Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

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

  1. #21
    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
    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.



    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)




    Hellenic Busts (predominantly "Mediterranean" IMO)




    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.

  2. #22
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 09:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatest View Post
    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.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  3. #23
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    LOL the Finns are Finns, not Swedes.
    ?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    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
    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.

  5. #25
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 11:48 PM
    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
    4,883
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,176
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,282
    Thanked in
    545 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous
    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?
    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

  6. #26
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 05:01 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 Sir Infamous View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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.
    -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)

  7. #27
    Senior Member Richard Coyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 29th, 2010 @ 03:03 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Scots-Irish/English/German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Western Maryland
    Gender
    Age
    76
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Retired Educator
    Politics
    Republican
    Religion
    Deist
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Infamous View Post
    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

    2500-1800 BC

    1800-1200 BC



    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.?
    Last edited by Richard Coyle; Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason: Spelling correction
    I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grand children's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority

    Carl Sagan

  8. #28
    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 Sigurd View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.
    Physical differences can be the result of environmental adaptation?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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

  9. #29
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    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!
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 18th, 2010 @ 07:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    State
    Missouri Missouri
    Gender
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Freigeistige; Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 03:33 PM. Reason: duplicate photos

Page 3 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
  •