PDA

View Full Version : Which Nation is Most Similar to the Original Indo-Europeans?



Väring
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 05:59 PM
Please vote and motivate your answer. Note that i mean similarity in an anthropological or racial context.

Oskorei
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 06:45 PM
Since I believe that the modern European is the result of a mix between IE:s and older stocks, I voted Russia. The IE:s came from parts of Russia I think.

Kalevi
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:09 PM
I can't vote, but I would vote Lithuania: their language is the closest to proto-Indo-European.

Æmeric
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:29 PM
Ireland. With the Exception of Ulster, I do'nt believe it has receive any significant population inflows since before Christ. I know there were Vikings & Normans, but they were primarily a small ruling elite.

Lissu
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:31 PM
I can't vote, but I would vote Lithuania: their language is the closest to proto-Indo-European.Lithuania is now added to poll :)

Lissu
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:33 PM
IMHO the idea of this poll is ridiculous. Indo-European is a linguistical term, yet te title is which nation is most similar to Indo-European. That doesn't make any sense.

palesye
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:34 PM
Balts are supposed to have the oldest IE language, aren't they?

jcs
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 07:55 PM
Ireland. With the Exception of Ulster, I do'nt believe it has receive any significant population inflows since before Christ. I know there were Vikings & Normans, but they were primarily a small ruling elite.
Linguistically, Celtic languages are not terribly close to PIE.


IMHO the idea of this poll is ridiculous. Indo-European is a linguistical term, yet te title is which nation is most similar to Indo-European. That doesn't make any sense.
Where languages travel exchanged, so do genes. We can certainly say the Indo-Aryan people shared blood and language. This probably applies to all IE peoples.


Balts are supposed to have the oldest IE language, aren't they?
Yes, along with Slavs. Russian is probably the living language closest to Proto-Indo-European.

Lissu
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 08:16 PM
Where languages travel exchanged, so do genes. We can certainly say the Indo-Aryan people shared blood and language. This probably applies to all IE peoples.Genes are always inherited, but one does not necessarily learn the mothertongue from parents. In most cases they do, of course.

It is very likely that proto-Europids, the Upper-Paleolithic peoples did not speak proto-IE languages, but some other language.


Yes, along with Slavs. Russian is probably the living language closest to Proto-Indo-European.Baltic languages are close to Sanskrit and this is especially the case with Lithuanian which is more archaic language than Latvian.

Kalevi
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 10:02 PM
Lithuania is now added to poll :)

The vote-button doesn't work at all.


IMHO the idea of this poll is ridiculous. Indo-European is a linguistical term, yet te title is which nation is most similar to Indo-European. That doesn't make any sense.

I thought this was about which modern people is ethnically closest to the original Indo-European speaking people, the people of the Kurgan culture that lived north of the black sea at around 4000 BC.

http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/worldlit/jpegs/migrate.jpg

From there they expanded and eventually their language spread almost everywhere from Ireland to India.

So, from that way it makes sense. You could only ask if it's meaningful to compare ethnicities of neolithic and post-industrial peoples.

I don't think the answer to the question lies in Western Europe. Genetically the original Indo-European speakers did not left much fingerprints in the European gene pool, we're all still mostly paleolithic. My approach is that when the lands of Balts and Eastern Slavs aren't terribly far away from the original expansion center, therefore they must have been more similar to the Kurgan peoples before their invasion, and also gained more of their influences during it. Western Europeans, in comparison, have strong pre-IE substratum in their languages.

I still vote for Lithuania. :)

Lissu
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 10:25 PM
The vote-button doesn't work at all.Yes, lately there has been problems with polls, I don't know why but I have not been able to vote either. Hopefully the problem will be fixed soon.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 10:33 PM
I can't vote, but I would vote Lithuania: their language is the closest to proto-Indo-European.
I thought it was Latvia..or not? :confused:

Kalevi
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:14 PM
Well, in addition that the Latvian language has a strong Finno-Ugric substrate, it also lacks some IE traits. Lithuanian is more purely IE.

tuddorsped
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:23 PM
Russia, for most of the reasons outlined above. Provided we can actually agree on what we mean by IE. :)

Also, in a literal interpretation of the question, I think that Russian society still displays a lot of the characteristics of the original IE culture. It is still a very patriarchal and rugged culture. Europe meanwhile has become hopelessly decadent. Most of us are quite a few generations away from being simple warrior-farmers. Could Europe survive what happened to Russia in the Yeltsin years? I very much doubt it.

Lissu
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:35 PM
Russia, for most of the reasons outlined above. Provided we can actually agree on what we mean by IE. :)

Also, in a literal interpretation of the question, I think that Russian society still displays a lot of the characteristics of the original IE culture. It is still a very patriarchal and rugged culture. Europe meanwhile has become hopelessly decadent. Most of us are quite a few generations away from being simple warrior-farmers. Could Europe survive what happened to Russia in the Yeltsin years? I very much doubt it.Well, on the other hand, Russia is in very bad condition both physically and mentally. The birth rate has crashed and so have lifetime expectation. Russian males today are expected live only less than 60 years. Russians still have not recovered from the Soviet era.

Russians xenophobia is still on the healthy level though.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, 11:45 PM
The vote-button doesn't work at all.
Hint: you can vote in this poll via the Home page ;)

tuddorsped
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 12:13 AM
Well, on the other hand, Russia is in very bad condition both physically and mentally. The birth rate has crashed and so have lifetime expectation. Russian males today are expected live only less than 60 years. Russians still have not recovered from the Soviet era.

Russians xenophobia is still on the healthy level though.


They went to hell and back, my friend. Very few European countries could have survived that AND moderately recovered. A barter economy would probably kill off half of the UK's population in a few months. Suspend pizza deliveries and you'd probably take out 10% in one go!

As for the Soviet era, I don't recall people starving on the streets as they did under Yeltsin. Sure, there were queues for some essentials because of the inefficient and increasingly corrupt distribution system, but those essentials were affordable if you waited long enough. I also have friends there who will tell you about their annual holidays at the Black Sea resorts (no longer affordable for most) and free healthcare from some of the best medical professionals in the world.

What destroyed the SU was a crippling and unwinnable arms race, an overextended empire and Disneychannel/Coke etc. The first two crushed them economically and the latter destroyed them ideologically. They all thought that they could be living with white picket fences and brand new refrigerators at the drop of a hat. Of course, nobody told them that most people in America and Europe don't live like that either. The dirt poor live everywhere but Disney and Coke kept it quiet, because images of poverty don't shift products.

And now the SU has gone, the West doesn't need to treat its workers quite so well either. After all, there is no fear of them falling for Communist propaganda anymore is there? You and I can think about that perhaps when the money markets shift to Asia permanently and take all the well-paid jobs with them.

As for public health issues, most people in London are too fat to even run for a bus. And half the kids have diabetes. Can't see many of them making it to 60. And even if they do, what just what sort of life do you think they might have lived exactly? Rap music, mobile phones, and computer games. Hmmm....

Triglav
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 02:49 AM
We don't know.

Russia or perhaps Poland if we're talking about the "Aryans" who invaded Asia/India and spread I-E culture further east.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 04:03 AM
Ireland is a fringe, refuge area. In other words it is the most isolated part of Europe. It should shelter the earliest sapiens types.

Death and the Sun
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 05:06 PM
I can't vote, but I would vote Lithuania: their language is the closest to proto-Indo-European.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?

Väring
Friday, September 23rd, 2005, 08:54 PM
if we're talking about the "Aryans" who invaded Asia/India and spread I-E culture further east.

Not really, it would be wrongful to use such a definition of IE. The Aryans were mostly Pontid and different from the other IE tribes in that way.

Triglav
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 03:17 AM
Not really, it would be wrongful to use such a definition of IE. The Aryans were mostly Pontid and different from the other IE tribes in that way.
I'm not equating these two.

Pontid according to whom?

Kalevi
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?

As mentioned, Lithuanian is close to Sanskrit despite it's location in the other side of the IE area. This is because the Baltic languages are a peripheral group of Indo-European, and peripheral groups tend to be more conservative than central groups, whose languages will change more rapidly (perhaps by getting influences from all the closely related neighbours). This is why Baltic sometimes sounds like Latin, a practically dead IE language spoken 2000 years before present.

http://www.lituanus.org/1969/69_3_02.htm

Väring
Saturday, September 24th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Pontid according to whom?

Bertil Lundman. He described them as Pontid and somewhat East-Nordid.

Triglav
Sunday, September 25th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Bertil Lundman. He described them as Pontid and somewhat East-Nordid.

Marija Gimbutas considered them to be gracilised Cro-Magnids IIRC.

Without going further into detail - whatever they were, a genetic link has been established. I repeat that I don't equate "Aryan" and "Indo-European", though.

Väring
Sunday, September 25th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Since I believe that the modern European is the result of a mix between IE:s and older stocks, I voted Russia. The IE:s came from parts of Russia I think.

Marija Gimbutas believed they lived between present day Ukraine and as far east as the Altai mountains.I think she did much to popularize this belief. Bertil Lundman thought otherwise.

http://www.snpa.skadi.net/bilder/lundraces-map20.jpg

frankfurter
Monday, September 26th, 2005, 06:24 AM
Indo-European is a linguistic term, and it would be difficult to apply it to a certain race since languages in historical times were often forced on large groups of people by smaller, more militarily or culturally advanced tribes, such as was the case with the Indo-Europeans and other groups. Languages may have been exchanged many times over by various races throughout history. Wherever the Indo-Europeans settled in Europe and Asia, they mixed with whatever groups were already there, as well as groups that came later. Depending on which author you read, the earliest Indo-Europeans were either Danubian or Corded in race, or some time of reduced Cro-Magnon-like type. Norway or Sweden would be my guess, although even they would not be even relatively pure representatives.
A group that speaks a certain language today may have very little in common racially with the original speakers of that language or perhaps even those who spoke that language 2000 years ago.

Siegfried
Monday, September 26th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Marija Gimbutas believed they lived between present day Ukraine and as far east as the Altai mountains.I think she did much to popularize this belief. Bertil Lundman thought otherwise.

I'm currently reading a book called The Early Germans (2004) by one Malcolm Todd. The author remarks: "Although we cannot locate the Urheimat of Indo-European speakers with any precision, the broad sweep of Europe from the western steppes to the north German plain - a reasonably continuous ecological region - may be plausibly identified as a principal homeland of that population."

Väring
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Russia or perhaps Poland.

I think we can agree on that there is no nation as of today that corresponds well to the racial make up of the Indo-Europeans or Battle Axe people. The nearest thing would be one where such an element is more numerous than elsewhere. Russia or Poland are good suggestions but there are many other elements in these nations. I think Latvia and Belarus comes close. Finland and Estonia has a lot of Corded Nordics. Northern and Eastern Sweden has Corded blood, too.


Marija Gimbutas considered them to be gracilised Cro-Magnids IIRC I did read her "The Indo-Europeanization of Europe" some time ago and from what i remember her description were similar to that of Coon's Corded.

Väring
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 06:30 PM
IMHO the idea of this poll is ridiculous. Indo-European is a linguistical term, yet te title is which nation is most similar to Indo-European. That doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps, if you do not recognize them in an anthropological sense. They have been described racially.

Kalevi
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Finland and Estonia has a lot of Corded Nordics. Northern and Eastern Sweden has Corded blood, too.

Interesting. Does the term "Corded" equal "Corded Ware", the cranial type of the Corded Ware culture?

Väring
Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 09:07 AM
Interesting. Does the term "Corded" equal "Corded Ware", the cranial type of the Corded Ware culture?

Yes, that's where the name stems from.

Kalevi
Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 05:43 PM
Well, that fits to the picture. The Corded Ware culture (which was supposedly proto-Baltic) was an important component in Finnish ethnogenesis. According to some linguists, it's impact on Finland almost changed our language to Indo-European (just shortly after we supposedly had changed our language to Finno-Ugrian). And we still have loads of very old Baltic loan words.

Of course it's always more or less speculative to associate ancient migrations with archaeological cultures, and many have questioned the assumed Corded Ware migration claiming that it was just a culture. But if there's a recognizable Corded Ware type, that actually would make sense. Unfortunately there's no skeletal findings of that age in Finland.

First I thought Finland and Estonia in the poll were practical jokes, but that makes us actually serious competitors. :)

Skalagrim
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 09:09 AM
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi15.htm

Mesopotamian
Sunday, February 11th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I'd say greek , but since im not the expert here:D ,i'll leave it for others to to decide.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 07:30 AM
I can't vote, but I would vote Lithuania: their language is the closest to proto-Indo-European.

This is my reasoning also.

Aistulf
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 11:23 AM
Lingually, at least, Lithuania; since Lithuanian is one of the oldest/most preserved Indo-European tongues, that's what I chose.

I've taken a look at Baltic tongues, they're quite interesting. The region socially and demographically is - I'm willing to bet - also quite favorable over Western Europe [these days], with a lot of traditional practices still alive. I guess all these factors all add up to the choice I made.

Also, a language is very telling of a people.

Evolved
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 12:33 AM
I'd say nomadic Tajiks or Pashtuns, IIRC the highest percentages of R1a is among Altaic people in the Pamirs or somewhere. From among those nations listed I'd pick Russia (but only the South-Western area).

NonGerman visitor
Friday, March 9th, 2007, 09:47 AM
Where is Ukrainia in the Poll? Dniepr-Donets and Sredni Stii/Sredni stog aren't they ukrainian sites?

Ruthenicus
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Genes are always inherited, but one does not necessarily learn the mothertongue from parents. In most cases they do, of course.

It is very likely that proto-Europids, the Upper-Paleolithic peoples did not speak proto-IE languages, but some other language.

Baltic languages are close to Sanskrit and this is especially the case with Lithuanian which is more archaic language than Latvian.

Lithuanian and Russian with dialects are the closest - moreover, Indians call them "living ancestors of Indo-European languages".
Russian is more archaic in grammar, both Russian and Lithuanian are extremely archaic in vocabulary (the ancient vocabulary is common).
It's possible to create a text in Sanskrit, that will be fully comprehensible for a native Russian-speaker (I've read such a text).

Lissu
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 11:20 AM
Lingually, at least, Lithuania; since Lithuanian is one of the oldest/most preserved Indo-European tongues, that's what I chose.

I've taken a look at Baltic tongues, they're quite interesting. The region socially and demographically is - I'm willing to bet - also quite favorable over Western Europe [these days], with a lot of traditional practices still alive. I guess all these factors all add up to the choice I made.

Also, a language is very telling of a people.Lithuanians as a whole were the last Pagan country in Europe proper. As for heathenism, Maris are propably the last Europid nation who is still practising heathenism, but they're being heavily oppressed today and their whole culture is in danger.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 02:58 PM
Lithuania is twice an option on the poll :P

SubGnostic
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Maris are propably the last Europid nation who is still practising heathenism, but they're being heavily oppressed today and their whole culture is in danger.Europoid... :read

Lithuania seems the most likely candidate, at least culturally. Quite interesting, this is very new to me. I might grab a few books on Lithuania from the public library and enlighten myself.

Ruthenicus
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Europoid... :read

Europid. And who opresses them?

SubGnostic
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Europid. And who opresses them?Europoid.


...The indigenous population of the Volga-Ural region is ethnically, historically, and culturally heterogenous. Ethnic groups of the region belong to different language groups including the Perm (Komi-Zyryans, Komi-Permyaks, Udmurts) and Volga-Finnish (Mordvinians, Mari) branches of the Ural language family and the Turkic branch of the Altaian language family (Bashkirs, Tatars, Chuvash). Anthropologically, these ethnic groups are Caucasian and have a varying Mongoloid component...http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Bermisheva2002.pdf

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=93845&d=1170433147

Pro-Alpine
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Ukraine is not featured so i voted for Russia. They came from Eastern Europe like most historians have stated.


Note that i mean similarity in an anthropological or racial context.

Why? The actual origin matters more.

Ruthenicus
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 06:30 PM
Europoid.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Bermisheva2002.pdf

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=93845&d=1170433147


Our fellow Maris are Europids - East-Baltids, Baltids, few Nordids, Uraloid admixtures. Saamis are mostly EuropOid, Maris are much more Europid, at least more than Portuguese or Greeks:D

Väring
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 04:55 PM
Why? The actual origin matters more.

I said that because i did not mean culture, religion, language or anything that can be learned or unlearned. I am not so sure what you mean with that.

Väring
Saturday, March 31st, 2007, 05:01 PM
Where is Ukrainia in the Poll?

This was a while ago, but when i designed this poll i could only include this many options. I do not think the Ukrainians are that close, being mostly Gorids, Pontids and Dinarids. I think the answer must be a nation in eastern or north-eastern Europe. So i think either Belarus, Latvia or Lithuania.

Teutonicus Fury
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 09:33 PM
.
Either way, the influence is rather minor, but I would say that possibly up to 2% of Spaniards display nordiform traits. This specimen is however, of course, extreme as virtually all traits are there making him look anything but Spanish.


The Visigoths were not the only germanic tribe to settle in Spain, also the Swabians (mostly in North-West Iberia), the Vandals, the Buri, Franks..

Teutonicus Fury
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 10:25 PM
According to genetics, the Indo-Europeans were R1 (parent of R1a and R1b) therefore the most Indo-European countries are :
Wales, Scotland, Spanish, Polish, English,etc on the other hand, the least indo-europeans are Scandinavians, Finland, who are mostly Cro-Magnoid with haplogroup I1

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 11:07 PM
The Visigoths were not the only germanic tribe to settle in Spain, also the Swabians (mostly in North-West Iberia), the Vandals, the Buri, Franks..

Which still doesn't mean that the genetic influence was any greater. We could talk about certain linguistic (phonetic) influences, but genetic influence is bound to be rather minor.

That a great number of light-pigmented individuals in Spain would prove Germanic influence is a rather weak argument I am afraid, as it is based on two false premises: That of "Blonde = Nordid" and that of "Nordid = Germanic".

The former can be contradicted empirically by a great number of specimens, often Cro-Magnids of all types but not seldom also of various other types (such as Alpinid), a blonde Alpinid is precisely that and not automatically a Sub-Nordid. A good example would IMO be German skier Carolin Fernsebner (Alpinid):

http://www.autogrammgalerie.ch/skialpin/f/fernsebner/fernsebnerfoto01.jpg

The latter can be contradicted almost as empirically by pointing out that both blonde hair and the Nordid type are far from exclusive to Germanic lands:

Re: Blonde hair - this following map could be useful (problematic is as usual the wide brackets of 80+%, 50-79%, etc. --- but it will suffice here to demonstrate the point):

http://www.europeanunionmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/percentage-of-light-hair-in-europe-300x295.jpg

(Note: It may be confusing to see such a large stretch of Sweden and Norway as lighter-pigmented than the surrounding areas; what such a map can of course not take into account is population density --- most Swedes and Norwegians live well south of this strip; most North-Germanics are thus of equal pigmentation as the surrounding areas.)

I cannot provide picture evidence right at the minute for the Nordid point, however for now pointing out that a special Central-Nordid type which is very rarely found amongst Germanics, that being East-Nordid (common in Finland, Baltics, Russia), is found well into the Russian heartland to an extent which can hardly be attributed to the small scale of Germanic colonialisation of those areas.

The hypothesis that the selection of metrical Nordids and Northern Cro-Magnids and the depigmentation of Northern Neolithic AND Cro-Magnid types could be linked somewhat to Germanic ethnogenesis in that it could have been an exclusive feature of an earlier stage of development (such as a potential Germanic-Baltic-Slavic continuum which becomes linguistically possible) can perhaps not be discounted immediately altogether.

However this would be at a time so far back that it is not something directly linked to Germanic ethnogenesis (but rather an earlier stage); for all we know actually it could even predate this noted Germanic-Baltic-Slavic point and could be linked to a Proto-Indoeuropean age (if it were to be assumed that there were a connection AND if we assumed for argument's sake a large Baltic-derived genetic infusion into Finland) - or might just not be connected to Indo-Germanics at all and be a process unconnected to the migration/selection of a certain population. ;)

Teutonicus Fury
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 11:17 PM
Which still doesn't mean that the genetic influence was any greater. We could talk about certain linguistic (phonetic) influences, but genetic influence is bound to be rather minor.

That a great number of light-pigmented individuals in Spain would prove Germanic influence is a rather weak argument I am afraid, as it is based on two false premises: That of "Blonde = Nordid" and that of "Nordid = Germanic".

No, I never said such. Actually, most spaniards have celtic ancestry, therefore most light pigmented spaniards is an attirubte of Celts or even of Iberians,

Syfon
Sunday, March 14th, 2010, 08:05 PM
What do you think about this?

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, March 14th, 2010, 08:59 PM
According to genetics, the Indo-Europeans were R1 (parent of R1a and R1b) therefore the most Indo-European countries are :
Wales, Scotland, Spanish, Polish, English,etc on the other hand, the least indo-europeans are Scandinavians, Finland, who are mostly Cro-Magnoid with haplogroup I1

In defining race Genotypes is more important than Haplogroups, Haplogroups being merely cosmetical in purpose. So much that Sub-Caucasoids such as the Indids or Jews can have R1a or R1b.



No, I never said such. Actually, most spaniards have celtic ancestry, therefore most light pigmented spaniards is an attirubte of Celts or even of Iberians,

The Iberic tribes are not part of the Indo-Europeans, Iberic tribes came from Africa and entered Europe through the Mediterranean whilst the Indo-Europeans came from Western Asia and entered Europe through the East.

BundOstmark
Monday, March 22nd, 2010, 03:34 AM
The Iberic tribes are not part of the Indo-Europeans, Iberic tribes came from Africa and entered Europe through the Mediterranean whilst the Indo-Europeans came from Western Asia and entered Europe through the East.

Were the Iberics the same stock as the Berbers from North Africa ?
And were they considered Caucasoid/Europid ?
Or were they of Negroid stock ?

Sigurd
Monday, March 22nd, 2010, 08:43 AM
The first "modern human" population to enter the Iberian peninsula is believed to have come across the Pyrenees, later forming the R1b haplogroup from a rather homogenous gene pool (leading again to the back-assumption that they were the first "modern humans" to enter the area, pre-historic planned isolation being unlikely)

As far as later migrations into the area are concerned, many are linked to the Megalithic and Bell-Beaker cultures. The Megalithic cultures are believed to have sprung in Northern Africa, whilst the Bell Beaker culture is believed to have either sprung directly from Iberia, or alternatively possibly an early sign of an Indo-European population, whose origin is subject obviously to the validity of various hypotheses (Kurgan, Baltic, Caucasus, etc.)

As far as the Tartessians right in the south are concerned, it is impossible to tell exactly where they might have come from. The few script relicts we have suggest that Tartessian was a language isolate, as such it is difficult to pinpoint any relation on a linguistic level; genetic pointers are even more dangerous to base hypotheses on, as basically any specimen from which we are taking DNA evidence may have either been of pure stock or indeed already from intermixture.

Discounting the Tartessian evidence, for the other two (Megalithic and Bell Beaker) we can certainly conclude that they were most likely of Europid racial origin, with genetic evidence from Megalithic-type cultures being found as far north as Scotland and Sweden. ;)

Wanderer
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010, 03:16 AM
The marker of 'Indo-Europeans,' haplogroup R1a has its strongest concentration in the land area of what we now call Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia (at least in the most recent study I'm aware of). As one heads west, south, east, and north from those geographical areas, the R1a haplogroup weakens in prevalence. The other haplogroup, R1b, is stronger overall in Germany and the rest of western/northern Europe. Interestingly, the R1a haplogroup emerges strongly again in parts of Scandinavia, like western Norway, and also in the Baltic states, but not as strongly in the area of dominance - Polen, Tschechen and Slowakei. Also, the R1a type is strong in Sorbia/Lausitz (which is where the borders of Germany, Poland and Czech Republic meet). You'll also see a strong pocket in the former lands of the Slavonic Abodriten, which is east of Luebeck, along the Baltic Sea. So, it makes me wonder personally how accurate it is to talk about Indo-European as a 'German' synonym.

I prefer to see Indo-European as a linguistic family. If one were to compare words from Hindi, the Indian language, with European languages, including Latin and Germanic, similarities can be found between the Hindi and said European languages. Anyways, I don't know if I can call any European people more 'Indo-European' than another. I would hate to lump the aesthetically-pleasing German, Swedish, and Danish women, for example, with the homely Poles. Czechs are somewhat more easy on the eye than Poles, but not nearly as beautiful as Germanics.

Rassenhygieniker
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010, 09:42 PM
Were the Iberics the same stock as the Berbers from North Africa ?
And were they considered Caucasoid/Europid ?
Or were they of Negroid stock ?

Caucasoids of Mediterranid stock, Picts belonged to the Iberic Tribes and were scrawny, very short and dark (dark hairs and dark eyes), mostly around 4 to 5 feet tall at most, which isn't too far off from the racial types that is found in high concentration in Iberia (Castilla for example) and in lower number in Occitania (now part of France).

According to Carleton Coon the "homeland and cradle" of the Mediterranean race is in North Africa and Southwest Asia, in the area from Morocco to Afghanistan.



Discounting the Tartessian evidence, for the other two (Megalithic and Bell Beaker) we can certainly conclude that they were most likely of Europid racial origin, with genetic evidence from Megalithic-type cultures being found as far north as Scotland and Sweden. ;)

Yes we are aware of that, though thankfully the influence seem to be minimal otherwise we would have been as scrawny, swarthy and greasy as the rest of them.



I prefer to see Indo-European as a linguistic family. If one were to compare words from Hindi, the Indian language, with European languages, including Latin and Germanic, similarities can be found between the Hindi and said European languages.

The modern day Hindoos, are a race of half-castes. The Aryans who settled in modern day India, created the civilization there (which also include the language) before becoming the cesspool of miscegenation that is today known for.

Drottin
Monday, April 19th, 2010, 10:27 PM
Norway and in Spain (Basques)

Rassenhygieniker
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, 04:24 AM
Norway and in Spain (Basques)

Basques do not even speak an Indo-European language.

Fable
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, 06:36 AM
In my opnion, Poland genetically and Lithuania/Latvia linguistically. But I'd say most of Europe is IE/Aryan phenotypically.

The Nordids/Atlantids/Pontids/East Meds/Dinarids/CroMagnids all belong to the highly progressive Aryan subraces.

I personally wouldnt consider Alpines/Baltids/Gracile Mediterranids as Aryan but I would consider them White, whereas I wouldnt consider East Meds as 'White' but I would consider them Aryan, as I would North-Indids in another sense.

Europeans are culturally Aryan, our ancestors believed in European pagan mythology, with parallels in ancient Vedic and Zoroastrian religions.

Christianity/Catholicism have never stood in the way against European racial identity and has evolved in Europe intertwining with European way of life.

Indo European languages are Aryan and us,Europeans are the purest Aryans.

Indians as a whole are mixed Dravidians/GrazilIndid and Austrics and Iranians as a whole are hooked nosed, Islamo-fascist Iranids.

huntsman
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010, 05:23 PM
I will second the vote for Lithuania, with parts of Poland and Russia as runners up.

What must be remembered is that the round skulls found in these eastern regions are a comparatively recent development (since 1200 AD). The Round headed trait is now rapidly reversing by a unexplained process, leading to an emergent phenotype: blond, long headed, tall, robust.