Haplogroup frequency correlations in Southeastern Europe

[Ace Rimmer]

I have decided to investigate the correlations between haplogroup frequencies in southeastern Europe and some neighboring populations. Currently, I have collected frequency data for the main haplogroups found in the region (E3b, J2, I, R1a, R1b) for 16 populations. Most 3-letter codes should be recognizable, but KAL=Kosovo Albanians, SMA=Slav Macedonians, CAL=Calabrians. I should also note that the frequency of haplogroup I in Bulgarians is interpolated from frequencies in Romanians, Greeks, Slav Macedonians and Serbians, as it was missing in the original article. Conclusions about Bulgarians are especially weak, due to this reason, and also the small original sample (N=24).

I began by calculating the correlation matrix in my sample.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4616/cor5xp.jpg

A few features strike the eye:

-The negative correlation between haplogroup R1 and haplogroups E3b, J2, and R1b
-The negative correlation between haplogroup I and haplogroups J2 and R1b
-The positive correlation between haplogroup J2 and haplogroup R1b
-The absence of a substantial correlation between "Neolithic" haplogroups J2 and E3b

As the next analysis will make clear, variation is explained by the presence of two main groupings: a "continental" group comprising of Slavic speakers and a "coastal" group comprising of all others.

The absence of a correlation between J2 and E3b is significant, because it hints that these haplogroups did not diffuse as a result of a single process. The eastern-most populations of our sample, but also the two Italian populations show a higher J2/E3b ratio compared to the "continental" populations.

The second analysis is a dendrogram using Euclidean distance of the normalized haplogroup frequencies. As is apparent, this way of representing the frequency data results in a separation of the two main clusters.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1643/dendrogram6bw.jpg

Finally, a principal components analysis is shown in the following plot. The first two components summarize about 77% of the variance.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/416/princomp5or.jpg

We observe the two main "contrasts" in the data between "coastal" J2/R1b and "continental" I1b and between "Neolithic" E3b and "Slavic" R1a (*)

Several conclusions can be drawn.

-The spread of the Neolithic economy into continental Europe involved E3b bearers in a riverine expansion whose northern expression is associated with the Linearbandkeramik. This does not mean that E3b was the only haplogroup associated with these early European farmers, only that it definitely seems to correlate better with this movement compared to the other Neolithic haplogroup (J2).

-The early diffusion of E3b occurred over a haplogroup I Paleolithic background. It is likely that as groups moved northward the frequency of haplogroup E3b abated, and this is in fact shown in the frequency distribution. This movement is probably associated with the narrow-faced Danubian Mediterranean racial types.

-This native European population later received an influx of R1a speakers; the frequency of R1a is correlated with latitude. This led to a decrease of the native component in favor of the foreign R1a component (*)

-The frequency of haplogroup J2 was established by three movements: (i) the initial arrival of J2 from Asia Minor; this did not significantly penetrate into the Western Balkans; (ii) the initial dispersal of J2 into Italy and further west, and around the Black Sea in pre-Greek times, which may be associated with the arrival of gracile Mediterranean racial types into the Ukraine; (iii) the latter dispersal of additional J2 as a result of Greek colonization.

It is imperative that the fine-level phylogeography of haplogroup J2 be resolved. The high frequency of this haplogroup around the Black Sea compared to the western Balkans is highly suggestive of Greek colonization, as it is well known that Greek colonization of the Black Sea was much more intensive than Greek activity in the Adriatic. However, archaeological evidence also shows the northward diffusion of agriculturalists in Thrace to Romania, culminating in the Tripoljie culture and its steppe offshoots. We must be able to distinguish between this earlier movement and the later maritime arrival of the Greeks.

The critical question would be: what fraction of J2 lineages in the Ukraine can be explained as the result of ancient and recent Greek settlement in the Crimea, and what fraction predates the Greeks?

(*) We should note that these are rough correspondences. If the theory of riverine diffusion of haplogroup E3b into Central and Northern Europe is correct, then it is likely that E3b existed in a small frequency in Proto-Slavs; conversely, R1a diffused after the LGM before its most recent diffusion associated perhaps with Slavic languages.

Update: A reader alerts me to a different study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15024688&dopt=Citation)which listed the Hungarian R1a frequency as substantially lower than the one used here (Semino et al. 2000). Unfortunately, that study did not list frequencies of all haplogroups needed for comparison, so it could not be used directly. If the frequency of R1a=20.4% is used, then a slightly different clustering is obtained.

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/3411/dendrogram7or4no.th.jpg (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dendrogram7or4no.jpg)

Dienekes' Athropology Blog (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/08/haplogroup-frequency-correlations-in.html)

[Ace Rimmer]

It seems that with this Hungarians seem most alike to Austrians, Croats and West Ukranians.

It appears so, despite endless rants from Slav anthro horde and term "Balkanoid" they coined for ex-Yu peoples (with exception of Slovenia).

Moreover, when Croats call upon right to self determination, and if it is Central Europe, we have witnessed mockery and degradation, ignorant persistence on this “Balkan” terminology ignoring all relevant facts in order
to fit the pan-Slavic agenda of alleged brotherhood, similarities and ties of Croats and Serbs.

Well, the good old news is, Croats are Central European geographically, culturally, historically and, yes, genetically. ;)

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1643/dendrogram6bw.jpg

[Zrinski]

Funny things is that this is coming from Diekenes' site who claimed exactly the opposite on Stirpes....seems like he finally looked at that data. :p

[Banat]

It appears so, despite endless rants from Slav anthro horde and term "Balkanoid" they coined for ex-Yu peoples (with exception of Slovenia).

Moreover, when Croats call upon right to self determination, and if it is Central Europe, we have witnessed mockery and degradation, ignorant persistence on this “Balkan” terminology ignoring all relevant facts in order
to fit the pan-Slavic agenda of alleged brotherhood, similarities and ties of Croats and Serbs.

Well, the good old news is, Croats are Central European geographically, culturally, historically and, yes, genetically. ;)

How can either Serbs or Croats be viewed as 'homogeneous' peoples? They both consist of various sub-types, it's only the matter which one prevails, and in what percentage.

I don't know what a 'Balkanoid' is, but if it was an inhabitant of Balkan Peninsula, then Dalmatians and Herzegovians are Balkanoids, no matter they are Croats, and they certainly aren't 'Central Europeans'.

[Zrinski]

I don't know what a 'Balkanoid' is, but if it was an inhabitant of Balkan Peninsula, then Dalmatians and Herzegovians are Balkanoids, no matter they are Croats, and they certainly aren't 'Central Europeans'.

Sorry but no....Dalamtians and Herzegovinians cannot be Balkanoids.

[Watzy]

I don't know what a 'Balkanoid' is, but if it was an inhabitant of Balkan Peninsula, then Dalmatians and Herzegovians are Balkanoids, no matter they are Croats, and they certainly aren't 'Central Europeans'.

Applying the same (exclusively geographic) principle, the Turks of Istanbul are Europeans, while Peruans and Canadians - Americans.

[Ace Rimmer]

How can either Serbs or Croats be viewed as 'homogeneous' peoples? They both consist of various sub-types, it's only the matter which one prevails, and in what percentage.

Yes? Where did the article or I said anything about homogeneity?

I don't know what a 'Balkanoid' is, but if it was an inhabitant of Balkan Peninsula, then Dalmatians and Herzegovians are Balkanoids,

No they are not. Even geographically the term is quite dubious, let alone other (culture, sub-race...)
In my knowledge Balkan is mountain region in Bulgaria,
also prior to 1900 "Balkan" was defined geographically east of Drina,
until some CNN reporter coined the last war as "Balkan war" and since then we are stuck with it.



no matter they are Croats, and they certainly aren't 'Central Europeans'.

Yes it does matter that they are Croats, they agitate to Zagreb
and are connected to it more than to anyone else in region.

[Banat]

Yes? Where did the article or I said anything about homogeneity?

Indeed :o. It seems I presumed it.

But the idea of Herzegovians (or: Herzegovinians) and Dalmatians being not 'Balkanoids' only if Roman-Catholics, helped a little.

No they are not. Even geographically the term is quite dubious, let alone other (culture, sub-race...)
In my knowledge Balkan is mountain region in Bulgaria,
also prior to 1900 "Balkan" was defined geographically west of Drina,
until some CNN reporter coined the last war as "Balkan war" and since then we are stuck with it.

Yes, it is a little complicated, that is why I was wondering what 'Balkanoid' actually meant. It seems that it is just a vague idea.

Intuitively, if a Balkanoid is a European of those southern parts with certain characteristics such as temperament, certain mental features, even physical appearance, to me there is very little difference between the people of those Dinarid areas from Montenegro to Lika, and to Western Serbia and Sumadia. (A subjective note).

But if we speak of Balkan as a peninsula and not as some abstract idea, no line can possibly be set by the Drina river.

Yes it does matter that they are Croats, they agitate to Zagreb
and are connected to it more than to anyone else in region.

Would this reason be enough to call them Central Europeans? If it is then I agree.

Applying the same (exclusively geographic) principle, the Turks of Istanbul are Europeans, while Peruans and Canadians - Americans.

Would it be the same? 'Balkanoid' is a more specific term than 'European' and 'American'. Differences between Herzegovians and Montenegrins, and between Herzegovians and Western Serbians are micro-differences. Differences between Istrians and Bulgarians hardly exist compared to those between Peruans and Canadians.

[Ace Rimmer]

Indeed :o. It seems I presumed it.

Indeed, it talks merely about sampling together all available data from
various ethnicities(Croatian sample consist of all Croatian regions btw.)
and clustering them together, to form dendrogram from which clearly
can be seen that Croatians are more related to CE peoples such are Slovenians and Hungarians.
While Serbs are more South-East European, clustering together with Slavic Macedonians and Bulgarians.

But the idea of Herzegovians (or: Herzegovinians) and Dalmatians being not 'Balkanoids' only if Roman-Catholics, helped a little.

Yes, it is a little complicated, that is why I was wondering what 'Balkanoid' actually meant. It seems that it is just a vague idea.

If it is vague idea (i.e. geo-political term), then by all means yes, besides
being Roman-Catholics, their geo-political self determination does not
involve "Balkan" but Zagreb.


Intuitively, if a Balkanoid is a European of those southern parts with certain characteristics such as temperament, certain mental features, even physical appearance, to me there is very little difference between the people of those Dinarid areas from Montenegro to Lika, and to Western Serbia and Sumadia. (A subjective note).

I agree to extent, the Dinarid area we are talking about does not involve Western Serbia and Sumadia. (A subjective note)


But if we speak of Balkan as a peninsula and not as some abstract idea, no line can possibly be set by the Drina river.

But somehow, south of Sava is acceptable?

Would this reason be enough to call them Central Europeans? If it is then I agree.

Yes, if we agree that Balkan is merely geo-political term, and that it in fact
does change depending on political situation(like it does throughout centuries).

Parallel can be drawn with so called "Eastern Europe", which ceased to exist in 1990 with fall of Soviet Union.
Useless term coined for all countries of Warszaw pact under Soviets.


Differences between Herzegovians and Montenegrins, and between Herzegovians and Western Serbians are micro-differences.

Genetically speaking, recent sampling of 3 Bosnian ethnicities
revealed that Croats and Serbs differ.

[Banat]

Indeed, it talks merely about sampling together all available data from
various ethnicities(Croatian sample consist of all Croatian regions btw.)
and clustering them together, to form dendrogram from which clearly
can be seen that Croatians are more related to CE peoples such are Slovenians and Hungarians.
While Serbs are more South-East European, clustering together with Slavic Macedonians and Bulgarians.

I agree with that, I only think more of those peoples by their region, not national reference. According to that, I roughly differ Dinarid Serbs (more similar do Dinarid Croats and Muslims/Bosniaks), Pannonian ones (similar to Hungarians, Romanians and Pannonian Croats), and those of Eastern and Southern areas (similar to Romanians, Bulgarians and Slav Macedonians).

I agree to extent, the Dinarid area we are talking about does not involve Western Serbia and Sumadia. (A subjective note)

Yes, Sumadia isn't such clear Dinarid area like the afore mentioned, and the people is somewhat milder, but Western Serbians are mostly all Herzegovians. Some of them are even called 'Eras', from (H)Erzegovina.

But somehow, south of Sava is acceptable?

I meant that borders of an peninsula couldn't be drawn along its length. And I think that Sava-Kupa line is more acceptable, like we learned at school; I've only heard from some Slovenian sources about the Sava line.

Genetically speaking, recent sampling of 3 Bosnian ethnicities
revealed that Croats and Serbs differ.

I've heard about that. But should those results be viewed in that way? In the example of B&H, Herzegovian portion is much greater with Croats than with Muslims and Serbs, while Eastern Bosnian portion is greater with Serbs than with Croats and Muslims. Several different groups can be noted in B&H, out of which Herzegovina, Krajina and Central areas come into view first, and the three people live in all of them, even look and behave alike.

Was there any research made that compared Croats from Herzegovina to Serbs from Herzegovina, or Muslims from Sarajevo to Serbs from Sarajevo, or, I don't know, Serbs from Banja Luka to Croats of the area?

If it is stated that this feature, or that feature is more common with Serbs than with Croats, and the other way around, I think that it would be a mistake to speak of those people 'as a whole', but rather of features. I bet Zagorje features, if there is such thing, doesn't exist with Serbs at all, as the same could be said to Croats having 'Rodopian' features, which make the two more similar to Slovenes and Bulgarians respectively. I admit, I know nothing but the mare basis of genetics, so what I said shouldn't be viewed as a criticism, but rather a common sense wondering.

[Watzy]

@Banat

Can you define 'Balkanoids' in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, race, religion or commune history?

[Ace Rimmer]

I meant that borders of an peninsula couldn't be drawn along its length. And I think that Sava-Kupa line is more acceptable, like we learned at school; I've only heard from some Slovenian sources about the Sava line.


Why is it more acceptable?


I've heard about that. But should those results be viewed in that way? In the example of B&H, Herzegovian portion is much greater with Croats than with Muslims and Serbs, while Eastern Bosnian portion is greater with Serbs than with Croats and Muslims.

True.
While Eastern Bosnian sampling is greater with Serbs than Croats for reason obvious,
Croats do not live in Eastern Bosnia.
I don't know what is the problem with viewing the result in Bosnia?



Several different groups can be noted in B&H, out of which Herzegovina, Krajina and Central areas come into view first, and the three people live in all of them, even look and behave alike.

I do not know nothing about looking and behaving alike since I do not live there neither I have any solid data that would suggest that.

On the other hand, quite contrary,

from "Races Of Europe" , Carleton S. Coon

"The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians"

"The mean cephalic index of the Bosnians is over 85; this varies by religions, with the Catholics the most brachycephalic (86), and the Moslems the least (84). The Catholics are likewise the tallest and the lightest skinned; being the oldest population in the region in point of conversion, and the least affected by outside influences, the Catholic element preserves both a pre-Slavic and a pre-Turkish racial configuration more completely than do the partisans of Orthodoxy or Islam. "

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII12.htm

for which could be said is in accordance with Y-chromosome sampling of 3 main ethnicities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


Was there any research made that compared Croats from Herzegovina to Serbs from Herzegovina, or Muslims from Sarajevo to Serbs from Sarajevo, or, I don't know, Serbs from Banja Luka to Croats of the area?

The sampling areas are known, but in the study only overall data for Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats are displayed, not detailed by region or by individual.


If it is stated that this feature, or that feature is more common with Serbs than with Croats, and the other way around, I think that it would be a mistake to speak of those people 'as a whole', but rather of features. I bet Zagorje features, if there is such thing, doesn't exist with Serbs at all, as the same could be said to Croats having 'Rodopian' features, which make the two more similar to Slovenes and Bulgarians respectively.

I don't know why there is problem with the "whole" picture, sampling by ethnicities,
it is common practice in entire world.
True, the data by region varies and researches were carried out that, of course , confirm this.
There is nothing questionable about that.

I admit, I know nothing but the mare basis of genetics, so what I said shouldn't be viewed as a criticism, but rather a common sense wondering.

Same here.

[Banat]

Why is it more acceptable?

Because the Sava river goes further to the north-west from the Kupa-Sava mouth, out of the peninsula, also breaking the almost perfect line formed by the Kupa-Sava-Danube rivers (if we ignore the exception of Dobruja at the utmost east, of course).

True.
While Eastern Bosnian sampling is greater with Serbs than Croats for reason obvious,
Croats do not live in Eastern Bosnia.
I don't know what is the problem with viewing the result in Bosnia?

The problem always occurs with the numbers. Let's say, for instance, that a feature is found among Herzegivinians to be significantly more present than with people of other areas. If, for instance, 40% of Bosnian Croats are Herzegovinians, while on the other hand only 12% or so of Bosnian Serbs are Herzegovinians, while at the same time ~50% Herzegovinians are Croats, and ~50% Serbs, it would be misleading to speak of the feature as of 'common feature of Bosnian Croats', and not 'common feature of Herzegovinians'. It would be true, but also misleading.

I do not know nothing about looking and behaving alike since I do not live there neither I have any solid data that would suggest that.

I made that opinion according to my contacts with people who live, or have lived, in those areas, also according to testimonies of 'outsiders' who spent much time there.

On the other hand, quite contrary,

from "Races Of Europe" , Carleton S. Coon

"The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians"

"The mean cephalic index of the Bosnians is over 85; this varies by religions, with the Catholics the most brachycephalic (86), and the Moslems the least (84). The Catholics are likewise the tallest and the lightest skinned; being the oldest population in the region in point of conversion, and the least affected by outside influences, the Catholic element preserves both a pre-Slavic and a pre-Turkish racial configuration more completely than do the partisans of Orthodoxy or Islam. "

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII12.htm

Exactly what I said. Those Catholics are mostly Herzegovinians, who do not differ from Herzegovinian Orthodoxes. Let me put it this way: if by any chance, for instance, all non-Herzegovinian B&H Serbs didn't exist, what we would have left is a small Serbian population consisted of 100% Herzegovinians, then in relative numbers it could be said that Serbs were the tallest and the 'lightest-skinned' population in Bosnia. One should be very careful with statistics and its interpretation, for the same correct data can be used and misused in many ways.

Considering Carleton Coon, neither he, nor anyone else has ever done any serious research in Serbian territories, naming what samples were taken, in what odds and from what regions. I think he hasn't even been to Serbia. All the sources available for him were from second-hand, based on common observations and subjective impressions. For instance, a another anthropologist, Jan Czekanowski, has come to somewhat different conclusions:

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/1417/terytoriaantropologicznepolwys.jpg


Laponoid (Alpine) majority
Absolute Armenoid majority
Relative Armenoid majority
Central European mixed territory, majority of Nordic element
Majority of Mediterranean race




Two anthropologists and two opposite conclusions.

The sentence: "The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians" is also misleading, for it speaks of numbers too and not of some universal quality. There is absolutely NO WAY to differ a Croat from a Serb by physical appearance. For example, both of the following persons could pass as either:

http://img448.imageshack.us/img448/1771/radisa19os.jpg
Person A

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8369/blond3su.jpg
Person B

Either can pass both as a Serb or a Croat, there is no way to tell. BUT, if in a sample of 10, there is a one or two of exhibit A more in the Serbian group than in Croatian, or vice versa, one would be very haste to qualify the whole group as 'darker in pigmentation' than the other.

The sampling areas are known, but in the study only overall data for Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats are displayed, not detailed by region or by individual.

Which is exactly what I said: an interpretation of results. I'm not criticizing it, as I'm just about to say:

I don't know why there is problem with the "whole" picture, sampling by ethnicities,
it is common practice in entire world.
True, the data by region varies and researches were carried out that, of course , confirm this.
There is nothing questionable about that.

There is absolutely no problem, I was only trying to make the point that the situation just isn't that simple as presented. In fact, I'm not at all arguing the results.

P.S. @Zvaci: I'm just about to answer your question, I didn't forget.

[Zrinski]

Jan Czekanowski, has come to somewhat different conclusions:

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/1417/terytoriaantropologicznepolwys.jpg


Laponoid (Alpine) majority
Absolute Armenoid majority
Relative Armenoid majority
Central European mixed territory, majority of Nordic element
Majority of Mediterranean race


ROFL!
Armenoids in Europe? I believe he also mistaken DInarids with Armenoids...the two have nothing in common. Also Armenoids(Dinarids) being majority in Northern Croatia?! Thats just ridiculous. ROFL!!

[Banat]

Armenoids in Europe? I believe he also mistaken DInarids with Armenoids...

He obviously seems to have used a different terminology. Those "Armenoids", as he calls them, are obviously Dinaroids. He also calls Alpines "Laponoids".

[Zrinski]

The thing is that Alpines and Dinarids have much more in common than Dinarids have with Armenoids. Also Laponoids would correspond more with Baltid type.

If we would generalize Baltids would be Nordish while Dinarids and Armenoids would belong to Alpine race. He uses totally wrong not different terminology.

Btw. here is another map of his...a bit more better and correct.

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload0/czekanowskimap.jpg

[Ace Rimmer]

Because the Sava river goes further to the north-west from the Kupa-Sava mouth, out of the peninsula, also breaking the almost perfect line formed by the Kupa-Sava-Danube rivers (if we ignore the exception of Dobruja at the utmost east, of course).

How about the perfect line formed by Drina-Dunav Rivers. Since we are into aesthetic definition now. :rolleyes:

The problem always occurs with the numbers. Let's say, for instance, that a feature is found among Herzegivinians to be significantly more present than with people of other areas. If, for instance, 40% of Bosnian Croats are Herzegovinians, while on the other hand only 12% or so of Bosnian Serbs are Herzegovinians, while at the same time ~50% Herzegovinians are Croats, and ~50% Serbs, it would be misleading to speak of the feature as of 'common feature of Bosnian Croats', and not 'common feature of Herzegovinians'. It would be true, but also misleading.

That's all let's say this and that, I , on the other hand will stick to the available data thank you. ;) No need to deviate the subject.

I made that opinion according to my contacts with people who live, or have lived, in those areas, also according to testimonies of 'outsiders' who spent much time there.

Which is not to be taken valid or seriously.

Exactly what I said. Those Catholics are mostly Herzegovinians, who do not differ from Herzegovinian Orthodoxes.

No, it is not exactly what you said.
This similarity of Herzegovinian Catholics and Orthodox who do not differ is merely your subjective note, while Carleton S.Coon suggests otherwise.

Let me put it this way: if by any chance, for instance, all non-Herzegovinian B&H Serbs didn't exist, what we would have left is a small Serbian population consisted of 100% Herzegovinians, then in relative numbers it could be said that Serbs were the tallest and the 'lightest-skinned' population in Bosnia. One should be very careful with statistics and its interpretation, for the same correct data can be used and misused in many ways.

You are again into speculations with "if by any chance" and thus further deviate from the original data.
You are contributing with unnecessary confusion, the data is clear,
and there is no need for further interpretation and deviation.

Considering Carleton Coon, neither he, nor anyone else has ever done any serious research in Serbian territories, naming what samples were taken, in what odds and from what regions. I think he hasn't even been to Serbia. All the sources available for him were from second-hand, based on common observations and subjective impressions.

He listed the sources he cited besides his own work.
Among the sources are Slovene Skerlj , Italian Biasutti and Serbs Cvijic and Males,
which are not second-hand sources and data of subjective impressions thank you,
the only one here who is having a subjective note is you.

For instance, a another anthropologist, Jan Czekanowski, has come to somewhat different conclusions:

This is about sub-race, while Jan Czekanowski's taxonomy on sub-races is not
quite accepted, that of Carleton S. Coon is ,and is foundation for all relevant studies on the matter since the time, in what genetics approved of in his favour.


The sentence: "The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians" is also misleading, for it speaks of numbers too and not of some universal quality.

No it's not misleading, it is very clear. "The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians"

There is absolutely NO WAY to differ a Croat from a Serb by physical appearance.

Yes there are ways. Some overlap does exist, but we are two different people.


Either can pass both as a Serb or a Croat, there is no way to tell. BUT, if in a sample of 10, there is a one or two of exhibit A more in the Serbian group than in Croatian, or vice versa, one would be very haste to qualify the whole group as 'darker in pigmentation' than the other.

He was talking on the average. :rolleyes:

There is absolutely no problem, I was only trying to make the point that the situation just isn't that simple as presented. In fact, I'm not at all arguing the results.

I sense that there is problem, deviation, subjective interpretations and importing confusion into very clear and simple topic from the beginning.

[Ace Rimmer]

Also Armenoids(Dinarids) being majority in Northern Croatia?! Thats just ridiculous. ROFL!!

And Sumadia being Central European with predominant Nordic element.

[Zrinski]

And Sumadia being Central European with predominant Nordic element.

Indeed. It's just hillarious. :p

[Ace Rimmer]

Indeed. It's just hillarious. :p

So is Central European Nordic with Slovenes that somehow follows
exact route of Croatian-Slovene border. :rolleyes:

[Zrinski]

So is Central European Nordic with Slovenes that somehow follows exact route of Croatian-Slovene border. :rolleyes:

It just shows how arrtifical that map is.

[Banat]

How about the perfect line formed by Drina-Dunav Rivers. Since we are into aesthetic definition now. :rolleyes:

No, you can't draw a border of a peninsula along its length and mark more than its 1/6 out of it.

That's all let's say this and that, I , on the other hand will stick to the available data thank you. ;) No need to deviate the subject.

No, I just pointed out how the same misinterpretation would appear if the the odds were somewhat different. In a serious discussion all possible and hypothetical situations are free to discuss.

Which is not to be taken valid or seriously.

Only if it was a false testimony, which it wasn't.

No, it is not exactly what you said.
This similarity of Herzegovinian Catholics and Orthodox who do not differ is merely your subjective note, while Carleton S.Coon suggests otherwise.

Coon suggests that there are significant racial differences between Orthodox and Catholic Herzegovinians?

You are again into speculations with "if by any chance" and thus further deviate from the original data.
You are contributing with unnecessary confusion, the data is clear,
and there is no need for further interpretation and deviation.

The data *is* clear. It says that certain features are more common with Croats, while the others are more common with Serbs. And it also says that ALL the measured features are present in BOTH peoples, only in slightly different percentage, which was caused by the fact that the people wern't evenly distributed in all regions.

That is not the reason enough to say "This ultimately proves that Croats are Central Europeans, and have nothing to do with 'Balkanoids'" while the fact is that among both Serbs and Croats there are people who are genetically closer to 'Central Europeans', and those who are genetically closer to 'Balkanoids', only in somewhat different odds.

There is no reason why would any Catholic Herzegovinian or Dalmatian or Kosovar or Montenegrin think of himself as of Central European, only because those Northern Croats are genetically similar more to Austrians and Hungarians than he is.

He listed the sources he cited besides his own work.
Among the sources are Slovene Skerlj , Italian Biasutti and Serbs Cvijic and Males,
which are not second-hand sources and data of subjective impressions thank you,
the only one here who is having a subjective note is you.

I'm making 'subjective notes'?

Alright. Tell me then what patterns did Coon observe, how did he create them and in what way did he arrange them so they could be representative? Anyway, I'm just going to this:

No it's not misleading, it is very clear. "The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians"

Yes there are ways. Some overlap does exist, but we are two different people.

He was talking on the average. :rolleyes:

Here we come to the point: he was speaking of the average, and you presented it as in general.

The average number of the numbers 5 and 10 is 7.5. But you can't say that a 2m 70kg blond male and a 1.60m 90kg raven female, make the average of a 1.80m 80kg brown-haired hermaphrodite (!)

If we have two groups of smilies:

Group X: http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6681/pic12ij.gif

Group Y: http://img478.imageshack.us/img478/9303/pic29tk.gif

The Group X has 9 'smilies' or 60%, and 7 'frownies' or 40%, while the Group Y has 3 'smilies' or 37.5%, and 5 'frownies' or 62.5%.

It DOESN'T say that Group X is consisted of 'smilies' and therefore is completely different from the Group Y which is consisted of 'frawnies'.

It DOESN'T say that Group Y has proven itself to be 'frawny', and therefore shouldn't ever be called a mixed group.

It DOESN'T say that the data has shown that 'smiley' Group X has absolutely nothing in similar with 'frawny' Group Y.

It DOESN'T say that Ys are 'frawnier' than Xs.

It may appear that I'm not being serious, but statistics is a tool that should be handled very carefully. No hasty generalizations are allowed, if a serious conversation is to be maintained. Otherwise it just has the effect as posting pictures of individual 'swarthy' Serbs and 'pale' Croats and claim the same.

This is about sub-race, while Jan Czekanowski's taxonomy on sub-races is not
quite accepted, that of Carleton S. Coon is ,and is foundation for all relevant studies on the matter since the time, in what genetics approved of in his favour.

Replace Armenoid with Dinaroid and Laponoid with Alpine, and the taxonomy would appear alright.

I sense that there is problem, deviation, subjective interpretations and importing confusion into very clear and simple topic from the beginning.

The problems is in overly simplifying statistical data, and giving it political and even sensational note. The topic would be clear and simple if the final conclusion wasn't:

Grom:

It appears so, despite endless rants from Slav anthro horde and term "Balkanoid" they coined for ex-Yu peoples (with exception of Slovenia).

Moreover, when Croats call upon right to self determination, and if it is Central Europe, we have witnessed mockery and degradation, ignorant persistence on this “Balkan” terminology ignoring all relevant facts in order
to fit the pan-Slavic agenda of alleged brotherhood, similarities and ties of Croats and Serbs.

Well, the good old news is, Croats are Central European geographically, culturally, historically and, yes, genetically.

[Zrinski]

Replace Armenoid with Dinaroid and Laponoid with Alpine, and the taxonomy would appear alright.

That is not in question, we are not talking only about taxonomy but also about ridiculous distribution which has nothing to do with facts. I mean come on....Dinaroids majority in Slavonia and northwestern Croatia?! I can only but laught to that... :p

[Banat]

That is not in question, we are not talking only about taxonomy but also about ridiculous distribution which has nothing to do with facts. I mean come on....Dinaroids majority in Slavonia and northwestern Croatia?! I can only but laught to that... :p

He mentioned the taxonomy only, so I gave an answer to that remark only.

However, that was but a counter-example, to the remark of Serbs being 'darker in pigmentation' than Croats, which is as ridiculous and which also leaves one to do nothing but laugh. There is no chance for the people of that Central belt along the flow of Velika Morava, and even Vojvodina also, to be qualified as 'darker in pigmentation' than Dalmatians and Herzegovinians. It also shows that the situation isn't that clear and simple as presented, and that there are/were opposite opinions.

Anyway, I agree with your point and I'm glad it wasn't for me trying to show that Serbs are predominately Nordids, and Croats Armenoids in the first place, which would lack seriousness the same as much as the original remark.

[Ace Rimmer]

No, you can't draw a border of a peninsula along its length and mark more than its 1/6 out of it.

We've already been through geographical and cultural definition,
we have proven our self it to be vague term, geo-political, similar to Eastern Europe term 1945-90, which are both meaningless and do in fact change, depending on current political situation.

We are back at geography now, ok.
Peninsula
-a large mass of land projecting into a body of water
-A peninsula is a geographical formation consisting of an extension of land from a larger body, surrounded by water on three sides.
-an area of land almost completely surrounded by water but connected to a larger piece of land
-A body of water nearly surrounded by water, and connected with a larger body by a neck or isthmus; any tract of land jutting out into the water.
-a projection of land that is almost completely surrounded by sea
-a piece of land with water on 3 sides
-A narrow piece of land jutting out into the sea.
-a piece of land that extends out into the ocean and is surrounded by water on three sides.


Peninsula (http://paleopolis.rediris.es/paleontologia/Taphos2002/gif/Peninsula.jpg)

Croatia (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/nvaget/eurst/europe/croatia/croatia_in_europe.GIF), that is also part of peninsula along it's length.
While Hungary i.e. is not part of it.
Yes it really fits definition of peninsula.

:rolleyes:

I know what is this about, it's been displayed only from Serbs, Greeks Orthodox Slavs and pan-Slavs.
Brotherhood(non-war attempt to dominate Croats) failed through Yugoslavism, now we are all Balkanoids.


No, I just pointed out how the same misinterpretation would appear if the the odds were somewhat different. In a serious discussion all possible and hypothetical situations are free to discuss.

I do not wish to engage in hypothetical discussion but rather with available data.


Only if it was a false testimony, which it wasn't.

Irrelevant for the matter, these people are not anthropologist or genetic experts,
their (and yours) testimony rely on someone being friendly or not, good host, overall impression ..etc
Besides we are speaking here genetically, since this is what topic is about.

Coon suggests that there are significant racial differences between Orthodox and Catholic Herzegovinians?

Coon suggested what was quoted from the link I posted.

The data *is* clear. It says that certain features are more common with Croats, while the others are more common with Serbs. And it also says that ALL the measured features are present in BOTH peoples,

Yes.

only in slightly different percentage,

Slightly?
The difference with each Hg is more than 50%, while 3 Hg represented with Serbs
are completely absent with Croats.

which was caused by the fact that the people wern't evenly distributed in all regions.

Until you present me data about genetic similarities of Herzegovinian Croats and Serbs you are here also into speculations.

That is not the reason enough to say "This ultimately proves that Croats are Central Europeans, and have nothing to do with 'Balkanoids'"

No, the sampling of Croats ALL TOGETHER revealed that they are OVERALL
more closer to Central European populations than to Serbs who are closer to South-Eastern European populations, accept this already please.

while the fact is that among both Serbs and Croats there are people who are genetically closer to 'Central Europeans',

You are contributing to necessary confusion again, the Croats are sampled together because they are Croats, this is common practice in entire World
the Serbs are because they are Serbs, overall the populations are clustered differently.
Serb obviously has issue with this, learn to accept it.


and those who are genetically closer to 'Balkanoids', only in somewhat different odds.

There is no such thing as genetically "Balkanoid", neither there is such thing as "Balkanoid".
On which you persist while still failing to answer Zvaci's question and finally define "Balkanoid".

There is no reason why would any Catholic Herzegovinian or Dalmatian or Kosovar or Montenegrin think of himself as of Central European, only because those Northern Croats are genetically similar more to Austrians and Hungarians than he is.

You have still failed to understand that all Croatian regions are sampled together
and as such display tie with Central European populations.

I'm making 'subjective notes'?

Yes you do, you said it your self.

Alright. Tell me then what patterns did Coon observe, how did he create them and in what way did he arrange them so they could be representative? Anyway, I'm just going to this:

It is all clear in link I provided, the text, the numbers at the end of lines
and sources he citied, which you called second hand, but when pointing out
his sources, now you want me to explain Coon's schematics on his work, I can not do this, since I am not familiar with it.

Here we come to the point: he was speaking of the average, and you presented it as in general.

No I cited his words, I did not presented it otherwise.

It may appear that I'm not being serious, but statistics is a tool that should be handled very carefully. No hasty generalizations are allowed, if a serious conversation is to be maintained. Otherwise it just has the effect as posting pictures of individual 'swarthy' Serbs and 'pale' Croats and claim the same.

No body here posted any pictures besides you, I am talking about genetics
, it is you who is diverting the topic and dissecting Croats by regions and thus dissecting the original article of the topic to fit your agenda.
While the original article is very clear about him self.


The problems is in overly simplifying statistical data, and giving it political and even sensational note. The topic would be clear and simple if the final conclusion wasn't:

I am merely responding to same pattern of political issues,
which I witnessed over significant period on various forums.
Finally with new solid researches we have enough data to speak for decent amount of certainty.
But now I, somehow, do not have right to expose years lasting fraud and unjust
degradation and mockery of Croats on various boards, who were merely
calling upon their own right to self-determination, and it is Central Europe,
which has it's foundations, in history, culture and genetics.

Grom:

Well, the good old news is, Croats are Central European geographically, culturally, historically and, yes, genetically.

Yes, I stand by it, and I have my support for said in geography, culture, history and, yes, genetics.

You , as well as any other Serb, pan-Slavs...etc. have the issue with this,
which are also politically motivated of which you accused me for.
In contrast to the line I said, I have not yet seen any fact or data
that would disapprove of me, you still have failed to present us
what "Balkanoid" is and how exactly do Croats fit the group,
either in terms of culture, history or genetics.

[Ace Rimmer]

Until you provide us with following, we have nothing further to discuss in my opinion.

1. Define "Balkanoid" .

2. Present us how are Croats "Balkanoid", either culturally, historically, or genetically.

2. Present us genetic data on Herzegovinan Croats vs. Herzegovinian Serbs, instead just speculating.

[Banat]

1. Grom, it was you who first mentioned the term 'Balkanoid' as a coiled term for all ex-YU peoples, except for the Slovenes, and I said that I DIDN'T know what that term should actually mean, and that it was but a vague category. Now I'm being asked to precisely define the term, which isn't that easy at all. Intuitivelly, if 'Balkanoid' was 'Balkanac', that would include all inhabitants of Balkan peninsula, from European Turks and inland Greeks to Manjurian Romanians and Dalmatian Croats.

2. NOT all Croats, and I was highly specific about that. It's not my fault that you are all viewed as such due to media and common observation of the Westerners.

3. I am not speculating, I am observing. And not only I do make that conclusion. And considering Herzegovina Grom, you should once decide if Herzegovinian Serbs are just those Orthodoxes who embraced Serbian name in 19th century, like it was often suggested, or a people totally different from Herzegovinian Catholics.

I'm only going to comment the Balkan Peninsula statements, because except for that you more-less repeated the same as in previous post:

I know what is this about, it's been displayed only from Serbs, Greeks Orthodox Slavs and pan-Slavs.
Brotherhood(non-war attempt to dominate Croats) failed through Yugoslavism, now we are all Balkanoids

Listen, to cut the long story short, you are just displaying certain mental behaviour. To dominate Croats??? What kind of logic is that???

Gromovnik, man, do you understand that Balkan peninsula is a peninsula, a GEOGRAPHIC area in South-Eastern Europe, on which there are Albania, Bulgaria, most of Greece, and PARTS of Romania, Serbia and Croatia. PART of Croatia, not whole of it, like you impose me to have said it, but about 40% or more of its territory.

How can I possibly be a pan-Slavic orientated when talking about geography, while at the same time WHOLE of my area, which is about 20% of Serbian territory, and 2,000,000 of its people is OUT OF Balkan peninsula and in Central Europe?

Is it my fault, or my pan-Slavic ideology that I learned at my geography classes the same as the rest of Europe, which is:

Balkan Peninsula, peninsula in southeastern Europe, bounded on the east by the Black and Aegean seas, on the south by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the west by the Adriatic and Ionian seas.

Geographically, the northern boundary of the peninsula can be defined by the Sava River; the lower Danube River from the point, at Belgrade in Serbia, where the Sava joins it; and a line drawn arbitrarily from the upper Sava to the Adriatic Sea near Rijeka, Croatia.

BALKAN PENINSULA ON THE MAP ==> LINK (http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T028700A.gif)

Source: E N C A R T A - > LINK (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761567023)

Make your appeals to European Union when you become a full member, or to various Geography Institutes throughout Europe and the world, explain to them that Balkan Peninsula doesn't actually exist, for it actually lacks an isthmus. If you can change your geographic position by not moving for a single inch, I'll accept that Herzegovina and Dalmatia aren't on Balkan.

Greetings from Banat, Central Europe, from a person who is most certainly not a Pan-Slavic.

[Zrinski]

The map and the defintion you here propagate is geopolitical one and not at all geographic and historical. Dalmatian Croats have nothing to do with Balkans nor have they ever had anything to do with. For gods sake this was place of greatest renesaince movement outside of Italy, France, Spain and England. Ridiculous...

As for the pigmentation it is common fact that Serbs are darker in pigmentation and dark hair-eyes colour distribution.

[Banat]

The map and the defintion you here propagate is geopolitical one and not at all geographic and historical.

I never. I'm not propagatin anything, that is schoolbook stuff, geography lessons, learned everywhere in the world, which has nothing to do with politics. It is not my fault that the term 'Balkan' has somehow become associated with primitivism, to which, and you must agree, Croatian propaganda pretty much contributed, and that those geography lessons seem to be a taboo in Croatia.

As for the pigmentation it is common fact that Serbs are darker in pigmentation and dark hair-eyes colour distribution.

No, it isn't. In fact, I've heard these stupidities only on the Internet, where some Croats were so desperately trying to present themselves as Western Europeans, and on the other hand Serbs as a people totally different and strange to them, even racially, which is absurd.

But I explained it already in this very thread in Post #13 (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16148&postcount=13), in the part where I presented two somewhat extreme racial types, both of which could pass as either Serbian or Croatian.

[Watzy]

I never. I'm not propagating anything, that is schoolbook stuff, geography lessons, learned everywhere in the world, which has nothing to do with politics.

Croats were so desperately trying to present themselves as Western Europeans, and on the other hand Serbs as a people totally different and strange to them, even racially, which is absurd.

As one can clearly see from these quotes, you are trying to support your political Balkan agenda by stating geographical 'facts'.

Serbs do not have to be 'completely different' to be regarded completely foreign and strange to Croats.

Croats are a Western nation and it's a historic and cultural fact having very little to do with geography.

Geographically Dalmatia belong to Southern Europe/Northern Mediterranean/Eastern Adriatic - not Balkans.

[Zrinski]

I never. I'm not propagatin anything, that is schoolbook stuff, geography lessons, learned everywhere in the world, which has nothing to do with politics. It is not my fault that the term 'Balkan' has somehow become associated with primitivism, to which, and you must agree, Croatian propaganda pretty much contributed, and that those geography lessons seem to be a taboo in Croatia.

Actually it is exactly what I said....political propaganda. The fact it is in most schoolbooks is even more scary.

No, it isn't. In fact, I've heard these stupidities only on the Internet, where some Croats were so desperately trying to present themselves as Western Europeans, and on the other hand Serbs as a people totally different and strange to them, even racially, which is absurd.

Sorry not true. It's a scientific fact that Serbs are generally darker in both skin pigment and especially when we speak of hair and eyes distribution...light eyes and hair are present at much higher percentage among Croats.

[Banat]

Sorry not true. It's a scientific fact that Serbs are generally darker in both skin pigment and especially when we speak of hair and eyes distribution...light eyes and hair are present at much higher percentage among Croats.

Come on, Zrinski, it is true, and you just confirmed it in this last statement of yours. You can't make an average man, that doesn't exist. Not all Croats are average Croats, and not all Serbs are average Serbs, and both extremities of light/dark pigmentation are present with BOTH Serbs and Croats.

The lightest Croat isn't lighter than the lightest Serb, and the darkest-tanned Serb isn't darker than the darkest-tanned Croat. The distribution might not be even, it could very easily be true, but you cannot make such generalizations.

Trust me, I worked with the statistics. If in one country one citizen earns $1,000,000 per week, and the other 9 earn only $1, and in the other all 10 citizens earn $10,000 per week each, you cannot generalize and say 'citizens of the first country are richer than citizens from the second' just because of the average numbers, because you misinterpret the data.

Is that so hard to understand? There is no way one could just say 'Croats are lighter than Serbs' - that is not only untrue, but stupid and out of mind.

And I don't think that lighter hair, eyes and tan are present in higher percentage with Croats at all. At least, one doesn't get that impression watching the media: the actors, TV speakers, politicians, sportsmen. And even if it was true, for it could be possible, it still stays that people of Central and South-Eastern Serbia are lighter than Dalmatian and Herzegovinian 'Central European' Croats (I'm not making a similar mistake, for I am speaking of somewhat homogeneous regions).

[Zrinski]

Sorry but what you wrote here is a pure demagogy.

I'll repeat - common fact is Croats are lighter in pigmentation(confimred in numerous anthropological studies), Croats have lighter eyes and hair on much higher percentage than Serbs(and Bulgarians, Greeks, Macedonians, etc).

Now is this so hard for you to understand? We're not dealing with heavy mathematics here...just pure and simple data.

[Banat]

Sorry but what you wrote here is a pure demagogy.

I'll repeat - common fact is Croats are lighter in pigmentation(confimred in numerous anthropological studies), Croats have lighter eyes and hair on much higher percentage than Serbs(and Bulgarians, Greeks, Macedonians, etc).

Now is this so hard for you to understand? We're not dealing with heavy mathematics here...just pure and simple data.

Banat has spoken, and until something new is said, he shall reply no longer.

[Ace Rimmer]

You have failed to answer to all 3 questions but still persist on it.


Listen, to cut the long story short, you are just displaying certain mental behaviour. To dominate Croats??? What kind of logic is that???

The greater Serbian goals have been lost in both Yugoslavia and in last war.
Pushing Balkan agenda is just another form, on which even the leftists in Serbia persist.

Gromovnik, man, do you understand that Balkan peninsula is a peninsula

I have failed to see the peninsula on which Croatia is situated.
I gave the definitions of peninsula and do not see how Croatia can be part of any peninsula.


How can I possibly be a pan-Slavic orientated when talking about geography, while at the same time WHOLE of my area, which is about 20% of Serbian territory, and 2,000,000 of its people is OUT OF Balkan peninsula and in Central Europe?

I never said you were pan-Slav, I just counted the sort which persist on this agenda.
I do not care how you see your self, neither I will speak about it,
and likewise, you are not invited to speak on behave of Croats.

Me and my comrades agree on the issue and have our support in culture, history, geography and genetics.

Is it my fault, or my pan-Slavic ideology that I learned at my geography classes the same as the rest of Europe, which is:

You have also learned at school , at your geography classes, about "Eastern Europe", cold-war term for countries of Warszaw pact.
Which ceased to exist after fall of “Iron curtain”. And nobody sane today
with basic knowledge from history and geography calls Hungary or Czech Republic Eastern European.


. Make your appeals to European Union when you become a full member, or to various Geography Institutes throughout Europe and the world,

We are working on it.

explain to them that Balkan Peninsula doesn't actually exist, for it actually lacks an isthmus.

It does, doesn't it?
It lacks some ... sea also? True.

If you can change your geographic position by not moving for a single inch, I'll accept that Herzegovina and Dalmatia aren't on Balkan.

I have already given you 2 examples for geographic positions in reality being geo-political which in fact did changed its positions.

1. As here explained "Eastern Europe"
2. Balkan, which prior to 1900 did not cross Drina river.

where some Croats were so desperately trying to present themselves as Western Europeans,

We don't need to do such things since we are.

and on the other hand Serbs as a people totally different and strange to them

Because they are.


, even racially, which is absurd.

No it is not.

Is that so hard to understand? There is no way one could just say 'Croats are lighter than Serbs' - that is not only untrue, but stupid and out of mind.

This is true and not stupid and out of mind, we even have foreign sources speaking about it.
You, have problem accepting this, among other things, for reasons obvious.

I have no problems accepting the fact that Hungarians and Slovenians are lighter than Croatians, (as also said by Coon)
and won't deviate and dissect this with small mathematical-regional-statistic rants.

And I don't think that lighter hair, eyes and tan are present in higher percentage with Croats at all.

You think.

it still stays that people of Central and South-Eastern Serbia are lighter than Dalmatian and Herzegovinian 'Central European' Croats

According to who? You again?

[Zrinski]

Banat has spoken, and until something new is said, he shall reply no longer.

Zrinski couldn't care less.

[Watzy]

@Banat

Can you define 'Balkanoids' in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, race, religion or commune history?

P.S. @Zvaci: I'm just about to answer your question, I didn't forget.

Banat has spoken, and until something new is said, he shall reply no longer.


:cool: :rolleyes:

[Banat]

@Banat

Can you define 'Balkanoids' in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, race, religion or commune history?

Listen, Zvaci, it was not me who introduced the term in the first place, nor was it for me to have had all Croatians put under that wider category which includes all South Slavs, Greeks and Albanians. In fact, I don't even think that the term could be possibly be defined under those categories, and I don't see any reason that it should.

The term 'Balkanoid' doesn't even exist in Serbian, and we all know it well, but we have a term 'Balkanac', which generally describes a somewhat primitive and wild mentality of those southern mountainous regions, that is: inhabitants of Balkan Peninsula. Primitive as both in the negative sense: rude, unrefined and violent, and the positive sense: open, free, sincere, non-corrupted. This is not precise definition, under which the people are classified, but something related to common obseration of both the Northerners and the Southerners, and sometimes can be disputed.

So, I will instead ask you to define 'Balkanoid' in a more precise way since you seem to be that interested in the issue, for I never ever invented the term, nor was that obsessed with it, being neither a 'Balkanac' nor considered as one.

[Watzy]

In fact, I don't even think that the term could be possibly be defined under those categories,

Just like I said, it's hard (or impossible) to define Balkanoid identity as much as it is hard to define the commune identity of inhabitants of Northern and Southern Americas. It doesn't matter if Balkan is more specific designation in terms of physical geography than 'Europe' or 'America' (continents).

and I don't see any reason that it should.

It's pointless to debate about something without knowing its essential properties. We might as well debate about the outer space. :rolleyes:

[Watzy]

IMake your appeals to European Union when you become a full member, or to various Geography Institutes throughout Europe and the world, explain to them that Balkan Peninsula doesn't actually exist, for it actually lacks an isthmus. If you can change your geographic position by not moving for a single inch, I'll accept that Herzegovina and Dalmatia aren't on Balkan.

Listen, Zvaci, it was not me who introduced the term in the first place, nor was it for me to have had all Croatians put under that wider category which includes all South Slavs, Greeks and Albanians.

I never. I'm not propagatin anything, that is schoolbook stuff, geography lessons, learned everywhere in the world, which has nothing to do with politics. It is not my fault that the term 'Balkan' has somehow become associated with primitivism, to which, and you must agree, Croatian propaganda pretty much contributed, and that those geography lessons seem to be a taboo in Croatia.



It has quite a lot to do with politics. In the past other nations were labeled as 'Balkanic', or at least 'less European' as well. Today they are not - without 'moving for a single inch'.

* * *

"Even the geographic extent of the "Balkan" region is a matter of controversy. Many scholars, especially those writing in the Cold War era, have included only the Communist states and linked them with Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany, while omitting Greece and ignoring Turkey and the Ottoman era. Other historians exclude Hungary, Croatia and other Habsburg lands, because of their "central" European character, supposedly contrary to Balkan themes. But the presence of contradictory themes is itself characteristically Balkan.

(...)

In a Spring 1995 newspaper story about the shelling of Zagreb in Croatia, the city was described as "more European than Balkan." This idea -- that the Balkans should be distinguished from the rest of Europe -- is a common sentiment when we read about Southeastern Europe. In the 1820s, the Austrian statesman Metternich said, "Asia begins at the Landstrasse," the royal highway leading from Vienna east into Hungary. Why aren't the Balkans seen as part of Europe? If they are not, where does Europe end? What makes us think of one country as part of Europe, and another as part of the Balkans?"

http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/

[Bajlozi]

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1643/dendrogram6bw.jpg

Its interesting to see that modern day genetics only confirms what was allredy concluded djuring 30's, more specifik the brilliant resarch made by dr. Coon;

The Serbs are darker in pigmentation than either the Slovenes or the Croatians; 45 per cent of eyes are pure brown (Martin #2-4).

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.


Greetings!

[Watzy]

Evo kratke ali zanimljive crtice iz današnjeg Fokusa:

"Na uzorku iz Srbije (Beograd) udio (slavenskog) haplotipa Eu19 iznenađujuće je nizak, gotovo dvostruko niži nego kod Hrvata, a četverostruko niži nego kod Poljaka. Od Hrvata razlikuju se i po velikom udjelu haplogrupe E koja je, od zemljopisno bližih naroda glavna značajka Grka i Albanaca."

Ivan Jurić


__________________________________________________________________________________

A short quote from the Croatian pro-Nationalist magazine 'Fokus'.

"The samples from Serbia (Belgrade) the percentage of (Slavic) haplotype Eu19 is surprisingly low, almost two times lower in respect to Croats, and 4 times lower in respect to Poles. Samples are also different from Croatian by the high percentage of haplogroup E dominant amongst neighboring Greeks and Albanians."

Ivan Jurić

+++

It seems we have the first comparable genetic results from Serbia (Belgrade). I'm not familiar with the work. Does anyone knows more about it?

[Watzy]

Evo kratke ali zanimljive crtice iz današnjeg Fokusa:

"Na uzorku iz Srbije (Beograd) udio (slavenskog) haplotipa Eu19 iznenađujuće je nizak, gotovo dvostruko niži nego kod Hrvata, a četverostruko niži nego kod Poljaka. Od Hrvata razlikuju se i po velikom udjelu haplogrupe E koja je, od zemljopisno bližih naroda glavna značajka Grka i Albanaca."

Ivan Jurić

Već sam čuo na par mjesta za rezultate iz Beograda. Zna li netko više o tom istraživanju?

[Ace Rimmer]

Već sam čuo na par mjesta za rezultate iz Beograda. Zna li netko više o tom istraživanju?

Imam ja taj .pdf , Srbi su po običaju to traljavo izveli uzevši 113 uzoraka samo iz Beograda, što i nije baš reprezentativno al eto.
Hrvatski su uzorci (kakao se to i radi) iz Osijeka, Zagreba, Like , Istre i Dubrovnika.

Što je još čudnije rezultati Beograda su gotovo potpuno isti kao oni za BiH Srbe,
ne bi se čudio poznavajući ih , i uzeći u obzir siromaštvo Srbije
da su samo uzeli iste uzorke ne bi li uštedjeli nešto. :D

P.S. Ti su podatci korišteni za Srbiju u ovome radu "Haplogroup frequency correlations in SE"

[Watzy]

ne bi se čudio poznavajući ih , i uzeći u obzir siromaštvo Srbije
da su samo uzeli iste uzorke ne bi li uštedjeli nešto. :D
:rofl:

A kakav im je tim istraživača? Jesu li ispitivali samo srpski naučnici ili je bilo i međunarodnih stručnjaka (...Semino ect.)? Ako su ovo radili isključivo srbi...

Što je još čudnije rezultati Beograda su gotovo potpuno isti kao oni za BiH Srbe...

Imam dojam da SANU-dušanovci s ovim izlaze preko kurca, a da nebi niti izlazili da nije bilo istraživanja u Bosni kojeg nisu mogli spriječiti.

Sve ovo njima ne ide niti najmanje pod ruku, jer opovrgava biološko srpstvo svih južnih Slavena.

Mi se šalimo, ali moguće je da su 'navlačili vodu na vlastiti mlin' kako bi spasili ono što se spasiti može, pa prepisali bosanske rezultate da bi bar izvukli dojam homogenosti Srba.

PS.
Ako imaš vremena molim te prepiši najzanimljivije dijelove (naslov, autore i rezultate)

[Ace Rimmer]

:rofl:

A kakav im je tim istraživača? Jesu li ispitivali samo srpski naučnici ili je bilo i međunarodnih stručnjaka (...Semino ect.)? Ako su ovo radili isključivo srbi...

Za srpske uzorke je bio odgovoran samo Branislav D. Stefanović from Emergency Unit of Clinical Center Serbia, Belgrade.
Što je također čudno, jer se ovakove stvari obično rade na fakultetima i sveučilištima.



Imam dojam da SANU-dušanovci s ovim izlaze preko kurca, a da nebi niti izlazili da nije bilo istraživanja u Bosni kojeg nisu mogli spriječiti.

Sve ovo njima ne ide niti najmanje pod ruku, jer opovrgava biološko srpstvo svih južnih Slavena.

Mi se šalimo, ali moguće je da su 'navlačili vodu na vlastiti mlin' kako bi spasili ono što se spasiti može, pa prepisali bosanske rezultate da bi bar izvukli dojam homogenosti Srba.

Kao što rekoh, poznavajući ih...
Kako bilo da bilo, sjebala ih genetika.

PS.
Ako imaš vremena molim te prepiši najzanimljivije dijelove (naslov, autore i rezultate

Evo , našao sam na netu link:

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/slavic.pdf

[Zrinski]

Evo kratke ali zanimljive crtice iz današnjeg Fokusa:

"Na uzorku iz Srbije (Beograd) udio (slavenskog) haplotipa Eu19 iznenađujuće je nizak, gotovo dvostruko niži nego kod Hrvata, a četverostruko niži nego kod Poljaka. Od Hrvata razlikuju se i po velikom udjelu haplogrupe E koja je, od zemljopisno bližih naroda glavna značajka Grka i Albanaca."

Ivan Jurić

Hahaha....super zanimljivo. Inace da li se sjeca netko moje rasprave sa Awarom na Stirpesu? Ja sam konstatirao upravo ovo iako jos nije bilo sluzbenih podataka. :)

[Jebivjetar]

Sve ovo njima ne ide niti najmanje pod ruku, jer opovrgava biološko srpstvo svih južnih Slavena.Još više opovrgava slavenstvo Srba s kojim se oni tako vole busati u prsa.

[vojvoda]

Indeed. It's just hillarious. :p

Shumadians looks more Slavic and central European that their hook-nosed Armenoid-like neighbors west of them.

[vojvoda]

Btw. here is another map of his...a bit more better and correct.

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload0/czekanowskimap.jpg

How can this map be better and correct when Czekanowski goes more into detail with the map that Banat posted.

[Ace Rimmer]

Vojvoda , do you believe that Vojvodina is Lapponoid ?Or do you agree that Dinaric=Armenoid? And that sub-race distribution can follow state border?

[vojvoda]

Vojvoda , do you believe that Vojvodina is Lapponoid ?

Not all of "Vojvodina" is "Lapponiod"(Alpinid). The stereotype of "short and chubby Lale" doesn't exist for no reason.

Or do you agree that Dinaric=Armenoid?

?

Czekanowski's Dinaric is Nordid+Armenoid.

And that sub-race distribution can follow state border?

His map does not follow state borders.Serbia and Macedonia are perfect examples along with the overlapping of types in eastern Serbia and western Bulgaria.

[Zrinski]

Shumadians looks more Slavic and central European that their hook-nosed Armenoid-like neighbors west of them.

There are no Armenoid-likes in Europe and especially west of Serbia. You must have confused it with something.

[Watzy]

Czekanowski's nomenclature is completely misguiding and easily debunked by genetic patterns. Eu14 represented strongly amongst Lapps is not typical for the area. Whatever influenced Alpish looks of some regions in SE Europe has nothing to do with Lapps.

On the other hand relatively high frequencies of neolithic and post-neolithic genes amongst Bosnian Serbs and Belgrade Serbs are pointing toward significant Armenoid/Anatolian admixture in Serbia and Bosnia.

[Ace Rimmer]

Not all of "Vojvodina" is "Lapponiod"(Alpinid). The stereotype of "short and chubby Lale" doesn't exist for no reason.

So it is not quite representative for Vojvodina, I agree.
Which leads me to next quote...


?

Czekanowski's Dinaric is Nordid+Armenoid.

You misunderstood me, I did not question Czekanowski's definition of Dinaric,
but I do question him labeling Dinaric area such is Dalmatian hinterland, Herzegovina and Montenegro as Armenoid,
and thus question do you think that Dinaric is Armenoid.


His map does not follow state borders.Serbia and Macedonia are perfect examples along with the overlapping of types in eastern Serbia and western Bulgaria.

But it does with Croatia , I believe Czekanowski's map is pre-ww2 and (correct me) Banovina Hrvatska (http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/map_banovina_hrvatska.gif),
where Central Eurupean Nordic borders with Armenoid is route of Slovenian-Croatian border,
while on the other side Armenoid-Lapponoid distribution equates Croatian-Serbian border.

[Professor John Frink]

This may be of interest to you:

By V.D. Dyachenko, 1965; data collected by Weissbach.

Originally posted and translated by Ross.

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/71/eyepigmentationslocrosrbczaut0.jpg

[Zrinski]

I've seen this before Trig...however it's not clear to me what does these subclades stand for...hair, eyes?

[Ace Rimmer]

It is for eyes.

[Watzy]

Interesting tablet.

In a book called "Južnoslavensko pitanje" (Die Sudslawische Frage. Wien. 1918.) the author stated data conducted by a certain Austro-Hungarian anthropologist Weissbach on blondism in Bosnia:

Catholics: 25.7%
Muslims: 22.8%
Orthodox: 10%

[Waurms]

Pozdrav svima. Ja sam novi član ovog foruma.Na internetu sam našao nešto
o genskom biljegu I1b kojeg imaju i Hrvati.Molim nekog neka mi prevede.

This line was derived within Viking/Scandivian populations in NW europe and has since spread down into Sourthern Europe where it is present at low frequencies.

Waurms

[Professor John Frink]

Pozdrav svima. Ja sam novi član ovog foruma.Na internetu sam našao nešto
o genskom biljegu I1b kojeg imaju i Hrvati.Molim nekog neka mi prevede.

This line was derived within Viking/Scandivian populations in NW europe and has since spread down into Sourthern Europe where it is present at low frequencies.

Waurms

No translation needed. It's BS.

[Ace Rimmer]

Pozdrav svima. Ja sam novi član ovog foruma.Na internetu sam našao nešto
o genskom biljegu I1b kojeg imaju i Hrvati.Molim nekog neka mi prevede.

This line was derived within Viking/Scandivian populations in NW europe and has since spread down into Sourthern Europe where it is present at low frequencies.

Waurms

Pozdrav i dobrodošao,
teza da je mega grupa I potekla sa sjevera , Skandinavije, i da se od tamo širila prema jugu je pogrešna,
zapravo je obrnuto, grupa I je "domaća" već nekih 25 000 godina i širila se
prema sjeveru sa povlačenjem leda, prije kojih 12 000 g. davno prije pojave bilo kakvih Vikinga.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_2.jpg

[Pablo Escobar]

No translation needed. It's BS.

Correct. 'I' spread from south to north, not the other way around.
I don't know who keeps repeating that bullshit viking theory.

PS. I saw something Diane Ross posted at SAF about SE European haplogroups,
can you repost it here, if it's not bullshit. I can't find it now,
but, I seem to remember some 10% Croats being hg 'E',
and I don't remember seeing any info on Serbs.

[Waurms]

Sigis Hails!Gromovnik,


Možda se ovaj genski biljeg odnosi na Skandinavce/Vikinge koji su došli na ove prostore za vrijeme Velike seobe naroda4.-5.st.Postoji pretpostavka da su Hrvati porijeklom Goti.A Goti dolaze upravo iz postojbine Skandinavaca/Vikinga.Skand./Vikin.su srodni Gotima.


Waurms

[Pablo Escobar]

Sigis Hails!Gromovnik

Ziggy Stardust Gromovnik!

http://www.genesis-publications.com/fame/bowiep318.jpg


Možda se ovaj genski biljeg odnosi na Skandinavce/Vikinge koji su došli na ove prostore za vrijeme Velike seobe naroda4.-5.st.Postoji pretpostavka da su Hrvati porijeklom Goti.A Goti dolaze upravo iz postojbine Skandinavaca/Vikinga.Skand./Vikin.su srodni Gotima.

1. Ne, haplogrupa 'I' ima nekoliko podgrupa. Skandinavci pripadaju jednoj,
Balkanski narodi drugoj. Skandinavska se odvojila od Balkanske pre nekih 12.000 godina i "mlađa" je.

2. Goti nisu došli iz Skandinavije, niti su se kretali u velikim brojevima,
to je zabluda ranijih istoričara koja je u poslednje vreme razbijena zahvaljujući genetici.

[Ace Rimmer]

^ Što Šiptar reče.

Sigis Hails!Gromovnik,


Možda se ovaj genski biljeg odnosi na Skandinavce/Vikinge koji su došli na ove prostore za vrijeme Velike seobe naroda4.-5.st.Postoji pretpostavka da su Hrvati porijeklom Goti.A Goti dolaze upravo iz postojbine Skandinavaca/Vikinga.Skand./Vikin.su srodni Gotima.


Waurms

[Watzy]

Nek me netko ispravi ako griješim, ali Skandinavija u paleolitu/mezolitu nije bila naseljena zbog ledenog doba.

[Waurms]

^ Što Šiptar reče.
Na koga si to mislio.Mene ili onog eskobara?


Waurms

[Pablo Escobar]

Na koga si to mislio.Mene ili onog eskobara?


Waurms

Mislio je na svojega ćaću.

[Zrinski]

Mislio je na svojega ćaću.

Mislio je na tebe posrbljena siptarcino.

[Watzy]

http://www.fokus-tjednik.hr/fotografije/slika_v_101.jpg

Koristimo genetičke spoznaje

Budući će naraštaji zacijelo znati genetičke linije velikog broja svojih bližih pa i daljnjih predaka. Svaki pojedinac nosi haplotip na Y kromosomu samo iz jedne linije predaka, a udjeli ostalih haplotipova među pretcima svakoga pojedinca bit će u prosjeku onakvi kakvi su u narodu kojemu pripada. Naravno, biološke značajke koje su vezane uz neki biljeg na nerekombiniranom dijelu Y kromosomu prenose se kroz naraštaje jednom linijom. U analiziranome slučaju to je linija M35. Prema tome, haplotip (haplogrupa) objašnjava podrijetlo pojedinca do duboko u prošlost, a udjeli haplotipova populacije su "zapisi" i o odnosima linija svih predaka nekoga pojedinca. Pritom treba podsjetiti da svaki prosjek neke skupine ima i standardnu devijaciju.
Povezanosti različitih Y kromosoma i mtDNK s fenotipskim značajkama već se uvelike istražuju. Zanimljiv je podatak da se skupina etiopijskih atletičara trkača, koju čine pobjednici na olimpijskim igrama i svjetskim prvenstvima, po strukturi haplotipova (haplogrupa) signifikantno razlikuje od ostalih sunarodnjaka.
U prethodnome dijelu izlaganja nastojao sam iznijeti što više podataka kako bih argumentirao početnu tvrdnju da su genetička otkrića nov i značajan izvor za bolje razumijevanje etnogeneze i povijesti svih, pa tako i hrvatskoga naroda. Ujedno sam smatrao potrebnim istaknuti da su narodi/nacije političke kategorije i da se pripadnikom nekoga naroda postaje opredjeljenjem, a ne genetičkim podrijetlom.
Ovdje ću reagirati na neke rasprave koje se ponavljaju u javnosti.
Najprije želim reći nešto o povezivanju naziva genetičkih biljega s imenima naroda. Objasnit ću razloge zašto sam Eu7 nazvao hrvatskim, a Eu18 baskijskim haplotipom.

Kada sam pisao knjigu Genetičko podrijetlo Hrvata: etnogeneza i genetička otkrića, publiciranu 2003., YCC već je objavio popis s prikazanom 81 kombinacijom u kojoj su genetički biljezi i mutacije povezani s imenima i jezicima naroda. Kad je YCC objelodanio ovaj popis, bilo je već poznato da ni kod jednoga drugoga naroda nije utvrđen tako visok udio haplotipa Eu7 kao kod Hrvata te tako visoki udio haplotipa Eu18 kao kod Baska. Već je tada bilo očito da su ta dva haplotipa posebne značajke Europljana. Unatoč tomu, imena ovih dvaju naroda nisu se našla na spomenutome popisu. Istodobno su imena velikih i poznatijih naroda povezana s nekoliko genetičkih biljega i mutacija. Nazvavši Eu7 hrvatskim haplotipom, a Eu 18 baskijskim, sugerirao sam kako pri upotrebi imena naroda, ako se već rabe, treba voditi računa ne o veličini naroda i brojnosti uzoraka u nekakvoj banci gena, nego o činjenici da narodima s visokim udjelom nekoga genetičkog biljega taj biljeg daje određenu biološku značajku.
U Hrvatskoj se u posljednje vrijeme o istraživanjima genetičke strukture naroda govori kao o nekim nedokučivim i nepouzdanim znanjima o kojima još ne treba ništa pisati u udžbenicima. No istraživanja varijabilnosti Y kromosoma u posljednjih desetak godina iznimno su brojna i kada je u pitanju razmještaj različitih Y kromosoma po svijetu, u znanstvenomu smislu manje--više su završena.
Stoga se utvrđivanje haplotipova ili haplogrupa na nekomu geografskom području ili u određenoj populaciji više ne može svrstavati u znanstvena istraživanja. To je postao posao skupljanja podataka poput skupljanja podataka o krvnim grupama. Takav posao danas financiraju i organiziraju razne neznanstvene organizacije. Najpoznatije skupljanje takvih podataka organizira časopis National Geographic, dajući mogućnost svakomu pojedincu da naruči analizu. U tome programu planira se analizirati 100.000 uzoraka. Poznati su mi naši građani koji naručuju takve analize, a imam uvid u neke dobivene rezultate. Kada kažem da skupljanje podataka o genetičkome podrijetlu više nije znanstveno istraživanje, moram naglasiti da su razna druga područja genetike i dalje u vrhu znanstvenoga zanimanja...

Ivan Jurić

http://www.fokus-tjednik.hr/vijest_arhiva.asp?vijest=101&izdanje=11

[Waurms]

Može li se,uzevši u obzir sve haplotipove pojedinca,odrediti kojoj naciji pripada?


Waurms

[Zrinski]

Može li se,uzevši u obzir sve haplotipove pojedinca,odrediti kojoj naciji pripada?

Ne ..........

[Waurms]

Na koji se način može odrediti tko je Hrvat ,Šveđanin,Njemac?


Waurms

[Pablo Escobar]

Na koji se način može odrediti tko je Hrvat ,Šveđanin,Njemac?


Waurms

Pitaš dotičnog odakle je.

Genetikom se ne može utvrditi etnička pripadnost.
Može se nešto pretpostaviti, ali nema sigurnog načina,
niti će uskoro biti.

[Waurms]

Ako se može utvrditi srodnost između roditelja i djece,zar se ne može utvrditi srodstvo između većeg broja ljudi na neko području?


Waurms

[Pablo Escobar]

Ako se može utvrditi srodnost između roditelja i djece,zar se ne može utvrditi srodstvo između većeg broja ljudi na neko području?


Waurms

Može, ali ne i nacionalnost.

Granice među državama su rezultat istorijskih događaja,
dok je srodnost populacija rezultat migracija koje su se dešavale
pre više hiljada, čak desetina hiljada godina.

[Zrinski]

Ako se može utvrditi srodnost između roditelja i djece,zar se ne može utvrditi srodstvo između većeg broja ljudi na neko području?

Srodstvo da, ali nacionalnost ne. Osjecaj pripadnosti nekoj naciji je subjektivan.

[Waurms]

Zar veća skupina ljudi(koji su u srodstvu)na nekom području nije nacija?Bez obzira kako se neki pojedinci te nacije nacionalno opredijeljuju.

Waurms

[Watzy]

Zar veća skupina ljudi(koji su u srodstvu)na nekom području nije nacija?Bez obzira kako se neki pojedinci te nacije nacionalno opredijeljuju.

Waurms

Nije, zato što je nacija kao pojam nerazdjeljiva od kulturno-političkog identiteta.

Ukoliko osoba genetski pripada npr. markeru istočno-europske genetske grupe (Eu19), to nam o dotičnoj osobi može reći tekar da su joj predci porijeklom iz istočne Europe - a naravno istočno-europska nacija ne postoji niti je ikad postojala.

Taj podatak nam vrlo malo govori o nacionalnosti dotične osobe ili o nacionalnosti njenih predaka. Ta osoba može biti Hrvat, a može biti i Mađar, Poljak, Ukrajinac, Rus ect. - pa čak i serv (premda poprilično rjeđe nego svi predhodno nabrojani).

No ipak, genetske spoznaje nam govore mnogo - mogu nam otkriti koliki je postotak ne-europskih gena u određenoj zemlji, zatim koje su nacije međusobno srodnije, a koje manje srodne - tj. koliko dijele zajedničkih predaka, a koliko onih koji nisu zajednički.

[Pablo Escobar]

Eu19 ima izmedju 18% i 30% Srba, 35% Makedonaca.

[Waurms]

Ali mora postojati neka razlika između npr.Rusa i Poljaka koji imaju genski biljeg Eu18.

Waurms

[Pablo Escobar]

Ali mora postojati neka razlika između npr.Rusa i Poljaka koji imaju genski biljeg Eu18.

Waurms

Da, jedni su Rusi a drugi Poljaci.

[Jebivjetar]

Eu19 ima izmedju 18% i 30% Srba, 35% Makedonaca.
Od kud ti podaci?
Što nije 16%, a dok bosanskih Srba samo 13,6% ?

[Waurms]

Razlika se odnosi na gene ne na ime naroda.

Waurms

[Ace Rimmer]

Eu19 ima izmedju 18% i 30% Srba, 35% Makedonaca.

Na koje se istraživanje pozivaš po kojem Srbi imaju 18%-30% Eu19 (HG3) tj. R1a? tzv. slavenski marker.

Meni su samo poznati podatci za Srbe od HG3 16% (Rosser 2000) ,
R1a 15,93% (High resolution phylogenetic analysis of Southeastern Europe 2005)
te ono za BiH Srbe R1a 13,6% (The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups 2005)

[Pablo Escobar]

@Gromovnik: Ne znam tacno koja su istrazivanja pominjala koji procenat,
naveo sam oba koja se najcesce pominju za Srbiju. Ne znam ni da li se ovo odnosi samo na etnicke Srbe, ili sve stanovnike Srbije. Pominje se takodje da je glavna koncentracija na severu i duž reke Morave.

@Waurms: ono što svi pokušavaju da ti kažu je da nema tog genetskog markera koji će ti reći nacionalnost nekog čoveka.

Razni vidovi Eu19/HG3/R1a se nalaze u velikim procentima među mnogim narodima, od Švedske do Indije i od Austrije do Kine.

[Watzy]

Eu19 ima izmedju 18% i 30% Srba, 35% Makedonaca.

"Na uzorku iz srbije (Beograd) udio (slavenskog) haplotipa Eu19 iznenađujuće je nizak, gotovo dvostruko niži nego kod Hrvata, a četverostruko niži nego kod Poljaka. Od Hrvata razlikuju se i po velikom udjelu haplogrupe E koja je, od zemljopisno bližih naroda glavna značajka Grka i Albanaca." http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload4/56.gif

srbi (Beograd): http://vetinari.sitesled.com/slavic.pdf

Bosanski srbi - niži postotak.

[Watzy]

Razni vidovi Eu19/HG3/R1a se nalaze u velikim procentima među mnogim narodima, od Švedske do Indije i od Austrije do Kine.

To je dokaz da su ta područja nekad naseli istočni Europljani čije se širenje najvjerojatnije poklapa s širenjem vedskih Arijaca (Indija) i Tohara (Kina). Hvala na iznošenju već poznatoga. http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload4/56.gif

[Pablo Escobar]

Zvaci, please don't spam the thread with your propaganda. Thank you :p

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

Hello my Balkan friends,

If anyone is interested in some more info on Slavic markers, then here it is...

The most typical Slavic markers are R1a1 and I1b. This goes well with the theory that Slavs are a fusion of Eastern and Balkan Europeans of varying degrees; R1a1 being Eastern and I1b being Balkan.

Thus, Poles are probably the closest thing to a typical Slavic population: 57% of R1a1 and 17.3% of I, about 10% of which is I1b.

(Based on largest single sample of Poles to date: 913)

Mainland Croatians are very close statistically to Poles, but they have a greater Balkan component than Poles. They carry 34.3% of R1a1 and 32.4% of I.

This is to be expected, as the Slavs that migrated to Croatia came from Poland (theory based on ancient cranial data that puts Croatian samples closer to Polish ones than any others), and then they mixed with Balkan natives.

In terms of Germanic heritage (I1a and I1c), Croats show less than Slovenians, Poles and even northern Russians.

In terms of R1b, northern Croatians appear to show slightly more of the western variety (Haplotype 15), while southern Croatians more of the eastern variety (Haplotype 35). But I don't have any detailed info on that. If anyone does that would be most interesting.

Scandinavians and Germans are clearly more Haplotype 15. Poles are more Haplotype 15, but the difference is not as great. Ukranians are more Haplotype 35.

In this respect, most Croatians would resemble Poles more than any group I would assume.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_ht35_analysis.htm

[Jebivjetar]

For detailed study on genetic legacy of Croats try this one.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Barac2003.pdf

PS
Cool nickname. :D

[Professor John Frink]

Umm, Kielbasa i Piwo = Crispy Bacon? :D

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

Umm, Kielbasa i Piwo = Crispy Bacon? :D

Hehe...you know my style. :)

[Ace Rimmer]

In this respect, most Croatians would resemble Poles more than any group I would assume.


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1643/dendrogram6bw.jpg

[Professor John Frink]

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1643/dendrogram6bw.jpg
We would appreciate a source, Gromovnik.

[Ace Rimmer]

We would appreciate a source, Gromovnik.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/08/haplogroup-frequency-correlations-in.html

[Professor John Frink]

I see. It's a compilation of several studies carried out during the last, say, 3 years.

It would make more sense to take a look at the individual studies.

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

I was talking about R1b types, not Y-chromosomes in general.

[Watzy]

...I1b being Balkan...

Several facts are speaking against Balkan label of I1b:


Since I1b is commune amongst West Ukrainians (Ruthenians and Galicians), I1b is Sout-East European, and not 'Balkan' marker per se. Source (http://www.pran.ru/pdf/gen/07.pdf)



I1b in Balkans is secondary or completelly scarce amongst major Balkan nations (serbs, Bosnian serbs, Albanians ect.).



When I1b originated there was no Balkans - not even in terms of geography since the entire South-Eastern Europe was one with the Middle East.
http://www.fokus-tjednik.hr/fotografije/slika_v_101.jpg

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

Several facts are speaking against Balkan label of I1b:


Since I1b is commune amongst West Ukrainians (Ruthenians and Galicians), I1b is Sout-East European, and not 'Balkan' marker per se. Source (http://www.pran.ru/pdf/gen/07.pdf)



I1b in Balkans is secondary or completelly scarce amongst major Balkan nations (serbs, Bosnian serbs, Albanians ect.).



When I1b originated there was no Balkans - not even in terms of geography since the entire South-Eastern Europe was one with the Middle East.
http://www.fokus-tjednik.hr/fotografije/slika_v_101.jpg



Well, it's considered that I1b originated in northern Balkans. And it's center today is Croatian Bosnia (70% of the population or so).

So even though I1b is still fairly common in western Ukraine this does not preclude it from being called a Balkan marker. It's now becoming more and more apparant that much of the present Ukranian population has its origins in the Balkans. I refer you to the YHRD database...

For example, the modal haplotype of Kiev 16-13-31-24-11-11-13 is also modal in:

Mostar, Bosnia
Ploesti, Romania
Constantsa, Romania
Romania
Skopje, Macedonia
Zagreb, Croatia
Turks, Bulgaria

[Watzy]

Well, it's considered that I1b originated in northern Balkans. And it's center today is Croatian Bosnia (70% of the population or so).

I1b predates the northern Balkans, so it cannot possibly originate from it. It's a simple logic.

So even though I1b is still fairly common in western Ukraine this does not preclude it from being called a Balkan marker.

It's now becoming more and more apparant that much of the present Ukranian population has its origins in the Balkans.

I refer you to the YHRD database For example, the modal haplotype of Kiev 16-13-31-24-11-11-13 is also modal in:

Mostar, Bosnia
Ploesti, Romania
Constantsa, Romania
Romania
Skopje, Macedonia
Zagreb, Croatia
Turks, Bulgaria

These examples are picked selectively from Balkan countries (without stating percentages) and could mislead to the wrong conclusion I1b is some sort of the pan-Balkan type and rare in Central and Eastern Europe amongst Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians and even Russians.

"For I1b*, conversely, the highest h values are in the Bakan populations—among Bosnians (0.93) and Croats (0.85)—coinciding with the area of its frequency peak, but equally high values were also observed for Czechs and Slovaks (0.90). The lowest h values of I1b* were detected among Turks (0.76) and in our Moldavian sample (0.41)."

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v75_Semino.pdf

"It's interesting (and surprising) that this modal haplotype is not detected in Greece, even though Greece has about 10% of haplogroup I1b."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/01/modal-haplotype-of-zagreb-croatia.html

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

Well I guess we could say it's relatively speaking a Balkan marker. We could also say I1b probably originated in what is NOW the northern Balkans.

Btw, Greeks aren't exactly the typical Balkan population. They are very different from most of the populations to the imediate north.

[Ace Rimmer]

Btw, Greeks aren't exactly the typical Balkan population. They are very different from most of the populations to the imediate north.

You speak in respect to Haplogroups? Greeks being more Neolithic.

[Kielbasa i Piwo]

You speak in respect to Haplogroups? Greeks being more Neolithic.


More Neolithic, and basically much more Middle Eastern.

[OVERWATCH]

I don't normally intervene in Former Yugoslav affairs, however I moved a large but off topic post to the Serb forum, and deleted a couple of responses in this thread. ;)

[Ace Rimmer]

Good, we need moderaturd fast.

[Jebivjetar]

Nekaj kaj sam našao malo prije na Wikipediji.

A new study (Rebala et al. 2007) studied several Slavic populations with the aim of localizing the Proto-Slavic homeland. A significant finding of this study is that: Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: One encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and two Southern - Slavic populations, and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs.” According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools, and this similarity can be traced to an origin in middle Dnieper basin of the Ukraine from Ukrainian LGM refuge 15 kya.

Ima netko možda tu studiji ili zna nešto više o njoj?

[Ace Rimmer]

Ima netko možda tu studiji ili zna nešto više o njoj?

A recent study (Rebala et al. 2007) studied several Slavic populations with the aim of localizing the Proto-Slavic homeland. A significant finding of this study is that: “Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: one encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and two Southern-Slavic populations, and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs.” According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools, and this similarity can be traced to an origin in middle Dnieper basin of the Ukraine.

However, southern Slavic populations such as Serbians, Slav Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Bosnians are separated from the tight cluster of Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by “the contribution of the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs.” Thus, even Slavic populations from the Balkans are partly descended from the pre-Slavic inhabitants.

The most apparent genetic distance was found between the northern (Eastern and Western) and Southern Slavs, who at the end of the 9th century were separated by the invasion of Finno-
Ugric Hungarians [...] The observed northern Slavic Y-STR genetic homogeneity extends from Slovakia and Ukraine to parts of Russia and Belarus, but also involves Southern-Slavic populations of Slovenia and western Croatia, and is the most probably due to a homogeneous genetic substrate inherited from the ancestral Slavic population. However, due to the Y-STR proximity of linguistically and geographically Southern-Slavic Slovenes and western Croats to the northern Slavic branch, the observed genetic differentiation cannot simply be explained by the separation of both Slavic-speaking groups by the non-Slavic Romanians, Hungarians, and Germanspeaking Austrians [...] Thus, the contribution of the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs is the most likely explanation for this phenomenon. On the other hand, our results indicate no significant genetic traces of pre-sixth-century inhabitants of present-day Slovenia in the Slovene Y chromosome genetic pool.

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/fallmerayer/slavstr.jpg

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/fallmerayer/

Ništa novo ako se mene pita.Potvrda svega raspravljanog do sad. :d

[Jebivjetar]

Ma da, i ja sam upravo to predpostavljao ali dobro je imati crno na bijelo.

[Jebivjetar]

BTW
Evo reklama za sutrašnju emisiju.

http://i18.tinypic.com/6cy13cl.jpg

[Ace Rimmer]

Izgleda i zvuči kao fijasko.

Evo iskopah i cijelu studiju Rebala et al. 2007 "Y-str variation among Slavs:evidence for the Slavic homeland in the middle Dnieper basin" (http://rapidshare.com/files/36552891/Rebala_2007.pdf.html).

Zapravo su novi uzorci uzeti samo za Poljake, Bjeloruse i Slovake.
Za ostale su narode korišteni oni što imamo do sad.

[Zrinski]

Meni zvuci zanimljivo. Hvala na obavijesti, sigurno cu to pogledati sutra. ;)

[Ace Rimmer]

Bogam' ,fina emisija. :)

[Jebivjetar]

Odlična je bila ova emisija o genetskom porijeklu. Objektivno, realno, bez pizdarija.

Jedva čekam slijedeći tjedan.

[VAMPIR]

Odlična je bila ova emisija o genetskom porijeklu. Objektivno, realno, bez pizdarija.

Jedva čekam slijedeći tjedan.
'Ebi ga, propustio sam je. Sad sam doma u HN pa imam HRT 1 i 2. Što je poenta? Koji su zaključci?

[Jebivjetar]

'Ebi ga, propustio sam je. Sad sam doma u HN pa imam HRT 1 i 2. Što je poenta? Koji su zaključci?
Nema još poante. Ovo je tek prvi od četri dijela.
Ovo kaj su do sada prikazali je prezentacija studija koje se vrte po netu već neko vrijeme. Nema mitomanije i nacionalnog romantizma.

Nadam se da ću dobiti za koji dan snimku pa bubnem na rapidshare i dam linkove ovdje.



Od Bore Lee-a sam gledao samo jedan film do sada. Baš taj Čuvaj se sinjske ruke. Treba nabaviti rane uradke, oni su još veći trash od ovih novijih. :D

[Defensor Fidei]

Dobra je emisija, samo nisam čuo ništa novog

[Ace Rimmer]

Dobra je emisija, samo nisam čuo ništa novog

Pa da, sve sto je izaslo je dostupno na internetu odavna.

[Jebivjetar]

Al 99% ljudi još ništa od toga nije vidjelo. :D

[Ace Rimmer]

Al 99% ljudi još ništa od toga nije vidjelo. :D

Toliko ce ih vjerojatno i krivo shvatiti sve receno.

[Jebivjetar]

Evo linkovi za emisiju...

http://rapidshare.com/files/37240836/mi_hrvati.avi.001.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37256504/mi_hrvati.avi.002.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37264351/mi_hrvati.avi.003.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37271689/mi_hrvati.avi.004.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37278112/mi_hrvati.avi.005.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37287410/mi_hrvati.avi.006.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/37289769/mi_hrvati.avi.007.html

... i za članak u Jutarnjem listu.

http://www.jutarnji.hr/nedjeljni_jutarnji/clanak/art-2007,6,9,podrijetlo_hrvata,77897.jl

Ovaj kratki pregled iz JL članaka skoro u potpusnosti potvrđuje ono o čemu mi već par godina pričamo na raznim forumima. Ne znam za ostale, ali od sada se osjećam jako pametno. :D

[Dardanian11]

can some one explan what mean about those HLA among Albanians?, i dont understand nothing here?

HLA Class I Polymorphism
in the Albanian Population
Z. Grubi}1, V. Kerhin-Brklja~i}1, E. ^e~uk-Jeli~i}1, S. Kuci2
and A. Ka{telan1
1 National Referral Organ Transplantation and Tissue Typing Center,
University Hospital Center Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
2 Faculty of Medicine Pri{tina, Pri{tina, Kosovo

A B S T R A C T
The HLA class I polymorphism was studied in a sample of the Albanian population.
Ninety-three unrelated healthy Albanians were typed for HLA-A, -B and -Cw antigens
by standard microlyphocytotoxicity test. The antigens with the highest frequencies were:
HLA-A2 (34.4%), A3 (14.5%) and A1 (12.4%); B51 (19.3%), B35 (12.4%) and B18
(10.2%); Cw4 (16.2%), Cw7 (16.2%) and Cw6 (10.8%). The HLA haplotypes with high
frequency in Albanians included A2-B51 (4.3%), A2-B18 (2.4%), A2-B35 (2.4%),
Cw4-B35 (7.6%), and Cw7-B18 (6.5%), which are not significantly different from the
other neighboring populations. Low frequency of HLA-A1-B8 haplotype (1.1%) is noted
in the Albanian population. The frequency of HLA-B27 antigen (1.1%) is one of the lowest
frequencies observed in Caucasians. Such results are important in studies of
HLA-A1-B8, HLA-B27 and disease associations. These findings should be also useful in
understanding the origin of Albanians, representing a base for future studies about
HLA polymorphism in the Albanian population.


The main characteristic of the HLA
system is a great polymorphism, which
makes it very useful for population studies
and for studying the origins of different
ethnic groups1. It may also be used to
single out populations. First, particular
alleles are only observed in some populations
(e. g., HLA-A36, -A43 in Negroids)
or some alleles are very frequent in many
populations (e. g., HLA-A2)2. Second, the
strong linkage disequlibrium between
HLA alleles at two or three neighboring
loci shows that certain combinations
(HLA haplotypes) are characteristic in
frequency of one or a large number of populations3.
Albanians are a very homogenous population,
their history suggests that they
did not mix with neighboring populations.
It is assumed that Albanians have
Illyrian origin4. The Illyrians are of spe-

More here:>>>

http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak_download&id_clanak_jezik=15462

[Ace Rimmer]

HLA is human leukocyte antigen and is basicaly a blood sample http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen

We're mostly discussing Y-chromosome here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups

[Defensor Fidei]

Albanians are a very homogenous population, their history suggests that they did not mix with neighboring populations. It is assumed that Albanians have Illyrian origin


:rofl: Oh my God, what a blasphemy !!!

[Jebivjetar]

http://i7.tinypic.com/61ycd9u.jpg

[Ace Rimmer]

Uf, lingvistika i toponimi me uvijek snervaju. : (

I koji mu je kua ono pilanje seljaka "Ima li tu Hrvata?" ?!?!

[Sivi_Sokol]

Uf, lingvistika i toponimi me uvijek snervaju. : (

I koji mu je kua ono pilanje seljaka "Ima li tu Hrvata?" ?!?!

To mu je bilo malo blesavo, dobio sam dojam kao da su nekakvi cigani u potrazi za srednjo-europskim korijenima...

[Watzy]

Mene je iznerviralo negiranje Bijelih Hrvata od strane poljskih i čeških znanstvenika. Poljaci i Česi su se formirali kao etničke grupe tek u X stoljeću, pa im je neudobno priznati da je u njihovoj etnogenezi sudjelovao stariji narod. Slavenski narodi su iskompleksirana govna.

Svoju superiornost naši predci vjerojatno duguju upravo arijskoj krvi irano-sarmatskih predaka Ukrajine/Donske Hrvatske. Stari su Slaveni bili vrlo primitivna sorta na rubu divljaštva i bogolikim predcima nije bilo teško staviti ih pod kopito.

[Jebivjetar]

Eh, i meni je bilo previše toponima i lutanja po selima, a premalo genetike.

Mene je iznerviralo negiranje Bijelih Hrvata od strane poljskih i čeških znanstvenika. Poljaci i Česi su se formirali kao etničke grupe tek u X stoljeću, pa im je neudobno priznati da je u njihovoj etnogenezi sudjelovao stariji narod. Slavenski narodi su iskompleksirana govna.

S jedne strane ih i razumijem. Niti meni ne bi bilo baš drago da najednom Albanci počnu govoriti kako su oni više ili manje zaslužni za stvaranje kneževine Hrvatske zbog Dalmata, Histra, Liburna i ostalih ilirskih plemena.



U sljedećoj epizodi ekipa odlazi Ukrajinu. Navodno se Ukrajinci rado sječaju Bijelih Hrvata. :D

[Sivi_Sokol]

Mene je iznerviralo negiranje Bijelih Hrvata od strane poljskih i čeških znanstvenika. Poljaci i Česi su se formirali kao etničke grupe tek u X stoljeću, pa im je neudobno priznati da je u njihovoj etnogenezi sudjelovao stariji narod. Slavenski narodi su iskompleksirana govna.

Svoju superiornost naši predci vjerojatno duguju upravo arijskoj krvi irano-sarmatskih predaka Ukrajine/Donske Hrvatske. Stari su Slaveni bili vrlo primitivna sorta na rubu divljaštva i bogolikim predcima nije bilo teško staviti ih pod kopito.

Baš to. :whip:
Državotvorni element su dobili od stranaca.

[Watzy]

S jedne strane ih i razumijem. Niti meni ne bi bilo baš drago da najednom Albanci počnu govoriti kako su oni više ili manje zaslužni za stvaranje kneževine Hrvatske zbog Dalmata, Histra, Liburna i ostalih ilirskih plemena.

Mislim da Albanci (tj. njihovi ekstremi) ne tvrde da su oni pridonjeli stvaranju hrv. državnosti, već tek da imaju pravo na našu zemlju zato što je ona nekad bila ilirska. Pri tome prešućuju dvije stvari: da su kneževinu Hrvatsku stvorili Bijeli Hrvati, narod arijskog imena, a ne Iliri, Avari ili Slaveni (podvrgnute mase), te da Albanci mogu biti potomci jedino Dardanaca, a ne svih Ilira. Hrvati su se mješali s Dalmatima, Panoncima, Histrima itd., a ne Albanci.

U sljedećoj epizodi ekipa odlazi Ukrajinu. Navodno se Ukrajinci rado sječaju Bijelih Hrvata. :D

Zapadni Ukrainci i Rusini su zakon, najvjerojatnije stoga što baštine s arijsku krv Sakâ. Samo oni 'Slaveni' na koje je arijska rasa izvršila utjecaj su se pokazali kao kulturonosni, stvarateljski i državotvorni. Najbolji primjeri su Kijevska Rusija (preteća Ukrajine), Bijela Hrvatska (srušena od slava) i kneževina Hrvatska.

[Jebivjetar]

Mislim da Albanci (tj. njihovi ekstremi) ne tvrde da su oni pridonjeli stvaranju hrv. državnosti, već tek da imaju pravo na našu zemlju zato što je ona nekad bila ilirska.
Što je zapravo još gore. Srećom to su samo balavci i internet ratnici. Koliko znam u albanskim političkim krugovima nema takvih luđaka.

Ja sam ono gore napisao samo teoretski, kao usporedbu.

Pri tome prešućuju dvije stvari: da su kneževinu Hrvatsku stvorili Bijeli Hrvati, narod arijskog imena, a ne Iliri, Avari ili Slaveni (podvrgnute mase), te da Albanci mogu biti potomci jedino Dardanaca, a ne svih Ilira. Hrvati su se mješali s Dalmatima, Panoncima, Histrima itd., a ne Albanci.
Svakako. Ali nisam ja taj kojemu se to mora objasniti. :D

Zapadni Ukrainci i Rusini su zakon, najvjerojatnije stoga što baštine s arijsku krv Sakâ. Samo oni 'Slaveni' na koje je arijska rasa izvršila utjecaj su se pokazali kao kulturonosni, stvarateljski i državotvorni. Najbolji primjeri su Kijevska Rusija (preteća Ukrajine), Bijela Hrvatska (srušena od slava) i kneževina Hrvatska.
Srednjovjekovno poljsko plemstvo također je zagovaralo sarmatsko porijeklo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

[Ace Rimmer]

Prvi dio http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif
Drugi dio http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[Jebivjetar]

Danas...

http://i16.tinypic.com/52okhn4.jpg

[Jebivjetar]

Prvi dio http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif
Drugi dio http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif
Treći dio. http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Nabrajanje ozljeda nađenih na kosturu nekog balkanskog starosjedioca je živi horor. Trostruki prijelom ruke, lom nosa, fraktura i udubljenje lubanje, oštećena kralježnica od izrabljivanja. Ti Hrvati su bili nepamćeno barbarsko zlo. :rofl:

[Ace Rimmer]

Treći dio. http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Nabrajanje ozljeda nađenih na kosturu nekog balkanskog starosjedioca je živi horor. Trostruki prijelom ruke, lom nosa, fraktura i udubljenje lubanje, oštećena kralježnica od izrabljivanja. Ti Hrvati su bili nepamćeno barbarsko zlo. :rofl:

Hm, samo mi nije jasno, mislim mlatili su ga a pokopan je skupa sa njima u iste grobnice na isti nacin?

[Sivi_Sokol]

I meni se sviđa treći dio. I dragi su mi ovi zapadni Ukrajinci :)

@Pro Patria : gosp. Rebić (?) je spominjao onu borbu Peruna i zmaja (Velesa...) to ti je detaljno i stručno kroz obrede proučavano u onoj knjizi koju sam ti u Slavenstvo temi spomenuo... Prije neki dan sam ju iskopao, ako ću imat vremena opet ću je pročitat ipak je prošlo hm... skoro 10 godina.

@Gromovnik: zašto misliš da su iz iste grobnice, serija je malo nespretno povezana tako da mi je možda nešto promaknulo...

[Jebivjetar]

Hm, samo mi nije jasno, mislim mlatili su ga a pokopan je skupa sa njima u iste grobnice na isti nacin?
E sad nisam ziher kaj su točno rekli jer su me ove ozljede šokirale.

Ali što me odmah začudilo... Njihov zaključak je kako su Hrvati imali puno robusnije lubanje od starosjedioca. To mi se ne poklapa s mišljenjem kako su Hrvati iz Like, Zagore, Hercegovine uglavnom starosjedioci, a upravo su oni najrobusniji od svih nas. :confused:

Drugu i treću epizodu ću dobiti sutra ili prekosutra na DVDu pa ako je netko zainteresiran mogu baciti na rapidshare. Ali dajte onda recite jer mi se ne da zajebavat i nositi DVD na faks ako nitko ne misli skidati.

[Ace Rimmer]

@Gromovnik: zašto misliš da su iz iste grobnice, serija je malo nespretno povezana tako da mi je možda nešto promaknulo...

Ako nisam krivo cuo, receno je da su u iskapanim grobnicama pronadjene dvije vrste kostura, robusniji za koje vele da su Hrvati, slicni sa poljskim i ukrajinskim kosturima, te manji, za koje se pretpostavlja da su pripadali romanskim starosjediocima.

Posto su u istim grobnicama na isti nacin pokopani(ako sam dobro cuo)
zar nije onda za predpostaviti da su vec dijelili istu sudbinu te da su ozljede iz boja, umjesto ovog ropskog odnosa?


Ali što me odmah začudilo... Njihov zaključak je kako su Hrvati imali puno robusnije lubanje od starosjedioca. To mi se ne poklapa s mišljenje kako su Hrvati iz Like, Zagore, Hercegovine uglavnom starosjedioci i upravo su oni najrobusniji od svih. :confused:

Starosjedioci su takodjer i mediteranski romani, pa je moguce da su prije s njima dolazili u doticaj(trgovacki,vojno,kulturno,porodicno) kao sa skupinom na vecem nivou, nego sa "seljackim" Dinarcima.

Al, sta ja tu znam na kraju.

[Sivi_Sokol]

Pa zar nije osporeno da mediteranskih romana ovdje ima jako malo, možda ih uopće nije ni bilo nego da su to bili romanizirani starosjedioci? (Nije ni bitno, to mi je sad palo na pamet...)

Ja, za razliku od vas uopće nisam bio čuo da, dok su pričali o onim ozljedama, misle o starosjediocu nego o Slavenu nekakvom (čisto iz predrasuda valjda koje imam prema njima...).

Inače, ja bi htio dokumentarac, ali ne moraš ići na faks samo zbog mene...

[Jebivjetar]

Hrvati se nisu naselili odmah u dalmatinske gradove nego u zaleđe tih gradova, dakle vjerojatnije je da su prvo došli u kontakte s dinarcima iz zaleđa nego s mediterancima iz gradova koji ionako nisu bili po hrvatskom kontrolom prvih par stoljeća.

Plus toga ako gledamo vjerojatnosti, dinarci su dosta brojniji od mediteraca.

Inače, ja bi htio dokumentarac, ali ne moraš ići na faks samo zbog mene...
Ma imam ionako sad hrpu ispita pa sam tamo htio ili ne htio. Samo trebam uzeti DVD i uploadati iz labosa.

[Ace Rimmer]

Pa zar nije osporeno da mediteranskih romana ovdje ima jako malo, možda ih uopće nije ni bilo nego da su to bili romanizirani starosjedioci? (Nije ni bitno, to mi je sad palo na pamet...)


Kako ih ne bi bilo, tu su Neolitski farmeri od prije 5000-8000g, pa Grci, Rimljani,Bizant..., na kraju krajeva, nije bas mali broj danasnjih Hrvata Mediteranskog tipa , posebno u Dalmaciji.

[Jebivjetar]

Eh da, fora su mi bili usputni komentari o Ukrajini. Spominjanje Lenjina, korupcije, upitnog radnog vremena, virenja u čašicu i slično. :rofl:

[Ace Rimmer]

Hrvati se nisu naselili odmah u dalmatinske gradove nego u zaleđe tih gradova, dakle vjerojatnije je da su prvo došli u kontakte s dinarcima iz zaleđa nego s mediterancima iz gradova koji ionako nisu bili po hrvatskom kontrolom prvih par stoljeća.

Kao sto rekoh, ovi iz gradova su bili na vecem civilizacijskom nivou, od tud vece veze, pa (opet ako sam dobro cuo) tome ide i u prilog pronadjeni mediteranski tip u grobnicama dok je dinarski odsutan.

Plus toga ako gledamo vjerojatnosti, dinarci su dosta brojniji od mediteraca.

Demografska slika podrucja je nesto sto se promjeni u 2-3 generacije.Tko zna kakvo je stanje tada bilo, jedna grupa presisa drugu u vrlo kratkom vremenu,
tako je i danas.

[Sivi_Sokol]

Nemam pojma, to mi je ostalo kad sam, prije (opet) par godina, Mužića čitao, ali onda opet zar je moguće da gradski civilizirani ljudi (što znači manji broj, svi su oni imali epizodne uloge ovdje), (osim možda farmerski udjel) ostave primjetan trag na ljudima danas?

[Sivi_Sokol]

Eh da, fora su mi bili usputni komentari o Ukrajini. Spominjanje Lenjina, korupcije, upitnog radnog vremena, virenja u čašicu i slično. :rofl:

I sviđa mi se kako blati Jugoslaviju i socijalistički sustav...

[Sivi_Sokol]

Ali onda opet, nemam vaše znanje tako da se ne ću mješat u to...

[Ace Rimmer]

Nemam pojma, to mi je ostalo kad sam, prije (opet) par godina, Mužića čitao, ali onda opet zar je moguće da gradski civilizirani ljudi (što znači manji broj, svi su oni imali epizodne uloge ovdje), (osim možda farmerski udjel) ostave primjetan trag na ljudima danas?

Demografija is a bitch :P.
Zamisli covjeka koji ima troje muske djece u to doba te kao zivi bolje(grad?),
te uspije odhraniti svo troje, pa onda i ovi imaju potomstvo...

Kazu da Dzingis-Kan ima milijune potomaka danas.

[Sivi_Sokol]

Demografija is a bitch :P.
Zamisli covjeka koji ima troje muske djece u to doba te kao zivi bolje(grad?),
te uspije odhraniti svo troje, pa onda i ovi imaju potomstvo...

Kazu da Dzingis-Kan ima milijune potomaka danas.

Da, pretpostavljam da sam temelj mog shvaćanja pojma demografije je kriv...

[Ace Rimmer]

Ali onda opet, nemam vaše znanje tako da se ne ću mješat u to...

Nije to neko znanje, podlogu je lako skuziti, sve ovo sto pisem(o) spekuliramo, sto i ti cinis , sto cine i ovi sto rade emisiju.

[Sivi_Sokol]

Nije to neko znanje, podlogu je lako skuziti, sve ovo sto pisem(o) spekuliramo, sto i ti cinis , sto cine i ovi sto rade emisiju.

Znači, ukratko, :deadhorse: ...

[Ace Rimmer]

Znači, ukratko, :deadhorse: ...

Tocno :rofl:

[Jebivjetar]

Makar možda ništa nije točno, svejedno je zabavno raspravljat o ovakvim temama. :D

[Ace Rimmer]

Uvijek.

Jebivjetar :rofl:

[Jebivjetar]

Demografija is a bitch :P.
Zamisli covjeka koji ima troje muske djece u to doba te kao zivi bolje(grad?),
te uspije odhraniti svo troje, pa onda i ovi imaju potomstvo...
Čuj na selu iako se lošije živjelo ljudi su uvijek imali cijeli čopor djece, više nego obitelji u gradovima. I koliko znam uvijek su se ljudi selili iz sela u grad, a ne obratno.

Zapravo ovo i ide u prilog tebi. Možda dinarci i nisu bili toliko brojniji od mediteranaca u ranom srednjem vijeku nego su tek kasnije brojno ojačali.

[Ace Rimmer]

Čuj na selu iako se lošije živjelo ljudi su uvijek imali cijeli čopor djece, više nego obitelji u gradovima. I koliko znam uvijek su se ljudi selili iz sela u grad, a ne obratno.

Da, u relativno modernija vremena kad je smrtnost po selima opala i put od sela ka gradu otvoren.
Ali ovo je rani srednji vijek, ne mogu zamislit koja je smrtnost djece im bila, sigurno velika
ili da neki seljo jednostavno udje u zidine u to vrijeme i nastani se trajno tek tako.

Zapravo ovo i ide u prilog tebi. Možda dinarci i nisu bili toliko brojniji od mediteranaca u ranom srednjem vijeku nego su tek kasnije brojno ojačali.

To je to, demografska slika nam nije dostupna i promjenjiva je.
Ako je dinarski kostur odsutan, mozda zaista nisu tada brojni, a mozda ih nije ni bilo u nizinskim zaledjima gradova kao sto su Ravni Kotari.

p.s.A mozda ih nisu primali u svoje redove(jer pricali su samo o hrvatskim grobnicama, ne znaci da nema drugih okolo)

možda, možda, možda

[VAMPIR]

Čuj na selu iako se lošije živjelo ljudi su uvijek imali cijeli čopor djece, više nego obitelji u gradovima...
Čuj, selo je ubjedljivo kasnije dobilo elektrifikaciju...:D


JEBIVJETAR...http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif... nick bez konkurencije...

[Guard]

JEBIVJETAR...http://www.thephora.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif... nick bez konkurencije...

Potpisujem.
"Interests:
Drinking and fighting" :bbbat:
Kao da je neko moje prepisao...
:rofl:

[Jebivjetar]

Ako ovo još niste vidjeli... Linkova za studije cijelo brdo. :)

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/popgen.htm

[Jebivjetar]

Ovo će biti zanimljivo.... One dvije lubanje iz emisije.
http://forum.stirpes.net/anthropometrics/12529-please-classy-two-skulls.html

[Guard]

Ovo će biti zanimljivo.... One dvije lubanje iz emisije.
http://forum.stirpes.net/anthropometrics/12529-please-classy-two-skulls.html
Hmm
za prvu sam prilično siguran da je pripadala "dinarcu"
vidjet ćemo što će na stirpesu reći...

[Jebivjetar]

Ja bih rekao da je prva dinarid, druga cromagnid. S tim da mi određivanje antropoloških tipova nije jača strana.

[Guard]

Ja bih rekao da je prva dinarid, druga cromagnid. S tim da mi određivanje antropoloških tipova nije jača strana.
Bravo majstore!
Na stirpesu se najveći baja, što se tiče antropologije, slaže s tobom. :)

[Jebivjetar]

Druga epizoda

http://rapidshare.com/files/39939009/hrvati2.avi.001
http://rapidshare.com/files/39905315/hrvati2.avi.002
http://rapidshare.com/files/39916233/hrvati2.avi.003
http://rapidshare.com/files/39926715/hrvati2.avi.004
http://rapidshare.com/files/39946930/hrvati2.avi.005
http://rapidshare.com/files/39984957/hrvati2.avi.006

Treća epizoda

http://rapidshare.com/files/39990700/hrvati3.avi.001
http://rapidshare.com/files/40000573/hrvati3.avi.002
http://rapidshare.com/files/40020405/hrvati3.avi.003
http://rapidshare.com/files/40029251/hrvati3.avi.004
http://rapidshare.com/files/40077888/hrvati3.avi.005
http://rapidshare.com/files/40097585/hrvati3.avi.006

[Jebivjetar]

Još malo pa zadnja epizoda...

http://i11.tinypic.com/4zuu8fd.jpg

[Jebivjetar]

Bla... Sve skupa kad se pogleda, premalo genetike, a previše putopisnih sranja.

[Sivi_Sokol]

Bla... Sve skupa kad se pogleda, premalo genetike, a previše putopisnih sranja.

Lice voditelja me podsjeća na lice krapinskog pračovjeka...

Pretpostavljam da u početku je bilo samo genetika, ali je emisija trajala sve skupa15-ak minuta pa su se odlučili ubaciti i putopis.
A u DVD verziji će biti i seksa.

[Jebivjetar]

Moglo bi se sat-dva bez problema ispuniti govorom isključivo o genetičkom porijeklu hrvatske populacije ali takva emisija ne bi bila zanimljiva prosječnom gledatelju.

Mislim da bi bilo najbolje da su napravili dvije epizode od recimo sat i pol.
Prva opširno o populacijama koje su živjele na teritoriju Hrvatske prije dolaska Hrvata, a druga o samim Hrvatima, njihovom podrijetlu i kakav su utjecaj imali na autohtono stanovništvo.

Ovak je sve zbrda zdola. Neke komentare su tri puta ponavljali, a neke stvari ostavili nedorečenima. Na primjer, onih 10ak% 'ostalih' markera.

[Guard]

Neke komentare su tri puta ponavljali, a neke stvari ostavili nedorečenima. Na primjer, onih 10ak% 'ostalih' markera.
Tih 10% koje otpada na "ostalo", su vjerojatno ove haplogrupe P,E,J,K,G,F.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Croat_haplogroups.jpg

[Jebivjetar]

Plus I1a* (nekih 5%), I*, I1c* i možda još neki (manje od 1%).

I nisu uopće spomenuli (ne)srodnost s Irancima iako se pričalo o sarmatskom porijeklu.

Tablica za današnji Iran.
http://i8.tinypic.com/4lphv95.jpg

Jedini zanimljivi komentari u zadnjoj epizodi su mi bili kako su se Iranci doselili sa sjevera u današnji Iran pa nema logike da su Hrvati dolazili iz Afganistana koji je na jugoistoku. I objašnjenje podrijetla E3b haplogrupe s Crnog Mora koje je nekad bilo jezero.

[Guard]

Plus I1a* (nekih 5%), I*, I1c* i možda još neki (manje od 1%).
Naravno. To je uračunato u haplogrupu I.

I nisu uopće spomenuli (ne)srodnost s Irancima iako se pričalo o sarmatskom porijeklu.
Vjerojatno zato što se to ne može dokazati, jer se genetska slika tadašnjih naroda, i današnjih poslije 1800 godina bitno promjenila.
;)

[Ace Rimmer]

Nisam gledao :(

[Jebivjetar]

Naravno. To je uračunato u haplogrupu I.
U emisiji se pričalo samo o I1b*, ne cijeloj I grupi.

Vjerojatno zato što se to ne može dokazati, jer se genetska slika tadašnjih naroda, i današnjih poslije 1800 godina bitno promjenila.
;)
Mogli su svejedno prokomentirati i naglasiti da se usporedba odnosi na današnje iranske narode.

Nisam gledao :(
Biti će na netu.

[Zrinski]

U emisiju na onom grafikonu nije bilo generalno haplgrupa I nego eksplicitno haplogrupa I1b*.

Taj grafikom je malo drugaciji od ovoga postavljenog u ovom threadu u postu malo prije.

[Guard]

U emisiju na onom grafikonu nije bilo generalno haplgrupa I nego eksplicitno haplogrupa I1b*.

Taj grafikom je malo drugaciji od ovoga postavljenog u ovom threadu u postu malo prije.
Istina. Nisam našao onaj iz emisije, pa sam stavio ovaj samo za usporedbu(prilično su slični). Htio sam razjasniti ono "ostalo".

[Jebivjetar]

Stari Hrvati živjeli su 40 godina
Piše: Ivica Radoš


Za razliku od tadašnjih Europljana, stari su Hrvati bili tolerantni i gubavce nisu izopćavali iz zajednice


Poznati forenzičar i bioarheolog dr. Mario Šlaus, u nedavno objavljenoj knjizi “Bioarheologija -demografija, zdravlje, traume i prehrana starohrvatskih populacija” (Školska knjiga) otkriva nam nevjerojatne podatke o svakodnevnom životu naših predaka.

Šlaus je do saznanja došao analizirajući 600 kostura starih Hrvata s arheoloških nalazišta Donje polje - Sv. Lovre kod Šibenika, Radašinovci - Vinogradine kod Benkovca, Glavice - Gluvine kuće kraj Sinja i Velim - Velinštak kod Benkovca. Riječ je o kosturima iz druge polovice 7. do 9. stoljeća. Analizirani su ostaci Hrvata “u kolijevci hrvatske države - od Cetine do Zadra”.

Tko je dr. Mario Šlaus

Dr. Mario Šlaus (48), jedini etablirani bioarheolog u Hrvatskoj i jedan od najpoznatijih hrvatskih forenzičara, školovao se u SAD-u i Hrvatskoj. U Zagrebu je diplomirao arheologiju i danas je djelatnik Odsjeka za arheologiju HAZU te izvanredni profesor arheološke antropologije na Sveučilištu u Zadru. Suradnik je brojnih ustanova u zemlji i inozemstvu. Kao bioarheolog u SAD-u je, prilikom specijalizacije, radio na analizi posmrtnih ostataka masakriranih Indijanaca. To iskustvo mu je umnogome pomoglo pri analizi arheološke građe u Hrvatskoj. Kao forenzičar karijeru je počeo u Washingtonu, radeći na identifikaciji prve žrtve masovnog ubojice Jeffreya Dalhmera. U Hrvatskoj je postao poznat identificirajući brojne žrtve Domovinskog rata.

- Sve što čovjek radi ostavlja traga na tijelu, pa i na kostima i zubima. Osim što se analizom može rekonstruirati sudbina pojedinca, mogu se rekonstruirati socijalni odnosi u zajednici - priča dr. Šlaus.

Loši zubi žena

Šlausova istraživanja pokazuju, tako, da su Hrvatice u ranom srednjem vijeku prosječno živjele 39,7 godina, a muškarci 40 godina. Samo 10 posto starih Hrvata doživjelo je više od 50 godina. Smrtnost djece bila je iznimno visoka.

Iznenađuje podatak da su se stari Hrvati, prije nego što su prihvatili kršćanstvo, spaljivali posmrtne ostatke i pokapali ih u urnama. Taj su običaj najvjerojatnije prihvatili od stanovnika koje su zatekli pri doseljenju.

Posebnu priču, prema Šlausovim riječima, otkrivaju zubni ostaci starih Hrvata. Istraživanja su pokazala da djeca gotovo nisu imala karijes, a učestalost karijesa kod odraslih bila je oko 14 posto. Pritom je učestalost karijesa kod žena bila veća nego kod muškaraca. Kod žena starijih od 35 godina učestalost karijesa bila je čak 20 posto. Uzrok tome je različita prehrana. Muškarci su češće jeli bjelančevine (meso), a žene ugljikohidrate (žitarice).

- Žene su, budući da su bile kod kuće, više radile u vrtovima i poljima. Muškarci su jeli više proteine, što implicira ili povlaštenost muškaraca ili je to uvjetovano time što su muškarci u odsutnosti, za vrijeme ratova, lova ili teškog fizičkog rada, jeli sušeno meso. Za sada nemamo potpune odgovore na ta pitanja - naglašava dr. Šlaus.

Težak rad

Pa ipak, u odnosu na moderno doba, zubi srednjovjekovnih Hrvata bili su manje izloženi karijesu. Tvrđa hrana, naime, više troši grizne ploštine koje su, kao takve, manje pogodne za razvoj karijesa. Uz to, Hrvati su koristili zube i kao oruđe.

- Sudeći prema oštećenjima, uvijek su nešto provlačili između zubi, što je uništavalo krune. Za sada ne znamo jesu li ta habitualna oštećenja nastala zbog obrade biljne građe, pri izradi košara i obradi pruća, zbog štavljenja kože ili, možda, zbog obrade životinjskih tetiva za potrebe luka - priča dr. Šlaus.

Izvjesno je da su Hrvati teško radili, o čemu, među ostalim, svjedoči učestalost osteotritisa na zglobovima dugih kosti i preopterećenosti zglobne hrskavice. Muškarci su bili zaduženi za obavljanje većine teških poslova: kopanje, zidanje, ribarenje.

Promjene na kostima nisu, međutim, tek svjedoci teškog fizičkog rada. Na njima tragove ostavljaju i razne bolesti.

- Mene je fascinirala tolerancija starih Hrvata prema bolesnicima. Pronašli smo ostatke ljudi koji su bili beskrajno bolesni, s dugogodišnjim i kroničnim bolestima. U toj zajednici postojala je velika briga za sve članove: sve su učinili da te ljude održe u životu. Specifične zarazne bolesti koje se mogu dijagnosticirati mi smo dijagnosticirali na ostacima ranosrednjovjekovnih Hrvata, a to su tuberkuloza i guba, dok sifilis nismo zabilježili - priča Šlaus.

Veliku brigu zajednice za bolesnike dokazuju i ostaci teških reumatskih bolesnika koji su pokapani nakon uznapredovale bolesti. Forenzika je uz ostalo dokazala da su naši preci često bolovali od anemije, odnosno nedostatka željeza u krvi.

Fatalne komplikacije

Starohrvatska groblja svjedoče o tome da ondašnji Hrvati nisu imali predrasuda o gubavcima. Hrvati se, za razliku od tadašnjih Europljana, nisu okrutno ponašali prema gubavcima. Nisu usvojili predrasude svojih novih susjeda i nisu ih izopćavali.

Hrvatice iz 8. i 9. stoljeća najčešće su umirale u razdoblju od 15. do 25. godine života. Najčešći su uzroci bili komplikacije pri porodima (sepsa, tlak, krvarenja...). Današnje benigne komplikacije oko poroda plaćale su životom. U groblju Sveti Lovre kraj Šibenika očuvao se kostur žene, stare između 30 i 34 godine, koja je umrla pri porodu. Dijete je, umjesto na glavu, pokušalo izaći na noge. Pri porodu su umrli i žena i dijete. Forenzičari i arheolozi u potpunosti su rekonstruirali taj slučaj.

Problemi sa zubima Rekonstrukcija aktivnosti koja je uzrokovala oštećenja na zubima. Konopac fingira nepoznati organski materijal

Dalmatinci sretniji od Slavonaca

Uspoređujući podatke s analizom ostataka kasnosrednjovjekovnih Hrvata iz kontinentalne Hrvatske (Slavonije i Zagorja) i kasnoantičkih stanovnika Dalmacije, dr. Šlaus je došao do zaključka da su stari Hrvati u Dalmaciji bili manje izloženi stresu i da su pet-šest godina živjeli dulje od Hrvata u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj.

- Hrvati 7. i 8. stoljeća živjeli su bolje od svojih sunarodnjaka koji su živjeli od 11. do 13. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj. Kontinentalna Hrvatska je u tom razdoblju bila vrlo nesretno mjesto. Razlozi za takvo što su političke prilike jer starohrvatska populacija u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj dolazi u sukob s ostalom slavenskom populacijom te Mađarima i Bugarima, što znači da se vlast između Save i Drave često mijenjala. Kvaliteta života, u usporedbi s ranim srednjim vijekom, znatno je pala. U kasnom srednjem vijeku veći je mortalitet od zaraznih bolesti, nasilnih ozljeda i teškog fizičkog rada - objašnjava Šlaus.

http://www.jutarnji.hr/kultura_i_zivot/panorama/clanak/art-2006,12,5,stari_hrvati,53411.jl

[Jebivjetar]

http://rapidshare.com/files/41284505/hrvati4.avi.001
http://rapidshare.com/files/41289561/hrvati4.avi.002
http://rapidshare.com/files/41295113/hrvati4.avi.003
http://rapidshare.com/files/41313778/hrvati4.avi.004
http://rapidshare.com/files/41344758/hrvati4.avi.005
http://rapidshare.com/files/41353215/hrvati4.avi.006
http://rapidshare.com/files/41354531/hrvati4.avi.007

I to je to, ZGO.

[Zrinski]

Reakcije na gore spomenuti i nedavno emitirani dokumentarac:

http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_geneticko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_genetsko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/pogresan_pristup_htv-a_temi_o_genetskom_podrijetlu_hrvata.pdf

[Watzy]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zrinski again.

Reakcije na gore spomenuti i nedavno emitirani dokumentarac:

http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_geneticko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_genetsko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/pogresan_pristup_htv-a_temi_o_genetskom_podrijetlu_hrvata.pdf

Ova je kritika puno informativnija od dotičnih dokumentaraca, po svemu sudeći režiranih s ciljem prizivanja jugoslavenskih aveti prošlosti.

Hrpu stvari (kao prvo netočne postotke) sam primjetio, ali sam mislio da možda navode neku drugu kategoriju ... žensku liniju ili što li već.

Sto puta smo prenosili i naglašavali internacionalno vođena istraživanja po kojima je "autohtoni" tip Eu7/I1b* vodeći, a tzv. "slavenski" tek sekundarni - a sad, eto, odjednom antifa u bijelim kutama priča neukom gledateljstvu nešto treće; laže, slavuje, balkanči - konjušari za srbe.

[Watzy]

Previše je svih tih sitnih detaljčića koji su spomenuti, a koji zahtjevaju ispravke...

Odjednom I1B* postaje učestao u svih i svakoga (premda je u biti dominantan i konstituirajuć jedino u ljudi koji se danas zovu Hrvati)....

Od jednom se pred kamerom javljaju kreature sa makedonskim genima i šta ti ja znam...

Električni srbo-jud (HRT) radi svoje. :mad:

[Jebivjetar]

Nije li taj Biondić napravio scenu na nekoj tribini o podrijetlu Hrvata kada je vrišteći izletio iz dvorane? :D

Bilo bi pametnije da objave svoj tekst sa svojim tezama nego kaj ovako kritiziraju emisiju. Internet je barem slobodan masovni medij...

[Watzy]

Nije li taj Biondić napravio scenu na nekoj tribini o podrijetlu Hrvata kada je vrišteći izletio iz dvorane? :D

Bilo bi pametnije da objave svoj tekst sa svojim tezama nego kaj ovako kritiziraju emisiju. Internet je barem slobodan masovni medij...

Glavni prigovor na emisiju (falsifikacija postotaka tipova u populaciji) u potpunosti stoji.

A Biondić (i glavnina drugih iranista) su prića za sebe, ali s njihovom kritikom herderovštine/slavističkog dogmatizma se načelno slažem.

[Jebivjetar]

Kakva falsifikacija? :confused:

Postotci se poklapaju s “Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates” (Barac et al. 2003)

Za usporedbu s ostalim narodima evo “High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe (SEE) Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations” (Peričić 2005)

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/slavic.pdf


EDIT
Mene više zanima od kud su izvukli one podatke o I1b* u Turskoj i kod Kurda, i podatak da je kod nas indijska varijatna R1a markera.

Pa nismo valjda cigani. :D

[Watzy]

Kakva falsifikacija? :confused:

Postotci se poklapaju s “Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates” (Barac et al. 2003)

Za usporedbu s ostalim narodima evo “High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe (SEE) Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations” (Peričić 2005)

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/slavic.pdf

Cjelokupna slika Hrvatske:

"The Genetic legacy of paleolithic Homo sapiens in extant Europeans"
http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/gene_legacy/

Prešli su šutke preko onih brojki koje im ne idu u korist za dokazivanje svojih predhodno postavljenih teza.

[Jebivjetar]

Osim kaj je ta starija studija rađena na manjem uzorku, koristi stare nazive (ne raspoznaje se udio Ib1* u Eu7), rezultati su približno jednaki. Daj gledaj malo... :D

Eu19 tj R1a -> 29,3% odnosno 33,9%
Eu7 tj I -> 44,8 odnosno 37,6%
Eu18 tj R1b -> 10,3% odnosno 15,6%

Ostaju još neolitski markeri od po par postotaka.

Koji se radikalno drugačiji zaključci mogu donjeti na temelji prvih postotak, a ne mogu na temelju drugih? :confused:

[Jebivjetar]

I još nešto... Pošto sva tri pdf-a dolaze s iste stranice tj istog izvora. Ne mogu ne primjetiti jednu nelogičkost.

U prvom dokumentu A Z Lovrić piše kako kod nas prevlada indijska varijanta R1a markera, a ne slavenska. Dok su drugom dokumentu Biondić piše kako je potvrđena genetska veza s Poljacima, Ukrajincima i Mađarima.

Ovdje lud jebe zbunjenog, ili je možda cijela srednja Europa genetski indijska. :D:D

[Ace Rimmer]

Heh , zaista, al su se ovi uzasrali oko nicega, da je emisija mogla biti bolja, jest, da li je rijec o falsifikatima , nije, ima li politicku konotaciju, mozda, ne znam.
Iako glup dio emisije po meni, obisao je manje vise predpostavljenu rutu Hrvata.
Sto je trebao? Ici na Zapad u skotski Arbroath da bi udovoljio anti-slavenskoj munjari Biondicu i slicnima?

Jebivjetar je sve rekao sto se tice rezultata.

EDIT
Mene više zanima od kud su izvukli one podatke o I1b* u Turskoj i kod Kurda,

Heh... Iz: http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_geneticko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf

>>Takodjer je izmisljen neznanstveni nalog u prolog slavista, da su slavenski i dinarski tip toboze najbrojniji i ograniceni u istocnoj Europi.Novije genetske analize na Istoku nam jasno dokazuju da je nas dinarski haplotip (I1b ili M170) takodjer obilan kod sjevernih Kurda u Turskoj (33%) pa u Teheranu 34% i najveci na istocnom Kavkazu cak do 92%

Naravno, kad doticni dr.sc(bez uvrede) pojma nema da je nas pod tip I1b* i oznacava ga mutacija P-37 a ne M-170 koja oznacava megagrupu I :rolleyes:
Pa tko tu onda 'neznanstveno izmislja'?


i podatak da je kod nas indijska varijatna R1a markera.

Koliko znam Hrvati su testirani samo na megagrupu R1a-M17, neka napise na koju se studiju poziva.

Munjare, kao sto vidis, nisu za pre-ozbiljno shvatiti, iako se slazem o konceptu emisije koja odmice od glavne teme, uglavnom mi djeluju kao bjesni copor hijena kojima je genetika unistila sve radove do sad.

[Zrinski]

Iskreno receno sa odmakom neke od ovih kritika definitvno stoje. Recimo emisija je prekratka i previse fokusirana samo na jednu teoriju. Da ne govorim o onim smijesnim pohodima kroz nekakve selendre usred Poljske i potrazi za sada vec mitskim 'Bijelim Hrvatima' :rofl:

Ova tema zasluzuje daleko opsezniju obradu a ne populisticke pamflete i zajebanciju. Prosjecan covjek koji ne zna ama bas nista o genetici a jos manje o ovom istrazivanju nije nista shvatio. A bogami ni s povijesne strane. Tu se zbrckalo sve i svasta od genetike do antropolgije i socio-lingvistickih studija i teorija. Ukratko emisija nema ama bas nikakvu vrijednost.

[Jebivjetar]

http://www.croatia.ch/tjedan/041204_1.php

Kakve umotvorine... Biondić je prelud. :D

Ili ovo...

http://vijesti.hrt.hr/arhiv/2000/10/13/ZAN.html

Išli su u Iran vidjeti tanaiske ploče koje su u Rusiji. :D

[Guard]

Takodjer je izmisljen neznanstveni nalog u prolog slavista, da su slavenski i dinarski tip toboze najbrojniji i ograniceni u istocnoj Europi.Novije genetske analize na Istoku nam jasno dokazuju da je nas dinarski haplotip (I1b ili M170) takodjer obilan kod sjevernih Kurda u Turskoj (33%) pa u Teheranu 34% i najveci na istocnom Kavkazu cak do 92%
Odakle izvlače te brojeve??

Naravno, kad doticni dr.sc(bez uvrede) pojma nema da je nas pod tip I1b* i oznacava ga mutacija P-37 a ne M-170 koja oznacava megagrupu I
Pa tko tu onda 'neznanstveno izmislja'?
Ovo je mapa distribucije I1b na Balkanu, ali nekako je previše pomaknuta u desno(koliko znam, najviša frekvencija I1b je zabilježena kod Mostara):
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg

Širenje haplogrupe I poslije ledenog doba...
http://fettywww.com/europe_haplogroups.jpg

...i dolazak neolitskih markera u Europu
http://www.shirleyassociation.com/NewShirleySite/DNA/haplogroup2.jpg

[Jebivjetar]

Za europsku distribuciju haplogrupe I skini ovaj pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1181996&blobtype=pdf

A za Kavkaz skini ovaj
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf

[Zrinski]

Ovo je mapa distribucije I1b na Balkanu, ali nekako je previše pomaknuta u desno(koliko znam, najviša frekvencija I1b je zabilježena kod Mostara):

Kao da oni znaju gdje je Mostar. :p

[Ace Rimmer]

A za Kavkaz skini ovaj
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf

Kao sto i rekoh , kod njih je rijec o megagrupi I.
Kakvi šarlatani , dr.sc!

[Jebivjetar]

Jednako kao i tvz. "slavenski" haplotip (R1a ili M17) nije najbrojniji kod istočnih Slavena, nego doseže puno istočnije do srednje Azije gdje je najveći u neslavenskom Tadžikistanu gdje doseže 70%.
http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/priopcenje_povodom_dokumentarne_serije_geneticko_podrijetlo_hrvata.pdf

In all Central Asian populations, the contribution from China was not significant, and we therefore show only three interpolated maps (figs. 7b–7d). There is a major contribution from the Middle East (fig. 7b), with high levels of admixture in the Caucasus and in the westernmost Central Asian populations and with decreasing levels to the east. However, in the Uyghurs, the Middle Eastern contribution is moderately high, making them appear as an isolated island in a territory of low Middle Eastern contribution. Figure 7c portrays the estimated contribution from Central Europe. The pattern is dominated by the high frequency of haplogroup 3 in the Kyrgyz and Tajiks and probably reflects the strong founder effect in these two populations that is seen in the network analysis (data not shown). Finally, figure 7d represents the northeastern contribution. The highest amount of admixture is concentrated in the Kazaks, although some is also detectable in the Turkmen, in other eastern populations, and even in the Armenians in the Caucasus.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=419996

Hehe... Ovo su isto zaboravili spomenuti.

Još uz to su uzorci vrlo maleni... Sjetimo se kako je završila priča o mađarskih 60%. :D

[Defensor Fidei]

Kakva falsifikacija? :confused:

Postotci se poklapaju s “Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates” (Barac et al. 2003)


U tom istraživanju "slučajno" su uzeti uzorci većinom sa sjevera Hrvatske, u Pazinu, Delnicama, Zaboku, Zagrebu i Osijeku, a od južnog dijela Hrvatske uzet je samo Dubrovnik. Kao da je netko htio iz meni nepoznatih razloga da bude što više R1a jer svakome je jasno da na sjeveru ima više R1a, a na jugu uvjerljivo prevladava I-M170 Tako da je u rezultatima za "Croatia (mainland)" dobiven podjednak postotak R1a i I-M170 a to ne odražava stvarno stanje, jer da su uzorci uzimani raznomjerno po svim dijelovima Hrvatske bilo bi mnogo više I-M170
Mislim da se neko malo poigrao želeći napumpati postotak R1a, evo onda da se i ja malo poigram i napumpam postak I-M170 zbrojio sam rezultate mainlanda i otoka, ispada I-M170 48.35% R1a 24.72%

[Ace Rimmer]

U tom istraživanju "slučajno" su uzeti uzorci većinom sa sjevera Hrvatske, u Pazinu, Delnicama, Zaboku, Zagrebu i Osijeku, a od južnog dijela Hrvatske uzet je samo Dubrovnik.



U pravu si, to je lose izvedeno.

Kao da je netko htio iz meni nepoznatih razloga da bude što više R1a jer svakome je jasno da na sjeveru ima više R1a, a na jugu uvjerljivo prevladava I-M170 Tako da je u rezultatima za "Croatia (mainland)" dobiven podjednak postotak R1a i I-M170 a to ne odražava stvarno stanje, jer da su uzorci uzimani raznomjerno po svim dijelovima Hrvatske bilo bi mnogo više I-M170
Mislim da se neko malo poigrao želeći napumpati postotak R1a, evo onda da se i ja malo poigram i napumpam postak I-M170 zbrojio sam rezultate mainlanda i otoka, ispada I-M170 48.35% R1a 24.72%

Taj tvoj zbroj i jesu napravili na kraju u studiji Barac 2003.

[Jebivjetar]

Svi krajevi su podjednako pokriveni.

Zabok -> sjeverozapadna Hrvatska
Osijek -> Slavonija
Delnice -> Lika i Gorski Kotar
Pazin -> Istra
Dubrovnik -> Dalmacija
Zagreb -> miješano stanovništvo iz cijele Hrvatske

I ne može se samo zbrojiti podatke kopnene Hrvatske s otocima i nači aritmetičku sredinu jer otoci (Krk, Hvar, Brač, Korčula) predstavljaju niti 5% hrvatskog stanovništva. Nema teoretske šanse da tako mala populacija Hrvata napravi toliku razliku u postotcima.

EDIT
Još samo puno i rekao. :D
Ta 4 otoka zajedno imaju možda 6-7 tisuća stanovnika što nije niti 2 promila hrvatske populacije.

Taj tvoj zbroj i jesu napravili na kraju u studiji Barac 2003.
Gdje? Tražim i ne vidim.

[Ace Rimmer]

Svi krajevi su podjednako pokriveni.

Zabok -> sjeverozapadna Hrvatska
Osijek -> Slavonija
Delnice -> Lika i Gorski Kotar
Pazin -> Istra
Dubrovnik -> Dalmacija
Zagreb -> miješano stanovništvo iz cijele Hrvatske

Na neki nacin da, al zaista je velika rupa od Delnica do Dubrovnika,po meni su jednostavno trebali uzeti Imotski recimo, za koji cini mi se negdje postoje rezultati.

Posebno mi je zao jos sto je preskoceno podrucje srednjevjekovne Hrvatske. :(



I ne može se samo zbrojiti podatke kopnene Hrvatske s otocima i nači aritmetičku sredinu jer otoci (Krk, Hvar, Brač, Korčula) predstavljaju niti 5% hrvatskog stanovništva. Nema teoretske šanse da tako mala populacija Hrvata napravi toliku razliku u postotcima.

EDIT
Još samo puno i rekao. :D
Ta 4 otoka zajedno imaju možda 6-7 tisuća stanovnika što nije niti 2 promila hrvatske populacije.

A tako mozes onda reci i za jedan Zabok ili Delnice : P


Gdje? Tražim i ne vidim.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Barac2003.pdf

scrollaj na samo dno

[Jebivjetar]

Na neki nacin da, al zaista je velika rupa od Delnica do Dubrovnika,po meni su jednostavno trebali uzeti Imotski recimo, za koji cini mi se negdje postoje rezultati.

Posebno mi je zao jos sto je preskoceno podrucje srednjevjekovne Hrvatske. :(
Istina.

U toj rupi je najveća koncentracija I1b* ali grafovi za udio određenih haplogrupa po regijama Hrvatske tj cijele ex-Jugoslavije su izašli na vidjelo 2 godine kasnije nakon Baračeve studije.

Mislim da bi I1b* skočio za 3-4% najviše 5% da su uzeli npr Šibenik gdje je taj marker oko 60%. Procjena onako od oka. :D

A tako mozes onda reci i za jedan Zabok ili Delnice : P
Delnice i Zabok predstavljaju regije koje imaju daleko više stanovnika od pojedinog otoka.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Barac2003.pdf

scrollaj na samo dno
Još uvijek ne vidim, valjda sam čorav. :D

Na zadnjem listu je ispravak grafa grananja mutacija.

[Ace Rimmer]

Još uvijek ne vidim, valjda sam čorav. :D

Na zadnjem listu je ispravak grafa grananja mutacija.

Da, to je ispravak grafa a.) sa stranice 5 gdje je zamijenio bio R1a i R1b.
Pomnoži svaki decimalni broj ispod pojedinih grupa sa 100 i dobijes postotke za svaku pojedinu grupu (tj.ukupan rezultat->pise ti u objasnjenju ispod originalne slike).

[Jebivjetar]

Je čitao netko i ovaj pdf?
ANTROPOGENETSKI I AGROBIOLOŠKI PRIRODOZNANSTVENI DOKAZI STVARNOG PODRIJETLA HRVATA (http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/antropogenetski_i_agrobioloski_prirodoznanstveni_dokazi_stvarnog_podrijetla_hrvata.pdf)

Očito da su pomješali balkanske dinarce s armenoidnim ili možda irano-afganskim tipovima kod Iranaca, Kurda itd.

Kakva je točno razlika između ta tri tipa i kako i kada su oni nastali? Meni je dio oko antropologije jako mutan.

Gromovnik, Watzy, Zrinski? :D

[Ace Rimmer]

Sumeroidni orientalni antropotip?
U Kajkavaca? Koji su zapravo s podrucja Mezopotamije?
:(? :D?

Nije mi se dalo previse citati. :d
Dinarski antropotip koji je blizak Kurdima i Armencima jos nekako, ali samo metrički,tj. dimenzije lubanje, kraniometrijski.
Da dobro si rekao, mješa Armenoid sa Dinarid rasom, valjda pokusava progurati i antropologijom tezu da smo od tamo dosli,
a zapravu su se ove dvije rase razvile zasebno prije vise hiljada godina.

Metrički lubanje Etiopljana najblize odgovaraju Nordijskim lubanjama, isto tako.

Sto se tice razlika i objasnjenja, meni su se uvijek svidjala ova objasnjenja:

DINARID (Adriatic (Deniker); Epirotic)
Central and southeastern Europid, named with reference to the Dinaric Alps. The Dinarid is considered a Taurid, being a product of the dinaricization of an ancestral population of uncertain affiliation (a Borreby-like Cro-Magnoid type has been suggested). Dinarids are typically brachycephalic and planoccipital, long-faced and long- and convex-nosed, and intermediate to dark in pigmentation. They are most common in the Balkans, especially in the region of former Yugoslavia, and a Dinarid "belt" extends from France through southern Germany, the Alps and northern Italy, terminating in the western shoreline populations of the Black Sea. Cf. Norid.
DINARICIZATION
An evolutionary process involving brachycephalization, flattening of the occipital region, and development of a long and prominent nasal apparatus, typically of extreme convexity. Dinaricization, whatever its precise nature, could be an adaptation to life in mountainous regions, and is allegedly correlated with herding populations. The Eurasian Taurid types (including the European Dinarid) are classic examples of dinaricization, but a tendency may also be observed outside of the Europid group, e.g. in certain Indianid populations. Based on observations made by the budding physical anthropologist Byron O. Hughes in his doctor's thesis (The Physical Anthropology of Native Born Armenians), Coon explained the special set of features as the divergent outcome of interbreeding between Alpinid and Mediterranid populations of certain proportions (2/3 Mediterranid, 1/3 Alpinid; see The Races of Europe, Photographic Supplement, plate 35). It has also been suggested that brachycephalized Cro-Magnoids and/or similar strains have been involved in the various formations.

ARMENOID
Near Eastern Taurid parafamily, pertaining to the Armenid (relatively unmixed Taurid), Anatolid (Mediterranid-mixed Armenid), Assyrid and Caucasid (Dinarid-mixed Armenid) types.
Mostly brunet, large-headed Taurid type, first carefully described by von Luschan (as Armenoid). It resembles the European Dinarid, with the main exceptions of greater absolute facial dimensions and a larger nose. Armenids are prevalent among Armenians, and common throughout the Middle East, where they blend with Arabids to produce an easily recognizable Middle Eastern phenotype (cf. Assyrid). According to Coon, the Armenid (Armenoid, in his typology) type is the result of dinaricization of Iranids (Irano-Afghans, in his typology). Cf. Anatolid, Caucasid.


IRANID (Irano-Afghan (Coon))
The relatively tall, dolicho-mesocephalic, long-faced, high-headed and hook-nosed type prevalent in Iran, Afghanistan and adjacent territories. In the typology of von Eickstedt, it is an Orientalid subtype, which thereby relates it to the Arabid. Others regard it as an "East-Mediterranid"-Arabid blend, but the Iranid is morhologically more similar to Mediterranids and even Nordids (cf. Corded type) than to Arabids.

uzeto sa snpa.nordish.net

[Jebivjetar]

Show must go on...

Odgovor Hrvoja Juvančića.
http://www.portal.hrvati.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1109

Ali ispada da je masno prepisivao. :D
http://www.hsd.hr/revija/pdf/3-4-2004/04-Sekulic.pdf

[Guard]

Show must go on...

Odgovor Hrvoja Juvančića.
http://www.portal.hrvati.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1109

Ali ispada da je masno prepisivao. :D
http://www.hsd.hr/revija/pdf/3-4-2004/04-Sekulic.pdf

U Biondićevim i Lovrićevim "analizama" sam vidio da im nije baš prejasan pojam Slavenstva. Naime, oni određuju Slavenstvo,Germanstvo i sl. prema genetskoj slici naroda. Ne razumiju da biti Slaven znači govoriti slavenskim jezikom i biti član naroda koji njeguje slavensku kulturu(ili bar dio).

[Jebivjetar]

Friško iz 'ranoarijske' pekare. :)

http://www.geocities.com/cro_tanais/osvrt_na_serijal_genetsko_podrijetlo_hrvata.doc

Ovaj put su se malo više potrudili, 61 strana teksta u Wordu, doduše s fontom 12. :D

EDIT:
Ne mogu odoljeti.

Petak, 17. studenoga 2006. u 12.00 sati održan je

ZNANSTVENI SIMPOZIJ
PODRIJETLO HRVATA

u srednjoj školi Stjepana Škreblina, Pregrada

Pokrovitelj:

Grad Pregrada

http://www.monitor.hr/smilies/jumping.gifhttp://www.monitor.hr/smilies/jumping.gif

[Ace Rimmer]

Ubit će ga na kraju, psihaši.

[Jebivjetar]

Haplogroup wars: nova epizoda
http://www.hic.hr/politika-HRS03.htm

Šteta kaj Biondić nije skupio muda pitat jel Eu7 nastao kod nas ili je došao iz Irana. :D

[6(sic)6]

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/10/1964.pdf

[Jebivjetar]

Šef za genetiku je ustvrdio sljedeće...

Genetics of Albanians :
Iz dosadašnjeg niza sličica i diskusija moglo se već podosta naslutiti da s navodnim "evropsko-ilirskim" iskonom Albanaca podosta toga ne štima. I kako to često biva, Zucker kommt zu letzt: najnovija biogenetika je sada već nepobitno dokazala da su prosječni Albanci - a nadasve Kosovari, najobojeniji-nebjelački narod čitave Evrope! To su hladne i objektivne biokemijske činjenice, bez impresija i ideologije - a njihove slike su tek vidljivi odraz te organske gradje.

1. Već iz prvih poredbenih analiza muškoga Y-genoma kod 27 raznih naroda Evrope od god. 2000, jasno je uočen razmjerno najniži udio evropskih genskih tipova baš u Albaniji gdje bjelačko-evropskim tipovima u prosjeku pripada ispod polovine ili tek 2/5 stanovništva, kako slijedi: ispod 1/5 ili 19% je dinarski tip Eu7-I1 (navodni "Iliri"), pa 1/7 ili 17% zapadno-keltski tip Eu18-R1 i tek 9% istočno-slavenski tip Eu19-R1a.

2. Ostalih 3/5 ili preko pola Albanaca su nebjelačko-vanevropski genomi: 1/5 ili 20% su arapsko-levantski tip Eu9-J1 i čak 1/4 ili 24% je afro-crnački tip Eu4-E. Nakon toga su najnovije detaljne analize s brojnim uzorcima ovo potvrdile i pokazale znakovite regionalne razlike, pri čemu gornji prosjek približno odgovara i sastavu srednje Albanije - pretežno muslimanski Gegi.

3. Toski južne Albanije su naprotiv nešto bjeliji u 3/5 a samo 2/5 neevropski, što je logično jer su to dijelom albanizirani Grci i Aromuni.

4. Kosovari su bio-genetski izrazito najobojenija-neevropska etnogrupa u čitavoj Evropi tj. samo 1/3 njih pripadaju evropskim genomima, a čak 2/3 Kosovara su nebjelački: 1/3 su afro-crnačkog tipa i 1/3 istočno-azijatskog.

5. Za usporedbu, npr. u južnoj Španjolskoj (Andaluzija) gdje su kroz pola milenija u srednjem vijeku vladali afrički Mauri, danas je tek 10% afro-crnačkog tipa i 7% arapskog, a ostalih 83% su euro-bijelci. Prosječni (srednji) Albanci su genskim sastavom razmjerno bliski istočnom Kavkazu npr. Lezgini i Svaneti - ali su tamo bez afrocrnačkog udjela, što znači da je bar dio genskih Albanaca stigao ne od istoka, nego sa juga iz Afrike, pa je tak tada u Albaniji nastala ta novija afroazijska smjesa.

6. "Ilirski Dardanci": O njihovu tobožnjem "ilirskom" iskonu - nakon nove genetike svaka diskusija je posve besmislena, jer bez obzira na njihov jezik - danas biogenetsko potomstvo neizbježno dokazuje da su 3/5 Albanaca i čak 2/3 Kosovara afroazijskog iskona (a samo 19% Albanaca i desetak posto Kosovara bi možda mogli imati poneke veze s ranim Ilirima ?). Povrh toga i tobožnje povezivanje Kosovara kao nekakvih Dardanaca je antičko neznanje i bezvezna fantazija, jer su stari Dardanoi (Dardanes) uglavnom živjeli u današnjoj Šumadiji do Skoplja, - a antičko Kosovo je bila druga rimska pokrajina s imenom Praevalis i današnja primorska Albanija još dalje od toga.
- Yoshamya, 5. 4. 2008.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=5325065&postcount=127

Majstor... Svaki put je sve bolji i bolji. :rofl:

[Guard]

Hehe, kad je već E3b proglasio "nebjelačkim", mogao je reći koliko su ga našli u Srbima. :D

[Jebivjetar]

Nije on, ali ja jesam malo prije. :)

[Jebivjetar]

Viđe bre, ovi Serbi skoro da nisu uopšte beli.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/genomic-europeanism-p5336811.html#post5336811

[Jebivjetar]

Haha, obrezanci u akciji. :rofl:

http://www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/porijeklohrvataobicaji.htm

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Haha, obrezanci u akciji. :rofl:

http://www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/porijeklohrvataobicaji.htm

Ljudi moji!

Neke teorije o podrijetlu divljeg azijatskog plemena Hrvata

ROFLMAO

[slobodagovora]

Offtopic, ali - kad je Hitler rekao o Hrvatima ono što rekoše Marx i Engels u stihovima?

[Guard]

Offtopic, ali - kad je Hitler rekao o Hrvatima ono što rekoše Marx i Engels u stihovima?
I mene živo zanima..

[Sivi_Sokol]

Haha, obrezanci u akciji. :rofl:

http://www.bogbosnaibosnjastvo.org/porijeklohrvataobicaji.htm
Ovakvo razmišljanje kod njih je in, jer nas prikazuju kao strani element (nekakvo tursko pleme) na ovim prostorima dok su oni autohtoni. Inače spomenuta teorija je bila objavljena od strane nekog Turčina prije godinu ili više dana. Globus je pisao o tome. Možda sam je negdje hitio poveznice na taj članak, ne sjećam se više.
he he koji idioti, a po Bosni se slavila turska pobjeda nad hrvatskom isto kao što se orilo: "Ovo je Turska!".

[Jebivjetar]

Da, sjećam se tog članka, bio je popularan i na SF Srbija. Mora da smo omiljeni, kad nas i Turci žele pod svoje. :D

[Sivi_Sokol]

Da, sjećam se tog članka, bio je popularan i na SF Srbija. Mora da smo omiljeni, kad nas i Turci žele pod svoje. :D
he he mutavi SF Srbi. Ja mislim da je taj povjesničar srednjovjekovne Srbe isto bacao u neko tursko pleme. Kažem srednjovjekovne jer ovi današnji su očito podrijetlom Turci (barem dobar dio njih). :D

[Sivi_Sokol]

Opvscvla Archaeologica Radovi Arheološkog zavoda, Vol.23-24 No.1 Prosinac 2000.

Izvorni znanstveni članak

Kraniometrijska analiza srednjovjekovnih nalazišta središnje Europe:Novi dokazi o ekspanziji hrvatskih populacija tijekom 10.do 13.stoljeća

M. Šlaus

Poveznica. (http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=8642)

[Jebivjetar]

Nešto novo ili su novinari opet glupani?

http://danas.net.hr/znanost/page/2010/01/21/0010006.html