|
Post by symmakhos on May 7, 2004 19:05:14 GMT -5
Even the genetic search for Viking ancestry in Britain was conducted by searching for eastern European DNA, not Scandinavian. No, I see now that it was "Eastern European" DNA.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 7, 2004 19:10:38 GMT -5
No, I see now that it was "Eastern European" DNA.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 7, 2004 19:11:38 GMT -5
There is no such thing as Slavic or Germanic DNA, although, it's visible that Scandinavians were largely influenced by two eastern European groups. No, it's not "visible" (is there such a word?). I am a Slavophile, awar, and I believe the second most henious crime of the last century was the American destruction of Jugoslavia. But I am also proud of my own country. Which Eastern Europeans do you think have influenced Scandinavians?
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 7, 2004 19:30:00 GMT -5
No, it's not "visible" (is there such a word?). I am a Slavophile, awar, and I believe the second most henious crime of the last century was the American destruction of Jugoslavia. But I am also proud of my own country. Which Eastern Europeans do you think have influenced Scandinavians? I don't know which ones, but that probably happened during the last ....8000 or so years.... Scandinavians are almost equally belonging to the western, central and eastern branches of paleolithic Europeans, with the addition of Uralic and Neolithic DNA.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 8, 2004 5:40:26 GMT -5
Please, argue. *‘Russian’ nation appears at 9th century and it is united by Russian state – ‘Rus’, ‘Russian land’. *Than Rurikovichi tear the state apart into duchies. *Then mongols subdue most of russian lands. (13th c) They do not rule but tax. Rurikovichi are stiil rulers, but now subduded to the Golden Horde. *Then mongols are overhelmed – the russian ducies are united –again-. (14-15th c) Westernized name ‘Russ+ia’ appears. Russia – united russian duchies - is ruled by ‘King of all Rus’. Since then Russia grows. In 18th c. it grows into an Empire. At the same time, 2 complex opposite processes run. Let’s call them ‘homogenization’ and ‘heterogenization’ of nation. ‘Russian’ nation separates to ‘velikorussi’, ’malorossi/ukraintsi’, ’belorussi’. ‘Velikorussi’ keep the name ‘russians’. Todays [slavonish part of] Russia = Velikorossija of 19th c. But it’s direct genetical, cultural and mental successor of “ancient” Rus. ? Illustration – take ‘America’ (USA), tear it into 50 independent states (governors will be ‘dukes’), then put it under Chiniese occupation, then re-unite it (with part of Canada and Mexico added). Name it ‘American Federation’. Would it be still ‘America’ – or not?…<br> It depends… on the purpose of the talk. However it’s funny – I guess Mr. Ivan Grozniy – “Russian Tzar and King of all Rus” (or smth like that) – wouldn’t agree with you… Why modern Russia is not a NATION? Well that's a subject for a different thread. May be I start it may be I won't because I am sure it will be hotly contested. I believe Russia is not a nation, not like real nations like Germany or great France. You say so many silly things that I began suspecting you are a Russian! What you are trying to do is to translate modern Russian (post Soviet) concepts into English as pass them on as ancient verities. This is outright stupid. Ivan Grozny (or Groznyj if you want to use polonized phonetical spelling) or Ivan the Terrible was not “Russian Tzar and King of all Rus." - this is quite outrageous. By the way Ivan IV in fact WAS the last of the Rurik line. Ivan IV was Veliki Kniaz Moskovski - the Grand Duke of Muscovy, with no word Russian mentioned in his title. Now (Tsar) Czar (Carj) in Muscovite dialect meant Ceasar. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was to contemporary Muscovites a Czar. Now Ivan IV made himself equal to the Hapsburg in the eyes of his own stupid subjects (not anyone else mind you) by crowning himsef a Ceasar/Kaiser/Tsar - like the one of the Holy Roman Empire in 1547. He made himself Grand Duke of Moscow, and separately a Czar - or Kaiser/Ceasar. The word King as you claim - Korol - did not figure in the Muscovite grand ducal title.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 8, 2004 5:43:54 GMT -5
Beautiful Well, I posted a Van Gaugh painting just to illustrate that we "southerners" are not as deprived as you think and also have the concept of the uteservering. Ute here means "out" - "aus" - and servering is probably a Franco-Anglo borrowing meaning service or serving? Right?
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 8, 2004 5:51:42 GMT -5
Why modern Russia is not a NATION? Well that's a subject for a different thread. May be I start it may be I won't because I am sure it will be hotly contested. I believe Russia is not a nation, not like real nations like Germany or great France. Start it. Who knows, maybe it'll bring back some old posters.
|
|
|
Post by berschneider on May 8, 2004 5:53:02 GMT -5
Cheap. I'm sure both of you are aware that the post in question just consisted of a quote from a regular science website, and that it was an answer to AWAR's claim that Scandinavia is heavily infected with Slavic DNA? I think it would be interesting to do a similar DNA test on the population of Western Russia, and see how great a genetic legacy my great ancestors have left behind. ;D Well, Symmy, you see Russia is a country that probably ends about 500 km east of Moscow. In times of Tolstoi when a person took a trip to Siberia he was travelling from Russia to Siberia. Encylcopedia Britannica of 1911 has a good definition of Russia (the 1911 version is available online) which is not tainted by American scumminess and Cold War propaganda. As of DNA, I would guess you can call hg2 here, the blue colour, with the highest incidence in Gotland (a nice place by the way! Visited Gotland a long while ago) as the Scandinavian DNA in European context. I guess your closest relatives are then Sardinians and Southern Ukrainians. There is the hg1 - the Western European gene, which is green (the Celtic gene - with highest incidence in Ireland and Basque country), the Slavic or Eastern European hg3 and even the Finnish hg16 - the yellow color.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 10, 2004 0:21:43 GMT -5
Well, Symmy, you see Russia is a country that probably ends about 500 km east of Moscow. In times of Tolstoi when a person took a trip to Siberia he was travelling from Russia to Siberia. Encylcopedia Britannica of 1911 has a good definition of Russia (the 1911 version is available online) which is not tainted by American scumminess and Cold War propaganda. As of DNA, I would guess you can call hg2 here, the blue colour, with the highest incidence in Gotland (a nice place by the way! Visited Gotland a long while ago) as the Scandinavian DNA in European context. I guess your closest relatives are then Sardinians and Southern Ukrainians. There is the hg1 - the Western European gene, which is green (the Celtic gene - with highest incidence in Ireland and Basque country), the Slavic or Eastern European hg3 and even the Finnish hg16 - the yellow color. What the Hell are you talking about Berscheider?
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 10, 2004 0:53:31 GMT -5
Well, I posted a Van Gaugh painting just to illustrate that we "southerners" are not as deprived as you think and also have the concept of the uteservering. Ute here means "out" - "aus" - and servering is probably a Franco-Anglo borrowing meaning service or serving? Right? Yes of course.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 10, 2004 1:06:23 GMT -5
I don't know which ones, but that probably happened during the last ....8000 or so years.... Scandinavians are almost equally belonging to the western, central and eastern branches of paleolithic Europeans, with the addition of Uralic and Neolithic DNA. I think you know that the divisions that are significant for our discussions are made later that that? Do you actually mean that there is no significant difference at all between Slavic and Nordic DNA?
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 10, 2004 10:47:29 GMT -5
I think you know that the divisions that are significant for our discussions are made later that that? Do you actually mean that there is no significant difference at all between Slavic and Nordic DNA?
|
|
Noric
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Noric on May 10, 2004 11:49:06 GMT -5
berschneider wrote: Don’ know what are you talkin’ bout… You are right – I’m very absent-minded. I don’ know his official title for sure at all. But… 1. He WAS Russian Tzar anyway. Interesting information for you from Herberstein (16 c.): “Word ‘tzar’ in russian language means ‘king’= ‘rex’ <> not ‘Caesar’ <> some Slavs call him ‘kral’, ‘korol’…”<br> So Dmitry Ivanovich was called “russian tzar” even at the end of 14 century. 2. Many foreigners of his time call him ‘king’. I use it instead of ‘Grand Duke’. So he was exactly “the Grand Duke of all Rus”. (Besides, “The Terrible” is not equal to russian ‘Grozniy’ at all. Maybe “Rigorous” is better).
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on May 10, 2004 12:16:00 GMT -5
Actually, Knyaz = Koenig = King ( falsely translated to Prince by historians who'd do anythign to downplay the importance of Russia ). Tzar = Czar/Csar = Caesar = Emperor ( most probably taken from Byzantines ). Kralj = Korol = Krall = Either taken from Frankish king Carolus Magnus, or has something to do with the word Coron/Corona/Kruna = Crown. Rex = Raja = Raj from ancient IE. = King
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 13, 2004 11:24:51 GMT -5
Or do you mean that you are out of your depth? Anyway, that is probably the most irritating smiley in cyberspace (as I'm sure you know).
|
|