# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Serb and Croat genes

## Alex D.

im interested to ask according to this eupedia data there seems to be quite a large amount of genetic difference between Serbs and Croats or amoung suth slavs in general. so im interested to ask if we look at the antic peoples in both countries they are not that different and anthropoligically south slavs are quite similar yet why is there such a y dna difference? 
Serbia: 
Slav 30% 
Illyrian 21% 
Teuton 18% 
Celtic 14% 
Phoenician 9% 
Hellenic People 6% 
Vikings 2% 

Croatia 
Illyrian People 34% 
Slav 20% 
Celtic 18% 
Teuton 12% 
Phoenician 8% 
Hellenic People 8% 

*Croatia*8
*42*
1
29
8
1
3.5
0
6
1.5
0
0

*Serbia*2
29
4
15
7
1
10
1
24
*7*
0
0

also im interested to ask which peoples would of brought haplogroup T as its arabic right? and i mean in histroy there never were arab people in Serbia. i mean looking at the antic peoples shouldnt there be more of haplogroup R1a amoung Serbs as its typical of Slavic peoples of which 30% are for Serbia's antic people yet only 15% R1a while croats are 29% but only like 21% Slavic

----------


## Maciamo

Haplogroup T in the Balkans is not of Phoenician origin. It came with the Neolithic farmers, along with E-V13 and J2b, although ultimately also from the Levant. The Phoenicians never colonised the Balkans, so it's nonsensical to call it Phoenician. Just say Levantine or Near-Eastern, that's better.

You may find interesting that the Bosnians are closer to the Croats than the Serbs. The Serbs have a fairly unique proportion of Y-DNA haplogroups, but are closer to the Kosovars and Albanians than to the Croats. The Serbs have 42% of "Thessalian" admixture E-J-T, against only 5% for the Croats. Albanians have about 50% of E-J-T.

----------


## Alex D.

> Haplogroup T in the Balkans is not of Phoenician origin. It came with the Neolithic farmers, along with E-V13 and J2b, although ultimately also from the Levant. The Phoenicians never colonised the Balkans, so it's nonsensical to call it Phoenician. Just say Levantine or Near-Eastern, that's better.
> 
> You may find interesting that the Bosnians are closer to the Croats than the Serbs. The Serbs have a fairly unique proportion of Y-DNA haplogroups, but are closer to the Kosovars and Albanians than to the Croats. The Serbs have 42% of "Thessalian" admixture E-J-T, against only 5% for the Croats. Albanians have about 50% of E-J-T.


First of all there is no such ethnicity as "bosnian" considering the fact you have three ethnicities is bosnia: serbs, bosniaks and croats when you say bosnian who do you mean? as why would a Serb living in bosnia be different from a Serb living in Serbia or be so genetically distant that makes no sense. look ive found these two maps of wikipedia the haplogroup I i dont know if its accurate or not or but ethnicities one is.

i cant psot a link but look up ethnic group chart or map of people in bosnia and youll see what i mean. 

as you can see bosnian Serbs have higher amount of haplogroup I than Serbs in Serbia what are their other genes like or percentages?

this is data i got of igenea i just copy and pasted it. anyway near easterners i dont know who would be classified as near easterners and whether illyrians are or arent but look at this:
Near eastern people in croatia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 50%
Near eastenr people in Serbia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 36%
How do you then explain this huge difference in near eastenr genes amoung croats and serbs (5% as opposed to 50%) when Serbia's antic people have more non near eastern trbes like Slavs, celts, vikings teuton etc.. and why the lack of Slavic haplogroup R1a do you know of any reason or explanation as to why? as R1a sould be closer to 30% as oppsoed to 15 if the antic people statistic is true 

are you saying turks when you mean levant?

----------


## Maciamo

> First of all there is no such ethnicity as "bosnian" considering the fact you have three ethnicities is bosnia: serbs, bosniaks and croats when you say bosnian who do you mean? as why would a Serb living in bosnia be different from a Serb living in Serbia or be so genetically distant that makes no sense. look ive found these two maps of wikipedia the haplogroup I i dont know if its accurate or not or but ethnicities one is.


I am not talking about ethnicities, but national percentages for people from Bosnia. Furthermore the so-called ethnic division in Bosnia is much more of a religious division, between Catholic Croats, Muslim Bosniaks and Orthodox Serbs. Their language is very similar. Their cultures only evolved differently fairly recently (after the collapse of the Roman Empire), while haplogroups have been there for much longer.




> this is data i got of igenea i just copy and pasted it. anyway near easterners i dont know who would be classified as near easterners and whether illyrians are or arent but look at this:
> Near eastern people in croatia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 50%
> Near eastenr people in Serbia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 36%
> How do you then explain this huge difference in near eastenr genes amoung croats and serbs (5% as opposed to 50%) when Serbia's antic people have more non near eastern trbes like Slavs, celts, vikings teuton etc.. and why the lack of Slavic haplogroup R1a do you know of any reason or explanation as to why? as R1a sould be closer to 30% as oppsoed to 15 if the antic people statistic is true


I have rarely seen such a pack of bullshit about Y-DNA as on iGenea's website (DNA Tribes isn't recommendable either). I am not talking about the quoted passage in particular, but their assumptions about ethnicities based on haplogroups. People tested with iGenea get their results that say something "You are R1b, therefore your ancestors were Anglo-Saxon", or "You are J2, your ancestors can be traced back to ancient Phoenicia". It's like they do not understand the most basic aspects of population migration and history. I remember that DNA Tribes claimed that the Celts originated in Ireland and colonised Europe from there ! When the level of knowledge is so low (primary school level ?) it makes you wonder how these companies are not bankrupt yet. What is strange is that iGenea is owned by FTDNA, and FTDNA never makes such weird assumptions on their website.




> are you saying turks when you mean levant?


Usually when I say Levant I mean the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, from Israel/Palestine to Syria (and part of southern Turkey). If I want to add Anatolia and Greece into the package I say "Near East". If I extend this to Iraq, Egypt, and possibly Iran and the Arabian peninsula, I say "Middle East".

----------


## Alex D.

> I am not talking about ethnicities, but national percentages for people from Bosnia. Furthermore the so-called ethnic division in Bosnia is much more of a religious division, between Catholic Croats, Muslim Bosniaks and Orthodox Serbs. Their language is very similar. Their cultures only evolved differently fairly recently (after the collapse of the Roman Empire), while haplogroups have been there for much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> I have rarely seen such a pack of bullshit about Y-DNA as on iGenea's website (DNA Tribes isn't recommendable either). I am not talking about the quoted passage in particular, but their assumptions about ethnicities based on haplogroups. People tested with iGenea get their results that say something "You are R1b, therefore your ancestors were Anglo-Saxon", or "You are J2, your ancestors can be traced back to ancient Phoenicia". It's like they do not understand the most basic aspects of population migration and history. I remember that DNA Tribes cla
> imed that the Celts originated in Ireland and colonised Europe from there ! When the level of knowledge is so low (primary school level ?) it makes you wonder how these companies are not bankrupt yet. What is strange is that iGenea is owned by FTDNA, and FTDNA never makes such weird assumptions on their website.
> 
> 
> Usually when I say Levant I mean the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, from Israel/Palestine to Syria (and part of southern Turkey). If I want to add Anatolia and Greece into the package I say "Near East". If I extend this to Iraq, Egypt, and possibly Iran and the Arabian peninsula, I say "Middle East".


Its an ethic differnce not a religious one. a Serb living in bosnia is a Serb jsut like a Serb living in germany is a Serb not a german ethnically speaking not citizenship wise or whatever. only religious group in bosnia is a bosniak as they converted to islam much later from the 1500 onwards before that a good majority would of been either Serbs or Croats as thats the two ethnic groups in the region. if you say in bosnia its jsut a religious difference then the difference between all south slavs is religous thats not true. 

Igenea compares the DNA profile of say a dead viking warrior's genes and compare it to a modern person's so that tells whether related or not. how its exactly done i dont know as im not a geneticist so go ask them but its similar as to when they establish whether people have a relation to a dead person like in Canada there was this testing of the Mad trappers genes and it was compared to modern day people who claimed to be descendants jsut like it was done with the russian tsar and they ruled out a potential candidate same probably is done for ethnic groups. although similarites would ahve to be less as an ethnic group is much wider than family but i guess certain antic peoples or ethnic groups have some specific STR markers or whatever. the specifics as stated before i do not know but ask igenea about that they also have a forum

Igenea or there haplogroup statitics seemed to be more accurate as Serbs Croats and bosnians had anywhere from 70-85% or so I, R1a, R1b there was much similarity which would make sense. albanians and kosovars are different and the E it seems to latitudically spread from Kosovo again this doesnt make sense because kosovo is now mainly albanian and not Serb so i dont see why the surrounding Serbs would be similar to them as its two completly different ethnicities. an albanian from kosovo is a completly different ethnicity than a Serb in Serbia and a Serb in bosnia. 

As well your site or maps seem to show that haplgroup I dims or gets less as you get further away from herzegovina or the coast of bosnia and move east. however bulgarians have much more I than Serbs yet they are fiurther away from that coast again that doesnt make sense. as it shows bulgarians as being closer to bosnian serbs than serbs from Serbia. yet if its a location thing then i guess bulgarians should be more distant

----------


## Maciamo

> Its an ethic differnce not a religious one. a Serb living in bosnia is a Serb jsut like a Serb living in germany is a Serb not a german ethnically speaking not citizenship wise or whatever. only religious group in bosnia is a bosniak as they converted to islam much later from the 1500 onwards before that a good majority would of been either Serbs or Croats as thats the two ethnic groups in the region. if you say in bosnia its jsut a religious difference then the difference between all south slavs is religous thats not true.


I think you misunderstood me. The term "ethnicity" is used in many different ways by different people. It is usually a blend of genes, language, culture and religion. Genetics have now demonstrated that there tend to be a link between genes and languages, but it is often not that clear between geographic neighbours.

What Y-DNA shows about people from Bosnia is that overall they tend to be closer to Croats than Serbs, while Serbs are closer to Albanians and Kosovars (indeed Serbia still insist that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and they probably wouldn't if there wasn't a genetic connection, despite the language difference).






> Igenea compares the DNA profile of say a dead viking warrior's genes and compare it to a modern person's so that tells whether related or not. how its exactly done i dont know as im not a geneticist so go ask them but its similar as to when they establish whether people have a relation to a dead person like in Canada there was this testing of the Mad trappers genes and it was compared to modern day people who claimed to be descendants jsut like it was done with the russian tsar and they ruled out a potential candidate same probably is done for ethnic groups.


Could you post the link of the page that says that. For our information, _very, very few_ ancient remains have been tested for Y-DNA. I am not aware of any Viking being tested for Y-DNA so far. Some have been _deduced_ by testing their descendants, but that's it. Even if we knew for sure about a few Vikings, their lineages could be extinguished, or be too close from other ethnicities (Celtic or Slavic) to be able to tell who descend from them now, after over 1000 years. STR markers have been known to change in a single generation. Imagine after 40 or 50 generations. Actually if you found an identical lineage to yours that is 1000 years old it would almost be certain that you've got the wrong ancestor. Your ancestor would more likely be someone who had similar STR (a distant cousin, perhaps separated by 20 or 50 more generations) that has mutated over time to become yours. 

There are _many_ people who find perfect STR matches on Ysearch or other databases and are not related within historical times (not even from the same part of Europe). These false negatives are due to the relatively small number of STR used and the population boom that Europe experience since the Middle Ages. I have a Belgian cousin who is I1 and has over 500 matches (using 37 markers) all over northern Europe (yet none in Belgium itself because too few Belgians are in the database).


There have been a bit more ancient remains tested for mtDNA, but not enough to be relevant to determine ethnic origins of modern people. MtDNA in Europe is so old that the same subclades can be found all over the continent. I have made a summary of most of the ancient European DNA tested so far.





> Igenea or there haplogroup statitics seemed to be more accurate as Serbs Croats and bosnians had anywhere from 70-85% or so I, R1a, R1b there was much similarity which would make sense. albanians and kosovars are different and the E it seems to latitudically spread from Kosovo again this doesnt make sense because kosovo is now mainly albanian and not Serb so i dont see why the surrounding Serbs would be similar to them as its two completly different ethnicities. an albanian from kosovo is a completly different ethnicity than a Serb in Serbia and a Serb in bosnia.


It does not make sense to you because you think about modern languages. Language can change quite fast. Look at France. 100 years ago, 90% of southern French (Occitan speakers) couldn't speak French at all. Now they all do. In Alsace people have been alternatively German-, then French-, then German-, then French-speakers for the last 500 years. 2000 years ago, Aquitaine was Basque-speaking. Now only two cities on the Spanish border still are, and the rest of Aquitaine doesn't even feel partly Basque, although they are genetically very close to the Basques of Spain. Don't base your assumptions on language. 

The Near-Eastern E-J-T haplogroups in the Balkans have been there for over 9,000 years, certainly more than 4,000 years before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. Nowadays all the languages in the Balkans are Indo-European, even Albanian. Haplogroups are _much_ older than the language split between Albanian, Serbian, German, Russian, Portuguese or even Hindi. You have to change completely your way of thinking if you want to understand population genetics.

----------


## Alex D.

it is not only language but anthropology also plays a role. dinaric race is dominant in or amound south slavs over 75% maybe even 80%. also found in central europe but less frequently like 25-30% i believe amoung czechs, suthern poles, germans, austrians etc.. anthropoligically wise and linguistically slavs or a south slav would look closer to an east slav than a north indian brahmin would. yet these tests claim genetically south slavs are different due to mixing with balkanic people then north indians would be very different as anthropogically they are much more different from east and west slavs much darker, different facail features etc.. indicative of mixing which was different from slavic. as difference between slavic people is due to with which tribes they mixed so like illyrian, finnic remained slavic etc.. yet how did north indians remain "slavic" or krugan in a sense seeing as krugan is more distant than slavic. it wont allow me to post links but i could show what i mean through pictures better same with haplogroup E

as for igena best to ask them they have their own forum they would know better than i would

----------


## donny

It's very interesting to read that. I didn't know that genetics plays an important role for an entire nation. I am sure there are factors of influence for that, can anybody here count them all in this thread?

----------


## Joro

Yes,overall i think we Croats genetically aren't so greatly similar to Serbs.
There is an obvious lack of Neolithic lineages among Croatians,which Serbs have in abundance.

----------


## Joro

> it is not only language but anthropology also plays a role. dinaric race is dominant in or amound south slavs over 75% maybe even 80%.
> ...


This is cetainly a large exaggeration.Only Bosniaks and Montenegrins would probably fit in that 75-80%,others have significantly lower Dinaric percentages.
Slovenians are more Alpine,Noric and Nordic,Croats have strong Alpine and Atlanto-Med strain,Bulgarians and Macedonians are mainly Pontid Med etc.

----------


## Marianne

> This is cetainly a large exaggeration.Only Bosniaks and Montenegrins would probably fit in that 75-80%,others have significantly lower Dinaric percentages.
> Slovenians are more Alpine,Noric and Nordic,Croats have strong Alpine and Atlanto-Med strain,Bulgarians and Macedonians are mainly Pontid Med etc.


Well I don't see any Macedonians looking like Bulgarians... Every Macedonian I know looks 100% Greek simply because he or she is. Bulgarians look like some FYROM-ians and other slavs in general

----------


## Joro

> Well I don't see any Macedonians looking like Bulgarians... Every Macedonian I know looks 100% Greek simply because he or she is. Bulgarians look like some FYROM-ians and other slavs in general


okay then,'FYROM-ians'.
Although I don't agree they look nothing like Greeks,what i've seen so far,they look very similar.Simply because they border.

----------


## Marianne

> okay then,'FYROM-ians'.
> Although I don't agree they look nothing like Greeks,what i've seen so far,they look very similar.Simply because they border.


They look Slavic to me...

----------


## Joro

> They look Slavic to me...


To me they look nothing more Slavic than Greeks.Maybe just a little.
You must know,that original Slavs were purely Nordic anthropologicaly,
which doesn't quite fit in today's 'Slavic look' stereotypes.That 'look' is more native Eastern-European than anything else.

----------


## Invictus_88

Maciamo,

Where do you get your data from?

----------


## Marianne

> To me they look nothing more Slavic than Greeks.Maybe just a little.
> You must know,that original Slavs were purely Nordic anthropologicaly,
> which doesn't quite fit in today's 'Slavic look' stereotypes.That 'look' is more native Eastern-European than anything else.


I guess it's easier to distinguish others from yourself while other people might find them similar to you. For example, Asians can tell apart a Japanese from a Korean and a Chinese with just one look but westerns think that Asians look all the same. For the same reason I can tell immediately when someone is not Greek while others might find him looking similar to Greeks. I can tell right away if someone I see in the street is Albanian, Turkish or Slavic (eastern European in general) and the differences between them seem huge to me. It is because we have many immigrants from these countries and I after a while I became used to telling them apart. 

I assume if someone who lives in a country without these ethnicities comes to Greece he will find them all the same and won't be able to tell them apart from Greeks. After all Greeks have a bit Slavic in them, especially in the north side of Greece.

----------


## Joro

Well yes,I'm just a 3rd party watcher.Although i remember,for exemple,watching some Greek show on the sattelite(I later found out it was Greek),and while looking how people look,they looked eastern European to me,i thought probably Ukrainian or something.After all,Greece is in eastern Europe,although people definitively look more Mediterranean than 'Slavic'.
It's great if you have the ability to recognize who comes from a Slavic country,but i think it's not so simple.
And not all Slavic countries are in eastern Europe,Czech R. and Slovenia are pure central European countries,and people look like it.To me they are way more similar to Austrians or Germans than to Russians or Ukrainians.
Simply-looks of the people correspond with their geographical location,unless there's been some massive population exchange,like in United States.But that is extremely rare,big majority of European peoples descend from pre-Slavic/Germanic/Ugric etc. populations.

----------


## Marianne

I agree with your post!

----------


## Alex D.

> This is cetainly a large exaggeration.Only Bosniaks and Montenegrins would probably fit in that 75-80%,others have significantly lower Dinaric percentages.
> Slovenians are more Alpine,Noric and Nordic,Croats have strong Alpine and Atlanto-Med strain,Bulgarians and Macedonians are mainly Pontid Med etc.


Where are your sources from? Slovenians yes thats true for them for Croats it is not. Alpine in Croatia would be a dinaric seeing as dinaric is actually the true "alpine" subrace hence it being on the taller and stronger end of the European subraces. In Croatia you have the Dinaric Alps thats your mountain range dinaric alps= dinaric subrace. atlanto med is present but only on the adriactic coast where the ocean is. but still its not the majority only like 10% of the total.

----------


## Joro

> Where are your sources from? Slovenians yes thats true for them for Croats it is not. Alpine in Croatia would be a dinaric seeing as dinaric is actually the true "alpine" subrace hence it being on the taller and stronger end of the European subraces. In Croatia you have the Dinaric Alps thats your mountain range dinaric alps= dinaric subrace. atlanto med is present but only on the adriactic coast where the ocean is. but still its not the majority only like 10% of the total.


All what I said is true.

----------


## Sprinkles

The error that you seem to be repeating continually over the discourse of which populations are of haplogroup and admixture is that you are not distinguishing between isolated populations and whole populations. If we further extend this to consider that "Serbs are more closely related to Bosnians, or Bosnians are more closely related to Croats" the reasoning behind this seems to be that since certain people live in certain areas that the correlation between their actual lineage is compelling enough to make distinctions within boundaries that are known as nation states. If you even looked at population demographics of municipalities in Hercegovina, you would realize that there are areas that are homogenous with respect to either the nationality of "Croatian, Serbian, or Bosnian (Muslim)." In due course, we should also consider that since there is a high degree of segregation within these municipalities that the genetic composition within them is not comparable to municipalities that are 99% Serbian or 99% Bosnian. Segregation would lead to isolative reproduction and in due course genetic homogeny.
You're focused quite contently on the religious notion of culture rather than than a model that is insistent on a religious culture procuring genetic homogeninity for adaptive reasons.

In any such respect we should consider the origin of Halpogroup I2a2 to found in highest frequency in Hercegovina (71%), which, thus, correlates to the cultural capital of Illiyria (Stolac, Hercegovina) - and more than likely the originator of the haplogroup (since it is well isolated demographically in mountanous regions).

In any regard, I do not know why you do not consider the I haplogroup and others to be of Neanderthal origin, since, accordingly, there is presumable evidence to suggest that microcephalin to have been injected into the gene pool 37kya. And, further, the neanderthal genome project has recently discovered evidence of inbreeding between cro-magnum and neanderthals and can not ruled out up to 20% intermixture with statistical significance.

pnas.org/content/103/48/18178.full

----------


## LeBrok

Thanks Sprinkles for sharing. It's interesting and intriguing. I hope in not far future will get detailed genetic map of Europe, and also map that tracks gen pool movement through history, from Neanderthals, Cro Magnons to recent.

----------


## Joro

> The error that you seem to be repeating continually over the discourse of which populations are of haplogroup and admixture is that you are not distinguishing between isolated populations and whole populations. If we further extend this to consider that "Serbs are more closely related to Bosnians, or Bosnians are more closely related to Croats" the reasoning behind this seems to be that since certain people live in certain areas that the correlation between their actual lineage is compelling enough to make distinctions within boundaries that are known as nation states. If you even looked at population demographics of municipalities in Hercegovina, you would realize that there are areas that are homogenous with respect to either the nationality of "Croatian, Serbian, or Bosnian (Muslim)." In due course, we should also consider that since there is a high degree of segregation within these municipalities that the genetic composition within them is not comparable to municipalities that are 99% Serbian or 99% Bosnian. Segregation would lead to isolative reproduction and in due course genetic homogeny.
> You're focused quite contently on the religious notion of culture rather than than a model that is insistent on a religious culture procuring genetic homogeninity for adaptive reasons.
> 
> In any such respect we should consider the origin of Halpogroup I2a2 to found in highest frequency in Hercegovina (67%), which, thus, correlates to the cultural capital of Illiyria (Stolac, Hercegovina) - and more than likely the originator of the haplogroup (since it is well isolated demographically in mountanous regions).
> 
> In any regard, I do not know why you do not consider the I haplogroup and others to be of Neanderthal origin, since, accordingly, there is presumable evidence to suggest that microcephalin to have been injected into the gene pool 37kya. And, further, the neanderthal genome project has recently discovered evidence of inbreeding between cro-magnum and neanderthals and can not ruled out up to 20% intermixture with statistical significance.
> 
> pnas.org/content/103/48/18178.full


Just to get some facts straight,highest percentage of I2a2 so far is found amoung Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I didn't read anything about highest frequencies in Stolac,do you have some information we don't know about?
Besides,I think Illyrians were predominantly R1b,like Celts probably.
Illyrians proper lived in today Montenegro,(northern?) Albania and southernmost areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
That corresponds to the higher frequencies of R1b in those areas,in southern Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina you have really small frequencies of r1b,but in southernmost,Dubrovnik area,it elevates to ~17%.
Check the study 'Croatia and its island isolates' in PDF format for this.

----------


## Sprinkles

> Just to get some facts straight,highest percentage of I2a2 so far is found amoung Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
> I didn't read anything about highest frequencies in Stolac,do you have some information we don't know about?
> Besides,I think Illyrians were predominantly R1b,like Celts probably.
> Illyrians proper lived in today Montenegro,(northern?) Albania and southernmost areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
> That corresponds to the higher frequencies of R1b in those areas,in southern Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina you have really small frequencies of r1b,but in southernmost,Dubrovnik area,it elevates to ~17%.
> Check the study 'Croatia and its island isolates' in PDF format for this.


My claim was that the capital of cultural Illyria was in Stolac, Hercegovina.

This correlates with the highest percent of Haplogroup I2a2 being found amongst Croatian's in Hercegovina.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HaplogroupI2.png
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illyrians.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians



> The Illyrians formed several kingdoms in the central Balkans, and the first known Illyrian king was Bardyllis. Illyrian kingdoms were often at war with ancient Macedonia, and the Illyrian pirates were also a significant danger to neighbouring peoples. At the delta of Neretva, there was a strong[27] Hellenistic influence on the Illyrian tribe of Daors. *Their capital was Daorson located in Ošanići near Stolac in Herzegovina, which became the main center of classical Illyrian culture. Daorson, during the 4th century BC, was surrounded by megalithic, 5 meter high stonewalls (large as those of Mycenae in Greece),* composed out of large trapeze stones blocks. Daors also made unique bronze coins and sculptures. The Illyrians even conquered Greek colonies on the Dalmatian islands. Queen Teuta was famous for having waged wars against the Romans
> 
> In the Illyrian Wars of 229 BC, 219 BC and 168 BC Rome overran the Illyrian settlements and suppressed the piracy[28] that had made the Adriatic unsafe for Italian commerce. There were three campaigns, the first against Teuta the second against Demetrius of Pharos[29] and the third against Gentius. The initial campaign in 229 BC marks the first time that the Roman Navy crossed the Adriatic Sea to launch an invasion.[30]

----------


## Sprinkles

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266413?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4




> The variation at 28 Y-chromosome biallelic markers was analysed in 256 males (90 Croats, 81 Serbs and 85 Bosniacs) from Bosnia-Herzegovina. An important shared feature between the three ethnic groups is the high frequency of the "Palaeolithic" European-specific haplogroup (Hg) I, a likely signature of a Balkan population re-expansion after the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup is almost completely represented by the sub-haplogroup I-P37 whose frequency is, however, higher in the Croats (approximately 71%) than in Bosniacs (approximately 44%) and Serbs (approximately 31%). Other rather frequent haplogroups are E (approximately 15%) and J (approximately 7%), which are considered to have arrived from the Middle East in Neolithic and post-Neolithic times, and R-M17 (approximately 14%), which probably marked several arrivals, at different times, from eastern Eurasia. Hg E, almost exclusively represented by its subclade E-M78, is more common in the Serbs (approximately 20%) than in Bosniacs (approximately 13%) and Croats (approximately 9%), and Hg J, observed in only one Croat, encompasses approximately 9% of the Serbs and approximately 12% of the Bosniacs, where it shows its highest diversification. By contrast, Hg R-M17 displays similar frequencies in all three groups. On the whole, the three main groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in spite of some quantitative differences, share a large fraction of the same ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area.

----------


## Joro

That's OK,but where from should we conclude that I2a2 has the highest frequency in Stolac?
And there was no specific research for Croats from Herzegovina,there was only for Herzegovinians in general,samples from Mostar(Croats and Muslims and a few Serbs) and Široki Brijeg(Croats),and it showed 64% of I2a.It would probably reach 70% if only Croats were tested,but we can't know that.
Highest frequency so far is found among Croats of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in general.

----------


## Maciamo

> In any regard, I do not know why you do not consider the I haplogroup and others to be of Neanderthal origin, since, accordingly, there is presumable evidence to suggest that microcephalin to have been injected into the gene pool 37kya. And, further, the neanderthal genome project has recently discovered evidence of inbreeding between cro-magnum and neanderthals and can not ruled out up to 20% intermixture with statistical significance.


When you say that hg I is of Neanderthal origin, I suppose that you mean that early Cro-Magnons of hg I were the ones who mixed with Neanderthals, not that haplogroup I in itself is a Neanderthal lineage, right ?

----------


## Joro

> Where are your sources from? Slovenians yes thats true for them for Croats it is not. Alpine in Croatia would be a dinaric seeing as dinaric is actually the true "alpine" subrace hence it being on the taller and stronger end of the European subraces. In Croatia you have the Dinaric Alps thats your mountain range dinaric alps= dinaric subrace. atlanto med is present but only on the adriactic coast where the ocean is. but still its not the majority only like 10% of the total.


just to answer properly to this-there is absolutely no chance Croatia is 85% Dinaric/Noric.This is just someone's masturbation.Mcculoch's masturbation.
More like 50% _predominantly_ Dinaric/Noric/Keltic.

----------


## Neander

> In any regard, I do not know why you do not consider the I haplogroup and others to be of Neanderthal origin, since, accordingly, there is presumable evidence to suggest that microcephalin to have been injected into the gene pool 37kya. And, further, the neanderthal genome project has recently discovered evidence of inbreeding between cro-magnum and neanderthals and can not ruled out up to 20% intermixture with statistical significance.


It is not simple as you think. First we must conclude that Adam was not 100.000 but at least 350.000 years before. Then we must make older all other haplogroups. Then we must find an explanation why Mtdna Neanderthal is different from Mtdna Sapiens.

For Neanderthal, I think all european peoples have These traits. R1a and R1b did'nt brought any physicall traits to Europe, because they were racially assimilated through the mixing with native women.

----------


## Alex D.

> just to answer properly to this-there is absolutely no chance Croatia is 85% Dinaric/Noric.This is just someone's masturbation.Mcculoch's masturbation.
> More like 50% _predominantly_ Dinaric/Noric/Keltic.


keltic what the hell are you talking about that is a subrace almost foreign to the balkans. so give me your break down then of subraces in croatia

----------


## Joro

> keltic what the hell are you talking about that is a subrace almost foreign to the balkans. so give me your break down then of subraces in croatia


wtf are you talking about??

----------


## Joro

Seems that you are nicely filled with propaganda,like most of your compatriots,especially i'f you are just Canadian of Serb origin( :Laughing: )
First,most of Croatia ain't on the Balkans,just to correct that technical mistake.And correspondingly,whole northern Croatia(and a bit in the south) has been more or less inhabited by the Celts.
Concerning my breakdown of subraces,i certainly wouldn't give Dinaric/Noric/Keltic more than 50-55%,that's ridiculous.Adequate space for Alpine,Nordic(with Faelid),Borreby and Med among Croatian sub-races should be made.

And you know that Serbs have about 4 times more those 'Near Eastern' linegaes than Croats and Slovenians in their haplogroups,and also were 500 years under Turks,that's why you are so darker than Croatians,Slovenians or Czechs.

----------


## Alex D.

celts inhabitated all of the blakans that was thouands of years ago. celts were also in spain and theres even greater influence or connection look at R1b values and yet the so called celtic type is rare there. Croatia is in the balkans it is not a central european country as you try and make it seem. the only south slavs who have any notable pigemnt difference is slovenians who are actually central european and in the north. 

E,J etc.. have no effect on phenotype no haplogroup does for that matter. how come you see R1b in cameroon and in Scandinavia yet the two populations look completly different??

Accorind to you eh and who exactly are you?? show me one source that supports what you are saying in regards to subraces.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

There are plenty of Atlantic Celtic phenotypes in Spain / Iberia. Forget the idiotic media stereotypes of Spaniards, they have little to do with reality. Actually, a great many of the ancient Celts were dark-haired and dark-eyed. Once again, forget the stereotype. The population of Spain (and Portugal), particularly the central, west and north, is majority Paleo-Atlantid and Nordid-Atlantid in appearance. Atlantic facial structures are very much dominant, with a variety of hair and eye colors. 

I do not have much knowledge of Croatia but the greater percentage of people seem to be Slavic and Eastern Mediterranean types, not Alpine Celtic or Atlantic Celtic.

----------


## Sprinkles

> celts inhabitated all of the blakans that was thouands of years ago. celts were also in spain and theres even greater influence or connection look at R1b values and yet the so called celtic type is rare there. Croatia is in the balkans it is not a central european country as you try and make it seem. the only south slavs who have any notable pigemnt difference is slovenians who are actually central european and in the north. 
> E,J etc.. have no effect on phenotype no haplogroup does for that matter. how come you see R1b in cameroon and in Scandinavia yet the two populations look completly different??
> Accorind to you eh and who exactly are you?? show me one source that supports what you are saying in regards to subraces.



Serbs are darker because they're not protected by the dinaric mountains from southern invaders, and there's a clear passage through morava, danube rivers. This is why, also, Hercegovina has a high frequency of I2a2 - which is protection from invasion by geographic barriers. This is described in any evolutionary text, and you should know this if you know anything about evolution.

Why does it matter for information flow, when, we know the only dna that won't recombine is Y and mt - so, from this we can infer that certain populations will be more favorable to each other since they share information that is unadulterated, and - in the purpose of preserving it - they will acclimate their will to signify their common hegemony.

If we can infer from this an assumption - that someone with R1b in Scandinavia may be more favorable to a R1b in Cameroon rather than someone from another Y-haplogroup - even without his knowledge of it. Will it happen? I don't know. But is the mechanism a possible? I would like you to attempt to refute it.

----------


## Wilhelm

Actually the R1b of Cameroon has very little to do with the R1b found in Europe. They are from two different branches. The Euroepan branch is M269.

----------


## Neander

> celts inhabitated all of the blakans that was thouands of years ago


It is false.

Most southern celts in Balkan were Scordics, who by Herodotus are not celts but a mixing of Celts and Illyrians or thracians and lived in North Serbia.

And another southern celt tribe was Taurisci in today Slovenia, who also were mixed with native illyrians.

In other balkan countries Celts invaded but did'nt settle.

----------


## Joro

> There are plenty of Atlantic Celtic phenotypes in Spain / Iberia. Forget the idiotic media stereotypes of Spaniards, they have little to do with reality. Actually, a great many of the ancient Celts were dark-haired and dark-eyed. Once again, forget the stereotype. The population of Spain (and Portugal), particularly the central, west and north, is majority Paleo-Atlantid and Nordid-Atlantid in appearance. Atlantic facial structures are very much dominant, with a variety of hair and eye colors. 
> 
> I do not have much knowledge of Croatia but the majority of people seem to be Slavic and Eastern Mediterranean types, not Alpine Celtic or Atlantic Celtic.


I didn't say majority of Croats have Keltic Nordic  :Thinking: phenotypes,but representative number has,a noticeable minority.
Eastern Mediterranean is rare in Croatia.
And what do you mean by 'Slavic'??
Original Slavs were Nordic,very dolicephalic people,like ancient Germanics were also after all,if i'm not mistaken.
Recent research on Croats from Zagreb shows they are mostly dolicephalic,thus preserving the original Slavic condition well.
Ex famous football player Robert Prosinecki,native of Zagreb,is a good example of the original Nordic continuity i would say:
http://www.uvijekvjerni.com/media/ca...ki_300x330.jpg
http://www.monitor.hr/resources/gene...es/0024883.jpg

----------


## Joro

> celts inhabitated all of the blakans that was thouands of years ago. celts were also in spain and theres even greater influence or connection look at R1b values and yet the so called celtic type is rare there. Croatia is in the balkans it is not a central european country as you try and make it seem. the only south slavs who have any notable pigemnt difference is slovenians who are actually central european and in the north. 
> 
> E,J etc.. have no effect on phenotype no haplogroup does for that matter. how come you see R1b in cameroon and in Scandinavia yet the two populations look completly different??
> 
> Accorind to you eh and who exactly are you?? show me one source that supports what you are saying in regards to subraces.


Croatia is located in Central Europe,Mediterranean and the Balkans,and wishes of some spoiled teenager won't change that.
Although culturally Croatia has almost nothing to do with the Balkans,even that guy in the 'Football factories' show said how Belgrade gives an 'Eastern' vibe compared to Zagreb.You can thank that to Turks.

Serbs are clearly darker than Croats or Slovenes,you can notice that straight away,and cocerning Croatian R1b,the problem is that there are pockets where R1b is non-existent(main Dinaric zone)while elsewhere it's about 20% on average.

----------


## Alex D.

> Croatia is located in Central Europe,Mediterranean and the Balkans,and wishes of some spoiled teenager won't change that.
> Although culturally Croatia has almost nothing to do with the Balkans,even that guy in the 'Football factories' show said how Belgrade gives an 'Eastern' vibe compared to Zagreb.You can thank that to Turks.
> 
> Serbs are clearly darker than Croats or Slovenes,you can notice that straight away,and cocerning Croatian R1b,the problem is that there are pockets where R1b is non-existent(main Dinaric zone)while elsewhere it's about 20% on average.


they are not look at pics of your football, waterpolo, most sports teams of croatia and see what the dominant hair color is its blcak and brown very few other colors. Culturally croats do hve a lot to do with the balkans you might be closer to the west like western europe due to your 700 occupation by the austrians. eastern is not as in turk but more like eastern europe. show me a mass photo where the majority of croats have blond, red or any light hair colors

----------


## Alex D.

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

----------


## Joro

> they are not look at pics of your football, waterpolo, most sports teams of croatia and see what the dominant hair color is its blcak and brown very few other colors. Culturally croats do hve a lot to do with the balkans you might be closer to the west like western europe due to your 700 occupation by the austrians. eastern is not as in turk but more like eastern europe. show me a mass photo where the majority of croats have blond, red or any light hair colors


they are,that is a well known fact,and that's the first thing i notice when i watch serbian television for example.
Bosniaks are not much darker than Croats,only slightly,generally we can say slovenians,bosniaks and croats fall in one,and serbs into another group of 'blondness'.

----------


## Joro

> they are not look at pics of your football, waterpolo, most sports teams of croatia and see what the dominant hair color is its blcak and brown very few other colors. Culturally croats do hve a lot to do with the balkans you might be closer to the west like western europe due to your 700 occupation by the austrians. eastern is not as in turk but more like eastern europe. show me a mass photo where the majority of croats have blond, red or any light hair colors


what about croatian sport teams??most of them have brown hair and light pigmentation,eyes are sometimes lighter sometimes darker.
But they are not 100% representative,because most of the sportsmen are born or descend from southern,dinaric areas where people are darker and much taller as well.

but here we go,if you wish,google starting lineup of Croatian football team:
Stipe Pletikosa
Vedran Corluka
Josip Simunic
Ivica Krizanac
Darijo Srna(from Bosniak parents)
Ognjen Vukojevic
Luka Modric(Serbian mother,probably inherited dark eyes from her)
Niko Kranjcar
Ivan Rakitic
Mladen Petric
Ivan Klasnic
coach:Slaven Bilic

i've put Klasnic instead of Eduardo who is ethnic Brazilian.
Overall,they seem medium to me :Innocent:

----------


## Alex D.

but now this is going against your haplogroup theory seeing as these people from the dinaric or southern coasts of croatia have the highest value of I in europe, wich is the native haplogroup 

yeah here you go photos
http://www.uvijekvjerni.com/media/ca...e__300x330.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...39_518297a.jpg

http://www.uvijekvjerni.com/media/ca...en_300x330.jpg

http://www.tehrantimes.com/News/10680/13_EVERTON.jpg

they look like southern europeans not northern or central as you try to potrary them. by far the msot common eye color is either brown or light brown

----------


## Joro

You won't prove absolutely anything to me because I know very well what I'm talking about,so do the other people in the region.

----------


## Joro

now i've actually seen your pictures,i thought you actually found some hand-picked pics of croatian fans...WTF??they look like average central european people.

this is what an average Serb looks like,more or less:
http://www.sportspad.org/images/jank...revic_4305.jpg

THAT is south(eastern) European.

and why are you doing the hand-picking of Croatian footballers?
first two could pass for northern Europeans,Kranjcar is classic central European alpine with light mixed eyes.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> celts inhabitated all of the blakans that was thouands of years ago. celts were also in spain and theres even greater influence or connection look at R1b values and yet the so called* celtic type is rare there*.


Just out of curiosity: What is a "celtic type" in your opinion?

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_o...ml#ethnicities
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/eclips/pa...wmanhead.shtml

----------


## Wilhelm

Oppenheimer and others, consider the celts were atlanto-mediterranean and Western-mediterranean

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Just out of curiosity: What is a "celtic type" in your opinion?
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_o...ml#ethnicities
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/eclips/pa...wmanhead.shtml


"Celtic type is rare there [(Iberia)]"...  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Oppenheimer and others, consider the celts were atlanto-mediterranean and Western-mediterranean



Also, it is becoming clear that Tartessian may have been the first Celtic language. Read J. Koch's new book: Tartessian: Celtic from the South-west... Celticity could well have spread from the Atlantic to the east, not the other way around.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> "Celtic type is rare there [Iberia]"...


He must be thinking of Asterix and Obelix.  :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> He must be thinking of Asterix and Obelix.


Indeed...  :Laughing:

----------


## Joro

> Indeed...


do you think it's true that Portugal has over 20% light eyes?
http://westernparadigm.files.wordpre..._eyes_map2.jpg
I didn't expect Portugal to be higher than Bulgaria for example,but then,i've only seen Portuguese footballers and some politicians...

----------


## ^ lynx ^

This is the last updated about light eyes rate in Europe: 
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_o...tml#eye_colour

Nevertheless Maciamo already stated that this maps are subjects to changes and errors. So maybe the difference between Portugal and Bulgaria doesn't have to be that high.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> do you think it's true that Portugal has over 20% light eyes?
> http://westernparadigm.files.wordpre..._eyes_map2.jpg
> I didn't expect Portugal to be higher than Bulgaria for example,but then,i've only seen Portuguese footballers and some politicians...


Yes, more than than 20%. Light eyes are about 30-35%. This does not include hazel. You need to educate yourself on Portugal.

----------


## Wilhelm

In all honsety , these maps of eyes and hair are BS. From all the sources I could gather, Spain is about 17-20% blonde, while Italy about 10-12% blonde, yet these maps show that Italy is blonder.

----------


## Joro

> Yes, more than than 20%. Light eyes are about 30-35%. This does not include hazel. You need to educate yourself on Portugal.


What exactly is included into 'light eyes'?light brown may also be light?i know that Coon measured 70% light and light-mixed for both Croatia and Slovenia individually

----------


## Joro

> In all honsety , these maps of eyes and hair are BS. From all the sources I could gather, Spain is about 17-20% blonde, while Italy about 10-12% blonde, yet these maps show that Italy is blonder.


http://mappery.com/maps/Europe-Blond...ediumthumb.jpg

i see both Italy and Spain are in 1-19% section,so technically it is correct i believe,although Spain has more light hair.And I think thas indeed is true,because my class in high school has been in Spain and I've seen a lot of Spaniards,and Italy is close to Croatia so I've often in contact with Italians(tourists).

Concerning maps,i think they're generally OK,at least for my area(ex-Yugo-Italy-Austria),you can't really go in tiny details with such things.

----------


## Wilhelm

> http://mappery.com/maps/Europe-Blond...ediumthumb.jpg
> 
> i see both Italy and Spain are in 1-19% section,so technically it is correct i believe,although Spain has more light hair.And I think thas indeed is true,because my class in high school has been in Spain and I've seen a lot of Spaniards,and Italy is close to Croatia so I've often in contact with Italians(tourists).
> 
> Concerning maps,i think they're generally OK,at least for my area(ex-Yugo-Italy-Austria),you can't really go in tiny details with such things.


you are right, but See the new updated map here in Eupedia : 
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_o...tml#eye_colour

----------


## Joro

> you are right, but See the new updated map here in Eupedia : 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_o...tml#eye_colour


yes,that seems certainly incorrect.
nice try,but it is very ungrateful job to divide Europe in some small enclaves,and such maps are prone to gross mistakes.
Other than Italian-Spanish issue,i don't believe that Austrians are so much blonder than Slovenians or northern Croats :S

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What exactly is included into 'light eyes'?light brown may also be light?i know that Coon measured 70% light and light-mixed for both Croatia and Slovenia individually


Blue, green, grey.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> http://mappery.com/maps/Europe-Blond...ediumthumb.jpg
> 
> i see both Italy and Spain are in 1-19% section,so technically it is correct i believe,although Spain has more light hair.And I think thas indeed is true,because my class in high school has been in Spain and I've seen a lot of Spaniards,and Italy is close to Croatia so I've often in contact with Italians(tourists).
> 
> Concerning maps,i think they're generally OK,at least for my area(ex-Yugo-Italy-Austria),you can't really go in tiny details with such things.


Overall, both Spain and Portugal are about 20% blond / light brown. Some areas, such as my region, are, approximately 30-35% light haired. This does not include red haired people.

Most of these maps need a lot of work.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> In all honsety , these maps of eyes and hair are BS. From all the sources I could gather, Spain is about 17-20% blonde, while Italy about 10-12% blonde, yet these maps show that Italy is blonder.


Very incorrect maps.

----------


## Joro

> Most of these maps need a lot of work.


Some details surely,but we can't expect to-detail correct map of europe

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What exactly is included into 'light eyes'?light brown may also be light?i know that Coon measured 70% light and light-mixed for both Croatia and Slovenia individually


 :Rolleyes:  Coon was a racist and delusional. He was thrown out of the American Anthropological Association for questionable methods and racism. Don't accept ANYTHING he has written without a grain of salt. Coon has been totally disgraced and is essentially irrelevant.

----------


## Joro

> Coon was a racist and delusional. He was thrown out of the American Anthropological Association for questionable methods and racism. Don't accept ANYTHING he has written without a grain of salt. Coon has been totally disgraced and is essentially irrelevant.


I know,I just mentioned how Coon used the method of light and 'light mixed' eyes,the latter being subject of my interest.

There are a few things on which he was right though,i think,but some of his statements are laughable,he gives cephalic index for Croatia 85 while latest research shows it is 74-75 actually :Startled: 
or the term 'neo danubian',which is unexistent and fruit of his racist imagination just to lump eastern europeans all into the same box :Confused:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I know,I just mentioned how Coon used the method of light and 'light mixed' eyes,the latter being subject of my interest.
> 
> There are a few things on which he was right though,i think,but some of his statements are laughable,he gives cephalic index for Croatia 85 while latest research shows it is 74-75 actually
> or the term 'neo danubian',which is unexistent and fruit of his racist imagination just to lump eastern europeans all into the same box



The man was a sinister charlatan, putting it mildly. Towards the end Coon became deranged. Some encyclopedias have eliminated all background information on him. At Harvard and U Penn, where Coon taught, he is considered dust-bin material.

----------


## Joro

> The man was a sinister charlatan, putting it mildly. Towards the end Coon became deranged. Some encyclopedias have eliminated all background information on him. At Harvard and U Penn, where Coon taught, he is considered dust-bin material.


And I have a friend who trusts him blindly :Confused:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> And I have a friend who trusts him blindly


That's rather unfortunate. Perhaps he should do some research...

----------


## Joro

Yeah,but some people are so stubborn that they would rather eat their own sh*t than open their mind a little.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Yeah,but some people are so stubborn that they would rather eat their own sh*t than open their mind a little.


Any little support for nut-job Coon has to do with certain people's ethnic insecurities. Coon is already in the dust-bin of history and people like your friend will soon follow, trust me. Ignorance does strange things to people. Coon was a grade A fraud and a horrible racist. Case closed.

----------


## Joro

Well,he's a pretty hard person to deal with,i must admit.He believes Coon blindly while he doesn't believe when i give to him last study which shows Croats from Zagreb are mostly dolicephalic,not some hyperbrachycephals as Coon stated,but nevertheless,Coon is the god to him :S

Also,I see according to Coon Italians are much fairier than Iberians... :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Well,he's a pretty hard person to deal with,i must admit.He believes Coon blindly while he doesn't believe when i give to him last study which shows Croats from Zagreb are mostly dolicephalic,not some hyperbrachycephals as Coon stated,but nevertheless,Coon is the god to him :S
> 
> Also,I see according to Coon Italians are much fairier than Iberians...


Must have been the drugs Coon was on...  :Grin:  Oh, maybe he needed glasses, yes? 

Italians are majority Eastern Mediterranean and Iberians 2/3 - 3/4 Atlantic Celtic. On average, Iberians tend to be a bit lighter, with the exception of the south and southeast. 

Ignorant people don't know these things. They watch garbage Hollywood movies with exaggerated stereotypes of Spaniards and believe everything they see. Some characters are so stupid they actually think that all Brazilians are native Portuguese, even though 50% of Brazil is mixed... bizarre!  :Laughing:  

BTW, Coon did very little field work - a cardinal sin for an anthropologist - and used mainly outdated sources, making up things as he went along... :Rolleyes: 

The man disliked any number of ethnicities. What a sicko!

----------


## Joro

That's a good point actually,because my stubborn friend has accused _me_
that I'm a Hollywood-spoiled tenaager when I reccomended him to visit some anthro-forums like Anthroscape for ex. to educate himself about other anthropologists works and some other opinions...
The reason I'm mourning about this is because of the sad fact that it seems he is the only person with whom i can discuss on physical anthropology in Croatian forums.
So I'm glad I can inform myself on foreign forums about some things,which absolutely make sanse,in conversation with educated and open-minded people,because limiting my spectres to conversations with him may be dangerous...let's hear what does he say on our current issue:
'Portuguese are by far the darkest Europeans',and then he cites Coon of course.If i complain about that or something else as ilogical,than the attack of stubborness follows...and so on.It is sad to see such people exist,however,I will have a short prayer for him to come to wisdom,although I doubt it.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> 'Portuguese are by far the darkest Europeans',and then he cites Coon..."


Not even close...  :Laughing:  I guess he's never been to Portugal. Or, maybe he thinks colonial mulattos / mestizos are native origin Portuguese.  :Rolleyes:  What an idiot.

----------


## Joro

When he said that to me,I asked him where did he read that,he just threw away the statistics(from Coon of course),and said that all analyses of anthropologists confirmed that(obviously not this one :Startled: )
and in the end,he said...'but i don't need to read that,i can see that with my own eyes' :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> When he said that to me,I asked him where did he read that,he just threw away the statistics(from Coon of course),and said that all analyses of anthropologists confirmed that(obviously not this one)
> and in the end,he said...'but i don't need to read that,i can see that with my own eyes'


There is a thread here that was closed and it contains a bunch of group pictures of REAL (native origin) Portuguese people; from sports teams, military, folklore groups. I'd post them myself but am out of room. Send them off to your delusional friend...  :Laughing:

----------


## Joro

I will,surely  :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I will,surely


You may also want to go to the "Celts of Iberia" thread in the Eupedia "European Culture and History" section.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I will,surely


The native origin Portuguese photos were posted on 7th January 2010 in the "Iberians are Heavily Celtic..." thread, part of the European History and Culture section. I could send thousands more group pictures and the people would all pretty much look the same.

Your friend may need a psychiatrist when he views them...  :Laughing:

----------


## Sprinkles

It's absurd to claim Coon was a charlatan based on the prescribed self-evident racism of the time he lived. You have to create a presumption, which is, that everyone was racist and racism was not controversial.

It's absurd to claim that personal racism influenced his scientific opinions about anthropology and race. If you have any evidence of this, present it. This Coon is racist, therefore his ideas have no relevance can be attributed to almost any philosopher from Hume, Schopenhauer, Mill, Kant, Nietzsche to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. There's no evidence that what they contributed as people of higher intellectual abilities to the knowledge of humanity was negatively influenced by their personal and or observational bias, and, probably, even made them more clearminded in theorhetical aspects. Almost everyone was racist prior to a certain liberalism of ideas, and this liberalism is not scientifically grounded, which constitute simple propoganda. Genetic differences of IQ exist. That's a fact, not an opinion.

That being said, I would imagine that "Croatian" by all means is correlated with Y-Haplogroup I2a2 and the frequency of it is correlated with nationalism ie. as seen in WWII where all the Croatian leaders came from Hercegovina and parts where I2a2 was at the largest level. Northern Croatia can never be considered purely Croatian since they are unprotected by the Diranic mountains from invasion. Geographic barriers create culture and race, not fictional boundaries. Croatians are Dinaric people.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> It's absurd to claim Coon was a charlatan based on the prescribed self-evident racism of the time he lived. You have to create a presumption, which is, that everyone was racist and racism was not controversial.
> It's absurd to claim that personal racism influenced his scientific opinions about anthropology and race. If you have any evidence of this, present it. This Coon is racist, therefore his ideas have no relevance can be attributed to almost any philosopher from Hume, Schopenhauer, Mill, Kant, Nietzsche to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. There's no evidence that what they contributed as people of higher intellectual abilities to the knowledge of humanity was negatively influenced by their personal and or observational bias, and, probably, even made them more clearminded in theorhetical aspects. Almost everyone was racist prior to a certain liberalism of ideas, and this liberalism is not scientifically grounded, which constitute simple propoganda. Genetic differences of IQ exist. That's a fact, not an opinion.
> That being said, I would imagine that "Croatian" by all means is correlated with Y-Haplogroup I2a2 and the frequency of it is correlated with nationalism ie. as seen in WWII where all the Croatian leaders came from Hercegovina and parts where I2a2 was at the largest level. Northern Croatia can never be considered purely Croatian since they are unprotected by the Diranic mountains from invasion. Geographic barriers create culture and race, not fictional boundaries. Croatians are Dinaric people.


Tell that to the American Anthropological Society (AAA), the British Royal Anthropological Institute and all world-class universities. The facts are clear, Coon was essentially a racist fraud and delusional, to say the least. He had plenty of opportunities to cure his numerous misinterpretations and exaggerations concerning any number of ethnicities but did not. Unlike Kant, Hume, etc, Coon had, to some degree, the benefits of modern science, but failed to utilize appropriate constructs. He was thrown out of the AAA because of it. The man was deposited into the dust-bin of history a while ago. 

BTW, my statements on Coon have nothing to do with Croatia. I would think that Croatians are primarily Dinaric. No big deal there.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> Furthermore, the 1960s were a controversial time for racial theories, and *Coon's cousin Carleton Putnam suggested that Coon's work, among others, justified segregation. Coon stepped down as President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in disgust after the association voted to censure Putnam's book '.*


http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/carleton-s-coon/

If this is not racism I don't know what it is...

----------


## Sprinkles

> Tell that to the American Anthropological Society (AAA), the British Royal Anthropological Institute and all world-class universities. The facts are clear, Coon was essentially a racist fraud and delusional, to say the least. He had plenty of opportunities to cure his numerous misinterpretations and exaggerations concerning any number of ethnicities but did not. Unlike Kant, Hume, etc, Coon had, to some degree, the benefits of modern science, but failed to utilize appropriate constructs. He was thrown out of the AAA because of it. The man was deposited into the dust-bin of history a while ago. 
> BTW, my statements on Coon have nothing to do with Croatia. I would think that Croatians are primarily Dinaric. No big deal there.


No one cares about the AAA. Intellectual inquiry is not a judgment of the herd, ie. the AAA, it's a judgment of fact and reasoning. If reasoning and fact don't coincide with herd objectives, science wears thin on the nature of its inquiry. If you subjugate you work to the herd, you face the scrutiny of it and their will.

Nothing you have stated proves what Coon wrote was not factually accurate to the ability he had to interpret the facts in his time. He was an anthropologist and a Harvard professor 60 years ago. Science has progressed in terms of genetics that give us better insight of populations. It does not discredit his work. And to attempt to discredit it based on a presumption that he was racist is idiotic.

----------


## Sprinkles

> http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/carleton-s-coon/
> If this is not racism I don't know what it is...


I don't know where your understanding of fact and fiction from, but any European intellect prior to the 1940's was racist - which means nothing of the basis of their work. It's personal opinion and you have yet to prove that his opinion either a) does not have a basis in scientific fact, b) altered his work as to make it less accurate.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/carleton-s-coon/
> If this is not racism I don't know what it is...



The facts are ABUNDANTLY clear...

----------


## Sprinkles

> The facts are ABUNDANTLY clear...


Opinions against censorship are racist? And what does racism have to do with the scientific work of the author? His work is either factually correct to his best ability and understanding, or not.

----------


## LeBrok

> http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/carleton-s-coon/
> 
> If this is not racism I don't know what it is...


Just look at the hatred you are spewing in your anti Latin America posts!

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Opinions against censorship are racist? And what does racism have to do with the scientific work of the author? His work is either factually correct to his best ability and understanding, or not.


Do the research... Coon's work was based on outdated, essentially INCORRECT constructs. He actually codified northern "races" as industrious and southern "races" as lazy...  :Laughing:  The man has no defense. What's you point? Are you in extreme denial?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Opinions against censorship are racist? And what does racism have to do with the scientific work of the author? His work is either factually correct to his best ability and understanding, or not.


You mean scientifically incorrect work...

----------


## Wilhelm

> He actually codified northern "races" as industrious and southern "races" as lazy...


Wait...isn't that what Lebrok said in the economic thread ?  :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> No one cares about the AAA. Intellectual inquiry is not a judgment of the herd, ie. the AAA, it's a judgment of fact and reasoning. If reasoning and fact don't coincide with herd objectives, science wears thin on the nature of its inquiry. If you subjugate you work to the herd, you face the scrutiny of it and their will.
> Nothing you have stated proves what Coon wrote was not factually accurate to the ability he had to interpret the facts in his time. He was an anthropologist and a Harvard professor 60 years ago. Science has progressed in terms of genetics that give us better insight of populations. It does not discredit his work. And to attempt to discredit it based on a presumption that he was racist is idiotic.


Coon's work was not only racist, it was scientifically INCORRECT (yes, for his time, incorrect). Some of his material was terribly exaggerated and, in certain instances, fabricated to fit outdated and INCORRECT notions. 

What's our agenda? Are you in denial for some strange reason? The only Coon supporters I am aware of have racist inclinations and use his garbage to assuage personal feelings of ethnic insecurity. Hey, maybe you also think that global warming isn't real... :Laughing:

----------


## Wilhelm

Wasn't Coon works from the 50's and 60's ?? Who believes in this nut-job ? Probably the same people who belives in DNA-Tribes, iGenea, and Nazi fantasies, pure AMATEUR crap. Obviously, in this forum Coon has no place.

----------


## Joro

> That being said, I would imagine that "Croatian" by all means is correlated with Y-Haplogroup I2a2 and the frequency of it is correlated with nationalism ie. as seen in WWII where all the Croatian leaders came from Hercegovina and parts where I2a2 was at the largest level. Northern Croatia can never be considered purely Croatian since they are unprotected by the Diranic mountains from invasion. Geographic barriers create culture and race, not fictional boundaries. Croatians are Dinaric people.


Oh my,am I halucinating or is this Coon junior :Laughing: 
Northern Croatia not purely Croatian,go visit pshychiatrist please :Innocent:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Wasn't Coon works from the 50's and 60's ?? Who believes in this nut-job ? Probably the same people who belives in DNA-Tribes, iGenea, and Nazi fantasies, pure AMATEUR crap. Obviously, in this forum Coon has no place.


 :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing: 

Everyone now, let's have a nice big group laugh for all Coon supporters...  :Grin:

----------


## Joro

Seems that Sprinkles is more or less on Coon's level,unfortunately.
What is an argument for him-that most of Croatian WW2 (Nazi btw.) leaders came from area where I2a2 is the highest :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> No one cares about the AAA. Intellectual inquiry is not a judgment of the herd, ie. the AAA, it's a judgment of fact and reasoning. If reasoning and fact don't coincide with herd objectives, science wears thin on the nature of its inquiry. If you subjugate you work to the herd, you face the scrutiny of it and their will.
> Nothing you have stated proves what Coon wrote was not factually accurate to the ability he had to interpret the facts in his time. He was an anthropologist and a Harvard professor 60 years ago. Science has progressed in terms of genetics that give us better insight of populations. It does not discredit his work. And to attempt to discredit it based on a presumption that he was racist is idiotic.


"No one cares about the AAA". Interesting statement...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> Just look at the hatred you are spewing in your anti Latin America posts!


Stop harassing me and get a life a**hole. If you ever suggest again I'm a racist I'm going to ask Maciamo for your ban. *You have been warning.*




> He actually codified northern "races" as industrious and southern "races" as lazy...
> 
> 
> Wait...isn't that what Lebrok said in the economic thread ?


Yes indeed. Funny enough and she goes around claiming others of being racist. This LeTroll needs to get a clue.

----------


## Sprinkles

> Oh my,am I halucinating or is this Coon junior
> Northern Croatia not purely Croatian,go visit pshychiatrist please


Apparently you don't understand or have difficult understanding evolution due to geographic barriers. Imaginary lines don't further any understanding of a populations, or what genes comprise of those people, and what makes them act altruistically. Races and boundaries are created by geographic isolation, which allow mutations and also hinder gene flow from outside sources. Northern Croatia is not protected by geographic boundaries from others portions of europe. Hercegovina is.

As you well know, all of B/H was Croatia, all of Montenegro and parts of Albania.

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

----------


## Sprinkles

> Coon's work was not only racist, it was scientifically INCORRECT (yes, for his time, incorrect). Some of his material was terribly exaggerated and, in certain instances, fabricated to fit outdated and INCORRECT notions. 
> 
> What's our agenda? Are you in denial for some strange reason? The only Coon supporters I am aware of have racist inclinations and use his garbage to assuage personal feelings of ethnic insecurity. Hey, maybe you also think that global warming isn't real...


1) I never said I believed anything Coon wrote.
2) I stated that you should present evidence where you feel he is factually inaccurate.
3) I stated that racism in the past has no impact on any measure of scientific achievement or intellectual inquiry.
4) I stated that it's impossible to judge the work of someone by whether or not that someone is racist.
5) You have presented no proof that Coon was racist, only that he resigned due to censorship - which is a well accepted practice in science.

----------


## Sprinkles

> Do the research... Coon's work was based on outdated, essentially INCORRECT constructs. He actually codified northern "races" as industrious and southern "races" as lazy...  The man has no defense. What's you point? Are you in extreme denial?


Coon was a physical anthropologist. I haven't read much of his work, maybe a few paragraphs, but to discredit his work based on the idea that he's racist is not logic. That is my only view on the subject, to make asserts otherwise, and falsify what i have stated, is an extreme error in rhetoric.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Coon was a physical anthropologist. I haven't read much of his work, maybe a few paragraphs, but to discredit his work based on the idea that he's racist is fictional logic. That is my only view on the subject, to make asserts otherwise, and falsify what i have stated is an extreme error in rhetoric.


His work is scientifically INCORRECT and has been discredited may times over. If you are so interested in defending (it seems) a charlatan, that's your problem. The criticism of Coon can be found with relative ease. Please educate yourself.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Coon was a physical anthropologist. I haven't read much of his work, maybe a few paragraphs, but to discredit his work based on the idea that he's racist is not logic. That is my only view on the subject, to make asserts otherwise, and falsify what i have stated, is an extreme error in rhetoric.


Yes it is very logic. A phyisical anthropologist who is racist, is biased ,thus his works cannot be objective.

----------


## Sprinkles

Let's try to dispense of this argument and get to a general notion of what constitutes racism and then we can further elaborate what the impact of racism would be in scientific inquiry. If you could define racism, this argument would indeed be much simpler for me to proceed with. Otherwise, we seem to be at a point in which we are having difficulty understanding the general flow of the argument since opinions are compromising the logical discourse of the thread.

I will be back later and await a response.

----------


## Joro

> Apparently you don't understand or have difficult understanding evolution due to geographic barriers. Imaginary lines don't further any understanding of a populations, or what genes comprise of those people, and what makes them act altruistically. Races and boundaries are created by geographic isolation, which allow mutations and also hinder gene flow from outside sources. Northern Croatia is not protected by geographic boundaries from others portions of europe. Hercegovina is.
> 
> As you well know, all of B/H was Croatia, all of Montenegro and parts of Albania.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Croatia


and what...the...F*CK...this has to do with the Croatianhood of northern Croats?You are aware that northern Croats,both genetically and anthropologically,are more close to original Croats than your dinaric 'ubermensch' Herzegovinians?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Let's try to dispense of this argument and get to a general notion of what constitutes racism and then we can further elaborate what the impact of racism would be in scientific inquiry. If you could define racism, this argument would indeed be much simpler for me to proceed with. Otherwise, we seem to be at a point in which we are having difficulty understanding the general flow of the argument since opinions are compromising the logical discourse of the thread.
> I will be back later and await a response.


We are dealing with FACTS here, not opinion. Everything we know about Coon indicates he was an arrogant racist, plain and simple. Fundamentally, if you perceive the world in racist terms your "scientific" pursuits will be affected accordingly and the conclusions you arrive at will be VERY wrong. As an example, Coon believed that certain "races" were superior to others and he used terribly old, erroneous and opinionated information to codify peoples as X or Y, usually without PROPER qualification. He was a notorious cherry picker and prone to oversimplification. I could go on and on about this pathetic mountebank, but it would likely bore the audience. 

Simply put, once you start from the premise that a group of people (A) is better or naturally superior in some fashion to another group (B), your thought processes will automatically become compromised. Science deals with reality, with fact, not fantasy, not distortion. Coon many times avoided reality and concocted racial fantasies / distortions to fit his twisted notions about any number of populations. Now, fill in the blanks...

----------


## Joro

my friend just said(dealing with another subject) as an example,that there are practically no Portuguese women with light hair:)

----------


## serinus

> my friend just said(dealing with another subject) as an example,that there are practically no Portuguese women with light hair:)


 
The percentage of light hair in Portugal is 10. Is one of the lowest percentages in europe, but I can't understand what's the problem about that.

By the way, I think there are more women in Portugal with light hair than men. I have no data about this, but simply by observation is the sensation I have.

----------


## Wilhelm

> my friend just said(dealing with another subject) as an example,that there are practically no Portuguese women with light hair:)


Tell your friend to com here :)

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> my friend just said(dealing with another subject) as an example,that there are practically no Portuguese women with light hair:)


What planet is he on? Light hair runs from white blond to light brown. Portuguese women are predominantly brunette (there is a wide range of shades in the category), but it is not all that uncommon to find naturally blond haired women; and there are some regional percentage differentials. I am not suggesting that you have a large percentage of very light blonds in Portugal. Light hair, however, averages out to medium blond.

Also, I don't know were the 10% Portugal blond or light hair figure provided by another member comes from but, given what I have seen and read (from reputable sources), a more realistic percentage is around 20%, about the same as Spain. I'll see if I can provide some references.

In any case there is hardly a comprehensive light hair study out there for Europe that has reasonable credibility.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> my friend just said(dealing with another subject) as an example,that there are practically no Portuguese women with light hair:)



Is this the Coon disciple?  :Laughing:  Have him take a month off from his confused thinking and travel throughout Portugal.. :Laughing: 

If he has problems seeing, make sure he gets a good pair of glasses.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> The percentage of light hair in Portugal is 10. Is one of the lowest percentages in europe, but I can't understand what's the problem about that.
> 
> By the way, I think there are more women in Portugal with light hair than men. I have no data about this, but simply by observation is the sensation I have.


European men universally have darker hair on average compared to European women. The testosterone effect.

----------


## cordobesforever

Honestly, I do not think the percentage of light hair in Portugal, is as you say, as well serinus said, the percentage should be about 10% ..

Greetings from Argentina.

PS: I am writing with Google translator.

----------


## LeBrok

I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.

----------


## cordobesforever

> I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


You're right in their statements, the Iberians give as much importance to hair color ..
The blond hair is not very common in Spain and Portugal, perhaps in regions such as Galicia / Galiza, the blond hair is a little more frequent than in the rest of the peninsula, but still it should not be above 15%

Greetings from Argentina

----------


## serinus

> I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


 
I agree with you.

----------


## Wilhelm

blondism in Spain is about 20%.

----------


## Wilhelm

> I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


10% seems very low, I don't think it is correct. It is double of that, about 17-20%

----------


## cordobesforever

> blondism in Spain is about 20%.


On that bases you know?

Sobre que basas tú eso?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> 10% seems very low, I don't think it is correct. It is double of that, about 17-20%


That's about right.

----------


## cordobesforever

Again, give me sources to believe them.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> On that bases you know?
> 
> Sobre que basas tú eso?


There are a couple of reputable studies out. I'll find the references. Everything is an approximation, since the research has not been exactly scientific. 

I can tell you with certainty that, for my town in Portugal, I have casually counted on several occasions at least 15 or so light haired (blond to light brown) people out of every 50. I've done research in social and economic anthropology there for a number of years.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> *I can't believe how defencive Iberians* are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


Here it comes Miss "I know everything about iberians" with her disgusting generalizations and prejudices.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


Personally, I don't give two spits. However, I do care about ACCURACY. Iberians are painted as people with no hair and / or eye color variance (bull-spit) which is what deranged intra-race racists want you to think.

Native origin Iberians are probably the most European of Europeans.

----------


## Wilhelm

> I can't believe how defencive Iberians are against suggestion of small percentage of blonds in their countries. 
> So freakin what? Does the less percentage of blonds makes you less European?
> Nobody is suggesting otherwise, not even Latinos. It's just in your heads.
> Actually defending this, you are insinuating to all of us that this is a big deal for you! You suggesting that you want to be more blond. More blond in your eyes is more European. 
> Stop doing yourselves misservice, we like you for whatever you are, 10% or 100% blond, I don't give a squat.


ACtually, Spaniards are one of the most paleolithic europeans (if not the most) and least neolithic. In other words, one of the most ancient Europeans.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

I find this "purest european" discussion rubbish. Finns have a great percentage of siberian/uralic admixture (and are among the most "blond" people in the world, btw) and I do NOT consider them less european than myself or anyone else in Europe.

----------


## Wilhelm

> Again, give me sources to believe them.


Examples :

http://antropologiaaragonesa.org/pdf...tropologia.pdf

http://books.google.es/books?id=z2To...age&q=&f=false

----------


## Wilhelm

> I find this "purest european" discussion rubbish. Finns have a great percentage of siberian/uralic admixture (and are among the most "blond" people in the world, btw) and I do NOT consider them less european than myself or anyone else in Europe.


Finns are very cro-magnon, that is european.

----------


## Haganus

I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%. 
And the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula are absolutely not descendants
of the Upper Palaeolithic men of southwest Europe. They are mostly
pure mediterranians from Asia Minor.
In the Netherlands (north), northwest Germany and Jutland the purest
Upper Palaeolithic men can be found. See the fair and especially red
hair and blue eyes. For example red haired people are practically absent
in the Iberian Peninsula and East-Europe.

----------


## Wilhelm

> I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
> is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%. 
> And the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula are absolutely not descendants
> of the Upper Palaeolithic men of southwest Europe. They are mostly
> pure mediterranians from Asia Minor.
> In the Netherlands (north), northwest Germany and Jutland the purest
> Upper Palaeolithic men can be found. See the fair and especially red
> hair and blue eyes. For example red haired people are practically absent
> in the Iberian Peninsula and East-Europe.


WOW...
Actually, for Spain blondism is about 20% , read my sources. Also, red-hair is found in 3%, which is about the average for Europe, about 4%.
Spain has very little of Neolithic for a european country (12%).

----------


## Joro

> I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
> is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%. 
> And the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula are absolutely not descendants
> of the Upper Palaeolithic men of southwest Europe. They are mostly
> pure mediterranians from Asia Minor.
> In the Netherlands (north), northwest Germany and Jutland the purest
> Upper Palaeolithic men can be found. See the fair and especially red
> hair and blue eyes. For example red haired people are practically absent
> in the Iberian Peninsula and East-Europe.


But then I come and say...aren't those who have the most Haplogroup I the oldest Europeans? :Laughing: 
and who has the most haplogroup I...I ask you? :Thinking:  :Grin:

----------


## Haganus

Yes, I think so, they are the Scandinavians, north Germans an Dutch.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
> is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%. 
> And the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula are absolutely not descendants
> of the Upper Palaeolithic men of southwest Europe. They are mostly
> pure mediterranians from Asia Minor.
> In the Netherlands (north), northwest Germany and Jutland the purest
> Upper Palaeolithic men can be found. See the fair and especially red
> hair and blue eyes. For example red haired people are practically absent
> in the Iberian Peninsula and East-Europe.


So, where did you research your information? Are you a geneticist? Oh, let me guess, you have a degree in some type of alchemy  :Laughing:  Grow up, already!

----------


## Joro

> Yes, I think so, they are the Scandinavians, north Germans an Dutch.


Naaaaahh...aren't we deliberately leaving someone out? :Satisfied:  :Laughing:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Naaaaahh...aren't we deliberately leaving someone out?


We have a self proclaimed expert on genetics and anthropology. Hey, can this be Coon's reincarnation!? :Laughing: 
Please, let's all applaud the genetic alchemist...  :Rolleyes:  Not, you Joro... :Smile:

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
> is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%.
> And the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula are absolutely not descendants
> of the Upper Palaeolithic men of southwest Europe. They are mostly
> pure mediterranians from Asia Minor.
> In the Netherlands (north), northwest Germany and Jutland the purest
> Upper Palaeolithic men can be found. See the fair and especially red
> hair and blue eyes. For example red haired people are practically absent
> in the Iberian Peninsula and East-Europe.


Thank you. This made my day.  :Laugh: 




> A Paleolithic and Neolithic basis of Iberian ancestry
> 
> [...], a similar 2007 study found that the most prominent genetic stratifications in Europe run from the north to the south-east [northern Europe to the Balkans], with another stratification running on an east-west axis across the continent. *This latter study points to a strong Paleolithic element in the Iberian gene-pool, confirming earlier findings that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. Despite these stratifications it noted the unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world."*[4]
> 
> *Indeed, the Paleolithic component in Iberian ancestry had already been ascertained by means of Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis, a methodology which does not provide strong inferences on genetic population structure but is useful in tracing parts of the routes of migration in the populating of Europe. Both Y-chromosome haplogroups R1b and Mtdna haplogroup H, reach frequencies above 60% in most of Iberia, R1b peaking at 90% in the Basque region. [3] This shows the strong ancestral bond between Iberia and the rest of western Europe. It is thought that Northern Iberia was an Ice Age refuge at the end of the last glaciation 45,000 years ago from which human beings later colonized the rest of western Europe.* [5] Y-chromosome and Mtdna analysis also points to pre-historic population movements into Iberia from North Africa, probably during the Capsian diffusion.
> 
> Autosomal studies using a small number of classical genetic markers, supported by more recent analysis of Microsatellite data, have not only lent support for a large Neolithic element in the European genome, but have also been the basis for the demic diffusion model from the near east. Broad gradients across Europe, largely on a South East/North West cline using a small number of classical genetic markers would thus link the populations of Western Europe (including Iberia) by a common "paleolithic" ancestry and those of eastern (and particularly south eastern) Europe by a common "neolithic" ancestry [6]
> Nevertheless the demic diffusion model remains controversial, to the degree that studies of ancient Mtdna point to the total absence of Neolithic contribution to modern European populations.


Source

----------


## Joro

> We have a self proclaimed expert on genetics and anthropology. Hey, can this be Coon's reincarnation!?
> Please, let's all applaud the genetic alchemist...  Not, you Joro...


Yes,I know,don't worry :Satisfied: 

I think the parents these days should take more time for their kids.
They are too much on their own,spending too much time with grown ups business. :Wary:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> WOW...
> Actually, for Spain blondism is about 20% , read my sources. Also, red-hair is found in 3%, which is about the average for Europe, about 4%.
> Spain has very little of Neolithic for a euroepan country (12%).


Actually, if you discount E (M-81), which is pre-Neolithic, in Spain you get 7% NEOLITHIC. Using the same method in Portugal you total 15.5% NEOLITHIC. GASP, I can't believe it! GASP, I can't believe there are more than a handful of light haired and red-haired Spaniards and Portuguese! My heavens, I must be on another planet! Please, someone help me. :Laughing:

----------


## Wilhelm

> Actually, if you discount E (M-81), which is pre-Neolithic, in Spain you get 6% NEOLITHIC. Using the same method in Portugal you total 15.5% NEOLITHIC. GASP, I can't believe it! GASP, I can't believe there are more than a handful of light haired and red-haired Spaniards and Portuguese! My heavens, I must be on another planet! Please, someone help me.


Yes, and Netherlands has about the same as Spain.

----------


## Joro

What haplogroups count as neolithic?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What haplogroups count as neolithic?


E, J2, J1 and T. However, technically E (M-81) is pre-Neolithic and should be segregated from the Neolithic category. Most M-81 in Europe is found in Iberia and other nations of the Atlantic Facade.

----------


## serinus

> I believe that in Portugal and Spain the percentage of fair haired men
> is much lower than 10%, I suppose 1 or 2%. 
> .


Don't exagerate Haganus.

----------


## Joro

Croatia is less Neolithic than Netherlands then  :Satisfied:

----------


## Joro

I thought G is Neolithic too.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Croatia is less Neolithic than Netherlands then


Looks about the same...  :Satisfied: 

I suspect there is not much E (M-81) in Croatia. M-81 is pre-Neolithic.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I thought G is Neolithic too.


Separate category. Eurasian, pre-Neolithic.

----------


## Joro

> Looks about the same... 
> 
> I suspect there is not much E (M-81) in Croatia. M-81 is pre-Neolithic.


i don't know really.
I see Netherlands has 11.5% Neolithic,Croatia one percent less :Satisfied:

----------


## Joro

However,the latest research shows there is 13% of E+J+T in Croatia.
E is 9%,and of that,7% is the 'mainstream' Balkan E1b1b.
The numbers on Eupedia are a bit off,There is too much I2a and too little R1b definitively.
And I would like too see a research where Bulgarians have 33% of I2a,that is way off.
More like 18-20%,from what I've read so far.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Link to the original study: http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf




> The Spanish and Basque groups are the farthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestion that the Iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry.12,13


On page 2. 

Come back whenever you want Haganus.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> However,the latest research shows there is 13% of E+J+T in Croatia.
> E is 9%,and of that,7% is the 'mainstream' Balkan E1b1b.
> The numbers on Eupedia are a bit off,There is too much I2a and too little R1b definitively.
> And I would like too see a research where Bulgarians have 33% of I2a,that is way off.
> More like 18-20%,from what I've read so far.


I think Eupedia has the most accurate and comprehensive DNA figures. Maciamo has done a fabulous job.

----------


## Joro

> I think Eupedia has the most accurate and comprehensive DNA figures. Maciamo has done a fabulous job.


I am not saying it is in accurate,but some figures need slight corrections.
That is for my area,if for Iberia it is 100% accurate,that is great and raises credibility of the table...

----------


## Wilhelm

> I think Eupedia has the most accurate and comprehensive DNA figures. Maciamo has done a fabulous job.


I agree .

----------


## Joro

Anyway,If you're in for fun,our Serbian friend continues with his 'scientific' conclusions on another forum :Laughing: 
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=2248&page=11

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Anyway,If you're in for fun,our Serbian friend continues with his 'scientific' conclusions on another forum
> http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=2248&page=11


That forum is pure trash. It's for insecure racist idiots. The average IQ there is about 10.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Anyway,If you're in for fun,our Serbian friend continues with his 'scientific' conclusions on another forum
> http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=2248&page=11


Your Serbian friend is likely very insecure.

----------


## Joro

> That forum is pure trash. It's for insecure racist idiots. The average IQ there is about 10.


I know.I didn't go there voluntarily-a guy with whom i talked about anthropology(croatian-australian) invited me there,i thought it was his site and he needed members,so i couldn't refuse.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

I checked out the whole forum and (no offense) but most of the posters look like newbies talking like they were Darwin.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Wilhelm

Eupedia is the only good genetic forum of all internet  :Good Job:  
Here, amateurs , nordicists and similiar do not get their own way

----------


## Sprinkles

This thread should be dedicated to what rational discourse is not, and what the herd is.

----------


## cordobesforever

Well, nordicists exist in your country also there, as there are in mine, and is in Croatia and other countries.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Looks like Eupedia have been mentioned in too many internet's pigsty. I won't make the same mistake twice.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Well, nordicists exist in your country also there, as there are in mine, and is in Croatia and other countries.


Nordicists are delusional, poorly educated intra-race racists. Prime material for the dust-bin. They behave like mindless children.

----------


## Wilhelm

Nordicism was created to overcome the strong inferiority complex that nordic people suffered, because of the mediterranean superiority in achievments and history. So, they had to invent childish stories like the romans and greeks were Norwegians, that blondism is superior, etc.

----------


## cordobesforever

So, in Italic and Iberian peninsulas were born the greatest empires that humanity observed, sometimes the nordicists invent things like the ancient Romans were Nordic, etc.. that ultimately lies.

----------


## serinus

> Nordicism was created to overcome the strong inferiority complex that nordic people suffered, because of the mediterranean superiority in achievments and history. So, they had to invent childish stories like the romans and greeks were Norwegians, that blondism is superior, etc.


 
The excuse they invented for the fall of the Portuguese Colonial empire was because we turned mulattos.  :Laughing: 
But I don't know what's the excuse for the fall of the Spanish Empire. Some of them try to push the trivial levels of sub-saharan admixture in Spain as reason of the fall.  :Laughing: 

Poor things, we can't blame them, they are only unloved children  :Good Job:

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> The excuse they invented for the fall of the Portuguese Colonial empire was because we turned mulattos. 
> But I don't know what's the excuse for the fall of the Spanish Empire. Some of them try to push the trivial levels of sub-saharan admixture in Spain as reason of the fall. 
> 
> Poor things, we can't blame them, they are only unloved children


Most are dullards who seem psychologically disturbed. These clowns act like they are suffering from some type of brain damage.  :Useless:

----------


## LeBrok

> Coon was a physical anthropologist. I haven't read much of his work, maybe a few paragraphs, but to discredit his work based on the idea that he's racist is not logic. That is my only view on the subject, to make asserts otherwise, and falsify what i have stated, is an extreme error in rhetoric.


I don't agree with Sprinkles on most subjects, but his logic here is sound. I'm saying this regardless of the fact that I didn't read anything Coon wrote.

Listen to this.
We also know that Darwin was a racist, at least by our standards now.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/12
Does this fact discredit all his work?
Is theory of evolution and natural selection invalid?
Is Darwin:
Insecure racist idiot; poorly educated intra-race racist; a charlatan; who is racist, is biased, thus his works cannot be objective; racist fraud and delusional etc.
We also know that he was wrong in his geological hypothesis.
Hmmm, what that would leave us with? Creationism?

One could argue that mare description of differences between races is still good science and not racism. It could be used to improve medications and treatments. I'm pretty sure scientific racial profiling is used by white doctors curing people in Africa. 
Unfortunately it can be also used to divide races, it could be used by racists to demean and abuse. 
Racism starts with negative emotions towards other races, racial slurs, followed by apartheid politics or ethnic cleansing. In racism the most important is the intent and not pure science.

PS. I didn't write this to defend Coon or Darwin.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I don't agree with Sprinkles on most subjects, but his logic here is sound. I'm saying this regardless of the fact that I didn't read anything Coon wrote.
> 
> Listen to this.
> We also know that Darwin was a racist, at least by our standards now.
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/12
> Does this fact discredit all his work?
> Is theory of evolution and natural selection invalid?
> Is Darwin:
> Insecure racist idiot; poorly educated intra-race racist; a charlatan; who is racist, is biased, thus his works cannot be objective; racist fraud and delusional etc.
> ...


I have already explained why much of Coon's work is worthless. What fundamental premise did the jack-ass start from? Read what I wrote and follow the logic...

Talk to Harvard and U. Penn and find out what they think of Coon.

----------


## Joro

I think it makes no sense now to compare Coon and Darwin for example...if Coon was a racist and delusional that doesn't mean we have to search for world's most famous scientists who perhaps were racists too to justify his work.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I think it makes no sense now to compare Coon and Darwin for example...if Coon was a racist and delusional that doesn't mean we have to search for world's most famous scientists who perhaps were racists too to justify his work.


Thank you Joro...  :Good Job:

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Huh? Darwin defended racial segregation like Coon did... That's new to me.  :Oh:

----------


## Dalmat

i just wont to add a bit about croats.

1.
You cannot judge whole Croatian ppl look from sport teams,because majority of them are from dalmatia or BiH(ppl from hercegovina who list them selfs as nationality:hrvatsko(croat)). 
2.In north Croatia there are lost of ppl with Hungarian ancestry,and their surnames are Croatizated(sp),and there are lots of topic on Croatian forums about Croatians surnames which are of Hungarian origin.These ppl are still croats,as they have deep roots in croatia,and consider them selfs as ones,and are not 100% hungarian,but mixed.
I would say that in N.Croatia there is about 50% of ppl with hungarian/german/austrian origin,but predominantly Hungarian.

To conclude fizical look of south croatian/hercegovian croatian is different than north Croatian,but not by much,usually south croats are bit darker and taller.

----------


## Joro

Again some hyperactive teenagers with their wacked ideas :Laughing: 
Where to start...everything that you have written is mostly crap.
Northern Croats are mostly Hungarians by origin...lol.It would rather be that Hungarians largely assimilated Pannonian Croats before their arrival in late 9th century,and later migrations of Croatian sub-ethnic groups like Bunjevci in Ottoman times have played some role in Hungarian ethnogenesis.
Besides,anthropologically there are also clear differences.Hungarian have a lot of those types which are unique to them and which certainly differentiate them greatly from (northern)Croats,like Turanid,Ladogan,Mongoloid,East Baltid and various other types.

anyway,what you've written is mostly pure krap.

----------


## Dalmat

> anyway,what you've written is mostly pure krap.


depends on a point of view,anyways i am not going to start argument here with you,because you are probably N.Croatian.

But i guess your right because Croats subjugated Hungary and settle it,so for a long period of time Hungary was Croatian province.  :Good Job:

----------


## Joro

I am North Croatian of Dalmatian origin,like many of us are.
I don't know what is your point,are you some Serb tractorist pretending to be Croat and with task of dividing Croatian people,or maybe even Hungarian with the same duty(although I haven't seen that yet)?
There are no great differences between northern and southern Croats,especially nowadays.

----------


## Iadera56

> To conclude fizical look of south croatian/hercegovian croatian is different than north Croatian,but not by much,usually south croats are bit darker and taller.


Southern Croatia(Dalmatia) is mainly western-Med,and northern Croatia is Alpine/CM.
cheers

----------


## Joro

> Southern Croatia(Dalmatia) is mainly western-Med,and northern Croatia is Alpine/CM.
> cheers


Well, yeah, but that's maybe a bit oversimplified.
Dalmatia also has strong UP, Nordid and Dinarid presence, and northern Croatia has some Nordid strain too.After all, Zagreb residents were shown to be mostly dolicephalic according to last study.
Anyway, there is no particular rule, all kinds off types can be found.

----------


## Alex D.

> Anyway,If you're in for fun,our Serbian friend continues with his 'scientific' conclusions on another forum
> http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t=2248&page=11


everything i ahve said there is true im still waiting for your "scientific" ideas

----------


## Joro

> everything i ahve said there is true im still waiting for your "scientific" ideas


http://www.jutarnji.hr/davis-cup--sa...bijom-/636840/

skip to picture no.3 .
Serbian Davis cup team ,but one of them is their Croatian coach- guess who? :Grin: 
(p.s. guy on the far right is ethnic Rusyn)

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The truth is that Croatians are more Paleolithic by comparison to other Balkan peoples and closer to Western Europeans genetically. Bosnians as well.

----------


## Joro

Dinaric Alps and general isolation of the Adriatic provided shelter to Paleolithic survivors.

----------


## rogers

> Dinaric Alps and general isolation of the Adriatic provided shelter to Paleolithic survivors.


Yes I am convinced of that. In fact Croatia is probably the most UP country in the world in terms of Y-DNA constitution and phenotypic distribution.

----------


## Joro

> Yes I am convinced of that. In fact Croatia is probably the most UP country in the world in terms of Y-DNA constitution and phenotypic distribution.


Well,i dont know if it's _the_ most UP phenotypically in the world, but certainly there is some UP strain, as our little research shows :Good Job: 

unfortunately, there will always be idiots who will heavily missrepresent our country(and many others):
http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

seems like another frustrated Nordicist who would rather eat his own sh*t than admit that countries like Croatia and Slovenia are at least 10% Nordic, amongst other things.

here is what wikipedia writes about this charlatan:



> In particularly McCulloch feels that his self-dubbed Nordish race is at risk of being assimilated into other races due to their declining numbers and the recessive genes upon which their racial traits are built.


In other words, just another racist in denial. :Useless:

----------


## bosna501

Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian) Haplogroup
in southbosnia up to 70%.
The Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Word BOSONA.

----------


## bosna501

in 1991 john wilks﻿﻿ (Wilkes is the foremost LIVING﻿ authority﻿﻿ on the Illyrians)﻿ said that bosnians are﻿ of illyrian decend. ten years after ALBANIAN accademics﻿ agreed with﻿ him: Kaplan Resuli, Fatos Lubonja, Ardian Qosi, Albinot Maloku and Ardian Vebiu also other experts worlwide like: Paul, Hirt, Weigand, Tomashek, Georgiev, Pushcariu and﻿﻿ many others. And then we got the genetic﻿ facts from﻿﻿ Igenea, genograpic and familytreedna.

----------


## Joro

oh no...another 'genocentrist'

----------


## Iadera56

> Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian) Haplogroup
> in southbosnia up to 70%.
> The Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Word BOSONA.


 :Laughing:  :Laughing: 

you are just Slavs, moreover descendants of islamicized Croats.
But if making up new identities helps you go through crisis of identity, we'll give you all our psychological staff and support :Laughing:

----------


## Joro

I hope this comedy of a state - 'Bosnia and Herzegovina', will soon be evenly divided between Croats and Serbs.
Although it's historically 95% Croatian,we respect the settlement of Serbs there through centuries.

----------


## bosna501

Hey Guys its time to accept Reality you knows very good your History 
is today only a poor Ruin your Propagandamachine is a Joke.

----------


## Joro

> Hey Guys its time to accept Reality you knows very good your History 
> is today only a poor Ruin your Propagandamachine is a Joke.


now this is called an Extreme Denial  :Laughing:

----------


## bosna501

> now this is called an Extreme Denial


I answered on your niveau okay:

 :Cool V:   :Thinking:   :Wary:  :Rolleyes:   :Embarassed:   :Laughing:   :Bored:   :Shocked:   :Good Job:   :Confused:   :Smile:   :Grin:   :Angry:   :Satisfied:   :Petrified:   :Disappointed:   :Startled:   :Annoyed:   :Sad 2:

----------


## Sprinkles

> Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian) Haplogroup
> in southbosnia up to 70%.
> The Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Word BOSONA.


This is only partially true.

The populations of Herceg-Bosna with the highest amount of I2a2 are the Catholic (Croats). The Serbs and Muslims, while still assuming a high percent of I2a2 show more gene flow from populations found within the vicinity of the Balkans. We would assume the people with least affliction of gene flow would be that of the Catholic populations, and as such, they would probably be the closest descent from Illyrians.

This is also true from southern parts of Croatia that border Hercegovina, which are also very high in I2a2. I think you're not assuming the role of sea warfare as a vital part of Illyrian culture. Which would mean that Coastal portions of Croatia, especially those that are situated between the Dinaric Alps, to be Illryian.

----------


## bosna501

Herceg Bosna :))))) Hey Adolf Hitler is Death

Hercegovina is Bosnia and the People of Hercegovina are Bosnians
religion is here not Important bosnia waever the Jerusalem of Europe
but the centaurie long Propagandamachine make the christians today
to serbs or croats but this is only funny. In 19th all Bosnians muslims
and christs said they are Bosnians they dont know for croatia or serbia
they are PROUD Bosnians Christs but today they are Victims.

Southcroatia (Dalmatia) have no similarity with rest of Croatia 
but they similar to Bosnia and Hercegovina. 
Dalmatia must back to Mother Bosnia thats like a Baby without Mother
but this is the reality of today and we must Accept.

----------


## Sprinkles

> Herceg Bosna :))))) Hey Adolf Hitler is Death
> 
> Hercegovina is Bosnia and the People of Hercegovina are Bosnians
> religion is here not Important bosnia waever the Jerusalem of Europe
> but the centaurie long Propagandamachine make the christians today
> to serbs or croats but this is only funny. In 19th all Bosnians muslims
> and christs said they are Bosnians they dont know for croatia or serbia
> they are PROUD Bosnians Christs but today they are Victims.
> 
> ...


I don't know any people from Hercegovina that consider themselves Bosnian. Either you're lying or you really don't know much about Hercegovina, and I prefer the former as a sufficient explanation

----------


## bosna501

Say me what are Bosnians Muslims in Hercegovina??? 
They are consider themself as Croatians ? :)))))

I know many bosnian catholics from Hercegovina that said they are only Bosnians
and very very Proud Bosnians. The People today are very good are informated and they
open more and more they eyes its not more Place for Propagandas and lies.

----------


## Joro

> I know many bosnian catholics from Hercegovina that said they are only Bosnians
> and very very Proud Bosnians. The People today are very good are informated and they
> lies.


really? I'd like to meet one of those  :Laughing:

----------


## bosna501

You can find them in Bosnia its no problem Mr. Smiley Warloard

----------


## Joro

you can, one out of 1000. similar like you can find Muslim Croats.

----------


## bosna501

Is not one of 1000 and its every Day more.

----------


## Joro

then one out of 10000  :Laughing:

----------


## Croat

Hello guys. I was intrigued by this topic and I decided to join. Now, I'm no genetics expert by any means but I notice that there are some of you here that really understand this stuff so there are just a couple of points I'd like to bring to your attention that might perhaps help us all understand the situation here better.

In 15th and 16th century when Croatia was pretty much cleansed by the Turks, the empty areas, such as Lika, Kordun, Slavonia were populated by Catholic and Orthodox groups. Now, from my understanding those groups were neither Croats or Serbs but the Vlach population. Later on, Bunjevci and Sokci became Croats and Orthodox Vlachs became Serbs. 
This is interesting because it would explain the difference of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia in comparison to Serbs in Serbia. They're not the same people. But then again, are Bunjevci and Sokci really Croats? Where are they from? Is it possible that they are Delmats? The Illiyrian population of ancient Dalmatia?


What do you folks think about this?

----------


## Gusar

You have a fair bit to go here in your understanding it would seem. First of all you have to understand who Vlachs are. In this context, Vlachs are the native Balkan population which was Romanized after basically the Balkan peninsula was conquered by the Romans 168 BC. Vlachs are the former Illyrians, Dardanians, Thracians, Dacians etc. Their cooexistence with "arrived" slavs in the Balkans shows them only as a minor populace. For example the Decani Charter only puts them at about 10% maximum. The words which you speak are reflective mainly of a Croat/Bosniak bias which attempts to paint a picture of Serbs on Croat and Bosnian territiory as non-Serbian. Vlach influence is both exagerated and often incorrect by not considering it's fluid meaning when Vlachs are also meant as pastoralists. Your claim that Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia are different to other Serbs is not correct at all. The Serbs which are most different to the rest are actually the Torlaks of Serbia proper who are the most recent addition to the Serbian ethnos. A more distinct difference has been shown to exist in the Croat populace between north west Croats and the rest which frankly paints a picture of a lot of bullshit regarding Croat claims on genetics. Considering both the regional difference amongst Croats themselves and also the historical context of Hercegovina/Old Hercegovina & Montenegro, haplogroup I2a2 should be moreso associated with Serbs - if it must be associated with a Balkan ethnicity. Also Perisic's claim that it was born in the Balkans has already also been shown pretty much to be bs... although this would not exlude it from also being Vlach (Illyrian etc...).

----------


## bonesseries

Warehouse 13 Season 2 dv released on *mycollects*

----------


## Anatolian

I went to Macedonia, and it's an interesting issue concerning on where they look the most at. If you ask me it's a mix between Slavic and ancient Hellenes. But I'd have to go for the Slavic majority in Macedonia

----------


## Templar

Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia have Cro-Magnon genes from both the original inhabitants and the subsequent Slavic invasions (which were a mixture of Cro-Magnon and R1a people, albeit mostly R1a). Serbs and Croats were some of the last Slavs to arrive, but seemed to be either the most numerous or most successful at carving out their own domain. Bosnia was mostly inhabited by a mix of the original inhabitants AND non-croat/serb Slavs. Bosnia was Catholic (with a Bogomil minority), and Herzegovina was Orthodox (with both Catholic and Bogomil minorities). Dalmatians in that respect are much more similar to Bosnians than to other Croats. During the rule of the Ottomans, Catholics were under far more pressure to convert to Islam than Orthodox populations. The vast majority of the Orthodox world was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and their Patriarch remained in Constantinople/Istanbul and willingly promoted a relationship of mutual benefits. Catholic countries on the other hand were expanding in power and were for the most part independent and safe from Ottoman rule. If any country was going to hamper Ottoman goals, it was likely to be Catholic. The prospect of a brother-in-faith ally coming to their aid, also made Catholics the most likely group to rebel against Ottoman rule. The two only areas of the Ottoman empire that converted in huge numbers to Islam were CATHOLIC. Both Bosnia and Albania had Catholic majorities. The few Catholics that remained in Bosnia in the 1800s began to call themselves Croats due to the rising nationalism which was spreading throughout Europe after the Napoleonic wars and due their weak positions both in terms of number and national-identity (which became mostly supplanted by a new Ottoman/Bosnian hybrid). The Serbs in Bosnia were both migrants that came from Serbia to fill space at the Northern border of Bosnia (which became underpopulated due to Catholic Bosnians fleeing to Croatia/Hungary) and they were also the native Orthodox population of Herzegovina which began to consider themselves Serb due to the same conditions affecting the Croats above.

----------


## Gosh

For some ppl here, history is what they like to see, not the state of facts. Unfortunately...
A cheap way to relax their souls.

----------


## Templar

> For some ppl here, history is what they like to see, not the state of facts. Unfortunately...
> A cheap way to relax their souls.


Yup, that is true.

----------


## zanipolo

> I think it is just simple the northen Croats and the serbs are brothers.


in another thread , you say, albanains and serbs are same people and now its serbs and northern croats.............which is it?

----------


## Menus1

Ok in the 16 to 17 century the Serbs were being settled in the parts that is now a border with the north croatia and bosnia by the Turks. So basicly after the Croats won some teritories from the turks and got the part of theyr land back they found serbian farmers there. So basicly over the time the Northern Croats (R1a) started to mix with those serbs up until the 1990s, but still some serbs remain iven today in that area.

----------


## Klausin

I have noticed few things in Croatia how the Northeren croats treat the Dalmatians. Its like no other part of Croatia, they sometimes give more privilegions to Dalmatians then any other part. Like they give the Dalmatians a good football team Hajduk and invest lots of money there. Now the latest they iven move few universities from Zagreb to the Split, so the Elite dalmatian politicians can school thyer children, i must point very sneaky from Croats. 

I also would like to point out to Croatians dont go to european union yet, yes am a german in eu and i know how stuf works. If you people join the EU the rest of the Europe will just buy your beatiful island and offshore beach, make fancy hotels in increadiable time, and then hire local people to work there.
That sounds great, but what sounds iven better is that Dalmatians themselfs took a hold of the goverment property and build the hotels themselfs, divide that betven theyr family members and can become some nice rich tajkuns. Sure it will take some more time to build the Hotels then the europeans but it will pay of on the long run belive me.

----------


## Mihajlo

I'm quite surprised that some influence from east asia can be still seen nowadays in autosomal test in Croat or Serb

----------


## mihaitzateo

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII12.htm
Someone can confirm that what is written there is true?
Is it true that a lot of montenegrins have a redddish nuance at their beards,because this is what is telling there.
Is it true that a lot of montenegrins have their hair brown with a reddish nuance (called auburn)?

----------


## how yes no 3

> In 15th and 16th century when Croatia was pretty much cleansed by the Turks, the empty areas, such as Lika, Kordun, Slavonia were populated by Catholic and Orthodox groups. Now, from my understanding those groups were neither Croats or Serbs but the Vlach population. Later on, Bunjevci and Sokci became Croats and Orthodox Vlachs became Serbs. 
> This is interesting because it would explain the difference of Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia in comparison to Serbs in Serbia. They're not the same people. But then again, are Bunjevci and Sokci really Croats?


i think you are partially right there. The people who settled empty areas like Lika, Kordun and parts of Slavonia were mixture of Serbs and Vlachs and not Vlachs only. Hence, increased E-V13. But big Vlach admixture holds for most of Serb settled areas except for Herzegovina where also in Serb parts I2a2-Din is much more dominant than E-V13. There was in fact a comparison between genetics of Bosnia and Herzegovina that illustrates this as in that comparison samples were not classified by nation but by region. But this is logical as Serbs did initially settle (south and east) Herzegovina and Croats north Herzegovina. Narentanes/Pagani who accepted catholicism and are now one part of Croats were originally recorded in history data as non-baptized Serbs.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=3al1...page&q&f=false

Genetic impact is always larger in places initially settled, than in areas later annexed. Therefore, I2a2-Din as dominant in Herzegovina (not just in Croats from Herzegovina).

But I think that proto-Serbs might have even brought some of E-V13 with them, as I guess they may origin from Scordisci who have previously lived in Serbia mixed with Illyrians (E-V13 people probably). Scordisci are tribal name with celtic ending -disci. Part of them who was thracanized were known as Serdi. In that respect I would mention that Sloveni/Slaveni (Slavs) are in history data from roman times also written with turning "s" into "sc" hence Sclaveni instead of Slaveni. When Roman empire expanded, Scordisci who lived along Danube naturally must have moved towards north. This is in fact confirmed by Russian primary chronicle that speaks of Danubian Slavs (Serbs, Croats and _Carinthians_(Slovenes) who moved to north to Lyakhs (Lechs or Poles I assume) once they were pushed out by spreading Roman empire.




> Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian 
> lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known 
> by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by 
> the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these 
> same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs 
> attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and 
> made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were 
> called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians.


http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/...selections.pdf

So Croats and Serbs did probably live in Pannonian plane and north Serbia prior to moving to north. Hence, Slavonia and perhaps Bosnia might have originally been Croat land, and north Serbia and Vojvodina Serb land. But they might have been celtic or ruled by celtic elite at the time.

In fact, originally, before Dardanians entered Europe from Asia minor, Scordisci also lived in south most Serbia (Kosovo) where Šar planina was named _Scardus_ mountain after Scordisci.

----------


## zanipolo

> But I think that proto-Serbs might have even brought some of E-V13 with them, as I guess they may origin from Scordisci who have previously lived in Serbia mixed with Illyrians (E-V13 people probably). Scordisci are tribal name with celtic ending -disci. Part of them who was thracanized were known as Serdi. In that respect I would mention that Sloveni/Slaveni (Slavs) are in history data from roman times also written with turning "s" into "sc" hence Sclaveni instead of Slaveni. When Roman empire expanded, Scordisci who lived along Danube naturally must have moved towards north. This is in fact confirmed by Russian primary chronicle that speaks of Danubian Slavs (Serbs, Croats and _Carinthians_(Slovenes) who moved to north to Lyakhs (Lechs or Poles I assume) once they were pushed out by spreading Roman empire.
> 
> In fact, originally, before Dardanians entered Europe from Asia minor, Scordisci also lived in south most Serbia (Kosovo) where Šar planina was named _Scardus_ mountain after Scordisci.


IIRC , it was said that E-V13 had no illyrian , but Thracian, Greek, Epirote and Dardanian , that is originally Dardanians where in northern asia minor near Troy.
I believe at the present in the bronze-agetime that Ilyrians where purely I2a and some G2 ( in the north), these illyrians moved from the danube area south ward clashed with the thracians moving east to west. The pannonian plateau was the melting pot.
The north westerly Illyrian being a mix of I2a and G2a3b1a3 L-640, while there "norici" raetian neighbours being G2a3b1a3 L-497 and the easterly raetians ( near switzerland) g2a3b1a1a L-13. Granted the slovenes IMO being not original slavs ( but becoming slavs after the Roman period) having this northern Illyrian mix of I2a and G2a as described.
Strabo notes that the breuni (illyrian ) after resided in the pannonian plane moved with the Genauni alongsize the Euganei camuni tribe ( raeti?/ligurian?) in the alps

As far as the scordisci , they would have arrived later on.

Italian maps
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breuni

Have the breuni in the alps and there original people who remained in pannonia ( as Breuci ) still in the described locality

----------


## Yetos

> IIRC , it was said that E-V13 had no illyrian , but Thracian, Greek, Epirote and Dardanian , that is originally Dardanians where in northern asia minor near Troy.
> I believe at the present in the bronze-agetime that Ilyrians where purely I2a and some G2 ( in the north), these illyrians moved from the danube area south ward clashed with the thracians moving east to west. The pannonian plateau was the melting pot.
> The north westerly Illyrian being a mix of I2a and G2a3b1a3 L-640, while there "norici" raetian neighbours being G2a3b1a3 L-497 and the easterly raetians ( near switzerland) g2a3b1a1a L-13. Granted the slovenes IMO being not original slavs ( but becoming slavs after the Roman period) having this northern Illyrian mix of I2a and G2a as described.
> Strabo notes that the breuni (illyrian ) after resided in the pannonian plane moved with the Genauni alongsize the Euganei camuni tribe ( raeti?/ligurian?) in the alps
> 
> As far as the scordisci , they would have arrived later on.
> 
> Italian maps
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breuni
> ...


P
ersonally I do not Believe that E-V13 is Greek Thracian Troyan etc, 

I Do not believe that neither is Neolithic in Balkans as in Iberian penninsula,

I believe that is Arcado-Cypriot that enters Balkans between 2500 -1500 BC, which already inhabited by J2 G2 and maybe I1,I2 

the copper, at the times Iron did not exist, was stronger than any other known metal.

the case of Cadmus, brother of Phoenix (phoenicians) Aigyptos(Egypt) Father of Illyros, etc 
as also the case of Ilos father of Dardanos and illyros father Daordo (Δαωρθω) gives clear view, 

E-V13 is not Illyrian, not Thracian, Not Greek, especially not Troyan, Not Serb, primary,
but assimilated to all the above, 
it is a pre-Mycenean, 
the areas that is known as also the case of Dorian gives the expand of E-13 even to italy,
compare the word Mess-apia Messa-ra Mess-enia etc, 

that is my personal believe, today E-V13 of Balkans belong to modern nations that are created in Balkans,
although I share only the case that E-13 is a mark, until where the Arcado-cypriots went. 
an interesting Idea is that E-V13 is also strong among aromani(latin-speakers), which might lead us to Roman Armies, (5 Legion etc), that means that is much earlier,

----------


## mihaitzateo

I know is a little offtopic but:
Does anyone know some Y DNA tests for Montenegro?
On Eupedia section for Y DNA Montenegro is not present.

----------


## Gosh

> I know is a little offtopic but:
> Does anyone know some Y DNA tests for Montenegro?
> On Eupedia section for Y DNA Montenegro is not present.


I2->31
E->27
R1b->9.4
J2->9.2
R1a->7.4
I1->6.2
G->2.5
Q->2.0
N->1.5
H->1.5
L->1.2

It is from the largest study made for Montenegro. About 405 haplotypes included.

----------


## mihaitzateo

Very weird how low the percentage of R1A is,and how high the percentage of E is in montenegrins Y DNA compared to serbians.
if you take as good the datas from Eupedia Y DNA table, lowest percentage of R1A from all countries in south-eastern Europe ,is in Montenegro,even lower than Albania.

----------


## Dale Cooper

As many users said before, the main difference between Croats and rest of "ex-yugoslavs" (except Slovenians) is croatian lack of E,J haplogroups which make a significant proportions in Serbs, Montenegrins, rep.Macedonians, and even Bosnians.

Croatians practically don't have E,J haplogroups, which is not case with other "ex-yugoslavs" (except slovenians) who have 30% to 40% of this three haplogroups.

----------


## Gosh

I also think so. Croats are one of the purest European ethnic groups. 
Croatian genetic picture shows that they are not an admixture of various nations but a completely independent formation between southern Slavs.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> As many users said before, the main difference between Croats and rest of "ex-yugoslavs" (except Slovenians) is croatian lack of E,J,B haplogroups which make a significant proportions in Serbs, Montenegrins, rep.Macedonians, and even Bosnians.
> 
> Croatians practically don't have E,J,B haplogroups, which is not case with other "ex-yugoslavs" (except slovenians) who have 30% to 40% of this three haplogroups.


B haplogroup?
At what haplogroup are you refering?

Cause I saw that indeed, croats have a very low percentage of J and a low percentage of E,but they have a lot of R1A1 which tells that are more mixed with east or west slavs,or germans or something like that.The percentage of I1 is highest from balkanic populations also,in Croatia.
Sure there are no deep tests to see what clades of european R1A1 are present in Croatia.



From south slavs highest percentage of I2A din is between bosnians and not croats.But bosnians also have a high percentage of E-V13.
No ideea if the E-V13 version is really greek,might be from some other very old population.
Because I saw that in Albania is highest,E-V13 balcanic and is also high in montenegrins,so is weird,I doubt montenegrins mixed with greeks.
http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=E-V13
On the other hand,in montenegrins R1A1 is very low and this leads to the ideea that some greeks might be some J2,cause that is all that is remaining here.

And please,stop treating E and J haplogrups like some inferior people.
Look a little at Montenegro,the economic situation is great there,compared to Croatia,but they have a lot of E-V13,they also have almost 10% J2,so haplogrups are not telling too much about how developed and educated the population from a country is.

----------


## LeBrok

> And please,stop treating E and J haplogrups like some inferior people.


Excellent point mihaitzateo, and I hope everyone keeps it in mind posting here. :83:

----------


## Dale Cooper

> B haplogroup?
> At what haplogroup are you refering?


I'm sorry I thought about E, I've put "B" by mistake, I'm writing to fast :) Jesus christ and I don't treat people with E,J as "inferior" people, all that I've said was about what is the main difference between Croats and rest of "ex-yugoslavs", is that a racist in your opinion? if it is, than I guess genetic as science is also racist, I really cannot believe that someone here is accusing me for been "racist" to HG's J2 and E and I was always neutral when it comes about this things. And yes maybe I am "little racist" (and I'm not racist :)) towards J1, but not for J2, J2 is in Europe for 6000-8000 years, J1 doesn't have any place in Europe in terms that, that is the clear "non-european" HG, and I know that everyone here think the same about J1 in Europe even though they would't admit it.

And economy of Montenegro is nowhere near croatian or croatian infrastructure etc.., Croatian GDP per capita is 19 000 $ and Montenegrian 11 000 $ (Romanian is 12 000 $). We would be even better if we didn't had the war 91-95, but we will be even better, also we should have entered in the european union back in 2004 if wasn't for our generals from war but that is concluded now. Anyway... I really don't understand what does economy have to do with genetic...?




> I also think so. Croats are one of the purest European ethnic groups. 
> Croatian genetic picture shows that they are not an admixture of various nations but a completely independent formation between southern Slavs.


;) :) True, but Croats, Serbs and Bosnians are connected trough haplogroup I2a2, we should stick togethar stometimes haha :)

----------


## zanipolo

if you take post 214 and 215 in consideration, then i will conclude that E is basically from thrace to epirus. Considering that the greeks in the ancient times did not consider epirotes as greeks. where Dorians ever Greek?

I still agree with Terry Robb that northern greece, macedonian and albanian areas was E and north of these where J2.
I still maintain that the Illyrians brought I2 into the balkans from central europe .

There is no difference between any haplogroup in consideration to being inferior

----------


## how yes no 3

> As many users said before, the main difference between Croats and rest of "ex-yugoslavs" (except Slovenians) is croatian lack of E,J haplogroups which make a significant proportions in Serbs, Montenegrins, rep.Macedonians, and even Bosnians.
> 
> Croatians practically don't have E,J haplogroups, which is not case with other "ex-yugoslavs" (except slovenians) who have 30% to 40% of this three haplogroups.


actually, haplogroups E and J are creators of most big civilizations in ancient times...
from ancient Egypt via all middle east ancient civilizations, through ancient Greece (which has by far most contributed to modern civilization), and even initial core of Roman empire was dominantly E+ J....

so its kind of funny when someone tries to put those haplogroups in lower worth position....

Croatian lack of haplogroups E & J is due to massacre over romanized Illyrians who lived there... this massacre is not to be attributed to Croats....before them Goths and Avars made place pretty desolated except for some big towns on Adriatic coast.....

proof for massacre is high diversity of haplogroup E in Croatia - much much higher than e.g. in Kosovo and albania.... this also indicates that Illyrians were probably dominantly E-V13 people...which fits fine with I2a2 being dominant marker of south Slavs and hence today a common point in genetics of all south Slavic nations...


btw. Croatia has 42% of I2a2 only because half of the samples were from 3 sparsely populated islands on south most of Croatia where I2a2 is around 60-80% ...not to mention that all 3 islands were part of Narentania and that Byzantine authors record that Narentanes (Paganians) are unbaptized Serbs...

real percentage of I2a2 in Croatia is probably around 30% which is comparable to Serbia... and is in my opinion indicator of genetic influence of original Serbs and Croats spreading from areas of Herzegovina where they have originally settled, and mixing with previous populations......

in case of Serbia previous populations were dominantly E with significant R1b, J and R1a, E+J is strong as that part was much less desolated by attacks of barbarians, while in north Croatia previous population were dominantly R1b and perhaps also with significant R1a.. besides previous tribes, big part of both could be legacy of Goths




> I also think so. Croats are one of the purest European ethnic groups. 
> Croatian genetic picture shows that they are not an admixture of various nations but a completely independent formation between southern Slavs.


Croats are so ethnically pure that in south areas (in what used to be called Narentania) they have up to 80% of I2a2 and northwest ones (with exception of capital Zagreb which has lot of immigrants from south areas and hence lot of I2a2) close to 0%... and for R1a + R1b its opposite....

so heterogeneous spreads in fact indicate that some parts of Croats were only rather recent admixture...but which ones I2a2 dominant part or R1a + R1b dominant part?

----------


## Yetos

> if you take post 214 and 215 in consideration, then i will conclude that E is basically from thrace to epirus. Considering that the greeks in the ancient times did not consider epirotes as greeks. where Dorians ever Greek?
> 
> I still agree with Terry Robb that northern greece, macedonian and albanian areas was E and north of these where J2.
> I still maintain that the Illyrians brought I2 into the balkans from central europe .
> 
> There is no difference between any haplogroup in consideration to being inferior


where did you read that? that greeks did consider Epirotes as non Greeks?

in Fact it is written the opposite, concerning especially Dodona as primary land of Greeks, area which fits well the place Homer places γραικοι, area which is part and beside the R1a high concentration in Greece. as also if we consider E-V13 as Thracian, then why did not exist in tombs? and what kind of connection has E-V13 from thrace to south Italy? except probably Roman Army If we consider E-V13 as Thracian then then we consider E-V13 as a Northern HG or a Caucasian one, and not Levantine, I wonder why Brygian areas and Phrygia if has the same % of E-V13 as other parts,

it is written_ Ηπειρος μεν αρχεγονος Ελλας εστι_

----------


## zanipolo

> where did you read that? that greeks did consider Epirotes as non Greeks?
> 
> in Fact it is written the opposite, concerning especially Dodona as primary land of Greeks, area which fits well the place Homer places γραικοι, area which is part and beside the R1a high concentration in Greece. as also if we consider E-V13 as Thracian, then why did not exist in tombs? and what kind of connection has E-V13 from thrace to south Italy? except probably Roman Army If we consider E-V13 as Thracian then then we consider E-V13 as a Northern HG or a Caucasian one, and not Levantine, I wonder why Brygian areas and Phrygia if has the same % of E-V13 as other parts,
> 
> it is written_ Ηπειρος μεν αρχεγονος Ελλας εστι_


one of many books on the matter

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...0greek&f=false

the Molossians are also initially not considered greek

another book
Epirus, 4000 years of greek history M. V. Sakellariou - 1997 - 480 pages

there are many books

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...0greek&f=false

----------


## MOESAN

> ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266413?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4


thanks - I think I red this paper yet - It seams prove that the differences (not too big) between Croatians and Serbians in Bosnia was not erased even with some seldom intermarriages - that Bosnia Serbians are close enough to Serbia Serbians, not too surprising - that Serbians as a whole as said by someones here yet seam to carry more 'neolithic' or 'near-near-eastern' genes - what is surprising there ???: the geographical position of present day Serbians is on "highways" where History puts a lot of 'go-and-return' invasions, and despite partial endogamy surely they took allogene peoples with them or settled among this 'aborigenes' , more than did Croatians - 
for R1b arround Montenegro CrnaGora I think about the so called 'borreby' type influence on them (more strongly built than traditional 'dinaric types', more rufosity, different cranial and facial features: I would be glad if somebody could tell me the kind (SNP) of Y-R1b that come up there?

----------


## mihaitzateo

I really do not understand serbians,croatians,montenegrins and bosnians,after what is told they are all speaking same language,to me it seems like they artificially try to say they are different nations,with these Y DNA tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_S...Classification
"There are four national standard languages based on the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian: 
Serbian (ISO 639-1 code: sr; ISO 639-2/3 code: srp; SIL code: srp)
Croatian (ISO 639-1 code: hr; ISO 639-2/3 code: hrv; SIL code: hrv)
Bosnian (ISO 639-1 code: bs; ISO 639-2/3 code: bos; SIL code: bos)
Montenegrin (not completely standardized, but official in Montenegro, with published standard orthography)
Bunjevac (used in some media in Serbia)
"
At least if you can not stay united in some state like Yugoslavia was,why you are not making between your states some kind of union,like nordic countries have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
I mean you are almost same,from genetical point of view,you have same language,what is your problem than,I do not really understand.

if I would take this kind of thinking,in Romania do not think Y DNA is uniform,what romanians should do,separate in different states?
That is pure nonsense.

----------


## zanipolo

> I really do not understand serbians,croatians,montenegrins and bosnians,after what is told they are all speaking same language,to me it seems like they artificially try to say they are different nations,with these Y DNA tests.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_S...Classification
> "There are four national standard languages based on the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian: 
> Serbian (ISO 639-1 code: sr; ISO 639-2/3 code: srp; SIL code: srp)
> Croatian (ISO 639-1 code: hr; ISO 639-2/3 code: hrv; SIL code: hrv)
> Bosnian (ISO 639-1 code: bs; ISO 639-2/3 code: bos; SIL code: bos)
> Montenegrin (not completely standardized, but official in Montenegro, with published standard orthography)
> Bunjevac (used in some media in Serbia)
> "
> ...


language means nothing in regards to culture, you speak and write in English but you seem not to be English

----------


## Endri

> language means nothing in regards to culture, you speak and write in English but you seem not to be English


Actually language exactly means culture. Knowing a foreign language means that you know or have a general idea of the nations culture so at some degree we all here are British (or American). Especially when we're talking about entire nations and taking into consideration the time period.

Maybe language does not mean same genetic makeup but it certainly means same culture.

----------


## zanipolo

> Actually language exactly means culture. Knowing a foreign language means that you know or have a general idea of the nations culture so at some degree we all here are British (or American). Especially when we're talking about entire nations and taking into consideration the time period.
> 
> Maybe language does not mean same genetic makeup but it certainly means same culture.


we difer..............welsh people speak english but are considered welsh in culture

catalans speak catalan are catalan in culture but spanish in nationality. Basques are similar.

Breton culture ..french nationality

Maybe there is a fine line ................but IMO nationality is not culture since culture is older than nationality.

language comprises a small portion of cultural makeup.

knowing another language would not mean knowing that languages culture. People in the world learn english and never ever visited english speaking nations......bulk of Indian customer service people who service centres world-wide know english language and have never left India

----------


## Yetos

> one of many books on the matter
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AY7lHzR9c48C&pg=PT587&dq=epirotes+are+gre ek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8OJfT4TPOtGiiAfV6ZDlBw&ved=0CFAQ6 AEwBg#v=onepage&q=epirotes are greek&f=false
> 
> the Molossians are also initially not considered greek
> 
> another book
> Epirus, 4000 years of greek history M. V. Sakellariou - 1997 - 480 pages
> 
> ...


Read again Sakelariou 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UV1oAAAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:"M.+V.+Sakellario u"&dq=inauthor:"M.+V.+Sakellariou"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G yRhT4zmPKbX0QWMx7CsBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg

It writes the opposite

Now lets see your source

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...page&q=ancient epirotes and greek&f=false

What? a handbook for travellers? by whom?
Does his mother know him?

Greeks 
a tribe described by Homer which expands from Pindus mountains to Aetolia-Akarnania a non mycenean
homer names them Γραικοι 
Greeks an exonym that is given by Italians,
inner name Ελληνες, 
Makedonians are not Greeks, neither peloponese, neither cretans
They are Hellenes

now when ancient authors like strabo say archegonus Ellas for Epirus knows something 
what that means = PRIMARY GREECE IS EPIRUS.
and he is correct, word Hellenes from as it is said Hellanas river (a river that starts from mount Pindus and goes to thessaly to Phthia) the land of Achilleus, the same land that driopes passed to go to Dodona and build the oracle,
Makedonians did not visit Delphi But Dodona,
also Olympias the queen of Molossians Daughter of Achilleus, 
Alexander son of Hercules by his father, son of achlleus by his mother, 
Achilleus semi-god of Epirotans- Greeks

do not confuse the tribe Greeks and their homeland Greece, with the later Ducat of Greece, and today preferacture of Sterea Greece,

many author drop to that, 
it is like Germany and Deutsch and Dutch is the same, or Franks are Germanic, so Gemany is Deutsch, so Franks are Deutsch

Greek and Greece is an exonym and does not describe well all inner names, 
Greece as primary is the land of Γραικοι of Homer, and not Hellas,
Peloponese, Makedonia, Crete etc is not Greece but Hellas
primary Greece as Land is Epirus, Thessaly (Aeolian tlands) to the sea of Corinth. living beside with the Locri (Dorian tribe) tribe of Αιας ο Λοκρος, different from Αιας ο Τελαμονιος
later with Romans favor tactic became Attica as Greece and later the Ducat of Greece -Athens, and much later all area from Aetolia to Evoea (Ευβοια) as Sterea Greece preferacture leaving outside Epirus and Thessaly

----------


## zanipolo

> Read again Sakelariou 
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UV1oAAAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:"M.+V.+Sakellario u"&dq=inauthor:"M.+V.+Sakellariou"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G yRhT4zmPKbX0QWMx7CsBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg
> 
> It writes the opposite
> 
> Now lets see your source
> 
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...page&q=ancient epirotes and greek&f=false
> ...


let me understand you correctly, you are saying that greeks formed in the pindus mountains of Thessally , so it makes the myceneans non- greek. so the greeks where not around in Homer's bronze age 
OR are you saying they where always greeks and the creation of people in the pindus where Hellenes

----------


## Yetos

> let me understand you correctly, you are saying that greeks formed in the pindus mountains of Thessally , so it makes the myceneans non- greek. so the greeks where not around in Homer's bronze age 
> OR are you saying they where always greeks and the creation of people in the pindus where Hellenes


Correct.

Homer names as Γραικοι (greeks) the area of south Epirus until corinthian bay beside Locri
Epeirus is alternate name from Chaonia Central parts of (chaos = apeiron) 

Homer does not use the word greeks for myceneans but for South epeirotans and Pindus people besides Locri
Γραικος means like mountain, 
the primary land is near Arta in EPeirus, there you see names and toponyms like γρεκικο etc 

*read homer Iliad B 498* 
γραικος (greek) is After Epirotan Dodona oracle priests tribal rulers *γραιοι* who devastate to Tana-graia or just Graia (modern tanagra) and from there to Italy giving the name Greeks to the ones who spoke the Hellenic Language (the exonym)
in fact Greek is the older name of Epirotans and Dodona, remember Makedonians called them πελιοι (παλιοι. old ones) 
So after the city Graia the area is Greece. 

to make it more easy 
Myceneans are not Greeks as Γραικοι (inner name) but they are Greeks as exonym.


in fact majority of Graikoi (Greek tribal) moved to Italy, and create Cymae Cuma next to Neapolis 
and brought Greek alphabet which later named Latin, while in Greece adopted the Ionian one which many say as phoenician, but Pelasgian to me,

----------


## Dianatomia

Hi there,

I think E-V13 people where paleo-balkanians who did not yet call themselves Greeks (Hellenes), Illyrians, Dardanians, Paeonians. Greeks and Albanians have the highest frequencies of this haplogroup, because they probably are the most related to these paleo-balkanic populations. Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians, Bosniacs also share considerable Paleo-balkanic ancestry that's why they also have this haplogroup, albeit some perhaps in somewhat lower frequencies. Same can be said for haplogroup J2 which is mainly present among Greeks and Albanians but also in lower frequencies in South Slavs. 

Which brings us to this Greek/non-Greek issue. Since most people in the Balkans (especially from the middle to the south)ever since pre-historic times shared the same bulk of ancestry, the term Greek or non-Greek was primarily based on culture. The geography of Greece, the sea, the islands, the trade routes, the warmer climate and the proximity to other civilizations helped the South-Balkanic peoples forge a unique culture and an identity which distinguished them from the more backward northerners at the time. Southern Greece became the core of this "hellenic" civilization and Epirus and Macedonia where considered by most to be the border line of the Greek world. While the area further north was barbarian territory. 

Genetically though, there was little difference between the Greek world and the non-Greek world in adjecent areas. I.e. the genetic differences between Macedonia and non-Greek Paeonia would have probably been not much different compared to Macedonia and Thessaly or Epirus. 

Based on this logic, it is very easy to assume why 'some' Southern Greeks may have considered border-line Greeks to be barbarians at some point in time while unanimously Greek at another time. One way or the other, racially they essentially belonged to the same stock. Even the ones who never come to belong to the Greek world because they were too far from the sea.

----------


## Menus

Heres a Haplogroup map with Political borders

----------


## Dale Cooper

> as you can see bosnian Serbs have higher amount of haplogroup I than Serbs in Serbia what are their other genes like or percentages?


In what parallel universe? 

Here are the facts:

Croats have 52% of I haplogroups and Serbs 40%, Croats have 5% of E1b1b, Serbs have 20%, Croats have R1b 30% and Serbs 15%, you see the difference? well everyone who is NOT F...ING BLIND can see it.




> this is data i got of igenea i just copy and pasted it. anyway near easterners i dont know who would be classified as near easterners and whether illyrians are or arent but look at this:
> Near eastern people in croatia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 50%
> Near eastenr people in Serbia (illyrians, hellenics and phoenicans)- 36%


Can I ask you something? Do you have any mental disorders? Well if you do not have any mental disorders than you would f...ing know that there isn't such thing as "near eastern people in croatia 50%", where the f...ck did you find this number 50%? Are you saying that haplogroup I2a2 is near-eastern? I2a2 is one of the oldest european haplogroups, and you should exam your head before you came to this forum, obviously this forum is not for you, you should check some forums for "village & people" or something similar.

Croats along with Slovenians have the less amount of any "near eastern" (what ever this is) haplogroup, or even neolithic haplogroup from ex-yugoslav nations, and THAT IS A FACT, and do you want another fact? Croatians are by genetic THE OLDEST EUROPEANS, yeah, you saw it right, you know why? Because Croats have 52% of Paleolithic genes (I), now here is one more fact for you: piss off from this forum, because obviously you don't have connection with genetic research and obviously you are nothin more but serbian nationalist with education on levels of AMEBA. 

Ciao "fratello".

----------


## kamani

serbs seem to have slavicized and incorporated into their society a large number of albanian males, at some point in time before the arrival of the ottomans in the 1400-s. Since albanians and serbs were both christian orthodox at the time, they might have actually had good relations for some period of time. That is the only explanation I can think of for their mixed dna.

----------


## Eldritch

A new study about Croatian DNA

----------


## albanopolis

> Bosnians are Illyrians they have 50% of I2a (Illyrian) Haplogroup
> in southbosnia up to 70%.
> The Name Bosnia is real ancient Illyrian Word BOSONA.


I feel sorry for this guys. A slav wants to be Illyrian. Its nothing wrong with being slav. Be proud of who you are, and don't try to be who you are not. Its looks stupid, it sound stupid. If you are Illyrian that in no way makes you better anyway you see it. Its not shame from being a slav or, is it?

----------


## Marko94

I have friends bosnian and i know many have grandfather or grandmother albanian (from montenegro or kosovo), for this have dna illyrian  :Grin: , and i think this 50% is only by bosniaks  :Ashamed: .
The story of illyrian is abuse by all, and is insupportable.
For me albanian,bosnian,montenegrin and croatian are descended from illyrian and slave :Ashamed: .
In dna of turk have 15,8% r1b1 and j2 24,8% because in ottoman empire serbs move albanian in turkey for build church ortodox.
Is a my idea  :Ashamed: , what think other? is right?

----------


## albanopolis

> I have friends bosnian and i know many have grandfather or grandmother albanian (from montenegro or kosovo), for this have dna illyrian , and i think this 50% is only by bosniaks .
> The story of illyrian is abuse by all, and is insupportable.
> For me albanian,bosnian,montenegrin and croatian are descended from illyrian and slave.
> In dna of turk have 15,8% r1b1 and j2 24,8% because in ottoman empire serbs move albanian in turkey for build church ortodox.
> Is a my idea , what think other? is right?


Marko94! You need to work a little more with English grammar. I know, english is not our language but we have to try a little more to improve ourselves, so others can understand us. I have problems too with english, even though I have lived among english speakers for a number of years. Now, Dna tests show that three major haplogroups among Albanians are, E,J,R1b. There is not a direct written evidence of Illyrians being the forefathers of today Albanians. The strongest evidence that makes Albanianas decendents from Illyrians is our Language. Albanian language is half latin, and the words come from latin spoken 100 yrs before Christ. That means we have been conquered by latins in the first 100 yrs before christ. The only people conquered at that time by Romans were Illyrians. So that alone puts us firmly in Illyrian shoes. If we see the Dna of today slavs They are largely R1a, I2a, which seems to be slavic haplogroups. The remainig haplogroups in Slavs E,J, R1b, and I1 are the illyrian elements in slavs. Having said that, it shows that croatians are about 20% Illyrians, bosnians are about 25%, serbs about 35% and Montenegrins are in fact Albanians that speak Serbian.

----------


## Marko94

> Marko94! You need to work a little more with English grammar. I know, english is not our language but we have to try a little more to improve ourselves, so others can understand us. I have problems too with english, even though I have lived among english speakers for a number of years. Now, Dna tests show that three major haplogroups among Albanians are, E,J,R1b. There is not a direct written evidence of Illyrians being the forefathers of today Albanians. The strongest evidence that makes Albanianas decendents from Illyrians is our Language. Albanian language is half latin, and the words come from latin spoken 100 yrs before Christ. That means we have been conquered by latins in the first 100 yrs before christ. The only people conquered at that time by Romans were Illyrians. So that alone puts us firmly in Illyrian shoes. If we see the Dna of today slavs They are largely R1a, I2a, which seems to be slavic haplogroups. The remainig haplogroups in Slavs E,J, R1b, and I1 are the illyrian elements in slavs. Having said that, it shows that croatians are about 20% Illyrians, bosnians are about 25%, serbs about 35% and Montenegrins are in fact Albanians that speak Serbian.


Yes i know srry, and my mother language is italian, i'm albanian but i was born in italy :).
Is possible, you rember venetian albania? 
In google write "venetian albania" and say boundaries.

----------

