Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Bulgars facial anthropology
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bulgars facial anthropology
    Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 15:05

Anthropology of the Bulgars

Russian translation to English

"It is interesting that male Bulgars were somewhat more Mongoloid than female Bulgars although not significantly different, it is still closer to the brachicranial Caucasoid"

" The population has abandoned medieval cemetery Small Minaret, was mixed in anthropological terms. Along with representatives brachicranial Caucasoid type are representatives of the Mongoloid race. Women's series is not significantly different from men, but, in our view, it is more Caucasoid than men. Apparently, carriers Mongoloid elements was a male part of the population who came to this territory as conquerors. (P. 93)

 

1. ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

Anthropology evidence.

" Bulgars were Oghur Turkic,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] with Scytho-Sarmatian[13][14] and Sarmatian-Alan[15][16] elements. There is a discussion whether these Sarmatian elements in the cultural characteristics of the Proto-Bulgars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians.[17] They had also enveloped other ethnic groups by their migration westwards across the Eurasian steppe.[18][19]  "

"This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages were gradually imposed in Central Asia and East European Plain on Caucasian (Scythian & Finno-Ugrian) peoples with relatively little genetic admixture, another possible example of a language shift through elite dominance.  "

2.RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA

Archaeology and paleoanthropology


Materials Zlivkinskogo necropolis (Ukraine) [22] , cemeteries Crimea [23] and mounds in the Volga and Danube Bulgaria [24] show that the Bulgars treated brahiokrannym (round or short head) Europoids [25] . By craniological Zlivkinskogo repository related to Saltovo-Mayaki culture, physical type Bulgarians is set to "brachicranial Caucasoid with weakened Mongoloid features, the average size of face and skull. characteristic of both Asian and for part of the European Sarmatians [28] (excluding the Alans , whose physical type was dolihokrannym Caucasoid [29] ), for rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya and is expected to homeland Proto-Bulgarians [30] of cemeteries Iranian-speaking peoples, also in modern Pamir peoples [31] . Caucasian origin brahiokranii Proto, binds to the so-called paleo-Euroipeoid groups .


Edited by MrButlerKing - 15-Feb-2013 at 15:08
Back to Top
yomud View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar
Inactive

Joined: 04-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 399 		  Quote yomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 19:59
your sick men show ur self to a doctor
yomud are free people
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392 		  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 23:50
Originally posted by Mr ButlerKing


Anthropology of the Bulgars

Russian translation to English

"It is interesting that male Burglars were somewhat more Mongoloid than female Burglars although not significantly different, it is still closer to the brache cranial Caucasoid"

" The population has abandoned medieval cemetery Small Minaret, was mixed in anthropological terms. Along with representatives brachycranic Caucasoid type are representatives of the Mongoloid race. Women's series is not significantly different from men, but, in our view, it is more Caucasoid than men. Apparently, carriers Mongoloid elements was a male part of the population who came to this territory as conquerors. (P. 93)

 

1. ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

Anthropology evidence.

" Burglars were Oghur Turkic,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] with Scytho-Sarmatian[13][14] and Sarmatian-Alan[15][16] elements. There is a discussion whether these Sarmatian elements in the cultural characteristics of the Proto-Burglars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians.[17] They had also enveloped other ethnic groups by their migration westwards across the Eurasian steppe.[18][19]  "

"This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages were gradually imposed in Central Asia and East European Plain on Caucasian (Scythian & Finno-Ugric) peoples with relatively little genetic admixture, another possible example of a language shift through elite dominance.  "

2.RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA

Archaeology and paleoanthropology


Materials Zlivkinskogo necropolis (Ukraine) [22] , cemeteries Crimea [23] and mounds in the Volga and Danube Bulgaria [24] show that the Burglars treated brahiokrannym (round or short head) Europoids [25] . By craniological Zlivkinskogo repository related to Saltovo-Mayaki culture, physical type Bulgarians is set to "brachycranic Caucasoid with weakened Mongoloid features, the average size of face and skull. characteristic of both Asian and for part of the European Sarmatians [28] (excluding the Alans , whose physical type was dolihokrannym Caucasoid [29] ), for rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya and is expected to homeland Proto-Bulgarians [30] of cemeteries Iranian-speaking peoples, also in modern Pamir peoples [31] . Caucasian origin brahiokranii Proto, binds to the so-called paleo-Europeaid groups .
 
 
At this point. Your trolling.
 
 
 
As you have failed to offer any substantial, discernible, justification or explanation of your belief in or adherence to the theorems you are advocating other then through block style 'cut and paste' referral to the references.
 
 
 
Nor do you particulary appear to be interested in doing so. Or acccept counter commentary and or rejection of the theorems.
 
 
 
It will be his decision to further id whether that behavior is on going.
 
 
CV
Moderator


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 15-Feb-2013 at 23:52
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 12:33
I don't get this logic? how is this trolling? I provided sources, citation, and anthropology picture and you call this trolling? some logic this is.  I followed the rules fair and squares, I don't see what rule I'm breaking.  You're welcome to refute this threads claim but don't derail it again please.

The two of you coming here derailing this thread is not trolling? thanks a lot for spoling another thread of mine.


What is the big deal man and what is the freaking problem man?  All I did was post facial reconstruction of Bulgars and you guys respond to me like you don't like this?

block style 'cut and paste' referral to the references.


Am I suppose to make up some bs theories that they were this or that for example? Why not just get straight to the point instead.

As long is the truth so what if I have copied and paste? it's not like I found them by chance, it took a much longer time searching  for these pictures. It's better than 90% of the bullshit speculations I've read about bulgars, claiming they were either Iranic, Mongoloid, or some European race ect.


As you have failed to offer any substantial, discernible, justification or explanation  

AGAIN.....  did I post this on the wrong section or something?
I though this was  a Steppe nomads and Central Asia thread, it's not like I posted facial reconstruction of Vikings in this section, so what is it here that is trolling?

HAD ANY OF YOU BEFORE SHOWED PICTURES OF BULGARS RECONSTRUCTION?   NO!!!


I'm not like most of the people in this forum who make claims with empty evidence. My kind of posting is showing hardcore evidence.




Edited by MrButlerKing - 16-Feb-2013 at 13:32
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 13:22
I presume you recall this: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33234 

I like to know what was racist BS here, so just because I think Afro-centrists were liars and thieving history that's racist?

Try proof to me what of what I said was racist? YOU CAN'T.


Edited by MrButlerKing - 16-Feb-2013 at 13:23
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940 		  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 13:35
How about citing some credible books instead of wikipedia? These people aren't Mongoloid, but Slavic. I have seen similar facial features among my own relatives and on Russians
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 14:05
Originally posted by Nick1986

How about citing some credible books instead of wikipedia? These people aren't Mongoloid, but Slavic. I have seen similar facial features among my own relatives and on Russians

I already posted the source on my first post, these aren't from wikipedia but from Russian anthropology data. Sorry they weren't slavic, but were more closely related with Samartians but with extra Mongoloid features.  If you want the English translation version I can do it for you.
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 14:09

Since when was book more credible than wikipedia? you can find books which claimed Bulgars were Mongoloid like in this one.

Great Events from History: Ancient and Medieval Series: 951-1500 - Page 1218

books.google.co.uk/books?id=iZXtAAAAMAAJ
Frank Northen Magill - 1972 - Snippet view - More editions
By the end of the seventh century consolidation of the Bulgar peoples had taken place and the following century saw the amalgamation of the Mongoloid Bulgars with the Slavs. This new Bulgarian people was welded into a potent political ...



Edited by MrButlerKing - 16-Feb-2013 at 14:13
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226 		  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 14:33
Originally posted by MrButlerKing

I presume you recall this: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33234 

I like to know what was racist BS here, so just because I think Afro-centrists were liars and thieving history that's racist?

Try proof to me what of what I said was racist? YOU CAN'T.
 
 
Yes it is racist, in the context you presented it in.  Prove it to you?  Not possible, you wouldn't pay attention.
 
You sir are a common forum troll.  stick to the CoC or go somewhere else.
 
BTW- The term Momgoloid is no longer scientifically valid.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 17:14
Red clay, I want to make another thread and post a tons of pictures of facial reconstruction of Scythians.

So would it be okay if I post them?


Edited by MrButlerKing - 16-Feb-2013 at 17:17
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940 		  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 19:01
MrButlerKing, we already know the Scythians were a steppe people related to the Mongols. What I personally find offensive is your belief Slavs are simply white/central Asian hybrids rather than being a distinctive ethnicity
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 19:54
Originally posted by Nick1986

MrButlerKing, we already know the Scythians were a steppe people related to the Mongols. What I personally find offensive is your belief Slavs are simply white/central Asian hybrids rather than being a distinctive ethnicity

Quite the opposite, Scythians were Caucasians


What I personally find offensive is your belief Slavs are simply white/central Asian hybrids rather than being a distinctive ethnicity

Where on earth you got that from,  I never said anything like that before.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734 		  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2013 at 04:39
Originally posted by MrButlerKing

Originally posted by Nick1986

How about citing some credible books instead of wikipedia? These people aren't Mongoloid, but Slavic. I have seen similar facial features among my own relatives and on Russians

I already posted the source on my first post, these aren't from wikipedia but from Russian anthropology data. Sorry they weren't slavic, but were more closely related with Samartians but with extra Mongoloid features.  If you want the English translation version I can do it for you.



Well, the data you posted here is related not to the Bulgars per se but to the Proto-Bulgarians, that were a Central Asian tribe, wat exacty is not clear. A small group of them crossed the Danube in 6 cent. and mixed with far more numerous ancient Thracians and Slavs, so this slightly mongoloid phenotype got lost in time.

There are several theories about the ethnic character pf the Proto-Bulgarians, - Cimmerian, Sarmatian, Hunnic, Turkic, whatever; since people mix I'd say they were kinda mixed ethnically to start with. The important part is thit small Proto-Bulgarian tribe was ethnically melted into the Thracians and Slavs, so the pictures you show here have absolutely nothing to do with the faces pf modern Bulgarians.


Edited by Don Quixote - 17-Feb-2013 at 08:36
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084 		  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2013 at 07:00
SmileWe missed Micky Mouse company here..You can not change native structure of habitat without extreme overpopulation of territory.This one has happened in last five centuries in both Americas&Australia.Lands that had been overpopulated before melted e&migration blood inside native one...In Americas&Australia it was possible cause of new industrial revolution.If it was in ancient times there could have not been people for realization of exchange.Ex.China is our target.Americans come in
China,result is Chinese Americans.Americans come to India,result is Indian Americans...LOLIf it were more
or less unpopulated territories than every village will have different name,even virtual one:LoS Angelos,
New England,Alexandria,....Puertorico....
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 11:02
Well, the data you posted here is related not to the Bulgars per se but to the Proto-Bulgarians, that were a Central Asian tribe, wat exacty is not clear. A small group of them crossed the Danube in 6 cent. and mixed with far more numerous ancient Thracians and Slavs, so this slightly mongoloid phenotype got lost in time.

There are several theories about the ethnic character pf the Proto-Bulgarians, - Cimmerian, Sarmatian, Hunnic, Turkic, whatever; since people mix I'd say they were kinda mixed ethnically to start with. The important part is thit small Proto-Bulgarian tribe was ethnically melted into the Thracians and Slavs, so the pictures you show here have absolutely nothing to do with the faces pf modern Bulgarians.

LOL Dude..... Proto Bulgarians  =   BULGARS.  Or if you like the ancestors of Bulgars.

Modern Bulgarians are not descendants of Bulgars but slavs.



Edited by MrButlerKing - 18-Feb-2013 at 11:05
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734 		  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 11:16
Modern Bulgarians are a mixture of Ancient Thracians, Slavs and Proto-Bulgarians.
When you use the term "Bulgars", this brings confusion with the modern Bulgarians /Bulgari/. That's why there is used the term "Proto-Bulgarians". And no, they weren't exactly "Mongoloid", the only one "Mongoloid" trait was the epithelian eyelid, which is not exactly a slanted eye, but turned down eyelid. And the custom of bracing the skull wasn't exclusively a "Mongoloid" cultural trait, so it cannot be used as any proof of anything. Only based on a skull or 2, from 1-2 necropolices it's not possible to make a characterization of the whole population anyway.
 
Besides the very word Mongoloid, as well as Caucasian, Negroid, etc, are not anymore considered scientiic terms, because, according to the AAA races don't exist to start with.
 
Maybe it will do you some good to check out some Bulgarian trends in anthropology, not only to bring Russian sources that well may have a political agenda to them.
And no need to LOL here, on this forum we try to keep an athmosphere of mutual respect.


Edited by Don Quixote - 18-Feb-2013 at 13:40
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226 		  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 11:51
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by MrButlerKing

I presume you recall this: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33234 

I like to know what was racist BS here, so just because I think Afro-centrists were liars and thieving history that's racist?

Try proof to me what of what I said was racist? YOU CAN'T.
 
 
Yes it is racist, in the context you presented it in.  Prove it to you?  Not possible, you wouldn't pay attention.
 
You sir are a common forum troll.  stick to the CoC or go somewhere else.
 
BTW- The term Mongoloid is no longer scientifically valid.
 
 
The late Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, formerly Chair of the African Studies dept., Rutgers University, the Uni. of the State of New Jersey, is usually considered to have been the first to challenge the consensus view of Africa.  For this, he was labeled an Afro Centrist.
 
Dr. Van Sertima was a mentor and instructor when I was a fuzzy faced undergrad.  I am personally offended by your assertions.
He was not, by any definition, a liar.  He was in fact trying to regain the history that had been usurped by others.
There are those that have carried his ideas to the extreme, Clyde Winters for one, but don't lump them all under one heading.
 
 


Edited by red clay - 18-Feb-2013 at 11:58
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 16:37
Modern Bulgarians are a mixture of Ancient Thracians, Slavs and Proto-Bulgarians

Mixture of Proto-Bulgarians? hardly....


Bulgarians are located in an intermediate position between Eastern European and Mediterranean populations, which is in agreement with historical events. Genetically, modern Bulgarians are more closely related to other neighbouring Balkan populations (Macedonians, Serbs, Romanians, Greeks and Albanians) than to the rest of the Europeans.[60][61][62][63][64] Bulgarians are distant from Turks despite geographical proximity.[65]

Ancient DNA has been retrieved from Thracian populations from the south-East of Romania, which might be helpful in suggesting the genetic make-up of pre-Slavic Bulgaria. A few mtDNA matches were found with modern Bulgarians. However this study was done in 2004, before the present sequencing methods were available and consequently full mitochondrial genomes could not be obtain



And no, they weren't exactly "Mongoloid", the only one "Mongoloid" trait was the epithelian eyelid, which is not exactly a slanted eye, but turned down eyelid. And the custom of bracing the skull wasn't exclusively a "Mongoloid" cultural trait, so it cannot be used as any proof of anything. Only based on a skull or 2, from 1-2 necropolices it's not possible to make a characterization of the whole population anyway.


I NEVER SAID THEY WERE MONGOLOID.

Even the study doesn't say that, it said they were Caucasoid with small Mongoloid admixture with the men being more Mongoloid than females.


Besides the very word Mongoloid, as well as Caucasian, Negroid, etc, are not anymore considered scientiic terms, because, according to the AAA races don't exist to start with.


Doesn't matter, those are common term and people still use it today. How is one suppose to describe a Pakistani if you don't call them Caucasoid?


Maybe it will do you some good to check out some Bulgarian trends in anthropology, not only to bring Russian sources that well may have a political agenda to them.  


You're welcome to post Bulgarian anthropology data







Edited by MrButlerKing - 18-Feb-2013 at 16:38
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 16:53
I'm talking about modern Afro centrist not the ones from the past. It's fine if they want to regain history but don't try to claim other's people's history. Stick with your Sub-saharan history if you really want to regain it, why is it they always everything outside of Sub-Sahara is there nothing worth it in the Sub-Saharan civilization?


I've debated with Afro centrist like Runuko rashidi and Clyde winters 2010 have shown me their strong willed agenda to steal history by manipulating skin color, nose shape of statues. If there was a brown skin figure in British royal family they call this mulatto but refute the idea it could have been a tan skin Caucasian, that's how they do it and any genetic data I and others have shown that refutes their theory a over hundred times is still isn't enough.  It's simple, they only want to take a bite of other history through faking if they don't they won't quite down.

Do you what's more offensive?  They personally wrote that Dravidian civilization is nothing more but a extension of African civilization. YES, AND THEY WROTE A BOOK FOR IT.

I've met dravidian people all my life and I have never in my entire life heard a UK born Black person say Dravidians are Black but yet Afro-centrists claimed they were the same, claiming them their different black even though anthropology, genetics shows no connections.

Star">



Edited by MrButlerKing - 18-Feb-2013 at 17:30
Back to Top
MrButlerKing View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100 		  Quote MrButlerKing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2013 at 17:44
So for the last time I've never been racist to Black here but I dislike Afro centrist very much, their pseudo data and manipulation is beyond ridiculous.

The only people today who claim these Dravidians are Black are Afro centrists, only fools would call this black. It's clear to anyone what they are trying to do, how is this regaining history by claiming people that are not them? their motives is very obvious and clear.




Edited by MrButlerKing - 18-Feb-2013 at 17:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.