PDA

View Full Version : Who Created Ancient Greece and Rome?



Siegfried
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 03:01 PM
My 2 cents:

Greece: Med and Dinaric types predominant; relatively similar to modern Greece. Probably more Nordish blood earlier on, during the times of Homer (800 BC, well before the summit of Greek power and culture). Sparta might have preserved more Nordish characteristics among her elite than the rest of Greece.

Rome: Culture partially derived from the Etruscans, who were ancient Meds but disappeared IIRC. Roman aristocracy was a mix of Medish and Nordish types (also 'Alpine' blood; whether that's Nordish, Medish, or something else, depends on who you ask). Common folk predominantly Medish. When the Germanic tribes attacked the Empire, their blondness was seen as something odd by the Roman aristocrats, which might indicate that the Nordish element was weak in ancient Rome.

[edit: I voted; A blend of various Europid sub-races, such as Meds and/or Alpines and/or Nordids. The modern inhabitants of the European Mediterranean region are genetically relatively unaltered descendants of this classic population.]

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 03:22 PM
#3

The Greeks were a blend of various European sub-racial types. Predominantly Med/Alpinoid/Dinaric/UP and of course the Nordid types ( and no, not the Scandinavian Nordid types ). The reconstructed skull of Alexander the Great's father Philippos was a sort of Borreby-like type which is common in todays Balkans.

Also, there has been recorded a fluctuation in the CI of various populations, and also other features such as ruggedness etc. so, a genetically unaltered population could have had much changes in appearance due to nutrition, climat changes and other non-genetic factors.

Example:
History records a high percentage of prognathous Irishmen as recent as the 19th century AD. This feature is now not common at all in Ireland, and Irishmen weren't replaced genetically, or altered genetically, so one could only ascribe such a phenomenon to a trend in nutrition and other influences, not DNA.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 03:28 PM
Who were the Creators of Ancient Greece and Rome?

All the evidence suggests that the cultures grew up locally, but in Italy there must have been some linguistic influence from the north.

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 03:35 PM
Well, Latin is akin to Celtic and Illyrian.

Milesian
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 03:58 PM
It's true that I cannot think of any prognathous Irish-folk that I have met.
Were they common up until the 19th century? Hard to say, I wasn't around then ;)

However, I would take into consideration that some people may have had a political agenda for misrepresenting the Irish population in the past. The "amusing" cartoons of the Irish created by British illustrators and comic-artists (such as the one posted on Dodona) seem to have been done for propoganda purposes.

If there is some objective evidence, however, then it would be interesting to see it

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Well, Latin is akin to Celtic and Illyrian.

Illyrian is close to Albanian isn't it? Albanian is related to Indo-Iranian.

Milesian
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Link?

http://dodona.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=racesoc&action=display&num=1079319442

Zyklop
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 04:41 PM
The dorians, one of the founding tribes of classical greece, were probably north/central europeans.
Recommended books:
"Die Rückkehr der Herakliden" and "Die Atlanter" by Jürgen Spanuth.

Triglav
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Illyrian is close to Albanian isn't it? Albanian is related to Indo-Iranian.

Albanians still pride themselves on being the only true descendants of the Illyrians and yes, their language is said to originate in Illyrian, even though the vocabulary has been largely influenced by ancient Pelasgian, Greek and Turkish.

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Illyrian is close to Albanian isn't it? Albanian is related to Indo-Iranian.

Actually, it's not. There are some 70 words that are Illyrian or said to be Illyrian in origin. Albanian is a Satem language while Illyrian was a Centum.

The ancient Illyria was an area roughly from modern Switzerland to Bulgaria and Greece to the south. It is said that the Illyrian influence at a time spanned all the way to Denmark on the north.

Don't ask me for links... please, I never keep those. :|

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Actually, it's not. There are some 70 words that are Illyrian or said to be Illyrian in origin. Albanian is a Satem language while Illyrian was a Centum.

The satem languages are probably not a single group within Indo-European.

Agrippa
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:15 PM
I voted for 3 although I think there were some dysgenic, trends of negative selection in wars, because of diseases and other social factors etc.

This factors influenced for sure the populations and not always in a positive way.

But principally the today populations represent at least in great parts the original f.e. Roman population.
Not to forget that new immigrants from the North brought new Nordid elements in the South. (Langobards, Goths etc.)

That certain good elements died out is a reality, another question is how important subraces were in this process.
I think there were certain lines which died out in Sparta, in Rome (Senat) etc and this had a negative influence.

But good lines could be from Nordids, Dinarids, Alpinids and Mediterranids.
On the long run Nordids were in trouble because of certain diseases and recessive traits. But although they are today totally mixed up, the Genpool is relatively unaltered.

Alkman
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Predominantly Meds.There was a strong Dinaric element and Alpinid types were present too.

Alkman
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Predominantly Meds.There was a strong Dinaric element and Alpinid types were present too.Greece is what im talking about

Triglav
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Actually, it's not. There are some 70 words that are Illyrian or said to be Illyrian in origin. Albanian is a Satem language while Illyrian was a Centum.

:scratch

In addition, we should not forget the fact that Zeus was a Pelasgian god, par excellence , his original place of worship being Dodona. It is estimated that of the actual stock of the Albanian language, more than one third is of undisputed Ilyrian origin, and the rest are Illyrian-Pelasgian, ancient Greek and Latin, with a small admixture of Slavic, Italian (dating from the Venetian occupation of the seaboard), Turkish and some Celtic words, too.

http://www.albanian.com/information/history/origins.html


The ancient Illyria was an area roughly from modern Switzerland to Bulgaria and Greece to the south. It is said that the Illyrian influence at a time spanned all the way to Denmark on the north.

Umm, is there any connection between the Illyrian Dinarics/Norics and those of the Bell Beaker culture?


Don't ask me for links... please, I never keep those. :|




http://www.albanian.com/main/culture/language/classification.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:41 PM
Zeus wasn't a Pelasgian god, rather an IE god... also very present under similar names in all the IE cultures. Zeus-Deus-Djaus-Jus piter-Djaus pataar etc.

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 06:43 PM
Btw. I wouldn't know about bell-beakers........ I doubt the Illyrians were all Dinarics.

Zyklop
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Attached maps taken out of Spanuth´s "Die Rückkehr der Herakliden". Black spots mark the distribution of a special germanic sword type called "Griffzungenschwert" at about 1200 B.C.

Hellenic Eagle
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 07:46 PM
Zeus wasn't a Pelasgian god, rather an IE god... also very present under similar names in all the IE cultures. Zeus-Deus-Djaus-Jus piter-Djaus pataar etc.


So Awar, i assume you have been a Pelasgian in one of your previous incarnations, and you are able to know first hand, in what exactly they believed in? Well, if this is the case, and you state this after your session with your psychic/hypnotist, fine, otherwise it is impossible for you to know...

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 07:48 PM
I believe by nature it was just a group of meds in both regions and they chose their territory. Like a coincidental happening.

Awar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 08:18 PM
So Awar, i assume you have been a Pelasgian in one of your previous incarnations, and you are able to know first hand, in what exactly they believed in? Well, if this is the case, and you state this after your session with your psychic/hypnotist, fine, otherwise it is impossible for you to know...

Why, did your psychic/hypnotist tell you otherwise, or are you just mad at me 'cause I don't like to see mudslinging between you and Razmig?

Agrippa
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004, 10:14 PM
Zeus shows so much similarities with other IE gods that it is, if you think about the strong influence of IE social structures, language, religion etc. in general it is very likely that Zeus was an IE and no Pre-IE god.

If you compare Zeus with Indra, Wotan/Thorburn or other IE gods its even more obvious.

There might be still a small chance that he was not of IE origin but its very unlikely.
So to assume that Zeus is in general an IE good is something you can say even without being an Pelasgian.

For sure the Pre-IE had some influence as the pre-Aryan groups of India had some strong influence, maybe they even altered some characteristics of Zeus that way, but the initial form is IE.

Med
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Choice 3 comes closest to the truth, as most people recognized.

Greeks were an even blend of Alpines, Dinarics and Mediterraneans (though the Minoans were purely Mediterranean). The Nordic element was always weak.

Romans were predominantly Alpine-Dinaric, with Mediterranean elements as well as Nordic ones (though of the darker, hybridized Central European variety). The Etruscans were Mediterranean.

Of course, modern Greeks and Italians are the direct descendents of their ancient ancestors, as genetic research indicates. Levels of recent admixture are extremely low, and the large Ancient Greek contribution to the Southern Italian gene pool, e.g., consistently shows up in DNA testing.

Vestmannr
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Everyone knows that I founded Ancient Greece and Rome, using the time machine I built with plans ripped off from the ancient wonderland of the Songhai Empire. I shot back in it to hang out with the mad-scientist Yacub, who made white folk in his lab by mixing Abominable Snowmen with Orangutans. While there, we had to fend of attacks by the Grey Aliens, who seeded Earth with the genetic material for the Great Med/Negro/Latino human race so we could build Ether antennas for them in Egypt and Greece. Back then, all real humans looked like Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. Besides, Jesus and Socrates were Black, man! Fight the Power!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

(I'll go have a smoke now)

Awar
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Everyone knows that I founded Ancient Greece and Rome, using the time machine I built with plans ripped off from the ancient wonderland of the Songhai Empire. I shot back in it to hang out with the mad-scientist Yacub, who made white folk in his lab by mixing Abominable Snowmen with Orangutans. While there, we had to fend of attacks by the Grey Aliens, who seeded Earth with the genetic material for the Great Med/Negro/Latino human race so we could build Ether antennas for them in Egypt and Greece. Back then, all real humans looked like Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. Besides, Jesus and Socrates were Black, man! Fight the Power!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

(I'll go have a smoke now)

Oh no! It was YOU who killed my great-great-grandfather when he was a baby!


PLOP!

( AWAR disappears due to temporal paradox )

:)

BlueEyedDevil
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Celts, just celts. Sicilians and south Iberians are not the celts that established the acient Greek and Rome, coz they were mixed with turks and moslem from north africa.

Awar
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 08:35 PM
Celts, just celts. Sicilians and south Iberians are not the celts that established the acient Greek and Rome, coz they were mixed with turks and moslem from north africa.

Actually... no. As medhammer already explained in the previous post.
Celts were a component in the history of Europe, but not the founders of any classic civilization.

Vestmannr
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 12:58 AM
I think the argument could be made (and has been made by Celtophile Peter Berresford Ellis) that Rome was a not very advanced, small, unremarkable city in conflict with the slightly more superior Etruscan folk until the remarkable happened. The remarkable event was a third party in the conflict, the Cisalpine Gauls of the Po river valley entering the fray. Through the process of war, truce, and assimilation the Cisalpine Gauls came to take a major role in the growing Roman state (at the same time the Etruscans were absorbed.) Rome really only takes off as a power at the time that these Gauls are given citizenship, and made indistinguishable from other Roman citizens. I know that the historian Fr. John Romanides, of the U. of Thessaloniki argued that the Romans were just a Greek colony that was "Gallicized", in any case their 'advancement' or high civilization only comes into being after their majority Gallicization, and their invasion of Iberia and the Provence. So far, I dont think anything beyond anecdote and slogans has been offered to show that Rome was that advanced.

The criteria for advancement for many of those who argue is a little foggy as well: is it literacy? Societies with high levels of social and material technology have existed without literacy. Living in cities was a norm of Celtic/Gallic civilization, as well as amongst the Germans, Goths, Slavs, etc. They had stable socio-political identities. A stable, complex, and sophisticated system of law, governance, and religion. Even staunch classicists have admitted that as regards metallurgy, and other technologies (warfare, transportation, agriculture), that many of the non-Roman/non-Greek societies were far more advanced in many of these areas than their neighbours to the South and East. The only characteristic that I can think of that allowed the Romans to excel was flexibility, the ability to handle change (more or less without collapse). However, this same characteristic exists pretty much worldwide with many societies.

What, indeed, makes Greece and Rome so special? I would argue it is only an importance of mnemesis. That specifically, it was the Christian communities (which were not entirely Roman, nor Greek as in Hellenic) that preserved the Classical memory, and later actually revived it, thus building it into a mythology beyond its actual form. Greece in its present place had little importance beyond the city states of Athens and Sparta. The real important history of Greece happens to the north, east, and south of Athens. By the time of the rise of Rome, Greece was absorbed into the Romaioi. Present Greek (Hellene) identity is a construct as well, based upon a political rejection of the Romaioi identity that the ancestors of the modern Greeks had been comfortable with for the past 1500-2000 years. Indeed, what the Greek Empire is remembered for is its later cosmopolitan years, and the same with Rome ... in the days it was ruled by Caesars of Illyrian, Slavic, Gallic, Basque, and Germanic blood. The problem comes for both those who identify with Italic Rome and Hellenic Greece proper: their sense of worth is based upon an idea of continuity. However, that continuity was broken at one point or the other : in the West by the Goths, Lombards, and finally by the Holy Roman Empire and the shift of power and civilization north and west. Or in the East by the Slavic and Bulgar invasions, the Turks and the long fall, and the depredations of Crusaders, Venetians, etc. The wholesale immigration from the Empire of the Romaioi to the West had an effect, as did the creation of the 'Rum Millet' under the Ottoman Turks. So, the most continuity that can be claimed is a tentative one centered around the Phanar and Mt. Athos. Again, for Greece the power (and civilization) moved north to Kiev, Novgorod, Moscow, Serbia, Moldavia, Wallachia, etc.

So far, then, all the evidence seems to suggest to me that the actual 'Greeks' and 'Romans' did not build, but were rather taken on a ride of progress by their various invaders, the the peoples those invaders later conquered: Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, Dorians, Slavs, Germans, Goths, Normans, Vikings, Varangians, Celts, Gauls, Iberians, etc.

Louky
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Actually... no. As medhammer already explained in the previous post.
Celts were a component in the history of Europe, but not the founders of any classic civilization.
Celts, just celts. Sicilians and south Iberians are not the celts that established the acient Greek and Rome, coz they were mixed with turks and moslem from north africa.
Talk about temporal paradoxes!

Vlad Cletus
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Illyrian is close to Albanian isn't it? Albanian is related to Indo-Iranian. It is, what's currently spoken today are direct derivatives of the Illyrian dialects spoken so long ago. The two main dialects are Tosk (South), and Gheg (North).

Telperion
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 01:57 AM
Through the process of war, truce, and assimilation the Cisalpine Gauls came to take a major role in the growing Roman state (at the same time the Etruscans were absorbed.) Rome really only takes off as a power at the time that these Gauls are given citizenship, and made indistinguishable from other Roman citizens...their 'advancement' or high civilization only comes into being after their majority Gallicization, and their invasion of Iberia and the Provence. So far, I dont think anything beyond anecdote and slogans has been offered to show that Rome was that advanced.

...The only characteristic that I can think of that allowed the Romans to excel was flexibility, the ability to handle change (more or less without collapse). However, this same characteristic exists pretty much worldwide with many societies....

What, indeed, makes Greece and Rome so special? I would argue it is only an importance of mnemesis. So far, then, all the evidence seems to suggest to me that the actual 'Greeks' and 'Romans' did not build, but were rather taken on a ride of progress by their various invaders, the the peoples those invaders later conquered: Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, Dorians, Slavs, Germans, Goths, Normans, Vikings, Varangians, Celts, Gauls, Iberians, etc.The Romans are of course significant becuase their empire provided a conduit for both classical Greek culture, and later Christianity, to be imported into Western Europe. They had little in the way of their own culture, rather borrowing the cultural achievements of others and adopting them into their own culture. However, their own native brilliance lay in their political genius. It was precisely the incorporation of conquered peoples into their own civilization that gave them the manpower they needed to rise to dominance, and in many other respects they proved masters of the arts of military organization, strategy, tactics and political intrigue (divide and conquer, etc.). Their own strong sense of civic virtue and discipline also played a strong role in their success. My favourite quote from Livy's 'History of Rome' is by Scipio Africanus the Elder, to whom Livy attributes the following words:

"How many fleets, general, armies were lost in the first Punic war? And what of the present one? I was present myself at all our defeats, or if I was not, they touched me more closely than anyone else. Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae, what are those names but records of the destruction of Roman armies and the deaths of consuls? Then think of the defection of a large part of Italy and Sicily and of Sardinia, and then of that moment of ultimate horror when the Carthaginians lay in camp between the Anio and Rome, and victorious Hannibal was seen almost within the gates. When everything, it seemed, was falling about us in ruin, one thing alone stood firm - the inviolable, the unshakeable courage of the Roman people. This it was that raised up again the scattered fragments of our fallen fortunes."
(Boox XXVI of Livy's 'History of Rome')

At the same time, one could argue that the extension of citizenship to non-Latin peoples in exchange for military service also downgraded the coherence of Roman civic virtue, so that the very processes that enabled Rome's rise to power also sowed the seeds for its decline. But, that only means they were subject to the same sorts of historical processes of rise and decline that can be witnessed in any civilization.

As for the Greeks' own cultural attainments, I don't doubt that one could find people amongst the ancient Celts and Germans who were just as brilliant as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Archimiades, Pythagoras, etc. But, literacy makes all the difference. Since the ancient Celts and Germans did not write down their own ideas, they are lost to us forever, and were lost even in late Roman and early dark age times as their own oral folk-memories failed. That is why the Greeks' own contribution to our civilization is so important. It is perhaps unfortunate that our knowledge of the Celts and Germans and their achievements is based very largely on what the Greeks and Romans chose to write about them, since they were hardly unbiased observers, and wrongly believed the northern peoples to be inferior to themselves.

However, I would not agree the Greeks were taken on a 'ride of progress' by others. The Greeks themselves were a mixed Mediterranean people with some (Celtic) Nordic traces and an Indo-European language and culture by classical times, but it is difficult to find support for the arguments that the Meds. did not contribute to classical Greek culture. It would be difficult to separate out the contributions of the various types who made up the Greek nation, but I would note that the upper class Spartans, who were probably the most purely 'Nordic' types (due to their strict laws against breeding with the native Helots), developed little in the way of cultural (as opposed to military) acheivement, while the Athenians, who were the progenitors of what we think of as the majority of Greek cultural achievements, were by their own testimony descended from the Pelasgians, i.e. the native inhabitants of Greece. But, they were still influenced by the Indo-European language and culture of the Dorians, so I'm not sure how one would separate out precisely who contributed more than who. I would certainly not countenance a general denegration of Greek cultural achievements, since they are the cornerstone of Western civilization.

Awar
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 02:21 AM
It is, what's currently spoken today are direct derivatives of the Illyrian dialects spoken so long ago. The two main dialects are Tosk (South), and Gheg (North).

It's not derived from Illyrian, there's been absolutely no confirmed connection. Thank You all!

It's even more related to Dacian :P

Vestmannr
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I dont think it is so much a denegration, but noting: Alexander the Great was of Makedon, not of Athens. Likewise, I would agree with John Romanides that Rome originated with refugees from Achaia who absorbed Pelasgians in the vicinity of Rome. However, I did not mean the granting of citizenship for military service in Rome: that is a later development. What I mean is that the catalytic event for when Rome becomes a true power is the granting of the Insubres and other Celts of North Italy (and soon the Provence) the rights of Latins in 89 BC, and full Roman citizenship in 49 BC. Thus, the 'Roman' society was not a 'native Italian', or even 'purely Greek' affair.. but a merging of Celt and Greek into a society that would conquer, borrow, etc. Far from being a 'mythology', if one ignores the ingathering of the Cisalpine Gauls to the Roman State, they deny the full definition of what 'Roman' is. The point being, there is nothing 'magical' about Eastern Med civilization/stock... arguing for E. Med supremacy is as fantastical as arguing for Atlantean dispersal, Afrocentric dispersal, or some pure Hallstat Nordic dispersal of 'Civilization' to creatures barely able to handle it. That, and so far the evidence seems to be that much of these countries indeed had Nordid, Alpinid, Dinarid, and even the Semitic stock and Armenoid peoples amongst them. The Y-STR lineage J2 is definitely that of the Palestinians, Syrians, and Arameans ... it is found in large numbers in Europe in Greece and S. Italy. The same goes for E3, which is more related to Arab, Ethiopian, and Copt . And the G haplogroup, which I believe is that most common to Armenians and Georgians amongst the 'E. Med.' groups. N. Italy, including Rome is mostly R1b and I, iow the same as Atlantids, UPs, Nordids, Alpinids and Dinarids.

Telperion
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 02:43 AM
Thus, the 'Roman' society was not a 'native Italian', or even 'purely Greek' affair.. but a merging of Celt and Greek into a society that would conquer, borrow, etc. Far from being a 'mythology', if one ignores the ingathering of the Cisalpine Gauls to the Roman State, they deny the full definition of what 'Roman' is. The point being, there is nothing 'magical' about Eastern Med civilization/stock... arguing for E. Med supremacy is as fantastical as arguing for Atlantean dispersal, Afrocentric dispersal, or some pure Hallstat Nordic dispersal of 'Civilization' to creatures barely able to handle it.
I agree. Probably 'denegrate' wasn't the best choice of words on my part.

Razmig
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 04:09 AM
If we are to speak of the origins of civilization, thus the cultures that spread into Greece, we would undoubtedly have to consider Summer. Not to mention, Greece's adoption of the Phoenician alphabet. Essentially, the initial leaders in Greece were probably already a blend of types (as Greece was in between all different phoenotype originations).

About the topic of Gods. There are Roman equivelents to Greek gods, and Summerian to Greek, and some earlier than that. Gods are just gods, they are adopted one people to the next and cannot be claimed by one group alone.

cosmocreator
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 04:21 AM
I agree with this. But I think modern Greece is a lot more Armenoid.


Choice 3 comes closest to the truth, as most people recognized.

Greeks were an even blend of Alpines, Dinarics and Mediterraneans (though the Minoans were purely Mediterranean). The Nordic element was always weak.

Romans were predominantly Alpine-Dinaric, with Mediterranean elements as well as Nordic ones (though of the darker, hybridized Central European variety). The Etruscans were Mediterranean.

Of course, modern Greeks and Italians are the direct descendents of their ancient ancestors, as genetic research indicates. Levels of recent admixture are extremely low, and the large Ancient Greek contribution to the Southern Italian gene pool, e.g., consistently shows up in DNA testing.

Razmig
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 04:49 AM
I agree with this. But I think modern Greece is a lot more Armenoid.
Cmon Cosmo, you know you cant say Armenoid when referring to European soil...psht. It's "Dinaric." :D

Med
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 03:04 PM
I agree with this. But I think modern Greece is a lot more Armenoid.

On what are you basing that? Coon believed that modern Greeks are essentially identical to ancient ones.

northman75
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 07:29 PM
On what are you basing that? Coon believed that modern Greeks are essentially identical to ancient ones.They sure have not advanced much since then. Where are the modern Plato's, Socrates, or Aristotles?

Awar
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 07:33 PM
They sure have not advanced much since then. Where are the modern Plato's, Socrates, or Aristotles?

Where are the great American scientists today?

Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer... :P

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 07:40 PM
They sure have not advanced much since then. Where are the modern Plato's, Socrates, or Aristotles?
And what advanced the pure 100% nordid Vikings during the time of Plato and Sokrates?
Only that single question is enough to ruin all your funny theories and fairytales.

northman75
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 07:51 PM
Where are the great American scientists today?

Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer... :PThere will most likely never be another Tesla. There are plenty of brilliant american scientists and european scientists all over the place. Why are you so anti-american?

northman75
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 07:59 PM
And what advanced the pure 100% nordid Vikings during the time of Plato and Sokrates?
Only that single question is enough to ruin all your funny theories and fairytales.They had probably just escaped from Atlantis and were in the process of rebuilding there far superior culture. How is that for a fairy tale? All I said is that the ancient greeks were far superior the modern day greeks. How can you deny that?

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 08:14 PM
They had probably just escaped from Atlantis and were in the process of rebuilding there far superior culture. How is that for a fairy tale? All I said is that the ancient greeks were far superior the modern day greeks. How can you deny that?
As a fairytale - very nordish.
As a fact try to be "superior"(you're obsessed with that word don't you?)on the Balkans during the unstoppable wars with muslims. While southern europeans were in war with arabs, turks etc NE was still learning to read Aristotle or Socrates. Thanks to southern europeans you are not muslim today.
As a fact.

Razmig
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Where are the great American scientists today?

Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer... :P
Let us not forget America is the leading nation in technology, medical research, etc amongst other things, it aided third world and worn torn countries, Awar.


There will most likely never be another Tesla. There are plenty of brilliant american scientists and european scientists all over the place. Why are you so anti-american?
I think he was meant to prove a point. Sokrates and Einstein are simply those who became famous. I'm sure Greece has many modern day scientists, the thing is, that in modern times, there are many more scientists than there were back in the day.

Razmig
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 12:32 AM
I think those whole thread is stupid. There was no specific people that "founded" anything. Like I've stated before, if we are to consider the earliest forms of civilization, it would be Summer, and not later Greece. Without the integration and settlements of many different peoples into the mediterannean, I doubt it would have had the successes it has had in the past (and only in the past :D ).

Dienekes_Pontikos
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 04:08 AM
Contemporary Greeks are essentially identical racially to the ancient Greeks. They are an ethnic group that emerged on a southern Europid (more specifically south Balkan/west Asia Minor or Circum-Aegean) racial background.

Razmig
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 08:16 AM
Contemporary Greeks are essentially identical racially to the ancient Greeks. They are an ethnic group that emerged on a southern Europid (more specifically south Balkan/west Asia Minor or Circum-Aegean) racial background.
I guess thats true, considering both Greek and Romans were made up of several different peoples.

Nordhammer
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Do you have more info on that?

What about other alternatives completing your model: more prognathic people being less attractive and having (on average) less offspring?

(Well, if one looks to Africa, maybe not.) ;)

It would be nice if AWAR supported his many claims with evidence. :)

According to Coon the prognathous element in Ireland is from a Mediterranean source, which is a minority. UPs are orthognathous.

The lips and the whole mouth region are sometimes, however, thrown into prominence by the presence of facial prognathism; this occurs in 8 per cent of the whole, while purely alveolar prognathism is found in but 2 per cent. There is a strong regional differentiation in both kinds of prognathism, however; the center of concentration is in the eastern counties, from Armagh to Waterford; facial prognathism reaches its maximum of 24 per cent in Wicklow and Carlow. It is interesting to note that the counties which show the maximum of Upper Palaeolithic features are the least prognathous of all, and that the Protestants show it more frequently, to a slight degree, than do the Catholics.

It is impossible at present to define with equal clarity the two minor types; the Atlanto-Mediterranean element, if it were brown eyed and black haired, has completely lost its original pigment qualities through mixture. Yet "Mediterranean" types can be isolated in Ireland, and one may perhaps ascribe to them the occurrance of prognathism and some of the curly hair. - C.S. Coon

silent
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 02:41 PM
definately not Nordics, what a lie!

Nordhammer
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 02:47 PM
So Awar, i assume you have been a Pelasgian in one of your previous incarnations, and you are able to know first hand, in what exactly they believed in? Well, if this is the case, and you state this after your session with your psychic/hypnotist, fine, otherwise it is impossible for you to know...

:rotfl Oh damn... I laughed at that for a full minute.

Razmig
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 09:32 PM
:rotfl Oh damn... I laughed at that for a full minute.
I'm sure the Hellenic Eagle is some kind of time traveling bird which has confirmed all the histories of Hellenism and its superiority. We do NOT, however, need a time traveling bid to confirm Greece's present day status. :D