PDA

View Full Version : What are Croats?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Shapur
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 05:26 PM
What are Croats?


I talk with many Croatians. The most of them said they are Iranians.
And also heard that in Croatian schoolbooks where wrote that Croatians are an Iranian tribe. I hope we can have here a good discussion about this subject.
Please respect everyhere who want to argument.
Maybe many of Pan-Slavics will be angry about this but I will discuss about the schoolary fact.

Thx!

Glenlivet
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Maybe partially related to the ancient Iranic tribes of the South Russian steppes that also moved into the Iranian plateau. The anthropological type(s) that they represented may now be more common among Cossack populations and Southwest Caspian (Gilakis) people of Northwestern Iran.

What is sure is that they are nowhere to be found in southernmost Iran.

Sword Brethren
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 01:24 AM
In my school most White Nationalists hate the Croatians. They view them as backwards foreigners at the least, and as non-whites at the worst. That is just false. Croatians are certainly white.

Glenlivet
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 01:31 AM
Is this school in the USA and could it be because of Nato politics in the Balkans?



In my school most White Nationalists hate the Croatians. They view them as backwards foreigners at the least, and as non-whites at the worst. That is just false. Croatians are certainly white.

Awar
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 02:24 AM
I'm pro-pan-Slavic :D but I recognize the strong possibility that Croats originated somewhere in the Russian steppes as an Iranian tribe ( that got Slavicized sometime before they settled in the Balkans ). Same goes for Serbs, as both names have a clearly non-Slavic and most probably Iranian origin. ( of course, these north Iranian tribes are closely intertwined with the histories of Slavs, Thracians and other peoples who lived in the vicinity, so it's unusally hard to tell which one is which).

Having said all this, the Croats are genetically closely related to other peoples from the Balkans and central Europe. They are predominantly of indigenous, palaeolithic and other genetic lineages, but also show the picture of subsequent Slavic invasions ( and even some central Asian lineages on the island of Hvar, this thanks to the Avar invasion ).

Croats are in no way a backward nation, rather a typical European people.

Vojvoda
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 03:23 AM
The anthropological type(s) that they represented may now be more common among Cossack populations and Southwest Caspian (Gilakis) people of Northwestern Iran.
Post some pics of these people please.

Shapur
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 10:33 AM
I saw many Croats and everytime I thought they are Iranians.
It is a fact that they mixed with European people but genetical test shows that they are 75% of Iranian origin. This would also claim why they don`t looking typical Slavic but typical Iranian. We don`t need to speak about the physical Anthropology, because the genetic Anthropology is better and more detailed.
By the way Hrvatia is not in the North Iran it is well described in the Avesta so we don`t need to struggle where it laid!
I am personal for a re-annaxion of Hrvati to the Iranian world.
Also the supporting of other Iranian nations in east Europe.
I think many of you don`t like my words but this is my opinion so I accept your opinions.
By the way the most south Slavic tribes are a mix of Iranians and Slaves.
You can see this also by the fact that they have dark hairs and not fair hairs.
Most of them looking Iranian.

By the way Gilakis are Iranians!

Bedroud and a nice day! ;)

Siegfried
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 10:48 AM
It is a fact that they mixed with European people but genetical test shows that they are 75% of Iranian origin.

Could you give me a source?
I've met but a few Croatians and Iranians in my life, and they didn't look very similar to me. The Iranians seemed darker, while one Croatian had very Mongoloid eyes (perhaps due to Avar heritage?). But then again; I've met but a few Iranians and Croatians, so I'm not sure how representative they were for their nations.

A-C-LA
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 11:19 AM
I saw many Croats and everytime I thought they are Iranians.

maybe some people look like anicent iranians but not like todays iranians in iran

i have seen hundreds of croats in my life and many iranians too
and they don't look very similiar


It is a fact that they mixed with European people but genetical test shows that they are 75% of Iranian origin
hmmm

bocian
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 01:01 PM
I saw many Croats and everytime I thought they are Iranians.


I have met many Croats and Persians. Your statement is ridiculous, and proves that you are talking out of your ass.

Where have you seen these Persian Croats?

I would also like to see your source on this genetic test.

Awar
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Shapur is also known for the statement that his eyes and hair are becoming lighter by the minute... therefore I think everything he says is absolutely true :D

Vetinari
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 03:08 PM
What are Croats?

Research concerning Croatians:

Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates

Y chromosome variation in 457 Croatian samples was studied using 16 SNPs/indel and eight STR loci. High frequency of haplogroup I in Croatian populations and the phylogeographic pattern in its background STR diversity over Europe make Adriatic coast one likely source of the recolonization of Europe following the Last Glacial Maximum. The higher frequency of I in the southern island populations is contrasted with higher frequency of group R1a chromosomes in the northern island of Krk and in the mainland. R1a frequency, while low in Greeks and Albanians, is highest in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian populations and could be a sign of the Slavic impact in the Balkan region. Haplogroups J, G and E that can be related to the spread of farming characterize the minor part (12.5%) of the Croatian paternal lineages. In one of the southern island (Hvar) populations, we found a relatively high frequency (14%) of lineages belonging to P*(xM173) cluster, which is unusual for European populations. Interestingly, the same population also harbored mitochondrial haplogroup F that is virtually absent in European populations – indicating a connection with Central Asian populations, possibly the Avars.

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


The evidence of mtDNA haplogroup F in a European population and its ethnohistoric implications

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism was analysed in a sample of 108 Croatians from the Adriatic Island isolate of Hvar. Besides typically European varieties of human maternal lineages, haplogroup F was found in a considerable frequency (8.3%). This haplogroup is most frequent in southeast Asia but has not been reported before in Europe. The genealogical analysis of haplogroup F cases from Hvar suggested founder effect. Subsequent field work was undertaken to sample and analyse 336 persons from three neighbouring islands (Brac, Korcula and Krk) and 379 more persons from all Croatian mainland counties and to determine if haplogroup F is present in the general population. Only one more case was found in one of the mainland cities, with no known ancestors from Hvar Island. The first published phylogenetic analysis of haplogroup F worldwide is presented, applying the median network method, suggesting several scenarios how this maternal lineage may have been added to the Croatian mtDNA pool.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Tolk2001.pdf

rusalka
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 05:17 PM
I saw many Croats and everytime I thought they are Iranians.

There are people in almost every ethnic group that can resemble another ethnic group but thinking every Croatian you have met was an Iranian is a bit too far fetched. And besides, how many Croatians could you have met in Iran anyway? It's not exactly a tourist spot after the Revolution. Or have you been to Croatia?


This would also claim why they don`t looking typical Slavic but typical Iranian. We don`t need to speak about the physical Anthropology, because the genetic Anthropology is better and more detailed.

Which is it? Do we take physical anthropology into account or do we not? And if we don't, why does it matter if they look like "typical Iranian" and not "typical Slavic". Contradictory argument.


By the way the most south Slavic tribes are a mix of Iranians and Slaves.
Slaves?


You can see this also by the fact that they have dark hairs and not fair hairs.
Most of them looking Iranian.

Well let's see with a set of photos if they indeed look identical or not. I found the photos at Corbis.com, not airbrushed, not altered with make up and light.

Croatians:

rusalka
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Iranians:

Note that I also attached a photo of Princess Soraya Bakhtiari, the first wife of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi, and one of Bijan Bakhtiari, her brother. The thing is, their mother was the Russian-born German Eva Karl, and their father Khalil Esfandiary Bakhtiari, the Iranian ambassador to Federal Republic of Germany. The other people are either random citizens or well known people. I chose on the same basis that of Croatians and I tried to include a couple of photos with "western" attire so that cultural looks wouldn't alter the appereance too much. I still fail to see the identicalness of the two groups of people.

Übersoldat
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 06:10 PM
In my school most White Nationalists hate the Croatians. They view them as backwards foreigners at the least, and as non-whites at the worst. That is just false. Croatians are certainly white.

Modern White Nationalists are closely related to Serbs. Since they are anti-NATO and the Serbs was the victims of NATO-bombings their sympathies are strongly on the Serb side.

Since Croats and Serbs are the sworn enemies (like Serbs and Albanians forinstance), and knowing the Anglo-Saxons know so little about Balkan ethnicities, they must have identified us (along with other non-Serb ethnicities of ex Yugoslavia as some sorts of muds.)
The propaganda of the opposite side - the Serbs, and the pan-Slav/Orthodox lobby made a good job...also the natural WASP dislike toward Catholics contributed to this sad attitude.

Frankly I hold very little how does American WN see my people, I only regard the opinion of my fellow European Catholic nations and Germans as relevant.

Imota
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 06:11 PM
There are so many theories about Croatians but the iranian theory became popular in the begining of the 20 century. It was partialy backed to show the difference between Croatians and Serbs. Toady this theory is completly out by every serious historian. The only link to ancient iranians is the tombstone found in Tanais and the name Haarauvat, and this is basicly to little to be a firm link. Maybe the Croatians were a sarmatic tribe that in today Ukraine or Poland got slaviced but there isnt any evidence.

Second. The Croatians name is recoreded in today south Poland (where they had a kingdom in 8. century), Czech, Carinthia and finally in today Croatia, so we can see the route of croatian tribes toward south.
Also there is a good link to the mountain Carpaths because in many medieval texts it is called Chrobatia a derivation of the croatian name. In some Viking texts the Carphats are called Hervada fjor (Hrvat, Hervat, Horvat - Croat in croatian).

It is the most probably that the croatian name is linked to the Carpaths or the carpaths got their name after the Croatians. It is possibly that Croatian means highlander.

But today the most intrigue thing is when did the Croatians come to the Adritatic? The science today agrees on two dates: end of 8. century or in the begining of the 6. century. The latter is in my opinion and in opinion of some historians the right one.

Why begining of the 6. century? Simply. There isnt any evidence of people moving from north to Dalmatia except the one of the Goths in the late 5. and begining of the 6. century. Nothing. Zip. The only one recored settlement was the one of the Goths in the end of the 5. century and begining of the 6.

I think that there are to possible things. The Croatians were a slavic tribe who under the Goths arrived in today Croatia, or they were Goths who got slavicized or before in Poland or in Dalmatia.

Thomas (archdeacon in Split who lived when the Goths came) wrote that the Croatians were Goths and spoke a slavic language. The terms Croatian, Goth and Slavi are sinonims for him.

Now some very close things beetwen the Croatians and the Goths. It's very interesting that wherever there was a mention of the croatian name in east Europe there was also of the Goths. From the Azov sea, Poland to today Croatia. The croatian script, glagoljica, is very close to gothic runes found in today Ukraine. Firstly the glagoljica was proscribed to Cyril and Methodius (who invented Cyrilic script) but there is a stone inscribed in glagoljica from the late 8 century. The medieval croatian church (Gregur most famous bishop under king Tomislav) who was abolished by Rome was some think arian in doctrine. The church used croatian language and glagolic (glagoljica) script oposed to latin script. The priest could marry etc...
Also one od the first mentioned croatian dukes was Borna from a croatian tribe of the Guduscani or Guduscarum in latin. This is very similira to Goth name and even Borna is similiar to Born, or Bjorn. Many croatian kings and dukes had -mir in their name ending, which is of goth origin meaning glory, like -slav in slavic.


There is more but this is in brief. Uf. :)

Awar
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 07:00 PM
There are so many theories about Croatians but the iranian theory became popular in the begining of the 20 century. It was partialy backed to show the difference between Croatians and Serbs. Toady this theory is completly out by every serious historian. The only link to ancient iranians is the tombstone found in Tanais and the name Haarauvat, and this is basicly to little to be a firm link. Maybe the Croatians were a sarmatic tribe that in today Ukraine or Poland got slaviced but there isnt any evidence.

It's however linguistically much more probable that both the names Serbs and Croats are of this Iranian/Sarmatian origin ( not related to the teritory of present day Iran ). I don't know about Croats, but Serbs were documented to be one of the Sarmatian tribes.



I think that there are to possible things. The Croatians were a slavic tribe who under the Goths arrived in today Croatia, or they were Goths who got slavicized or before in Poland or in Dalmatia.

Goths were left Croatia more than a century before Croats came there. Inbetween there were the Avars.


Thomas (archdeacon in Split who lived when the Goths came) wrote that the Croatians were Goths and spoke a slavic language. The terms Croatian, Goth and Slavi are sinonims for him.

It's quite possible that at that age, there was no clear distinction between the various peoples who migrated around Europe, especially to the untrained eye.

Hungarians were in the beginning referred to as 'Turks'.

It's known that the Goths were in contact with Sarmatians, and that they learned warfare tactics from the Sarmatians.


The church used croatian language and glagolic (glagoljica) script oposed to latin script.

Glagoljica is not a Croatian or Croatian-only script. Goths used runes which were similar to Slavic 'runica', and central Asian Turkic rune inscriptions.


Also one od the first mentioned croatian dukes was Borna from a croatian tribe of the Guduscani or Guduscarum in latin. This is very similira to Goth name and even Borna is similiar to Born, or Bjorn. Many croatian kings and dukes had -mir in their name ending, which is of goth origin meaning glory, like -slav in slavic.

-mir suffix is common throughout the Slavic peoples, especially among Serbs.

Also, history has recorded that the Goths were present in the pre-Slavic teritory of today's Serbia for some 300 years, while their presence in the teritories of modern Croatia were something around 100 years.

Glenlivet
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 08:42 PM
I can only post Cossacks. The mixed Cossack populations of the Steppe border in South Russia are described as long headed by Fleure, Huxley and Haddon.

I personally know about red-blond beard among them, frequently light eyed, more dark brown than blond hair though.

Some look quite Nordid, and I believe that in other clothes they could also fit in North Western Europe.

Whatever their ethnogenesis may be, they are mostly Slavs now.

I have a great interest in Cossacks and the physical types that are found among them. Please post more.

In the third picture I see two Nordid or Nordid-like men lying a the side. In the upper left of the same picture I see a man who seem very light eyed (and I assume that his hair is also very light). I am pretty sure that he is Nordid.



Post some pics of these people please.

Triglav
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 11:08 PM
Also, history has recorded that the Goths were present in the pre-Slavic teritory of today's Serbia for some 300 years, while their presence in the teritories of modern Croatia were something around 100 years.

Was it really as much as 300 years? :scratch

Dou you have any sources for reference?

http://www.beograd.org.yu/english/upoznaj/istorija/vaznegod/

Triglav
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Frankly I hold very little how does American WN see my people, I only regard the opinion of my fellow European Catholic nations and Germans as relevant.

So you feel more allegiance to a religion deriving from the teachings of a Jewish sect than to fellow European kin?

That would explain much of your behaviour.

Vojvoda
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 11:28 PM
http://www.beograd.org.yu/english/upoznaj/istorija/vaznegod/
Good link.

]VII century
The Avars destroyed and burnt down the town

c. 630
The Slavs conquered Singidunum

Just like many other websites that basically states that the Balkans was a savaged wasteland when the Slavs entered the Balkans.

Why are there supposedly so many Dinarids(questionable sub race of the ancient Illyirans) in the Balkans? Shite, you can find Dinarids in Germany,Poland,Ukraine etc.Doesn't mean a thing.Slavicized Illyrians,Goths etc? Nah...They disappeared way before the Slavs.Show me a website where it says that the Slavs were in the minority when they settled the Balkans and then I'll believe it :|

Awar
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 01:00 AM
Did Frans ever write to a greater length about what he said once, that Dinarids appeared in the Balkans during the medieval times?

Glenlivet
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 03:24 AM
What do Germans have that fellow Slavs do not? I think that it is better to base things on an individual basis, or at least on phenotype, which Slavs should share more than with non-Slavs. Culture is not only religion. Also keep in mind that many Low Germans, Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons are Protestants. How do you feel about that?

Do you feel that Croatians are culturally "western"? I would also like to hear your opinion whether you want Croatia to join the EU like neighbouring Slovenia.





Frankly I hold very little how does American WN see my people, I only regard the opinion of my fellow European Catholic nations and Germans as relevant.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 03:27 AM
So you feel more allegiance to a religion deriving from the teachings of a Jewish sect?

I'm not going into religious debate with you.
Catholicism is not only a religion. Like Protestantism or Orthodoxy, its a part of cultural make-up and the way of life.


than to fellow European kin?

Euro-Catholics are my kins. People of the similar confessions/culture tend to interbreed more inside their groups than with others.


That would explain much of your behaviour.

Speak up, make your self understandable

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 04:06 AM
What do Germans have that fellow Slavs do not?

I never suggested something like that??


I think that it is better to base things on an individual basis, or at least on phenotype, which Slavs should share more than with non-Slavs.

Define Slavic phenotype.


Culture is not only religion. Also keep in mind that many Low Germans, Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons are Protestants.
How do you feel about that?.

I have no problem with that.


Do you feel that Croatians are culturally "western"?

What makes you think they are "eastern"? Would prefer to see us as "eastern"?
What criteria do you use in deciding which nation is western and which one is eastern?


I would also like to hear your opinion whether you want Croatia to join the EU like neighboring Slovenia.

I have reasons pro et contra.
Major positive aspect from my standpoint is the definite change of the course Croatia was condemned 1918. and 1945.
Major negative aspect is the fear of loosing the independence, individual statehood, national consciousness and suffer all the negative aspects of globalization.

Vojvoda
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 04:28 AM
Did Frans ever write to a greater length about what he said once, that Dinarids appeared in the Balkans during the medieval times?
No.I wish he would though.

Shapur
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 11:04 AM
I have met many Croats and Persians. Your statement is ridiculous, and proves that you are talking out of your ass.

Where have you seen these Persian Croats?

I would also like to see your source on this genetic test.
I never said that they looking Persian. Persians are Iranians but not all Iranians are Persians. And please speaking with sence and not like a child.
Iranians are not only Persians also other like Kurds/Lors/Gilanis....!

Shapur
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 11:25 AM
Befor we write more in this thread I will give you all a small information.

You write Iranians. Iranians mean NOT to be a inhabiten of the country Iran.
Iranians are a group of different tribes, like Slavs are a group of different tribes.
So Sarmatians are IRANIANS like Russians are Slavs.
So don`t posting the whole time pictures of Iranians from Iran.
The Iranian area is 5 times bigger.
Persians are ONE tribe of Iranians like Russians are also ONE tribe of Slaves.

Thx!

Triglav
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 12:30 PM
Thanks for having cleared this matter up, Shapur. Would you care to post pictures of those Iranians you refer to? I'm sure I'm not the only one anticipating them. ;)

bocian
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 12:48 PM
I never said that they looking Persian. Persians are Iranians but not all Iranians are Persians. And please speaking with sence and not like a child.
Iranians are not only Persians also other like Kurds/Lors/Gilanis....!

Ok let's just stick to Iranians as a group, sorry for the confusion but most Iranians I know refer to themselves as Persians. I have known Kurds as well, and they too don't look much like Croats.

You make outlandish claims, yet you then fail to provide and kind of proof.

Everyone is waiting....

Vlad
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 02:01 PM
You're all wrong. What of non-Serbian Balkan Slavs like Croats and Bulgars? Well, they don't exist really:

Croats (Hrvati) are Serbs (Srbi) with the morphology of the name having been changed (Srb = Srv = Shrv = HrV- at with the Avaric addition of "at" signifying a member of a tribe). Avars were a sustantial portion of the Croat population Even Noel Malcolm has asserted the possibility of this theory on the Croat name in his book on Bosnia.

***"The Avars were so numerous in Dalmatia that even today one can see their descendants"
Constantine Porphyrogenitus
10th century A.D***

Thus the name "Hrvat" corresponds to the name "Srbin".

P.S. I don't respect the Pope.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Croats (Hrvati) are Serbs (Srbi) with the morphology of the name having been changed (Srb = Srv = Shrv = HrV- at with the Avaric addition of "at" signifying a member of a tribe)

Porphyrogenitus noted Croatians came to the Balkans after the Avars, liberating the subjected Slavs from Avar bondage. Since there is a theory all Slavs descend from Serbs, Serbs were Avaric slaves. This can explain the name Serb (Serv in older literatour). Serv, Servus = serf, servent.


Avars were a sustantial portion of the Croat population Even Noel Malcolm has asserted the possibility of this theory on the Croat name in his book on Bosnia.
In that case
***"The Avars were so numerous in Dalmatia that even today one can see their descendants"
Constantine Porphyrogenitus
10th century A.D***

Avars were Central Asians, and their genetic type can be found only in traces (Eu16 = 2% on the whole population). Present us the Serb genetic composition, you shall find a lot more Anatolian components in your genes.


Thus the name "Hrvat" corresponds to the name "Srbin"..

Name Hrvat predates Balkan migration. It can be found i South Poland, Ukraine and even Iran. Croatian name is Sarmato-Iranic, hence Aryan in origins, just like the first proto-Croats.


P.S. I don't respect the Pope.

You're a Serb.

Glenlivet
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 05:51 PM
Aryan is a much disputed and controversial term. However, what we can be certain about is that Aryan is a branch of the Indo-European languages.



Name Hrvat predates Balkan migration. It can be found i South Poland, Ukraine and even Iran. Croatian name is Sarmato-Iranic, hence Aryan in origins, just like the first proto-Croats.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 06:35 PM
Aryan is a much disputed and controversial term. However, what is that Aryan is a branch of the Indo-European languages.

I use the word Aryan in its literate historic meaning, not 19./ 20th. century interpretations based on assumptions and theories. There is a material evidence it was officially used as a tribal name by Achaemenid and pre-Achaemenid Iranic rulers and vedic Indians. In the case of other Indo-European non-Iranic speakers this evidence is lacking.

Vlad
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 07:11 PM
Since there is a theory all Slavs descend from Serbs, Serbs were Avaric slaves. This can explain the name Serb (Serv in older literatour). Serv, Servus = serf, servent.
ROFL. Serbs were first mentioned in the 1st century BC (by Plinius the Younger) therefore it is impossible that Serbs got their name from Avars (who were not mentioned until much later). Also there is no evidence to suggest that Serbs were ever servants or slaves of anyone at any time in their history. The fact that Serb sounds a bit like Serve is nothing more than a coincidence, and besides, Hrv sounds a lot more like Serve than Serb.


Avars were Central Asians, and their genetic type can be found only in traces (Eu16 = 2% on the whole population). Present us the Serb genetic composition, you shall find a lot more Anatolian components in your genes.
Do you hear that sound?









It's the sound of nobody caring.

People obsessed with dna markers are probably insecure about their whiteness. I don't need a dna test to tell me what I am, I can look in the mirror and see features like pale skin, light brown hair, grey eyes, and know I'm 100% white in every sense of the word.

Besides, Avars were not the same type of people as Chineses, which is what eu16 refers to. And since they did not have DNA testing 1500 years ago, you have no idea what genetic markers can be attributed to Avars.


Croatian name is Sarmato-Iranic, hence Aryan in origins, just like the first proto-Croats.
Not necessarily. Since so extremely little is known about Sarmatian, any word whose origin is not known might be of Sarmatian origin. Then again it might not be. No one knows, since almost nothing is known about Sarmatian.

Shapur
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 07:56 PM
Not necessarily. Since so extremely little is known about Sarmatian, any word whose origin is not known might be of Sarmatian origin. Then again it might not be. No one knows, since almost nothing is known about Sarmatian.
Hi! I don`t want to say that you writting a big lie, because I respect other.
Also I respect unknowledge. And you have a BIG unknowledge about Iranians.
Sarmatians are also Iranians like Russians are Slavs. To say we know nothing about Sarmatians is also wrong. They have a big literature!
They speaking an east Iranian language. And indeed they still exist!
3 million of them live world wide. They call their self Ironian"sound like Iranian :D" and their homeland Ironyar. There are some in Hungary. Jasz is the name of their under-tribe. But they haven`t to do so much with the Sarmatians like our Alanian tribe in Iran Zamin! What I can say about Sarmatians is that they were/are a people with a big pride to be Iranians. Their old stories and songs tell from Iranian heroes who go out to defence Iran Zamin.
By the way king Arthur has his origin also by our north tribes.
I meet often Sarmatians and everytime when I speak with them they show their pride to be Iranian and the hope to united one day with the motherland Iran!

So how you say we know nothing? You only know nothing about Sarmatians.
But notice. Sarmatians are people who are indeed exist these days and are proud to be Iranians! ;)

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 08:49 PM
Also there is no evidence to suggest that Serbs were ever servants or slaves of anyone at any time in their history.

How about during the Ottoman occupation? Weren't the Serbs subjected people (raja or Janizary)?


Hrv sounds a lot more like Serve than Serb.

It has 'r' and 'v', it has to be it! :P


Do you hear that sound?
(...)
It's the sound of nobody caring.

There is a separate genetic section here if you haven't noticed...as for those who don't care I already pointed out they're free to regard us as Marsians if that makes them happy.


People obsessed with dna markers are probably insecure about their whiteness.

Those who run away from it are even more insecure.


I don't need a dna test to tell me what I am, I can look in the mirror and see features like pale skin, light brown hair, grey eyes, and know I'm 100% white in every sense of the word.

"White" is a social construction. You're "White", I am not.
In nature I'm blond/red, blue-eyed Caucasian of snow-white skin, but I'm not "White" in American WN social sense of the word, nor I have pretensions to be recognized as such.

J.P. Slovjanski
Wednesday, May 19th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Let me lay this to rest before it begins. Find me a "questionable Serb" and I'll find you a matching one amongst the Croats or Bosnians. Croats do tend to look a bit less Slavic sometimes, due probably to the close proximity to German territory. This is why a lot of Western Slavs(Czechs, Slovaks, Poles) are sometimes harder to spot than some of the more "pure" Slavs.

From what I've read a lot of Croats are merely Serbs who have a history of Catholicism. However, Croats do appear early in history so there is obviously a defineable group. But if you Serbs and Muslims don't work things out soon, NATO/EU will begin turning your nations into dumping grounds for human wreckage as they have already done to their own nations.

Stephen
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Croats are not Slavs, this is crystal clear. Not just by their genes, but even anatomically they are very different. Croats mostly have dark/black hair dark eyes, their skin 'mostly' white, but they are looking very 'south european'.
I see lot of similarities between croats / kurds or armenians, however the skin color of the croats are not that dark at all, but this is propably because of the european assimilation. [slavish etc.]

Read this:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php


"However, there are other research works proving that 75 percent of the Croats are different in origin from the Slavs and more similar to Kurds and Armenians from genetic point of view. On the other hand, studies show that there are less similarities between domestic livestock, poultry and plants in the old time Croatia with those in Europe, lending further proof to the fact that Croats had most probably migrated from a region close to Asia to their present area."

The high amount of the EU7 haplotype marker in the Croats make them 'special' in CE. They have higher amount from the EU7 haplotype marker, than the Saami [Lapps]

http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/gene_legacy/

Awar
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 07:09 PM
On the other hand, other studies say Croats and Serbs are 98.8% genetically identical to Hungarians.

Übersoldat
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Croats are not Slavs, this is crystal clear. Not just by their genes, but even anatomically they are very different. Croats mostly have dark/black hair dark eyes, their skin 'mostly' white, but they are looking very 'south european'.
I see lot of similarities between croats / kurds or armenians, however the skin color of the croats are not that dark at all, but this is propably because of the european assimilation. [slavish etc.]

Read this:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php


"However, there are other research works proving that 75 percent of the Croats are different in origin from the Slavs and more similar to Kurds and Armenians from genetic point of view. On the other hand, studies show that there are less similarities between domestic livestock, poultry and plants in the old time Croatia with those in Europe, lending further proof to the fact that Croats had most probably migrated from a region close to Asia to their present area."

The high amount of the EU7 haplotype marker in the Croats make them 'special' in CE. They have higher amount from the EU7 haplotype marker, than the Saami [Lapps]

http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/gene_legacy/


I agree. Take a look at our leaders forinstance. They all look non-Slavic and tanned. Hungarians on the other hand are predominantly Slav by genes. (Eu 19 - East European)

http://www.ultimatum.20m.com/2_4des2.gif
Pavelić

http://www.ericsson.hr/etk/novine/kom1299/predsjednik.jpg
Tuđman

http://www.hsp1861.hr/slike/sstar20.gif
Starčević

http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/ndd/10listopad/1016%20Jelacic1.jpg
Jelačić

http://connexus.net.au/~mikuto/stamps/96_15.jpg
Zrinski

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 12:17 AM
I agree. Take a look at our leaders forinstance. They all look non-Slavic and tanned. Hungarians on the other hand are predominantly Slav by genes. (Eu 19 - East European)

http://www.ultimatum.20m.com/2_4des2.gif
Pavelić

http://www.ericsson.hr/etk/novine/kom1299/predsjednik.jpg
Tuđman

http://www.hsp1861.hr/slike/sstar20.gif
Starčević

http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/ndd/10listopad/1016%20Jelacic1.jpg
Jelačić

http://connexus.net.au/~mikuto/stamps/96_15.jpg
Zrinski
All of these guys you posted could be Iranians.
Jelačić look like my father. Zrinski like my oncle.
And Pavelić like a friend from Tajikistan.
Use this pictures and say that they are Iranian heroes.
Every Iranian would belive this.

The problem is that mtDNA say not all about genes.
mtDNAs are very old mostly 20.000-40.000 years old.

But no of these look German or Slavic to me.
Also never Italian. Could you post more Zavic?

Thx!

Vojvoda
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 12:52 AM
Iranian? Nah, they look very Croatian.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 12:54 AM
Iranian? Nah, they look very Croatian.
Ce nah? Nah Irani ast! :D They look Iranian. This doesn`t make them non-croatian. Why you are so aggresive?

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:20 AM
All of these guys you posted could be Iranians.
Jelačić look like my father. Zrinski like my oncle.
And Pavelić like a friend from Tajikistan.
Use this pictures and say that they are Iranian heroes.
Every Iranian would belive this.

The problem is that mtDNA say not all about genes.
mtDNAs are very old mostly 20.000-40.000 years old.

But no of these look German or Slavic to me.
Also never Italian. Could you post more Zavic?

Thx!

http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/zrinski.jpg
Frankopan

http://www.eclesiales.org/fotos/stepinac.jpg
http://www.hnb.hr/numiz/zla-sre/stepinac/stepinac.jpg
Stepinac

http://www.hrt.hr/vijesti/arhiv/99/12/11/glavas.jpg
http://www.hdzausnz.com/images/arhiva/branimir_glavas.jpg
Glavaš

http://www.hrt.hr/vijesti/arhiv/99/12/11/jarnjak.jpg
Jarnjak

http://www.hrt.hr/vijesti/arhiv/99/01/21/29.jpg
http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/slike/krpina.jpeg
Krpina

http://www.badblueboy.net/thompson.jpg
Tompson

http://213.191.154.38/album/2/Gotovina1.jpg
http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2001/07/22/_slike/Gotovina.jpg
http://24ur.com/media/images/large/Nov2001/3937.jpg
Gotovina

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/europe/03/24/croatia.trial/long.norac.jpg
http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/193/norac5.jpg
Norac

:)

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:27 AM
Iranian? Nah, they look very Croatian.

'Iranian' is race, 'Croatian' is nationality. Your point?

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:37 AM
Thx Zvaci for the intresting pictures. Ok back to the subject.
What we can say about the Crotian language?
I read some studies which said that the Crotian language was for 100 years more then 20% based on the Iranian language.
Also must we clear who were the Hrvatis in the Avesta.
Here my information:



The tenth of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the beautiful Harahvaiti. Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created a sin for which there is no atonement, the burying of the dead


We can say defently that the name of Croatians are an Iranian name.
That Hrvati is the new name of Harahvaiti show also that they spoke an Iranian language for not a long time ago. In old Persian was the name Harauvati. What I personal know about Iranian languages is that they change words by a special way from old Iranian languages"Avestic, old Persian" to middle Iranian languages"middle Persian, Parthian".
The name of Hrvati today show a name change from old Iranian to middle Iranian. I can not say actuall what group would this be.
Maybe in 1-2 months when I go on with my studies.

rusalka
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:44 AM
All of these guys you posted could be Iranians.
Jelačić look like my father. Zrinski like my oncle.
And Pavelić like a friend from Tajikistan.

So your uncle looks like a postage stamp? No offense but stylistic paintings are not exactly the best source to define phenotype.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:46 AM
Here a map about this subject!

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:57 AM
Thx Zvaci for the intresting pictures. Ok back to the subject.
What we can say about the Crotian language?
I read some studies which said that the Crotian language was for 100 years more then 20% based on the Iranian language.
Also must we clear who were the Hrvatis in the Avesta.
Here my information:



We can say defently that the name of Croatians are an Iranian name.
That Hrvati is the new name of Harahvaiti show also that they spoke an Iranian language for not a long time ago. In old Persian was the name Harauvati. What I personal know about Iranian languages is that they change words by a special way from old Iranian languages"Avestic, old Persian" to middle Iranian languages"middle Persian, Parthian".
The name of Hrvati today show a name change from old Iranian to middle Iranian. I can not say actuall what group would this be.
Maybe in 1-2 months when I go on with my studies.


Modern Croatian language is Slavic, but when you scrach under it you can find many Iranic words, specialy on the Zagorjean dialect.

Croatian meaning of some words of the Avestian Gathas of Zarathustra, language of the Ancient Medes:

Median - Croatian

cistoish - čistoćom
thva - tvoja
zaveng - zvanje
Yezi - je li
urvane - ufanje
ye - jeste
hvatre - hvalitelji
varedaiti - roditeljica (rod+dati)
vauromaidi - vjerovati, (veru najti) -kajkavian
krshaya - kralj (shah on Persian)
noit - ne ići
vao - vama
boyahunam - bogatstvo
dusshvar - dušmanstvo
das - dati (dach on Sanscrit)
zot - žrec
gospandan - gospodin
noit - nije
sahvare - sabire
pairi - prije
hvo - 'ko (koji)
tri - tri
hyad - kad
dvoidi - dvojba
dva - dva
dvaidi - dvaput
hudemen - udomljen
paiti zanata - prepoznati
mano - mnijenje
stub - stubokom
garemo - gorući
hizvo - kazivao
hito - htio
math - mlatiti
ahmi - u meni
datheng - darove
aka mraot - eko (od) smrti
a hoithoi - hotimice
a vi nenasha - a oni nestadoše
dahmaya - duševno
vidas - videći
gavoi - goveda
thvat - za tebe
acishtem - nečista
mantum - mjera
deregho - traje (dura)
Sevishhto - Svevišnji
adai - dodaj!
paiti - pića
paurva - prvi
paurvatatem pravim putem
HAURVATAT - ozdravljujući, sveopći
staa - svijet
maetha - svrha (meta)
vehkkorishni - svekorisni
ishudem - otkupljen, iz hudog -kajkavian
dademahi - dade meni
athra - vatra
spasya - spašavam se
katha - kada
AVESTA - navjesta , navješćenje
cithre - čisto, očigledno
GATHA - opjevavanje neprolaznosti (gatanje)
kam - kojoj
zam - zemlji
kuthra - kuda
uzemem - tuzemci (zemljaci)
cit na - činiti
kathe - kada
zi - zlato
meng - mjesto
asruvan - osiguran
darez - darežljivost
maga - moć, snaga
dvaetha - dvojba
drum - zdrav ("zdrav k'o dren")
avamira - izumire
suidyai - sviđati
rashayenhe - razžalostiti
paithi - put
vairim - volim
pereto zemo - prolaz zemljom
nikizat - pokazati
spas - paziti
Bagha - Bog
srush - slušati
hitaeibyo - hatovi (bojni konji)

Persian - Croatian

istade - ustade, stoji
daden - dadne, dade
duzd - dažd (kiša)
esinje - hasna -kajkavian
edjid -idući
haham - hram
halac - odjeća (hlače)
azerreng - sretan (ozaren)
izčar - razočarati se
iradet - radost
argovan - jorgovan
aza - iza
uzduden - izdubljen
iskaf - (na) iskap
ghiriv - grmljavina
isnad - istisnuti
usbuha - uzbuna
acjun - očima
illa - ili
limun - limun
amrar - umrijeti
on - on
inac - inaće
nazar - nazor
engudan - gadan
engizende - pokazatelj (onaj koji znade)
inni - ino (drugo)
zira - žar
irak - ipak
ajur - penis (koji juri u nešto)
mamek - mamica, mamek -kajkavian
baga - bog
baza - baza
BAN - BAN (gospodar)
BANU - BANICA
bahit - bahat
bebek - bebica, bebek -kajkavian
bedek - glupan, bedak -kajkavian
bedi - budi!
bedjez - bedast
bathek - batak
bahte - bravče
buhala - budala
bud - bude
birr - birano
berber - brbljanje
baran - brana
besta - omot, bušta -čakavian
buzch - pička, buža (rupa)
batek - patak, patek -kajkavian
buka - buka
stan - stan
bun - dno (bunar)
BEHIR BANU - crvena ruža (banica cvijeća)
padash - prijatelj, pajdaš -kajkavian
pas - pazitelj
PASBAN - BAN PAZITELJ
per - pero
pitek - plitak
pisab - pišalina
tachdan - točno
tanbur - tambura
tovar - tovar (breme)
tih - tih
sabit - sabit
djedd - djed
DJULIBANI - tulipani (banova ruža)
chap - čep
chizme - čizme
khuje - jaje
khuje gine - kajgana (=jaje gine)
khuram - hura!
dada - dadilja
daduk - luđak, dudek -kajkavian
deeri - dvori
zerdi - zlatan (zlatokos)
ZARATHUSTRA - ZLATOUSTI
zenek - ženica
zeni - ženidba
zu - za
ghab - gaj
charza - suknjica, carza - Lika dialect
firib - farabut, varalica
kani - kamen
kuppe - kapa
kubbe - klobuk
kuze - kozle
gavzad - gazda
gadash -gajdaš
guzar - prolaz (guzica)
gusar - gusar
gush - osjećaj, gušt -kajkavian
goftar - govor
gurabe - grob
gujek - dugme, gumbek -kajkavian
lagh - laž
laf - lav
lak - lak
laj - laj (lave ž )
MERZ BAN - međaš, graničar
mushek - mali miš, mišek -kajkavian
diraz-na - družina
KHOR - kruh
niste - ništa
viden - vidati

Croatian coat of arms is very old, and definitely Iranic - made after the royal game of Chess:

http://www.crocafe.net/turizam/zanimljivosti/images/grb02.jpg
http://www.hbzup.com/hbz/o_zupaniji/zast_grb/grb-Herceg-Bosne.gif
http://www.croatia-versand.de/CROATIAN%20STORE%20CROSTORE%20CROSHO/hrvatski%20grb%2034%20mm.jpg

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:05 AM
So your uncle looks like a postage stamp?

No need for sarcasm, even the painting can reveal the racial make-up partially. They didn't invent photography back than, and we don't have a photography of Zrinski.


No offense but stylistic paintings are not exactly the best source to define phenotype.

This is why I attached numerous photos.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:13 AM
Hi Zvaci! I don`t think that the Medians speak the Avestic language because Avestic is eastern Iranian and old Persian and Median are Iranian languages.
When I look on this word liste, then I have two thoughts.
The first why it has without a regional conntact Iranian words
and second why it has other words beside nouns?
The first question could answer with the fact that Scythian-Sarmatians lived there and maybe the Croatians adopted their Iranian words.
But this would also mean that they would adopted eastern Iranian words and not western Iranian words like in this word list.
The second question could not answer by any theory.
Only that the Croatians would have Iranian ancestors.
Also we could see from what period are these words?
Some show middle Iranian(4/5 century BC to 8/9 century AD) types.
Would this mean that the Croats left Iran Zamin"Land of all Iranian tribes" in the middle Iranian age? When we also see this study which say that the Croatian language was for 100 years more then 20% Iranian then only one answer would work for this many questions.
The Croatians must have at least a heritage of about 50% Iranian and they must come from a middle Iranian time of western Iranian heritage.
Every other would make no sence. Why should the Croats adope the Iranian language? Why they show so untypical Slavic(fair, blue eyed)?
Why have they an Iranian tribe name.
All in all I can say we can not deny an Iranian heritage of Croatians.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:17 AM
http://www.hbzup.com/hbz/o_zupaniji/zast_grb/grb-Herceg-Bosne.gif

In northwestern Iranian area were some pots found which show a red/white chess table. You can see them in an Iranian museum for art of the ancient world.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:22 AM
I read some where that these words could also be of Indo-European heritage and not Iranian heritage, because Croatian language is also an Indo-European language.
The problem is by this statment that every Indo-European language group changed by a special way. The Aryan language group by a very special way.
Mostly the Iranian part. k became s - u,i,e became a.
And these words in this list show the Iranian voice type.

bocian
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:30 AM
@Zvaci and Shapur

Even though I don't really subscribe to your theories on Croats, I take it that you are probably pretty well versed in Sarmatian history.

Do you know anything about Sarmatian Tamgas and their connection to Polish Coats of Arms?

Recently, scholars have been tempted to speculate the claim that the Polish nobility being descended from ancient Sarmatian ancestors may not be entirely fanciful.

Their 'Sarmatian Idealogy', heraldic clans, and remarkable cavalry tradition have all been linked to long-lost oriental horsemen of the steppes.

One hypothesis holds that Poland's Sarmatian connection may best be explained as a legacy of the Sarmatian Alans who disappeared into the backwoods of Eastern Europe in the 4th century.

Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:40 AM
I don`t think that the Croats decented from a Sarmato-Scythian tribe,
because the language show something else!
If you want to know something about this write me a PM with detail information, I will show tomorrow in the university about this.
By the way you know that 2-3 million Sarmatian Alans are still exist?

bocian
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:49 AM
I don`t think that the Croats decented from a Sarmato-Scythian tribe,
because the language show something else!
If you want to know something about this write me a PM with detail information, I will show tomorrow in the university about this.
By the way you know that 2-3 million Sarmatian Alans are still exist?

Unfortunately, I don't know a great deal on the subject and would really like to learn more.

If you can inquire at the University about this, it would be great. :)

The whole theory of Sarmatian origins of the Polish nobility has been widely ridiculed by most scholars, hence gathering information on the subject becomes difficult.

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:53 AM
Hi Zvaci! I don`t think that the Medians speak the Avestic language because Avestic is eastern Iranian and old Persian and Median are Iranian languages.
When I look on this word liste, then I have two thoughts.
The first why it has without a regional conntact Iranian words
and second why it has other words beside nouns?
The first question could answer with the fact that Scythian-Sarmatians lived there and maybe the Croatians adopted their Iranian words.
But this would also mean that they would adopted eastern Iranian words and not western Iranian words like in this word list.
The second question could not answer by any theory.
Only that the Croatians would have Iranian ancestors.
Also we could see from what period are these words?
Some show middle Iranian(4/5 century BC to 8/9 century AD) types.
Would this mean that the Croats left Iran Zamin"Land of all Iranian tribes" in the middle Iranian age? When we also see this study which say that the Croatian language was for 100 years more then 20% Iranian then only one answer would work for this many questions.
The Croatians must have at least a heritage of about 50% Iranian and they must come from a middle Iranian time of western Iranian heritage.
Every other would make no sense. Why should the Croats adope the Iranian language? Why they show so untypical Slavic(fair, blue eyed)?
Why have they an Iranian tribe name.
All in all I can say we can not deny an Iranian heritage of Croatians.

Greetings :)

With the new independence, our statehood continued to investigate our pre-Slavic origins, and send expeditions to Iran and Southern Russia to search for the traces of our identity. The numerous discoveries cannot be denied even by our Slavicists who are very hostile toward such researches.
Today even kids in school know about the Iranian origins of 'Hrvati'.


In northwestern Iranian area were some pots found which show a red/white chess table. You can see them in an Iranian museum for art of the ancient world.

The little ornament above the coat of arms we call 'pleter' and its Iranian also. Its typical for medieval Croatian ornament, just like for old Iranian ornaments.

Triglav
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:55 AM
I don`t think that the Croats decented from a Sarmato-Scythian tribe,
because the language show something else!
If you want to know something about this write me a PM with detail information, I will show tomorrow in the university about this.

Why wouldn't you share your knowledge with all of us?



By the way you know that 2-3 million Sarmatian Alans are still exist?

:nod And I'd always like to hear more about them.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:00 AM
Unfortunately, I don't know a great deal on the subject and would really like to learn more.

If you can inquire at the University about this, it would be great. :)

The whole theory of Sarmatian origins of the Polish nobility has been widely ridiculed by most scholars, hence gathering information on the subject becomes difficult.
We have here someone "Odin of Ossetia" who is a polish nobility of Sarmatian origin. The problem is that the most "slavic" works are full of pan-slavism propaganda. There were many information about Sarmatians/Scythians from Russian side but today if we read this with our actuall knowledge it look like a big pot of propaganda and shit. The best sample is the look of Scythians and Sarmatians. All Russian scientists said they were tall, fair, blue eyed warriors.
Why? Because they would proof with this that these two tribes were the ancestors of the Slavs with a typical slavic appearance(fair, blue eyed).
But how we know today didn`t look these two tribes so.
They were black haired and mostly light eyed(green/light brown).
But they were tall(today new iranian generation is mostly tall).
Also their ancestors the Sarmatian Alans(Ossetians) look black haired.
Beside this the Parthians(a Scythian tribe had black hairs).
If you look on Parthian coins you see the faces of today Iranians.
It is a very interesting stuff but it is to difficult for a normal person.

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:11 AM
We have here someone "Odin of Ossetia" who is a polish nobility of Sarmatian origin. The problem is that the most "slavic" works are full of pan-slavism propaganda. There were many information about Sarmatians/Scythians from Russian side but today if we read this with our actuall knowledge it look like a big pot of propaganda and shit. The best sample is the look of Scythians and Sarmatians. All Russian scientists said they were tall, fair, blue eyed warriors.
Why? Because they would proof with this that these two tribes were the ancestors of the Slavs with a typical slavic appearance(fair, blue eyed).
But how we know today didn`t look these two tribes so.
They were black haired and mostly light eyed(green/light brown).
But they were tall(today new iranian generation is mostly tall).
Also their ancestors the Sarmatian Alans(Ossetians) look black haired.
Beside this the Parthians(a Scythian tribe had black hairs).
If you look on Parthian coins you see the faces of today Iranians.
It is a very interesting stuff but it is to difficult for a normal person.


Well, the Iranians are the culture creating people, and the Slavs suffer from identety crisis, so they like to look at Kurgan graves like its something they made.


Medieval Croatian 'pleter'
http://www.grf.hr/kultura/_priprema/predodzbe/lik-1/srednji_vijek/rana_romanika/pleter.png
http://www.hgk.hr/cro_partner/spirit/tekstovi/culture/sl2pleter.GIF
http://www.hipnet.hr/img/pleter2.jpg

Iranian original:

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:17 AM
The Ossetians are a eastern tribe of Iranians who live mostly in Georgia and Russia. There are also some Ossetians in Turkey.
About the number of them. I would say 2-3 million. Many also assimilated.
They speak an eastern Iranian language like old Sarmatians.
Their language is the only Iranian language which was not fall under middle Persian influence.
They call their self Ironya(Irani/Iranian) and their country Iron(Iran).
Also called Alani(the name of their Sarmatian tribe).

If I am not wrong then these two pictures show Ossetians.
But I am not sure. The woman on the first picture in the middle look 100% pure Iranian.

P.S.: The pictures are very tall(600 kb).

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:33 AM
I found a map about the ancient Iranian world!
There is also Hrvati!

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:52 AM
Very interesting! Its not look so far from Perzepolis. :)
Thank you on this maps Shapur:) So it looks that our most ancient traces are practically in the center of the Iranian world?
Perhaps this ancestry can explain how the Croats managed to preserve their identity for so long and survive as the nation surrounded by Slavs. Knowing the ancient Iranians were skilled warriors who manidged to concur the most powerful empires of the ancient World like Egyptians or Babylonians, it is not surprising we inherited the warlike Aryan genes also.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:01 AM
Very interesting! Its not look so far from Perzepolis. :)
Thank you on this maps Shapur:) So it looks that our most ancient traces are practically in the center of the Iranian world?
Perhaps this ancestry can explain how the Croats managed to preserve their identity for so long and survive as the nation surrounded by Slavs. Knowing the ancient Iranians were skilled warriors who manidged to concur the most powerful empires of the ancient World like Egyptians or Babylonians, it is not surprising we inherited the warlike Aryan genes also.ersepolis was more a symbol of Iranian power. Parsegaerd was the capital of Persians and Ecbatan the capital of Medians. Susa the economy capital.

But Persepolis was the 7nd world wonder!
Who can not belive how big it was should visit:http://www.persepolis3d.com/

To your question. How I know were the old Iranians a very aggressive folk to non-Iranians. The base of the old Iranians were a strong family structure.
Family about all. And also their belive to the Aryan race.
Not only as a race also as a nationality. Never would an Iraniand attack an other Iranian. Not like other folks who did brother wars.
This is also while Iranians never expand in Iranian ground.
What also an important reason could be, is that no true Iranian father would give his daughter to non-Iranians. Also in today times.
I think there are many factors. The Croatians losted also many areas how I know. Right?

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:27 AM
ersepolis was more a symbol of Iranian power. Parsegaerd was the capital of Persians and Ecbatan the capital of Medians. Susa the economy capital.

But Persepolis was the 7nd world wonder!
Who can not belive how big it was should visit:http://www.persepolis3d.com/

To your question. How I know were the old Iranians a very aggressive folk to non-Iranians. The base of the old Iranians were a strong family structure.
Family about all. And also their belive to the Aryan race.
Not only as a race also as a nationality. Never would an Iraniand attack an other Iranian. Not like other folks who did brother wars.
This is also while Iranians never expand in Iranian ground.
What also an important reason could be, is that no true Iranian father would give his daughter to non-Iranians. Also in today times.
I think there are many factors. The Croatians losted also many areas how I know. Right?

The old Balkan Croatia included more territories (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro or Red Croatia) and there was also a Croatian state in South Poland around Krakow - 'White Croatia' which sassed to exist during the middle ages.

Awar
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:39 AM
:lol Weeeeeeeeeeee... I'm a Red Croat!!! :rotfl
( Does that mean I'm a communist :D )

:lol Please, let me see ANY sources regarding Montenegro as being a part of Croatia :roll at ANY period in history :jeer

:smilies

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:48 AM
I'm a Red Croat!!!

You're a Serb from Montenegro.

>>>>>>Please, let me see ANY sources regarding Montenegro as being a part of Croatia at ANY period in history


The Croatian chronicle known by the name Methodos and written in 753, mentions that the provinces which composed the Croatian kingdom of that time were: White Croatia, Red Croatia and Bosnia. The authors of the chronicle, "Kingdom of Croats" (Kralievstvo Hrvata), written between 1074 and 1080, and also the chronicle of the Dioclean Priest (Chronica Presbyteris Diocleatis), written between 1149 and 1153, allege the same thing.

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:bPpIFLWdgKAJ:www.studiacr oatica.com/libros/bosnia/bh60200.htm+Dioclean+priest&hl=en


Very important historical source for early Croatian history is Libellus Gothorum, a chronicle from 12th century known in Croatia as Ljetopis popa Dukljanina and Croatian Chronicle. It was written by Archbishop Grgur of Bar (a city in Boka kotorska, a region annexed to Montenegro in 1945), born in Zadar. The chronicle represents the oldest historiographic work of Croatian Middle Ages. There exist two versions, Croatian and Latin. Especially important is Grgur's presentation of assembly (SABOR) on the Duvno field ("in planicie Dalme"), and above all his terms for Croatian territories:


CROATIA ALBA (White Croatia), and CROATIA RUBEA (Red Croatia).

http://www.hr/darko/etf/et01.html

Awar
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:50 AM
:lol Is it possible to find any sources for that which are not Croatian. :P

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 05:08 AM
:lol Is it possible to find any sources for that which are not Croatian. :P


Yes there is an Arab source, the map of Al Edrisi, the map-maker of Sicilian king Rudjer II. (1130.-1154.) :)

Awar
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:02 AM
Yet, there is no mention of Montenegro being called 'Red Croatia'. :P

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 09:36 AM
It is the most probably that the croatian name is linked to the Carpaths or the carpaths got their name after the Croatians. It is possibly that Croatian means highlander.
The name of Carpathian mountains comes from the Daco-Thracian tribe of Carpi, which was attested in Roman sources before AD, and has nothing to do with Croatians, whose name is quite evidently Iranian in origin and most probably comes from a word root meaning "guardian". In the first centuries AD Southern Russian steppes were inhabited by Iranian-speaking Sarmatians, some of whom were later displaced westwards because of Turkic invasions. They were later Slavicized loaning their name to Croatians and (possibly) Serbs (although there is a Slavonic etymology for the name "Serb" linking it to the Belorussian word "syabr"). It happened quite often that assimilated groups left their names over to their assimilaters, take for example Bulgarians or Bavarians.

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 09:43 AM
We have here someone "Odin of Ossetia" who is a polish nobility of Sarmatian origin. The problem is that the most "slavic" works are full of pan-slavism propaganda. There were many information about Sarmatians/Scythians from Russian side but today if we read this with our actuall knowledge it look like a big pot of propaganda and shit. The best sample is the look of Scythians and Sarmatians. All Russian scientists said they were tall, fair, blue eyed warriors.
Why? Because they would proof with this that these two tribes were the ancestors of the Slavs with a typical slavic appearance(fair, blue eyed).
But how we know today didn`t look these two tribes so.
They were black haired and mostly light eyed(green/light brown).
But they were tall(today new iranian generation is mostly tall).
Also their ancestors the Sarmatian Alans(Ossetians) look black haired.
Beside this the Parthians(a Scythian tribe had black hairs).
If you look on Parthian coins you see the faces of today Iranians.
It is a very interesting stuff but it is to difficult for a normal person.
Scythians and Sarmatians WERE tall, fair, blue-eyed warriors, this is showed especially by their mummies found in Scythian and Sarmatian burials in Russia. Original Iranians like all Aryans were Nordic, and there remain some isolated islands of them like Nuristan in Afghanistan. What Iranians look like now is due to their intermixture with local non-white populations.

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 01:38 PM
@Zvaci and Shapur

Their 'Sarmatian Idealogy', heraldic clans, and remarkable cavalry tradition have all been linked to long-lost oriental horsemen of the steppes.

One hypothesis holds that Poland's Sarmatian connection may best be explained as a legacy of the Sarmatian Alans who disappeared into the backwoods of Eastern Europe in the 4th century.
This is just a theory.



The best sample is the look of Scythians and Sarmatians. All Russian scientists said they were tall, fair, blue eyed warriors.
Why? Because they would proof with this that these two tribes were the ancestors of the Slavs with a typical slavic appearance(fair, blue eyed).
This is interesting. Scythians were mongoloid, aren't they? This is very new to me, what you have posted. Any more informations?

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/scythian.shtml

I am not even sure about the Sarmatian part. More informations would be welcome.

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:25 PM
Original Iranians like all Aryans were Nordic, and there remain some isolated islands of them like Nuristan in Afghanistan.
I seriously doubt this. IMHO they werent even fair skinned.
If the croats are descended from there, why do they look like this?
Propably not because of their slavic - indo-european genes.
You are posting yet another theory. There are countless from those.
However if you are looking at the facts...I think you are very wrong.

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 02:41 PM
I seriously doubt this. IMHO they werent even fair skinned.
If the croats are descended from there, why do they look like this?
Propably not because of their slavic - indo-european genes.
You are posting yet another theory. There are countless from those.
However if you are looking at the facts...I think you are very wrong.
I do look at the facts, such as mummies of Scythians and Sarmatians unearthed by Russian archeologists and enclaves of original Iranians like Nuristan. Croatians do not look like them because they have just a tiny percentage of original Iranian blood left in them. If you are Hungarian, you should understand it very well. When your ancestors came to the Danube in the 10th century they were Mongoloid, and now you are what you are.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:00 PM
Scythians and Sarmatians WERE tall, fair, blue-eyed warriors, this is showed especially by their mummies found in Scythian and Sarmatian burials in Russia. Original Iranians like all Aryans were Nordic, and there remain some isolated islands of them like Nuristan in Afghanistan. What Iranians look like now is due to their intermixture with local non-white populations.
Hi Aquila Aquilonis. Can you bring some non-Slavic proofs who show that they were fair/blue eyed? Why should all original Aryans be Nordic?
There are two theories. The first they about the balck sea is the origin of Indo-Europeans the second say Anatolia"which I support".
When all IEs were Nordic then more questions come up.
Why the local IE origin population is not Nordic?
Why show the most ancestors of the original IE a so untypical Nordic appearance? To you big nose don`t mean Nordic. A convex nose is pure Nordic not a big tall Iranain nose.
An other question is why it were the old Aryan tribe arm of Indo-Europeans who was the most developed IEs?
An other question is also there. Why should a warrior folk expand with killing other people and rape their women. So you give your language and culture other people? I don`t think so. I think the agriculture expand the first IEs around the world from India to Island.
The Croatians are not of Scythian/Sarmatian heritage.
They are Hrvatis an own tribe of Iranians.


To the Scythian/Sarmatian pictures. They show a nice non-Nordic appearance.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:03 PM
I do look at the facts, such as mummies of Scythians and Sarmatians unearthed by Russian archeologists and enclaves of original Iranians like Nuristan. Croatians do not look like them because they have just a tiny percentage of original Iranian blood left in them. If you are Hungarian, you should understand it very well. When your ancestors came to the Danube in the 10th century they were Mongoloid, and now you are what you are.
Maybe you can post some of these mummies. Nuristanis are not Iranians and not Indians. There is a big struggle about what they are.

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:36 PM
Hi Aquila Aquilonis. Can you bring some non-Slavic proofs who show that they were fair/blue eyed? Why should all original Aryans be Nordic?
There are two theories. The first they about the balck sea is the origin of Indo-Europeans the second say Anatolia"which I support".
When all IEs were Nordic then more questions come up.
Why the local IE origin population is not Nordic?
Why show the most ancestors of the original IE a so untypical Nordic appearance? To you big nose don`t mean Nordic. A convex nose is pure Nordic not a big tall Iranain nose.
An other question is why it were the old Aryan tribe arm of Indo-Europeans who was the most developed IEs?
An other question is also there. Why should a warrior folk expand with killing other people and rape their women. So you give your language and culture other people? I don`t think so. I think the agriculture expand the first IEs around the world from India to Island.
The Croatians are not of Scythian/Sarmatian heritage.
They are Hrvatis an own tribe of Iranians.


To the Scythian/Sarmatian pictures. They show a nice non-Nordic appearance.
Hi Shapur. There are Greek and Roman sources describing Scythians and Sarmatians as fair-skinned and blue-eyed. The farthest place where we can trace the ancestors of Iranians and Indo-Aryans in time and space is Southern Ural where they created the archeological culture of Sintashta and Arkaim. Thence they embarked on their southward journey in the first half of the 2nd millenium BC. Original Aryan homeland was in the north, which is amply demonstrated by literature (Indian Vedas describe natural phenomena which can only be observed in the north), language (proto-IE had many words for winter, cold, snow, but none for a warm season), etc. History has many stories of one population supplanting another. Russian steppes which were originally occupied by Nordic Iranians were later conquered by Mongols and Turks coming from the east. About a decade or two ago Russian archeologists unearthed a burial of a Scythian noblewoman in the Altai mountains. Local Mongol population are saying she is their ancient queen and progenitor and demand that the mummy be reburied. But they have nothing to do with her because she has European features and BLOND hair, which is well preserved. I think her pictures may be found on the Internet. She is usually referred to as the "Altai princess".

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:38 PM
Maybe you can post some of these mummies. Nuristanis are not Iranians and not Indians. There is a big struggle about what they are.
As far as I know Nuristanis speak an Iranian language.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:42 PM
Hi Shapur. There are Greek and Roman sources describing Scythians and Sarmatians as fair-skinned and blue-eyed. The farthest place where we can trace the ancestors of Iranians and Indo-Aryans in time and space is Southern Ural where they created the archeological culture of Sintashta and Arkaim. Thence they embarked on their southward journey in the first half of the 2nd millenium BC. Original Aryan homeland was in the north, which is amply demonstrated by literature (Indian Vedas describe natural phenomena which can only be observed in the north), language (proto-IE had many words for winter, cold, snow, but none for a warm season), etc. History has many stories of one population supplanting another. Russian steppes which were originally occupied by Nordic Iranians were later conquered by Mongols and Turks coming from the east. About a decade or two ago Russian archeologists unearthed a burial of a Scythian noblewoman in the Altai mountains. Local Mongol population are saying she is their ancient queen and progenitor and demand that the mummy be reburied. But they have nothing to do with her because she has European features and BLOND hair, which is well preserved. I think her pictures may be found on the Internet. She is usually referred to as the "Altai princess".
The problem is that many Iranian sources speak from Scythians as black haired people. What also is a fact that many Scythians adopted other tribes.
The original Scythians were black haired. We can talk a lot time about this stuff. Maybe open an own threat for this.
You said that proto-IE had many words for cold and so one but nothing for warm. I will proof this in 1 hour"when I go to university".
But also is the question what you understand under Aryans?
The fact is that only Indo-Aryans called their self Aryans and no other IE tribes. By the way you must know that in these times the north was under an ice age so it could not be the far north. I hold on my mostly accepted Anatolian theory.

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 03:58 PM
I do look at the facts, such as mummies of Scythians and Sarmatians unearthed by Russian archeologists and enclaves of original Iranians like Nuristan. Croatians do not look like them because they have just a tiny percentage of original Iranian blood left in them. If you are Hungarian, you should understand it very well. When your ancestors came to the Danube in the 10th century they were Mongoloid, and now you are what you are.

Link? Proof? This is nothing so far, and IMHO its just another fake theory. Scythians were a horse breeding nomad mongoloid race.
Sarmatians? .. Frankly I've never seen anything what you posted anywhere. :)

"Croatians do not look like them[????] because they have just a tiny percentage of original Iranian blood left in them."

IMHO the contrary is what right. They look like this because of the high EU7 haplotype.
The Croats are close to the Kurds and Armenians genetically, and anatomically as well, except the fair skin. The fair skin must be the result of the Slavish assimilation propably.

The original Magyars werent Mongoloid, there is abolutely no data for this. The origins of the Magyars are still a mysery.
Present day population of Hungary is indo european mostly [EU19], in fact Hungary's got the highest percentage from the EU19 haplotype marker in the population in Europe, combined with EU7 & EU18, this means that the ancient Magyars couldnt be mongoloid, since no Mongoloid genes can be found in Hungary. There should be some Mongoloid genes if they were mongoloids dont you think? Or all the Magyars died without assimilation? :-O

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:03 PM
The problem is that many Iranian sources speak from Scythians as black haired people. What also is a fact that many Scythians adopted other tribes.
The original Scythians were black haired. We can talk a lot time about this stuff. Maybe open an own threat for this.
You said that proto-IE had many words for cold and so one but nothing for warm. I will proof this in 1 hour"when I go to university".
But also is the question what you understand under Aryans?
The fact is that only Indo-Aryans called their self Aryans and no other IE tribes. By the way you must know that in these times the north was under an ice age so it could not be the far north. I hold on my mostly accepted Anatolian theory.
I tell you once again that we have mummies of Scythians with hair preserved, and this is the ultimate proof. My assertion is that all IE peoples called themselves Aryans, but I do not have time at the moment to lay down the arguments. You should know that ice started to recede about the 10th millenium BC, so it is no problem.

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:09 PM
Link? Proof? This is nothing so far, and IMHO its just another fake theory. Scythians were a horse breeding nomad mongoloid race.
Sarmatians? .. Frankly I've never seen anything what you posted anywhere. :)

"Croatians do not look like them[????] because they have just a tiny percentage of original Iranian blood left in them."

IMHO the contrary is what right. They look like this because of the high EU7 haplotype.
The Croats are close to the Kurds and Armenians genetically, and anatomically as well, except the fair skin. The fair skin must be the result of the Slavish assimilation propably.

The original Magyars werent Mongoloid, there is abolutely no data for this. The origins of the Magyars are still a mysery.
Present day population of Hungary is indo european mostly [EU19], in fact Hungary's got the highest percentage from the EU19 haplotype marker in the population in Europe, combined with EU7 & EU18, this means that the ancient Magyars couldnt be mongoloid, since no Mongoloid genes can be found in Hungary. There should be some Mongoloid genes if they were mongoloids dont you think? Or all the Magyars died without assimilation? :-O
It is a scholarly consensus (with the possible exception of some Hungarians who feel understandably uneasy about it) that the original Magyars were Mongoloid. You just need to look at the skulls of your ancestors. Your closest kin linguistically are Khanty and Mansi, who are obviously Mongoloid. If you have not known until now where your origins are, I can tell you - they are in Western Siberia.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:10 PM
I tell you once again that we have mummies of Scythians with hair preserved, and this is the ultimate proof. My assertion is that all IE peoples called themselves Aryans, but I do not have time at the moment to lay down the arguments. You should know that ice started to recede about the 10th millenium BC, so it is no problem.
I speak from the last ice age. But how I said it again. The ancesotors of Croatians are not the Scythian/Sarmatians. The Hrvatis self are an Iranian tribe.
Later I will proof all what you said!

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:17 PM
By the way about IE and only cold words. Anatolia was in the proto-IE time on of the coldest areas.

Look on this picture from Kurdistan. Look this like a hot area?

Awar
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:17 PM
I applaud you people, you've made this whole thread a talking-out-of -your-ass contest. :mad

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:18 PM
IMHO the contrary is what right. They look like this because of the high EU7 haplotype.

High percentage of EU7 can be found in any Germanic population, also amongst Lapps, but its the Caucasian contribution to the Lappish blood, other part is Mongolian.


The Croats are close to the Kurds and Armenians genetically, and anatomically as well, except the fair skin.

Well, the Armenians subrace is called 'Armenoid', our is called 'Dinarid'. Its the different subrace, and I don't see many Armenoids here. How much EU7 does Armenians have?

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:19 PM
I applaud you people, you've made this whole thread a talking-out-of -your-ass contest. :mad
Thx for your mention in your profile.
Yes Persepolis WAS the 7nd world wonder. :P
By the way why you are so stressed? ;)

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:21 PM
Yes, IEs called themselves aryans, that is true.

Now...Aquila please give us some infos about this analysis. I guess you are talking about the Scythian Princess what was found in 1993.



It is a scholarly consensus (with the possible exception of some Hungarians who feel understandably uneasy about it) that the original Magyars were Mongoloid. You just need to look at the skulls of your ancestors. Your closest kin linguistically are Khanty and Mansi, who are obviously Mongoloid. If you have not known until now where your origins are, I can tell you - they are in Western Siberia.Indeed the languge is finno ugric, what is not indo european. Your statement is absolutely incorrect about the skulls. Where are you getting these informations? (:o
Another little correction:
Also the Magyar homeland was the west side of the Urals, it isnt Siberia.
But lets see. if they were Mongoloid, where is the Mongoloid gene in the population, because the hungarians dont have any. It is impossible.
The assimilition cant be that "strong", that all of the Mongoloid genes are totally gone.

Aquila Aquilonis
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:29 PM
Yes, IEs called themselves aryans, that is true.

Now...Aquila please give us some infos about this analysis. I guess you are talking about the Scythian Princess what was found in 1993.



Indeed the languge is finno ugric, what is not indo european. Your statement is absolutely incorrect about the skulls.
Once again, if they were Mongoloid, where is the Mongoloid gene in the population, because The hungarians dont have any. It is impossible.
The assimilition cant be that "strong", that all of the Mongoloid genes are totally gone.
I am sorry, I must be leaving now. But I will be back.

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:32 PM
I am very interested about your upcoming answers. So far all of them were 'out of my ass'. :D

Übersoldat
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM
I am very interested about your upcoming answers. So far all of them were 'out of my ass'. :D

Still haven't heard the answer about the Armenian stuff. :halo

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:15 PM
Zvaci I cannot give you exact numbers, I was reading that informations on the iranchamber as well. Perhaps we should search for more informations, there must be more.

Aquila a few interesting parts in addition to the finno ugric language topic:
There is a Sumerian - Magyar theory as well.
In fact Have you ever heard about the ancient Magyar Runic writing? [What was used long before the finno ugric language..]

"..But there is a different and more controversial explanation for the origins of the Magyars. Dr. Nagy believes that the people who later became known as Magyars had settled and lived in the Carpathian Basin for many years before Arpad's conquest, and that these people were the Sumerains that were pushed out of the Fertile Crescent. Dr. Nagy attempts to prove his theory by using extensive examples to show the linguistic similarities between the Sumerian, Old Magyar, and the current Magyar language. He also refers to several works written during the first millennium, including the Arpad codices and the De Administrando Imperio, and also relies on his own research of over fifty years. One point he makes is that while there are only two hundred Magyar words related to the Finno-Ugric language, there are over two thousand words related to the Sumerian language. (Nagy, 10)



The Sumerians were a highly advanced non-Semitic people who appeared in lower Mesopotamia around the fifth or sixth millennia BC and settled between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (Nagy, p. 27) City states supported by irrigation and a form of writing called cuneifrom had appeared by around 3,000 BC. They flourished until being pushed out by the Akkadians and Elamites. (Encyclopedia) But did these people simply die out or blend in with their conquerors? Dr. Nagy believes that they did not cease to exist, but that there were two separate migrations of the Sumerian people out of their homeland.


One group traveled northwest through Turkey, across the Bosporus and up into the Carpathian Basin. The other group migrated east then north across the Caucuses Mountains, into the area between the Caspian and Black Seas. (Nagy, map2) Facts show that the early settlers in the Carpathian Basin became known as the Turanians, and were working the land long before the conquest of Arpad. But who were these Turanians? They were a non-Aryan people who preceded the Indo-European migration through Europe, and Nagy believes that they are the migrated Sumerians. (Nagy, 17)


Part of Nagy's proof that the Sumerian were the people that became known as the Turanians is a word study of the current names of the rivers to the north and west which flow in to the Black Sea. These rivers lie in the direct path the Sumerians supposedly took out of the Fertile Crescent, and the area from which the conquering Magyars came. In Sumerian, the first river, the Don, means 'loud, rumbling sound'. The Donec or Donetz flows into the Don and it means to 'give or make sound'. The Dnieper comes from the Sumerian Don-aper - 'the father of the Don', and the river Dniester or Don-Ister meaning the 'divine Don'. And the Danube, from Don-aba which means 'the great Don'. Ister is also the name of one of the Sumerians' favorite deities, the goddess of Nature. (Nagy, 26)




Nagy also goes into particular detail of the names of cities, towns and counties in modern Hungary and show that many of the names mean something in Sumerian, with minor variations. e.g. The city Esztergom, whose name was changed in Roman times - thus it precedes Arpad's conquest - from the Sumerian language it is Istergam, from Ister the Sumerian deity and 'gom' or 'gam' meaning bend in the river in both Magyar and Sumerian. (Nagy, 51)


Nagy also speaks of an ancient runic writing system that has been found in the region. A writing system which preceded the Greek form of writing, and is unrelated to the Phoenician form of writing. It is based on 34 letters. (Nagy, 71) He quotes the work of Adorjan Magyar, an ethnologist, "'In Europe, Magyarorszag was the only nation which had its own alphabet before Christianity.'" (Nagy, 72) Nagy believes that the Sumerian cuneiform evolved into the runic system which appeared in the Carpathian basin, and that this writing system is related to the Etruscan writing system. Magyar states, "'How is it possible that the ancient Magyar runic numerical system resembles the Etruscan, ...while the Etruscan runic numerical system disappeared centuries ago, before the Magyar nomad people...conquered the Carpathian Basin in the tenth century?'" (Nagy, 73) So, they conclude that an advanced people lived in the Carpathian basin, that they were related to the Etruscans, and that the languages have many similarities to modern Magyar.


What follows is a brief history of what happened from Roman times until the conquering by Arpad. From 35 BC to 9 AD the Romans fought with the inhabitants of the Carpathian basin, whom they called the Pannonians. The Pannonians were finally conquered and added to the empire. Nagy believes that the name Pannonians does not derive from the Roman god Pan, but rather from Pannon which means 'belonging to Panna" a nickname for the Sumerian goddess of creation, Anu. (Nagy 83,84) In 359 AD, the people revolted against the heavy burden of taxes. Around 400 BC the Huns arrived in the region and pushed out the Romans, and established themselves on the Magyar plain. (Nagy, 103) By 469, the Huns had fallen apart, and settled and mixed with the population, in the well defended Carpathians. (Nagy, 108) In 557, the Avar-Huns moved into Eastern Europe, and dominated the region until Charlemagne and the Franks fought a bloody eight year war of conquest and defeated the Avars to close out the eighth century. (Nagy, 108,111)




The conquering Magyars invaded the Carpathian basin in 896 AD from the Etelkoz region. Everything that has been said so far leads to one question, and Nagy answers that by saying that there was a people in Hungary before the conquering Magyars arrived. Nagy attempts to show that through history, the conquering people usually adapts the language of their minions. Nagy believes that when the Magyars came in, they did just that and adopted the language that was already being spoken in the conquered lands, adding their own contributions to the language, but because they were in power, the language became known as Magyar. e.g. Modern France is actually named after the Franks, a Germanic people that conquered Gaul. Over time the Franks adopted the language of the people - which was a Romance language, not Germanic - but the name of the country and the language became known as France and French, respectively, due to the conquerors influence. (Nagy, 23-24, 99-100) But who where these conquering Magyars and where were they from? Nagy believes that they were the Medes who lived east of the Caspian sea, out of which came the Megyeri or Magyari tribes. (Nagy, 133)


In De Administrando, Impereo, Constantine writes that the Pechengs attacked a 'Turkish' people and that it split them into two tribes, the one half going towards Etelkoz north of the Black Sea and the other down southeast towards Persia. (Note: Turkish was a name given to all peoples of this area - comparable to Slavic, many nations but with some similarities.) The name of that peoples know as "Szabartofaszfalo". (Nagy, 135-136) Nagy believes that the roots of this word mean the 'people of Subartu'. Subartu is a land just to the east of ancient Sumeria. (Nagy, 139-140) Thus, Nagy concludes the conquering Magyar were the same Sumerians who traveled north into the Caucuses and adapted to the life of the horse-riding Turkish peoples. And after more attacks moved westward into modern Hungary.."



http://www.maghar.hu/nyelv/sumagyar/kep/szotarreszl.gif

http://www.maghar.hu/nyelv/sumagyar/kep/mahgarekir.gif

http://www.maghar.hu/nyelv/sumagyar/kep/ekirtabla1.gif





Now back to the topic:

My opinion -and lot of people share it- that Croats are looking very similar to Iranian, Kurd or Armenian as well, except the lighter skin tone, also there are some minor anthropological differences.

However we all know that the majority of the Croats are black haired and dark eyed, so it is impossible that the ancient iranians were nordic looking. In fact they were propably light brown skinned just like the kurds now.

Just check out the genetic table. The dominant haplotype marker in the croats is the EU7, highly above 40. There is less EU7 haplotype amount in the Germans, lot less in the Norwegians for example.

Do they have black haired/dark eyed people? Yes they do, especially the Germans.

Conclusion: This must be because of the EU7 haplotype marker.

I wonder how would look like a person with 100% EU7 haplotype...

IMHO he/she wouldnt be fair skinned at all.




Croat soldier from the XVII. century:

http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/images/croatian_soldier.jpg

White Falcon
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:30 PM
However we all know that the majority of the Croats are black haired and dark eyedFrom my personal observation , that is far away from accurate generalization.
And to show you some example,
take this famous Croatian Footbal Team squad for example

http://www.hnkhajduk.hr/momcad/momcad.htm

Awar
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:35 PM
:lol Haven't seen that one.
Actually, Croatian pigmentation is pretty much the same as Hungarian on average.

Triglav
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:14 PM
From my personal observation , that is far away from accurate generalization.
And to show you some example,
take this famous Croatian Footbal Team squad for example

http://www.hnkhajduk.hr/momcad/momcad.htm

I can comfirm that.

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:38 PM
Yes we cannot generalize, that is true of course.
1 word. Assimilation.
That 400 years old imagery is propably more accurate, than the present they photographs. ;)
Btw anthropologically those photos are very interesting.

Shapur
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:50 PM
I think it could be everything. But the most Croatians accept their Iranian heritage.
Also the Crotian goverment do many projects with the Iranian goverments.
The the ancient Iranians were fair or not is not my matter.
The Iranians from 1000 BC to today are black haired.
And these Iranians build world powers.

Odin Of Ossetia
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 09:00 PM
Hi Shapur. There are Greek and Roman sources describing Scythians and Sarmatians as fair-skinned and blue-eyed. The farthest place where we can trace the ancestors of Iranians and Indo-Aryans in time and space is Southern Ural where they created the archeological culture of Sintashta and Arkaim. Thence they embarked on their southward journey in the first half of the 2nd millenium BC. Original Aryan homeland was in the north, which is amply demonstrated by literature (Indian Vedas describe natural phenomena which can only be observed in the north), language (proto-IE had many words for winter, cold, snow, but none for a warm season), etc. History has many stories of one population supplanting another. Russian steppes which were originally occupied by Nordic Iranians were later conquered by Mongols and Turks coming from the east. About a decade or two ago Russian archeologists unearthed a burial of a Scythian noblewoman in the Altai mountains. Local Mongol population are saying she is their ancient queen and progenitor and demand that the mummy be reburied. But they have nothing to do with her because she has European features and BLOND hair, which is well preserved. I think her pictures may be found on the Internet. She is usually referred to as the "Altai princess".





That's not true. I think I saw a documentary about her and she had BLACK hair.


I also heard that the name Sarmatians literally meant "black-haired ones" and there are also frequent mentions of black-haired Scythians, who were Iranians, as well as of Medes, Persians, and Indo-Aryans (have ever read Ramayana?).



I also doubt that all Indo-Europeans called themselves as "Aryans" for this is a rather recent loan-word from Sanskrit.


Blond blue eyed "Aryans" or Iranians my ass! :P



http://michalw.narod.ru/SlavicSpain.html

Odin Of Ossetia
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 09:09 PM
Here a map about this subject!




This map looks incorrect in some areas.



1) The real original homeland of the Croats was the north-western Indian subcontinent, and they were actually Indo-Aryans and not Iranians.

2) The Antes never lived in Poland, but in what is now Ukraine and Romania.

3) White Croatia (Bela Hrvatska) was located in south-eastern Poland, not in northern Czechia (that is where the Northern Black Croatia was found).

4) The Northern Croatias extend too much to the north; doubt that they included Warsaw, Slask, and Northern Serbia.

5) I very much doubth that there was ever any sort of Croatia in present-day central Hungary.

6) "Awar" has already discussed why he does not believe that there was a Red Croatia in Montenegro (it probably existed to the north of it, but did not include it).




"Shapur" I never really claimed that I am a Sarmatian. ;)




http://michalw.narod.ru/SlavicSpain.html

Stephen
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 10:59 PM
Interesting thing:

"....The Scytho-Türkic etymologies given above show that among Scythians, certainly, were Türkic tribes. Therefore the opinion codified in the official historical science that there is only one Scythian language, that it is solely of the Iranian group, that allegedly the first Türks came to Europe only in the 4 c. AD under an ethnonym of Huns, that there was Türkization of Volga and Urals population that began only in the 4th or 7th century AD - all this, naturally, does not correspond to the reality..."

"...The noted expert on Scythian history L.A.Yelnitskiy, on the basis of the comprehensive analysis of historical works and factual materials, comes to a conclusion that the vestiges of Scythian culture for a long time and persistently languished in the cultures of Türko-Mongolian (and in a smaller degree in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 243]. Archeological materials, especially the so-called animal style art, also neither confirm nor deny the affinity of Scythian and Türko -Mongolian cultures. As to the religious attributes, it is possible to state the following: if Scythians were Iranian-lingual, they would have had a common deity with Persians, and would not be fighting them as long and persistently as described by Herodotus. Further we shall see, that the names of the Scythian gods can be explained based on the Türkic language...

Targitai, in the opinion of the supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory, consists of two parts: darga and tava. In Old-Iranian darga ‘long’ or ‘sharp’, tava ‘power, force’, Targitai is thus ‘Longostrong or Arrowstrong’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 163; Miller Vs., 1887, 127].

From the positions of Türkic language the word Targitai consists from targy or taryg - Old Türkic ‘farmer’ and soy~toy - Türk. - ‘clan’; as a whole it is ‘Clan or Ancestor of the Farmers’. Besides, the name Targitai is met not only in Herodotus, it also appears with Avars as a Türkic name. Theophilact Simocatta (the historian of the 7 c.) informs, ‘Targitiy is an outstanding man in the Avar tribe’ [Simocatta Th., 1957, 35]. Menandr the Byzantian informs that in 568 the Avar leader Bayan has sent Targitai to Baselius requesting a concession [Byzantian Historians, 1861, 392]. In 565 Avars sent the same Targitai as an ambassador to Byzantium . In the 2 c. Polien informs that Scythians, living at Meotian (Azov) Sea, had a famous woman named Tirgatao [Latyshev S.V., 1893, 567]. Hence, these Scythians were also Türkic speaking.

[i]Lipoksai is a senior son of Targitai. The etymology for this word Abaev borrows from Fasmer. The second part, in his opinion, consists of a root ksaia~khsai ‘to shine, to sparkle, to dominate’, Ossetian. - ‘queen, dawn’; the first part is not clear, there can be a distortion instead of Khoraksais: compare Old Iran. hvar-xsaita ‘sun’, Pers. Xorsed [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. Türk. soi ‘clan, family, relatives, ancestors, generation, offspring, stock, origin’; ak ‘white, noble, rich’; aksoi ‘ a noble, rich clan; sacred clan, forefather’ etc. For Türkic peoples the names with an element soi is a usual phenomenon: Aksoi, Paksoi, Koksoi. The first part is lip~lipo~lep is ‘border’. As a whole, Lipoksai ‘Sacred Clan with (or Protecting) Borders, i.e. its Country’.

Arpoksai is a middle son of Targitai. The first part Abaev at once transforms in apra and ‘water’ and deduces from the Iranian roots ap ‘water’ and Ossetian ra, arf ‘deep’; apra ‘water depth’; ksaia ‘possessor’; apra-ksaia ‘Possessor Of Waters’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. We already know about the second part: aksoy ‘a sacred clan, noble clan’. The first part - arpa ‘ barley, grain, product ‘; arpalyk ‘possession of land’; Arpaksai ‘Head of a Clan Possessing Land, Territory, or Clan of the Farmers’.

Kolaksai is a younger son of Targitai. Per Fasmer and Abaev, the second part ksaia ‘shine, sparkle, dominate’, in Ossetian khsart ‘valour’, khsin ‘princess’, khsed ‘dawn’ etc.; the first part is not clear, maybe, it is a distortion instead of Khoraksais, compare Old. Iran. khvar-khshaita ‘sun’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. The supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory sometimes lead this name to the phonetic form of Persian Skolakhshaia and announce Kolaksai as a king of the Persian clan Skol (Skolot) ~ Scythians [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 207-208].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. The second part of a word Kolaksai - aksai ‘a noble, sacred clan’; the first part - kola-kala ‘city, capital’; Kolaksai ‘Noble, Sacred Clan Of a (Protecting) Capital, Country’.

If we arrange in order the Iranian etymologies for the names of the father Targitai and his three sons Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai, we receive: Targitai ‘Longostrong’, Lipoksai ‘Shine Of The Sun’, Arpoksai ‘ ‘Possessor Of Waters ‘, Kolaksai ‘ Shine Of The Sun or Skolakhshaia’. There is no etymological, semantical and lexico-structural system.

Let us consider the system in the Türkic etymology of the names of the father and his three sons. Targitai ‘Farmers Clan Noble Ancestor’, Lipoksai ‘Border Protecting Noble Clan’, Arpoksai ‘Protecting Possession Noble Clan’; Kolaksai ‘Protecting Capital (i.e. Kingdom) Noble Clan’. The last, the younger son, as relayed by Herodotus, accepts the kingdom from his father after he brought home the golden tools fallen from the sky: the plough, yoke, hatchet, and cup [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 5].

Another word, the etymology of which serves as a proof of correctness for the Scytho-Iranian theory, is ethnonym Sak~Saka. As the ethnonym used by Persians for Scythians, it is considered to be a Persian word. But at the same time Persians could take it from the non-Iranian Scythians themselves. In the opinion of Abaev, Old Persian saka (with the meaning of Scyth) belongs to the totem of deer [Abaev V.I., 1949, 179]. Ossetian sag ‘deer’ from saka ‘branch, limb, deer horn, antler’. Many historians think that sak is a name of one of Scythian tribes, accepted by Persians as an ethnonym for all Scythians. None of the ancient authors notes the meaning of the ethnonym sak~saka in the sense ‘deer’, and Stephan Byzantian informs, ‘Saka are the people, so are named Scythians of ‘armor’ because they invented it’ [Latyshev V.V., 1893, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 265]. Here the word Saka approaches Türkic sak~sagy ‘protection, guard, cautious’. Besides, it should be noted that in Türk. sagdak ‘quiver’, i.e. ‘case for weapon of defense’. Sagai - ethnonym of Türkic people between Altai and Yenisei, part of Khakass people, Saka - ethnonym of the Yakuts. Thus, sagai~saka~sak is a Türkic word, which has passed into the ethnonym of one of Scyth tribes, and was accepted by Persians as their common ethnonym.

Ababa (Hababa) is the name of the mother of the Roman emperor Maximin, she was, apparently, an Alanian. Thinking that Alans are Iranian-lingual, Abaev etymologies this word thus: Iran. khi ‘good, kind’; vab ‘to weave’; thus, Khivaba ‘Good Weaver’. In Türkic ab ‘hunt’, eb~ev ‘home’, aba ‘father, mother, sister’, Ababa ‘Mother Of Hunt or Mother Of House’, i.e. ‘Fairy’ in a good sense.

Sagadar, per Abaev: saka- + - dar ‘having deers’ is the name of a tribe near Danube [Abaev (http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/27%20Scythians/EthnicRootsEn.htm#Abaev) V.I., 1949, 179]. In Türkic: saga - Türkic ethnonym, -dar-lar is the plural affix; Sagadar is ‘Sags’"

Dorian
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 12:01 AM
Whatever Croatian origins might be doesn't matter now.

The fact is that 99% of modern Croatians are White by phenotype and culture.

Probably less than 50% of Iranians (50% of whom are Persian) are White by phenotype and none of them are White by culture.

Armenians are neither related to Croatians or Kurds.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 12:26 AM
However we all know that the majority of the Croats are black haired and dark eyed, so it is impossible that the ancient iranians were nordic looking. In fact they were propably light brown skinned just like the kurds now

Depigmentation doesn't has much to do with Nordic race. Blondism and blue-eyenes can be found even amongst the modern Iranians, and its nothing unusual here in Croatia. Many Northern Mongoloids are also totally depigmented, and I doubt its the result of the Nordic contribution to the Mongol race.

Nordic=North West European, and thats how we should observe this phenomenon. And I agree there weren't any nordics in Iran ever. I do believe there was more blue-eyed people before the Semitic invasion, but they weren't Nords, at least not in the Scandinavian meaning of the word.


I wonder how would look like a person with 100% EU7 haplotype...
IMHO he/she wouldn't be fair skinned at all.

Croatia is the center of EU7, not only in Europe, but the world. You can not find the higher frequence in any country - European or non-European. On the whole population of Croats the percentage is 45%, and the epicenter of this hallotype are Dinaric mountains. In this region the concentration of Eu 7. is circa 70%.
Those fair-looking football players White Falcon posted are precisely from the same region, and the most of them are probably Eu7 bearers. So if Eu7 stands for 'swarthiness' those people should be coal black.

Those people White Falcon posted are not Nordics, but depigmented Dalmatian Croats. Slavic contribution to the Dinaric area is not worth mentioning because Eu 19 can be found only in insignificant traces there.
They are not fair-looking because they were 'assimilated' by Slavs in the past, but because its in their own nature.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 12:55 AM
http://www.persepolis3d.com/images/masterplan/webbild/bild-13.htm
http://www.persepolis3d.com/images/masterplan/webbild/bild-15.htm
http://www.persepolis3d.com/images/masterplan/webbild/bild-18.htm
I think this is the work of the superior manhood, and its not a surprise Iranian tribal name 'Arya' started to be so broadly used to signify nobility of stock. Persians and Medes were respected and feared by anyone they came to the contact with.

Stephen
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 01:01 AM
Hmm, I don't know, frankly. I was in Croatia many, many times, and I've seen many different skin colors in the country [from fair white - dark brown], but anthropologically [especially osteologically the head] they were similar looking. I've seen minorl differences anyways, propably because of the various EU7 haplotype marker amount in the individuals.
We cannot be sure that originally what was the skin color of the Croats, but I am fairly sure that it wasnt white, if we take a look at the facts: Even after the strong assimilation [EU18 & EU19] they are mostly dark haired and dark eyed, and this is surely not a result of their "assimilated" EU19 or EU18 genes.
In fact take a look at the Germans. There are lot less dark haired people, but the average EU7 haplotype marker is 37%, unlike the Croatian 45%.
Another example are the Norwegians. Their EU7 haplotype marker is around 23%-27% if I am correct, and the dark haired/dark eyed people are lot more rare there than in Germany.
This is very logical IMHO.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 01:39 AM
Hmm, I don't know, frankly. I was in Croatia many, many times, and I've seen many different skin colors in the country [from fair white - dark brown], but anthropologically [especially osteologically the head] they were similar looking.

There are differences. People from Northern Croatian tend to have round Alpine looking skuls. In the south the skull is dinaric.


Even after the strong assimilation [EU18 & EU19] they are mostly dark haired and dark eyed, and this is surely not a result of their "assimilated" EU19 or EU18 genes.

Strong assimilation never took place:
Eu 18 = 10%
Eu 19 = 29%
And as I mentioned before Eu 19 is virtually non existing on the south.


In fact take a look at the Germans. There are lot less dark haired people, but the average EU7 haplotype marker is 37%, unlike the Croatian 45%.
Another example are the Norwegians. Their EU7 haplotype marker is around 23%-27% if I am correct, and the dark haired/dark eyed people are lot more rare there than in Germany.

I don't think Eu7 has anything to do with pigmentation but more with Dinaric morphology.
Perhaps the reason why the Croats are more tanned than Germans is the influence of neolithic genes:
Eu4 = 7% in Croatian case, while its 0% in German case.
Eu9 = 5% in Croatia while its 0% in Germany
In other words its the Mediterranean influence of ancient Greeks and Romans.

Shapur
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 10:24 AM
Interesting thing:

"....The Scytho-Türkic etymologies given above show that among Scythians, certainly, were Türkic tribes. Therefore the opinion codified in the official historical science that there is only one Scythian language, that it is solely of the Iranian group, that allegedly the first Türks came to Europe only in the 4 c. AD under an ethnonym of Huns, that there was Türkization of Volga and Urals population that began only in the 4th or 7th century AD - all this, naturally, does not correspond to the reality..."

"...The noted expert on Scythian history L.A.Yelnitskiy, on the basis of the comprehensive analysis of historical works and factual materials, comes to a conclusion that the vestiges of Scythian culture for a long time and persistently languished in the cultures of Türko-Mongolian (and in a smaller degree in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 243]. Archeological materials, especially the so-called animal style art, also neither confirm nor deny the affinity of Scythian and Türko -Mongolian cultures. As to the religious attributes, it is possible to state the following: if Scythians were Iranian-lingual, they would have had a common deity with Persians, and would not be fighting them as long and persistently as described by Herodotus. Further we shall see, that the names of the Scythian gods can be explained based on the Türkic language...

Targitai, in the opinion of the supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory, consists of two parts: darga and tava. In Old-Iranian darga ‘long’ or ‘sharp’, tava ‘power, force’, Targitai is thus ‘Longostrong or Arrowstrong’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 163; Miller Vs., 1887, 127].

From the positions of Türkic language the word Targitai consists from targy or taryg - Old Türkic ‘farmer’ and soy~toy - Türk. - ‘clan’; as a whole it is ‘Clan or Ancestor of the Farmers’. Besides, the name Targitai is met not only in Herodotus, it also appears with Avars as a Türkic name. Theophilact Simocatta (the historian of the 7 c.) informs, ‘Targitiy is an outstanding man in the Avar tribe’ [Simocatta Th., 1957, 35]. Menandr the Byzantian informs that in 568 the Avar leader Bayan has sent Targitai to Baselius requesting a concession [Byzantian Historians, 1861, 392]. In 565 Avars sent the same Targitai as an ambassador to Byzantium . In the 2 c. Polien informs that Scythians, living at Meotian (Azov) Sea, had a famous woman named Tirgatao [Latyshev S.V., 1893, 567]. Hence, these Scythians were also Türkic speaking.

[i]Lipoksai is a senior son of Targitai. The etymology for this word Abaev borrows from Fasmer. The second part, in his opinion, consists of a root ksaia~khsai ‘to shine, to sparkle, to dominate’, Ossetian. - ‘queen, dawn’; the first part is not clear, there can be a distortion instead of Khoraksais: compare Old Iran. hvar-xsaita ‘sun’, Pers. Xorsed [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. Türk. soi ‘clan, family, relatives, ancestors, generation, offspring, stock, origin’; ak ‘white, noble, rich’; aksoi ‘ a noble, rich clan; sacred clan, forefather’ etc. For Türkic peoples the names with an element soi is a usual phenomenon: Aksoi, Paksoi, Koksoi. The first part is lip~lipo~lep is ‘border’. As a whole, Lipoksai ‘Sacred Clan with (or Protecting) Borders, i.e. its Country’.

Arpoksai is a middle son of Targitai. The first part Abaev at once transforms in apra and ‘water’ and deduces from the Iranian roots ap ‘water’ and Ossetian ra, arf ‘deep’; apra ‘water depth’; ksaia ‘possessor’; apra-ksaia ‘Possessor Of Waters’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. We already know about the second part: aksoy ‘a sacred clan, noble clan’. The first part - arpa ‘ barley, grain, product ‘; arpalyk ‘possession of land’; Arpaksai ‘Head of a Clan Possessing Land, Territory, or Clan of the Farmers’.

Kolaksai is a younger son of Targitai. Per Fasmer and Abaev, the second part ksaia ‘shine, sparkle, dominate’, in Ossetian khsart ‘valour’, khsin ‘princess’, khsed ‘dawn’ etc.; the first part is not clear, maybe, it is a distortion instead of Khoraksais, compare Old. Iran. khvar-khshaita ‘sun’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. The supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory sometimes lead this name to the phonetic form of Persian Skolakhshaia and announce Kolaksai as a king of the Persian clan Skol (Skolot) ~ Scythians [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 207-208].

Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. The second part of a word Kolaksai - aksai ‘a noble, sacred clan’; the first part - kola-kala ‘city, capital’; Kolaksai ‘Noble, Sacred Clan Of a (Protecting) Capital, Country’.

If we arrange in order the Iranian etymologies for the names of the father Targitai and his three sons Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai, we receive: Targitai ‘Longostrong’, Lipoksai ‘Shine Of The Sun’, Arpoksai ‘ ‘Possessor Of Waters ‘, Kolaksai ‘ Shine Of The Sun or Skolakhshaia’. There is no etymological, semantical and lexico-structural system.

Let us consider the system in the Türkic etymology of the names of the father and his three sons. Targitai ‘Farmers Clan Noble Ancestor’, Lipoksai ‘Border Protecting Noble Clan’, Arpoksai ‘Protecting Possession Noble Clan’; Kolaksai ‘Protecting Capital (i.e. Kingdom) Noble Clan’. The last, the younger son, as relayed by Herodotus, accepts the kingdom from his father after he brought home the golden tools fallen from the sky: the plough, yoke, hatchet, and cup [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 5].

Another word, the etymology of which serves as a proof of correctness for the Scytho-Iranian theory, is ethnonym Sak~Saka. As the ethnonym used by Persians for Scythians, it is considered to be a Persian word. But at the same time Persians could take it from the non-Iranian Scythians themselves. In the opinion of Abaev, Old Persian saka (with the meaning of Scyth) belongs to the totem of deer [Abaev V.I., 1949, 179]. Ossetian sag ‘deer’ from saka ‘branch, limb, deer horn, antler’. Many historians think that sak is a name of one of Scythian tribes, accepted by Persians as an ethnonym for all Scythians. None of the ancient authors notes the meaning of the ethnonym sak~saka in the sense ‘deer’, and Stephan Byzantian informs, ‘Saka are the people, so are named Scythians of ‘armor’ because they invented it’ [Latyshev V.V., 1893, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 265]. Here the word Saka approaches Türkic sak~sagy ‘protection, guard, cautious’. Besides, it should be noted that in Türk. sagdak ‘quiver’, i.e. ‘case for weapon of defense’. Sagai - ethnonym of Türkic people between Altai and Yenisei, part of Khakass people, Saka - ethnonym of the Yakuts. Thus, sagai~saka~sak is a Türkic word, which has passed into the ethnonym of one of Scyth tribes, and was accepted by Persians as their common ethnonym.

Ababa (Hababa) is the name of the mother of the Roman emperor Maximin, she was, apparently, an Alanian. Thinking that Alans are Iranian-lingual, Abaev etymologies this word thus: Iran. khi ‘good, kind’; vab ‘to weave’; thus, Khivaba ‘Good Weaver’. In Türkic ab ‘hunt’, eb~ev ‘home’, aba ‘father, mother, sister’, Ababa ‘Mother Of Hunt or Mother Of House’, i.e. ‘Fairy’ in a good sense.

Sagadar, per Abaev: saka- + - dar ‘having deers’ is the name of a tribe near Danube [Abaev (http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/27%20Scythians/EthnicRootsEn.htm#Abaev) V.I., 1949, 179]. In Türkic: saga - Türkic ethnonym, -dar-lar is the plural affix; Sagadar is ‘Sags’"
This is a big shit! I can give you also articels like that about Kurds the original Turks! Scythians were Iranians and they live in Tajikistan.
100.000 speak there a new Scythian language.
So this Pan-Turkish shit you can forget! ;)

Shapur
Saturday, May 22nd, 2004, 10:37 AM
Whatever Croatian origins might be doesn't matter now.

The fact is that 99% of modern Croatians are White by phenotype and culture.

Probably less than 50% of Iranians (50% of whom are Persian) are White by phenotype and none of them are White by culture.

Armenians are neither related to Croatians or Kurds.
LOL! Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Mazandaranis, Gilanis, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Baloches, Talishians, Azeris are ALL Iranians!!!
They look all very simmilar to each other. Some lighter some tanned dependend from the origin region.
TO say that only Persians are "White" or what you mean with this make NO sence, because Kurds are a brother tribe to Persians.
What mean white culture? Have a christian religion of semitic origin?
Do you love this jewish Jesus? To celebrate christmas?
Is this a white culture? Yes it is! So we Iranians haven`t this white culture and we don`t want this white culture. You let your own women rapped by Negroids. A Negro should come to my sister I will behead him.
We celebrate Zarathustras celebrations and all other old Iranian celebrations.
They are older as your white culture and make sence!

Stephen
Sunday, May 23rd, 2004, 11:00 PM
This is a big shit! I can give you also articels like that about Kurds the original Turks! Scythians were Iranians and they live in Tajikistan.
100.000 speak there a new Scythian language.
So this Pan-Turkish shit you can forget! ;)
Well, I would say..another theory. :)

Tore
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 07:26 AM
The high amount of the EU7 haplotype marker in the Croats make them 'special' in CE. They have higher amount from the EU7 haplotype marker, than the Saami [Lapps]

Eu 7 is a marker common in both the Balkans and Northern Europe, though the source is different in each instance, and this commonality should not be perceived as a genetic relation among the two groups.

On a side note, the Eu 7 found among Lapps is indicative of Scandinavian male admixture, and is not indigenous to the Saami genepool.

Aquila Aquilonis
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 09:25 AM
The problem is that many Iranian sources speak from Scythians as black haired people. What also is a fact that many Scythians adopted other tribes.
The original Scythians were black haired. We can talk a lot time about this stuff. Maybe open an own threat for this.
You said that proto-IE had many words for cold and so one but nothing for warm. I will proof this in 1 hour"when I go to university".
But also is the question what you understand under Aryans?
The fact is that only Indo-Aryans called their self Aryans and no other IE tribes. By the way you must know that in these times the north was under an ice age so it could not be the far north. I hold on my mostly accepted Anatolian theory.
Anatolian theory is untenable. The earliest ethnically identifiable population of Anatolia was (linguistically) Caucasian - proto-Hittites in the west, Hurrians and Urartians in the east. The earliest Aryans (who assimilated the proto-Hittites and assumed their name) came in the early 2nd millenium BC. There is a lot more to say against the theory that Anatolia was the original Aryan homeland, like the "birch argument": all IE languages have the same root for birchtree, so they arose in an area where that species was widespread. Also early contacts between proto-IE and Finno-Ugric languages, etc.

Aquila Aquilonis
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 10:24 AM
Aquila a few interesting parts in addition to the finno ugric language topic:
There is a Sumerian - Magyar theory as well.
In fact Have you ever heard about the ancient Magyar Runic writing? [What was used long before the finno ugric language..]

"..But there is a different and more controversial explanation for the origins of the Magyars. Dr. Nagy believes that the people who later became known as Magyars had settled and lived in the Carpathian Basin for many years before Arpad's conquest, and that these people were the Sumerains that were pushed out of the Fertile Crescent. Dr. Nagy attempts to prove his theory by using extensive examples to show the linguistic similarities between the Sumerian, Old Magyar, and the current Magyar language. He also refers to several works written during the first millennium, including the Arpad codices and the De Administrando Imperio, and also relies on his own research of over fifty years. One point he makes is that while there are only two hundred Magyar words related to the Finno-Ugric language, there are over two thousand words related to the Sumerian language. (Nagy, 10)



The Sumerians were a highly advanced non-Semitic people who appeared in lower Mesopotamia around the fifth or sixth millennia BC and settled between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (Nagy, p. 27) City states supported by irrigation and a form of writing called cuneifrom had appeared by around 3,000 BC. They flourished until being pushed out by the Akkadians and Elamites. (Encyclopedia) But did these people simply die out or blend in with their conquerors? Dr. Nagy believes that they did not cease to exist, but that there were two separate migrations of the Sumerian people out of their homeland.


One group traveled northwest through Turkey, across the Bosporus and up into the Carpathian Basin. The other group migrated east then north across the Caucuses Mountains, into the area between the Caspian and Black Seas. (Nagy, map2) Facts show that the early settlers in the Carpathian Basin became known as the Turanians, and were working the land long before the conquest of Arpad. But who were these Turanians? They were a non-Aryan people who preceded the Indo-European migration through Europe, and Nagy believes that they are the migrated Sumerians. (Nagy, 17)


Part of Nagy's proof that the Sumerian were the people that became known as the Turanians is a word study of the current names of the rivers to the north and west which flow in to the Black Sea. These rivers lie in the direct path the Sumerians supposedly took out of the Fertile Crescent, and the area from which the conquering Magyars came. In Sumerian, the first river, the Don, means 'loud, rumbling sound'. The Donec or Donetz flows into the Don and it means to 'give or make sound'. The Dnieper comes from the Sumerian Don-aper - 'the father of the Don', and the river Dniester or Don-Ister meaning the 'divine Don'. And the Danube, from Don-aba which means 'the great Don'. Ister is also the name of one of the Sumerians' favorite deities, the goddess of Nature. (Nagy, 26)




Nagy also goes into particular detail of the names of cities, towns and counties in modern Hungary and show that many of the names mean something in Sumerian, with minor variations. e.g. The city Esztergom, whose name was changed in Roman times - thus it precedes Arpad's conquest - from the Sumerian language it is Istergam, from Ister the Sumerian deity and 'gom' or 'gam' meaning bend in the river in both Magyar and Sumerian. (Nagy, 51)


Nagy also speaks of an ancient runic writing system that has been found in the region. A writing system which preceded the Greek form of writing, and is unrelated to the Phoenician form of writing. It is based on 34 letters. (Nagy, 71) He quotes the work of Adorjan Magyar, an ethnologist, "'In Europe, Magyarorszag was the only nation which had its own alphabet before Christianity.'" (Nagy, 72) Nagy believes that the Sumerian cuneiform evolved into the runic system which appeared in the Carpathian basin, and that this writing system is related to the Etruscan writing system. Magyar states, "'How is it possible that the ancient Magyar runic numerical system resembles the Etruscan, ...while the Etruscan runic numerical system disappeared centuries ago, before the Magyar nomad people...conquered the Carpathian Basin in the tenth century?'" (Nagy, 73) So, they conclude that an advanced people lived in the Carpathian basin, that they were related to the Etruscans, and that the languages have many similarities to modern Magyar.


What follows is a brief history of what happened from Roman times until the conquering by Arpad. From 35 BC to 9 AD the Romans fought with the inhabitants of the Carpathian basin, whom they called the Pannonians. The Pannonians were finally conquered and added to the empire. Nagy believes that the name Pannonians does not derive from the Roman god Pan, but rather from Pannon which means 'belonging to Panna" a nickname for the Sumerian goddess of creation, Anu. (Nagy 83,84) In 359 AD, the people revolted against the heavy burden of taxes. Around 400 BC the Huns arrived in the region and pushed out the Romans, and established themselves on the Magyar plain. (Nagy, 103) By 469, the Huns had fallen apart, and settled and mixed with the population, in the well defended Carpathians. (Nagy, 108) In 557, the Avar-Huns moved into Eastern Europe, and dominated the region until Charlemagne and the Franks fought a bloody eight year war of conquest and defeated the Avars to close out the eighth century. (Nagy, 108,111)




The conquering Magyars invaded the Carpathian basin in 896 AD from the Etelkoz region. Everything that has been said so far leads to one question, and Nagy answers that by saying that there was a people in Hungary before the conquering Magyars arrived. Nagy attempts to show that through history, the conquering people usually adapts the language of their minions. Nagy believes that when the Magyars came in, they did just that and adopted the language that was already being spoken in the conquered lands, adding their own contributions to the language, but because they were in power, the language became known as Magyar. e.g. Modern France is actually named after the Franks, a Germanic people that conquered Gaul. Over time the Franks adopted the language of the people - which was a Romance language, not Germanic - but the name of the country and the language became known as France and French, respectively, due to the conquerors influence. (Nagy, 23-24, 99-100) But who where these conquering Magyars and where were they from? Nagy believes that they were the Medes who lived east of the Caspian sea, out of which came the Megyeri or Magyari tribes. (Nagy, 133)


In De Administrando, Impereo, Constantine writes that the Pechengs attacked a 'Turkish' people and that it split them into two tribes, the one half going towards Etelkoz north of the Black Sea and the other down southeast towards Persia. (Note: Turkish was a name given to all peoples of this area - comparable to Slavic, many nations but with some similarities.) The name of that peoples know as "Szabartofaszfalo". (Nagy, 135-136) Nagy believes that the roots of this word mean the 'people of Subartu'. Subartu is a land just to the east of ancient Sumeria. (Nagy, 139-140) Thus, Nagy concludes the conquering Magyar were the same Sumerians who traveled north into the Caucuses and adapted to the life of the horse-riding Turkish peoples. And after more attacks moved westward into modern Hungary.."

This nonsense is not worth commenting on. You should just know that the Turks also claim they are descendants of the Sumerians. So you will have to share your ancestry somehow. :D

Aquila Aquilonis
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Yes, IEs called themselves aryans, that is true.

Now...Aquila please give us some infos about this analysis. I guess you are talking about the Scythian Princess what was found in 1993.


Indeed the languge is finno ugric, what is not indo european. Your statement is absolutely incorrect about the skulls. Where are you getting these informations? (:o
Another little correction:
Also the Magyar homeland was the west side of the Urals, it isnt Siberia.
But lets see. if they were Mongoloid, where is the Mongoloid gene in the population, because the hungarians dont have any. It is impossible.
The assimilition cant be that "strong", that all of the Mongoloid genes are totally gone.
The Magyar homeland was the east side of the Urals, in Siberia, where your closest kin the Khanty and Mansi live until now. They are Mongoloid. I do not mean that the contemporary Hungarians are Mongoloid though. Probably the Magyars who came to Pannonia in the 10th century were too few to leave any visible trace. The Magyar runes are derived from Turkic runes, which in their turn were derived from the Sogdian script.
Where did you get the wild idea that Scythians were Mongoloid? We have plenty of their images in antique art and none looks even distinctly Mongoloid. In Scythian age Mongoloids lived to the east of the Altai and Sayan mountains, where Scythians waged wars with them. We have here in the Imperial Hermitage Museum the world's best collection of Scythian antiquities including a bridle bit decorated with wooden pieces in the form of cut heads of enemies. The heads are clearly Mongoloid. I believe they are quite eloquent.

Awar
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 11:40 AM
In most sources I read, Magyars are mentioned as the inhabitants of the west side of Urals. LG posted pictures of reconstructed early Magyars, and while some were obviously part Mongoloid, most of them were ordinary Caucasoids.

Aquila Aquilonis
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 12:29 PM
In most sources I read, Magyars are mentioned as the inhabitants of the west side of Urals. LG posted pictures of reconstructed early Magyars, and while some were obviously part Mongoloid, most of them were ordinary Caucasoids.
It's because they were gradually migrating to the west and came into written sources when they were living to the west of the Urals. I do not insist that they all were pure Mongoloids, but the Mongoloid component was prominent among them.

Awar
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 12:37 PM
btw. It seems that some of the Scythians were Uralic-speakers.
That's probably because the term 'Scythian' at some point stopped being an 'ethnic' term and became a tribal union of nomads.

Aquila Aquilonis
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 01:04 PM
btw. It seems that some of the Scythians were Uralic-speakers.
That's probably because the term 'Scythian' at some point stopped being an 'ethnic' term and became a tribal union of nomads.
There is no such evidence. All Scythian names have sound Iranian etymologies. Plus, there are their descendants, Ossetians, who are no Uralic speakers.

Graeme
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 02:27 PM
The Scythians were a nationality and composed of different ethnic groups and controlled by Royal Scyths. Some of the Scythians could have been mongoloids. I have heard that the Ossetians are the descendents of the Sarmatians or Alans. Are they not different Iranic speaking groups and what ties the Ossetians of today with those ancient peoples other than folklore and Iranic language?

Shapur
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 02:33 PM
The Scythians were a nationality and composed of different ethnic groups and controlled by Royal Scyths. Some of the Scythians could have been mongoloids. I have heard that the Ossetians are the descendents of the Sarmatians or Alans. Are they not different Iranic speaking groups and what ties the Ossetians of today with those ancient peoples other than folklore and Iranic language?
Alans are Sarmatians yes. The most Iranian tribes haven`t mixed for 3000 years with non-Iranians. This is why the today Ossetians looks like the most Iranians in today Iran and other parts of the Iranian world.
I posted two pictures of Ossetians. They call their self by Ironya"Irani" and their country by Iron"Iran". The Scythians were pure Iranians befor the Turks overrun central Asia. Look on today Turks in Central Asia. Many look like Mongolians but also many have a strong Iranian appearance.

Bedrud

Stephen
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 06:38 PM
In most sources I read, Magyars are mentioned as the inhabitants of the west side of Urals. LG posted pictures of reconstructed early Magyars, and while some were obviously part Mongoloid, most of them were ordinary Caucasoids.This is correct. Aquila's post is wrong, the Magyars lived in the west side of the Ural, and they didnt came from the east side to the west side.
Also I dont think that the Magyars were partially Mongoloid at all, as Aquila said, it is kinda impossible. I've seen old imageries, and they looks like Caucasoids, in fact the first king Stephen I. the Holy was painted as a tall white man, and that is from 997.
Btw you cannot backup anything what you write down, this is a big problem in your posts Aquila!
Just because you are saying somthing, that means nothing, it is just an opinion. A linguistic connection? Thats nothing.

->

Probably the Magyars who came to Pannonia in the 10th century were too few to leave any visible trace. I dont know frankly, but still, if they were sorta Mongoloids, their genes disappeared totally? Just take a look at the present population of Hungary genetically. 0% mongoloid genes. I think that this would be impossible.



As for Scythia...I am not sure, show me one good proof that they werent mongoloid or turkic. If there is a proof, that must be on the internet, so you will know it. :)
There are many sources on the internet with various theories, so hell knows that which is correct. :D

Stephen
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Eu 7 is a marker common in both the Balkans and Northern Europe, though the source is different in each instance, and this commonality should not be perceived as a genetic relation among the two groups.

On a side note, the Eu 7 found among Lapps is indicative of Scandinavian male admixture, and is not indigenous to the Saami genepool.IMHO its the IE7 haplotype what is causing the pigmentation in the Croats. [Black hair, dark eyes, not normal white skin in many cases.]
If you take a look at their genes, this is the only logical answer.
[45% EU7 h. is very high, just compare it with the germanic 37%. The population of Germany assimilated lot more than the Croatian.]
That is why I posted that I would like to see a man with 100% EU7 haplotype.
I think that it would be a surprise for lot of people.

Übersoldat
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 09:10 PM
IMHO its the IE7 haplotype what is causing the pigmentation in the Croats. [Black hair, dark eyes, not normal white skin in many cases.]
If you take a look at their genes, this is the only logical answer.
[45% EU7 h. is very high, just compare it with the germanic 37%. The population of Germany assimilated lot more than the Croatian.]
That is why I posted that I would like to see a man with 100% EU7 haplotype.
I think that it would be a surprise for lot of people.

Applying the same principle Germans have a lot more Eu7 (37%) than Hungarians(11%), and yet they are lighter than Hungarians on average.
Like I said, Croatia is partly on the Mediterranean coast, and there is a presence of neolithic genes.

Stephen
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Hmmmm I dont know, I was in Germany many times, and they are mostly dark haired/dark eyed. Also dont forget the 8.9% EU4 marker in Hungary.
The neolithic genes are not that high in croatia. In fact it is low in %.
As I said before as we go north, the EU7 haplotype amount is decreasing, and the hair/eye/skin color is lighter and lighter.

It would be good to receive more genetic informations about the Kurds and Armenians, since there are more sources on the net what says, that they are close to the Croats genetically, but I couldnt find any % data.

Übersoldat
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 01:20 AM
Eu 7 is a marker common in both the Balkans and Northern Europe, though the source is different in each instance, and this commonality should not be perceived as a genetic relation among the two groups.

Eu 7 is associated with the Mesolithic people, the 'Gravettian' culture bearers, arrived 25, 000 years ago.

I made a detailed post on this topic few months ago.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=96319#post96319

Vojvoda
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 03:27 AM
"Alan tribes living north of the Black Sea may have moved northeast into what is now Poland, merging with Slavic peoples (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Slavic_peoples) there to become the precursors of historic Slav nations. Third-century inscriptions from Tanais, a town on the Don River in modern Ukraine, mention a nearby Alan tribe called the Choroatus or Chorouatos. The historian Ptolemy identifies the 'Serboi' as a Sarmatian tribe who lived north of the Caucasus, and other sources indentify the Serboi as an Alan tribe in the Volga-Don steppe in the Third century. Accounts of these names reappear in the fifth century, with the Serboi, or Serbs (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Serbs), established east of the river Elbe in what is now western Poland, and the Croats (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/History_of_Croatia) in what is now Polish Galicia. The Alan tribes likely moved northeast and settled among the Slavs, dominating and mobilizing the Slavic tribes they encountered and later assimilating into the Slav population. In 620 the Croats and Serbs were invited into the Balkans by Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Heraclius) to drive away the Turkic Avars (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Avars), and settled there among earlier Slavic migrants to become ancestors of the modern Serbs and Croats. Some Serbs remained on the Elbe, and their descendants are the modern Sorbs (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sorbs). Tenth-century Byzantine and Arab accounts describe a people called the Belochrobati (White Croats) living on the upper Vistula, an area later called Chrobatia."

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Alans

Odin Of Ossetia
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 06:49 PM
Found some mistakes in the above:



1) Serbs were not Alans but Indo-Scythians.


2) Croats were not Alans nor Sarmatians but Indo-Aryans.


3) There is/was no such thing like Polish Galicia.

Check this page: http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-axis.html




I also heard that it was only the Croats who got invited by the Byzantines.

Shapur
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 11:23 PM
Found some mistakes in the above:



1) Serbs were not Alans but Indo-Scythians.


2) Croats were not Alans nor Sarmatians but Indo-Aryans.


3) There is/was no such thing like Polish Galicia.

Check this page: http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-axis.html




I also heard that it was only the Croats who got invited by the Byzantines.
I found some mistakes by you. Alans ARE Iranians and an under tribe of Sarmatians! Scythians were Iranians maybe some exist but there is a big struggle about this are they or are they not.
Croats are"they exist still" Iranians.

:)

Odin Of Ossetia
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004, 11:42 PM
I found some mistakes by you. Alans ARE Iranians and an under tribe of Sarmatians! Scythians were Iranians maybe some exist but there is a big struggle about this are they or are they not.
Croats are"they exist still" Iranians.

:)



You have not found any mistakes by me, because these don't exist!


Just where do I say that Alans are not Iranians?!

In fact I explicitly say that is what they are!



Check this page again:


http://michalw.narod.ru/SlavicSpain.html



Croats are not really Iranians, because they were originally Indo-Aryans.

Shapur
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 12:45 AM
You have not found any mistakes by me, because these don't exist!


Just where do I say that Alans are not Iranians?!

In fact I explicitly say that is what they are!



Check this page again:


http://michalw.narod.ru/SlavicSpain.html



Croats are not really Iranians, because they were originally Indo-Aryans.
No Odin you are wrong. I don`t go every day 6 hours to university to be wrong. Indo-Aryans exist for 4500 years(kurgan theory), 7000 years(anatolia theory). There are two type of Indo-Aryans.
New Indo-Aryans(Indo-Iranians+Iranians+Nuristans) and Old Indo-Aryans(Greeks, Iranians, Indo-Iranians, Nuristanis, Armenians).
The Sarmatians"Alan tribe", Scythians, Hrvatis"Croatians" are Iranians.
The Indo-Iranians seperate from Iranians for about 4500(kurgan) years.
This mean when Hrvatis exist there still exist Indo-Iranians.
So what they are? The only meaning of Indo-Aryan is Iranians+Indo-Iranians.
And Indo-Iranians they can not be because they come from an Iranian area.

Shapur
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 11:56 AM
I looked in a dictionary an I was suprised that many words I would say every 10th word is Iranian. And many do also voice like Iranian words.
I also heard some Croatian songs. From their Allophonems"linguisit word for voices" they are simmilar to Iranian languages. Croatian voice like an Iranian language only the words tryed to change the voice. This show that Croatian was for a time a pure Iranian language. Very sad that it becomes so many non-Croatian words. Maybe one day they will use their old dialects which are mostly Iranian. Some Croatian personal pronouns are the same as Iranian languages!
What I personal found:
Ti - To - You
Ona - Unâ - They/She
This is the defently proof that Croatians spoke a pure Iranian language.
They look Iranian. Their culture is mostly based on the Iranian culture and show today many simmliarities!
Every Croatian who deny his Iranian heritage deny his self!

Payandegan be Iran Zamin ud Hrvati!

Shapur
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 12:46 PM
I research actual the personal pronouns. For this I use a normal Croatian dicitionary. Normal Croatian has in percent the lowest number of Iranian words.
There are dialects with many Iranian words. Maybe some Croatian can here say something to their own dialect and the personal pronouns!

Croatian Personal Pronouns:
singular - plural
1. ja - mi
2. ti, vi - ona
3. on - one, ona, oni

Persian Personal Pronouns:
1. man - mâ
2. to - una
3. an - ana

All are simmliar beside 1 personal pronouns singular. It comes maybe from azam(old iranian for I). azam->ajam->jam->ja?
Also the second personal pronoun singular vi show eastern Iranian language type. Western is every time v and not t!

To Be:
I am- jesam - astam
you are- jesi - asti
he is- je - aste
she is- jesmo - astan
we are- jeste - astim
they are- jesu -astand
The base word je and ast look not the same.
But the sufix are in the singular the same.
1. am - am
2. e - e
3. i - i
Maybe je come from Avestan:
ah [-] (v. rt. cl. 2) to be (b280, b266, c530) astu [-] 5 (imp. pres. act. 3/1) to be Ah->Jah? Maybe it is other way around Jah->Ah(Avestan), Jah->Je(Croatian)?I am not sure!

Some words I found:
wife- žena - zan
enemy - dushman - doshman
thin - tanak - tonok
but - ali - wali
and - i - ud(pahlavi) -> u(kurdish) -> i?
if - ak - agar
what - tsho - tshi
where- gdje - kutha[A] -> kutja[NP]
when - kada - kadâ
which - koji - ka
who - kto - kâ -> ki
someone - neko - ye/yek-> ne + kâ -> jo
new - nov - nou

Stephen
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 02:17 PM
They look Iranian. Every Croatian who deny his Iranian heritage deny his self!


I agree totally. Even that man with that mustache under your name could be a Croatian, Ive seen people like him [anthropologically they were very similar] while I was in Croatia.
There must be a connection for sure.

Shapur
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 02:26 PM
I agree totally. Even that man with that mustache under your name could be a Croatian, Ive seen people like him [anthropologically they were very similar] while I was in Croatia.
There must be a connection for sure.Yes! I think we must begin also build a good connection between Iranians and Croatians. I think the right parties of Hrvati are interested.

;)

Kel`Thuz
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Your linguistic analysis in fact proves that all Slavic languages are related to Iranian, not only Croatian.
And I also think that this whole discussion is mostly laughable.


I research actual the personal pronouns. For this I use a normal Croatian dicitionary. Normal Croatian has in percent the lowest number of Iranian words.
There are dialects with many Iranian words. Maybe some Croatian can here say something to their own dialect and the personal pronouns!

Croatian Personal Pronouns:
singular - plural
1. ja - mi
2. ti, vi - ona
3. on - one, ona, oni

Persian Personal Pronouns:
1. man - mâ
2. to - una
3. an - ana

All are simmliar beside 1 personal pronouns singular. It comes maybe from azam(old iranian for I). azam->ajam->jam->ja?
Also the second personal pronoun singular vi show eastern Iranian language type. Western is every time v and not t!

To Be:
I am- jesam - astam
you are- jesi - asti
he is- je - aste
she is- jesmo - astan
we are- jeste - astim
they are- jesu -astand
The base word je and ast look not the same.
But the sufix are in the singular the same.
1. am - am
2. e - e
3. i - i
Maybe je come from Avestan:
ah [-] (v. rt. cl. 2) to be (b280, b266, c530) astu [-] 5 (imp. pres. act. 3/1) to be Ah->Jah? Maybe it is other way around Jah->Ah(Avestan), Jah->Je(Croatian)?I am not sure!

Some words I found:
wife- žena - zan
enemy - dushman - doshman
thin - tanak - tonok
but - ali - wali
and - i - ud(pahlavi) -> u(kurdish) -> i?
if - ak - agar
what - tsho - tshi
where- gdje - kutha[A] -> kutja[NP]
when - kada - kadâ
which - koji - ka
who - kto - kâ -> ki
someone - neko - ye/yek-> ne + kâ -> jo
new - nov - nou

Awar
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 01:21 AM
Your linguistic analysis in fact proves that all Slavic languages are related to Iranian, not only Croatian.
And I also think that this whole discussion is mostly laughable.

All Slavic languages are related to Iranian... since both are groups within the Indo-European family, more precisely, it's SATEM branch.

The Croatian-Iranian connection is mentioned so often and so loudly because some Croatian nationalists are ashamed of the fact that they are Slavic, so they play on the "Iranian Origin" note... forgetting that Serbs are also suspected to be of Iranian origin... but, both were Slavicized, and only the Iranian names remain.

I find this very interesting, some others are grasping for ANY proof of their un-Slavic-ness :P

Stephen
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 01:50 AM
Very, very interesting. Maybe the Serbs arent Slavs at all?

"The Croats and Serbs (who were either Slavic tribes with Iranian ruling castes or Iranian tribes with Slavic subjects) arrived in the Balkans in the 620s, a land already occupied by the Slavs." (Salzman 1999) "

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php


More interesting infos:

http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/croatians_cravats_iranian_origin.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php


"A manuscript dating back to 1370 B.C. has named the present day Croats and their language as Hurrvuhe (resembling Hrvati).

In the era of the Achaemenid (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php), especially at the time of Cyrus II (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php) and Darius I (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/darius/darius.php), the name of the eastern Iranian province Harauvatya and the Croats of the ancient Iran Harauvatis and Harahvaiti have been mentioned for 12 times. In addition, two unearthed manuscripts belonging to the Croats living in the second and third centuries B.C. in ancient Iran have referred to the inhabitants of Horooouathos and Horoathoi. In the year 418, the Aryans were dubbed as Horites and Zachariasrhetor, in 559 the Aryan horse riders were referred to as Hrwts who lived in the vicinity of Krima and Azova and in the 7th century Croats were called as Slavs.

Other articles offered to the symposium discussed formation of the empire at the time of Cyrus the Great, history of the Croats in ancient Iran and Croat's development from the time of ancient Indians to the time of their migration in the middle ages from the Caucasus through ancient Persian to the present Adriatic and emergence of the first traces of Croats which could be classified as follow:
<LI type=square>Harahvaiti and Harauvati in Iran and Afghanistan <LI type=square>Hurravat and Hurrvuhe in Armenia and Georgia <LI type=square>Horoouathos in Azova and the Black Sea
Present day Croats Horvati and Hrvati along the Adriatic"

"Research works have been conducted on the relationship between the language spoken by the Croats and the language the present-day Slavs speak with an aim to identify the possible similarities. However, the studies do not dismiss the possibility that the old-time Croats were part of the ancient Iran at the time of the Persian Empire who later migrated to Europe and their language was changed into the Slav.

Meanwhile, studies on the Croats indicate that the old-time Slavs did not share the same race with the East European nations and that with the migration of the Croats with the Iranian origin, they established common cultural and lingual ties with each other.

Ties with the old-time Slavs in the 4th century was first established in the Red Croatia under the title Sarmatskim-Horitima and also after the 6th century in the realm of the Carpathians within the boundaries of the Great, or White, Croatia under the patronage of the Iranian Croats who had been turned Slavs due to the largeness of the population of the Slavs."

"However, there are other research works proving that 75 percent of the Croats are different in origin from the Slavs and more similar to Kurds and Armenians from genetic point of view. On the other hand, studies show that there are less similarities between domestic livestock, poultry and plants in the old time Croatia with those in Europe, lending further proof to the fact that Croats had most probably migrated from a region close to Asia to their present area."

"Research studies on the style of dressing of the Croats show that they were dressed up as the Sassanid (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanids.php) and most of the local costumes of women were exactly similar to those worn by women at the time of the ancient Iranian empire."



I am totally confused btw. :D

Awar
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 05:09 AM
Actually, from a genetic point of view, the Balkan Slavs are not closely related to Kurds or Armenians... we're not even closely related to Greeks ( although there are areas which overlap with the 'Greek' and 'Neolithic' influences ).

Serbs and Croats are indigenous Balkanoids with other influences... that's about that.
The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs, and who became Slavicized, just like the population of the Balkans became Slavicized.

Vojvoda
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 05:10 AM
Very, very interesting. Maybe the Serbs arent Slavs at all?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Serbs

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/raska.html

Shapur
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Your linguistic analysis in fact proves that all Slavic languages are related to Iranian, not only Croatian.
And I also think that this whole discussion is mostly laughable.
No! It show that Croatian has IRANIAN words and not Slavic words.
The Allophomes of the Slavic language group is different as the of the Iranian.
Also the Croatian language voice like an Iranian language.
You can not accept the reality this is the reality!
Btw IE is not an exuse for the Croatian language to has Iranian words.
Why should a pure Slavic folk have 20% Iranian words?
And they are Iranians word who were used 500 BC in Iran.

Shapur
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:47 AM
Actually, from a genetic point of view, the Balkan Slavs are not closely related to Kurds or Armenians... we're not even closely related to Greeks ( although there are areas which overlap with the 'Greek' and 'Neolithic' influences ).

Serbs and Croats are indigenous Balkanoids with other influences... that's about that.
The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs, and who became Slavicized, just like the population of the Balkans became Slavicized.
Please some proofs...

Shapur
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:49 AM
Very, very interesting. Maybe the Serbs arent Slavs at all?

"The Croats and Serbs (who were either Slavic tribes with Iranian ruling castes or Iranian tribes with Slavic subjects) arrived in the Balkans in the 620s, a land already occupied by the Slavs." (Salzman 1999) "

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php


More interesting infos:

http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/croatians_cravats_iranian_origin.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php


"A manuscript dating back to 1370 B.C. has named the present day Croats and their language as Hurrvuhe (resembling Hrvati).

In the era of the Achaemenid (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenids.php), especially at the time of Cyrus II (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php) and Darius I (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/darius/darius.php), the name of the eastern Iranian province Harauvatya and the Croats of the ancient Iran Harauvatis and Harahvaiti have been mentioned for 12 times. In addition, two unearthed manuscripts belonging to the Croats living in the second and third centuries B.C. in ancient Iran have referred to the inhabitants of Horooouathos and Horoathoi. In the year 418, the Aryans were dubbed as Horites and Zachariasrhetor, in 559 the Aryan horse riders were referred to as Hrwts who lived in the vicinity of Krima and Azova and in the 7th century Croats were called as Slavs.

Other articles offered to the symposium discussed formation of the empire at the time of Cyrus the Great, history of the Croats in ancient Iran and Croat's development from the time of ancient Indians to the time of their migration in the middle ages from the Caucasus through ancient Persian to the present Adriatic and emergence of the first traces of Croats which could be classified as follow:

<LI type=square>Harahvaiti and Harauvati in Iran and Afghanistan <LI type=square>Hurravat and Hurrvuhe in Armenia and Georgia <LI type=square>Horoouathos in Azova and the Black Sea
Present day Croats Horvati and Hrvati along the Adriatic"
"Research works have been conducted on the relationship between the language spoken by the Croats and the language the present-day Slavs speak with an aim to identify the possible similarities. However, the studies do not dismiss the possibility that the old-time Croats were part of the ancient Iran at the time of the Persian Empire who later migrated to Europe and their language was changed into the Slav.

Meanwhile, studies on the Croats indicate that the old-time Slavs did not share the same race with the East European nations and that with the migration of the Croats with the Iranian origin, they established common cultural and lingual ties with each other.

Ties with the old-time Slavs in the 4th century was first established in the Red Croatia under the title Sarmatskim-Horitima and also after the 6th century in the realm of the Carpathians within the boundaries of the Great, or White, Croatia under the patronage of the Iranian Croats who had been turned Slavs due to the largeness of the population of the Slavs."

"However, there are other research works proving that 75 percent of the Croats are different in origin from the Slavs and more similar to Kurds and Armenians from genetic point of view. On the other hand, studies show that there are less similarities between domestic livestock, poultry and plants in the old time Croatia with those in Europe, lending further proof to the fact that Croats had most probably migrated from a region close to Asia to their present area."

"Research studies on the style of dressing of the Croats show that they were dressed up as the Sassanid (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanids.php) and most of the local costumes of women were exactly similar to those worn by women at the time of the ancient Iranian empire."



I am totally confused btw. :D
Why? You showed they are of Iranian heritage.
Btw the language is not only all. We have many other proofs.
Later I will bring they but now I will go work!
Bedrud!

Übersoldat
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 07:18 AM
@Awar

First you say:


The Croatian-Iranian connection is mentioned so often and so loudly because some Croatian nationalists are ashamed of the fact that they are Slavic so they play on the "Iranian Origin"

And than you say:


Serbs and Croats are indigenous Balkanoids with other influences... that's about that.

You don't make any sense. Indogenuous Balkanoids (Illyrians, Greeks, Kelts ect.) were not Slavic.

Also, why do you think someone would be ashamed of being Slavic? :| You're missing the issue here. The word is about pre-Slavic origins of the Croats.


note... forgetting that Serbs are also...

We have a detailed works on this subject and there is a whole literature. This theory is not new to us, infact Serbs during the royal Yugoslavia were so upset by these works that they even assassinated worldly known historian dr. Milan Sufflay, one of the mayor protagonists of this theory.
The Serb- Iranian theory is just an imitation of the Croatian iranist experts. You do realize that behind this Serb theory is politically based agenda.
If someone here discovered a Chinese or Aztec theory, there would also be Serbs imitators to claim the same for the Serbs.
The most illustrative example for this tendency is one pan-Slavic forum I found on which the Serbs claim they also have Eu7 genes, just because it was found amongst the Croats. Naturally there is no scientific proof to back this up. But on the other hand you don't need a scientific proof if you follow the Yugoslav 'one people' dogma. And that means, what goes for the Serbs goes for the Croats, and vice versa.


but, both were Slavicized, and only the Iranian names remain.

Explain the term 'Slavized' are you referring to the language or genes?

Übersoldat
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 08:11 AM
The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs

ROFL!
When I mentioned this possibility to one fanatical Russian he was insulted by the idea that Slav 'super people' were in fact ruled by Iranic tribes like Horovatos.
He couldn't accept the fact our superior Aryan skill of war made miserable slaves out of barbarians.

norda
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 12:24 PM
ROFL!
When I mentioned this possibility to one fanatical Russian he was insulted by the idea that Slav 'super people' were in fact ruled by Iranic tribes like Horovatos.
He couldn't accept the fact our superior Aryan skill of war made miserable slaves out of barbarians.
Can you provide a single prove that Iranians were a ruling caste of Slavs?

Stephen
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 02:14 PM
Frankly this is very confusing, IMHO all of these are just theoires.
Some say that the Scythians were mongoloid and turkic, some say that indo iranians werent even white, some say that Kurds and Armenians are genetically closer to the Croats than the Slavs. All of this can be found on various places, even on the net. :hm This is totally confusing. :uhoh

Also the Serbs and the Croats arent "very" different genetically?
Is there any research work in this topic??

Zvonimir
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Every Croatian who deny his Iranian heritage deny his self!

You are exaggerating.
Ancient Croats were maybe Iranian tribe, maybe they weren't, but modern Croats don't have anything common with Iranian culture except few words and name of the nation. Modern Croats have Slavic culture.

This is in no way disrespect to your Iranian culture.

Shapur
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 07:48 PM
You are exaggerating.
Ancient Croats were maybe Iranian tribe, maybe they weren't, but modern Croats don't have anything common with Iranian culture except few words and name of the nation. Modern Croats have Slavic culture.

This is in no way disrespect to your Iranian culture.
What is culture? Music, lifestyle, family sturcture? When yes, then Croatians have more common with Iranians then Slavs.

norda
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 08:00 PM
What is culture? Music, lifestyle, family sturcture? When yes, then Croatians have more common with Iranians then Slavs.
That's something new :D
Could you provide any examples of Croatian/Iraninan lifestyles similarities please? ;)

Shapur
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 08:10 PM
That's something new :D
Could you provide any examples of Croatian/Iraninan lifestyles similarities please? ;)
I will post tomorrow an articel about Croatians.

;)

Zvonimir
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 10:02 PM
What is culture? Music, lifestyle, family sturcture? When yes, then Croatians have more common with Iranians then Slavs.

Language and folk music are good examples and they are by far mostly Slavic.
Back in the past before Christianizaton, Croats also had ancient Slavic religion and mythology.

Awar
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 11:58 PM
You don't make any sense. Indogenuous Balkanoids (Illyrians, Greeks, Kelts ect.) were not Slavic.

What doesn't make sense there? Illyrians, Greeks and Kelts were not Slavic, but their language and culture was replaced by that of incoming Slavs and Sarmatians/Slavs.


Also, why do you think someone would be ashamed of being Slavic? :|

You're constantly insulting Slavs ( here, at Stormfront and the Phora ) and downplaying the role of Slavs in the ethnogenesis of Croats, this fully qualifies you as being ashamed of being Slavic, since that's what your people is - SLAVIC.


You're missing the issue here. The word is about pre-Slavic origins of the Croats.

The people who lived in that part of Balkans prior to 5th century AD were NOT Croats.
These indigenous Balkanoids were of their own ethnicities, until one day they were invaded by Slavs, then Avars, and then by Croats.

However, it remains unclear if the Croats and Serbs became Slavicized during their stay in central Europe ( white Croatia and white Serbia ), or these two peoples became Slavicized in the Balkans.

In any case, all that remains of the heritage of these two Sarmatian/Iranian/Aryan peoples is the NAME.

The Serbo-Croatian words that correspond to Iranian words can be found in most other Slavic languages. The Sarmatians and Slavs were closely related since long before the great migrations. It's no wonder these peoples influenced one another in language, culture and mythology.



We have a detailed works on this subject and there is a whole literature. This theory is not new to us, infact Serbs during the royal Yugoslavia were so upset by these works that they even assassinated worldly known historian dr. Milan Sufflay, one of the mayor protagonists of this theory.

So, you think that 10 million Serbs were very upset with this, and they all decided to assassinate dr Milan Sufflay? I can imagine 10 million Serbs hiding in a dark alley, waiting to kill the doctor.:D

You're at the same time generalizing and mistaking politics ( of the past ) with history.


The Serb- Iranian theory is just an imitation of the Croatian iranist experts. You do realize that behind this Serb theory is politically based agenda.
If someone here discovered a Chinese or Aztec theory, there would also be Serbs imitators to claim the same for the Serbs.

That's just your guess. Both names, Croat and Serb are of Iranian origin, definitely not Slavic origin. While this Iranian origin theory was downplayed by Russophiles rulers of Serbia, it was obviously overdone among the Croatian elite.



The most illustrative example for this tendency is one pan-Slavic forum I found on which the Serbs claim they also have Eu7 genes, just because it was found amongst the Croats. Naturally there is no scientific proof to back this up. But on the other hand you don't need a scientific proof if you follow the Yugoslav 'one people' dogma. And that means, what goes for the Serbs goes for the Croats, and vice versa.

No, but what goes for most Serbs goes for most Croats, since most Croats and most Serbs have the same language, same DNA, same origins/ethno-genesis. The very Slavic Zagorjeans don't have much in common with people from southeastern Serbia, but they also have little in common with Dalmatians, Slavonians etc. No modern nation is monolithic, it's all composed of smaller elements, regional populations that previously were tribes ( all at war with eachother too ), since the modern national/ethnic sense of allegiance was non-existant in previous times.

As for Eu7 and other genetic relations ( especially the laughable crap about Croats being closely related to Armenians/Kurds ( that would show up as eastern Turks btw. )) have a look at these maps which show there's no close relation between Serbs/Croats and Kurds, show there's a lot of relation with other neighbouring nations, shows that Eu7 is NOT croat-only.

Also take notice that Ukrainians are genetically mostly 'Scythian-Sarmatian' and became Slavicized much later. There's no big difference between them and other originally Slavic peoples ( like Poles ). Also see the Ossetians, a people truly descending from Sarmatian Alans, and see that they're closely related not to Croats, Ukrainians, Persians or Serbs, but to Italians.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13088&stc=1
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13087&stc=1
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13089&stc=1










Explain the term 'Slavized' are you referring to the language or genes?

Most usually, the conquerors bring their male lineage to a place they conquer. So, it's perfectly possible for you to have an indigenous Balkan maternal lineage, and the invaders' paternal 'Slavic' lineage at the same time.

This also happened in India and even Iran, where the people have indigenous 'Elamo-Dravidian' maternal DNA, and the 'Aryan' paternal DNA.

In both places, ever since the invasions took place, the language is Indo-European, as it replaced what was previously spoken, just like the indigenous men were replaced by the conquerors.


Conclusion: while it's nice and fine to know about history, it's totally ridiculous to make a mistake of mixing-up the past with present.
Once, a long time ago, too long for anyone to know for sure, things were a lot different. Today, Croatia is a typical Balkan/Central European country, while Iran is a typical middle-easteen country, sadly ruled by Islam.

The Sarmatians are long gone from the stages of history, it's all so far in the past and so different from our own lifestyle.
Knowing more about this stuff makes perfect sense, but building your self-esteem on it is sick, and inventing a 'glorious past' is just a weak illusion.

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:00 AM
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13091
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13090

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:07 AM
ROFL!
When I mentioned this possibility to one fanatical Russian he was insulted by the idea that Slav 'super people' were in fact ruled by Iranic tribes like Horovatos.
He couldn't accept the fact our superior Aryan skill of war made miserable slaves out of barbarians.

The difference between Slavic and Aryan Eu19/HG3 doesn't exist.
The Higher Castes in India are genetically 'Russian' from their paternal side.

So, Aryans = Slavs.

Both your Iranian and Slavic ancestors shared the same teritory, a similar language, similar culture and similar mythology... because they are both derived from the ancient Aryans.

This also can explain why there was so much drift between Slavs and Iranians. They were both basically the same people with slight cultural differences.

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:12 AM
No! It show that Croatian has IRANIAN words and not Slavic words.

Most of the mentioned words can be found in all Slavic languages.


The Allophomes of the Slavic language group is different as the of the Iranian.
Also the Croatian language voice like an Iranian language.

Actually, no. The South Slavic languages are pronounced more like western-branch IE ( Centum ) languages. Iranian is eastern-branch Satem.


You can not accept the reality this is the reality!
Btw IE is not an exuse for the Croatian language to has Iranian words.
Why should a pure Slavic folk have 20% Iranian words?
And they are Iranians word who were used 500 BC in Iran.

Because they all derive from the same Indo-European ancestors a long while ago.

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:31 AM
Very nice AWAR! Now I begin to understand things better. :D
Now a few questions for you!! [I wanna see your opinion, because you spent a lot of time with the research as I see :) ]

1. The Serb & Croat origins are the same?
2. Is there a clear genetical comparsion between the Croats / Serbs?
3. Is there a clear genetical comparsion between Croats / Kurds / Armenians?

This topic is very interesting btw! Everyone saying different things, and using other links to prove their right. All of those sounds like theories without real facts. IMHO no people on this planet can be sure about the real origins of the Croats / how they looked like originally etc.. so many different theories..:scared

Übersoldat
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:44 AM
Can you provide a single prove that Iranians were a ruling caste of Slavs?

I was referring to this thought of Awar:
"The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs"

But this theory is nothing new. Old Slavs were known to be amorphous mass of scatered inhabitants unlike their Iranic overlords - warlike horseman and blacksmiths. Sarmatian heavy armored cavalry was even used even by the Romans.


The Slavs were probably dominated in succession by the Scythians and the Sarmatians (both Iranian tribes), by the Goths, by the Huns, and by the Avars

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Slavs_DominationandExpansion.asp


The Croats living at the Weichsel (Vistula)
River led an independent existence since that time. The original Iranian
Croats commingled with the subjected Slavs.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BURGENLAND-NEWSLETTER/1999-07/0931520170

norda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Very nice AWAR! Now I begin to understand things better. :D
Now a few questions for you!! [I wanna see your opinion, because you spent a lot of time with the research as I see :) ]

1. The Serb & Croat origins are the same?
2. Is there a clear genetical comparsion between the Croats / Serbs?
3. Is there a clear genetical comparsion between Croats / Kurds / Armenians?

This topic is very interesting btw! Everyone saying different things, and using other links to prove their right. All of those sounds like theories without real facts. IMHO no people on this planet can be sure about the real origins of the Croats / how they looked like originally etc.. so many different theories..:scared
If you posted a thread denying Magyar origins and tradition of Hungarians, there would be also theories without facts and similar discussion, I can assure you. ;)

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:50 AM
This is very true norda. :)

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:51 AM
There apparently wasn't that much difference between Serbs and Croats, so they were lumped together as 'Yugoslavians', while Slovenians are on their own in each study.

You can see in the maps I posted that Kurds, Armenians and Turks all cluster together, while Serbs, Croats and Bulgarians cluster with Ukrainians, Gottlanders.

I don't know if racearchives is still alive, you can see the genetic distance calculators.

In any case, none of these maps and theories bring the whole picture.
That's because the events we're talking about here happened some 1500-2000 and more years ago. You can see some of the truth about history here, not enough, but surely much better than listening to malignant political agendas.

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 12:55 AM
Damn I wanna see a detailed genetical comparsion like this between the serbs/croats/kurds/armenians etc. :D [However I know that there isnt one..] :

http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/gene_legacy/


However very good points AWAR, the net is full with totally different things, so the people dont know that what is correct and what isnt..

norda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:11 AM
I was referring to this thought of Awar:
"The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs"

But this theory is nothing new. Old Slavs were known to be amorphous mass of scatered inhabitants unlike their Iranic overlords - warlike horseman and blacksmiths. Sarmatian heavy armored cavalry was even used even by the Romans.



http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Slavs_DominationandExpansion.asp



http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BURGENLAND-NEWSLETTER/1999-07/0931520170
Omitting “probable” statements unfortunately there are no proves for Iranian “domination”. On the other hand there are interesting info mentioned by AWAR that“ The Higher Castes in India are genetically E.European from their paternal side”.
There would be also phenomena that Iranian “rulers” of Croatians chose Slavic kings, used Slavic names and forgot iranian language to use the language of “slaves”.
;)

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:16 AM
I was referring to this thought of Awar:
"The Sarmatian/Iranian Serbs and Croats were probably just a few tribal nobles who ruled over a larger number of Slavs"

But this theory is nothing new. Old Slavs were known to be amorphous mass of scatered inhabitants unlike their Iranic overlords - warlike horseman and blacksmiths. Sarmatian heavy armored cavalry was even used even by the Romans.

Actually, both the Slavs and Sarmatians, including almost all other peoples who lived in that period DID NOT HAVE AN ORGANIZED STATE. Not in the Roman sense anyway.

There probably were some minor kingdoms of both Slavs or Iranians, or Slavs and Iranians together, or Slavs ruling over Iranians, or Iranians ruling over Slavs, or Slavic-Iranian peoples who were already merged ( Roxolans, Antes ).

It's an area too vast to say anything general about it. Slavs who lived in what is todays Ukraine were much closer to local Iranians than they were to Slavs who lived in the Baltic area. The same goes for Iranians.

In any case, almost all the people of that age were an 'amorphous mass' including Iranians. That's why the Iranians of the Russian steppe are no more than a couple of lines in a history book... also what the state of things is today is most indicative of what happened. Slavs are the most widespread European people, while the Iranians and Aryans, Illyrians, Thracians, Dalmats, Celts, Goths, Vandals etc. ARE NO MORE.

There must be a good reason why Slavs, an amorphous mass of scattered tribes survived, and why other amorphous masses of scattered tribes didn't survive the test of time.

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:23 AM
Omitting “probable” statements unfortunately there are no proves for Iranian “domination”. On the other hand there are interesting info mentioned by AWAR that“ The Higher Castes in India are genetically E.European from their paternal side”.
There would be also phenomena that Iranian “rulers” of Croatians chose Slavic kings, used Slavic names and forgot iranian language to use the language of “slaves”.
;)

Yes, that's also worth mentioning.
Also, it's still unclear when the first Slavic migrations went into the Balkans.
The Serbs and Croats arrived in the 6th and 7th century, but there were Slavs previous to that already in the teritory of todays Croatia and Serbia.

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:36 AM
Slavs are the most widespread European people, while the Iranians and Aryans, Illyrians, Thracians, Dalmats, Celts, Goths, Vandals etc. ARE NO MORE.

There still are some Germanics left, you know: ;)


http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/map.euro.ie.GIF

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:39 AM
LOL, I just made a search on the net regarding that how the indo iranians looked like propably. Guess what. One source says that they were brown skinned 'gypsy' looking, other source says that they were white with some dark pigmentation + dark haired and dark eyed, and a third says that they were white, blue eyed and blond. :D
I give up. Too many damned theories, and no proofs. :shrug

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:43 AM
Yes, that's also worth mentioning.
Also, it's still unclear when the first Slavic migrations went into the Balkans.
The Serbs and Croats arrived in the 6th and 7th century, but there were Slavs previous to that already in the teritory of todays Croatia and Serbia.

Most probably this was the case with Slovenia as well. While being at least partially Slavic (some claim Slavs settled there back in 1000 BC), a final Slavic invasion is likely in the 6th century.

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:44 AM
Anyway, I think it's crucial to have an understanding of the lifestyle of the people in that age. Their mentality, their aspirations etc. Also, please, before discussing the history of that era, take some time and imagine how slow and distant everything was.

How long would it take for someone to travel from the Baltic coast to the Black Sea coast, or from the Black Sea to the Adriatic coast. Would he even survive the voyage.
How long would it take for a large group of men, women and children, or just armed men.

What were the forms of rule in that age, what were the forms of rule in what specific area. What were the feelings of the people? Did any of them have a clear idea of what a nation or ethnicity is? How long did they live? Were they as mature at 20 as todays people are? How did they imagine the unknown world around them?

First think about all this. One thing is for sure: it was no walk in the park.
They didn't live like Conan the Barbarian :P

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:47 AM
There still are some Germanics left, you know: ;)

Sure, but the Goths and the Vandals are nowhere to be found. The last I heard, they moved west :) They must have been fans of the Pet Shop Boys song 'go west' :D

bocian
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:53 AM
Most probably this was the case with Slovenia as well. While being at least partially Slavic (some claim Slavs settled there back in 1000 BC), a final Slavic invasion is likely in the 6th century.

Have you read anything about the supposed Slovenian-Etruscan connection?


Slavs are Linked to Etruscans
By Martha Brinkman, reprinted in the Am-Pol Eagle, 1980



"I am convinced that the Etruscans were early Slavs - they are indentical in every way to the present day Slavs", says Dr. Maria Grzetic.

"Slavs are all those whose ancestry is Polish, Czech, Slovak, Croatian, Serbian, Slovenian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, and Wend (some areas of Germany).", she explains.

Dr. Grzetic, a native of Jugoslavia whose family emigrated to South America shortly after WWII spent the summer of 1980 in Europe and became aware of some remarkable discoveries which have eben made. Dr. Grzetic is a mdeical doctor who sepcializes in psychiatry. She is doing some studies of the Slavic personality

Dr. Grzetic relates the following:

"The Etruscans were an advanced civilization which peaked about 600 years BCE in Northern Italy, and then gradually faded under the Roman conquest. As the Romans were successful in building their empire on the basis of the culture established by the Etruscans for more than a millenium, they made a systematic attempt to erase every trace of Etruscan history."

"For years historians have searched unsuccessfully for a key to translating the Etruscan language. Finally, two Slovenian professors ... who have been doing research on the Etruscans for the past forty years have made a breakthrough when they discovered the link to the Slavic people."

"...took their language as his primary object of research; after comparison with all other Eurasian languages failed, he decided to take as reference the Slavic languages, and this brought him to a crucial discovery: The Etruscan yielded its mystery, revelaing itself as a Slavic language. Since this approach, he did not have any trouble reading the numerous writings which are being discovered in the Etruscan tombs." (His work, which is an impressively detailed linguistic study was published in Switzerland in 1966).

"Perhaps the most revealing of the Etruscan writing are two (of three) golden tablets discovered in 1964 at the excavations of their ancient sanctuary of Pyrgi. Engraved on them, in Slavic language, is an epic elegy, in which they called themselves "Sluveni". These tablets date from the 4th century BCE."

"As I mentioned, there were social chracteristics common to the Etruscans and the Slavs. There was a quality of fairness and openness, a high degree of social maturity. They set many precedents in those ancient days of history. Fifteen centuries ago a Slavic community, the Slovenians, already practiced the installation of their rulers in a democratic manner, originating the concept in government. This historical precedent served as a reference to Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the "Declaration of Independence"."


I believe the people behind this theory are natives of Slovenia.

Do you have any more info on this?

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 01:59 AM
LOL, I just made a search on the net regarding that how the indo iranians looked like propably. Guess what. One source says that they were brown skinned 'gypsy' looking, other source says that they were white with some dark pigmentation + dark haired and dark eyed, and a third says that they were white, blue eyed and blond. :D
I give up. Too many damned theories, and no proofs. :shrug

I've just done that a few days ago. :rofl

As far as I know, Ammianus Marcellinus described the Scythians as blond and tall. Did Herodotus comment on that? I know I had a book with his quotes which I lost several years ago :puppyeyes

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 02:07 AM
Do you have any more info on this?

I have several books on this in my private library. I'll try to dig up some online sources in English.

Odin Of Ossetia
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 02:09 AM
Sure, but the Goths and the Vandals are nowhere to be found. The last I heard, they moved west :) They must have been fans of the Pet Shop Boys song 'go west' :D




Whether some like it or not, most of the descendants of both of these tribes should today be found in what in a part of Africa known as the Maghreb. :-O


Greetings from Colonel Qaddafi! :D



http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-Libya.html

http://michalw.narod.ru/SlavicSpain.html




And that is not a joke if one takes into account where the Vandal-Alan Kingdom was last located, and to where most of the Moriscos, many of whom were Visigoths, were kicked-out from Iberia during the 1500's and 1600's. :~(


But that's a long story...

A-C-LA
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 02:26 AM
Sure, but the Goths and the Vandals are nowhere to be found.

there is east germanic influence in some German/Austrian dialects

Awar
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 02:34 AM
there is east germanic influence in some German/Austrian dialects

I only mentioned Goths to piss off Zvaci :D
I'm sure Goths made a lasting influence on those areas which are Germanic to this day, less where the Goths were overwhelmed by the sheer number of local populations ( Spain, Italy ), and even less where the area was submitted to numerous later invasions ( Balkans ).

Übersoldat
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 03:42 AM
What doesn't make sense there? Illyrians, Greeks and Kelts were not Slavic, but their language and culture was replaced by that of incoming Slavs and Sarmatians/Slavs.

I never said I disagree with that, but its culture, I talking about the ethnic genesis.


You're constantly insulting Slavs ( here, at Stormfront and the Phora ) and downplaying the role of Slavs in the ethnogenesis of Croats

Nope, I'm just retaliating Slavicist's slander of the Croats and Slavicist members who show disrespect to my ethnic origins. As for the role of Slavs in Croatian ethnogenesis, I never denied the Slavic influence on Croatian genes and culture.


this fully qualifies you as being ashamed of being Slavic

So your definition of being ashamed of Slavhood is the interest in the pre-Slavic origins...wird.


since that's what your people is - SLAVIC.

Only Poles and Russians are Slavic in racial sense of the word, and your mate Prodigal Son, a Slavic puritan would agree with me.


The people who lived in that part of Balkans prior to 5th century AD were NOT Croats.
These indigenous Balkanoids were of their own ethnicities, until one day they were invaded by Slavs, then Avars, and then by Croats.

However, it remains unclear if the Croats and Serbs became Slavicized during their stay in central Europe ( white Croatia and white Serbia ), or these two peoples became Slavicized in the Balkans.

Now you're confusing ethnicity/meta ethnicity with race. Its impossible to debate this way. You're just creating a semantic confusion in order to awoud the fact Croats and other Balkan inhabitants are racially non-Slavic.
It is true the old Croats were mostly infested by Slav culture and language but it doesn't change their owerwhelmingly non-Slavic biological origin.


The Serbo-Croatian words that correspond to Iranian words can be found in most other Slavic languages.

But none of them can mach the frequency of Iranic words in Croatian.


The Sarmatians and Slavs were closely related since long before the great migrations. It's no wonder these peoples influenced one another in language, culture and mythology.

Yes, the more numerous subjects gave their Aryan masters a Slav language, and receive the idea of statehood in return. The same process took place in India forinstance, only there the subjects were black Drawidians, and not the light Slavs.


You're at the same time generalizing and mistaking politics ( of the past ) with history.

Its the characteristic of the Slavophiles, because Slavicism is a political ideology.


Both names, Croat and Serb are of Iranian origin, definitely not Slavic origin. While this Iranian origin theory was downplayed by Russophiles rulers of Serbia, it was obviously overdone among the Croatian elite.

Yea, right, "Were the same people" lol cant you see its ideologically based conclusion?


No, but what goes for most Serbs goes for most Croats

Presumption based on the diabolical Yugoslav/pan-Slav dogma.


since most Croats and most Serbs have the same language

American WASP-s, have the same language as the Italian Americans, or Polish Americans, it doesmt mean they have the same origins.


same DNA

We don't have the precise Hallotype data from SiCG so we cannot compare.


same origins/ethno-genesis.

We don't know the origins and can only speculate, and yet you already 'know' in advance.


The very Slavic Zagorjeans don't have much in common with people from southeastern Serbia

Why do you think Zagorjeans are "very Slavic"??? Because they are blondish?ROFL!!! Zagorjean dialect is kajkavian, and you shall find more Iranic words in kajkavian than in other dialects more similar to Serbian.
Since I am half Zagorjean and blond my self, I explain my blondism as the result of pollution. A REAL Croat must have brown or black hair, others (including my self) are not typical.


Today, Croatia is a typical Balkan/Central European country, while Iran is a typical middle-easteen country, sadly ruled by Islam.

This is true, but one must not confuse Islamist Middle Eastern culture of the Iran and Catholic/Central European/Balkan culture of Croats with the ancient pre-Achemenidian and Achemenidian Iranian culture of the past.


Knowing more about this stuff makes perfect sense, but building your self-esteem on it is sick, and inventing a 'glorious past' is just a weak illusion.

Serbs believe Slavs had a 'glorious past', they even invented a theory saying all Slavs are came from Serbs. Russians believe Slavs are Nordic 'super-people'.
I think its laughable.

Vojvoda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 03:46 AM
Finally...Yes, there were already various Slavic and Slavicized Illyrian and Thracian clans(Timochans,Moravians,Nerets etc.) in the Balkans that raided and settled in Byzantium centuries before the Serbs and Croats migrated there in the 6th-7th century :)

Übersoldat
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 04:56 AM
Actually, both the Slavs and Sarmatians, including almost all other peoples who lived in that period DID NOT HAVE AN ORGANIZED STATE. Not in the Roman sense anyway.

If there were no Germanic element from the North and Iranic element from the South Slavs would hardly create even the primitive state organizations. Its because of the tribal egalitarian mentality of the Slavs. Slavic egalitarianism is opposed to the aristocratic principle of the Aryans.


Slavs who lived in what is todays Ukraine were much closer to local Iranians than they were to Slavs who lived in the Baltic area. The same goes for Iranians.

Yes, many modern Ukrainians are much more Iranic than Slavic in race.


In any case, almost all the people of that age were an 'amorphous mass' including Iranians.

Aryan peoples, much like the Romans and Germanics had a strong sense for creating military and state organization. Persian Empire concurred the entire known world, only Greece and India remained out of the grasp of the Aryan chariots.

Übersoldat
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 05:00 AM
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/croatia.htm

Vojvoda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 05:23 AM
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/croatia.htmTenth, eleventh, and twelfth century chroniclers, however, often distinguished between "Croats" and "Sclavonians". The latter lived south of the Danube and Save in the country between the Morava, Drina, and Lim rivers, as well as in modern Poland and Czecho-Slovakia.

OK, that settles it.Serbs are Slavs while Croats are not,end of thread.(:o :P Why doesn't the author just say the latter lived in modern day Serbia? :roll

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 06:18 AM
OK, that settles it.Serbs are Slavs while Croats are not,end of thread.(:o :P Why doesn't the author just say the latter lived in modern day Serbia? :roll

Not everyone was meant to understand that statement. :rofl

norda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 09:05 AM
Yes, that's also worth mentioning.
Also, it's still unclear when the first Slavic migrations went into the Balkans.
The Serbs and Croats arrived in the 6th and 7th century, but there were Slavs previous to that already in the teritory of todays Croatia and Serbia.
Another words we can transform well known quote
"The origins of the Slavs are still a mysery" ;)

norda
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 09:23 AM
If there were no Germanic element from the North and Iranic element from the South Slavs would hardly create even the primitive state organizations. Its because of the tribal egalitarian mentality of the Slavs. Slavic egalitarianism is opposed to the aristocratic principle of the Aryans.

Egalitarianism was natural among fully Aryan population. There was almost nobody to enslave and everyone was aristocratic. ;) Similar structure was among early Greeks and Romans and Vikings as well.
Creation of castes or aristocracy was only needed among numerous and foreign populations. Moreover you should know that whole Latin civilization is egalitarian and base on freedom of single person. :D

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Another words we can transform well known quote
"The origins of the Slavs are still a mysery" ;)Man, my quote became famous. :D
The funny thing is that I had this idea about the Croats as well, reading this topic with the hella lot of 'out of my ass, I post a new link with new infos' style. :psycho Btw norda your posts are very much 'out of my ass' as well. ;)

I think that the Croats arent Slavic, just Slavicized.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/croatia.htm


"No one can deny that the modern Croatians speak a Slavonic lan guage. There are many instances in history, however, of a people losing its original language and culture as a consequence of inter-marriage with and absorption by other tribes or nations. When the ancestors of the present day Croatians reached the shores of the Adriatic they were undoubtedly a mixture of Iranian, Ural-Altaic, Gothic, and Slavic elements."

"Then when the Croats or Croat-Goth-Avars arrived in modern Croatia they mixed with and assimilated the Illyrian, Thracian, and Latin population that they found living between the Adriatic and the Mur, Drave, Danube, and Drina rivers. Here again there was undoubtedly a fairly large Slavic group that preceded the Croats into these lands."

"From the very earliest times the Slavic blood acquired by the Croats was the contribution of the Slovenes and of the Slovaks, not of the Serbs."


"Both in ancient and early medieval times the Croats and Serbs had about as little to do with one another as two neighboring peoples ever have had. As we shall have occasion to note below the two peoples did not mix even when in later times the Serbs commenced to immigrate into Croatian territory."


"As a natural result of their fusion with other peoples the original Croats were absorbed genetically by them. It can hardly be said that a distinct Croatian type exists today. Many Croats are dark haired and dark complexioned with gray or brown eyes. These are the so-called "Dinaric" type. But there are many blond and blue eyed Croatians too. Furthermore there is every shade of color in be tween the two extremes. Only redheads are lacking conspicuously in the Croat color scheme. Perhaps their scarcity indicates that practically no Celtic strain has survived among the modern Croatians. The blond Croats may represent throwbacks to the Gothic element in Croatian ancestry in some cases, but it is more probable that they are a consequence of long centuries of intermarriage with the Austrians with whom the Croats shared service in Habsburg's armies."


May I ask that why the heck are we arguing? This essay is crystal clear. The Croats arent Slavs. just Slavicized, and they have no common roots with the Serbs. Maybe just another theory or this is the truth? :D

Übersoldat
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Maybe just another theory or this is the truth? :D

Its close to the truth, yet who said the truth is more important than the Serbo-Russian imperial interests and the Yugoslav/Slavophile religion?
Prejudices are hard to break, much like its hard to persuade some unacquainted US teenager Hungarians aren't the same as Attila's Huns.

Stephen
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 05:00 PM
Yes, that is very true. IMHO this is a hella subjective thing sadly. Everyone believe what they want, since no real proofs we have regarding this topic.
This is why we can see totally different informations on the interent about almost everything in this topic.

White Falcon
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 11:10 PM
Shapur

I must also say
I, as a Croat , don't look , feel , behave(culture) like Iranian,
me and everyone I know have nothing in common with Iraninas,
if there are more Croats on here , they would tell you the same
regards

Triglav
Friday, May 28th, 2004, 11:57 PM
:bucktooth

Ladymen, gentlemen: the winner :goldcup of our out-of-your-ass statements contest:


The blond Croats may represent throwbacks to the Gothic element in Croatian ancestry in some cases, but it is more probable that they are a consequence of long centuries of intermarriage with the Austrians with whom the Croats shared service in Habsburg's armies. "
D

:doeh

This is just laughable... (Hint: how about Slavs, many many Illyrians, blond UP's (with whom, according to Skerlj, Slovenia abounded with just prior to the Slavic invasions, i.e. they were the predominant racial element), and last but not least Iranians, whose racial affiliation has not yet been firmly established.

@Stephen: My remarks were by no means directed at you, but solely against the statements of the author of the article.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:00 AM
Shapur

I must also say
I, as a Croat , don't look , feel , behave(culture) like Iranian,
me and everyone I know have nothing in common with Iraninas,
if there are more Croats on here , they would tell you the same
regards

I can confirm this statement, but its necessary to distinguish the modern cultures of the Iranic originated peoples from the Arya peoples 4000-3000 years BC.
Croatian way of life, cultural and racial influences are quite different from Ossetian surroundings forinstance. Ossetian are different from Middle Eastern Iranian, and all this mentioned cultures are different from the original source.
But there are always the some details that resisted the test of time and remain unchanged.
Take a look at the individuals from the intact and isloted mountain areas of Croatia - like Lika, Krbava, Dalmatian Hinterland and say they look, behave, or even sound like the Russians or Poles. They are culturally and racially very distant from the Slavs, and their customs and outlooks are unique in whole Europe.

This doesn't sound like Slavic folk songs to me:

http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-48.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-7.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-13.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-1.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-5.mp3

I would like to hear the real Slavs like Norda on this, I doubt they can confirm cultural similarity with Slavic melodies...

Shapur
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:48 AM
I can confirm this statement, but its necessary to distinguish modern cultures of the Iranic originated peoples with the Arya peoples BC.
Croatian way of life, cultural and racial influences are quite different from Ossetian surroundings forinstance. Ossetian are different from Middle Eastern Iranian, and all this mentioned cultures are different from the original source.
But there are always the some details that resisted the test of time and remain unchanged.
Take a look at the individuals from the intact and isloted mountain areas of Croatia - like Lika, Krbava, Dalmatian Hinterland and say they look, behave, or even sound like the Russians or Poles. They are culturally and racially very distant from the Slavs, and their customs and outlooks are unique in whole Europe.

This doesn't sound like a Slavic folk songs to me:

http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-48.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-7.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-13.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-1.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-5.mp3

I would like to hear the real Slavs like Norda on this, I doubt they can confirm cultural similarity with Slavic melodies...
I spoke about the traditional dress, music(art of instruments), society structure. Maybe some of you think the main culture of Iranians is Islam.
But this is wrong. The most Iranians don`t accept Islam anymore and special Islamic"Arabic" culture. If you look on Iranians how they handle traditional with their women then you see a big different with Europeans for 200 years.
They use women like sheeps. Iranians respect their women and they had free choose to marrige who they want.

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:59 AM
Well the origin of Croats has always been of somewhat controversial and taboo theme to discuss mainly because of different ideologies that had it's rule in Croatia.

There are few facts about origins of Croats:
1. The original Croats were from parts of today western Iran. Who were they(Iranians or Sarmatians) we don't know.
2. Croats came into Europe and met Slavs, they "croatized" them and were in turn "slavicized". In other words Slavs were given the name Croats by their ruling Iranian caste and recieved slavic language. In other words they blended, but huge majority were Slavs. These "new" Croats founded kingdoms of White Croatia(todays South Poland - Galicia and West Ukraine) and Black Croatia(north of Moravians and east of Bohemians).
3. In the 7th century Byznatine Emperor Heraclius calls Croats to help him against Avars. Croats came and crushed the Avars, but instead of leaving they took the lands they freed and assimilated the people living here which were mostly autochtonous population pre-dating Celts and Goths or in other words Illyrians and some small populations of germanic population in northwest and mediterranean in the islands and inland Dalmatia. The population in north as the name says even today(Slavonia) were Slavs.

This all produced a strange combination: Iranian name, slavic language and mixed illyrian/slavic/celtic-germanic/mediterranean(greek-anatolian) population. The similar thing happened with Bulgarians and Serbs.

The huge majority of Croats or 45%29% are EU7 genotypes which means people who came 25 000 years ago and are autochtonous population in Balkans. Most of these are in Dalmatia. They are rather tall, have dark hair and dark eyes. Their skin is of normal caucassian tan.

29% are Eu19 or Neo-danubian genotypes meaning slaivic genotypes. These are mostly predominant in northern parts or Slavonia(note the name). They are shorter, rounder, have mostly light-brown or brown hair and a bit lighter skin colour than Dalmatian EU7.

10% are Eu18 Celtic-Germanic genotype who are most probably remains of old Goths who passed through this area in late 4th and rearly 5th century. They live mostly in northwestern parts of Croatia. They are of moderate height, they have a bit longer faces, ruddy complexion and brown or reddish hair.

7% are Eu4 or Greek genotypes. These are mostly present in Dalmatia and in islands. They have black hair are of moderate-short height. Their hair is curly. In any case they are geneticly Greeks meaning leftovers from Greek domination in ancient times.

5% are Eu9 or Anatolian genotype. This is the second "Greek" type or as the name itself says genotype that has it's base around Anatolia. They are of quite dark tan(but still Caucassian) even darker than Eu4. They have flat black hair and dark eyes. As Eu4 and Eu7 they are present almost exclusively in Dalmatia given it's popualtion a bit darker complexion.

Now there is no scientific or any other research showing any connection of today modern Croats with today(or old) Iranians, Armenians and Kurds and these are mostly BS fabrications.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:05 AM
@Krunoslav: Could you please post any sources? Thanks.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:20 AM
I spoke about the traditional dress, music(art of instruments), society structure. Maybe some of you think the main culture of Iranians is Islam.
But this is wrong. The most Iranians don`t accept Islam anymore and special Islamic"Arabic" culture. If you look on Iranians how they handle traditional with their women then you see a big different with Europeans for 200 years.
They use women like sheeps. Iranians respect their women and they had free choose to marrige who they want.

Original Iranian (old-Persian), script of Zarathustra:
http://www.ancientscripts.com/oldpersian.html

+++++++++

Pahlavi (middle Persian):
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mpersian.htm

Ossetian cyrilic:
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Ossetian.htm

Old-Croatian glagolic:
http://fly.cc.fer.hr/~zox/glagoljica.html

Here we have 3 different scripts, 3 different languages, none of them the same as the original. We must accept the fact many years passed since the times of Zarathustra, and its normal the different tribes of the same ancient Aryans adopted different influences: modern Iranians - Arabic, Ossetians - East Slavic, and Croatians West-Slavic.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 04:06 AM
Now there is no scientific or any other research showing any connection of today modern Croats with today(or old) Iranians, Armenians and Kurds and these are mostly BS fabrications.

Whoa...how do you know the genetic composition of the old Arya tribes of Iranian plateau 4000-3000 years BC. to compare it with the modern Croatian results?

It would be interesting to see the genetic data of modern Iranians and Ossetians, so we can speculate about possible hallotype of the original tribes.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:46 AM
An interesting gallery of some modern Iranians, I had no trouble finding many physiognomies that can be found here.

http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11184/05.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11077/normal_me%26far%7E1.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10652/normal_291986%7E0.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10652/normal_247518.jpg


http://www.jeegar.com/album/thumbnails.php?album=5&page=1

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:24 AM
:bucktooth
.@Stephen (.@Stephen): My remarks were by no means directed at you, but solely against the statements of the author of the article.
Ah yes I know, I read that, what you quoted out from that site as well.
Btw this was a hella long read I must say and very interesting. :)

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:28 AM
@Krunoslav: Could you please post any sources? Thanks.Krunoslav's infos can be found here, take a look at the genetic table.

http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/gene_legacy/



Whoa...how do you know the genetic composition of the old Arya tribes of Iranian plateau 4000-3000 years BC. to compare it with the modern Croatian results?
I think Krunoslav posted a quick "out of my ass" theory.
We cannot be sure about anything. :D


Zvaci - Those are nice girls from Iran.
More from the site:

http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11812/normal_Party.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10621/azy1.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10621/Picture%20001.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10446/normal_111.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11500/normal_DSC02235.JPG


If you ask me, all of these girls could be Croatians as well. I was hella lot in Croatia, and I've seen girls like these a lot!!!!

norda
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 12:19 PM
I can confirm this statement, but its necessary to distinguish the modern cultures of the Iranic originated peoples from the Arya peoples 4000-3000 years BC.
Croatian way of life, cultural and racial influences are quite different from Ossetian surroundings forinstance. Ossetian are different from Middle Eastern Iranian, and all this mentioned cultures are different from the original source.
But there are always the some details that resisted the test of time and remain unchanged.
Take a look at the individuals from the intact and isloted mountain areas of Croatia - like Lika, Krbava, Dalmatian Hinterland and say they look, behave, or even sound like the Russians or Poles. They are culturally and racially very distant from the Slavs, and their customs and outlooks are unique in whole Europe.

This doesn't sound like Slavic folk songs to me:

http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-48.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-7.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-13.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/415-1.mp3
http://www.muspe.unibo.it/period/ma/index/number6/caleta/503-5.mp3

I would like to hear the real Slavs like Norda on this, I doubt they can confirm cultural similarity with Slavic melodies...
Thanks that you nominated me full Slav though I am only in half. Well if there are more Slavs ashamed of his roots I will gladly act even as 200% Slavonian or Macedonian Slav. :D I should add I am not musicologist or ethnographer so my observations could be unprofessional.
That’s right that Balkan region and possibly so mixed regions like Transylvania or Dalmatia are rich of unique and varied folklore.
The melodies you provided are really not very familiar for me, but on the other hand it doesn’t necessary mean they are not Slavic. I think we underestimated variety of Slavic culture. Probably the purest “Slavic” regions like N.Ukraine and Belarus are rich of extremely different types of folk music. There could be found types which are popular in Russia, Slovakia, Balkans and even Bulgaria.
Highly vocal and polyphonic (so very distinct from Asian and probably original Balkan-like Greek) music which you presented is rather typical for Belarus and probably is the most beautifully presented in Bulgarian folklore. I think such music was created to accompany work – farmers?.
Bistrica-Bulgaria
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13265&stc=1
Polesja- Ukraine
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13266&stc=1
Btw Zvaci are there are any “original” linguistic Dalmatian remains in Croatia?

norda
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 12:32 PM
An interesting gallery of some modern Iranians, I had no trouble finding many physiognomies that can be found here.

http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11184/05.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11077/normal_me%26far%7E1.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10652/normal_291986%7E0.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10652/normal_247518.jpg


http://www.jeegar.com/album/thumbnails.php?album=5&page=1
Such types can be found in whole Central Europe. It only proves that ramains of Aryan invasion are still present in Kurdistan, Iran and N.India

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Whoa...how do you know the genetic composition of the old Arya tribes of Iranian plateau 4000-3000 years BC. to compare it with the modern Croatian results?.
There are none, thats the whole point. I don't know where you saw I said there are, but let me repeat it: "there are no scientific or any other researches showing ANY connection of today modern Croats with today(or old) Iranians, Armenians and Kurds" ...nor there can be any since these populatins were not explored.


I think Krunoslav posted a quick "out of my ass" theory.
We cannot be sure about anything.
There is huge difference between a fact and a theory....you obviously don't understand the difference.
We can be sure about one thing....Croats have nothing incommon with modern Iranians(at least not with huge majority). Today Iranians are mostly mix of old Aryan(Caucassian) and Arabian tribes producing todays modern population of Iran. There are some lefovers from the old "pure" Aryan populations which can be seen in Norda's pictures.
Regarding the photos you posted none of these girls can be Croatian because they look distinctively oriental. They are Caucassian, but of totally different type. You need glasses.


@Krunoslav: Could you please post any sources? Thanks.
The source is "Science" magazine November. 2000. edition.
Btw. Croats are one of the most researched population with over 200 samples, although even 100 samples are considered more than enough to say it's a representative sample.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 01:49 PM
We can be sure about one thing....Croats have nothing incommon with modern Iranians(at least not with huge majority). Today Iranians are mostly mix of old Aryan(Caucassian) and Arabian tribes producing todays modern population of Iran. There are some lefovers from the old "pure" Aryan populations which can be seen in Norda's pictures.
Regarding the photos you posted none of these girls can be Croatian because they look distinctively oriental. They are Caucassian, but of totally different type. You need glasses.

I think everyone (except Shapur maybe) already knew that...

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 01:54 PM
29% are Eu19 or Neo-danubian genotypes meaning slaivic genotypes. These are mostly predominant in northern parts or Slavonia(note the name). They are shorter, rounder, have mostly light-brown or brown hair and a bit lighter skin colour than Dalmatian EU7.


The use of the term "Neo-Danubian" is rather disputed, as it was Coon who coined it and he was no expert in the anthropology of the Balkans. I also have to say that there is fairly little "Neo-Danubian" in Slovenia, but on the other hand a lot of Baltic, which is how other anthropologists described that type.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 01:57 PM
None of these could pass for a Croatian, except the last maybe, even though she'd represent a strikingly extreme type.




Zvaci - Those are nice girls from Iran.
More from the site:

http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11812/normal_Party.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10621/azy1.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10621/Picture%20001.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/10446/normal_111.jpg
http://www.jeegar.com/album/albums/userpics/11500/normal_DSC02235.JPG


If you ask me, all of these girls could be Croatians as well. I was hella lot in Croatia, and I've seen girls like these a lot!!!!

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:06 PM
The use of the term "Neo-Danubian" is rather disputed, as it was Coon who coined it and he was no expert in the anthropology of Balkans. I also have to say that there is fairly little "Neo-Danubian" in Slovenia, but on the other hand a lot of Baltic, which is how other anthropologists described that type.
I use "Neo-danubian" because this is the most common name for slavic type. But I would say and agree with you that the more correct term would be to say Eu19 genotype is Slavic (Eastern European dominant) marker.;)

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:13 PM
I use "Neo-danubian" because this is the most common name for slavic type.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. It's "Baltic". Skerlj, Males, Czekanowski, Biasutti, Bunak, et al. used it. Who except Coon used Neo-Danubian?

Awar
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Triglav, was it in that .pdf you attached that they mention BOTH the Slavs and Sarmatians/Scythians/Aryans belonging to the Eu19 ?

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Yeah, EU19 is the Slavic marker that is correct.
AWAR, you say that the Aryans were belonged to the EU19??



None of these could pass for a Croatian, except the last maybe, even though she'd represent a strikingly extreme type.IMO all of these Iranian women could pass the "I am Croatian" test.
I was in Croatia like 20 times so far, and I've seen women like these, a lot.
I was in Slovenia as well [I guess you are from there ;)], and they wouldnt pass the "I am Slovenian" test.
The Slovenian people looking lot more "Slavic". The majority of the people there are brown haired, brown/green eyed, and they are fair-skinned.
The Croatians are dark/black haired dark eyed and sometimes not that fair-skinned at all. IMHO if you see a brown/dark blond man or woman in Croatia [what is rare], that is propably because he/she has got more of the EU19 haplotype.

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Some Croatian football players:


http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_31_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_34_slika.bmp
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_36_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_5_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_3_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_26_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_12_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_22_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_15_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_30_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_9_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_35_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_24_slika.jpg
http://www.nk-dinamo.hr/slike/igrac_37_slika.jpg

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 04:44 PM
IMO all of these Iranian women could pass the "I am Croatian" test.
I was in Croatia like 20 times so far, and I've seen women like these, a lot.

Actually none of them would pass as Croatian chicks...not even close.
You obviously, as I said, need glasses.


I was in Slovenia as well [I guess you are from there ;)], and they wouldnt pass the "I am Slovenian" test.
The Slovenian people looking lot more "Slavic". The majority of the people there are brown haired, brown/green eyed, and they are fair-skinned.
Actually not quite. Slovenians are as well quite dark haired...very much like Dalmatians.


The Croatians are dark/black haired dark eyed and sometimes not that fair-skinned at all. IMHO if you see a brown/dark blond man or woman in Croatia [what is rare], that is propably because he/she has got more of the EU19 haplotype
Yes speaking of Dalmatia that would be correct...for whole Croatia...not quite. Not at all. Totally wrong assertion.

Now on the comments on the photos. Mot photos are of bad quality and are quite dark.

No.1 is Mirko Jozic. Typical brown haired and brown eyes central-european man or in other words typical mix between dinaric and neo-danubian.

No.2 is He is typical Dalmatian male with long head is quite tall with dark hair and fair skin.

No.3 Andre Mijatovic. This guy is also tpical dalmatian type, but he has something germanic in him which is not so strange since he is from Rijeka/Fiume which is close to Italy and was in history under deep Italian influence. In any case he is tall, brown haired and fair skinned. Typical European/Caucassian male.

No.4 Bostjan Cesar...this guy is Slovenian...so much about your "more light haired slovenians". :anieyes

No.5 Goce Sedloski...this guy is Macedonian. Typical Bulgarian male...:oanieyes

No.6 Probably Dalmatian origin.

No.7 Also typical Dalmatian male with dark hair and fair skin.

No.8 Ante Tomic. This guy is Bosnian by origin. Another typical sub-type of Dalmatians.

No.9 Damir Krznar. This guy represents the small germanic population in northeast Croatia. This guy has brown hair with light eyes and is of shorter built. Typcial south-east celtic-germanic.

No.10 I don't know if you are blind, but this guy is also typical slavic-germanic representative. He has light brown/blonde hair, most probably light eyes(although we can't see because picutre is teribble and too dark), his head is typicaly slavic round with high cheek bones and he is not very tall.

No.11 Edin Mujcin....this guy is Bosnian Muslim...:D

No.12 Another representative of "western-croatian" celtic-germanic type. Short, round, light hair and eyes, fair skin.

No.13 Yet another typical Dalmatian male. Tall, fair skinned, dark haired and has light eyes which is also quite common.

No.14 This guy is also Bosnian, although I must say he is mix of everything. I really can't say. Either way he looks normal caucassian to me.

It would be good to post some pictures of typical Iranians and you will see the huge differences Also you could post some Hungarians you would also see that Hungarians and Croats are not very different especially since many Hungarians came from Croatia during Turkish invasions in 15th century.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 04:54 PM
There are none, thats the whole point. I don't know where you saw I said there are, but let me repeat it: "there are no scientific or any other researches showing ANY connection of today modern Croats with today(or old) Iranians, Armenians and Kurds" ...nor there can be any since these populations were not explored.
There is huge difference between a fact and a theory....you obviously don't understand the difference.


You've said "...these are mostly BS fabrications". To fabricate means to make something up for the purpose of deception, while a theory means assumed hypothesis for the sake of investigation. Learn to distinct, and being misunderstood.


We can be sure about one thing....Croats have nothing incommon with modern Iranians(at least not with huge majority).

I never heard a hypothesis saying Croats came from the modern Iran, this argument is pointless.


Today Iranians are mostly mix of old Aryan(Caucassian) and Arabian tribes producing todays modern population of Iran.

I never said different. On the other hand many Croatians don't represent the old Arya population neither since they are intermixed with Slavs.


There are some lefovers from the old "pure" Aryan populations which can be seen in Norda's pictures.
Regarding the photos you posted none of these girls can be Croatian because they look distinctively oriental. They are Caucassian, but of totally different type. You need glasses.

You need glasses because Norda posted my pictures. Check my previous post, all 'leftovers' I attached can pass "I'm Croatian" test.
Stephan on the other hand posted oriental looking types, which are really not frequent here.

Vojvoda
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:02 PM
No.3 Andre Mijatovic. This guy is also tpical dalmatian type,
Any relation to the Montenegrin Predrag Mijatovic? :D


http://www.juznifront.com/fk_partizan/galerija/predrag_mijatovic.jpg

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Well, I just loaded up the NK Zagreb site and linked the pictures...but if you go to Croatia you can see people like these footballers mostly. Before you ask I was in almost all parts of Croatia, NE, NW, SW mainly.
I really like your country btw. ;) Cool weather, cool people.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:09 PM
IMO all of these Iranian women could pass the "I am Croatian" test.
I was in Croatia like 20 times so far, and I've seen women like these, a lot.
I was in Slovenia as well [I guess you are from there ;)], and they wouldnt pass the "I am Slovenian" test.

I have yet to see them (I've been in Croatia a lot as well). Only the last girl would pass as Croatian.



The Slovenian people looking lot more "Slavic". The majority of the people there are brown haired, brown/green eyed, and they are fair-skinned.

I tend to agree, even though you have to take into consideration that 1 in 5 or 6 whites is a white immigrant (mostly somewhere from the Balkans), and in towns and cities their frequency is a lot higher, so an occasional stroll in a town isn't all that indicative. Zvaci used to agree with that assessment as well, but then he suddenly changed his mind and said we'd all look the same, so I'm afraid I don't have a valid opinion of a Croat on that. I am under the impression that most people here have hair ranging from dark blond to medium brown, light blond and dark brown following. Furthermore, I'd say that Noric, combined with the similar Savid, is even more frequent than Baltic. Black hair is unusual in Slovenia, really.


The Croatians are dark/black haired dark eyed

Rather dark brown than black.



and sometimes not that fair-skinned at all.

Yes, especially the Atlanto-Med Dalmatians and some Dinarics, but not as dark-skinned and especially dark-haired as the Iranians you posted.



IMHO if you see a brown/dark blond man or woman in Croatia [what is rare],

Not at all in the northeast. I am under the impression that northeastern Croats are a bit lighter-skinned than the southwestern Slovenes, but we're talking about 2 extremes here. There are even many Baltics in Dalmatia (as well as Cro-Magnid).


that is propably because he/she has got more of the EU19 haplotype.

That's probable.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Triglav, was it in that .pdf you attached that they mention BOTH the Slavs and Sarmatians/Scythians/Aryans belonging to the Eu19 ?

I don't remember, but I'm just looking for that quote. :) Would you help me find it please? :D

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:11 PM
I use "Neo-danubian" because this is the most common name for slavic type. But I would say and agree with you that the more correct term would be to say Eu19 genotype is Slavic (Eastern European dominant) marker.;)

And like your essay pointed out this Slavic Eu19 genotype is secondary. And so is the "Neo-Danubian" phenotype.

Eu7 hallotype, and the dinaric phenotype are predominant for the majority of Croat population.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:16 PM
Actually not quite. Slovenians are as well quite dark haired...very much like Dalmatians.

Huh? Slovenians could be compared to Zagorjeans if any. Only a minority in the southwest looks similar to Dalmatians. Dalmatians are quite distinct.

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 05:36 PM
...Slavs ashamed of his roots...

Awars strawman :D

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:10 PM
You've said "...these are mostly BS fabrications". To fabricate means to make something up for the purpose of deception, while a theory means assumed hypothesis for the sake of investigation. Learn to distinct, and being misunderstood.I was refering to the Iranian origin of modern Croats and similarity of Armenians and Kurds. These are not theories, but pure fabrications. Learn to read.


I never heard a hypothesis saying Croats came from the modern Iran, this argument is pointless.
I have. Some people here are quite vigilant in their theories Croats and Iranians are similar suggesting Croats came from modern Iran which can't be correct. Only the old "original" Croats can be traced to area of today modern state of Iran and these probably migrated before the invasion of Arabs.


On the other hand many Croatians don't represent the old Arya population neither since they are intermixed with Slavs.
Old what? Most Croats are autochtonous population living in the same place for the last 20 000 years. Only in the north we have Slavic population and mix of these proto-Illyrians and Slavs since many Dalmatians moved north in the invasion of Turks to today central Bosnia where was the heart of Croatian Kingdom.


You need glasses because Norda posted my pictures. Check my previous post, all 'leftovers' I attached can pass "I'm Croatian" test.
Stephan on the other hand posted oriental looking types, which are really not frequent here.
Yes that was my mistake. I noticed it right away, but I didn't want to double post.
On the photos I agree. What is the problem here I don't know...


Eu7 hallotype, and the dinaric phenotype are predominant for the majority of Croat population.
Yes and what is your point? I stated the same thing more than once. The Eu7 genotype reaches back to Gravettian culture meaning these people were living here long before Slavs or even Germans and Celts came.


Any relation to the Montenegrin Predrag Mijatovic?
You'll have to ask him. :D


Huh? Slovenians could be compared to Zagorjeans if any. Only a minority in the southwest looks similar to Dalmatians. Dalmatians are quite distinct..
Perhaps by language yes, by appearance Slovenians are mix of everything. Most Slovenians have either dark hair or light hair. Like Croats and Serbs you can divided the Slovenian population in two parts. The one who is closer to the sea(Dalmatian-Dinaric) and those who live more to north(Slavic-Germanic).

Übersoldat
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:41 PM
I was refering to the Iranian origin of modern Croats and similarity of Armenians and Kurds. These are not theories, but pure fabrications. Learn to read.

My reading are accurate, but your memory seems to be sclerotic. First you said "ANY connection of today modern Croats with today (or old) Iranians..." and in this post you're saying "Only the old "original" Croats can be traced to area of today modern state of Iran and these probably migrated before the invasion of Arabs." You are contradicting your self.


Most Croats are autochtonous population living in the same place for the last 20 000 years.
Yes and what is your point? I stated the same thing more than once. The Eu7 genotype reaches back to Gravettian culture meaning these people were living here long before Slavs or even Germans and Celts came.

I agree, but this contributes only to the autochthonous Illyrian theory which is also pure non-Slavic just like the Iranian.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Perhaps by language yes,


by appearance Slovenians are mix of everything.

Less so than the Croats if one is accurate.



Most Slovenians have either dark hair or light hair.

Obviously - like the rest of Europe roughly. Not black, though.


Like Croats and Serbs you can divided the Slovenian population in two parts. The one who is closer to the sea(Dalmatian-Dinaric) and those who live more to north(Slavic-Germanic).

Your division is rather misleading. Skerlj, for example, divided Slovenia into 3 regions. Even though there are differences between the regions in Slovenia and Croatia which I am going to compare, they are still somewhat comparable - especially in terms of complexion. The north of Croatia (mainly Zagorje) can be compared to the north-east of Slovenia (roughly 1/3-1/2 of Slovenia). I can't really compare central Slovenia with any corresponding Croatian region, but central Slovenia isn't really different from the northeast. Only a small part (the maritime province of Slovenia) is comparable with Dalmatia at all (which is huge), even though even there Alpine and Dinaric/Noric predominate. It is also the only region with an Atlanto-Med minority, while others lack it. Atlanto-Med can be found near the border with Italy and Croatia where they dwell among mainly Dinaric/Noric, Alpine and Nordic populations. Furthermore, apart from a the coastal Atlanto-Med type, darker skin is unusual for Slovenia, while especially in Dalmatia is common. I also know a few darker-skinned Alpines from Zagorje who would look out of place in Slovenia. How often have you been to Slovenia exactly? I am no ideologue and I know that there are lighter as well as darker populations than Slovenes (although it's a rather light-skinned nation, to be honest), but your description defies everything I've experienced so far.

Secondly, Germanic is a cultural term and is inapplicable in this case. There has been no German impact on Slovenia, but conversely Austria (thogh not South Germany) has a lot of Slavic blood, since they conquered the territories which were previously occupied by the ancestors of the present-day Slovenes.

Please provide some sources for your claims. I'm burning to hear about it.

aftermundo
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Hello im a West-European and I have studied the looks of people of European countries. Actually its a hobby of mine :)

First of all I want to give the ``talk-out-of-your-ass-Award`` to that Hungarian guy Stephen and that Iranian guy named Shapur or something. These 2 people make no sense at all.

Its just funny that a Hungarian guy is accusing Croatians of being dark, while in reality there is hardly a difference in pigmentation between Hungary and Croatian. Croatians may perhaps be slightly darker than Hungarians but the differences are almost insignificant.

Further to claim blond hair and blue eyes are rare in any European country is ridiculous. There is no country in Europe were blondhaired people or blue eyed people are rare. Even in Southern-Italy or in the darkest regions of Spain you will still find a significant amount of blondhaired and blue eyed people.

Now lets turn back to Croatia. Croatians are darker than for example Germans or English people, there is no doubt about this. On the other hand Croatians are lighter than Italians and Spaniards.

Before I jump to haircolour 2 statements :

- haircolour darkens with age, children have much lighter hair than adults
- females in the Caucasian race have on average lighter hair than men

I made the following observations while looking at Croatian people, these are my own statements, so they are not facts, just my opinion ;) :

- among Croatian children blond hair is very common. I would estimate that about 50 % of very young Croatian children have some sort of blond hair.

- About 15-20 % of Croatian male adults at the age of 20 are blond. The other 80-85 % have dark hair (brown or sometimes black).

- About 30 % of Croatian female adults at the age of 20 are blond. The other 70 % have dark hair (brown or sometimes black).

When you put males and females together (15-20 % + 30 % / 2) the end result is that about 23 % of Croatian adults have blond hair. The other 77 % have dark hair (mostly brown, sometimes black).

Red hair is rare in Croatia. Probably about 1 % of Croatian people have red hair (think of Robert Prosenecki ;) ).

Eyecolour:

About 50 % of Croatians have dark eyes (Brown or hazel). The other 50 % of Croatians have light eyes (blue, green, gray).

Shapur
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:16 PM
Btw someone said that today Iranians are a mix of Arabs and Aryans.
On which is this theory based? Are all Iranians"not only from Iran" mixed?
And what Arabic invasion? This invasion in Arak"Iraq" or where?

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:24 PM
aftermundo...I dont wanna argue with you, but I dont think that you were in the right country....I live near Croatia, I know the country like my hand, visited it many many times, I have a house there, and you think that I am posting fake informations??? I even have Croatian relatives. :P

I very rarely seen blondes in Croatia, most of the people are black haired and dark eyed. The skin is mostly white of course.
Damn I should scan some photos about the Croatian people in various towns, but I dont have a scanner. :|
You were right in one point, the hair of the children is lighter, but it means nothing, I have seen many gypsy kids with blond hair as well, that is not rare at all...

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:31 PM
You were right in one point, the hair of the children is lighter, but it means nothing, I have seen many gypsy kids with blond hair as well, that is not rare at all...

I can vouch for that. Most Gypsies in Slovenia have come from the territory of Hungary, and they're pretty much of the same stock.

http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200212/clanek/jansa-romi/img/romi_display.jpg

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:33 PM
@Zvaci: modern Croatian nation has nothing with Iran, Kurds or Armenians. This is pure fabrication. That is what I am saying. Now if we will talk about the sole name of the Croats and the psibble origin of the first Croats who came to the area of todays Poland we can say almost with certainty they came from the area of todays Iran and Afghanistan.

Now the origin of the name does not mean the modern day Croats and modern day Iranians, Kurds and Armenians have anything in common like Stephen or Shapur tried to suggest. Especially since both nations are today the result of complicated process that took centuries.

Am I making myself clear now? Or do you need me to eloaborate some more.

@Triglav: The fact they belong to either neo-danubian or dinaric type is totally irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters is the fact Slovenians are not different than any other "south slavic" nation...that was the whole point I wanted to point out.

@aftermundo: Amen.:)

aftermundo
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:45 PM
I very rarely seen blondes in Croatia
You should open your eyes. Croatia has many blonds.


most of the people are black haired
There is no country in Europe were most people have black hair. Black hair is everywhere a minority in Europe. What you call black is actually darkbrown.

A pic of a bunch of Croatians :

http://croatia.european-go.org/croatia/skola/mori/svi.jpg

http://croatia.european-go.org/croatia/skola/mori/svi.jpg

There are 12 people on the pic. 3 adults and 9 children.

1 of the adults is Japanese, one has grey hair and the woman has blond hair.

5 of the 9 children have brown hair. 4 of the 9 children have blond hair.

And now you want to tell me that blond hair is rare in Croatia while already half of the people on this pic are blond?

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 09:54 PM
Check these pages also. It's a school competition for mister and miss of their school These are mostly kids from 14-18 years. Some pics are too dark, but most of them are of good quality...better than some of you posted.

In each case you see that most of them have brown hair with few of them having blond. None of them has "Iranian or Kurdish" appearance.

http://www.gimnazija-karlovac.hr/ucenici/miss_i_mister/

aftermundo
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:07 PM
The point is that you need to differentiate between children and adults. Haircolour darkens with age.

A statement like ``blond hair is rare in Croatia`` is ridiculous simply because when you look at little children in Croatia (lets say from 0 to 6 years old) you notice that about 50 % of them are blond.

Like I already said for Croatians adults of 20 year I estimate that 23 % of them are blond and the other 77 % have dark hair.

If in your opinion 23 % is rare, then go ahead but you should change your statement into ``blond hair is rare among adults in Croatia``.

Stephen
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Maybe I was in other country than. :D
I wont argue. I told you what I have seen.
Krunoslav - Your site is a good example. Most of the kids on the pictures have colored hair, also lot of them have a very slight "Iranian" appearance. Most of them not Slavic looking for sure.

Too bad that I dont have a scanner, I could post tons of pictures what I made in Croatia. :|

aftermundo
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:31 PM
also lot of them have a very slight "Iranian" appearance.[/quote[

Comparing modern day Iranians with Croatians is like comparing Moroccans with Norwegians. Iranians and Croatians look totally different from eachother. They have nothing in common.

[quote]Most of them not Slavic looking for sure.
The reason why Croatians look different from Russians is because Croatians are only partly Slavic.
The amount of indigineous Balkan blood (illyrians, thracians, greek) is very high in Croatia. Thats why Croatians are darker than Russians : because of the illyrian blood, and perhaps also thracian and greek blood.

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Krunoslav - Your site is a good example. Most of the kids on the pictures have colored hair, also lot of them have a very slight "Iranian" appearance. Most of them not Slavic looking for sure.
"Slight Iranian appearance? I am sorry, but where have you seen this "slight Iranian appearance"? The pictures show just the opposite. It seems only you see it. Or should I say: you see what you want to see ...:[]!!


Too bad that I dont have a scanner, I could post tons of pictures what I made in Croatia. :|
Post some pictures of you fellow Hungarians. I am sure we could find some "slight Iranian appearances". :retard

aftermundo
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:45 PM
Before I forget, we also have dna results for Croatians. The y-chromosome of Croatians is :

44,8 % eu7
6,9 % eu4
5,2 % eu9
1,7 % eu11
1,7 % eu16
10,3 % eu18
29,3 % eu19

source : <A href="http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf" target=_blank>http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf)

eu7 is the Gravettian haplo group. Another code name for this group is I

eu19 is the Indo-European haplo group. Another code name for this group is R1A

eu18 is the Aurignacian haplo group. Another code name for this group is R1B

eu4, eu9 and eu11 are neolithic haplo groups

Map 1 - Ice age Europe (18,000 years ago)
http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_1.jpg

On this image you see that the Gravettian, Aurignacian and Indo-european culture people were already in Europe 18.000 years ago.

source : http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp (http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp)

eu7, eu18 and eu19 account together for 84,4 % of the Croatian gene pool (44,8 + 10,3 + 29,3)

That means 84,4 % of the ancestors of modern day Croatians have already been in Europe for at least 18.000 years.

So the Croatians are Iranian theory is refuted by DNA.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:49 PM
@Triglav: The fact they belong to either neo-danubian or dinaric type is totally irrelevant to me.

The racial composition of a nation is more complex that that, I am afraid. Furthermore, I don't see many Neo-Danubians (Danubian/Gorid). Perhaps you're referring to Baltic.


The only thing that matters is the fact Slovenians are not different than any other "south slavic" nation...

This is blatant oversimplification. Why don't you substantiate your assertions? Even regions differ from each other, let alone nations. Does that mean that you haven't seen any differences between the nations in the Balkans? Please elucidate. I'd really like to know, as my observations have given me a different impression. What would make you think in the first place that "there are no differences"?

If you are under the impression that there are no factual differences between "the Balkan nations" (which is impossible by definition), I recommend you to read some of these studies:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8895
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12900
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11384 :
"Haplogroups J, G and E that can be related to the
spread of farming characterize the minor part (12.5%) of the Croatian paternal lineages. In one of the
southern island (Hvar) populations, we found a relatively high frequency (14%) of lineages belonging to
P*(xM173) cluster, which is unusual for European populations. Interestingly, the same population also
harbored mitochondrial haplogroup F that is virtually absent in European populations – indicating a
connection with Central Asian populations, possibly the Avars.''

Haplogroup F has never been detected in Slovenia.






that was the whole point I wanted to point out.

What you tried to point out is irrelevant and of no interest to anyone. People want facts. On what do you base your observations, from where did you get the idea of a great deal of Slovenia being similar to Dalmatia (maybe your really only read Coon ;)) and from what do you conclude that Croats are as light-pigmented as Slovenes?

Awar
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 10:54 PM
So the Croatians are Iranian theory is refuted by DNA.

Actually, it's not, because the 'Iranians' we're speaking about are not from Iran, but from what today is Poland, Ukraine and Southern Russia. These Iranians were probably of the I+R1a/Eu7+Eu19 mix. Not at all different from Slavs, and not much different from indigenous people in what is today Croatia, Serbia and other countries.

White Falcon
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:00 PM
:

- among Croatian children blond hair is very common. I would estimate that about 50 % of very young Croatian children have some sort of blond hair.


I can confirm that
even I was EXTREME blond as a kid
can you tell me why this changes through the years?

Zrinski
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Actually, it's not, because the 'Iranians' we're speaking about are not from Iran, but from what today is Poland, Ukraine and Southern Russia. These Iranians were probably of the I+R1a/Eu7+Eu19 mix. Not at all different from Slavs, and not much different from indigenous people in what is today Croatia, Serbia and other countries.

Actually it is.We don't know what "were" these "Iranians" or even if they were Iranians, but we do know the Croatian modern nation is mostly descended from people who were living here. For example the Eu7 marker came into Europe about 30-25 000 years ago and it exclusively present only in Europe.

Awar
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:29 PM
Actually it is.We don't know what "were" these "Iranians" or even if they were Iranians, but we do know the Croatian modern nation is mostly descended from people who were living here. For example the Eu7 marker came into Europe about 30-25 000 years ago and it exclusively present only in Europe.

So, according to you, Poland, Ukraine and Russia are not in Europe???
These are the areas where Iranians originated, Iran is just one of the results of their conquests ( Aryan, Eu19 conquests ) India is another.

Triglav
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 11:37 PM
@Awar: Here's the graphic representation of various haplogroups. I've been scanning some of my pdf's for the origin of R1a, and most of them claim it's associated with the Kurgan people.

HG3(Eu19) is represented by R1a here. One can see how many branches each haplogroup has

http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/nomenclature_system/fig1.html

Stephen
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 12:12 AM
We are running around pointlessly. :D
240 posts, and we've seen lot of different maps/theories/pictures.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/croatia.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/identity_croatians_ancient_iran.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/croatians_cravats_iranian_origin.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php

"A scholarly Croatian society called ZDPPH recently held a conference on the Iranic origin of Croats, where genetic evidence was presented. According to the society's president Nedjeljko Kujundzic, "Swedish geneticists have confirmed, in 75 percent of cases, that Croats are of Iranian origin." (Hina 2000) Two days after the news conference, the book "Indo-Iranian Origin of Croats" by Mate Marcinko was released in which much additional proof was presented."

"However, there are other research works proving that 75 percent of the Croats are different in origin from the Slavs and more similar to Kurds and Armenians from genetic point of view. On the other hand, studies show that there are less similarities between domestic livestock, poultry and plants in the old time Croatia with those in Europe, lending further proof to the fact that Croats had most probably migrated from a region close to Asia to their present area."

"The Iranic race as a whole is dolichocephalic (long-headed), leptorrhine (having long, narrow noses), tall, robust, dark-haired, large-boned and fair-skinned with straight hair. These features are found amongst the Jats, Pathans, Persians, Rajputs and Kurds.


Now, there are three sub-types of Croats proper: Dinaric (Iranoid race), Mediterranean (Latinoid race) and Panonian (Slavoid race) The Dinaric type to which many Croats belong is often viewed as an Iranic sub-type:
"In the central mountainous regions settled by the Croats upon their arrival on the Adriatic the Dinaric type of Croat developed. This type is quite remote from the general Slavic type. The Dinaric Croats are tall in stature (ca. 1.8 metres), long-headed but with a skull of short circumference (cephalic index of 80-85)." (Mandic 1970, ch.3)


The main feature of the Dinaric sub-type of Iranics is that the head is long when viewed from front, but the circumference is short, giving the illusion of brachcephaly when viewed from the top. It is common amongst Armenians as well, and is often viewed as a breeding isolate of the Iranoid race.

Refuting the view that the Croatians were of Illyrian or Roman stock, Mandic notes, ".... Nevertheless one has to say that the contribution of the local Romanized remnants [Illyrian] of the prehistoric Dinaric folk, hardly amounted to more than 20% to 30% in forming the Dinaric Croat." (Mandic 1970, ch.3) These Mediterranean Croats are "intermediary in stature, a little smaller than the Dinaric type. They have quite oval skulls, dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion."



The Panonian Croats, however, are largely descendants of the Slavic populations. The Slavoid race in general (to be distinguished from the speakers of Slavic languages) is short-statured, brachycephalic (round-headed), with blond hair. Thus,
"When the Croats conquered Lower Pannonia and Savia they at one began to assimilate with the Kaikavian Slavs of those areas. Out of that came the third type of Croat, the Pannonian, of intermediate stature, blond hair, ruddy complexion and of a rather sizeable cephalic index. .... [A] conspicuous type of Pannonian Croat was preserved up until this day. They of all the Croats are the closest to the general Slavic type in their physical and psychological make-up. (88)" (Mandic 1970) Thus, the round-headed blond Panonian Croats are not members of the Iranoid race, but instead are of the round-headed Slavoid race. They are, however, outnumbered by the Iranic or Dinaric Croats, who form the dominant element of Croatia."

Zrinski
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 03:02 AM
So, according to you, Poland, Ukraine and Russia are not in Europe???
These are the areas where Iranians originated, Iran is just one of the results of their conquests ( Aryan, Eu19 conquests ) India is another.
So let me see if I get it right. You are saying these "iranian croats" were of eu19 genotypes and that they were genetically slavs? Or are you saying they were of Eu7 genotype?I don't even intent to ask you how you know this...:D :P

@Stephen the Iranian theory is ery much discarded. It was wrongly concluded that because of the origin of the Croatian name all Croats are racially Iranians which is not and cannot be the truth. Anthropological evidence suggest continuity in appearance in the area of Balkanic populations which means most Croats are autochtonous population living in these areas for the past 20 000 years. In other words of Illyrian origin. The Eu7 genotype is indovedic people from rigavedic period who originated in western balkans and later spread in other parts of europe mainly to germany, austria and to the north, but most of the population remained in their original settlements.

Triglav
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 03:36 AM
So let me see if I get it right. You are saying these "iranian croats" were of eu19 genotypes and that they were genetically slavs? Or are you saying they were of Eu7 genotype?I don't even intent to ask you how you know this...:D :P



Here's a study on that, btw:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=123292#post123292

Stephen
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Croats are heavily assimilated as well, read my post once more.
IMHO if we would inspect Croatia genetically there would be huge differences within the inland population.
The blonde, dark-blonde type is the Slaviziced one:

"Now, there are three sub-types of Croats proper: Dinaric (Iranoid race), Mediterranean (Latinoid race) and Panonian (Slavoid race) The Dinaric type to which many Croats belong is often viewed as an Iranic sub-type:

"In the central mountainous regions settled by the Croats upon their arrival on the Adriatic the Dinaric type of Croat developed. This type is quite remote from the general Slavic type. The Dinaric Croats are tall in stature (ca. 1.8 metres), long-headed but with a skull of short circumference (cephalic index of 80-85)." (Mandic 1970, ch.3)


The main feature of the Dinaric sub-type of Iranics is that the head is long when viewed from front, but the circumference is short, giving the illusion of brachcephaly when viewed from the top. It is common amongst Armenians as well, and is often viewed as a breeding isolate of the Iranoid race.

Refuting the view that the Croatians were of Illyrian or Roman stock, Mandic notes, ".... Nevertheless one has to say that the contribution of the local Romanized remnants [Illyrian] of the prehistoric Dinaric folk, hardly amounted to more than 20% to 30% in forming the Dinaric Croat." (Mandic 1970, ch.3) These Mediterranean Croats are "intermediary in stature, a little smaller than the Dinaric type. They have quite oval skulls, dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion."



The Panonian Croats, however, are largely descendants of the Slavic populations. The Slavoid race in general (to be distinguished from the speakers of Slavic languages) is short-statured, brachycephalic (round-headed), with blond hair. Thus,
"When the Croats conquered Lower Pannonia and Savia they at one began to assimilate with the Kaikavian Slavs of those areas. Out of that came the third type of Croat, the Pannonian, of intermediate stature, blond hair, ruddy complexion and of a rather sizeable cephalic index. .... [A] conspicuous type of Pannonian Croat was preserved up until this day. They of all the Croats are the closest to the general Slavic type in their physical and psychological make-up. (88)" (Mandic 1970) Thus, the round-headed blond Panonian Croats are not members of the Iranoid race, but instead are of the round-headed Slavoid race. They are, however, outnumbered by the Iranic or Dinaric Croats, who form the dominant element of Croatia."

aftermundo
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Its important to distinguish between old Iranians and modern day people of Iran. The old iranians are indo-european and originated in the area north of the Black Sea (present day Ukraine).

eu7, eu18 and eu19 account together for 84,4 % of the Croatian gene pool (44,8 + 10,3 + 29,3)

That means 84,4 % of the ancestors of modern day Croatians have already been in Europe for at least 18.000 years.
The average European has 20 % neolithic ancestry, Croatians have less. That means Croatians are even more indigineous European than most other Europeans.

If you want to claim that modern day people of Iran and Kurds are the same genetically as Croatians then you are completely wrong.

That would mean 84,4 % of the modern day people of Iran and Kurds would have European origins, and thats impossible because most people of Iran and Kurds look like arabs : typically middle-eastern.

So the point is :

- if Croatians are mostly iranian, then people of Iran are not mostly Iranian

-if the people of Iran are mostly iranian, then Croatians are not mostly iranian

Its impossible that Croatians and the modern day people of Iran are the same people, they are genetically completely different and they look totally different.

Comparing a modern day person of Iran with a Croatian is like comparing a Moroccan to a Norwegian, it makes no sense at all, they look totally different.

aftermundo
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:20 PM
Now, there are three sub-types of Croats proper: Dinaric (Iranoid race)
Sorry but do I get this right? Are you now claiming that most Kurds and the modern day people of Iran look dinaric?

What a bunch of crap. Dinaric is a purely European phenotype. Its not common outside Europe.

The modern day people of Iran and Kurds are mostly Irano-Afghan in racial type.

Claiming the people of Iran and Kurds are mostly dinaric in phenotype is like claiming Sicilians are mostly Borreby in phenotype. Its crap and you just proved youre an idiot.

aftermundo
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:21 PM
http://phoenicia.org/imgs/racialtree.jpg

Stephen
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Sorry but do I get this right? Are you now claiming that most Kurds and the modern day people of Iran look dinaric?

What a bunch of crap. Dinaric is a purely European phenotype. Its not common outside Europe.

The modern day people of Iran and Kurds are mostly Irano-Afghan in racial type.

Claiming the people of Iran and Kurds are mostly dinaric in phenotype is like claiming Sicilians are mostly Borreby in phenotype. Its crap and you just proved youre an idiot.
Excuse me, I copied all these out from the Iranic research site. (:o
Also you cant read properly, the research says: The Dinarics are the closest regarding the Iranian appearance, and the Slaviziced Croats are way too far from that.

It would be good to see a genetic comparison between the old indo iranians [kurds or armenians are that as well], and the Croatians.
The fact is, that the blond/dark blond/light brown/brown croats are more Slavic than the rest, that is absolutely sure. Propably the EU19 haplotype is lot higher in them. It is written very well in that article, and it is absolutely logical as well.

Triglav
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:23 PM
eu7, eu18 and eu19 account together for 84,4 % of the Croatian gene pool (44,8 + 10,3 + 29,3)

That means 84,4 % of the ancestors of modern day Croatians have already been in Europe for at least 18.000 years.
The average European has 20 % neolithic ancestry, Croatians have less. That means Croatians are even more indigineous European than most other Europeans.



EU19 (R1a) is either Slavic or Iranian and the bulk of it was introduced to Croatia rather recently (probably in the first centuries AD). If you read the whole site you're referring to, you'll see that it wasn't 18000 years ago that this haplogroup was distributed over Europe.

aftermundo
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:30 PM
So you believe everything websites tell you? Im sure if we looked on the internet we could also find websites that claim Chinese people and Irish people look the same.
That website is just crap.


[quote]The fact is, that the blond/dark blond/light brown/brown croats are more Slavic than the rest, that is absolutely sure. Propably the EU19 haplotype is lot higher in them. It is written very well in that article, and it is absolutely logical as well.
I dont know if Croatians are mostly iranian, slavic, illyrian or whatever. It simply doesnt matter.

The whole point is that if you claim the modern day people of Iran, Kurds and Croatians are the same people then you are just retarded and then we should send some doctors to your house.

Stephen
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:34 PM
aftermundo, you should buy glasses. Who the hell on Earth told here that they are the same people in the present day??? However many research in this topic mentioned that they have common origins. Especially the Kurds/Armenians/Croats.
I am posting what I read. Imho we are talking about totally different things, you should read those researches. ;)

bocian
Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Its crap and you just proved youre an idiot.

Aftermundo, you are welcome to contribute to this thread, however, name-calling will not be tolerated.

Just a friendly reminder.