Ancient Germans weren't so fair (2004)

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1154815.htm

Researchers may be able to make more accurate reconstructions of what ancient humans looked like with the first ever use of ancient DNA to determine hair and skin colour from skeletal remains.

The research was presented today at an international ancient DNA conference in Brisbane, Australia, by German anthropologist, Dr Diane Schmidt of the University of Göttingen.

She said her research may also help to identify modern day murderers and their victims.

"Three thousand years ago, nobody was doing painting and there was no photography. We do not know what people looked like," Schmidt told ABC Science Online.

She said most images in museums and books were derived from comparisons with living people from the same regions.

"For example, when we make a reconstruction of people from Africa we think that they had dark skin or dark hair," she said. "But there's no real scientific information. It's just a guess. It's mostly imagination."

She said this had meant, for example, that the reconstruction of Neanderthals had changed over time.

"In the 1920s, the Neanderthals were reconstructed as wild people with dark hair and dumb, not really clever," she said. "Today, with the same fossil record, with the same bones and no other information - just a change in ideology - you see reconstructions of people with blue eyes and quite light skin colour, looking intelligent and using tools.

"Most of the reconstructions you see in museums are a thing of the imagination of the reconstructor. Our goal is to make this reconstruction less subjective and give them an objective basis with scientific data."

Genetic markers for hair colour

In research for her recently completed PhD, Schmidt built on research from the fields of dermatology and skin cancer that have found genetic markers for traits such as skin and hair colour in modern humans.

In particular, Schmidt relied on the fact that different mutations (known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) in the melanocortin receptor 1 gene are responsible for skin and hair colour.

"There is a set of SNPs that tells you that a person was a redhead and a different set of markers tell you they were fair skinned."

She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs.

Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans.

Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.

She said she was excited when she "coloured in" the faces that once covered the skulls, and had even developed "a kind of a personal relationship" with one of them.

"It's not so anonymous," she said. "I think this is the reason why people in museums can do reconstruction because our ancestors are not so anonymous any more; they have a face you can look into."

Unfortunately the genetic markers Schmidt used could not distinguish which of the ancient humans had blond versus black hair, and she could not determine eye colour.

But, she said she was confident that this will be possible in a few years.

Schmidt said that such research could also be used to help build up identikit pictures to help identify skeletons or criminals.

The research has been submitted for publication.

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1135104.htm

Analysing DNA from ancient strands of hair is a new tool for learning about the past, molecular archaeologists say, including whether hair samples belonged to Sir Isaac Newton.

Until now, scientists had thought analysing the hair shaft was of relatively little use as it contained so little DNA.

Dr Tom Gilbert of the University of Arizona led an international team that reported its work in the latest issue of the journal Current Biology.

The researchers said they had extracted and sequenced mitochondrial DNA from 12 hair samples, 60 to 64,800 years old, from ancient bison, horses and humans.

The researchers said their results confirmed that hair samples previously thought to belong to Sir Isaac Newton were not his, a finding that backed previous isotopic analysis.

But the focus of their research was to explore the potential of extracting ancient DNA from hair samples.

The most common samples used for ancient DNA analyses are taken from bone, teeth and mummified tissue.

Until now, when the hair root hadn't been available for analysis, scientists had thought analysing the hair shaft was of relatively little use as it contained so little DNA.

But isolated strands of hair are often the only clues to human habitation in ancient times.

Now Gilbert's team said it had developed a method to extract and sequence ancient DNA from hair shafts.

The researchers said the ancient DNA in hair was much less degraded than DNA from other tissues.

They argued this was because it was protected from water by the hair's hydrophobic keratin, the protein polymer that gives hair its structure.

The team also found that hair DNA had a low level of contamination and argued that keratin may protect the DNA from contamination with modern DNA sequences, like DNA from human sweat.

The scientists also said that analysing hair DNA, and potentially DNA from other keratin-containing samples like ancient feathers and scales, would minimise the destruction of valuable archaeological samples caused by sampling teeth or bones.

Hairy development

"It's a nice development," said Dr Tom Loy, an Australian expert in ancient DNA from the University of Queensland.

He said that molecular archaeologists had generally ignored extracting DNA from hair.

"[But] on the basis of their article it looks as if it's quite, quite feasible," he told ABC Science Online.

He said the method may be useful in shedding light on the origin of strands of ancient hair discovered a decade ago at the Pendejo Cave site in New Mexico.

"It would be very important to find out whose hair it was," said Loy, who said previous attempts had been unsuccessful.

He was enthusiastic about the idea of being able to extract ancient DNA from feathers.

"Often times feathers are found in caves and in some cases as residues on artefacts," he said.

But Loy was sceptical about using the method to extract ancient DNA from scales and was not convinced by the argument that keratin protected ancient DNA from contamination.

"People still don't fully understand how things get contaminated," he said.

[Australian Power]

This research has no credibility. It is a childishly blatant sham to further ideology.

[Björn]

I often give these scientific studies a fair amount of optimism however this one is a bit vauge and agenda oriented. Every season a new study is released into the media saying something like "blonde hair will be extinct in 150 years" or "The vikings weren't tall" or "mass graves of vampires found" or some pidgeon hole conclusion and quite frankly it get's old.

[Helios Panoptes]

That "blonde hair will be extinct in 150 years" report was a hoax.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I see nothing really so shocking actually. I understand that there was a population living in Germany before the eastern indo-european migration waves hit. These folks might well have marched north following the receding Ice cap during the last glacial age from the ice free Iberia.

[calvin]

Unfortunately the genetic markers Schmidt used could not distinguish which of the ancient humans had blond versus black hair, and she could not determine eye colour

For myself I accept the view that the peoples of Germany have never been tainted by intermarriage with other peoples, and stand out as a nation peculiar, pure and unique of its kind. Hence the physical type, if one may generalize at all about so vast a population, is everywhere the same wild, blue eyes, reddish hair and huge frames that excel only in violent effort: Tacitus

Just another misfired round in the ongoing assault on Western European civilisation.There were no blonds or people with blue eyes in ancient Europe, ancient historians obviously lied and Negroes built the pyramids as well!

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The west does not crumble because there was a lack of blond and blue eyed people in Germany 3000 years ago. Are you implying Germania would be less because of it? Indoeuropean migrations are a new concept to you?

[calvin]

At the end of the day highly mutable morphological traits are an irrelevance. Irrespective of eye colour Western European civilisation was build by a geographically isolated human group that contained no significant presence of Asiatics, Sub-Continentals or Black Africans. The Semitic contribution has been disproportionate but far from crucial.

[Nemo]

This research has no credibility. It is a childishly blatant sham to further ideology.

The research has very credible claims, it was done scientifically, not by the claims of nordicisits who just used their ignorant perceptions to create certain European people to suite their own agenda.

Todays modern science proves that all the bogus claims of nordiccentrists about the genetic make up of Northern Euros. is a myth and a sham.

The claims of nordicisim should be discredit as nothing but fiction and myths.

The bogus claims of amateur and pseudo nordicists historians should be classified as fiction nordicists like Kemp, Earlson, McCulouch etc, shoud do their writings for the Walt Disney studios, to believe their rantings, would like believing that a duck like Donald Duck really talked.

Their have been many other scientific studies which dispute the bogus claims of these nordicists who think they are as white as snow falling from the sky.

Their is not one person in all of Northern Europe who's dna will not show some non-white dna.

But dream on you nordicists, but one day with the help of God you will wake up, and your dreams will turn into a nightmare

[delete]

Thunder: This is getting ridiculus.

First you diss people for beliving this link in "myths of british ancestry".
Then you go to another thread and diss the people who don't belive it.

How does this refute nordicism in any way?
It only says that non-blonde people lived in germany 3000 years ago.

For all we know blond hair could have been really uncommen 3000 years ago, but due to sexual preferences more common today.
Blonde hair in germany could also stem from Scandinavia and/or the Baltics.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Oh man...is there a single post thunder you can do without inmediatly raising the Nordicist Booman? You must really have some issues to work out.

[Nemo]

Thunder: This is getting ridiculus.

First you diss people for beliving this link in "myths of british ancestry".
Then you go to another thread and diss the people who don't belive it.

How does this refute nordicism in any way?
It only says that non-blonde people lived in germany 3000 years ago.

For all we know blond hair could have been really uncommen 3000 years ago, but due to sexual preferences more common today.
Blonde hair in germany could also stem from Scandinavia and/or the Baltics.

Blond hair proves nothing, only in the preachings of nordicisim it has any clout, their are people with blond hair that have asian and other non-white facial features,your features tell more about your race then your hair color.

Also as far as the Germans go the majority do not have blond hair, just like the majority of NE don't have blond hair, so what is this obsession with blond hair?

[Nemo]

The point is that modern scientific techniques is crumbling the world of nordicisim ideology, which has proven as many said was a myth created in the minds of deranged men.

[Felix the Cat]

Are you an immigrant to the US thunder?

Your English seems pretty rough

[Isra'il Yahya]

Most Germans are racially Alpinid

[Nemo]

Are you an immigrant to the US thunder?

Your English seems pretty rough

No I am not an immigrant, but at times when I post I rush myself and at times before submitting I do not reread my post

But what has that got to do with the context of my post, just a jew trick to silence me, that's typical jew behavior.

Their are many other posts that I read here that are not always up to par either.

[OVERWATCH]

Twenty-six samples is very small and hardly conclusive.

I see nothing really so shocking actually. I understand that there was a population living in Germany before the eastern indo-european migration waves hit. These folks might well have marched north following the receding Ice cap during the last glacial age from the ice free Iberia.

It is the paleolithic people who populated northern Europe following the retreat of the ice age c. 50K YBP, who came from two directions, the west (Iberia) and the east (southeastern Europe) which may explain why there is an observable genetic difference between eastern and western Europeans today. The neolithic farmers (c. 10-6500 YBP), and later indo-Europeans out of asia minor are much more recent arrivals.

[calvin]

Since the blue-eyed and blond genes are recessive and there are still millions of blue-eyed blonds in the world, it’s impossible to argue that there was not, at some point in time a huge reserve of exclusively blue-eyed and blond people. The evidence from Tacitus and other classical scholars is that in Roman times the population of Germania were derived substantially from this group. What’s the big deal about that?

[Felix the Cat]

Since the blue-eyed and blond genes are recessive and there are still millions of blue-eyed blonds in the world, it’s impossible to argue that there was not, at some point in time a huge reserve of exclusively blue-eyed and blond people. The evidence from Tacitus and other classical scholars is that in Roman times the population of Germania were derived substantially from this group. What’s the big deal about that?
How could such a population have come about?

Selective infanticide?

[Arminius]

I see nothing really so shocking actually. I understand that there was a population living in Germany before the eastern indo-european migration waves hit.

Yes, however they werent Germans. The title of the article is incorrect.

[Aryan Imperium]

=cowcube]

She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs.

Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans.

Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.



3,000 years ago it is more than likely that `Germany` was not inhabited by Germans per se! The Teutonic peoples have their genesis in Scandinavia and over generations various tribes migrated south. This was a continual process right up to the end of the Viking Age. So the results prove nothing.
Furthermore a sample of only 26 is hardly representative.

Tacitus writing in 97CE in his `Germania` states:-

"For myself, I agree with the views of those who think that the inhabitants of Germania have not been tainted by any intermarriage with other tribes, but have existed as a distinct and pure people, resembling only themselves. Consequently they also have the same physical appearance, so far as can be said for so numerous a people: fierce blue eyes, tawny hair, bodies that are big but strong only in attack."
[4.1]

[Felix the Cat]

Didn't "Aryans" come from eastern Europe?

How did the Germans pick up their language if they originated in Scandinavia?

[Björn]

Either way, regardless of these origin theories... This study is far from conclusive of anything and if the ancient Germans weren't blond it really wouldn't influence the validity of WN's.

[Aryan Imperium]

Didn't "Aryans" come from eastern Europe?

How did the Germans pick up their language if they originated in Scandinavia?

There is no evidence that `Aryan`s` did originate in eastern Europe. The jury is out on that one.
But either way you are way off mark. What we are discussing here are the origins of the Teutonic peoples. I am not referring to the much earlier genesis of the Aryans of which the Teutons are a branch.

[Felix the Cat]

If Aryans did come from outside of Europe, were they already blonde/blue-eyed or did they become so after arrival?

[Aryan Imperium]

If Aryans did come from outside of Europe, were they already blonde/blue-eyed or did they become so after arrival?

A true racialist would not need to ask that question for the racialist does not consider environmental factors to be an influence upon racial factors.
I share the opinion of past generations of Aryanists that the pure and original Aryan type is best represented by the Nordic.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Yes, however they werent Germans. The title of the article is incorrect.

Incorrect. The indoeuropean waves that hit also what is today Germany did not replace (push back) the indigenous population. They just asimilated them. Being Blond is not so german, you know, there is plenty of dark hair to go around.

[delete]

Every indication today is that the germanic peoples originatet in Scandinavia, but that they mixed partially with the celts when they invaded germany.

From my POV wikipedia tells the story quite right in this instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
Read the history part.

I don't belive in Aryans. I belive all blonde people originated in Scandinavia and the Baltics. I have a theory about a baltic ice-age refuge for theese people, but I need more proof, and I could be wrong.

This could also explain the lactose tolerance because the mothers had to sucle their children longer in this icy hell hole, so the natural lactose-intolerance gene was tured off. (Lactose intolerance is there to wean the child in all mammals)

[Felix the Cat]

As best we can tell, the blue-eyes/blonde hair mutation originated (on the Baltic coast) several thousand years before Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe

[Arminius]

Incorrect. The indoeuropean waves that hit also what is today Germany did not replace (push back) the indigenous population. They just asimilated them.

Don't misunderstand.

There was no Germanic culture there, therefore I wouldn't consider them Germans. There were no german tribes there. Perhaps now, they are considered german because they adopted german culture. It's not a racial thing.

Being Blond is not so german, you know, there is plenty of dark hair to go around.

I agree. I am alpine (according to racial classification). I don't consider German to be racial, rather national and cultural/linguistic.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Every indication today is that the germanic peoples originatet in Scandinavia, but that they mixed partially with the celts when they invaded germany.

They also mixed with Slavs.

[delete]

You are correct that they mixed with the slavs, but probably later than the celts. The germanic people mixed with almost all the peolpe of europe soner or later. IIRC the mixing of poles and germans have been proven by DNA.
Later the norse and then the hanseatic legue.

The slavs are blonde, so acording to my POV they must have started around the baltics somewhere, or be the result of some admixture from scandinavian or baltic people.

[delete]

I started writing this answer to COWCUBE, but got distracted. Here it is.

Originally Posted by calvin
Since the blue-eyed and blond genes are recessive and there are still millions of blue-eyed blonds in the world, it’s impossible to argue that there was not, at some point in time a huge reserve of exclusively blue-eyed and blond people. The evidence from Tacitus and other classical scholars is that in Roman times the population of Germania were derived substantially from this group. What’s the big deal about that?
How could such a population have come about?

Selective infanticide?

Selective infanticide is not a bad idea, but you need to do this before the mother bonds with the baby. This normally starts when the mother breastfeeds the baby the first time.

It is not possible to separate between black haired and blond babies on this stage, as both are born with black hair. This rules out infantice for blonde hair, but it could be true for blue eyes.

I belive the advantages to childhood blondism is the main focuspoint to why it exists.

Blonde children got less rickets, and any shade lighter than black would help.
Scarcity of sunlight, depigmented the body to make as much vitamine D as possible.
Blonde children looks younger and thus gets more care from adults.
The evoultionary connection is that children have thinner hair than adults, resulting in it looking fairer.

Once you have blonde children there would be an advantage to be a blonde adult female.

Advantages to blonde males are harder to find. Young males could benefit from looking childish, as they would get more slack from the adult males.

I belive they compensated by growing more bodyhair, going bald and growing a beard.
Most scandinavians get max beardgrowth around 10 years after puberty and at the same time the hairline goes upwards. Some don't look adult until they are well over 30, yours truly included. This suggests an advandtage in looking younger before you have reach emotional maturity. (Brain scanning have shown this happens around 25 years of age.)

The genes involved could also be used elsewhere in the genome. Like when that chineese dude found the neandertal gene for brain development. This gene also has something to do with female breasts IIRC.

I have seen research indicating that blue eyed people are more shy. I am sceptical of this research as autocorrelation between blue eyed genes and other N-european genes for personality traits in the people tested. (Eks english and english mulattos on personality).
This is a statistical hell hole, and from my personal experience, impossible to judge unless you are the one writing the article and have complete understanding of the model you are using.

[diabloblanco]

Blond hair proves nothing, only in the preachings of nordicisim it has any clout, their are people with blond hair that have asian and other non-white facial features,your features tell more about your race then your hair color.

Also as far as the Germans go the majority do not have blond hair, just like the majority of NE don't have blond hair, so what is this obsession with blond hair?

These people are lemmings who by their nature are intellectually lazy. Obviously a one dimensional view of race based on pigmentation, while having no scientific validity, is easier to understand than a complex one centered phenotypically around skeletal structure, musclrclature, hair texture, etc
Ot also fits into their agenda of dividing Whites based on extra racial factors, such as hair color

[brigadier Biggles]

Incorrect. The indoeuropean waves that hit also what is today Germany did not replace (push back) the indigenous population. They just asimilated them.Being Blond is not so german, you know, there is plenty of dark hair to go around.

Sounds like someone doesnt have blonde hair :D.

You are right though of course.

[delete]

Posted by diabloblanco
These people are lemmings who by their nature are intellectually lazy.

Campare my post to your, and say again who is intellectually lazy.

More diabloblanco
Obviously a one dimensional view of race based on pigmentation, while having no scientific validity, is easier to understand than a complex one centered phenotypically around skeletal structure, musclrclature, hair texture, etc


The tread is called ancient Germans weren't so fair. If this is correct, we have further indications that the germans rose from the nordic bronze age.

It has nothing to do with supremacy, but all to do with history.

More diabloblanco
Ot also fits into their agenda of dividing Whites based on extra racial factors, such as hair color


I just want the blonde phenotype to survive in Scandinavia, and I see nothing wrong in that.
How your countries choose to look in the future is your business.

[Mike]

This girl’s ancestors may have had darker skin that didn't burn so easily, ancient DNA suggests
How pitiful that the article can't bring itself to acknowledge that people move around.

This article doesn't say where the DNA sample sites were, but it's believed that the Germanic peoples were confined to the far north of Germany and Scandinavia in 2500 BC and most of modern Germany was under the sway of the Celts. Going back to 3000 BC it's anyone's guess. Perhaps the paleo-atlantid/Mediterranean stock was more widespread in Western Europe than it is today. Five hundred years hence we do know that north western europe was a Celto-germanic world, and the Greeks reported these people as being reddish and fair.

[Aryan Imperium]

As best we can tell, the blue-eyes/blonde hair mutation originated (on the Baltic coast) several thousand years before Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe

I would take issue with your assumption that `Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe`. The evidence, the overwhelming evidence is that Europe saw the genesis of the Aryan peoples. We have always been here.

[Mike]

Oops, I meant to say 2500 years ago (about 500 BC) and 3000 years ago (about 1000 BC) instead of what I said here.

This article doesn't say where the DNA sample sites were, but it's believed that the Germanic peoples were confined to the far north of Germany and Scandinavia in 2500 BC and most of modern Germany was under the sway of the Celts. Going back to 3000 BC it's anyone's guess.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I would take issue with your assumption that `Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe`. The evidence, the overwhelming evidence is that Europe saw the genesis of the Aryan peoples. We have always been here.

......LOL What?

[Arminius]

......LOL What?

I'll take it he hasn't told you the truth about Aryans. They arose from Finland, don't ya know?

[Nemo]

A true racialist would not need to ask that question for the racialist does not consider environmental factors to be an influence upon racial factors.

Most racialists perception of race is flawed, they come to their own conclusions based on their own perceptions and the mythical writings of nordicisits like themselves who have distorted history and facts to suite their own ideology to make false claims about themselves as being some kind of pure human beings, what joke.:rofl:


I share the opinion of past generations of Aryanists that the pure and original Aryan type is best represented by the Nordic.

How do you know how pure the Aryan tribes were? did you actual see photographs of them, did you ever see any scientific data on their dna make up, no you have not, your just repeating the myths of the past about the purity of Aryans, with out any tangible or scientific proof, just typical nordicisim BS

[WFHermans]

She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs.

Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans.

Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.
Note to jew:

1. The Middle Ages were not Ancient, nor were they 3000 years ago.
2. Having a skin that tans easily doesn't mean one is tanned.
3. The ancient Germans cremated their death. Only criminals, slaves and jews were buried. Only a kike or kike-alike would draw conclusions about ancient Germans based on the findings of buried bodies.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Alot more than just "Germans" happened on that piece of ground that is now Germany in the last 3000 years.

[Aryan Imperium]

.

Most racialists perception of race is flawed, they come to their own conclusions based on their own perceptions and the mythical writings of nordicisits like themselves who have distorted history and facts to suite their own ideology to make false claims about themselves as being some kind of pure human beings, what joke.:rofl:




How do you know how pure the Aryan tribes were? did you actual see photographs of them, did you ever see any scientific data on their dna make up, no you have not, your just repeating the myths of the past about the purity of Aryans, with out any tangible or scientific proof, just typical nordicisim BS

My contention is that the Nordic represents the purist strain of Aryan man. The Nordic Aryan is unlike any other human type, the highest form of physical beauty that the earth has ever known.
It is the Nordic ideal of beauty that races all over the earth aspire to even to the extent where people will tamper with their bodies and dye their hair to get closer to the Nordic phenotype. The furthest away from this ideal you are then the impurer your blood is.
"At the same time the fact that the first Aryans were Nordics was not without importance. The physical qualities of that stock did enable them by the bare fact of superior strength to conquer even more advanced peoples and so impose their language on areas from which their bodily type has almost completely vanished. This is the truth underlying the panegyrics of the Germanists: the Nordics` superiority in physique fitted them to be the vehicles of a superior language."

[`The Aryans` by V. Gordon Childe]

[OVERWATCH]

It is the Nordic ideal of beauty that races all over the earth aspire to even to the extent where people will tamper with their bodies and dye their hair to get closer to the Nordic phenotype.

Last I checked, the heavy-and-square nordic jaw was not considered an attractive feature, at least (and especially) for women.

[Nemo]

My contention is that the Nordic represents the purist strain of Aryan man. The Nordic Aryan is unlike any other human type, the highest form of physical beauty that the earth has ever known.
It is the Nordic ideal of beauty that races all over the earth aspire to even to the extent where people will tamper with their bodies and dye their hair to get closer to the Nordic phenotype. The furthest away from this ideal you are then the impurer your blood is.
"At the same time the fact that the first Aryans were Nordics was not without importance. The physical qualities of that stock did enable them by the bare fact of superior strength to conquer even more advanced peoples and so impose their language on areas from which their bodily type has almost completely vanished. This is the truth underlying the panegyrics of the Germanists: the Nordics` superiority in physique fitted them to be the vehicles of a superior language."

[`The Aryans` by V. Gordon Childe]

You read to much nordicisim pseudo history, and sound like a student of Arthur Kempowitz.

The Aryans were an ancient tribe who dissolved themselves through race mixing a long time ago, their are no descendents of the original Aryan tribe today, stop living on myths and pseudo history, many Nordics today are not pure as nordicists want you to believe, some have asian/mongloid blood and other non-white blood also, do you think that the Nordic population in the last 1000yrs lived in isolation.

Plus the fact that the Nordic countries today and as in the past were and are the biggest race mixers in Europe, and their population are becoming muddier everyday.

Sorry Aryan Imperium! you are just a counterfeit Aryan.:nopity:

[Aryan Imperium]

You read to much nordicisim pseudo history, and sound like a student of Arthur Kempowitz.

The Aryans were an ancient tribe who dissolved themselves through race mixing a long time ago, their are no descendents of the original Aryan tribe today, stop living on myths and pseudo history, many Nordics today are not pure as nordicists want you to believe, some have asian/mongloid blood and other non-white blood also, do you think that the Nordic population in the last 1000yrs lived in isolation.

Plus the fact that the Nordic countries today and as in the past were and are the biggest race mixers in Europe, and their population are becoming muddier everyday.

Sorry Aryan Imperium! you are just a counterfeit Aryan.:nopity:


Please provide me with evidence to support your contention that "their[sic] are no descendants of the original Aryan tribe today,"!

[Elysium]

Please provide me with evidence to support your contention that "their[sic] are no descendants of the original Aryan tribe today,"!

Logical fallacy

One can't prove the inexistence of something, so YOU have to prove there are descendants of the original Aryans nowadays

[Ravenheart]

Didn't "Aryans" come from eastern Europe?

How did the Germans pick up their language if they originated in Scandinavia?

Aryans came from Eastern Europe and then spread out into the rest of Europe and Asia. One group of Aryans developed into the Germanic people, probably in southern Scandinavia.

I would take issue with your assumption that `Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe`. The evidence, the overwhelming evidence is that Europe saw the genesis of the Aryan peoples.

Agreed. Eastern Europe is the most likely location for the development of Aryans from the more general Caucasoid people.

Most Germans are racially Alpinid

This is incorrect, though the Alpinid is certainly an important element. The Nordoid element is more important though, particularly when you count its diluted presence in people of intermediary form.

[Nemo]

Aryans originated in Iran, It is in their history, hence the name Iran=Aryan

[Ravenheart]

Aryans originated in Iran

There is little evidence for that. Iran is rather one place of settlement for the Aryan/Indo-European tribes, and one of the few places the Indo-Europeans explicitly referred to themselves as Aryan. Eastern Europe is still the most likely cradle of Indo-European culture and language.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

Jean Haudry (The Indo-Europeans), Georges Dumézil (too many to list--GD is the granddaddy of contemporary I-E studies), and other mainstream scholars (read: not involved in WN) maintain that the tribe who spread the Proto-Indo-European language was phenotypically nordic. This fact is not, however, the focus of their writings because to them it is largely incidental. The researchers today who are contributing to our body of knowledge about the ancient Indo-Europeans are far more concerned with language, culture, religion, etc. I should note that Arthur Kemp is woefully inadequate in this area--presenting reconstructionist Asatru as the I-E proto-religion.

One exception is John V. Day. In his work Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence he discusses in detail what we know about the physical characteristics of the PIE speakers. Although he rejects dividing caucasoids up into distinct subraces, he does write at length about the likelihood of the ancient tribe (or at least its elites) having had fair hair and eyes. Day cannot be called a "nordicist" because he has no ideological axe to grind. To do so would be akin to the cries of "orientalist" that issue forth from Muslim students whenever a scholar critiques their religion.

It's also inappropriate to state as fact that the PIE homeland was Iran. The definite location of the IE Urheimat is beyond the scope of our knowledge at this point. The theory that quite possibly has the most popularity right now is that the PIE speakers coalesced as a people somewhere in Ukraine. This is not, however, universally accepted and the location of the PIE wellspring is one of the most investigated and hotly debated subjects among I-E studies professionals. As H.D. Sankalia said in 1978, "The Aryans are always playing hide-and-seek...with us. But the game has to go on for some time."

[Mike]

One reason for believing that the Urheimat was located in central/eastern Europe is the fact that most of the IE branches are found in that area. One would expect the more ancient area to be more linguistically diverse due to the greater amount of time allowed for divergence of dialects, and the more recently colonized areas to be more linguistically homogeneous due to the smaller amount of time.

As a rough parallel, in the English language, the British isles have a greater array of dialectal differences and peculiarities than the United States does despite being a smaller geographical area for the simple reason English has been spoken there longer.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Their is not one person in all of Northern Europe who's dna will not show some non-white dna.
This is true, as there is some racial overlap, however, white communities have MOSTLY white dna, black communities have MOSTLY black dna, asian communities have MOSTLY asian dna, and even if these communities are not perfect, they still are pure enough to be worth preserving.

[John Smith]

I would take issue with your assumption that `Aryan-speaking peoples arrived in Europe`. The evidence, the overwhelming evidence is that Europe saw the genesis of the Aryan peoples. We have always been here.

......LOL What?

Yeah, his comment is beyond retarded. This man has no foundation on the subject.

He has no sources to back up his claims and when asked he expects others to prove him wrong even though it was he who made a claim and is therefore obligated to show his sources. However, his belief isn't based on any respectable scholar. If it was we'd see a link, or a name, rather than nothing.

[Blood Crystal]

Aryans originated in Iran, It is in their history, hence the name Iran=Aryan

No. Aryans drifted downwards into Iran, they did not originate from Iran.

[Blood Crystal]

Yeah, his comment is beyond retarded. This man has no foundation on the subject.

He has no sources to back up his claims and when asked he expects others to prove him wrong even though it was he who made a claim and is therefore obligated to show his sources. However, his belief isn't based on any respectable scholar. If it was we'd see a link, or a name, rather than nothing.

AI has given evidence on this subject.

[WFHermans]

The forum kikes are as usual demanding that scientists are locked up in jail for telling the truth.

What is known about the Aryan language, history and bodytype proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Aryans originated in the area around the Eurasian border.

[Aryan Imperium]

Logical fallacy

One can't prove the inexistence of something, so YOU have to prove there are descendants of the original Aryans nowadays

There isn`t anything to `prove`. I am an Aryan and I am posting on this forum so what more `proof` do you need?
His argument is no more logical than saying that negroes `no longer exist` when we know from experience and observation that they do.

[Aryan Imperium]

Aryans originated in Iran, It is in their history, hence the name Iran=Aryan

No,they didn`t. The myths of the ancient Persians should not be taken as `evidence` for anything-as interesting as they may be.
According to `Lectures of the Aryas` by Albert Pike the Indo-Iranians according to their own scriptures, the Zend Avesta and the Rig Vedas emigrated to their present lands from somewhere else. They did not originate in Iran or Aryavarta-they merely settled there as they also settled in Europe.
"Worship with an oblation Yama the king, son of Vivasvat, the assembler of men, who departed to the mighty streams, and explored the way for many. Yama was the first who found for us the way. This home is not to be taken from us. Those who are now born, go by their own routes to the land whither our ancient Fathers departed.....The Fathers have made for him this place. Yama gave him an abode distinguished by days and waters and lights.........Then approach the benevolent Fathers, who dwell in festivity with Yama."

The study of comparative Indo-European linguistics also disproves the theory that Iran could be the original homeland of the Aryan race.

[Nemo]

There isn`t anything to `prove`. I am an Aryan and I am posting on this forum so what more `proof` do you need?
His argument is no more logical than saying that negroes `no longer exist` when we know from experience and observation that they do.

What scientific proof or data do you have that proves you are an Aryan, besides your own opinion of yourself?

[Aryan Imperium]

Yeah, his comment is beyond retarded. This man has no foundation on the subject.

He has no sources to back up his claims and when asked he expects others to prove him wrong even though it was he who made a claim and is therefore obligated to show his sources. However, his belief isn't based on any respectable scholar. If it was we'd see a link, or a name, rather than nothing.

I have provided evidence but you and `Thunder` have chosen to ignore it.
The study of comparative Indo-European linguistics and the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European indicate that Iran could not have been the original homeland of the Aryan race but it is undoubtedly found in Europe,broadly between the north to the east.
Viktor Rydberg in his `Teutonic Mythology` makes the point:
"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."
Rydberg goes on to explain that the various fauna and flora identified in Proto Indo-European all point to a northern clime. The Aryans could not have developed outside of the northern half of Europe.
He also points out that as the bulk of the Aryan peoples reside in Europe then Europe must have been the base that they expanded outwards from-this is a normal physical law.
" The great mass of Aryans live in Europe, and have lived there as far back as history sheds a ray of light."
Childe,Haudry and Mallory all conclude that the Urheimat must be sought in Europe.Nowhere else `fits the bill`.

[Aryan Imperium]

What scientific proof or data do you have that proves you are an Aryan, besides your own opinion of yourself?

I am of English and German descent,hence a Teuton.
The Germanic peoples speak and have always spoken Germanic which is an Indo-European[Aryan] tongue.
The vast majority of European peoples speak a language that is within the Indo-European language group. The exceptions to this being Basque and the Finno-Ugric languages.There is no evidence that we have ever spoken a tongue which is not Indo-European.
I have had my MtDNA tested and my Aryan lineage goes back an unbroken 17,000 years-but that is another story.

[MrAngry]

That "blonde hair will be extinct in 150 years" report was a hoax.


Why dimiss it? Its actually factually based and not a theory, perhaps it needs validating further, but you cant argue with the facts, unless you are blinded by ideology..

[brigadier Biggles]

the group that was supposed to have released it came out and said it was false and that they never did it.

[LastResort56]

Originally Posted by Mr. Angry
Why dimiss it? Its actually factually based and not a theory, perhaps it needs validating further, but you cant argue with the facts, unless you are blinded by ideology.

WTF. How would that make him blinded by ideology? If anything it promotes the fact that the modern multiculturistic world doesn't give a crap about whites and won't care if blondes went extinct.

So do you agree with blondes going extinct as an okay thing Mr. Angry?

[Nemo]

I am of English and German descent,hence a Teuton.
The Germanic peoples speak and have always spoken Germanic which is an Indo-European[Aryan] tongue.
The vast majority of European peoples speak a language that is within the Indo-European language group. The exceptions to this being Basque and the Finno-Ugric languages.There is no evidence that we have ever spoken a tongue which is not Indo-European.
I have had my MtDNA tested and my Aryan lineage goes back an unbroken 17,000 years-but that is another story.

You really believe that in 17,000 years you teutons never at anytime have at one time or another never never intermixed with a non white white people, be realistic will ya.

Do you know that the Germans were invaded by the Huns, and from what I heard the black American GI'S in ww11 had a field day with the German and English woman.

Besides no one can trace their lineage back 17,000 years :rolleyes:

Look at what's happening in England today!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/changing_face_of_britain.stm

[Nemo]

hey Aryan! I got a better idea! why don't you just forget about all this Aryan Bullshit, and go out and get yourself a nice broad and get laid, just make sure she is white. :)

[OVERWATCH]

Jean Haudry (The Indo-Europeans), Georges Dumézil (too many to list--GD is the granddaddy of contemporary I-E studies), and other mainstream scholars (read: not involved in WN) maintain that the tribe who spread the Proto-Indo-European language was phenotypically nordic. This fact is not, however, the focus of their writings because to them it is largely incidental. The researchers today who are contributing to our body of knowledge about the ancient Indo-Europeans are far more concerned with language, culture, religion, etc. I should note that Arthur Kemp is woefully inadequate in this area--presenting reconstructionist Asatru as the I-E proto-religion.

One exception is John V. Day. In his work Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence he discusses in detail what we know about the physical characteristics of the PIE speakers. Although he rejects dividing caucasoids up into distinct subraces, he does write at length about the likelihood of the ancient tribe (or at least its elites) having had fair hair and eyes. Day cannot be called a "nordicist" because he has no ideological axe to grind. To do so would be akin to the cries of "orientalist" that issue forth from Muslim students whenever a scholar critiques their religion.

It's also inappropriate to state as fact that the PIE homeland was Iran. The definite location of the IE Urheimat is beyond the scope of our knowledge at this point. The theory that quite possibly has the most popularity right now is that the PIE speakers coalesced as a people somewhere in Ukraine. This is not, however, universally accepted and the location of the PIE wellspring is one of the most investigated and hotly debated subjects among I-E studies professionals. As H.D. Sankalia said in 1978, "The Aryans are always playing hide-and-seek...with us. But the game has to go on for some time."
Interesting post, I wonder why no one has challenged it or commented on it thusfar? ...

:thanks:

[John Smith]

AI has given evidence on this subject.

V. Gordon Childe? Childe's has been criticized. And considering he died half a centruy ago, and there are advances we've made since, and the addition of population genetics, we see many errors. Also, unlike AI, Childe never claimed Aryans were native to Europe, let alone northern Europe, which is what AI believes.

[John Smith]

I have provided evidence but you and `Thunder` have chosen to ignore it.
The study of comparative Indo-European linguistics and the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European indicate that Iran could not have been the original homeland of the Aryan race but it is undoubtedly found in Europe,broadly between the north to the east.
Viktor Rydberg in his `Teutonic Mythology` makes the point:
"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."
Rydberg goes on to explain that the various fauna and flora identified in Proto Indo-European all point to a northern clime. The Aryans could not have developed outside of the northern half of Europe.
He also points out that as the bulk of the Aryan peoples reside in Europe then Europe must have been the base that they expanded outwards from-this is a normal physical law.
" The great mass of Aryans live in Europe, and have lived there as far back as history sheds a ray of light."
Childe,Haudry and Mallory all conclude that the Urheimat must be sought in Europe.Nowhere else `fits the bill`.

I haven't ignored anything. Population genetics has made advancements in the field in the last few areas and has shown that haplogroups common among people who were considered Aryans are common among middle easterners and becomes less so farther you move west. The upper caste among Hindus also shows a high proprotion of these haplogroups (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol80No3/125.pdf. ) Also, that Aryans were nordids is not the mainstream view at all. In fact, Nordids are rarely mentioned and considering the possible origins for Aryans very unlikely. Posting a few names doesn't gave much information on the controversy. The fact that Childe believed that the Aryans came from outside Europe, but were Nordids, contradicts how the Nordid phenotype was formed. I point out Childe because you use him as a source, but yet he contradicts yoru claim about Aryans being native of northern Europe.

By the way, Rydberg is not a serious scholar with regards to what is being discussed.. I think you just get snippets of information of people you agree. You see therir names mentioned on some website and so you cite them. Post actual studies like I do and then perhaps you can be taken seriously.

*you still haven't address the haplogroup map I posted in another thread..

Here's an actual debate on Indo- Europeans with some factual information: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/Tech/lmindoe.htm

[Aryan Imperium]

thunder]You really believe that in 17,000 years you teutons never at anytime have at one time or another never never intermixed with a non white white people, be realistic will ya.

Do you know that the Germans were invaded by the Huns, and from what I heard the black American GI'S in ww11 had a field day with the German and English woman.

Besides no one can trace their lineage back 17,000 years :rolleyes:

Look at what's happening in England today!

Fact number one.
I have had my Aryan lineage traced back 17,000 years without interruption through genetic testing.
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/index.html
My mothers Aryo-Germanic ancestry was also validated by the SS on her marriage to her first husband.
I have therefore no reason to question my own racial purity.
Clearly you have no awareness of the science of genetics.

Fact number two.
Tacitus writing in 97CE in his Germania pointed out from observation and from the Teutons` own history that they are an unmixed and racially pure people.
The Huns invasions were relatively brief and would have had no lasting effect-certainly not on the Germanic gene pool.

Fact number three.
Whatever did or did not happen in the aftermath of WWII has had no personal impact upon me nor on any of my German kin.

Fact number four.
The multiculti society in England and Britain has only been in existence since the 1950s and only in earnest since the 1970s onwards.
This set of circumstances is not unique to England but is typical of the entire `western` world. That is why I am fighting this struggle for heavens` sake!!:nuts:

[Aryan Imperium]

hey Aryan! I got a better idea! why don't you just forget about all this Aryan Bullshit, and go out and get yourself a nice broad and get laid, just make sure she is white. :)

Why should I? I have a racially aware partner and racially pure child.:rolleyes:
You clearly are incapable of debating the issues at hand without resorting to verbal abuse-very unAryan behaviour.No need to ask what your heritage may be!

[Aryan Imperium]

V. Gordon Childe? Childe's has been criticized. And considering he died half a centruy ago, and there are advances we've made since, and the addition of population genetics, we see many errors. Also, unlike AI, Childe never claimed Aryans were native to Europe, let alone northern Europe, which is what AI believes.

You are being economical with the facts. I quoted not only Childe but Haudry and Mallory. Why do you ignore them?

[Aryan Imperium]

I haven't ignored anything. Population genetics has made advancements in the field in the last few areas and has shown that haplogroups common among people who were considered Aryans are common among middle easterners and becomes less so farther you move west. The upper caste among Hindus also shows a high proprotion of these haplogroups (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol80No3/125.pdf. ) Also, that Aryans were nordids is not the mainstream view at all. In fact, Nordids are rarely mentioned and considering the possible origins for Aryans very unlikely. Posting a few names doesn't gave much information on the controversy. The fact that Childe believed that the Aryans came from outside Europe, but were Nordids, contradicts how the Nordid phenotype was formed. I point out Childe because you use him as a source, but yet he contradicts yoru claim about Aryans being native of northern Europe.

By the way, Rydberg is not a serious scholar with regards to what is being discussed.. I think you just get snippets of information of people you agree. You see therir names mentioned on some website and so you cite them. Post actual studies like I do and then perhaps you can be taken seriously.

*you still haven't address the haplogroup map I posted in another thread..

Here's an actual debate on Indo- Europeans with some factual information: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/Tech/lmindoe.htm

Again,economical with the facts,ignoring Mallory and Haudry and also ignoring the evidence from Proto Indo-European linguistics-that evidence DOES NOT change with the passing of time. The deductions made in the last 100 years do not lose credibility with the passage of time.
As far as genetics is concerned that science is in its infancy and there are as many interpretations and opinions formed from genetics alone as people have arseholes! You totally ignore the evidence of linguistics in order to force through your politically correct point of view.
Further it is your opinion that Rydberg was not a `serious scholar` because his findings do not accord with the current view held and imposed by the self-hating white `academics`.
Tell me, how do you define a serious scholar?
I can see with the observation of my own eyes and my knowledge of European history that the Aryan race not only resides here in Europe but has been here as far back as historical records go. You cannot prove that we originated from anywhere else.

[John Smith]

You are being economical with the facts. I quoted not only Childe but Haudry and Mallory. Why do you ignore them?

You mention Mallory and Haudry after someone else mentioned them, not before, which leads me to believe you don't know much about this subject but rather feed of what someone else said. However, I'm not aware of Mallory claiming Aryans were Nordids, and considering his books on the subject came before advnces in population genetics I find it comical you consider him.

Jean Haudry has an ideological bias, and nor has he dealt with population genetics. Well, not I'm aware of whether he has, but I doubt it. Since you're so knowledgeable of the subject I ask that you go into some detail.

[John Smith]

Again,economical with the facts,ignoring Mallory and Haudry and also ignoring the evidence from Proto Indo-European linguistics-that evidence DOES NOT change with the passing of time. The deductions made in the last 100 years do not lose credibility with the passage of time.

You do realize that Mallory anbd Haudry don't have the final say? In fact, their view isn't the mainstream.

As far as genetics is concerned that science is in its infancy and there are as many interpretations and opinions formed from genetics alone as people have arseholes! You totally ignore the evidence of linguistics in order to force through your politically correct point of view.

Genetics is much more powerful evidence than linguistics considering foreign elements can adapt the language of the conquerer, but they can't adapt haplotypes. Are you going to tell me that "there are different interpretations" regarding haplogroups? Is this how you avoid admitting ignorance? It doesn't work.

Also, you're last the person to discuss linguistics with. You haven't given much specific information on the subject.

I'm politiclaly correct? First time anyone has ever said that to me. As I said before to you, I deal with facts rather than emotions.


Further it is your opinion that Rydberg was not a `serious scholar` because his findings do not accord with the current view held and imposed by the self-hating white `academics`.

Oh, so they're self hating whites because.... they don't agree? That's not an argument.

Tell me, how do you define a serious scholar?

Someone who is proven to be objective, and whose beliefs have held the test of time. In otherwords, someone who deals with the facts rather than pass over them, and modifies their theory if new information is brought to their attention rather than ignore. I can understand if mistakes are made in the past considering the lack of sophistication, but, what's your excuse?

I can see with the observation of my own eyes and my knowledge of European history that the Aryan race not only resides here in Europe but has been here as far back as historical records go. You cannot prove that we originated from anywhere else.

1) your eyes are subjective 2) your knowledge of European history is poor, as I've shown in a past thread. 3) No one can prove for a fact where they originated, but northern Europe is not in any serious contention. As I've stated, evidence from population genetics makes it rather impossible that Aryans came from northern Europe..

[John Smith]

Here's a question that I'm sure is on everyone's mind.

AI, discuss the lingusitic evidence. What is the linguistic evidence proving Indo- Europeans are native of Northern Europe? I want to see an argument since your entire claim is based on this.

I'll be back in three or four days to see what you can come up with.

[delete]

Why is it so difficult ot understand that the origins of the indo-europeans are a mystery to modern science, and the only place forbidden to look afther WW2 was the Baltics, Scandinavia and Germany.

The people who claim Ukraine and Stalins home town are ignorant of the fact that there are no metal ores there. No waters to bring boat-technology.

To get easy access to good metal ores without heavy machinery you need an Ice age, and ice erosion brings nuggets of pure metals (gold, silver and copper) and tinnsand on riverbeds, that probably was the first source of tinn.

As tinn has a lot of isotopes with varying frequencies, a lot of the bronze found can be traced to it's origin. This has not been done. Same goes with DNA testing of blonde mumies around the world.

[John Smith]

"Mallory suggests the Indo-Europeans appear to have been a pastoral nomadic group who lived in the Pontic-Caspian region (Steppes of Mother Russia) sometime between the second and fifth millenium BC from whence they diffused."

I was looking through amazon.com for a book on an unrelated topic and decided to check Mallory's book. Quite the opposite of AI's claim.

[Mike]

Eastern Europe, somewhere between the Baltic and the Black, seems to be the best guess for the IE homeland. Most likely it would have been a fertile area.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

I'd like to make it clear that, despite my maintaining that the PIE speakers were phenotypicaly nordic, I remain unconvinced that the PIE Urheimat was in northern Europe (Haudry is the same on this issue, for the record). The most convincing evidence I've seen is for the Russian/Ukrainian steppes theory, but I will reiterate that this is not universally accepted. Once again this thread needs to be reminded that I-E studies professionals consider the PIE homeland issue unsettled.

One of the points constantly reiterated by I-E studies professionals is that the PIE homeland was only where their society took its final shape before the diaspora and not necessarily where they had their genesis as a physical unit. They may very well have come from elsewhere previously, but they had yet to develop the language and customs that they carried with them to the rest of Eurasia. A migration scheme similar to that of the Aztecs, where a group native to one place (Colorado, for the Aztecs) undergoes radical cultural change and development after moving to another (Mexico, in this scenario), is sometimes suggested.

As I stated before, most I-E studies professionals today claim agnosticism about the race of the PIE speakers. They will either eject racial classification all together or they will simply not wager a hypothesis on the issue. But what they all have in common is the fact that at some point in their work they will have to discuss the cultural evidence for the nordic hypothesis due to the almost constant references in I-E based mythologies to hair and eye blondism and fair skin. Most take these as fact due to their virtual omnipresence. Many, including Day, also take note of the Chinese portrayals of Tocharians (who likely did not pick these features up from locals) as fair eyed and red, blond, or white haired.

The breakdown of those who have offered racial hypothesis (although, again, these were almost never the focus of anyone's work) are thus:

Nordics (including Falics): 55 scholars with the timeframe for these hypotheses ranging from 1896 up to 1988. Each decade is well-represented within the group.

Nordics and Alpines: 7 scholars with the timeframe for these hypotheses ranging from 1880 to 1989. The hypotheses are as evenly distributed among the decades as such a small number can be across such a large timespan.

Alpines: 6 scholars with the timeframe for these hypotheses ranging from 1880 to 1949. All decades other than the 1890s and the 1930s within this span saw this hypothesis made.

Alpines and Mediterraneans: 1 scholar. 1985.

Alpine-Mongoloids and Mediterraneans: 1 scholar. 1935.

Alpines and Armenoids: 1 scholar. 1948 and 1949.

Light-Haired Brachycranes: 3 scholars. 1892, 1927, and 1988.

Mediterraneans: 5 scholars. 1883, 1903, 1921, 1941, and 1987.

Armenoids: 3 scholars (two worked as a team). 1985 and 1995 for the team and 1985 for the single.

Racially Mixed Caucasoids: 5 scholars. 1890, 1916, 1924, 1942, and 1946.

Mesocranic Centum Speakers and Dolichocranic Satem Speakers: 2 scholars. 1934 and 1955.

Cro-Magnons: 1 scholar. 1977.

Mallory, as a racial agnostic, is not on this list.

[Aryan Imperium]

You mention Mallory and Haudry after someone else mentioned them, not before, which leads me to believe you don't know much about this subject but rather feed of what someone else said. However, I'm not aware of Mallory claiming Aryans were Nordids, and considering his books on the subject came before advnces in population genetics I find it comical you consider him.

Jean Haudry has an ideological bias, and nor has he dealt with population genetics. Well, not I'm aware of whether he has, but I doubt it. Since you're so knowledgeable of the subject I ask that you go into some detail.


You are deliberately misrepresenting my statements.
I referred to a quote from Childe`s `The Aryans` to illustrate that he considered the pure Aryan type to be Nordic.
My reference to Haudry and Mallory were to demonstrate the location of the Aryan Urheimat.
You seem to have an obsession with genetics and as I have said this science is in its infancy and the same piece of genetic evidence can be used to bolster a myriad of conflicting opinions.
Furthermore `population genetics` is flawed in respect of the last 50 years of mass population movements into and within Europe complicating the situation.[Not to mention the Voelkerwanderungenzeit].In itself it can tell us very little. A multidiscipline approach is the only sensible way forward. The safe and trusted discipline of comparative linguistics demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that the Urheimat is to be located in Europe. The only valid question is exactly where in Europe.

[Aryan Imperium]

John Smith]You do realize that Mallory anbd Haudry don't have the final say? In fact, their view isn't the mainstream.


Nobody has the `final say`, that is the whole point! As painful as this may be to you, history is subject to constant revision and research although this is no longer popular in post WWII Europe. State funded `academics` who are compelled by threat of destruction of their careers have to toe the party line or be `discredited`. We can expect no great things from such psycophants.Real knowledge and discoveries have always been within the gift of the pioneer,the independent thinking man.
For the last 61 years it has been no longer a popular thing to cary out research or publish findings that in way bolsters the white Aryan race.


Genetics is much more powerful evidence than linguistics considering foreign elements can adapt the language of the conquerer, but they can't adapt haplotypes. Are you going to tell me that "there are different interpretations" regarding haplogroups? Is this how you avoid admitting ignorance? It doesn't work.

Genetics is in its infancy. In contrast comparative linguistics is now a very well developed academic discipline that can reveal much about our ancient past.
Give me 10 geneticists and they will give me 10 different interpretations.
That is how `powerful` genetics is!


Also, you're last the person to discuss linguistics with. You haven't given much specific information on the subject.

I'm politiclaly correct? First time anyone has ever said that to me. As I said before to you, I deal with facts rather than emotions.



I have given you all the facts that you need. A Proto Indo-European tongue requires a Proto Indo-European[Aryan] people. It isn`t rocket science you know.

Oh, so they're self hating whites because.... they don't agree? That's not an argument.


A white who denies his glorious Aryan heritage because he has been taught to deny it and be ashamed of it is self-hating. You fit that description nicely.



Someone who is proven to be objective, and whose beliefs have held the test of time. In otherwords, someone who deals with the facts rather than pass over them, and modifies their theory if new information is brought to their attention rather than ignore. I can understand if mistakes are made in the past considering the lack of sophistication, but, what's your excuse?




We are not talking about me-I do not claim to be a scholar just another poster with an opinion which is no less valid than yours. Are you referring to Ryberg or yourself?
You can learn a lot from a user name-John Smith says it all-a man who toes the party line, bland, makes no waves and predictable. Do you wear a suit?

[1) your eyes are subjective 2) your knowledge of European history is poor, as I've shown in a past thread. 3) No one can prove for a fact where they originated, but northern Europe is not in any serious contention. As I've stated, evidence from population genetics makes it rather impossible that Aryans came from northern Europe..

Your knowledge of linguistics and history is non-existant. You have no answer to the claim of Indo-European scholars that PIE in its description of the flora and fauna of our ancestors indicates a northern European clime.
You consistently refuse to address that point. Why?

[Aryan Imperium]

"Mallory suggests the Indo-Europeans appear to have been a pastoral nomadic group who lived in the Pontic-Caspian region (Steppes of Mother Russia) sometime between the second and fifth millenium BC from whence they diffused."

I was looking through amazon.com for a book on an unrelated topic and decided to check Mallory's book. Quite the opposite of AI's claim.

Again, twisting my words.
I claim that the Aryans originated in Europe. The question that is still open is where?
I favour a northern European location because of the linguistic evidence.
Certainly without a shadow of a doubt the Teutonic peoples had their genesis in Scandinavia as their myths and linguistics consistently reveal. However the Teutonic Urheimat I recognise is a seperate albeit not unrelated issue.

[Aryan Imperium]

Why is it so difficult ot understand that the origins of the indo-europeans are a mystery to modern science, and the only place forbidden to look afther WW2 was the Baltics, Scandinavia and Germany.

The people who claim Ukraine and Stalins home town are ignorant of the fact that there are no metal ores there. No waters to bring boat-technology.

To get easy access to good metal ores without heavy machinery you need an Ice age, and ice erosion brings nuggets of pure metals (gold, silver and copper) and tinnsand on riverbeds, that probably was the first source of tinn.

As tinn has a lot of isotopes with varying frequencies, a lot of the bronze found can be traced to it's origin. This has not been done. Same goes with DNA testing of blonde mumies around the world.

Absolutely correct on all points.
The establishment will not permit `academics` to discover a northern European Urheimat. Education has become a propaganda weapon in the hands of our enemies.

[delete]

Absolutely correct on all points.
The establishment will not permit `academics` to discover a northern European Urheimat. Education has become a propaganda weapon in the hands of our enemies.

PC 'science' and multi-kultis are even pushing for that the Sami people was the first people in Scandinavia. This is both untrue and idiotic once you start to think about it.

The sami language contains loanwords from finnish dating ca 500 AC and all the words for boatbuilding and farming are proto-norse or later loanwords.
You find deep sea fish bones in middens proving relative advanced boat building.
You also have pollenanalysis that proves continous farming in Finmark, the northernmost province of Norway, the last 4000 years.

If the Sami was the first people in Scandinavia, they regressed to hunter gatherers as the first culture in the world.

[John Smith]

Again, twisting my words.
I claim that the Aryans originated in Europe. The question that is still open is where?
I favour a northern European location because of the linguistic evidence.
Certainly without a shadow of a doubt the Teutonic peoples had their genesis in Scandinavia as their myths and linguistics consistently reveal. However the Teutonic Urheimat I recognise is a seperate albeit not unrelated issue.

What is the linguistic evidence? I asked for specifics and you give me nothing.

It's funny. You cite people when they contradict what you "favor." Your view is marginal, and the fact you cite people like Mallory, who contradict you, is quite comical. Do you still think Mallory stated they were Nordids? Perhaps you should do your own research rather than rely on what someone else posts.

Also, I'm not twisting your words. Here are your own words:

There is no evidence that `Aryan`s` did originate in eastern Europe. The jury is out on that one.
But either way you are way off mark. What we are discussing here are the origins of the Teutonic peoples. I am not referring to the much earlier genesis of the Aryans of which the Teutons are a branch.

Now, if you don't believe Indo- Europeans formed in Eastern Europe, and you believe they were Nordids, then the only place they could have come from is northern Europe, which is what you admitted to believing, and what is it based on? Nothing. You see, the Nordid phenotype couldn't have developed anywhere else other than northern Europe, and you make it quite clear that Indo- Europeans were Nordids. The likely scenario is that Indo- Europeans had a major cultural, rather than a genetic impact, on groups. This is a logical conclusion considering what we know of population genetics.

I'm not going to waste my time any longer. When asked specific questions you avoid any specific answer (for example, my question on the lingusitic evidence, and haplogroup map on another thread). You keep dancing around what you've said so as to avoid admitting errors. You're also unable to deal with studies from population genetics. You're simply repeating claims without showing any substance. I think I've spent enough time showing others you don't know what you're talking about. I think even people who agree with you on principle are aware you have no foundation on the subject. You don't even use "your" sources properly. They contradict you.

[Aryan Imperium]

=John Smith]What is the linguistic evidence? I asked for specifics and you give me nothing.


You also said that you would come back in `3 or 4 days` to see what evidence has been unearthed but that was a lie as well wasn`t it?
What would you like me to do, cut and paste from numerous tomes on the subject? It would be quicker to write a bloody book myself.
I have already pointed out to you that the foauna and flora of PIE indicate a northern European Urheimat.
I refer you to pages 100 to 106 of Haudry`s `The Indo-Europeans` of examples of fauna and flora which can only florish in a northern European clime.


It's funny. You cite people when they contradict what you "favor." Your view is marginal, and the fact you cite people like Mallory, who contradict you, is quite comical. Do you still think Mallory stated they were Nordids? Perhaps you should do your own research rather than rely on what someone else posts.



Again you lie. I quoted Mallory with reference to a European Urheimat, not to the racial characteristics of the Aryan. My source for that was Childe.


Now, if you don't believe Indo- Europeans formed in Eastern Europe, and you believe they were Nordids, then the only place they could have come from is northern Europe, which is what you admitted to believing, and what is it based on? Nothing. You see, the Nordid phenotype couldn't have developed anywhere else other than northern Europe, and you make it quite clear that Indo- Europeans were Nordids. The likely scenario is that Indo- Europeans had a major cultural, rather than a genetic impact on groups. This is a logical conclusion considering what we know of population genetics.

The genesis of the Aryan, which in my opinion has its purest representation in the Nordic, an unmixed racial type from northern Europe, has its basis in linguistics. In theory there is nothing to prevent the Nordic type from originating in eastern Europe but the evidence of PIE contradicts this.
As the Teuton is a Nordic type and has its origins in Scandinavia there is no reason not to consider that the earlier Aryan also originated in what is considered the `cradle of nations`[Scandinavia].
The Nordic Teuton is the purest descendant of the Aryan racial type. Is it such a leap of faith to also argue that teh birth place of the Aryan was also the birth place of the Teuton?
I realise that must cause you a great deal of pain and flies in the face of your jewish-formed pc opinions but that is your problem not mine.

[Aryan Imperium]

PC 'science' and multi-kultis are even pushing for that the Sami people was the first people in Scandinavia. This is both untrue and idiotic once you start to think about it.

The sami language contains loanwords from finnish dating ca 500 AC and all the words for boatbuilding and farming are proto-norse or later loanwords.
You find deep sea fish bones in middens proving relative advanced boat building.
You also have pollenanalysis that proves continous farming in Finmark, the northernmost province of Norway, the last 4000 years.

If the Sami was the first people in Scandinavia, they regressed to hunter gatherers as the first culture in the world.

Indeed. People like Smith would deny Aryan man his racial identity and his homeland. Two things that all other races and peoples are guaranteed but not the Aryo-Germanic. We are indeed a persecuted people and many of the persecutors are self-hating `whites` of our own race.

[John Smith]

You also said that you would come back in `3 or 4 days` to see what evidence has been unearthed but that was a lie as well wasn`t it?

You got me! Your argument is made solid because I checked up on this forum the next day rather than in a few days like I said. You should be in law school. Plans change. What those plans were are none of your business.


What would you like me to do, cut and paste from numerous tomes on the subject?

If you're knowledgeable on the subject you'd be able to explain it.

It would be quicker to write a bloody book myself.

You're not competent to do so.


I have already pointed out to you that the foauna and flora of PIE indicate a northern European Urheimat.

How does this relate to your argument, specifically?

Here's an interesting website that you may have trouble reading, but I ask that you try regarding Mallory.

"James Mallory advocates the Kurgan hypothesis as the de-facto standard theory of Indo-European origins, but he recognizes valid criticism of Gimbutas' radical scenario of military invasion: almost all the arguments for invasion and cultural transformation are far better explained without reference to Kurgan expansion."

"In the Kurgan hypothesis, the entire pontic steppes are considered the PIE Urheimat, and a variety of late PIE dialects is assumed to have been spoken across the region."

http://www.aaez.biz/default.asp?t=Kurgan



I refer you to pages 100 to 106 of Haudry`s `The Indo-Europeans` of examples of fauna and flora which can only florish in a northern European clime.

I refer you back to my post on Haudry. Pay attention. He has an ideological bias. I want credible sources. Also, we should take note of Browning's post where he mentions Haudry: "I remain unconvinced that the PIE Urheimat was in northern Europe (Haudry is the same on this issue, for the record)."

Again you lie. I quoted Mallory with reference to a European Urheimat, not to the racial characteristics of the Aryan. My source for that was Childe.

Well, I proved Childe's comment is illogical. You mentioned Mallory but don't go into any detail. You didn't quote Mallory. You mention his name. If you went into detail you would flop because he doesn't believe the same as you. You're right that you didn't mention phenotype regards to Mallory, but, if you believe the "genesis" of "Aryans" were in Northern Europe, and he doesn't believe the Ultereimat was in northern Europe, where does that leave you?


The genesis of the Aryan, which in my opinion has its purest representation in the Nordic, an unmixed racial type from northern Europe, has its basis in linguistics. In theory there is nothing to prevent the Nordic type from originating in eastern Europe but the evidence of PIE contradicts this.

You bring up lingusitics again but show no evidence. No link. Nothing.

As the Teuton is a Nordic type and has its origins in Scandinavia there is no reason not to consider that the earlier Aryan also originated in what is considered the `cradle of nations`[Scandinavia].

Idiotic. "Teuton" isn't a Nordic phenotype, but rather a cultural term. You're thinking of SkandoNordids. "The cradle of nations"? Scandanavia?! LOL! I would love to see where you got that quote from.


The Nordic Teuton is the purest descendant of the Aryan racial type. Is it such a leap of faith to also argue that teh birth place of the Aryan was also the birth place of the Teuton?

No scholar you mentioned states that Scandanavia is the birthplace of "Aryans." More proof of your ideological bias.

I realise that must cause you a great deal of pain and flies in the face of your jewish-formed pc opinions but that is your problem not mine.

Jews? How do they come into this topic? Is Mallory a Jew?

I wasn't going to respond (yes, I lied again!) but this is hilarity. Go on and respond by repeating yourself and providing no substance.

[delete]

Idiotic. "Teuton" isn't a Nordic phenotype, but rather a cultural term. You're thinking of SkandoNordids. "The cradle of nations"? Scandanavia?! LOL! I would love to see where you got that quote from.


What about Jordanes. The favorite jew historian.

Why is it that when some Roman historian speaks about any other than the Germans it is true until proven otherwise, but roman sources have no value if they praise the Germans?

Have you read about the boat people, and how they also are a mystery?

Do you know anything of the Nordic Bronze Age? Have you seen this?

Sun Chariot
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec11/fig11i.jpg

Lur
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e7/200px-Lurs.jpg

There are countless of Bronze object found in Scandinavia, espesially in Denmark and southern Sweden.

[Blood Crystal]

Linguistics, root words and names mean nothing to John Smith.

[John Smith]

What about Jordanes. The favorite jew historian.

Why is it that when some Roman historian speaks about any other than the Germans it is true until proven otherwise, but roman sources have no value if they praise the Germans?

Have you read about the boat people, and how they also are a mystery?

Do you know anything of the Nordic Bronze Age? Have you seen this?

Sun Chariot
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec11/fig11i.jpg

Lur
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e7/200px-Lurs.jpg

There are countless of Bronze object found in Scandinavia, espesially in Denmark and southern Sweden.

The Nordic Bronze age? Sure.

"In northern Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Bronze Age inhabitants manufactured many distinctive and beautiful artifacts, such as the pairs of lurer horns discovered in Denmark. Some linguists believe that a proto-Indo-European language was probably introduced to the area around 2000 BC, which eventually became the ancestor of the Germanic languages. This would fit with the evolution of the Nordic bronze age into the most probably Germanic pre-Roman iron age.

The age is divided into the periods I-VI according to Oscar Montelius. Period Montelius V already belongs to the Iron Age in other regions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_age#Nordic_Bronze_Age_.281500-500_BC.29

What's the issue?

What about Jordanes. The favorite jew historian.

What about him, exactly? He's not relevant to this discussion on Indo- Europeans and their origin.

Why is it that when some Roman historian speaks about any other than the Germans it is true until proven otherwise, but roman sources have no value if they praise the Germans?

Romans? We're speaking about a people that lived many centuries before the Romans. How is this relevant?

Have you read about the boat people, and how they also are a mystery?

You mean the "Sea People"? What about them, exactly? http://i-cias.com/e.o/sea_people.htm

Or do you mean this? http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521856566

[John Smith]

Linguistics, root words and names mean nothing to John Smith.

Can you expand on your sentence? So that it appears you know what you speak of? If you have issue with Mallory, or anyone else cited by AI say what it is, but apparently none of them agree with AI, or you, and so it's up to you to show their flaws. Not that I agree with them overall, but since they were brought up as a sources, and some people have been using them to prove a theory I think it's humorous that the sources don't agree with AI's theory.

Also, I never said linguistics was meaningless. I explained that populations adopt, and then adapt, the language of a superior cultural group, and therefore it doesn't prove if a population is the "genetic heir" to the original group. However, it is important when discussing the spread of culture.

[delete]

I don't believe in Aryans as a religious concept, for me it is common blood and heritage.

And I doubt the indo-european reconstructions, and the timespans they are operating on. For me it is method gone mad, but I don't deny the languages is related.

It has to much of a tree structure for me to belive it. I think almost every language alive today started out as a mix of at least two languages like English or Spanish is today. English have latin elements, while Spanish has some germanic, while French could be called romano-germanic. All indo-european languages are from MPOV a mix beween sometimes two indoeuropean languages and somtimes a non-indoeuropean language. All languages changes to some degree when the population mixes with some other group.

You had a worsening of the Climate around 1200 BC, corresponding with the introduction of high quality bronze (10% tin and 90% copper) in multiple locations in greece. You also have the introduction of the sea people. You find baltic amber in Mycene proving contact.

As to why Scandinavia is a 'woumb of nations' it really is a result of geography.
The concept of Norwegians, Swedes and Danes is fairly recent, before this people was named after regions defined by geography, and a kindom was what a king was able to in person without a byreucracy. Despotic rule by an unwanted ruler was out of the question, as people could hide and use local knowlegde of terrain to kill the invaders.

A king could not defend his country in the short run against invasion, and because boat attacks was unpredictable, every man had to have weapons, and start the defense themselves. This, together with vide spread hunting was a reservoar of fairly competent soldiers who knew how to handle their weapones, in case they wanted to emigrate to hostile lands.

One fairly modern example of this would be.
The Battle of Kringen, 1612 the scots was beaten by farmers
http://sinclair.quarterman.org/sinclair/history/mid/battleofkringom.html

The rich fishing banks in the north sea was a constant incentive to improve boat building technology, and the rich farmland in southern sweden and denmark was in demand for good sturdy wagons.

You also have to ask yourself what sort of a culture would you get if it was imposible to ask your neighbour for advise or how things shold be done, because he lived to far a way to ask, and there was no real religios autority around, because the society was not rich enough to support an useless eater.

I believe the north and central europe have more or less constantly leaked people the last 4000 years, because whenever there was a population big enough to export they would gather under some leader and attack the weakest opponent, with the best land they knew about. There could be no despoty here until the feudal technology was reached, because no lord could defnd you.

They were lactose tolerant and could revert to pastorialism while searching for new lands or while building new farms and farmland. I got this link from Professor John Frink
We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x428750458w4080r
This suggest common origins and nothing else, not where it started.
If the theory of the middle east is true, the memory is long gone and could not explain why so many of the common aryan myths have a northern theme.

This link suggest that N-europe is the place where the lactose tolerant adaption started to be economically exploited.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v35/n4/images/ng1263-F1.jpg
Figure 1. Geographic coincidence between milk gene diversity in cattle, lactose tolerance in humans and locations of Neolithic cattle farming sites in NCE.
(a) Geographic distribution of the 70 cattle breeds (blue dots) sampled across Europe and Turkey. (b) Synthetic map showing the first principal component resulting from the allele frequencies at the cattle genes. The dark orange color shows that the greatest milk gene uniqueness and allelic diversity occurs in cattle from NCE. (c) Geographic distribution of the lactase persistence allele in contemporary Europeans. The darker the orange color, the higher is the frequency of the lactase persistence allele. The dashed black line indicates the limits of the geographic distribution of early Neolithic cattle pastoralist (Funnel Beaker Culture) inferred from archaeological data15.

You also have these people searching for genetical traces from the Vandals and the Goths, but the results are not finished.
http://www.explicofund.org/index-1.html

We know about the Germans, Goths, the Vandales, the Vikings, the great trek of the Boers and the treks in Amerika. To aid in migration you have a constant precense of good wagons, good boats, good smiths, and a war trained population, able to steal good land from a weak or technological inferiour oponent for the last 3200 years.

I don't believe in THE PIE urheimat, but you have had different related cultures in north and central Europe who sometimes have wandered far, and traces of their language is what we call indoeuropean today.

Boat and wagon technology is related, as both is dependent on how to make simple and strong wooden constructions. The tools used are the same, and if the techology came from the same tradition a boatbuilder could probably build a wagon and vice versa, although not as good or efficiently.

Denmark is situated where technologies meet and thus able to get hold of any new technonlogy that came around. They have alway been rich enough to support good smiths, woodworkers, and lots af cattle and horses, and consequently been able perfect any technology they have gotten their hands on.

This is a link that describes 800-500 bc danish transportation and gives an impression on how rich Denmark was.
http://www.tollundman.dk/transportmidler.asp

You also see time upon time that the people from Scandinavia or their decendantes attack not their neighbor, but someone more remote as this would be an easyer target. The neighbour usually has the same technology so it is a dificult oponent. The Finns have been able to stay in Finland while different germanic poeple have run amok elsewhere.

[Kriger]

I've been spending some time looking into migration theories and other events related to this during the years currently estimated as 2500 BC and thereabouts, specifically the Black Sea area.

Basically just looking for common factors linking cultural similarities. I have been following this thread topic closely, as much of what is being said offers more insights into what I have been accumulating.

I would appreciate it if more information be provided along the lines of cultural similarities such as "archers", "horseman", dogs for hunting, stylized reindeer, things like that.

I have a tendency to believe that originally there was a fair race, and that later variations came from mixtures as population growth caused groups to form and migrate to other areas for territory.

I realize I am presenting this in layman's terms, but perhaps it will trigger thoughts in others of certain attributes of certain cultures that are somehow shared with our very ancient ancestors.

[Arminius]

Aryans originated in Iran, It is in their history, hence the name Iran=Aryan

The use of the word Aryan to describe Persians is quite old, yet unrelated to the origin of Aryans. The Aryans were a nomadic Indo-European tribe, something which is confirmed by their language. They settled from Persia to the Indian subcontinent, that wasn't their original homeland. Iran like Aristocrat (Greek) or Ehre (German) shares a common origin from Indo-European (further examples are prevalent). This is the word "noble", which it is thought was the name of these people. In Sanskrit, the noun Aryah is a noble or honored man.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png