Were the original Indo-Europeans from Europe, Asia or India?

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on July 10, 2005, 10:09 PM | #

Who cares?

Keeping the land we live in now is paramount.

Posted by Lurker on July 11, 2005, 08:22 AM | #

The mulicultural attack is happy to encompass the idea we all came from Africa, the idea that Aryans came from India and not the other way around. It helps to reinforce the belief in evil whitey merely stealing the land and acheivements of other groups and who we somehow keep down today.

Ive got no problem with the theory that we came from Africa I just suspect that there is a political edge to its constant repetition.

Anything that helps turn things around is good.

Posted by Stuka on July 11, 2005, 09:18 AM | #

...I just suspect that there is a political edge to its constant repetition.

Definitely! I think it helps reinforce non-white claims to white lands & societies through multiculturalism and mass immigration. If we’re really all Africans, then it follows that Europe is African territory too. So, not only does it render national boundaries meaningless and arbitrary, but it also makes opposition to immigration unreasonable because, in effect, African migrants in Europe are simply behaving in the same way an Englishman does when he moves from London to Birmingham, or an American from New York to Chicago. One people, one world.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2005, 09:55 AM | #

“The picture of the old Indo-Aryans (white, mainly blonde people) that we get from the many historical sources we have and that the anthropology guaranted over and over again, show us that the old Central-Asia Theory is just wrong. A white and blonde race develops not in southern but only in northern regions. The Indo-Aryans did NOT came from India, they marched from Europe over southern Russia TO India!!!”  (—from the log entry)

This is right in that, in order to evolve from black-haired, more swarthy people, blond-haired, more light-skinned people need to live a very long time in a place that’s cloudy (the northern areas of Europe where they are concentrated are extremely cloudy, for those American and Australian MR.com readers who may never have lived there:  you can’t imagine how cloudy some of these places are, Flanders, for example, until you’ve lived there year-round—for a New Yorker like me it was almost unbelievable at first; I finally came to just accept the incredible)—it’s exactly like these fish and fresh-water crustaceans that have been living tens of thousands of years in lakes that are situated in underground caves devoid of sunlight, which as a result have lost all their color and are white or pale.  So if the first Indo-European speakers evolved someplace that received a normal or greater-than-normal amount of sunshine they couldn’t have been blond.  The fact that blond people all came to speak Indo-European or derivatives thereof (except for the Finns, Estonians, and OK, the Hungarians too, though they are less blond than the Nordics obviously—and I guess we have to throw in those Australian Aborigine races which have blond-haired children *) means that if that language wasn’t created by those blond people it must’ve been adopted by them from whatever non-blond people created it.  Sometimes a foreign language is adopted because people have been conquered, like the Romance Languages were in Europe and the colonial languages, English and French, were in Black Africa.  Other times a people adopt a foreign language not because they’ve been conquered, but because it’s the language of the superior culture.  An example of this was when the Vikings gave up their Scandinavian language upon conquering Normandy and adopted Latin instead (or at any rate, the highly-corrupt Frankish approximation of Latin), the language of superior culture (which in their mouths later bacame what we call Norman French).
______

( *  Has anyone noticed there are at least two totally different races of what are called Australian Aborigines?  I don’t know the official anthropology on this, but it’s obvious some look like Papua-New-Guineans—like Negroes, in other words, with the kinky hair and so on—while others, the ones more commonly associated with the classification “Aborigines,” have that, what could legitimately be called, “archaic-white” look, with straight hair and facial and body features different from negroid ones.  These latter are the ones who, I believe, often have blond hair in childhood.)

I just saw Lurker’s and Stuka’s posts and they’re one hundred percent right—the political dimension to the Out of Africa theory which they both cite is absolutely part of what’s going on with all this touting and popularizing of that theory.  It’s all nonsense, of course—it doesn’t weaken the Salterian case for Universal Nationalism one jot.  Incidentally, the Out of Africa theory is starting to be questioned by not a few anthropologists.  Whether it stands of falls, however, makes no difference at all to the case against race-replacement of whites or any other group:  we’re whites and that’s that, and how we came to be white is irrelevant to our right not to be forced into extinction.

Posted by James Bowery on July 11, 2005, 10:00 AM | #

I don’t think the Black Sea “great flood” theory of the IE dispersion has been falsified at all by the above.  It is entirely reasonable to suspect there was a multi-tribe nordic nation that used the fresh-water-era Black Sea as its trade transport medium.  Moreover PIE may have been the trade language of those tribes.

The great flood theory explains a lot.

Posted by JW Holliday on July 11, 2005, 11:13 AM | #

While I think Geoff’s initial comment is the most relevant, I still wish to ask: where is the evidence for the assertions made in this essay?

Some authors are quoted, but others postulate Indo-European origins in other places, one theory even equates Indo-Europeanism with the Neolithic expansion of so-called “Near Eastern farmers.”

Posted by Kubilai on July 11, 2005, 07:10 PM | #

Lookie what I found.  Thanks to AmRen for the link.

Scientists Detail Study of Kennewick Man By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 11,12:49 PM ET

SEATTLE - Cloistered around padded tables, scientists from around the country have been peering through microscopes and measuring bone fragments trying to unearth the history of an ancient skeleton found along the Columbia River.

Researchers on Sunday offered details of their first comprehensive study of the 9,000-year-old Kennewick Man, one of the oldest and most complete skeletons ever found in North America.

The team of anthropologists, geochemists and data analysts have been busy assembling the skeleton’s more than 300 bones and bone fragments at the University of Washington’s Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, where the remains have been since 1998.

“This individual’s biography is written in his bones,” said Dr. Hugh Berryman, a forensic anthropologist from Middle Tennessee State University. “This is a window into the past.”

Scientists have been cataloguing some previously unidentified pieces and reevaluating others. They’ve also been measuring remains, examining cracks and breaks in the bones and studying various discoloration in an attempt to put Kennewick Man’s past together.

Likening it to a Rembrandt, Berryman said scientists early on knew the skeleton had much to offer because of its age and completeness.

“I’m very interested in that skull,” Berryman said as he pointed to ice-blue translucent plastic models of a skull and pelvis, sitting atop a boardroom table at the University Towers hotel near the university.

“There appears to be some European-type facial features.” That, he said, could suggest there were other migrations of people other than those strictly out of Asia.

Certain skull measurements, including the shorter face and less width across the cheekbones, don’t match that traditionally associated with Native American characteristics, said Dr. Douglas W. Owsley, a forensic anthropologist with the National Museum of Natural History at the   Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

Those observations have been part of the nine-year legal battle between researchers and Northwest Indian tribes.

After the skeleton was found by two college students along the banks of the Columbia in 1996, the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce and Colville tribes wanted the bones reburied without scientific study. They claimed they were entitled to the bones under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owned the land where the remains were found and was set to relinquish the bones. But scientists sued for a chance to study the remains.

Last year a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with an earlier decision by a federal judge in Portland, Ore., ruled there was no link between the skeleton and the tribes.

Kennewick Man

Posted by Andrew L on July 12, 2005, 12:51 AM | #

The last time I travelled to England we would try claim Hereditory land rights over some estates there ,14 all up, But they just laughed at me, then I said .What if I paint my self Black, then can I have land rights, then they through me out, Hmmmmm, being white is not all its cracked up to be lately.

Posted by Stuka on July 12, 2005, 09:00 AM | #

In present circumstances, “Where are we from?” is a question best left to the academics. A better question today would be: “Where are we going?”

Posted by sr on July 12, 2005, 11:01 AM | #

Hear, hear!

Posted by Sami on October 11, 2006, 09:20 AM | #

All of you so called nordics are jackpots. The new genetic research says that all populations can trace their origin back to africa but it also says that all non-african population can trace their origin from south asia first then to any other place.
And as for as the nordic traits are concerned if they are evolved in cloudy cold environments then for your king information the nordic looking people in afghanistan and norther pakistan (the old proven homeland of just aryans not europeans) also have the same weather conditions. So if you see some nordic looking afghan or norther pakistani that definately means that he is nordic looking because the weather in norther pakistan and most of afghanistan is very cold and cloudy (in those area you can find foots of snow in winter). Nordicism may be prevalent in norther european but you cannot say that a nordic looking northern pakistani or afghan has anything to do with you. They are carrying the same pakistani and afghan genes as the other dark pakistanis and afghan are carrying. For a confirmation you can read the latest genetic studies of pakistan which shows that 96&#xof; us are all descended from the same paternal linages which are as ancient as our dynamic ancient indus valley culture (5000 years old) and its predessor Mehr garh culture (8000 years old).
The final thing is R1a1 gene which is found in eastern europe at very high rates some times about 50% of populations (Russia 45% , Ukrain 47% , Hungary 40% , Poland 56% etc.) has its highest rates and greatest diversity in pakistani populations (From pakistan´s norther border with china upto the south at arabian sea). Its presence in pakistan as dated by professor Oppenheimer of Oxford university is about 51000 years whereas the same researcher says that its presence in easter europe is recent may between 5000-10000 years ago. So actually your so called north eastern europeans are hafl-pakistani from their paternal lineages and europeans from their maternal lineages.
The final note is We the pakistani and afghans are the source of population not the sink. The world is from us , we are not from the world.

Posted by Ben Dover on January 06, 2007, 11:05 PM | #

THe Aryan theory (Aryans invading india from the west) has been effectively debunked manytime by anthropologists. Google it to find out more. People in india/south asia are now a seperate race by itself. Please do not affiliate europeans with south asians. Its offensive for both. Really !

Posted by Kirk Bonner on March 28, 2007, 12:06 PM | #

I would highly recommend that the previous commenters take a course in modern genetics. Mutations can occur and spread rapidly through a population. It doesn’t necessarily take thousands of years. Before I go on, I must mention that humans share 98% of their genes with chimpanzees, so we are simply one branch of the family of apes (Jared Diamond calls us “The Third Chimpanzee”). There are less genetic differences among all of humanity than between two troops of baboons.

The genetic evidence supports the contention that anatomical modern humans (AMHs) originated in Africa approximately 200,000-150,000 BCE. What did these AMHs look like? It is well known that humans living in the equatorial belts have dark skins. Why do they have dark skins? Melanin protects the skin from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. At roughly 70,000 BCE AMHs became marginalized, that is, only about 2,000-3,000 individuals existed at this time. Why? It probably had to do with what was going on with Earth at that time. It seems that this group (or at least some members) left Africa around this time and began migrating into Asia. Around 50,000 BCE some of these people reached what is now Australia and others headed from Central Asia into what is now Europe. In Europe light skin is more advantageous since at those latitudes the issue isn’t getting too much ultraviolet radiation, the issue that not enough is around to produce sufficient amounts of vitamin D. Light skin is much more advantageous. So the AMHs who migrated into Europe developed lighter skins.

Regarding languages linguists have shown that no correlation whatever exists between skin color (which is highly variable anyway in any population) and the language spoken. To maintain that the Indo-Europeans (here referring to a group of people who spoke proto Indo-European or PIE) were all blue-eyed blonds is patently ridiculous. It is totally impossible to know. And frankly, given the tight genetic similarities among all present day humans, who cares?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2007, 06:43 PM | #

“And frankly, given the tight genetic similarities among all present day humans, who cares?”  (—Kirk “The Brightest Bulb on the Tree — NOT” Bonner)

That piece of tripe can either be printed on the printer with the resulting sheet of paper used to line your wastepaper basket or wrap fish, or it can be addressed by referring the readers, for starters, here, here, and for good measure, here (hey I know Bonner isn’t really denying race — though in his heart he wants to, the asshole — but think of that last reference as a well-deserved posthumus slap in the face to Stephen Jay Gould, Franz Boaz, Ashley Montague, and Richard Lewontin, the slap each so richly deserved during life for the offense of politicizing science in the most dishonest, sleazy, slimy way possible).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2007, 06:57 PM | #

Excuse me, the Marxist and shameless science falsifier Richard Lewontin is still alive.  (Has he replied to the debunking of “Lewontin’s Fallacy,” does anyone know?  Probably not ... probably doesn’t dare show his face after that taint on his name ... as well he shouldn’t ... .) 

Leon Kamin‘s another one, by the way — stamped from exactly the same mold as Lewontin.  A pair of politicized Marxist clowns who disgraced themselves before the scientific world with their deliberate, conscious sophistries on IQ and race.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2007, 10:04 PM | #

”[Leon Kamin] is honorary professor of psychology at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.”

I wonder what motivation the men running the “New & Improved South Africa” could possibly have for offering an “honorary professorship” to a guy who claims “the heritability of IQ could be zero” (right, could be zero if two plus two equaled five, you could put square pegs in round holes, the moon were made of green cheese, and there were no such things as races ...).  Wow, that’s a tough one ... what could the connection be? ... OK just give me time, I’ll figure it out ...

Posted by Easy George on April 15, 2007, 08:17 AM | #

Never mind antiquated writers like Bertil Lundmann and Hans F. K. Günther! Who cares about their outdated opinions?

You need to read Dr John V. Day´s 2001 book, Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence (http://www.amazon.com/Indo-European-Origins-Anthropological-John-Day/dp/0941694755).

It delves into pigmentation, skeletal remains, genetics, linguistics, archaeology, and many other subjects, with a 170-page bibliography.

Prof. Victor Mair calls it “truly remarkable and valuable”; Prof. Robert Sokal finds it “invaluable”, and Friedrich Rösing says it´s “eine Scharnierarbeit, sie teilt in davor und danach”.

About time you amateur anthropologists joined the 21st century . . .

Posted by Tux on April 23, 2008, 11:37 AM | #

Lundman and Lundborg both Swede biased pieces of shit not to be taken seriously.Coon criticized the idiot Lundman for not even been able to interpret maps and charts correctly.

Posted by Don Brücker on December 15, 2008, 03:00 PM | #

I personally believe it’s important to know:  being raised with an Anglish name, then believing you have a Schwitzer Deutsch name, then your DNA says NO you are Kels from the Alps between Switzerland and Italy, precisly Piedmont Canton Italy, (Tau - People of the Mountain).

The Census system here in the US, Germerica, stereotypes us as German American,  I have no problem with that, but I an Swiss German-Allemanni, Basel dialect, and not just German,  My DNA suggests Kels-Kelten-Keltoi-Keltic,  Schwitzer Deutsch Allemanni by heritage,  Germerican by culture,  German, English, American are organized institutional states, combining other smaller groups together,  therefore I prefer Deutsch (Deut=People), Anglish (Danelaw), American (representing the world), 

Anglish is where the English language came from (Jutte-Dane)

Arian originated in the Arab states and was carried to the Balkans by some Kelten tribes who were living in the Middle East,  These Kels people also introduced Christianity to the European Kels before the Romans crambed it down their throats,

the first thing we need to do is determe which Aryan-Arian we are going to us to refer to the peaceful people prior to WWII,  Aryan is the hate group, Arian is the Original Religion started in the Middle East,  Arian is the one the Kels used,

Posted by Art on May 03, 2009, 01:12 AM | #

.The current expert consensus(or whatever research is allowed to pass through the thought police) favors a theory in which phenotypes among differing races arise through sexual/directional selection and not necessarily or entirely by environmental/climate pressure.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has observed that Whites become rather fair quite quickly-lighter features then expected for the Northern European climate. Secondly modern humans have only lived in Europe for 30,000-40,000 years. Such rich diversity in hair/eye coloring and extreme paleness would have taken around 200,000 from climate pressures alone.

2. But isn’t Europe cloudy and therefore developing light skin advantageous for absorbing vitamin D? Yes and no. Sure, parts of Europe are cloudy-notably the British Isles, Netherlands and parts of French coast line, but thats it. However eastern/Central Europe receive just as much sun as the Eskimos. In fact the fairest region of Europe-the Baltics-is very sunny. Also, notice that Native American populations are uniformly dark-no differencedespite separation between Incans and Algonquins for thousands of years.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-european-skin-became-white.html

3. That idiot Paki rambling on about being the source of humanity is representative of the stupidity of our opposition.

CONCLUSION: the appearance of Europeans is because of sexual selection favoring lighter skin. NOT simply because of Northern climates.

Posted by race on May 03, 2009, 06:30 AM | #

Posted by Sami on October 11, 2006, 01:20 PM | #

And as for as the nordic traits are concerned if they are evolved in cloudy cold environments then for your king information the nordic looking people in afghanistan and norther pakistan (the old proven homeland of just aryans not europeans) also have the same weather conditions. So if you see some nordic looking afghan or norther pakistani that definately means that he is nordic looking because the weather in norther pakistan and most of afghanistan is very cold and cloudy (in those area you can find foots of snow in winter).

Who?

Posted by BasqueSpain on October 06, 2010, 09:41 AM | #

The original white Europeans are the Basque.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 06, 2010, 10:26 AM | #

Another victim of Stephen Oppenheimer:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-oppenheimers-bad-science.html

Posted by Rusty on October 06, 2010, 11:07 AM | #

Kirk regurgitated:
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day humans, who cares?”

Let’s try:
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day dogs, who cares?”
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day cats, who cares?”
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day roses, who cares?”
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day oaks, who cares?”
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day salmon, who cares?”
“... given the tight genetic similarities among all present day _____, who cares?”

Those who love, care, that’s who.  Jerks like Kirk might care about other living things, and they often claim to love humanity (whatever they might mean by that), but they obviously do not care about people at all.

Posted by Ryan on October 21, 2010, 10:40 PM | #

I think Stuka hit it spot on with his point. If we’re all Africans then Europe is considered African territory. The vitamin d benefits recently discovered are starting to become widely known but is everyone utilizing these benefits and is it even possible to absorb vitamin d naturally from the sun in darker skinned individuals. The issue arises that anatomical modern humans who migrated into Europe developed lighter skins. It just seems a little far fetched that not enough vitamin d is being absorbed in darker skin. I wonder if there are any studies on this.