PDA

View Full Version : Were All Indo-European Peoples Nordid/Nordic?



twilight
Friday, February 27th, 2009, 08:33 AM
I want to start off by saying I really don't know much about anthropology or the White sub-races. I always kind of figured the only White sub-races were Old Europeans and Indo-Europeans. However, I see now that there are a lot of varying beliefs on sub-race, and I want to learn more about them.
So yeah, forgive me if I sound ignorant in anything I'm asking.

Anywho, I've read from many sources that all the Indo-European tribes were Nordic. At first I kind of laughed at this idea, since I figured there's no way the Latins and Hellenes had blond hair and blue eyes. So I did some research, and it turns out most of the original Roman emperors had Northern features. After a while of reading about Rome and Nordic theory, I was able to accept that the original Latins were Nordic.

Now the Hellenes, that's kind of a stretch. I've read the Iliad, and nearly all of the heroes are said to be blond. Same goes for many other Greeks heroes and gods. The one thing that stops be from believing the Hellenes were Nordic, is that EVERY ancient depiction I've seen of Helen of Troy shows her to have dark hair. Now don't get me wrong, I know that the Indo-Europeans were a minority in Greece, the majority were Pelasgians. But still, if the Indo-European Hellenes were ruling, and they wrote the Iliad, shouldn't the most beautiful woman of all time be created with blond hair, typical of Nordics?

Also, there's the question of the first wave of Greeks, before the Dorians. There's really no art or literature showing a Nordic presence in Greece before Classical Greece. So were the first Hellenes to invade Greece also Nordic?


Also, what about the Baltid race? If Northern Europe was originally inhabited by Nordics, then when the Germans, Celts, Slavs, and Balts poured in during the Indo-European invasions, how was a separate Baltic sub-race created? Were the natives of the Baltic region not originally Nordic like the rest of Northern Europe?

And finally, is there any evidence that the Hittites and Persians were originally Nordic?

Sorry for the long post. As you can see, I'm a very curious fellow.

rainman
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 10:06 PM
If by "Nordic" you mean basically the same as a modern Northern European then yes. This would include people with darker hair though. Modern Greeks and Italians are not the original founders of the ancient civilizations. The classical Greeks were their own subgroup but most of the ruling families would have blended in well with modern Germans. The founders of Rome were the same, but they mixed with Etruscans who have some Semetic origins pretty early on. Hittitites I've heard conflicting statements about their Aryan-ness. Iran, Iraq, and India all decend from a common Aryan civilization though the blood has been heavily mixed. In most cases the blood has been mixed. Only in modern Europeans of say Norwegian or North German or perhaps English decent has the mixing been minimal. Even the French have some semetic mixing. The Spanish have their own historical mixing, so does East Europe.

teutonicscult
Sunday, April 26th, 2009, 10:51 AM
Awesome Topic nothing stupid about the questions.
I have the same questions myself.
We'll have to wait till someone like Agrippa, Jäger or someone to give some answers.

Sigurd
Sunday, April 26th, 2009, 11:06 AM
It all depends on whether you believe an Indo-European ethno-genesis took place in the Baltic, and spread therefrom, or whether it took place in the Caucasus.

If it took place in the caucasus, then evidently, the idea of a Neolithic group which spread throughout the lands would almost have to be associated with Indo-Europeans, who would then racially appear to be more along the Atlantid/Nordid/Pontid spectrum.

If it took place in the baltic, then one could assume that its appearance perhaps predated the arrival of a different race, which brought agriculture. Then, the Upper-Paleolithic survivors of Cro-Magnid definition would appear to be those from whom Indo-Europeans sprang, with Nordids/Atlantids/Pontids being an outside influence.

Depigmentation, on the other hand is a different matter altogether. It is neither exclusive to the Neolithic subraces, nor the Cro-Magnid subraces, so one'd have to be careful in linking either to this phenomenon, especially when this phenomenon is not only largely unexplained, but is also not uniform across the North.

Ingwë
Sunday, April 26th, 2009, 03:22 PM
It all depends on whether you believe an Indo-European ethno-genesis took place in the Baltic, and spread therefrom, or whether it took place in the Caucasus.

If it took place in the caucasus, then evidently, the idea of a Neolithic group which spread throughout the lands would almost have to be associated with Indo-Europeans, who would then racially appear to be more along the Atlantid/Nordid/Pontid spectrum.

If it took place in the baltic, then one could assume that its appearance perhaps predated the arrival of a different race, which brought agriculture. Then, the Upper-Paleolithic survivors of Cro-Magnid definition would appear to be those from whom Indo-Europeans sprang, with Nordids/Atlantids/Pontids being an outside influence.

Depigmentation, on the other hand is a different matter altogether. It is neither exclusive to the Neolithic subraces, nor the Cro-Magnid subraces, so one'd have to be careful in linking either to this phenomenon, especially when this phenomenon is not only largely unexplained, but is also not uniform across the North.

I'll consider the latter theory.

Wasn't the core Neolithic subrace coined the "Corded" by Agrippa or a specific text, as the base aurignacid in which those subraces, Nordid, Atlantid, Pontid, Iranid, etc. later developed into?

But I also remember it being mentioned that even considering the caucasian theory the various Indo-European tribes that moved out and settled wouldn't of all been aurignacid sub-racially, that various cro-magnid strains would also have been present.

Sir Infamous
Thursday, April 30th, 2009, 02:25 AM
The answer is no. Obviously only a small fraction of modern Indo-European speakers are phenotypically Nordic.

If you are talking about the Proto Indo-Europeans the answer is also more than likely no. At least they would not have been as light pigmented as modern Scandinavians or North Germans, nor would they more than likely had those chisled Teutonic feautures.

The reason why some people think they were Nordic looking is because in the 19th and very early 20th century the original home of the proto Indo-Europeans was thought to be northern Europe (Scandinavia). Today that notion is not taken seriously anywhere because there is simply no evidence for it.

Today the dominant hypothesis and the one with the most evidence backing it up is the Kurgan hypothesis which places the Indo European homeland in Southern Russia around the black sea.

4500-2500 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3488018921_cce83cf366.jpg?v=0
2500-1800 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3488834692_16a79de1a6.jpg?v=0
1800-1200 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3488020311_b9cc79050b.jpg?v=0


scientists are not in agreement about the location of the Indo-Europeans' homeland, much less their original phenotype, definitive records of which are lacking.

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, April 30th, 2009, 05:36 AM
Depigmentation, on the other hand is a different matter altogether. It is neither exclusive to the Neolithic subraces, nor the Cro-Magnid subraces, so one'd have to be careful in linking either to this phenomenon, especially when this phenomenon is not only largely unexplained, but is also not uniform across the North.

Concerning depigmenation, I would think this phenomenon would have occured prior to the arrival of Homo-sapien on the world scene. Culture replaced physical adaptation to the environment. So one would expect any major physical adaptation, mutations that ended up in entire population, to have occurred before culture. With culture there is no survival necessity for physical adaptation. Any mutations that occurred thereafter would just diversify our gene pool, but not find its way into every individual within that gene pool. Mutations that do that are ones that are a survival imperative, but as I said earlier, post-culture there are no imperative physical adaptations.
Due to this chain of reasoning I have come to the thought that depigmentation occurred pre-homo-sapien, probably in one of the branches of Homo-Erectus or Homo-Habilis, post Africa migration.

This is my first post here in Skadi forum. So forgive me if my early posts are not in concert with the forum yet.

TheGreatest
Thursday, April 30th, 2009, 01:35 PM
If by "Nordic" you mean basically the same as a modern Northern European then yes. This would include people with darker hair though. Modern Greeks and Italians are not the original founders of the ancient civilizations. The classical Greeks were their own subgroup but most of the ruling families would have blended in well with modern Germans. The founders of Rome were the same, but they mixed with Etruscans who have some Semetic origins pretty early on. Hittitites I've heard conflicting statements about their Aryan-ness. Iran, Iraq, and India all decend from a common Aryan civilization though the blood has been heavily mixed. In most cases the blood has been mixed. Only in modern Europeans of say Norwegian or North German or perhaps English decent has the mixing been minimal. Even the French have some semetic mixing. The Spanish have their own historical mixing, so does East Europe.


French had once been the academic language of Europe and consequently this made is fairly easy for the French to absorb foreign peoples.

Frederick I of Prussia also granted leniency for political and religious refugees, even accepting a number of Scotsman and Bohemians.

Napoleon made Jews full citizens and encouraged intermarriage as a way of stamping out the Jewish ways. (Well I supposed it did work... Considering that most ''Jews'' today are oddly enough always Polish/Russian. What ever happened to France, once known for having the largest Jewish population in Europe, to having absolutely none at all? Seems almost all Jews today had parents or grandparents born in Poland or Russia)


The United States saw it fairly easy for Jews to become Whites. I.E. the Kohn family in the Austrian Empire, whom resided in Czech Lands, migrating to the United States, claiming to being Irish and changing their surname to Kerry (I.E. John Kerry - presidential candidate!)


The post-war re-integration of the Volksdeutsche ("right of return" in Germany) saw people whose last German ancestor was a Great Grandparent, being granted citizenship, and a lot of these people came from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Asian SSR countries. I believe this law is still in effect and is being taking advantage of by Russians who don't even speak a word of German.


I distinctly recall Coon saying something like the Nordic race being the youngest of them all (I think he was implying it was created when light-haired Cromagnids or even Balts, intermarried with Paleo-Atlantids or Mediterraneans :D:D).

velvet
Thursday, April 30th, 2009, 03:45 PM
The post-war re-integration of the Volksdeutsche ("right of return" in Germany) saw people whose last German ancestor was a Great Grandparent, being granted citizenship, and a lot of these people came from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Asian SSR countries. I believe this law is still in effect and is being taking advantage of by Russians who don't even speak a word of German.

Yes, it's still in effect, but as far as I know, the 'big wave' was in the nineties, when the iron curtain fell, today the russian immigrants are outnumbered by far by the muslims with the law of 'family reunion', resulting in half anatolian villages being 're-united'...

Stygian Cellarius
Saturday, May 2nd, 2009, 06:32 PM
I would say that it depends on how you are classifying "Indo-Europeans" and "Nordics". If the question is simplified to this; What was the phenotype of the "Proto-Indo-Europeans?", then I would say, I'm confident that they were all blonde haired and blue eyed. As far as their cranial morphology is concerned, were they Brachiocephalic or Doliocephalic? Their genepool probably contained both variants and when populations migrated, resulting in different tribes etc., the branches carried a predominance of one or the other by chance. The result being Poles who are mostly Brachiocephalic and Swedes who are mostly Doliocephalic.
I personally don't give any significance or relevance to either cranial type, but some do. You can find a "pure" Swede, with no admixture that has the features of a Pole. Just as you can find a person of "pure" "Mediterranean" type, brachiocephalic, but change their hair and eye color and they would go unnoticed in Norway.
So back to your specific question; If you mean Nordic as just having Blonde hair and blue eyes, then I would say "Yes, they were all Nordic". If you mean Nordic as in "Blonde hair, blue eyes, doliocephalic, sharp straight nose, tall stature, etc., then I would say "No".

Sir Infamous
Saturday, May 2nd, 2009, 09:59 PM
So back to your specific question; If you mean Nordic as just having Blonde hair and blue eyes, then I would say "Yes, they were all Nordic". If you mean Nordic as in "Blonde hair, blue eyes, doliocephalic, sharp straight nose, tall stature, etc., then I would say "No".

Is there any scientific evidence to back up this claim? Or is this what you just "assume"?

Also The Spread of Indo-European languages has much more to do with cultural contact than "race".

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 01:10 AM
Is there any scientific evidence to back up this claim? Or is this what you just "assume"?



Yes, this is speculation on my part based on limited scientific data. That's why I said "I would say..." instead of just "they were....". I've decided to do my best not to present my beliefs/ideas in the form of a scientific truth as I've seen many many times in the limited time I've been in this forum. I know it's hard not to do when someone knows a lot on the subject, but I'm committed to avoiding that way of expressing my ideas/beliefs.

The speculation is partly based on my previous speculative post that depigmentation would have occurred pre-homosapien (which I also alluded to speculation). Therefore, Blondes would have been present on the world scene before PIE's split into different IE groups. And yes I am making the assumption that the IE's are the source for those features, with the exception of one other possibility, I just think that possibility to be a lot less likely. Any other source, I believe, to be nonsensical.


Also The Spread of Indo-European languages has much more to do with cultural contact than "race".

Well, yes, of course, but here we are talking about Indo-Europeans and not Indo-Europeans speakers. At least I was anyways and I'm pretty sure the thread originator was as well (althought I cannot remember the exact details of his post so I could be wrong, but I don't think I am). :)

Sir Infamous
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 01:54 AM
Well, yes, of course, but here we are talking about Indo-Europeans and not Indo-Europeans speakers. At least I was anyways and I'm pretty sure the thread originator was as well (althought I cannot remember the exact details of his post so I could be wrong, but I don't think I am). :)


Arent Indo European speakers "Indo European"? Atleast Indigenous ones? The Iranians are just as "Indo European" as British.

anyways this is old 19th century debunked hogwash science. There are no Europeans that descend primarily from "IndoEuropeans" since 80% of Modern Europeans are Paleolithic descended and almost all the rest (mostly in Southern Europe) have Neolithic admixture with the introduction of agriculture into Europe.

Also I don't see how anyone can equate blondism with "IndoEuropean" because the Finns are the blondest in Europe, and also have the highest percentage of their population with Blue-Grey eyes....they don't even speak Indo-European.

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 04:04 AM
Arent Indo European speakers "Indo European"? Atleast Indigenous ones? The Iranians are just as "Indo European" as British.

anyways this is old 19th century debunked hogwash science. There are no Europeans that descend primarily from "IndoEuropeans" since 80% of Modern Europeans are Paleolithic descended and almost all the rest (mostly in Southern Europe) have Neolithic admixture with the introduction of agriculture into Europe.

Also I don't see how anyone can equate blondism with "IndoEuropean" because the Finns are the blondest in Europe, and also have the highest percentage of their population with Blue-Grey eyes....they don't even speak Indo-European.

If Indo-European speaker = Indo-European then that would mean the entire continent of South America is of Indo-European stock. Which is an absurdity. Iranians have a very high percentage of Indo-Europeans genes, speak an IE language and retain an IE culture (however degenerated). So calling them Indo-European is not incorrect. They just have have a greater admixture with non-IE populations than your typical IE, thus modifying their phenotype to approximate the non-IE.

What exactly is old 19th century science? Recognizing the existence and origin of particular phenotypes? And what does the admixture of Europe have to do with anything spoken of? It would not matter if humans didn't even exist at all in Europe for a conversation about the phenotype of biological Indo-Europeans to be legitimate.

And in defense of 19th century anthropology; just because a scientific position has been superseded does not mean it's hogwash science. Those theories approximated the truth better than any other idea at that time.

I've heard this before about Finns having the highest % of light features, but I find it hard to believe. If it is true than I can only assume it is due to the waves of Swedes that settled Finland and Slavs from the southeast (tho it would only make sense that Sweden still had more blondes unless their 3rd world immigration is THAT out of control). As far as I know, true Finns have dark hair and dark eyes. The Finns that do not are actually Swedes living in Finland. Unless someone else has a better explanation.

So what is the source of the Blonde and Blue then? Or do you not think the biological Indo-Europeans were blonde at all? Or perhaps of diverse pigment? Is your position that Europe was completely full with blondes when a very small quantity of Indo-Europeans arrived, subjugated and superimposed their language and culture on the Neolithic peoples? And we Europeans are really just like the rest of the world and on borrowed culture? And everywhere else in the world that we know the Indo-Europeans occupied, like India and Iraq, just happen to present recessive Blonde hair and blue eyes every once in awhile because they were blonde before the IE's arrived? Or natural high frequency mutations? I hope my response does not sound confrontational, I am just trying to follow the things you've said to their logical conclusions and some within different context. Perhaps there is something that you could teach me that I do not know of. I have neglected my studies for a very long time.

Sir Infamous
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 06:47 AM
If Indo-European speaker = Indo-European then that would mean the entire continent of South America is of Indo-European stock. Which is an absurdity. Iranians have a very high percentage of Indo-Europeans genes, speak an IE language and retain an IE culture (however degenerated). So calling them Indo-European is not incorrect. They just have have a greater admixture with non-IE populations than your typical IE, thus modifying their phenotype to approximate the non-IE.

According to the theory of linguistic evolution, as speakers of a language spread, variations we know as 'dialects' form. As time goes on, if speakers spread out and diverge even more especially if under the influence of other cultures or languages, the dialects could change to the point of becoming an entirely different language, and that's how Proto-Indo European spread into various dialects.

Also, I don't think the Iranians have any less admixture of "non Indo Europeans" than anyone else. And how can you tell since their is not even a conclusive conclusion on the original homeland of Indo European Speakers, much less what they looked like.


What exactly is old 19th century science? Recognizing the existence and origin of particular phenotypes?[/B] And what does the admixture of Europe have to do with anything spoken of? It would not matter if humans didn't even exist at all in Europe for a conversation about the phenotype of biological Indo-Europeans to be legitimate.


lol, No I meant that saying Europeans descend from Mythical "Aryans" (Indo Europeans) invaders is incorrect when the reality is we are descendant from Paleolithic Hunter/Gatherers from West Asia and the Middle East. And SouthEast Euros also have significant Neolithic admixture from the Levant and Anatolia with the importation of agriculture into Europe some 10 to 8 thousand years ago.



I've heard this before about Finns having the highest % of light features, but I find it hard to believe.

They do. I have no Idea if it has anything to do with "Waves of Swedes settling Finland" but I doubt it and what does it matter anyways? Even if they are Swedish mutts they still have more blondes and more people with blue eyes than anyone on the planet, so Swedish Mutts plus Finns = blonder than pure Swedes? Or do you think The Swedes are mixed with Laplanders or something?




If it is true than I can only assume it is due to the waves of Swedes that settled Finland and Slavs from the southeast (tho it would only make sense that Sweden still had more blondes unless their immigration is THAT out of control). As far as I know, true Finns have dark hair and dark eyes. The Finns that do not are actually Swedes living in Finland. Unless someone else has a better explanation.

LOL the Finns are Finns, not Swedes.

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

origin of Finns

http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)61539-0


So what is the source of the Blonde and Blue then? Or do you not think the biological Indo-Europeans were blonde at all? Or perhaps of diverse pigment?

The source of Blonde and Blue eys in Europe? Well blue eyes are a mutation that happened many thousands of years ago. Blue eyes, blonde hair, and fair skin was selected in Northern Europe to stave off rickets. It's simply an adaption to cold climate. That's why the farther North you go, the blonder and bluer eyed the population is.

As far as Proto-IndoEuropeans, well it really depends where they originated from. Since the dominant hypothesis is the Kurgan hypothesis then that means they had their origin in West Asia/EAstern Europe around the black Sea. I think there would have been some blondes there but certainly not the Majority like in Scandinavia or anything. Modern people of that region are mostly dark haired and eyed but they are Caucasian.



Is your position that Europe was completely full with blondes when a very small quantity of Indo-Europeans arrived, subjugated and superimposed their language and culture on the Neolithic peoples? And we Europeans are really just like the rest of the world and on borrowed culture? And everywhere else in the world that we know the Indo-Europeans occupied, like India and Iraq, just happen to present recessive Blonde hair and blue eyes every once in awhile because they were blonde before the IE's arrived? Or natural high frequency mutations?

listen, there is no evidence of Indo-European migration. There is no trace of these supposed people through Genetics. (there is no Indo European marker of any kind), There is also no archeological evidence of "Indo-European invasions" in any part of Europe. All "Indo European" is is a language family, but it is true usually people who share the same language family have a stronger genetic bond and closer genetic distance.


Of course Europeans already had blonde hair and blue eyes, especially in Northern Europe where selective pressures would selected populations with this phenotype, hence why Northern Europeans are lighter than Southern Europeans. But Europe would not have been entirely blonde of course lol.

blondism in Iraq and Iran is very rare but it does pop up every once in a while, It's going to happen in any caucasion population. The Berbers in Northern Africa who speak an Afro-Asiatic language occasionally have blonde hair and blue eyes. Those genes are just higher in certain populations than others. It's just natural frequency of mutations.



II hope my response does not sound confrontational, I am just trying to follow the things you've said to their logical conclusions and some within different context. Perhaps there is something that you could teach me that I do not know of. I have neglected my studies for a very long time.

LOL no problem you don't sound confrontational at all, you just sound like you are wanting to learn.

here infratetraskelion is a genetic history of Europe.

The human colonization of Europe was mainly done in four different stages in Prehistoric times.
The first colonization of Europe was done in the Upper Paleolithic, around 45,000 years ago. These first Cro-Magnon settlers came from North-West Asia, where they had developed the R1 haplotype in the Y Chromosome. They established themselves in the European Glacier refuges of Iberia and North Caucasus.
The Iberian Cro-Magnons developed the R1b haplotype, while those established between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea developed the R1a haplotype.

20,000 years ago, at the end of the Upper Paleolithic and the beginning of the Mesolithic, the second stage took place. Human populations established themselves in the Glacier refuge of the Balkans. These Cro-Magnons came from the Middle East, where they had developed the I haplotype, closely related to the G, J, and K Neolithic haplotypes, as all of them were mutations of the ancient F haplotype.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_1.jpg

The third stage took place 12,000 years ago. The Glacial ice began moving back to the polar regions. The three populations established in Iberia, the Balkans, and the Caucasus, began the colonization of the rest of Europe. The “R1b Iberians” colonized the European Atlantic coast, from Gibraltar to Jutland including the British Isles and some parts of Italy and Germany; the “R1a Caucasics” colonized all Eastern Europe; and finally the “I Balkanics” colonized Central Europe and the Scandinavian Peninsula.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_2.jpg

The fourth and final stage took place in the Neolithic. 10,000 to 8,000 years ago people from the Middle East carrying Neolithic haplotypes (mainly E3b, G, J and K) expanded all over the Mediterranean coast. 4,500 years ago, people coming from Asia and carrying the N haplotype established themselves in the Eastern Baltic Regions.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_3.jpg
]

rainman
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 06:58 AM
From what I can tell blond hair/blue eyes may have been present in the generl caucasion population since its birth. However it was not common. The only group that was pretty much blonde/blue eyed what we would call Nordic today were the Aryans (Indo-Europeans). They seem to be a mutation of the earlier Caucasion race. Some tribe with new features that burst on the scene out of nowhere and quickly mixed itself out of existance. We can speculate that they came from aliens or from thule or whatever, but what we do know is they were a caucasion group with new features.

It's hard to find scientific evidence for this not because its not there, but because the powers that be try to hide it. They even use word games changing the name Aryan (which the Aryans called themselves and was the word used in academia until around I think 1960 or so when they started changing it to a politically correct "Proto Indo European".The corded ware and other cultural artifacts associated with them has been dug up with graves of people who have Nordic skeletal features. We also have various myths, legends, even some statues that seem to depict them as blonde and blue or green eyed. The Nordic sub-group and the original Aryans were one and the same. This was only a small contributer to European genetics (as we can see by the amount of Nordic relative in European blood) but consistently throughout history the Nordic elements has been the leading cultural element of Europe. 100% of the culture doesn't come from Nordics, others contributed in our history, but the majority of the leadership and culture have come from the Nordic element from the start and we even speak an "Aryan" language which originated with the Nordics. Many of the great philosophers, inventers, great warriors, royalty etc. in history were Nordic, far disproportinate to their numbers in the overall population. I have looked into this as a skeptic, but it's true. Why is it so hidden behind a confusing maze of bullshit? Because it supports Nazi racial theory which is a big no no. Truths and facts must be covered up to support the popular myth of the day.

There are blond negros in Africa. Yet they are an exeption, not the norm. So yes there were lighter features in the other groups, but certainly it was not typical. Finns have a high percentage of Aryan genetics. That is where the blondism comes in hand. A German can move to Japan and their grandchildren speak Japanese and be blond, but that doesn't mean the Japanese were originally blond. It's possible certain languages like Basque are what remains of the original non-Nordic European language (your alpines and what have you).

Red hair is probably a bit more of a mystery and more rare than blond. Though I have learned that genetically red hair and blond hair have little difference. Both are cause by a sulfur molecule in melanin production which creates redish yellowish melanin. This only exists in Caucasion populations. People with dark hair have very little of this type of melanin. It also causes a bronze or orangish (perhaps reddish) skin when tanned- the very same as the Nazi ideal blond and bronze tanned people (bronz as opposed to a brown or black tan of other races). The mutation for this probably came along with the Nordids, though they also seemed to have had superior technology and culture.

You have to understand though Indo-European is composed of several different groups. Yet they are united by a common culture originating with the original Aryan group. Today we call all Europeans Aryan even though they aren't really. They are Caucasion Europeans of Alpinid, Falish, Brunn, Nordic and possibly some other subgroups mixed together. We have genetically proven the closeness of all European groups and that they have a common ancestor- thus they all split from a common group and then converged back together, so we sort of just use Aryan as a term for European unity and Nordic to refer to the subgroup who descend mostly from the true people who called themselves Aryan. If you include all of these various subgroups, and even the dravidians or whatever they are called of India then no they were not all blond. The Kurgans/Proto-Indo-Europeans whatever you call them that invaded and gave us their culture and many of our genes were blond.

Curiously Germanic culture comes from two root races still found in our mythology as the Vanir and Aesir coming together. This is found linguistically as well in many non-Aryan words which also are not found in any other language (not even European). This was the darker haired group mixing with the Nordics very early on. Then later you had Romano mixing, Celtic etc.

Sir Infamous
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 07:32 AM
80 percent of Europeans are descended from Paleolithic Hunter gatherers and do not descend from mythical "Aryans". The other 20% from more recent Neolithic colonizers from the Near East.

Science proves "Aryan theories" are rubbish.


Here is the answer, courtesy Geneticist, Peter Underhill:

The First Europeans

About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.


Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.

When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.

The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.

"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

"About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life - agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.

"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."

Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.

"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."


LINKS
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_111959.html

http://www.crystalinks.com/firsteuropeans.html


This was only a small contributor to European genetics (as we can see by the amount of Nordic relative in European blood) but consistently throughout history the Nordic elements has been the leading cultural element of Europe.

I find that very hard to believe since everyone knows civilization flowed from South to North. The Nordic element has always been far stronger in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe. YET, civilization flowed from South to North. For instance when the Greeks were exploring the world, had huge cities and monuments, had philosophy schools etc...Nordics in Northern Europe were illiterate and culturally backwards. They had no cities, not written language, no nothing. Any history we know of them comes late in classical antiquity from Roman (like Tacitus etc) and Greek sources since these people had no written documents of their own.

so claiming Nordics as the leading cultural element in Europe is quite comical.

Northern Europeans did not start becoming relavent in European history until the Medieval times.

When one opens a Western History textbook, It starts in Greece, and then soon Rome Italy.

TheGreatest
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 11:33 AM
I wonder if the Mongols themselves were blond haired at one point? Ghenis Khan has been described in a number of manuscripts as being blue-eyed and red haired.

As politically incorrect as it may be, the old theories might be true, that the entire world's population descends from a handful of different races (albeit mixtures of said races).

I wasn't the first to notice a similarity between the Cappoids of South Africa and the Mongoloids of the Far East.
North Africa was once inhabited by Germanic tribes such as the Vandals. If I took a Stockholm Swede and slowly introduce Congoid blood into his descendants (as such occurred historically through the Muslim slave trade), would I not end up with a typical looking Moroccan?

velvet
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 02:10 PM
I find that very hard to believe since everyone knows civilization flowed from South to North. The Nordic element has always been far stronger in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe. YET, civilization flowed from South to North. For instance when the Greeks were exploring the world, had huge cities and monuments, had philosophy schools etc...Nordics in Northern Europe were illiterate and culturally backwards. They had no cities, not written language, no nothing. Any history we know of them comes late in classical antiquity from Roman (like Tacitus etc) and Greek sources since these people had no written documents of their own.

so claiming Nordics as the leading cultural element in Europe is quite comical.

Northern Europeans did not start becoming relavent in European history until the Medieval times.

When one opens a Western History textbook, It starts in Greece, and then soon Rome Italy.

But the greeks back then, when their culture florished, were blond! As well as the romans back then. Look at their sculptures, they do not show the small, dark skinned, dark haired and dark eyed people of today's Greece and Italy, those people shown in their art are tall, blond people with fine features.

You claim there were no 'invasion', but the truth is, that all culture that exists on this dying planet was founded by the aryan race. They are not 'mythical', there are just a seperate tribe of Caucasians with the urge to travel, to expand, to invent. The aboriginal settlers in northern europe were of the same descend like the ones that traveled the middle east. It is just a lie that culture was invented there, the aryans brought it there and it degenerated with the admixture of the there aboriginal inhabitans, making it into a cesspool, just like today's whole world.

You recite the whole story of hablotypes, Y-dna and whatever else, yet you fail to see that it was just one tribe, splitting up in several own people and cultures that were carried with them over the entire planet, beeing the only source of any high culture.

Yes, the aryan race is not politically correct, but it is just the f**kn truth. Truth does not need to be pc, and btw, the concept of politcal correctness was invented to prevent people from seeing that truth.


On a side note I wonder about the finns. Yes, we know that they do not have a european language, does that mean they can under no circumstances be indo european (beside their today's mongrel admixture)? Or could the language be a quite new thing, because, yes, northern europe didnt write much, and thus a language can easily be replaced within one or two generations without leaving any sort of trace of the original language. Specially for the last 500-1000 years the language of a people can not anymore serve as a proof of their origin.

And when I read your statement that the northern people were just babarians with no culture at all I become really angry. It is just a lie (see history above). Just because we didnt write is no proof that we lived on trees and were naked or other bs. The point is, that the northern people invented the stav rhymes and scaldic poetry despite the missing written source. And now imagine what a society, prosperity and sense for beautiful art is needed for that!

Sigurd
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 03:04 PM
It's possible certain languages like Basque are what remains of the original non-Nordic European language (your alpines and what have you).

In my analysis, I hold Alpinids to be borealised/infantilised Borreby types, a progression which I have stressed a few times to be especially pronounced in Southern/Central Germany, where many specimens prove to be intermediate between Borreby and Alpinid, likely indicating Alpinisation to be a process, with full-fledged Alpinids having been Borrebies as a base-phenotype.

Now, the Basque's Alpinoid/Alpiniform features could well be derived in a similar fashion. With the R1b haplotype originating on the Iberian peninsula, the Basque Alpinids could perhaps be derived from an original Brünnid population, refined further towards a more infantilised type, their seclusion would have kept this stable. The fact that the Basque have the highest concentration of R1b followed by the Irish would support this claim.

This would essentially perhaps link some haplotypes with certain phenotypes, which can be abserved with following groups, as a conjecture:

R1b - Brünnids, Alpinised Brünnids, Brünn-derived Alpinoids, CM-derived Palaeo-Atlantids. Iberian genesis.
R1a - Borreby, Alpinids proper, Borreby/Baltid intermediate types, some Dinaricised features. Caucasian genesis.
N - Baltids proper, Lapponoids, East-Baltids. Uraloid genesis.
I - Nordoids, Faelids, Corded-ware, some Dinaricised features. Balkan genesis.
J - Armenoid, Pontoid, East-Mediterranid. "Asia Minor" & Middle Eastern genesis.

This is perhaps an unstable analysis, but could have certain foundation. Since we are talking of the glacial maximum, this however would have no immediate links to any implications upon relation with the groups inhabiting these areas today; all groups would have naturally pushed northwards and westwards.

But if we are going to link the yet unreliable haplogroups, then this analysis would appear to be most likely. This map would suggest so, if anything.

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF


Red hair is probably a bit more of a mystery and more rare than blond. Though I have learned that genetically red hair and blond hair have little difference. Both are cause by a sulfur molecule in melanin production which creates redish yellowish melanin.

You are over-simplifying melanine. Human populations' hair pigment is made up by two types of melanine, Eumelanine and Phomelanine.

Eumelanine is that which establishes the blonde/brown scale. Phomelanine is that which establishes the rufoid scale. People with white blonde hair have low levels of both, people with bright ginger hair have low incidences of Eumelanine and a lot of Phomelanine, auburn people have high levels of both. Slight rufoism observed with the Aborigines of Australia would usually imply: Extremely high levels of both Eumelanine and Phomelanine.

As such, the red-hair gene is largely dominant. The reason why it appears to be so uncommon is because of generally low to intermediate levels in the population. This is why sun-bleached brown hair will often look reddish: The Eumelanine-based brown hair is "bleached out", revealing the Phomelanine-based red hair.

In all that, it essentially appears so uncommonly because Eumelanine tends to "overshadow" Phomelanine. As such, the higher your levels of Eumelanine, the higher of your level of Phomelanine required for it to be empirically observable. Chances are that I as a medium-brown who had auburn hair as a child has a higher level of Phomelanine than many strawberry-blondes in fact. ;)

With "proper ginger" people, of course, low levels of Eumelanine co-incide, that is why people with evident display of the "Rufoism genes" oft are also extreme cases of the "Blondism mutation". THe brighter red the hair, the more likely in that respect also for your body-hair to be white-blonde.

But, whilst in theory often coinciding, the reasons for blonde hair and red hair seem to be, at least genetically-speaking VERY different. ;)

Sir Infamous
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 03:35 PM
But the greeks back then, when their culture florished, were blond! As well as the romans back then. Look at their sculptures, they do not show the small, dark skinned, dark haired and dark eyed people of today's Greece and Italy, those people shown in their art are tall, blond people with fine features.The ancient Greeks were all blonde now? : )

Ok I think some were blonde just like some today are but most were not, most looked like this.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3481070635_19dfb713ea.jpg?v=0

The Greek art the people are almost entirely Dark haired.


The "fine features" you speak of are the soft, gracial, features of the Mediterranean race, not chiseled Teutonic/Nordic features.

Germanic Busts (predominately "Nordic" IMO)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3383/3496487517_2c26f08792.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/3497305648_d8d8d901d9.jpg?v=0


Hellenic Busts (predominantly "Mediterranean" IMO)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3547/3497299392_bbaf7476ea.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3497300692_b2cd3b48d8.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3496486473_1fc22d9694.jpg?v=0

Obviously there is a huge difference.

I see absolutely nothing "Nordic" in Hellenic busts, although the Romans had a stronger Nordic element, but still no where near what Germanic peoples have.



You claim there were no 'invasion', but the truth is, that all culture that exists on this dying planet was founded by the aryan race. They are not 'mythical', there are just a seperate tribe of Caucasians with the urge to travel, to expand, to invent. The aboriginal settlers in northern europe were of the same descend like the ones that traveled the middle east. It is just a lie that culture was invented there, the aryans brought it there and it degenerated with the admixture of the there aboriginal inhabitans, making it into a cesspool, just like today's whole world

You recite the whole story of hablotypes, Y-dna and whatever else, yet you fail to see that it was just one tribe, splitting up in several own people and cultures that were carried with them over the entire planet, beeing the only source of any high culture.Again is there any scientific data to prove any of this? Or is this all in you head? There is no anthropological, historical, or genetic evidence of mythical Aryan invaders. I just gave you a quote that from a profound geneticist that says modern Europeans are descendants of Paleolithic people...not "Aryans".



Yes, the aryan race is not politically correct, but it is just the f**kn truth. Truth does not need to be pc, and btw, the concept of politcal correctness was invented to prevent people from seeing that truth.I hate PC as much as you do mate, but I want the truth above all. Indo European is just a language not a race.



And when I read your statement that the northern people were just babarians with no culture at all I become really angry. It is just a lie (see history above). Just because we didnt write is no proof that we lived on trees and were naked or other bs. The point is, that the northern people invented the stav rhymes and scaldic poetry despite the missing written source. And now imagine what a society, prosperity and sense for beautiful art is needed for that!I didnt say Northern Europeans lived in Trees. I said that they were Illiterate. And it is common knowledge civilization flowed from South to North. Northern Europeans had no cities back then, what great ancient monuments did they leave like the Acropolis or Coliseum? None. I was just asking that guy how he could equate "Nordic" to civilization since Northern Europeans were far less advanced than Southern Europeans. There is absolutely no way Southern Europeans were blonder or more blue eye than Northern Europeans, ever.


In my analysis, I hold Alpinids to be borealised/infantilised Borreby types, a progression which I have stressed a few times to be especially pronounced in Southern/Central Germany, where many specimens prove to be intermediate between Borreby and Alpinid, likely indicating Alpinisation to be a process, with full-fledged Alpinids having been Borrebies as a base-phenotype.

Now, the Basque's Alpinoid/Alpiniform features could well be derived in a similar fashion. With the R1b haplotype originating on the Iberian peninsula, the Basque Alpinids could perhaps be derived from an original Brünnid population, refined further towards a more infantilised type, their seclusion would have kept this stable. The fact that the Basque have the highest concentration of R1b followed by the Irish would support this claim.

This would essentially perhaps link some haplotypes with certain phenotypes, which can be abserved with following groups, as a conjecture:

R1b - Brünnids, Alpinised Brünnids, Brünn-derived Alpinoids, CM-derived Palaeo-Atlantids. Iberian genesis.
R1a - Borreby, Alpinids proper, Borreby/Baltid intermediate types, some Dinaricised features. Caucasian genesis.
N - Baltids proper, Lapponoids, East-Baltids. Uraloid genesis.
I - Nordoids, Faelids, Corded-ware, some Dinaricised features. Balkan genesis.
J - Armenoid, Pontoid, East-Mediterranid. "Asia Minor" & Middle Eastern genesis.



That is an interesting theory, and there is probably a high correlation. But we should know that these are just markers and do not equate to phenotype. Also Basques are almost entirely R1b and they are quite swarthy, certainly Darker than Northern Italian. Most Basques I've seen look very Mediterranean and as dark as Greeks and Central/Southern Italians. So a basque who is entirlely R1B carrier is as swarthy as a Greek who is R1b, R1a, J2B, EV13 carrier. Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians etc carry R1a and are just as dark as any J2 carrying Lebanese.

The Horned God
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 03:53 PM
If I took a Stockholm Swede and slowly introduce Congoid blood into his descendants (as such occurred historically through the Muslim slave trade), would I not end up with a typical looking Moroccan?

Unlikely because you'd be mixing two very different looking races. I think what you would end up with is a population that looked mostly mulatto or "African American". Occasionally in that population you would get individuals cropping up who looked almost Swedish and more frequently you would see individuals who looked fully Congoid. You would not see people who looked Moroccan because Moroccans are dark-skinned Caucasians and have been since antiquity.It is estimated that they have about 10%-15% African genetic make-up, however it is likely that that is from East Africa and not sub-Saharan Africa so not Congoid.

Stygian Cellarius
Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, 09:19 PM
According to the theory of linguistic evolution, as speakers of a language spread, variations we know as 'dialects' form. As time goes on, if speakers spread out and diverge even more especially if under the influence of other cultures or languages, the dialects could change to the point of becoming an entirely different language, and that's how Proto-Indo European spread into various dialects.

Obviously, elementary explanations of how a language changes is unnecessary. Appealing to the authority of "the theory of linguistic evolution" is hardly required for a toddler to figure out how languages change.


Also, I don't think the Iranians have any less admixture of "non Indo Europeans" than anyone else. And how can you tell since their is not even a conclusive conclusion on the original homeland of Indo European Speakers, much less what they looked like.

If by "anyone else" you mean your average "white guy" then you may be correct. Perhaps I should have said "they have higher percentage of admixture with non-Caucasoid" types.
What does knowing the exact location of an IE homeland have to do with knowing the genetic constitution of a people?


lol, No I meant that saying Europeans descend from Mythical "Aryans" (Indo Europeans) invaders is incorrect when the reality is we are descendant from Paleolithic Hunter/Gatherers from West Asia and the Middle East. And SouthEast Euros also have significant Neolithic admixture from the Levant and Anatolia with the importation of agriculture into Europe some 10 to 8 thousand years ago.

There is nothing mythical about it. There is significant archaeological, linguistic, anthropological and cultural evidence to support massive waves of Indo-European settlement according to the standard model. Just because you have encountered conflicting information does not mean an absolute truth has crystallized before your eyes and you are the enlightened one who knows exactly what happened. You need to form a hierarchy of possibilities in your mind that does not rule out, and make stupid, alternatives you do not agree with.
Genetic data is wonderful, no doubt, and it is an excellent method of analyzing certain attributes of an individual and populations in the present. When this discipline presents theories of the past it is highly speculative and with a large margin of error simply because people move and their genes move with them. When they say that mtDNA haplogroups originated at X. That location is based on a lot of assumptions. The patterns of concentration can be misleading, again, because people move and scramble patterns that future geneticist will try to draw conclusions from.
I wouldn't put to much faith in any given authority in any subject. There can be two authorities with equal credential that have totally opposite positions. I especially wouldn't put a lot of faith in modern scientists that are suffering the bonds of political correctness and who get pats on the back for any information that could be used to confound any white identity, no matter how trivial.


They do. I have no Idea if it has anything to do with "Waves of Swedes settling Finland" but I doubt it and what does it matter anyways? Even if they are Swedish mutts they still have more blondes and more people with blue eyes than anyone on the planet, so Swedish Mutts plus Finns = blonder than pure Swedes?
I thought I made it clear that I recognized that conflict when I said this;
"tho it would only make sense that Sweden still had more blondes unless their 3rd world immigration is THAT out of control".


Or do you think The Swedes are mixed with Laplanders or something?

I've addressed my thoughts concerning this. I don't believe Finland has a higher percentage of Blondes.



LOL the Finns are Finns, not Swedes.

?




The source of Blonde and Blue eys in Europe? Well blue eyes are a mutation that happened many thousands of years ago. Blue eyes, blonde hair, and fair skin was selected in Northern Europe to stave off rickets. It's simply an adaption to cold climate. That's why the farther North you go, the blonder and bluer eyed the population is.

So when a polar bear and snow fox and snow monkey adapted those feature it was to stave off rickets as well? Or they did it for another reason and humans have a special reason for adapting those features?


As far as Proto-IndoEuropeans, well it really depends where they originated from. Since the dominant hypothesis is the Kurgan hypothesis then that means they had their origin in West Asia/EAstern Europe around the black Sea. I think there would have been some blondes there but certainly not the Majority like in Scandinavia or anything. Modern people of that region are mostly dark haired and eyed but they are Caucasian.

Isolated, Homogeneous populations have relatively little gene diversity. To suggest that a group such as PIE would be that phenotypically diverse seems very implausible to me. Even IE groups, while isolated and when they developed their distinct cultural and linguistic peculiarities, all looked relatively the same compared to other IE groups and this happens within a relatively short amount of time. The phenotypic diversification came about when groups re-merged or hybridized with non-IE's. It wasn't naturally present in itself.



listen, there is no evidence of Indo-European migration. There is no trace of these supposed people through Genetics. (there is no Indo European marker of any kind), There is also no archeological evidence of "Indo-European invasions" in any part of Europe. All "Indo European" is is a language family, but it is true usually people who share the same language family have a stronger genetic bond and closer genetic distance.

So you accept the Kurgan hypothesis, but insist, with absolute certainty, that no movement took place. And Europeans are the heirs to a massive cultural diffusion process? Your losing me. I'm finding it hard to make sense out of these fragmented beliefs.



Of course Europeans already had blonde hair and blue eyes, especially in Northern Europe where selective pressures would selected populations with this phenotype, hence why Northern Europeans are lighter than Southern Europeans. But Europe would not have been entirely blonde of course lol.

Southern Europeans are darker for two reasons, none of which happen to be a result of the climate (unless you go back hundreds of thousands of years ago). 1) The indigenous pre-IE population was absorbed into the IE population post-colonization by the IE's. 2) The absorption of non-Caucasoid peoples in relatively recent times. Both of those events fully account for their darker pigmentation. Climatic influence is an anachronistic superfluity.


blondism in Iraq and Iran is very rare but it does pop up every once in a while, It's going to happen in any caucasion population. The Berbers in Northern Africa who speak an Afro-Asiatic language occasionally have blonde hair and blue eyes. Those genes are just higher in certain populations than others. It's just natural frequency of mutations.

Blonde hair and blue eyes in non-blonde populations can occur two ways.

1) random mutation that deactivates melanin production in cells. If it happens in isolated areas like the eyes or hair then you can have a pure African with blonde hair and blue eyes. If the mutation deactivates production in every cell in the body then it is albinism. The frequency of full and partial melanin inhibition would be relatively the same. Its a random accident.

2) Hybridism between populations with and without blonde/blue phenotypes. We know that light characteristics are recessive and would be easily dominated and concealed by darker pigmentation, even at very low doses.
If the phenomenon of blonde/blue expression within non-blonde/blue populations exceeds the frequency of albinism than you can be sure that it is the result of this reason. Iraq, India, Iran, Afgan etc., fall in this category.

The Berbers blondness is the result of blonde UP settlements just like the people who once occupied the Azores. Its not a result of natural mutation just popping in and out of existence. These genes were always there they are just hidden by dominant darker pigment due to hybridism.


LOL no problem you don't sound confrontational at all, you just sound like you are wanting to learn.

Good, I'm glad I wasn't sounding confrontational. You on the other hand could do well to be a bit more respectful. There were times when I thought you might actually be a troll.

Oh I'm always wanting to learn, but for the most part that statement was meant in modesty, I am well informed of the information you posted.

Also, during my earlier post when I mentioned an alternative to expansion model, well that alternative is very similar to your position, I just find it less plausible. That doesn't mean I disregard it. I just put that theory on the back burner, awaiting more information, that could possibly increase its validity. It just has not happened yet and I don't think it will.

Sir Infamous
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 03:56 AM
There is nothing mythical about it. There is significant archaeological, linguistic, anthropological and cultural evidence to support massive waves of Indo-European settlement according to the standard model.

I'm afraid your wrong, proto Indo European is nothing more than a hypothetical language reconstruction. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence of mass migrations, much less genetic evidence. If there is peer reviewed credible sources that contradict this feel free in giving them to me, I would be interested.



So when a polar bear and snow fox and snow monkey adapted those feature it was to stave off rickets as well? Or they did it for another reason and humans have a special reason for adapting those features?

I really have no Idea, but these features are obviously selected in the more borreal cold climates. Staving off rickets did play a key role in the depigmentation of Northern Europeans though.


Isolated, Homogeneous populations have relatively little gene diversity. To suggest that a group such as PIE would be that phenotypically diverse seems very implausible to me. Even IE groups, while isolated and when they developed their distinct cultural and linguistic peculiarities, all looked relatively the same compared to other IE groups and this happens within a relatively short amount of time. The phenotypic diversification came about when groups re-merged or hybridized with non-IE's. It wasn't naturally present in itself.

I never suggested that the original people who spoke proto-IndoEuropean (Krugans) would have been phenotypically diverse, just that they would likely have both dark and light hair and eyes. Probably more so dark than light based on the geography they originated in and the current populations living there now. As no Caucasoid population in the world is entirely blonde and blue eyed, even swedes/Finns who are much further North than Eurasian steppes. Just like Southern Caucasoid are not entirely brown eyed and dark haired even though these genes are dominant. Hair and eye color is just simple mutations and can vary even among family members.




I So you accept the Kurgan hypothesis, but insist, with absolute certainty, that no movement took place. And Europeans are the heirs to a massive cultural diffusion process? Your losing me. I'm finding it hard to make sense out of these fragmented beliefs.

I accept that the Kurgan hypothesis is the dominant hyppothesis as the homeland of the reconstructed Proto Indo European language. I do not believe that the Kurgans had any significant biological impact on any Europeans because there is absolutely no evidence for it. As I have already given sources from prominent geneticists that say Europeans are descended from Paleolithic people and to a lesser extent Neolithic people, not "proto Indo Europeans". Because Proto Indo European is a linguistic term, it has no biological meaning.



ISouthern Europeans are darker for two reasons, none of which happen to be a result of the climate (unless you go back hundreds of thousands of years ago). The absorption of non-Caucasoid peoples in relatively recent times. Both of those events fully account for their darker pigmentation. Climatic influence is an anachronistic superfluity.

Southern Europeans are darker because they adapted to a less borreal climate than Northern Europeans hence darker pigmentation. To think a Greek and a Swede are going to be the exact same color is ludicrous. The further south you go, the darker you get. It is really that simple. Southern Germans are darker than Northern Germans, Southern French darker than Northern French, Southern Italians darker than Northern Italians. With the exception of the Portuguese who a small minority (about 5 percent) have none caucasoid admixture, none Caucasoid influence is very low in Southern Europe. Caucasoid is based on craniofacial features, not skin pigmentation.


The indigenous pre-IE population was absorbed into the IE population post-colonization by the IE's.

I really don't understand what this means, are you saying that indigenous Northern Europeans were not colonized and absorbed by IE peoples only southerners were? Or are you saying Southern Europeans had a higher amount of colonization? What about Near Easterners like Indians and Iranians? And what does any of that have to do with their color?

Anyways the spread of Indo European languages has very little to with physical replacement and has much more to do with Cultural evolution. Read this link to understand more.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html

This history is our linguistic heritage; our ancestors, in a real cultural sense, are our linguistic ancestors. But it must be stressed that linguistic heritage, while it may tend to correspond with cultural continuity, does not imply genetic or biological descent. Linguists use the phrase “genetically related” to refer simply to languages descended from a common ancestor.


Blonde hair and blue eyes in non-blonde populations can occur two ways.


1) random mutation that deactivates melanin production in cells. If it happens in isolated areas like the eyes or hair then you can have a pure African with blonde hair and blue eyes. If the mutation deactivates production in every cell in the body then it is albinism. The frequency of full and partial melanin inhibition would be relatively the same. Its a random accident.

2) Hybridism between populations with and without blonde/blue phenotypes. We know that light characteristics are recessive and would be easily dominated and concealed by darker pigmentation, even at very low doses.
If the phenomenon of blonde/blue expression within non-blonde/blue populations exceeds the frequency of albinism than you can be sure that it is the result of this reason. Iraq, India, Iran, Afgan etc., fall in this category.

The Berbers blondness is the result of blonde UP settlements just like the people who once occupied the Azores. Its not a result of natural mutation just popping in and out of existence. These genes were always there they are just hidden by dominant darker pigment due to hybridism.

it has been proven that all people with blue eyes share a common ancestor. Anyways yeah the Berbers with blue eyes (or even Berbers carrying the gene) would have a common ancestor with any European who has blue eyes. "Hybredization" though doesn't really make any sense since these feautures occur naturally in many populations at different levels mostly correlating with selective pressures (including sexual selection). For instance Southern Germans being 50 percent brown eyed has nothing to do with them being hybreds of one population that was 100 percent blue eyed, and another that was 100 percent brown eyed. Especially since there is no nation in the world that is entirely blue eyed. Southern Germans are darker than NOrthern Germans who are in turn darker than Swedes because they are naturally darker.

velvet
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 04:41 PM
I accept that the Kurgan hypothesis is the dominant hyppothesis as the homeland of the reconstructed Proto Indo European language. I do not believe that the Kurgans had any significant biological impact on any Europeans because there is absolutely no evidence for it. As I have already given sources from prominent geneticists that say Europeans are descended from Paleolithic people and to a lesser extent Neolithic people, not "proto Indo Europeans". Because Proto Indo European is a linguistic term, it has no biological meaning.

Did it ever occure to you that the talking about races and their biological differencies are not wanted anymore today? As a scientist you're off your job sooner than you'd realise when you point to races. The academic focus on language instead is just the politically correct version of races and their development.

Some hundred thousands years ago there simply was no cultural or linguistical exchange WITHOUT the people that brought it. They didnt have printed books, universities or the internet to exchange something on a large scale without injecting also their genepool.



I really have no Idea, but these features are obviously selected in the more borreal cold climates. Staving off rickets did play a key role in the depigmentation of Northern Europeans though.

Southern Europeans are darker because they adapted to a less borreal climate than Northern Europeans hence darker pigmentation. To think a Greek and a Swede are going to be the exact same color is ludicrous. The further south you go, the darker you get. It is really that simple. Southern Germans are darker than Northern Germans, Southern French darker than Northern French, Southern Italians darker than Northern Italians. With the exception of the Portuguese who a small minority (about 5 percent) have none caucasoid admixture, none Caucasoid influence is very low in Southern Europe. Caucasoid is based on craniofacial features, not skin pigmentation.

But one comes in connection with the other. Cranial features, the condition of skin and its pigmentation, the structure of tissue and muscles are not isolated, they are connected, untearable based in racial / biological roots.
When you mix two different races, it will not result in an average of both, it will show very varied influences on the several features, outlining the dominant and recessive genes in their degree of mixing.

The out of Africa model, which you seem to support, has some opponents, some sources you'll find in the general anthropology section here with quite interesting articles. To believe that homo erectus could have developed independendly on different continents, but homo sapiens sapiens was developed only in Africa is quite absurd - and the prominent reason to give a favour to this theory is the same as above, it is an anti-racist attempt to silence scientist who research the differencies of races.

There is no way to mutate genes in a way that a european results from an african. You would have to mutate hundreds, maybe thousand of gene locals, not only for an accidentical occurance but they need to stabilise then to form the different phenotypes of the races. Mutations dont survive, not among animals and not among humans, let alone letting them reach a stable state where they are inherited to their descendands.

Take for example white cats. They are bred because stupid people consider them beautiful. The problem is, when you breed with two white cats, the kitten are 80/20 deaf, the next generation is completely deaf. The white is a mutation, the complete absense of any pigmentation, white animals (with the only exception of the polar bear) do not survive in the wilderness, for good reason. They carry far more danger genes than only the white phenotype. A cat is a quite simple organism compared to humans, and now imagine the effort that would be needed to get a selected 'common ancestor' for the fair eyes and skin that you throw in the room, bred out of Africa.

The main point is, blue eyes are not a mutation, the skin of europeans are pigmented as well as the skin of african people is, but the pigmentation has another color. We are not depigmented, but only another colour. The same counts for eye color, blue eyes do not result from an absense of pigmentation, otherwise people with blue eyes would have the same problems like albinos, having to wear sunglasses all the time and use lots and lots of sun-blockers when out.

The mutation thing can be dismounted by some simple facts, one mutation never comes alone, not even under controlled breeding circumstances, and a mutation rate that affects every bodily feature, tissue, muscles, cranial, bones, brain, eye and skin color etc.pp would had have us extincted. Such a mutation rate is just not possible, which every hobby breeder of cats and dogs and rabbits would love to explain to you, and you wont question that, because they are just animals, right? ;)

Sigurd
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 05:32 PM
But we should know that these are just markers and do not equate to phenotype

Yes, I also believe that these are just markers, and likewise not researched deeply enough to draw immediate implications. Which is why I usually discount them altogether in my analyses, because I like to have more solid evidence for my conjectures.

As such, the approach in my post above was tentative and a little experimental, in an attempt to link these, even if only on fragile pillars.


Also Basques are almost entirely R1b and they are quite swarthy, certainly Darker than Northern Italian. Most Basques I've seen look very Mediterranean and as dark as Greeks and Central/Southern Italians. So a basque who is entirlely R1B carrier is as swarthy as a Greek who is R1b, R1a, J2B, EV13 carrier. Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians etc carry R1a and are just as dark as any J2 carrying Lebanese.

You're grossly over-simplifying genetics here. As populations localise and isolate, they will naturally diversify. Assume for example the theory that depigmentation is a result of a Vitamin-D-deficiency, stabilised over millennia ... and you could technically have two versions of the same morphological type, one light-pigmented and one dark-pigmented.



What does knowing the exact location of an IE homeland have to do with knowing the genetic constitution of a people?

Because a population who has to relocate will naturally strive to, over millennia, adapt to this soil. Even the "race-doesn't-exist" camp admits and acknowledges the fact that many physical differences between populations are environmental adaptation.

Thus, to know whether a population's ethnogenesis took place in a boreal or moderate climate, or whether it took place on flat terrain or in the mountains could be important pointer to establish their phenotype, perhaps even genotype.


I've addressed my thoughts concerning this. I don't believe Finland has a higher percentage of Blondes.

Many anthropological maps would contradict this judgment. Empirical observation of specimens from these countries would - if the specimens I encountered were in any way representative of their population - suggest that Finland has a higher population of blondes, albeit in many cases we are talking of "ashen blonde", not "golden blonde".

Even the large area in central/central-northern Sweden which is often coloured on these maps as being extremely light-pigmented has to be taken with a grain of salt, as population density is an important consideration; with the vast majority of Swedes living in Southern Sweden, it tends to distort reality even further.



Isolated, Homogeneous populations have relatively little gene diversity. To suggest that a group such as PIE would be that phenotypically diverse seems very implausible to me.

It would however depend on how geographically secluded these populations were, and how receptive they were towards foreign populations, which may have altered their genetic make-up considerably.


and this happens within a relatively short amount of time.

Define "short". 200 years? 2,000 years? 20,000 years? 200,000 years? ;)



I really have no Idea, but these features are obviously selected in the more borreal cold climates. Staving off rickets did play a key role in the depigmentation of Northern Europeans though.

What about the Sami then? How come they didn't depigment, then? Did Mongoloids really hire an aeroplane from Atlantis? ... Since transmigration from Mongoloid heartlands in such masses that they would have a major genetic infuence, via "fertile and welcoming" areas such as the Gobi Desert and Siberia, this is highly unlikely, their darker and more borealised appearance must have other causes.

Therefore, the climatic situation could be a contributing factor towards depigmentation, but could not stand alone in itself. Otherwise, the Saami, as one of the most isolated populations, in one of the harshest, northernmost climates, should by definition, be blonde.


Probably more so dark than light based on the geography they originated in and the current populations living there now.

Current populations are, unless extremely isolated, almost useless, to determine the original phenotypical and genotypical make-up.

Here, note natural barriers as well, and consider that if population A formed in a wide plains it is more likely to have been influenced by surrounding populations than an island, or an mountainous area inaccessible at large except for a handful of passes.


Southern Europeans are darker because they adapted to a less borreal climate than Northern Europeans hence darker pigmentation. To think a Greek and a Swede are going to be the exact same color is ludicrous. The further south you go, the darker you get. It is really that simple.

As I said, it is not as simple as that. The French are at large, lighter-pigmented than the Cornish, and the Finns, and Swedes are lighter-pigmented than the Sami, and even than the Norwegians. You're leaving a whole variety of factors out of play, including migration, diet and isolation.

You also name climate as a contributing factor which should have conditioned this but leave out important climatic features such as mountain ranges, distance from the sea, and sea-streams. By the gulf-stream alone, we enjoy a reasonably temperate climate here in Aberdeen --- that is when it is almost the same latitude as Stockholm, and almost 2° latitude further north than Moscow. ;)


it has been proven that all people with blue eyes share a common ancestor. [...] naturally darker.

I will not qualify this, as velvet has already refuted this claim beyond reasonable doubt. :)

Richard Coyle
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 09:37 PM
The answer is no. Obviously only a small fraction of modern Indo-European speakers are phenotypically Nordic.

If you are talking about the Proto Indo-Europeans the answer is also more than likely no. At least they would not have been as light pigmented as modern Scandinavians or North Germans, nor would they more than likely had those chisled Teutonic feautures.

The reason why some people think they were Nordic looking is because in the 19th and very early 20th century the original home of the proto Indo-Europeans was thought to be northern Europe (Scandinavia). Today that notion is not taken seriously anywhere because there is simply no evidence for it.

Today the dominant hypothesis and the one with the most evidence backing it up is the Kurgan hypothesis which places the Indo European homeland in Southern Russia around the black sea.

4500-2500 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3488018921_cce83cf366.jpg?v=0
2500-1800 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3655/3488834692_16a79de1a6.jpg?v=0
1800-1200 BC
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3488020311_b9cc79050b.jpg?v=0


scientists are not in agreement about the location of the Indo-Europeans' homeland, much less their original phenotype, definitive records of which are lacking.

Any ideas about the Balkan Refuge as the source of P.I.E.?

Stygian Cellarius
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009, 04:23 AM
You're grossly over-simplifying genetics here. As populations localise and isolate, they will naturally diversify. Assume for example the theory that depigmentation is a result of a Vitamin-D-deficiency, stabilised over millennia ... and you could technically have two versions of the same morphological type, one light-pigmented and one dark-pigmented.

I believe we lost our pigment for the same reason as the rest of the animal kingdom. Many arctic biological populations go through this process. I see no reason why humans should have a different reason.
I can't make sense out of the idea that a group of Homo-sapiens lost their pigmentation due to climatic influence. In order for an entire population to acquire that phenotype, the conditions for Natural selection would need to be severe enough to wipe out the dominant darker genes that would naturally swallow it back up. That condition only existed prior to our culture creating abilities.
If say, the Basque give birth to a blonde child due to mutation. Those traits would quickly become submerged back into the darker gene pool after one generation. I can think of no situation, within the context of Homo-sapien, that would circumvent the quick submersion of that phenotype. Even attempts at artificial preservation would fail if there were only one and surely there would only be one alive at a time.
The original darker pigmented element would have to be separated and on top of that, within the time frame of one lifespan (approx 40 yrs.), there would at least have to be FOUR OF THEM! haha. A very unlikely scenario as Homo-sapien. With culture; shelter, clothing, tools, etc. the conditions would always be that of the former example of re-submersion. That's why the Eskimos never became blonde, because they entered the arctic as H. Sapien and consequently, with culture.
Now if we didn't have culture, those prerequisite conditions become much more probable. This is why I believe it must have been during a branch of H. Erectus or Habilis (omitting H. Georgicus, Ergaster, etc. and I know that H. Habilis/erectus had culture, but I'm talking about a higher level). I can easily imagine a natural selection scenario that selects light pigment, within an arctic context, in an animal-like population such as the former two hominids. Even if there is a situation I'm neglecting, which would allow H. Sapiens to develop and entire population of Blondes, Occams razor is likely to favor the pre-H. Sapien theory (not that Occams razor should be used in science).

This theory also supports the idea that races split pre-H. Sapien.



Because a population who has to relocate will naturally strive to, over millennia, adapt to this soil. Even the "race-doesn't-exist" camp admits and acknowledges the fact that many physical differences between populations are environmental adaptation.

:-O Physical differences can be the result of environmental adaptation? ;)

Absolutely, but within the context of my comment, an origin was irrelevant.


Thus, to know whether a population's ethnogenesis took place in a boreal or moderate climate, or whether it took place on flat terrain or in the mountains could be important pointer to establish their phenotype, perhaps even genotype.

Perhaps it would help to establish under what conditions they acquired their phenotype, but knowledge of what phenotype they possess does not require it. Phenotype should be quite clear despite ignorance of exact origins. Or how else could we know what our phenotype is at all? This we do know. Do you not know what your phenotype is? Even your genetic constitution? Are humans doomed to pheno/genotypic ignorance until we discover our homelands? ;)



Many anthropological maps would contradict this judgment. Empirical observation of specimens from these countries would - if the specimens I encountered were in any way representative of their population - suggest that Finland has a higher population of blondes, albeit in many cases we are talking of "ashen blonde", not "golden blonde".

Even the large area in central/central-northern Sweden which is often coloured on these maps as being extremely light-pigmented has to be taken with a grain of salt, as population density is an important consideration; with the vast majority of Swedes living in Southern Sweden, it tends to distort reality even further.

They very well could, I haven't researched it. It makes no difference to my argument either way. However, if it is true it is very interesting. The origin of a non-IE speaking blonde population would make for a good puzzle. The maps I've seen didn't suggest they were blonder, but also didn't show that region as any darker either.
If we assume it is true then at least we are not left with an isolated incident. As we know, there are many examples of Non-IE speaking blondes; Etruscans, Riffs, Berbers, aboriginal Azoreans. I suppose the greatest possibility would be remnant UP, akin to the former examples, escaping IE subjugation (for awhile anyways). Although, I can think of a few more possibilities.


It would however depend on how geographically secluded these populations were, and how receptive they were towards foreign populations, which may have altered their genetic make-up considerably.

Yes, of course, but then you would expect the IE populations that split off from it to be more diverse than they actually were. For example, dark features should express themself in Swedish populations at a greater frequency than what we observe, even after genetic homogenization. Not that I exclude it from the sphere of possibility. I just think it less likely.



Define "short". 200 years? 2,000 years? 20,000 years? 200,000 years? ;)

I really didn't want to do the math on that ;) Well it depends on population size, but homogenization does not take long. 200-500 years sounds about right. It didn't even take Portugal that long to absorb a large, African slave population and homogenize.

And thank you for responding Mr. Sigurd :)

Agrippa
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 12:01 AM
To begin with, the question is inaccurate.
I would ask whether the Proto-Indoeuropeans before the split into regional groups and the early Indoeuropean groups were Nordic.

Now we have to define what we want to consider Indoeuropean and what we want to consider "Nordic".

To adress the first question, we have different candidates for Proto-Indoeuropeans shortly before the split-up and know of some prehistoric groups that the probability they were Indoeuropean people is fairly high.

Either case we dont deal with exclusively Nordid people in the narrower sense = Skandonordid or Eastnordid.
We dont know whether those which were metrically Atlanto-Nordoid or Aurignacoid so to say dark or light pigmented.

All those groups had, at least as a minority element, almost always Cromagnoid variants among them. Many early groups showed archaic, even primitive traits in comparison to the modern Nordeuropid average - while others showed highly progressive traits, again in comparison even to the modern Nordeuropid average.

This means we deal with a rather great variation in many cases.

Now the question of the homeland is crucial for the whole question, since we know something about prehistoric people and cultures, but we can only guess whether they spoke this or that language - the best approximation comes from continuity into historic populations, of which we know they spoke this or that tongue.

So we can say that with a certain probability, from this and that date, from this and that cultural period on, the people of the region X seem to have spoken an Indoeuropean language, since there is no evidence of later changes or immigrations which could have brought it and there is a great continuity of various aspects of biological and cultural traits etc.

F.e. in Eastern Europe we can be relatively sure that the later Kurgan groups were Indoeuropeans. In Central Europe we can be relatively sure that the Corded Ware people were Indoeuropeans.

Now the funny question is, before that, who gave whom the IE language? Or got both of them the language or crucial elements of it from a third group, f.e. from South Eastern European Neolithic people, since we also deal with a certain continuity in the Northern Balkanic areas, which again had relations to both groups in the North West and East.

We simply dont know.

So far even among the earlist Indoeuropeans we can observe:
- Nordoid, Cromagnoid and Mediterranid racial elements, with Cromagnoid being more common further North and East, Nordoid everywhere, and Mediterranid/more gracile Nordoid (?) in the Centre and South more than elsewhere.

As basic elements the majority was therefore between rather robust Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid, be it in mixed (varying proportions) or more stable intermediate groups.

- All analysed prehistoric groups which were with a high certainty IE had a high portion of R1a carriers in the y-DNA, thats true either in Central Europe (Corded Ware) as in the East (steppe people).

So no matter if other y-DNA haplogroups are also present, the strong presence of R1a among early IE is proven.

Closest to the IE standard type come higher skulled Eastnordid variants and Eastnordid-Cromagnoid intermediates, sometimes with supposed Mediterranid/gracile influences.

Thats for Central Europe true from the LBK groups, over Corded Ware to the Unetice culture, with decreasing rates of rather primitive traits as the only significant trend of change. The only break comes with the immigration of the Bell Beakers.

Therefore it seems to me, that, with the exception of some Corded core groups of extremely specialised herder-warriors of the leptodolichomorphic/Nordoid type, and in the end even those, most IE seem to fit in the general variation of the classic Europid spectrum of Europe in the crucial time. Which means we sometimes can't be sure about migrations, because the people in question were so similar if looking at the more basic traits on the skeletal material. In fact, only genetics can shed light on that issue for sure and for doing so, they have to analyse even much more bones of prehistoric people, with the Corded Ware and Kurgan group + related being the most interesting ones.

The more deviating racial variants come mostly from the fringes of the present variation as well as later immigrants, isolated refugia which were probably under the archaeological radar so far, since the basic Nordoid-Cromagnoid-Mediterranid variation in most IE people being quite similar beyond the limits of what we can consider IE at that time. The deviation from this basic and classic Europid variation is the exception at that time, not vice versa!

ejarln
Friday, October 30th, 2009, 02:02 PM
I've heard this before about Finns having the highest % of light features, but I find it hard to believe.

same as me,hard to believe because I've been to Finland outside Helsinki,there were a lot of dark haired,short and stocky everywhere.I asked them if they were sami, but they rejected.

Van De Poele
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 02:21 PM
The kurgan crania and skeletons were mainly classified as "Proto-European" (= Cro-Magnid) as dully said Agrippa; in all the early PIE we find C; Nordois and Mediterranoids. Yet the CM element is common to all the earliest PIE cultures as well as the cultures associated to the earliest face of Indo-European expansion: the recosntructed faces of Mycaenean exposed in Pontikos' web page (http://dienekes.110mb.com/pictures/mycenaeanfaces/) show facial bone structure , slightly flatened and wide opening noses typical of CM; CM remains are also found in Andronovo culture of Kazakhstan (praecursors of Indo-Iranian movements into North Indian Sub-continent, Afghanistan & iran) as well as in South Siberia Affanasiev culture - with some eastern meds- (praecursors of Tocharian migrations in to NW China Tarim Basin)

In the Corded ware complex immediatly north of the Kurgan region they also appear in variable degrees of admixture with the Corded ("proto-nordic" in Lawrence Angel's terminology) : yet they look virtually absent in the core of the corded ware cultural complex (S. Germany, Czecz republic etc) this means that the IE propragation was made in several steps: soem by direct migration/invasion, others by difusionism: in many cases difusion was made by previously kurganized people that had lost the original phenotipical element of the former PIE kurgan Peoples.

Ilse's Schwidetzky article "The Influence of the Steppe People Based on the Physical Anthropological Data in Special Consideration to the Corded-Battle-Axe Culture" published in 1980 in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 8 page 345 is a golden mine of information about this subject. Moreover this volume of the named journal contains another article on a related subject by Roland Menk.

Teutonicus Fury
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 08:08 PM
Actually , NOrdic people are one of the least indo-european of all Europeans. Because, Indo-EUropeans were R1b and R1a, while the Nordic marker is I1 which is native aboriginal European.

Anlef
Thursday, January 28th, 2010, 12:05 AM
Actually , NOrdic people are one of the least indo-european of all Europeans. Because, Indo-EUropeans were R1b and R1a, while the Nordic marker is I1 which is native aboriginal European.

Then how do you explain that the Europeans with the highest percentage of R1b are the Basques, one of few peoples to speak a non-Indo-European language?

I would say that R1 is the oldest haplogroup in Europe. Haplogroup I arrived later. Then the Last Glacial Maximum came, which led to the split of R1 into R1b and R1a, and that of I into I1, I2a and I2b. After the ice drew back, the north was resettled. Several thousand years later, in the east, the Proto-Indo-Europeans arose, carrying a high amount of R1a. They spread to the West (and the East), and their language spread much further than their genes.

Teutonicus Fury
Thursday, January 28th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Then how do you explain that the Europeans with the highest percentage of R1b are the Basques, one of few peoples to speak a non-Indo-European language?

I would say that R1 is the oldest haplogroup in Europe. Haplogroup I arrived later. Then the Last Glacial Maximum came, which led to the split of R1 into R1b and R1a, and that of I into I1, I2a and I2b. After the ice drew back, the north was resettled. Several thousand years later, in the east, the Proto-Indo-Europeans arose, carrying a high amount of R1a. They spread to the West (and the East), and their language spread much further than their genes.

No, the haplogroup I existed in all Europe before the arrival of R1a/R1b. As for the basque question, here you have the answer :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest

Anlef
Thursday, January 28th, 2010, 09:55 PM
No, the haplogroup I existed in all Europe before the arrival of R1a/R1b. As for the basque question, here you have the answer :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest

Eupedia offers an interpretation of the results of DNA-analysis. It's not settled yet. Eupedia:


Until recently it was believed that R1b originated in Western Europe due to its strong presence in the region today. The theory was that R1b represented the Paleolithic Europeans (Cro-Magnon) that had sought refuge in the Franco-Cantabrian region at the peak of the last Ice Age, then recolonised Central and Northern Europe once the ice sheet receded. The phylogeny of R1b proved that this scenario was not possible, because older R1b clades were consistently found in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the youngest in Western and Northern Europe. There was a clear gradient from East to West tracing the migration of R1b people (see map above). This age of the main migration from the shores of the Black Sea to Central Europe also happened to match the timeframe of the Indo-European invasion of Europe, which coincides with the introduction of the Bronze-Age culture in Western Europe, and the spread of Italo-Celtic and Germanic languages.

Basically Eupedia says that R1b must be late, because there is a clear gradient from East to West. As if an earlier, pre-Indo-European arrival would not explain that gradient. Eupedia again:


Historians and archeologists have long argued whether the Indo-European migration was a massive invasion, or rather a cultural diffusion of language and technology spread only by a small number of incomers. The answer could well be "neither". Proponents of the diffusion theory would have us think that R1b is native to Western Europe, and R1a alone represent the Indo-Europeans. The problem is that haplogroup R did arise in Central Asia, and R2 is still restricted to Central and South Asia, while R1a and the older subclades of R1b are also found in Central Asia. The age of R1b subclades in Europe coincide with the Bronze-Age. R1b must consequently have replaced most of the native Y-DNA lineages in Europe from the Bronze-Age onwards.

The only substantial thing said is that the age of R1b subclades in Europe coincides with the Bronze Age. But I see no reason why that couldn't be explained with a model in which R1b was a pre-Indo-European arriver.

And, like I said, the fact that the Basques, of all people, would have the highest amount of Indo-European blood defies logic. The explanation that Eupedia has for this is totally unconvincing.