around the early 6th century.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jan 8, 2011 18:43:00 GMT -5
Lol, both of those guys have pretty much the same type of look. As for me taking Patrinos' comment personally, I didn't seeing as he's right about Albanians often having big ears, small, deep set eyes and often also heads that have a triangular shape (which this guy does not have). The thing that made me comment was that both of them have the same phenotype. But I don't get mad over pitiful persons like Patrinos. Nice answer, let's actually answer on the comments properly shall we? Me saying that they look quite similar was not based on them having arms and legs, it was based on facial features. Don't play stupid with me. While it may be an old theory that Serbs have Sarmatian origins, it doesn't mean that it's correct also it's obvious that you put some of your own secret ingredients in this theory. This theory does seem to be more of a theory one will find on the Internet. Often thought out by people who knows little and often based on vague similarities (sometimes no similarities at all). The fact that the dress isn't identical was just something I disproved because you claimed they looked identical. What it proves is that your claim about the dresses being similar is false. And what makes me seem so desperate? I'm by no ways desperate to prove you wrong. You might be desperate to not have any counter-arguments though, it seems like it. With your weak character I think that would have fit you very much. At this very moment I'm actually quite calm. Anthropology does not fit you that well either to be honest, Krivo. You don't seem that well read and you make conclusions based on arguments thinner than this: www.styleguru.org/entry/italy-wages-war-against-anorexic-models/ And your comment was quite funny, why would I take this personally? Dinarids were found in Europe and more importantly in the Balkans long before the Serbs were ever even mentioned. Also Dinarids are much more usual in the Balkans, most of those you have posted are not even Dinaroids (check that up with any anthro forum, actually I could lead you to one which has people with knowledge) Dinaroid is not another word Serboid, they just named this look after the Dinaric alps. And the Dinarid look is much stronger in the Albanians, by this logic Albanians are more similar to the original Serbs than Serbs are, lol. Not promoted due to political correctness? What are you joking? This is a issue so unimportant that it's just politically uninteresting. Why should it be political incorrect and because of what? Seriously, are you just joking around or what, bro?
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jan 8, 2011 18:52:18 GMT -5
^Haplogroups don't mean a thing. And when it comes to culture, that traditional Montenegrin & Serbian dress more closely resembles Ossetian, than Albanian, is more than enough evidence. Haplogroups do mean a thing, it will tell us of a common ancestry. But as you have said earlier in another thread haplogroups do not mean much when it comes to looks. Otherwise we would have had Brits looking like native Americans or in our case (<3) Albanians and Montenegrins looking like Somalians. A lot of Montenegrins used to wear the Tirqe and other Albanian clothes before. And as said earlier the Ossetian and Montenegrin and Serbian dress are not similar other than being dresses. Actually the dress the Ossetian woman is wearing looks almost Asian in some way, the hat that the man wears are seen in other Caucasus people aswell. I might also add that folk dress =/ culture. When I referred to culture you knew just what I was referring to and you know just how close the Montenegrin, Herzegovinian and Gheg Albanian cultures are. And this has been commented by other people too, these were outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Jan 8, 2011 19:01:27 GMT -5
While it may be an old theory that Serbs have Sarmatian origins, it doesn't mean that it's correct also it's obvious that you put some of your own secret ingredients in this theory. This theory does seem to be more of a theory one will find on the Internet. Often thought out by people who knows little and often based on vague similarities (sometimes no similarities at all). The theory of Serbs being Saramatians does not sound strange, but it does not mean modern Serbs would HAVE to have relation to any surviving Iranian speaking group near the Black sea. The steppes have seen a lot of movements/changes of people, racially and ethnically. The steppe tribes were not very numerous, the powerful entities were confederacy of different tribes(mega-tribe). When these tribes settled in Europe, they diffused with the more numerous natives. Slavs and steppe Iranians were similar(DNA and language), so blending would have not changed much. Krivo is just going through a romanticism phase, forcing similarities between foreign nations, an infantile fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 8, 2011 19:23:46 GMT -5
I said the one on the right is mixed, not that he was completely armenoid. Still, you're off, their facial characteristics vary considerably. You were against this because Patrinos called it out as stereotypical Albanian, while the left is a Dinaroid. You're the one starting the irrelevant arguements, Georgians and most other Caucasoids are Armenoid type or something of that nature. Unlike the Ossetians, which this thread is attempting to prove. Secret ingredients? Which ones, please sir. You're insecurities are transparent. My theory is my theory, I never claimed it as fact! You're the one assuming that You seem like a person who's good at attacking others, but has little to no actual creative input himself. Much like atedadari And where do you see I said identical? I said resemble, you really should read slower...and think with your brain, not with your emotions. You're desperate because instead of adding to the discussion you choose to attack me personally. You feel your identity is being attacked by me or something, and this drives you into an emotional-defensive state. It's like teasing a girl, except I haven't given you any compliments yet. ;D Dinaric skulls and fossils are all a long story, much more complicated then you or I can imagine. Sarmatians have been in the Balkans long before the Serb settlement in the 7th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SerbinumLazyges and other Sarmatians were in the Balkans by 1st century AD In early 92, the Iazyges, in alliance with the Sarmatians proper and the Germanic Quadi, crossed the Danube into the Roman province of Pannonia (mod. Croatia, northern Serbia, and western Hungary). In May, the Iazyges shattered the Roman Legio XXI Rapax, soon afterwards disbanded in disgrace. The fighting continued until Domitian’s death in 96. How about you call them over here and let an un-biased eye tell us who's Dinaroid and who isn't No sh*t after the Dinaric alps lol Guess who're the native people of the Dinaric alps? Serbs, big surprise there friend. There are 11 million of us, 22 million including the Bosniaks and Croats, and only 8 million of you, I don't know where you get the idea Dinarid look is much stronger in the Albanians. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. No, just healthy observation. If this thread offends or upsets you, you can go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jan 8, 2011 22:08:24 GMT -5
No sh*t after the Dinaric alps lol Guess who're the native people of the Dinaric alps? Serbs, big surprise there friend. There are 11 million of us, 22 million including the Bosniaks and Croats, and only 8 million of you, I don't know where you get the idea Dinarid look is much stronger in the Albanians. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. I wish there was another study to proove this because I am absolutely sure Serbs are more Dinaric then Albanians who I think tend more towards Alpine-Med. I've said this. Ulf said this and some Greek a week ago commented that Dinarics were missing amongst Albanians. Anyway look at the Dinaric Alps. It's majority Serbs, followed by Croats and then Albanians are least populace. There should be no question.
|
|
|
Post by roflcopterlanding on Jan 8, 2011 22:08:27 GMT -5
No, we're known for being good looking people among pretty much all of the countries that we have some diaspora in. Especially Greece and Italy where large numbers of Albos reside. We guys really think you're super models.
|
|
|
Post by roflcopterlanding on Jan 8, 2011 22:12:49 GMT -5
Abkazians are Caucasians, in the same family as the Georgians and Chechens. What do you mean with "in the same family"?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 8, 2011 22:22:55 GMT -5
^Haplogroups don't mean a thing. And when it comes to culture, that traditional Montenegrin & Serbian dress more closely resembles Ossetian, than Albanian, is more than enough evidence. Haplogroups do mean a thing, it will tell us of a common ancestry. But as you have said earlier in another thread haplogroups do not mean much when it comes to looks. Otherwise we would have had Brits looking like native Americans or in our case (<3) Albanians and Montenegrins looking like Somalians. A lot of Montenegrins used to wear the Tirqe and other Albanian clothes before. And as said earlier the Ossetian and Montenegrin and Serbian dress are not similar other than being dresses. Actually the dress the Ossetian woman is wearing looks almost Asian in some way, the hat that the man wears are seen in other Caucasus people aswell. I might also add that folk dress =/ culture. When I referred to culture you knew just what I was referring to and you know just how close the Montenegrin, Herzegovinian and Gheg Albanian cultures are. And this has been commented by other people too, these were outsiders. They don't mean anything, nothing of importance. The tirqe is worn by Poles too, clearly not Albanian origin. Just like the plis, which is just a Greco-Roman hat, nothing to do with Illyrians. Illyrians had little ingenuity as a culture, they did not evolve or create. The Ossetian and Montenegrin dress do have similarities, one of the main ones being the Gunj, the Robe looking piece, along with disposable sleeves. Also leggings which both Montenegrins/Hercegovinians and Ossetians use, contrary to Albanians. Then there is the Ossetian hat, strangly similar to the Serbian Subara, the Serb winter hat, black and made of wool. The female dress is reminiscent of the Montenegrin female dress, silk-based like the Montenegrin, a gold-silver belt and tightly knitted vest & robe. Traditional costumes have meaning, and are a part of*groups culture. It's just one piece in the puzzle. OPEN YOUR EYES TO HISTORY In Ossetia Gazimestan
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 9, 2011 0:42:36 GMT -5
Abkazians are Caucasians, in the same family as the Georgians and Chechens. What do you mean with "in the same family"? They're not Indo-Europeans like us. They're all part of the greater Caucasian language family, living in the Caucasus mountains for the past 12,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Jan 9, 2011 5:06:07 GMT -5
Arsenije, when people talk about Albanians being hardcore Dinarics they are usually refering to Ghegs in general. According to Coon, Montenegro is the Dinaric core geographically but Ghegs are phenotypically more strictly Dinaric. Alpines are well known to be associated with Tosks and are thought to represent the original Epirotic type.
The larger part of Illyria is indeed in non-Albanian hands today. So why would it suprise anyone if numerically there are more Dinarics in ex-Yugoslavia than in Albanian lands?
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Jan 9, 2011 5:11:43 GMT -5
And I must admit that for all his stupidity I am just as entertained by Krivo's theory as I was by other Serbs trying to link Albanians to the Caucasus. The effort put in by people with identity issues to prove the absurd makes for a good laugh.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 9, 2011 6:17:53 GMT -5
Arsenije, when people talk about Albanians being hardcore Dinarics they are usually refering to Ghegs in general. According to Coon, Montenegro is the Dinaric core geographically but Ghegs are phenotypically more strictly Dinaric. Alpines are well known to be associated with Tosks and are thought to represent the original Epirotic type. The larger part of Illyria is indeed in non-Albanian hands today. So why would it suprise anyone if numerically there are more Dinarics in ex-Yugoslavia than in Albanian lands? Dinarics stretch from Albanian Alps all the way to Srpska Krajina, you'll find hardcore dinaric types all throughout. Especially in Hercegovina. The fact that Kosovo Albanians are nearly 100% Dinarics although most of Kosovo is not part of the Dinaric alps (this is going with the idea that Albanians aren't recent arrivals to Kosovo). At the same time, areas of Croatia outside Zagreb and half of Slovenia falls in the Dinaric mountain range, yet most aren't of Dinaroid type there. This goes against the traditional theory that the Dinaroid type formed from long-term evolution in the Dinaric alp environment. And coon's theory that Dinaroids are just a mix of Mediterranean and Alpine types was debunked due to clear affinity Dinaroid has to Armenoid rather than Mediterranid. Majority of modern Illyria today isn't inhabited by Illyrians, so figure it out. Illyrians were most-definitely of Mediterranean-Alpine look, close to the Greeks. Linking Albs to the Caucasus is just to rattle your chains, this is practical research.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jan 9, 2011 7:06:27 GMT -5
Arsenije, when people talk about Albanians being hardcore Dinarics they are usually refering to Ghegs in general. According to Coon, Montenegro is the Dinaric core geographically but Ghegs are phenotypically more strictly Dinaric. Alpines are well known to be associated with Tosks and are thought to represent the original Epirotic type. This doesn't contradict anything I or Krivo are suggesting. A larger percentage of Albanians (Tosks) are non-Dinaric then Serbs (south-east/Kosovo/FYROM) are. In fact you can ONLY talk of south-east Serbs as being non Dinaric dominant. It's a smaller percentage of our populace and there's no question to state that they were the most recent acquisition to Serbian ethnicity. Historically, contemporarily and genetically Serbs are most associated with Dinarics. You simply cant deny this. If you continue to do so as you are you are only lying to your self. Just to touch on haplogroups, I2a2 is literally called Dinaric and it's most associated with Serbs. Have a look on the Eupedia site. Croats claimed it as theirs initially but the results were proven to be more or less forged and subsequent genetics have shown that Serbs have it the most. Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are all more Dinaric then Albanians. All you need to do is have a very quick look at the pics on this site to see that Alpine-Med is more common amongst Albanians and Dinaric-Med amongst the slavs. I believe that Albanians are but ONE Illyrian tribe. Anyway this statement is exaggerated with false innuendo. It's like you are saying the entire Balkans was populated by Albanians which is very far fetched. Illyrians maybe, but not Albanian Illyrians. Plus more known history places modern Albanian regions under Serb/slav control then vice versa. Far less then 10% of Kosovo's population was Albanian in known history. Apart from a couple of major migrations it's far more plausible in known history to imagine how many slavs in Kosovo and surrounds were Albanized.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jan 9, 2011 7:08:39 GMT -5
You didn't mention that the one on the right is mixed at all.
You're the one starting the irrelevant arguements, Georgians and most other Caucasoids are Armenoid type or something of that nature. Unlike the Ossetians, which this thread is attempting to prove.
According to you this was an old theory, not just something you had made up. And you responded in a pretty confident way "I didn't make up anything there,it's all authentic"
So what if you did not say that the dresses were identical? There isn't any resemblance either other than the fact that both are dresses.
I expect you to answer me in a proper way, Krivo. Me being desperate or not is not important. You taking some of my comments so close to the heart isn't my problem, I have pointed out to you being wrong, live with it. Seriously, emotional-defensive state? Don't try to get of the subject. Why would I feel that my identity is being attacked? Stop acting like a dumbass, Krivo. Me responding to your posts is not because of me feeling that my identity is being attacked.
Oh, really? Thank god we have actual anthropoligists then. Anthropologists who have found Dinaric skulls (fossils? Do you know what a fossil is?) long before Serbs or Sarmatians were in the Balkans, or for that matter long before they ever were mentioned. Dinarics are found to be quite native to the Balkan regions. They were there long before we knew of the Illyrians, Thracians, Hellens and etc.
The Dinaric alps go through vast parts of Northern-Albania and Kosova. And Kosova is nothing but a mere extension of Northern-Albania, the people of Dukagjin, Malsia e madhe, Malsia e Gjakoves and etc are basically the same as those of Kosova. There being less Albanians than south-Slavs have nothing with how strong the Dinarid look is among either of them. I got this idea from anthropologists who actually have gone through these lands and measured people and etc like Coon. I would like to show you where he mentions the strong Dinarid look in Albanians and the Med element in Serbs from Serbia. And from what I have seen in Kosova, the Serbs there are mostly Alpines and Gorids.
It does not offend me, although it's based on rather weak similarities (or no similiarities/made up ones)
Serbs from Kosova are mostly on the Alpine and Gorid side. Serbs from Serbia are more mixed, there are for example lots of med influences, alpines, dinarics and etc. But the Dinaric character of the Serbs is weaker than in the Albanians. Even the Serbs themselves say that they are mostly dolicochephal, what they often fail to say is that this is not typical of Dinarids. They often say that it's something recent, that the modern Dinarics are long headed, which is not true seeing as Serb dolicochephalacy was noted a long time ago too. Other people have not gone from short headed to long headed, therefore this can only mean that this dolicochephalacy is derived from med influence.
Albanians don't have many Alpine-Meds, it's usually only Alpines of which we do have a considerable amount of. And those Meds we do have are mostly Pontids and Atlanto-meds and not gracile meds. I don't care about what Ulf and some other Greeks said, I have backing from an actual anthropogist who actually measured Albanians. Albanians can be diverse but we're usually on the Brachychephal side, either as Alpines or Dinarics. We're mostly Dinaric with Alpine, Noric, UP/Cro-magnon like types and Pontids after that we have some other minor types that are not that important.
And as I said earlier large parts of Northern-Albania (almost all of the mountains in Northern-Albania are a part of the Dinaric alps) and Kosova lie in the Dinaric alps. Western Kosova lies in the Dinaric alps and Kosovars are exactly the same as the Albanians of the Dinaric alps. I don't think the Albanians are the least in the Dinaric alps and Bosnia has a larger amount of the Dinaric alps in it's territory than Croatia has.
|
|
|
Post by odel on Jan 9, 2011 7:39:14 GMT -5
I disagree with you strongly here, trying to connect looks with haplogroups does not work at all. People would have looked a lot less different if it was like that. Russians, Poles and other Slavs would have looked like Southern-Asians, Brits would have looked very similar to Basques, French, Spanish and Portuguese, Albanians and Montenegrins would have looked like Somalians or North-Africans and etc. The pictures thread is not very representative, none of those picture threads are very representative of looks. You'll have to go to the actual country to get a representative variety of people. And I don't see all of those Alpine-Meds you are talking about, actual anthropologists have never noticed these Alpine-Meds that you are talking about.
I agree, there were plenty of Illyrian tribes and I believe that there must have been some differences between these. However, do notice that there's still a strong link between the more northern and southern Illyrian tribes (Albanians). For example we have Dalmatia, the word Dalmatia comes from Albanian delmë or dele. Which would also fit quite well seeing as the Dalmatians were known for being nomadic herdsmen. There are also the links between Romanian and Albanian that tell us that they probably must have lived in the vicinity of each other, Malcolm Noel I think argues that the Albanians probably came from Kosovo. Which is a bit ironic seeing as those who claim Kosovo often try to make the Albanianness of this area as small as possible, while it might be the birthplace of the Albanian language.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jan 9, 2011 7:49:08 GMT -5
I disagree with you strongly here, trying to connect looks with haplogroups does not work at all. People would have looked a lot less different if it was like that. Russians, Poles and other Slavs would have looked like Southern-Asians, Brits would have looked very similar to Basques, French, Spanish and Portuguese, Albanians and Montenegrins would have looked like Somalians or North-Africans and etc. The pictures thread is not very representative, none of those picture threads are very representative of looks. You'll have to go to the actual country to get a representative variety of people. And I don't see all of those Alpine-Meds you are talking about, actual anthropologists have never noticed these Alpine-Meds that you are talking about. As far as I am concerned I have noticed many contradictory genetics claims, claims that have been proven false and claims I disagree with. In any case, Serbs are currently genetically more associated with Dinarics then Albanians are and I really doubt that will change. If you are talking about toponyms, one thing is certain, slavic toponyms are far more prevalent in Albania then Albanian or Illyrian (they should be separated) toponyms are in Serbian/slav lands. I believe there's a good chance that Albanians carry a strong slavic component. You can't deny that Albanians (as the less populace people), bear greater semblance to the more populace slavic people of the region. ... I'll say it again, Serbs are more Dinaric then Albanians. I believe that 100%.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 9, 2011 8:09:00 GMT -5
I didn't state he was Armenoid, I said he had Armenoid features. Do you understand subtleties in the English language? They're not dresses, they're robes, specifically Gunj. And I noted the specific similarities if you cared to look. What I'm reading here is you repeating to yourself that you're not what you clearly are. The Subconscious is a powerful thing odel, you came on this thread just to start a fight, and it seems you don't consciously know it. Sure, because skulls of racial sub-groups conform so perfectly to the their groups. Sure what happens if a mediterranid had a kid with an alpine-med, would anthropologists be able to accurately classify this kid's skull? No, not really. Now are you also aware that your beloved Coon claims that Dinarics are just product of Alpines and Mediterraneans? The origins of the Dinaroid type aren't as established as you might hope Odel, my Yokel. A little bit of West Kosovo and that's all. You do know Kosovo is a plain right? And yet Dinarics all over the place! And Serbs of Sandzak/Raska, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Dalmatia and Krajina are all Dinaric, these people account for 80% of the origins in Serbia. Life-blood of the nation. It's clear from this thread you see what you want to see. Serbs are steadily Dinaric, this is proven through our faces, nothing more nothing less. Go take a trip to Herzegovina, meet the Chetniks, drink some Rakija. You'll meet hardcore Dinaroids. You'll have a blast. So if it's so ridiculous surely you can just shrug it off and go comment on more Hasim Thaci threads or something. But you don't, that's the point. Deep inside that little brain of yours you know this makes too much sense, and it compromises your own dream of Dinaric being an Albanian thing. Dude the way you sound, I doubt you've come across even 3 Serbs from Kosovo. Serbs from Vojvodina indeed are mixed, as you get down to Central Serbia though it's more and more Dinaric, even Eastern Serbia contrary to what Arsenije said. Dinaroids are present also in Northern Macedonia. Besides Kosovo and Malesija, you have no Dinarics. If you do, I'd be interested in seeing evidence of this. You need a geography lesson. Slovenia is in the Dinaric alps, yet somehow *gasp* they're mainly alpines and nords!
|
|