Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Were All Indo-European Peoples Nordid/Nordic?

  1. #11
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2009 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    (Germanic ancestry hails from England, Netherlands, and Germany)
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    making money
    Politics
    21st century racialist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    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".

  2. #12
    Senior Member Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 05:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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).

  3. #13
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2009 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    (Germanic ancestry hails from England, Netherlands, and Germany)
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    making money
    Politics
    21st century racialist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 05:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Stygian Cellarius; Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason: accuracy

  5. #15
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2009 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    (Germanic ancestry hails from England, Netherlands, and Germany)
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    making money
    Politics
    21st century racialist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.



    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.



    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.


    ]

  6. #16
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 06:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    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.

  7. #17
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2009 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    (Germanic ancestry hails from England, Netherlands, and Germany)
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    making money
    Politics
    21st century racialist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 24th, 2009 @ 07:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norway (P) + Scotland (PM) + Austria (MP + MM) + Swabia (MP) + Prussia (MM)
    Subrace
    Nordid-Atlantid and Bruenn
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Paleo-Liberalism
    Religion
    AGNOS/Athiest
    Posts
    797
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    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?

  9. #19
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    19 Hours Ago @ 06:57 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,176
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,277
    Thanked in
    543 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous
    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!
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  10. #20
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 11:03 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,100
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    211
    Thanked in
    124 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    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.



    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.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, January 25th, 2011, 09:06 PM
  2. Indo-European Chronology - Countries and Peoples
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sunday, April 26th, 2009, 04:18 PM
  3. Non-Nordic Individuals Adopting Indo-European Religion and Culture?
    By Requiem in forum Indo-Germanic Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Thursday, October 6th, 2005, 03:29 PM
  4. Miscegenation and the Indo-European Peoples
    By infoterror in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, February 21st, 2005, 02:51 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •