Classify Ukrainians

[srdceleva]

Oh "Balkanic" look is Jewish admixture to you,those Balkan semites.
Well Slavs certainly aren't Nordics nor they ever were.



1. "(...) Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color. (...)"

- "(...) Valerian chose one of the Sklaveni who are men of mighty stature. (...)"


2. Theophilact Simokatta (describing events from year 595):


"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe, he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"


3. Theophanes the Confessor (describing the same event from year 595):


"(...) The Emperor was admiring their beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)


How pitty even medieval Sclavinia is different in hair and complextion than the Romantic Germanic influence on Slavic imagination.

I said probable Jewish, not that they were though every ukrainian ive met in vienna is part Jewish and openly so, and I think some can pass in the balkans but there are many balkan slavs today who can pass in poland or russia. Also the guy in my pic is definitely slavic.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Angela]

Even most of Bulgarians belong to Pontic type,this is found along the Black sea coast,i didn't knew you classify that as Mediterranean.As for Slavic appearance just as Italian,there is variation,it is most our imagination in this case to classify people based on their appearance when in this case is more geography than ethnicity or linguistic grouping and whatever affects human appearance or evolution,so please tell me whether more Italian is
Francesco Totti

Fillipo Inzaghi

Or Cassano

Even thought Italy is much smaller teritorically to compare to Slavic territories as a whole,we can do it with South Slavic however.

I don't classify Pontic as anything. Coon (from whom the quotes came), and all the other anthropologists classify it as a Mediterranean mix, just like Dinaric is a Mediterranean mix, just like Atlanto-Med is a Mediterranean mix. Indeed, Pontids look a lot like Atlanto-Meds. Don't blame me. You'd have to take it up with the anthropologists, although most of them are dead.

Of course all three men are Italian. Italians have a lot of variation both genetically and phenotypically. Just look at any PCA. The spread of variation is infinitely larger than for any other European group. We have insular Meds, Atlanto-Meds, Alpines, Dinarics, Alpine-Meds, and in certain areas more "exotic" blends, both northern or southern.

There's absolutely no comparison with Slavs. Slavs are different. They don't have as much Med influence as southern Europeans, and they're a lot more homogeneous in genetics and in phenotype. In fact, maybe one way to define Southern European versus Northern European is that if you add up the Med and the Caucasus, and it's over 60% you're Southern European.

Nothing you say is going to convince me or any other non-Balkanites or even other Balkanites that "South Slavs" are "Slavs" either genetically or phenotypically in the way that Poles, Belorussians, Russians etc are...

For goodness' sakes, go to gedmatch or the Balkans paper and look at the genetic breakdowns if nothing else; look at where you plot. You have Slavic admixture, and you speak a Slavic language, but you're not "Slavs", anymore than I'm a Celt, no matter if I speak an Italic language modified by Celtic or have northwestern European ancestry.

There, now I'm done.

There, now I'm done.

 

[davef]

I speak English, does that make me English?

 

[Milan.M]

I don't classify Pontic as anything. Coon (from whom the quotes came), and all the other anthropologists classify it as a Mediterranean mix, just like Dinaric is a Mediterranean mix, just like Atlanto-Med is a Mediterranean mix. Indeed, Pontids look a lot like Atlanto-Meds. Don't blame me. You'd have to take it up with the anthropologists, although most of them are dead.

Right

Of course all three men are Italian. Italians have a lot of variation both genetically and phenotypically. Just look at any PCA. The spread of variation is infinitely larger than for any other European group. We have insular Meds, Atlanto-Meds, Alpines, Dinarics, Alpine-Meds, and in certain areas more "exotic" blends, both northern or southern.

There's absolutely no comparison with Slavs. Slavs are different. They don't have as much Med influence as southern Europeans, and they're a lot more homogeneous in genetics and in phenotype. In fact, maybe one way to define Southern European versus Northern European is that if you add up the Med and the Caucasus, and it's over 60% you're Southern European.

Italians are different because you are Italian,nothing else is different in that case,only you look the stuff differently from your perspective.

Nothing you say is going to convince me or any other non-Balkanites or even other Balkanites that "South Slavs" are "Slavs" either genetically or phenotypically in the way that Poles, Belorussians, Russians etc are...

South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are.

For goodness' sakes, go to gedmatch or the Balkans paper and look at the genetic breakdowns if nothing else; look at where you plot. You have Slavic admixture, and you speak a Slavic language, but you're not "Slavs", anymore than I'm a Celt, no matter if I speak an Italic language modified by Celtic or have northwestern European ancestry

What is Slavic admixture? i guess another imaginable thing on amateur forums,tell me what is Slavic admixture and from which sample is used as primary source?
I'll tell you what is Italian then.
You are messing things up here.
That being said there is no generally agreement what nation is,but most close answer to that is an imagined community,what consitute ethnicity if not language,common myths,cultural heritage,of course we or anyone else are Slavs primarily because we speak Slavic among many other things.
We identified as such,our ancestor did,so we did.I do not know how else you can convince me in opposite or other "non Balkanite".We can say other things about many other people,so what,you want to tell me that all Germans are same,or Austrians and Germans are because all speak Germanic or even the English?
And no Slavs are no different than anyone mentioned above,if you start repeating this i think is bias and i would like to report it.
Go again and read about this stuff.
Unless i start speak the same way about Italians,or the differences between south and north.

There, now I'm done.

There, now I'm done.

Good.

 

[davef]

"South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are."

there's no need to bash Southern Italians and Sicilians.

 

[Angela]

^^This is just typical Balkan nonsense devoid of genetic or even archaeological content. Ignore it.

 

[Milan.M]

"South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are."

there's no need to bash Southern Italians and Sicilians.

And why is there a need to bash Southern Slavs,Polish,Russian,the Balkans or whatever,or you notice that only when is towards you.

 

[davef]

Oh wait, the comma threw me off, so i take back that accusation of south Italian bashing. Sorry. Ok I'm done here

 

[Milan.M]

^^This is just typical Balkan nonsense devoid of genetic or even archaeological content. Ignore it.

I guess you've been devoited of the above,better to ignore cause simply you can't answer.

 

[Milan.M]

...................

 

[Angela]

Oh grow up for God's sake. Pointing out your genetic make-up isn't BIAS; it's called genetics, science, although it seems you've never heard of it.

I would suggest you stop threatening me. You'll regret it.

I'm not the one who is ashamed of my ancestry and believes some cock and bull story fabricated by politicians. It's the equivalent of the fantasy that northern Italians are all 100% Celtic. Please..........

Ed. I know so many wonderful Croatian people here. It's a good thing, or I'd get a totally wrong impression of them.

Go read the academic papers on the special thread. Add the Balkan paper. Read the thread on the Lombards and look at the PCA.

Until you've read and understood and accepted the genetic data there's nothing more to be said.

 

[Angela]

Oh grow up for God's sake. Pointing out your genetic make-up isn't BIAS; it's called genetics, science, although it seems you've never heard of it.

I would suggest you stop threatening me. That will get you nowhere here. We're not in the Balkans.

If you have dna evidence, i.e.admixture, d-stats, PCAs, anything, that shows you're like the Byelorussians, as just one example, post it.

I'm not the one who is ashamed of my ancestry and believes some cock and bull story fabricated by politicians.

@srdceleva,
Are you aware that those men in the artwork have identical faces?

There is EEF admixture in every country in Europe. There is WHG and EHG as well. CHG entered as well. Each brought a certain phenotype. Then everything mixed. So, yes, we have Neolithic farmer looking Brits, and a few "Northern" looking Italians.

However, the proportions and thus the averages will change by area. The predominant phenotype in Germany isn't the same as the predominant phenotype in Italy, although you can find people in each country who look more like the people in the opposite country.

He looks more like my husband than he looks like most Germans:

Some Poles, for example, do have a bit of an EEF look, but I usually find that they come from near the Carpathian Mountains where there is more of that kind of ancestry than in, say, northeast Poland, just as in Ukraine it seems to be centered to the west and south.

It all makes sense if people would read the academic papers and look at the "ethnic" admixtures across space and time.

It isn't rocket science.

 

[davef]

"South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are."


waaaiiit...I thiiiinnnk what he's been trying to say all this time is that in spite of genetic differences between north and south Slavs, they should still be considered Slavs in the same way north and south Italians should both be considered Italians.

Is my interpretation correct?

 

[Milan.M]

"South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are."


waaaiiit...I thiiiinnnk what he's been trying to say all this time is that in spite of genetic differences between north and south Slavs, they should still be considered Slavs in the same way north and south Italians should both be considered Italians.

Is my interpretation correct?

True,i see no difference there,i also gave other examples.
Like Austrians,Germans,Scandinavians or English all Germanic speakers,but she make exceptions as if Slavs or South Slavs are different species.
Angela said there is differences,but those differences are just own perspectives i think bias too.
I really do not say who is more or less Italian between south or north,all of them are Italians to me i used that as an example,for her perspective and answer she gave me.

 

[Milan.M]

Oh grow up for God's sake. Pointing out your genetic make-up isn't BIAS; it's called genetics, science, although it seems you've never heard of it.

I would suggest you stop threatening me. You'll regret it.

I'm not the one who is ashamed of my ancestry and believes some cock and bull story fabricated by politicians. It's the equivalent of the fantasy that northern Italians are all 100% Celtic. Please..........

Ed. I know so many wonderful Croatian people here. It's a good thing, or I'd get a totally wrong impression of them.

Go read the academic papers on the special thread. Add the Balkan paper. Read the thread on the Lombards and look at the PCA.

Until you've read and understood and accepted the genetic data there's nothing more to be said.

I am not ashamed of my ancestry you are insulting again,and you are threatening people with ban here not me,you can ban as much as you like i can still speak for myself.

 

[srdceleva]

@srdceleva,
Are you aware that those men in the artwork have identical faces?

There is EEF admixture in every country in Europe. There is WHG and EHG as well. CHG entered as well. Each brought a certain phenotype. Then everything mixed. So, yes, we have Neolithic farmer looking Brits, and a few "Northern" looking Italians.

However, the proportions and thus the averages will change by area. The predominant phenotype in Germany isn't the same as the predominant phenotype in Italy, although you can find people in each country who look more like the people in the opposite country.

He looks more like my husband than he looks like most Germans:

Some Poles, for example, do have a bit of an EEF look, but I usually find that they come from near the Carpathian Mountains where there is more of that kind of ancestry than in, say, northeast Poland, just as in Ukraine it seems to be centered to the west and south.

It all makes sense if people would read the academic papers and look at the "ethnic" admixtures across space and time.

It isn't rocket science.

Yes I know.and agree with everything you are saying, but I would say there is a slight difference in southern european looks and semitic looks for the most part, thats what I meant by maybe some have some Jewish ancestry...

And I think all slavs have quite dark types, even in belarus you will find dark haired people, maybe not too dark eyed but hair yes. My father looks a lot like the russian actor in my avatar but they have different complexions

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Angela]

"South Slavs are not Slavs the way Russian and Polish are so what? who said that,neither Sicialians or Southern Italians are Italians the way people from North Italy or Milano are."


waaaiiit...I thiiiinnnk what he's been trying to say all this time is that in spite of genetic differences between north and south Slavs, they should still be considered Slavs in the same way north and south Italians should both be considered Italians.

Is this right?

That's not a correct analogy.

Dienekes said years ago that there was an "Italian" signature that ran north and south throughout the entire peninsula. Northern Italy was then impacted by a set of migrations from the north and southern Italy by a different set from the south. (Some of the northern input obviously diffused south and southern input north, but drift set in as well, because north and south were politically divided for about 1600 years.)

After all the genetics papers I've poured over since, and all the raw data and calculator results I've looked at, that's still the best explanation.

The situation in the Balkans is that an essentially MN farmer population was first impacted in a minor way by the "steppe" peoples from far to the east, and then in a more significant way by a heavily steppe population (Balto-Slavic, so heavier in WHG and EHG) from the north/northeast which spoke a Slavic language.

Now, for some of them all that "northern" ancestry might constitute 40-50% of their ancestry. We won't know how much of that came from Indo-Europeans, from Celts, from Goths, or from "Slavs" until we get a lot more ancient samples. Great if they want to be proud of it, but they're not the same as actual Slavs.

The analogy I gave above is more apt. Remedello type people, who despite the fact that the later eras of that culture are very Indo-European like, are genetically EEF like. We don't have any ancient samples yet for after Urnfield like people may have arrived, but obviously that would have had some impact.(Whatever samples we do get will be elite samples, and the lower orders would have been more "native".) I still think the majority of the population would have been significantly EEF, but there would have been "northern" ancestry as well.

Then, in the first millennium BC the Celts arrived, which is part of the reason why some northern Italians have from 10-25% or so Northwestern European (although the earlier migrations would also have had an impact).

Does that make them Celts like the moronic early Lega-Nord types would have had it? No, it doesn't.

@Milan,
No one has threatened to ban you over disagreements about phenotypes for God's sake or even genetics. However, when people start threatening me is when they usually get foul mouthed and step over the line either here or by PM. That's what I was warning you about.

" Austrians,Germans,Scandinavians or English all Germanic speakers"

Yeah, they are, but the English, and the Scots and the Irish, the latter of whom also speak English, are not German. Even the English are only about 30% German.

For the thousandth time, language doesn't equal ethnicity. You're Croatian or Serbian or whatever, you're not a Pole or a Russian, just like I'm not British no matter my "Northwestern" European ancestry.

 

[srdceleva]

That's not a correct analogy.

Dienekes said years ago that there was an "Italian" signature that ran north and south throughout the entire peninsula. Northern Italy was then impacted by a set of migrations from the north and southern Italy by a different set from the south. (Some of the northern input obviously diffused south and southern input north, but drift set in as well, because north and south were politically divided for about 1600 years.)

After all the genetics papers I've poured over since, and all the raw data and calculator results I've looked at, that's still the best explanation.

The situation in the Balkans is that an essentially MN farmer population was first impacted in a minor way by the "steppe" peoples from far to the east, and then in a more significant way by a heavily steppe population (Balto-Slavic, so heavier in WHG and EHG) from the north/northeast which spoke a Slavic language.

Now, for some of them all that "northern" ancestry might constitute 40-50% of their ancestry. We won't know how much of that came from Indo-Europeans, from Celts, from Goths, or from "Slavs" until we get a lot more ancient samples. Great if they want to be proud of it, but they're not the same as actual Slavs.

The analogy I gave above is more apt. Remedello type people, who despite the fact that the later eras of that culture are very Indo-European like, are genetically EEF like. We don't have any ancient samples yet for after Urnfield like people may have arrived, but obviously that would have had some impact.(Whatever samples we do get will be elite samples, and the lower orders would have been more "native".) I still think the majority of the population would have been significantly EEF, but there would have been "northern" ancestry as well.

Then, in the first millennium BC the Celts arrived, which is part of the reason why some northern Italians have from 10-25% or so Northwestern European (although the earlier migrations would also have had an impact).

Does that make them Celts like the moronic early Lega-Nord types would have had it? No, it doesn't.

When you say they whp do you mea though? As I would say slovenians and croatians are still quite slavic genetically. In the case of slovenians they may be more slavic than non slavic genetically though they are an exception in th balkans.


Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Angela]

When you say they whp do you mea though? As I would say slovenians and croatians are still quite slavic genetically. In the case of slovenians they may be more slavic than non slavic genetically though they are an exception in th balkans.


Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Slovenians are indeed an exception in the Balkans. Looking at all the migrations to that area I don't think their "northern" affinity is necessarily all "Slavic". That's what I've been trying to get across. You have to look at all the migrations to an area across time to figure out what went on and what created the modern genetic mix.

Of the remaining Balkan groups the Croats are the most "Slavic" shifted.

However, the differences are not extreme.

The genetics don't lie.

That's what our parents and our teachers told us doesn't cut it any more. My father told me I was solely the descendant of ancient Romans. It isn't so, and that's fine.

 

[srdceleva]

Slovenians are indeed an exception in the Balkans. Looking at all the migrations to that area I don't think their "northern" affinity is necessarily all "Slavic". That's what I've been trying to get across. You have to look at all the migrations to an area across time to figure out what went on and what created the modern genetic mix.

Of the remaining Balkan groups the Croats are the most "Slavic" shifted.

However, the differences are not extreme.

The genetics don't lie.

That's what our parents and our teachers told us doesn't cut it any more. My father told me I was solely the descendant of ancient Romans. It isn't so, and that's fine.

Yes but its hard to deny that slovenians are at least paternally largely descended from slavs. I mean genetically they arent completely slavic and they do have more western european type ancestry as well but still id say they are about 50 percent slavic genetically. I mean even slovaks nobody claims them as pure slavs but on a pca plot and on admixture calculators they end up being anywhere from 70-85 percent slavic (if ukrainians/south russians/ eastern poles are a refernce)

Obviously no one is racially pure but there is actual slavic admixture in the balkans even in serbia or bulgaria at around 20 percent or so.


You are a descendant of Romans though Angela

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk