% of blondes in Serbia

[Nordmannss]

What the % of blondes are in Serbian nation?

[Bulair]

Thats impossible to tell, since everyone can bleach his hair and become blond

[Luger]

Thats impossible to tell, since everyone can bleach his hair and become blond

As a true racial anthropologist I go around town checking peoples roots, thats how I know

Blonds in Serbia are not very commom but you do see them. I would guess a maximum of 1% are blond in the "nordic" aka-platinum case. Then you have many more darkblonds/light brown ca 10% . The Serbs are pretty diverse on that scale, you got everything from black hair to blond but most people have dark brown and brown eyes thats about 80% of the population. And then you have ca 10% with black hair and eyes.
This is my totally non scientific research based on what Ive seen myself. It would be interesting to see what the other Serbs on this forum think.

Personally Im one of those 80% altough when I was a child I had lightbrown hair and lightbrown eyes. I guess Im kind of a cameleon and when I saw that I wasnt going to fit in I changed to darkbrown and brown eyes

Does anyone know why this is the case with children?

Bulair, how does the procentages look in Bulgaria?

NordmannSS, correct me if Im wrong but Ive gotten the impression that Norwegians have more brownhaired people then the Swedes, is it so?

And congratulations to Norway on your 100 years as an independent nation this year!

[Awar]

I'd say there's about 1% of platinum blonds,
and 5-10% of other blonds.
Some 20% of light brown-haired people,
some 60-65% of dark-brown,
and 5-10% of black-haired individuals.

There are probably some 60-65% of brown and hazel-eyed people,
and 35-40% of blue/gray/green eyed people.

[Bulair]

I have no idea about such percentages here, but in certain regions blue eyes and light hair are predominant.For example in the Rhodope region you can hardly see a person with other than blue, green eyes and blond hair is also very common.On the black sea coastal areas, you can hardly see blond individuals amongst the native population.I even know some people with real red hair...what can I say, a pretty diverse picture, but on average people tend to have brown hair, brown eyes.I myself have very dark eyes and hair.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Bulair

I have no idea about such percentages here, but in certain regions blue eyes and light hair are predominant.For example in the Rhodope region you can hardly see a person with other than blue, green eyes and blond hair is also very common.On the black sea coastal areas, you can hardly see blond individuals amongst the native population.I even know some people with real red hair...what can I say, a pretty diverse picture, but on average people tend to have brown hair, brown eyes.I myself have very dark eyes and hair.

Here, in Serbia, the most light-pigmented areas are in
the west, north and central Serbia. The southeast, along the Bulgarian, FYROM and up to the south Romanian border is darker pigmented.

Montenegro is weird when it comes to pigmentation.
There's a lot of blonde, light-brown and red-haired people in Montenegro, perhaps up to 50% and then, there are also many black-haired individuals, up to 20%. The rest is medium or dark brown.

So it's basically 50/50 in terms of light/dark. The eye pigmentation
is most often blue or gray, and brown as second. I think 60/40.

Coon noticed all this very good. Especially the thing about facial hair.
Most Montenegrins have a lighter beard than the hair.

[Zrinski]

Hmm...I must say rather strange place to ask this question...

[Awar]

Yeah, I didn't notice it was in the mediterranid section.
You can find probably the same ammount of classic meds in Serbia as you can find
chinese people. Perhaps there's more Chinese here

[Vojvoda]

Originally Posted by NordmannSS

What the % of blondes are in Serbian nation?

16%, If I remeber correctly, according to a research done ages ago and posted on another now defunct forum(The percentage in Macedonia was 12% and Britain 14% I believe).Good estimation, Awar.

[Luger]

Coon noticed all this very good.

I think Coons studies where full of errors, he claimed that Montenegrins where infact Slavicized Albanians.

The Montenegrins, who are the tallest people in Europe, live on a barren limestone mountain upland, where they, for centuries, succeeded in maintainingnheir Christianity and their freedom while surrounded by the Turks. They, like the northern Albanians, preserve their old exogamous clan organization, and their clan loyalties and feuds. They are linguistically Serbs, but there can be no question that they are to a large extent Slavicized Albanians;

Try telling that to a Montenegro Serb and he will rip your heart out.
His talk of the Montenegrin Serbs as a completely different people then the Serbs shows that he doesnt know the history of that area.
His writings are so full of subjective oppinions and references that I cant take him seriously.

The Catholics are likewise the tallest and the lightest skinned; being the oldest population in the region in point of conversion, and the least affected by outside influences, the Catholic element preserves both a pre-Slavic123and a pre-Turkish racial configuration more completely than do the partisans of Orthodoxy or Islam.

Hid whole agenda was an attempt prove that the further you go eastwards in former Yugoslavia the smaller and darker people get. This coupled with insinuations that the reason for this would have been the alledged racemixing with the Turks shows to me that this man didnt know what he was talking about.

In hair and eye color the Bosnians are intermediate between Croatians and Serbs; they are darkest in the northeast, and fairest in the regions nearest Montenegro. Since they form but an extension of the Montenegrin nucleus, it will suffice here to point out their near identity with the inhabitants of that former kingdom, and to leave a detailed description for the latter.

He talks about "Bosnians" being between Croatians and Serbs in hair and eye color, but doesnt bother to tell wich Bosnians hes talking about. Maybe he didnt know that there is no such thing as "Bosnians" and that those people where Serbs and Croats.

A person that makes these kind of errors in his descriptions either is incompetent or has an agenda.

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/index2.htm

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Luger

I think Coons studies where full of errors, he claimed that Montenegrins where infact Slavicized Albanians.

Well, yes, that was retarded because various iterations of Montenegrin state/nationhood are older than anything similar Albanian.
But the fact remains that most of the Serbs and Montenegrins, and the rest of the Balkans is of local origin, which later adopted the Slavic languages.

Try telling that to a Montenegro Serb and he will rip your heart out.

So? People share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees, try telling that to
99% of people, and they will rip your heart out, doesn't make it any less true.

Most of what Coon said in that statement is true, except his stupid conclusion.

His talk of the Montenegrin Serbs as a completely different people then the Serbs shows that he doesnt know the history of that area.

I agree, he has no clue about the history of the area, his conclusions are outdated and wrong, but a lot of his informations stand.

His writings are so full of subjective oppinions and references that I cant take him seriously.

So, take things which are of any worth, and dump the rest. Easy.

Hid whole agenda was an attempt prove that the further you go eastwards in former Yugoslavia the smaller and darker people get.
This coupled with insinuations that the reason for this would have been the alledged racemixing with the Turks shows to me that this man didnt know what he was talking about.

True, but, from his writings about Montenegro, I think it's obvious he has either been there, or at least written based on someone who has been to MN and written down some facts. It largely coincides with what I've seen in MN.

The things he's written about Serbia seem to be completely off,
but you also have to realize that phenotypes and statures change.
The average southeastern Serbian who's older than 50 years is usually not very tall, brachycephalic and darker than most other Serbs. But, if you look at younger people, you can seem much more meso and dolichocephalic people who are much taller than their grandparents. The average older SE Serb must be around 165-170cm tall, while their grandchildren are 180-185cm tall.

Probably because of better nutrition among other things.

He talks about "Bosnians" being between Croatians and Serbs in hair and eye color, but doesnt bother to tell wich Bosnians hes talking about. Maybe he didnt know that there is no such thing as "Bosnians" and that those people where Serbs and Croats.

Again, a total lack of knowledge of history. Typical for Americans.

A person that makes these kind of errors in his descriptions either is incompetent or has an agenda.

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/index2.htm

I think it's both, but depending on the subject, Coon's writing varies in accuracy, this probably means that he took from various sources, and perhaps travelled to some of the places he described.
Somewhere he, or his sources simply suck, other places are described with more accuracy.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Bulair

I have no idea about such percentages here, but in certain regions blue eyes and light hair are predominant.

According to M.Popov (first half of 20th c.) who conducted the largest anthropological research on Bulgarians in no one bulgarian region light eyes are predominant. He estimated as far I remember about 65-70% dark, 10-15% light and 20% mixed coloured irises average, for the whole country.

For example in the Rhodope region you can hardly see a person with other than blue, green eyes and blond hair is also very common.

The people of Rhodopes (it is relatively big area) do not significantly differ in regard of pigmentation from the rest of Bulgaria. Even in the most depigmented populations (Razlog, Jundula) light eyes are no more than 30%, Popov's research has regional charts even for quite remote and mountain areas. You've based your conclusion on the occidental experience because some people from that areas are indeed on average slightly lighter pigmented than the average bulgarian, and you tend to exaggerate that tendency. This is clearly psychological effect - people tend to pay attention on things that are more uncommon and to exaggerate their significance.
If you are interested I may find the book of Popov and present the concrete numbers about any region.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Awar

But the fact remains that most of the Serbs and Montenegrins, and the rest of the Balkans is of local origin, which later adopted the Slavic languages.

There is no concrete "slavic language". There is slavic language group. Native balkan populations simply assimilited significant ammount of the characteristics of that slavic language group. Undoubtedly in our modern tongues there are important pre-slavic element, but since we are not sure how exactly these languages sounded, and what are their concrete linguistic characteristics there are no illyrian or thracian language group that could eventually describe better modern balkan languages.

[Bulair]

For example in the Trigrad area, almost every individual I saw had light eyes, sometimes blond hair.I've been to other places in the Rhodop mountains and I got the same impression, that light pigmentation is predominant.Yes, you're right that I can't draw concusions based on my own impressions, but as a whole people there tend to be lighter pigmented and thats quite visible.

[Luger]

Originally Posted by Awar
But the fact remains that most of the Serbs and Montenegrins, and the rest of the Balkans is of local origin, which later adopted the Slavic languages.

There couldnt have been a large population on those territories considering that all of them accepted the Slavic language and traditions.
Compare that to the case of the Slavic Bulgarians who kept their Slavic language and instead assimilated the counqurers into their society.

If your hypothesis is true there should have been a more numerous local Balkan population because according to you the pre-Slavic genes are more prominent then the Slavic in genetic tests made in the area.
So the question arises why didnt the Slavic population assimilate into the local pre-Slavic peoples like the Proto-Bulgarians did in Bulgaria?
The stuation is paradoxical considering your statement that the majority of people in these areas are of local pre-Slavic ethnicity.

[Vojvoda]

Originally Posted by Luger

There couldnt have been a large population on those territories considering that all of them accepted the Slavic language and traditions.

I wonder what the exact population was of the whole area back then Also, there are minority Vlachs,supposed aboriginals of the area, that don't even speak Serbian to this day and the ones that were 'assimilated' still know of their 'Aroman' roots such as the musician Mirko Kodic although I've read in some Milosevic-era history books that Vlachs are actually Romanized Serbs But then again, it might depend on the area,some were assimilated while others were not or maybe Slavs have always lived in the Balkans anyway

On the scent of Slavic autochtony in the Balkans

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Luger

There couldnt have been a large population on those territories considering that all of them accepted the Slavic language and traditions.
Compare that to the case of the Slavic Bulgarians who kept their Slavic language and instead assimilated the counqurers into their society.

If your hypothesis is true there should have been a more numerous local Balkan population because according to you the pre-Slavic genes are more prominent then the Slavic in genetic tests made in the area.
So the question arises why didnt the Slavic population assimilate into the local pre-Slavic peoples like the Proto-Bulgarians did in Bulgaria?
The stuation is paradoxical considering your statement that the majority of people in these areas are of local pre-Slavic ethnicity.

Assimilation doesn't have anything to do with sheer numbers.
There are many mechanisms at work in such situations.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Bograchev Mahil

Even in the most depigmented populations (Razlog, Jundula) light eyes are no more than 30%, Popov's research has regional charts even for quite remote and mountain areas.

As far as I know Pomaks, ethnic Bulgarians who were converted to Islam, and who remained a very seperate and isolated group have rather high percentages of light hair and eyes and are considered to be a very light pigmented group skin tone-wise as a general rule. This is from my own observations as well as from what I have read in Ottoman annals (where different ethnic groups are examined in great detail), anthropological s