Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Who Were the Proto-Indo-Europeans?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    It's late and I'm tired so I haven't read all but as for the how they look like, aren't there facial reconstructions for the oldest Europeans, the cro-magnon people (not to be confused with the so called subrace).

    I googled it quickly and found that.



    So that is a potential answer on how they looked like but about their culture? Hard to trace down but we should maybe have a look at those peoples who cannot be traced back to the indo european arrival or other similar events like the basque people for example. Atleast they claim to be original Europeans
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Elysium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 8th, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Age
    27
    Posts
    447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Norsken View Post
    My wife is Persian and she is not extinct. She is not Iranian. Iranians are turks with Dinaric phenotypes. She is Persian. Persians still do live in Iran and I have many pictures on them.
    Not many, except those on Stormfront, would argue that Persians do not have a connection to Europeans. However, I have noticed that a lot of "Persians" who claim to have "real Persian" genes are a bit confused. Iran and Persia are just names. Iranian has never referred to Dinaricised Turks. Iranians refers to citizens of Iran. Furthermore, if you want a term more suited to IE lineage, then to me Iranian would be far more appropriate considering its etymology.

    Quote Originally Posted by MockTurtle View Post
    Along with the book linked by Allenson, I would also recommend Jean Haudry's book "The Indo-Europeans" which is available right now.

    He discusses practically everything about the original PIE speaking group (not those who may have been living in Europe proper earlier, BTW). Community structure, religion, racial characteristics, geographical origin, etc.

    There's a number of competing theories regarding geographical placement. One of the most important is the so-called "Kurgan hypothesis" formulated by Gimbutas. The scenario:



    Another prominent one is the "Anatolian hypothesis" which was advanced by Renfrew. It's generally rejected nowadays because it's seen as relying too heavily on somewhat flimsy linguistic evidence and little else. The scenario:

    You must have posted that awhile ago, without me noticing, because it is now unavailable. :
    Perfection.

    War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. - Ambrose Bierce

  3. #13
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Yes , Elysium. I am sure the ancient Greek warriors would not have thought the Persians "European"; thats why they fought so hard

    But it is worth remembering that the ancient 'Aryan' element within the old Persian Empire , which was vast, were directly related to the IndoAryan authors of the Rig Veda, northern people who settled upon the Indus region ( and beyond)

    These are more tricky these days however...

    Strange to tell I was looking though a data base earlier today and came across a reference to this very subject. Here it is :

    Bones show age of early settlement


    Science Editor, Telegraph 19/05/2005 (!note)

    Bones found in the Czech Republic have been confirmed as representing the earliest settlement of modern humans in Europe.

    The research ends a debate (?) over dating the remains, which include two males and two females of slighter build, that has continued since they were excavated from the site in Mladec more than a century ago.

    Several attempts have been made to date the fossils accurately by dating the soil and animal remains. Now, by subjecting ancient teeth to accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating, Prof Eva Wild, of the University of Vienna, and colleagues show in today's issue of Nature that the remains are about 31,000 radiocarbon years old.

    Prof Wild said the remains could be several thousand years older.

    The finding ties in with dates from other sites in Europe that have yielded artefacts characteristic of the Aurignacian culture, an amazing ancient artistic outpouring between about 30,000 and 40,000 years ago.


    Bone and antler tools became common. Our ancestors began to wear beads and pendants and to create bone flutes. They drew horses, lions and mammoths in the Grotte Chauvet in France.

    Although a jaw bone and cranium from one Romanian site are older, at around 35,000 years, the Mladec site has at least half a dozen early modern humans, including children, marking the most ancient group of Europeans...........

    The find will prove crucial for discussions of modern human emergence in Europe and the fate of the Neanderthals, who lived with our ancestors 40,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe.

    One contentious issue concerns whether the Mladec remains have any Neanderthal ancestry.

    Bones of humans found with Aurignacian tools at Vogelherd cave near Stetten, south- west Germany, have been found to have been buried only 5,000 years ago. As a result, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Neanderthals made the artefacts.

    -----

    So may be 40,000 years ago is about right? What became of the Neanderthals is another matter : absorbed, eliminated ? eyes:

    =================

    But this subject of the Germanic tribes speading perhaps from the east is interesting because there seems to be something of a distinction between the northern Germanic folk and the southern Alpines groups ('celtic')(. I am thinking that centuries before the Roman period, there was, it seems, a very real distinction to be made in their language, culture and life styles. It appears to me to indicate a gradual spreading southwards throughout greater Europe of folk arising from the Nordic Bronze age and earlier in the north.

    The first link ( Germanic) given by Oski Von Skadi in post #2 gives a good idea of the distinction I think may (?) exist.

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

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 01:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Here are some things that may be of interest..

    The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) is a proposal by Italian linguist Mario Alinei, forwarded in several books and on the continuitas.com website, claiming a paleolithic (predate of Indo-European origins based on arguments of "continuity".

    The PCT posits that the advent of Indo-European languages should not be seen as an event of recent prehistory and rather be linked to the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, some 30,000 years ago.[1]

    This results in a timeline considerably deeper than that of Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis (by a factor of about 350%), which is already criticized as assuming too large time depths compared to the mainstream Kurgan hypothesis (in turn by a factor of about 150%).

    Alinei draws on a synthesis of linguistic studies and on alleged consequences of innate grammaticality[2] according to Noam Chomsky's principles of generative grammar, which Alinei claims defines conservation as the law of language and languages, and change as the cline of grammaticality provoked by major external factors such as language contacts and hybridization, as well as ecological, socio-economic and cultural events.[3] The theory was derived as a development of the Uralic Continuity Theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoli...tinuity_Theory
    Since the beginning of Comparative Philology, the origin of Indo-Europeans and their arrival in Euro-Asiatic, historical locations have been a controversial issue.
    Two major current theories suggest a late invasion from East Europe in the Bronze Age or a demic dispersion from Anatolia as consequence of early Neolithic civilization. There is, however, no archaeological evidence of invasions, European Neolithic is essentially a local development, and the latest outcome of genetic research demonstrates that 80% of European genetic stock goes back to Paleolithic. In addition, both archaeologists and linguists of the Uralic area now concur on a Paleolithic origin of Uralic people and languages in Eurasia.
    By using different approaches and through independent research, we have obtained converging evidence that indicates an uninterrupted, local continuity of Indo-European languages and populations from prehistoric to the present times. We argue that the appearance of Indo-Europeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic, and we propose a comprehensive, interdisciplinary framework for the Indo-European origins, the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT). And particularly the linguists of the workgroup find that the extraordinarily rich record of Indo-European languages and cultures can be read in a scientifically satisfactory way only in the light of the evolutionary depth and periodization scope provided by the PCT.

    http://www.continuitas.com/
    4.
    THE HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ORIGIN OF THE ARYANS.

    In the year 1854 was heard for the first time a voice of doubt. The sceptic was an English ethnologist, by name Latham, who had spent many years in Russia studying the natives of that country. Latham was unwilling to admit that a single one of the many reasons given for the Asiatic origin of our family of languages was conclusive, or that the accumulative weight of all the reasons given amounted to real evidence. He urged that they who at the outset had treated this question had lost sight of the rules of logic, and that in explaining a fact it is a mistake to assume too many premises. The great fact which presents itself and which is to be explained is this: There are Aryans in Europe and there are Aryans in Asia. The major part of Aryans are in Europe, and here the original language has split itself into the greatest number of idioms. From the main Aryan trunk in Europe only two branches extend into Asia. The northern branch is a new creation, consisting of Russian colonisation from Europe; the southern branch, that is, the Iranian-Hindu, is, on the other hand, pre-historic, but was still growing in the dawn of history, and the branch was then growing from West to East, from Indus toward Ganges. When historical facts to the contrary are wanting, then the root of a great family of languages should naturally be looked for in the ground which supports the trunk and is shaded by the crown, and not underneath the ends of the farthest-reaching branches. The mass of Mongolians dwell in Eastern Asia, and for this very reason Asia is accepted as the original home of the Mongolian race. The great mass of Aryans live in Europe, and have lived there as far back as history sheds a ray of light. Why, then, not apply to the Aryans and to Europe the same conclusions as hold good in the case of the Mongolians and Asia? And why not apply to ethnology the same principles as are admitted unchallenged in regard to the geography of plants and animals? Do we not in botany and zoology seek the original home and centre of a species where it shows the greatest vitality, the greatest power of multiplying and producing varieties? These questions, asked by Latham, remained for some time unanswered, but finally they led to a more careful examination of the soundness of the reasons given for the Asiatic hypothesis.

    The gist of Latham’s protest is, that the question was decided in favour of Asia without an examination of the other possibility, and that in such an examination, if it were undertaken, it would appear at the very outset that the other possibility - that is, the European origin of the Aryans - is more plausible, at least from the standpoint of methodology.

    http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/004.php

    5.
    THE ARYAN LAND OF EUROPE.

    On one point - and that is for our purpose the most important one - the advocates of both hypotheses have approached each other. The leaders of the defenders of the Asiatic hypothesis have ceased to regard Asia as the cradle of all the dialects into which the ancient Aryan tongue has been divided. While they cling to the theory that the Aryan inhabitants of Europe have immigrated from Asia, they have well - nigh entirely ceased to claim that these peoples, already before their departure from their Eastern home, were so distinctly divided linguistically that it was necessary to imagine certain branches of the race speaking Celtic, others Teutonic, others again Greco-Italian, even before they came to Europe. The prevailing opinion among the advocates of the Asiatic hypothesis now doubtless is, that the Aryans who immigrated to Europe formed one homogeneous mass, which gradually on our continent divided itself definitely into Celts, Teutons, Slavs, and Greco-Italians. The adherents of both hypotheses have thus been able to agree that there has been a European-Aryan country. And the question as to where it was located is of the most vital importance, as it is closely connected with the question of the original home of the Teutons, since the ancestors of the Teutons must have inhabited this ancient European-Aryan country.

    Philology has attempted to answer the former question by comparing all the words of all the Aryan-European languages. The attempt has many obstacles to overcome; for, as Schrader has remarked, the ancient words which today are common to all or several of these languages are presumably a mere remnant of the ancient European-Aryan vocabulary. Nevertheless, it is possible to arrive at important results in this manner, if we draw conclusions from the words that remain, but take care not to draw conclusions from what is wanting. The view gained in this manner is, briefly stated, as follows:

    The Aryan country of Europe has been situated in latitudes where snow and ice are common phenomena. The people who have emigrated thence to more southern climes have not forgotten either the one or the other name of those phenomena. To a comparatively northern latitude points also the circumstance that the ancient European Aryans recognised only three seasons - winter, spring, and summer. This division of the year continued among the Teutons even in the days of Tacitus. For autumn they had no name.

    Many words for mountains, valleys, streams, and brooks common to all the languages show that the European-Aryan land was not wanting in elevations, rocks, and flowing waters. Nor has it been a treeless plain. This is proven by many names of trees. The trees are fir, birch, willow, elm, elder, hazel, and a beech called bhaga, which means a tree with eatable fruit. From this word bhaga is derived the Greek phegos, the Latin fagus, the German Buche, and the Swedish bok. But it is a remarkable fact that the Greeks did not call the beech but the oak phegos, while the Romans called the beech fagus. From this we conclude that the European Aryans applied the word bhaga both to the beech and the oak, since both bear similar fruit; but in some parts of the country the name was particularly applied to the beech, in others to the oak. The beech is a species of tree which gradually approaches the north. On the European continent it is not found east of a line drawn from Königsberg across Poland and Podolia to Crimea. This leads to the conclusion that the Aryan country of Europe must to a great extent have been situated west of this line, and that the regions inhabited by the ancestors of the Romans, and north of them the progenitors of the Teutons, must be looked for west of this botanical line, and between the Alps and the North Sea.

    Linguistic comparisons also show that the Aryan territory of Europe was situated near an ocean or large body of water. Scandinavians, Germans, Celts, and Romans have preserved a common name for the ocean - the Old Norse mar, the Old High German mari, the Latin mare. The names of certain sea-animals are also common to various Aryan languages. The Swedish hummer (lobster) corresponds to the Greek kamaros, and the Swedish säl (seal) to the Greek selakhos.

    In the Aryan country of Europe there were domestic animals - cows, sheep, and goats. The horse was also known, but it is uncertain whether it was used for riding or driving, or simply valued on account of its flesh and milk. On the other hand, the ass was not known, its domain being particularly the plains of Central Asia.

    The bear, wolf, otter, and beaver certainly belonged to the fauna of Aryan Europe. The European Aryans must have cultivated at least one, perhaps two kinds of grain; also flax, the name of which is preserved in the Greek linon (linen), the Latin linum, and in other languages.

    The Aryans knew the art of brewing mead from honey. That they also understood the art of drinking it even to excess may be taken for granted. This drink was dear to the hearts of the ancient Aryans, and its name has been faithfully preserved both by the tribes that settled near the Ganges, and by those who emigrated to Great Britain. The Brahmin by the Ganges still knows this beverage as madhu, the Welchman has known it as medu, the Lithuanian as medus; and when the Greek Aryans came to Southern Europe and became acquainted with wine, they gave it the name of mead (methu).

    It is not probable that the European Aryans knew bronze or iron, or, if they did know any of the metals, had any large quantity or made any daily use of them, so long as they linguistically formed one homogeneous body, and lived in that part of Europe which we here call the Aryan domain. The only common name for metal is that which we find in the Latin aes (copper), in the Gothic aiz, and in the Sanskrit áyas. As is known, the Latin aes, like the Gothic aiz, means both copper and bronze. That the word originally meant copper, and afterwards came to signify bronze, which is an alloy of copper and tin, seems to be a matter of course, and that it was applied only to copper and not to bronze among the ancient Aryans seems clear not only because a common name for tin is wanting, but also for the far better and remarkable reason particularly pointed out by Schrader, that all the Aryan European languages, even those which are nearest akin to each other and are each other’s neighbours, lack a common word for the tools of a smith and the inventory of a forge, and also for the various kinds of weapons of defence and attack. Most of all does it astonish us, that in respect to weapons the dissimilarity of names is so complete in the Greek and Roman tongues. Despite this fact, the ancient Aryans have certainly used various kinds of weapons - the club, the hammer, the axe, the knife, the spear, and the crossbow. All these weapons are of such a character that they could be made of stone, wood, and horn. Things more easily change names when the older materials of which they were made give place to new, hitherto unknown materials. It is, therefore, probable that the European Aryans were in the stone age, and at best were acquainted with copper before and during the period when their language was divided into several dialects.

    Where, then, on our continent was the home of this Aryan European people in the stone age? Southern Europe, with its peninsulas extending into the Mediterranean, must doubtless have been outside of the boundaries of the Aryan land of Europe. The Greek Aryans have immigrated to Hellas, and the Italian Aryans are immigrants to the Italian peninsula. Spain has even within historical times been inhabited by Iberians and Basques, and Basques dwell there at present. If, as the linguistic monuments seem to prove, the European Aryans lived near an ocean, this cannot have been the Mediterranean Sea. There remain the Black and Caspian Sea on the one hand, the Baltic and the North Sea on the other. But if, as the linguistic monuments likewise seem to prove, the European Aryans for a great part, at least, lived west of a botanical line indicated by the beech in a country producing fir, oak, elm, and elder, then they could not have been limited to the treeless plains which extend along the Black Sea from the mouth of the Danube, through Dobrudscha, Bessarabia, and Cherson, past the Crimea. Students of early Greek history do not any longer assume that the Hellenic immigrants found their way through these countries to Greece, but that they came from the north-west and followed the Adriatic down to Epirus; in other words, they came the same way as the Visigoths under Alarik, and the Eastgoths under Theodoric in later times. Even the Latin tribes came from the north. The migrations of the Celts, so far as history sheds any light on the subject, were from the north and west toward the south and east. The movements of the Teutonic races were from north to south, and they migrated both eastward and westward. Both prehistoric and historic facts thus tend to establish the theory that the Aryan domain of Europe, within undefinable limits, comprised the central and north part of Europe; and as one or more seas were known to these Aryans, we cannot exclude from the limits of this knowledge the ocean penetrating the north of Europe from the west.

    On account of their undeveloped agriculture, which compelled them to depend chiefly on cattle for their support, the European Aryans must have occupied an extensive territory. Of the mutual position and of the movements of the various tribes within this territory nothing can be stated, except that sooner or later, but already away back in prehistoric times, they must have occupied precisely the position in which we find them at the dawn of history and which they now hold. The Aryan tribes which first entered Gaul must have lived west of those tribes which became the progenitors of the Teutons, and the latter must have lived west of those who spread an Aryan language over Russia. South of this line, but still in Central Europe, there must have dwelt another body of Aryans, the ancestors of the Greeks and Romans, the latter west of the former. Farthest to the north of all these tribes must have dwelt those people who afterwards produced the Teutonic tongue.

    http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/005.php
    Later,
    -Lyfing

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mazorquero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 4th, 2016 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Son of Mars
    Ancestry
    South Tirol mainly, Italy, Northern Spain and France
    Subrace
    Subnordid + Atlantoid admix
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Córdoba
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Peronista ortodoxo
    Religion
    Agnóstico
    Posts
    549
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Here's a full chapter from a book by a Spaniard that I translated in BuB, it's quite interesting:
    European negroids
    You may need to register in order to read it and read the replies, which are interesting too. Just in case here's my text:
    I'm translating now the best I can the subchapter "The Neolithic Negroids of Catlunya" included in the chapter "An Attempt of a Primitive Hispanic Mithology" from the Book "Mitologías y Leyendas Europeas" ("European Mythologies and Legends") by the Spanish author Francesc Ll. Cardona. The book is in Spanish and as the title indicates, deals with myhtology, but this subchapter doesn't and I found it quite curious. Anyone with more information please post.


    Book quote:
    In the countryside surrounding Barcelona, 4000 or 5000 years ago, lived some people who didn't belong to the same race as their neighbours, the Almerienses [I didn't know how to translate this, modern Almerienses live in Almería], who were Mediterranids, of Neolithic culture as well. This folk, whose racial classification was unknown until the study made by Dr. Fuster, practiced agriculture, hunted small animals and had a cult for their dead people, who were buried in graves or small hipogeos [couldn't find equivalent as well, these were undergroundtombs from ancient Greece] digged in land and covered with slabs. The offerings found next to the body consisted in knives, pieces to make them, arrows, potery and rich necklaces with big pearls of calaíta, a rock similar to turquoise, to which they gave certain virtues beyond their beauty.
    The amazing of this ribe, who lived in the plains of Vallés, Penedés, Maresme and the plain of Barcelona itself, is its physical constitution, its race. The bones found mainly in Sant Quirze de Galliners, very near Sabadell, allows to deduce they were short people, of medium length crania, broad, short and flat face, great jaw development and accentuated subnasal prognatism, that's a prominence of the superior jaw, which in a case goes together with the inferior's.
    ¿To which modern human race are these men of the grace burial culture most alike? To the Khoisanids, the race to which belong Bushmen and Hotenttots, one of the race in which persist, like in Neolithic times, some primitive traits common to diverse prehistoric groups of Homo Sapiens.
    The curious is that Sabadell's Neolithic people and populations alike found in Egypt, the Sahara, Portugal, in the rest of Spain, France, Italy and Switzerland mainly, have been called "Negroids" although they look more like Khoisanids [I don't understand this, aren't Khoisanids negroids?]. It can't be afirmed they had black or dark skin, but the similarities and differences between these ancient Hispanics and the rest of the inhabitants of the country to which already belonged the Mediterranean race are amazing.
    The individual or collective survival cases of ancient races practically extinguished, as it happens for example with the Cro-Magnon of the last glaciation in the Canaries, aren't rare.
    Also, in the 1983 edition of the Spanish Larousse Encyclopaedia, if you look for the term "Aryan" ("Ario" in Spanish), the texts states that using the term to label Nordics is incorrect, because they were West Mediterranids (always according to this dictionary).
    A more or less opposing view is shown by the historian Carl Grimberg (I guess the information is reliable because his last name should make him speak against Aryans and he doesn't) who puts in his Universal History that the Aryans came from the shores of the Baikal lake and when they invaded India, they got horrorized of the low culture there. Grimberg keeps saying that Aryans were pride of their blond hair, in opposition to the dark-skinned Indians, and that they lately miscegenated with the conquered folk but remained in the higher classes (such as Brahmans). After describing the Aryan period in India as a splendorous one, Grimberg follows the Aryan steps directly to Persia, leaving an unexplained time gap...

    Now this raises some questions: where do we include the concept of Caucasian race? How can we explain Coon's theory of Nordics being adapted Mediterranids? What's exactly a Mediterranid, because there would be inconsistency in saying that both Romans and Etruscans were Mediterranids (unless we believe Larousse)?

    My (Aryan?) head is aching... thanks to all the contributions in this thread, and to Elysium for starting it, this is one of my biggest Anthro doubts.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Elysium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 8th, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Age
    27
    Posts
    447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    Yes , Elysium. I am sure the ancient Greek warriors would not have thought the Persians "European"; thats why they fought so hard
    300? :p

    I have found something to be the case when it comes to these topics. Because modern publications are usually politically-based, it is hard to find much at all that is interesting and factual. Furthermore, because of the lack of work done on these subjects, pretty much nothing gets discovered. Seriously, who cares about cancer when we could be studying where we came from? After cancer, there'll be another "epidemic", anyway. :o

    Thank you all!
    Perfection.

    War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. - Ambrose Bierce

  7. #17
    Senior Member Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Norsken View Post
    My wife is Persian and she is not extinct. She is not Iranian. Iranians are turks with Dinaric phenotypes. She is Persian. Persians still do live in Iran and I have many pictures on them.
    Ah yes, my mistake. My reply was written some time before I actually looked into that matter. Yes, Persians do very much exist, but their 'Aryanness' must be tried on a case-to-case basis, or perhaps in some cases a local basis. There has definitely been a significant amount of foreign admixture. And Iranian was a term to describe Persia as "Aryan". Though through time it has come to include the Turks and Semites which currently live within Iran's borders, that was not the original intention.

    To Carl: I doubt it made any difference to the Spartans who was invading them. The incentive to fight was still the same.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Elysium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 8th, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Age
    27
    Posts
    447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    To Carl: I doubt it made any difference to the Spartans who was invading them. The incentive to fight was still the same.
    Indeed. It is doubtful that they fought those "Persians" in 300, the movie directed and produced by "them".
    Perfection.

    War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. - Ambrose Bierce

  9. #19
    Senior Member Soldier of Wodann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    770
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysium View Post
    Indeed. It is doubtful that they fought those "Persians" in 300, the movie directed and produced by "them".
    Actually the movie was somewhat accurate, though highly exaggerative in that point. The Persian empire probably did incorporate a lot of the mongrel types in that film, though not in the same quantity. And they weren't Persian anyway, any more then I am Roman for coming from an area previously part of the Roman Empire.

    We are born to fight and to die and to continue the Flow
    The Flow of our People


    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Elysium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 8th, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Age
    27
    Posts
    447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier of Wodann View Post
    Actually the movie was somewhat accurate, though highly exaggerative in that point. The Persian empire probably did incorporate a lot of the mongrel types in that film, though not in the same quantity. And they weren't Persian anyway, any more then I am Roman for coming from an area previously part of the Roman Empire.
    What about Xerxes? He was Black in the film!
    Perfection.

    War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. - Ambrose Bierce

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Proto-Indo-European Homeland
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016, 10:06 AM
  2. Proto-Indo-European and Vedic Religion
    By Geroth in forum Indo-Germanic Spirituality
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, 04:44 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Monday, March 5th, 2007, 04:19 AM
  4. A Question about Proto-Indo-European Haplogroups
    By Wasterzhi in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, August 29th, 2005, 08:42 AM
  5. Societal Structure of the Proto-Indo-Europeans
    By Johannes de León in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, October 4th, 2004, 09:17 PM

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
  •