Origins of MODERN Europeans

[Cadillac]

No. This thread was ORIGINALLY posted in the HL and most of the posts are from there.

Ur a mod whats keeping u from moving it back over there

Or in TLR where there is traffic?

 

[mandelson]

I'm literally surprised this thread NEVER became that popular. Hell recent studies too are saying that Europeans or "Caucasian" people are not one race but a hybrid group.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

This is quite interesting...It appears Europe was populated the same way Indian subcontinent was. With different populations migrating in and out. And it also appears that modern day Europeans may have roots in Central Asia. The latter sentence is really just my theory, but some have noted it.

Funny thing is I remember being taught that way back in elementary school. Most Europeans (Indo-European linguistic group) came up the Danube & Rhine in various waves.

Prior to migrating into Europe most indo Europeans were dancing around central Asia during and after the Last glacial period - Wikipedia
Scythians and Sogdians - Early Central Asia - Quatr.us

1st Migration event
Around 2,000bce there was a climatic changed that brought on the migration of Aryans out of central Asia into Europe, india, and the Arabian peninsular. The following events and time frame is typically referred to as the Late Bronze Age collapse - Wikipedia.
(this is also where "white Arabs" start coming into the picture via eventual mixing)​

Central Asia's Lost Civilization
The unveiling of a 4,000-year-old civilization calls into question conventional ideas about ancient culture, trade, and religion.

Central Asia's Lost Civilization | DiscoverMagazine.com



Two-hundred-year drought doomed Indus Valley Civilization


And when they got to europe, cacs do what cacs do

Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle

Excavation of an ancient battlefield in northern Germany revealed signs of a great battle, such as closely packed bones, as seen in this 2013 photo of the site. One area of 12 square meters held 1478 bones, including 20 skulls.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

Even the Greeks were like "barbarians" to the incoming Indo Europeans.
(I'm being lazy tonight, usually I'd post a quote from the Greeks talking about northerners)

2nd Migration event
The 2nd push was when Attila the hun and his forces conquered or drove everyone else out of central Asia and compacted them into Europe.

This push helped bring on the fall of the roman empire by the vandles.

This fall lead to what Europeans refer to as their "dark ages"

3nd Migration event
Mongols invade eastern Europe bringing more people in through rape & migration.
(The mongols didn't leave Europe. The empire, like all empires dissolved into pieces)

It wasn't till the black death...

...and ottoman empire

That Europe started loosing massive amounts of people to disease, slavery, and ultimately world wars 1 & 2
(Not to mention Immigration to outside colonies)




Note this is rather bare bones of me. I didn't even mention things like...

Roman empire moving subjects around from one area in Africa to places in Europe

on up to

Modern day economic migration into Europe.

or even

The Modern demographic blight of Europeans not producing enough children to properly repopulate.​

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Funny thing is I remember being taught that way back in elementary school. Most Europeans (Indo-European linguistic group) came up the Danube & Rhine in various waves.

Prior to migrating into Europe most indo Europeans were dancing around central Asia during and after the Last glacial period - Wikipedia
Scythians and Sogdians - Early Central Asia - Quatr.us

1st Migration event
Around 2,000bce there was a climatic changed that brought on the migration of Aryans out of central Asia into Europe, india, and the Arabian peninsular. The following events and time frame is typically referred to as the Late Bronze Age collapse - Wikipedia.
(this is also where "white Arabs" start coming into the picture via eventual mixing)​

Central Asia's Lost Civilization
The unveiling of a 4,000-year-old civilization calls into question conventional ideas about ancient culture, trade, and religion.

Central Asia's Lost Civilization | DiscoverMagazine.com



Two-hundred-year drought doomed Indus Valley Civilization


And when they got to europe, cacs do what cacs do

Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle

Excavation of an ancient battlefield in northern Germany revealed signs of a great battle, such as closely packed bones, as seen in this 2013 photo of the site. One area of 12 square meters held 1478 bones, including 20 skulls.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

Even the Greeks were like "barbarians" to the incoming Indo Europeans.
(I'm being lazy tonight, usually I'd post a quote from the Greeks talking about northerners)

2nd Migration event
The 2nd push was when Attila the hun and his forces conquered or drove everyone else out of central Asia and compacted them into Europe.

This push helped bring on the fall of the roman empire by the vandles.

This fall lead to what Europeans refer to as their "dark ages"

3nd Migration event
Mongols invade eastern Europe bringing more people in through rape & migration.
(The mongols didn't leave Europe. The empire, like all empires dissolved into pieces)

It wasn't till the black death...

...and ottoman empire

That Europe started loosing massive amounts of people to disease, slavery, and ultimately world wars 1 & 2
(Not to mention Immigration to outside colonies)




Note this is rather bare bones of me. I didn't even mention things like...

Roman empire moving subjects around from one area in Africa to places in Europe

on up to

Modern day economic migration into Europe.

or even

The Modern demographic blight of Europeans not producing enough children to properly repopulate.​

Much of the stuff regarding Aryan invasion/migration theory is based on linguistic analysis, but recent genetic studies contradict many of those claims. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There is no logical reason to believe that Iranians/Persians, an "indo-aryan" people, who have historically been one of the bearers of high civilization, are descended from loose packs of barbarians.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Ur a mod whats keeping u from moving it back over there

Or in TLR where there is traffic?

I decided to move it here since its a "racial" discussion and fits the Root. Plus its also my fault too for not keeping it active.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Yes, the "Caucasion race" whether they are from Europe, Turkey,The Caucasus(i.e Armenia) or even the Middle East(Iran?) are a hybrid race and not "100%" anything. The studies I posted on the front page all confirm this, but there are recent studies that all say this too and I have to find them. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me on this told me this. He said the admixture goes back during the prehistoric times i.e the Neolithic. Theres a REASON why Europeans do not cluster with their prehistoric population. That is why they all share a recent common ancestor. This is why everyone should look at PRIVATE DNA companies like Ancestry.com with a grain of salt because they "racially reset" the populations like Europeans. Basically they're going by admixture since the post-neolithic era and so certain people can be 90-100% European.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

Much of the stuff regarding Aryan invasion/migration theory is based on linguistic analysis, but recent genetic studies contradict many of those claims. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There is no logical reason to believe that Iranians/Persians, an "indo-aryan" people, who have historically been one of the bearers of high civilization, are descended from loose packs of barbarians.

I'm not particularly invested in "Aryan invasion/migration theory" as any kind of formal thrust in my argument. I'm refering to climatic events, civilization turning points, and migration periods.
1. ether there was an climatic event around 2000bc or there wasn't
2. ether there was mass movement of people following this climatic event or there wasn't
3. ether various nations fell from incoming migrants around the bronze age collapse or there wasn't
4. ether Europe had an influx of people during this time time or there wasn't
5. either a substantial portion of these incoming people spoke Indo European languages or they didn't
6. either these incoming people made up what would be the bulk of thee Germanic tribes that would go on to dominate Europe or not
etc etc etc.

In terms of assessing modern day Iranians/Persians to "indo-aryans" I'm not invested either way. Also given that Gengus khan army made it all the way out there in later times and ravaged various locations the dna would probably be pretty mixed up anyway.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I'm not particularly invested in "Aryan invasion/migration theory" as any kind of formal thrust in my argument. I'm refering to climatic events, civilization turning points, and migration periods.
1. ether there was an climatic event around 2000bc or there wasn't
2. ether there was mass movement of people following this climatic event or there wasn't
3. ether various nations fell from incoming migrants around the bronze age collapse or there wasn't
4. ether Europe had an influx of people during this time time or there wasn't
5. either a substantial portion of these incoming people spoke Indo European languages or they didn't
6. either these incoming people made up what would be the bulk of thee Germanic tribes that would go on to dominate Europe or not
etc etc etc.

In terms of assessing modern day Iranians/Persians to "indo-aryans" I'm not invested either way. Also given that Gengus khan army made it all the way out there in later times and ravaged various locations the dna would probably be pretty mixed up anyway.

The above is all true. The question is who were the Aryans and where did they come from? Many scholars say central asia, but the Aryans themselves in their own tradition/literature say otherwise.

 

[Sukairain]

Much of the stuff regarding Aryan invasion/migration theory is based on linguistic analysis, but recent genetic studies contradict many of those claims. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There is no logical reason to believe that Iranians/Persians, an "indo-aryan" people, who have historically been one of the bearers of high civilization, are descended from loose packs of barbarians.

The Aryan invasion has been debunked many times by Indian historians as a British colonialist myth to justify their rule over the subcontinent, and account for India's prosperity by attributing it to white blood in a select few Indians

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

The above is all true. The question is who were the Aryans and where did they come from? Many scholars say central asia, but the Aryans themselves in their own tradition/literature say otherwise.

If someone wants to take a shot at that question then hey ...have at it
All I'm talking about here is waves of people into Europe through time






I wouldn't be opposed to visiting the "Aryan" question on it's own terms though ......​

Although I can tell you off top I wouldn't actually start with the "Aryans" at all, I'd actually start with everyone else who isn't them and work backwards through process of elimination till I got to a geographical/cultural area that I wasn't clear on then delve into archaeology, ethnography, linguistics, dna, and obviously straight up history of the geographical/surrounding area, etc. to get a better picture.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

The Aryan invasion has been debunked many times by Indian historians as a British colonialist myth to justify their rule over the subcontinent, and account for India's prosperity by attributing it to white blood in a select few Indians

Sigh this always annoys me because it's a two faced argument/position.

How so?

I'll give a neutral example:

Rawnda - (We all know this one) German/Belgian administration treated the Tutsi & Hutu as separate races of people based on phenotype and the debunked "Hamitic theory" that the children of ham(Tutsi) came in to Africa to rule over the negros(Hutu). When the German/Belgian administration left the complex of relations remained culminating in a civil war.

"According to the Hamitic theory, this "Hamitic race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. In its most extreme form, in the writings of C. G. Seligman, this theory asserted that virtually all significant achievements in African history were the work of "Hamites" who had migrated into central Africa as pastoralists, bringing new customs, languages, technologies and administrative skills with them."
Hamitic - Wikipedia

Now the distinction of Tutsi & Hutu is native to the people that's not some imported idea. That said the colonial interpretation of what the distinction means was imported.
The mere fact that colonials used that distinction via the "Hamitic theory" to order and control society doesn't mean that there was never a distinction of Tutsi & Hutu made made by the people prior to the Europeans arrival.
It simply means that the distinction didn't originally mean what the colonials eventually made it mean.


Ok and What does that have to do with the British and the notion of an "Aryan invasion"?


Did the british use the notion of an "Aryan invasion" to order and control society? of course they did. That's not up for debate.
But to say that they used the theory to control the people ...therefore there was never any migration of people into India is a lie.

There is...
Historical(Textual)
Archaeological
Climatological
DNA
etc etc

Evidence that corroborates foreign people migrating into India, but as said before...
"It simply means that the distinction didn't originally mean what the colonials eventually made it mean."

Did the British manipulate people? Sure absolutely, but the best lies are based in truth ...because it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins

That said I repeat...​

I'm not particularly invested in "Aryan invasion/migration theory" as any kind of formal thrust in my argument. I'm referring to climatic events, civilization turning points, and migration periods.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

The Aryan invasion has been debunked many times by Indian historians as a British colonialist myth to justify their rule over the subcontinent, and account for India's prosperity by attributing it to white blood in a select few Indians

Invasion theory has been debunked. There is still linguistic evidence that some pattern of migration did occur, but while most scholars simply modified their original thesis by changing "invasion," to "migration" from west to east, others began to question whether it could have been from east to west. There are very good arguments for both cases. Academia agrees that the oldest preserved indo-european language is the language of the Rig Veda, which has been preserved and passed down only in the subcontinent and nowhere else, and the Rig Veda doesn't mention anything about a homeland somewhere in the "caucus mountains" of Central Asia or anywhere else besides what we call India today. My own logic tells me that if the Aryans did originally come from Central Asia and spread their culture in opposite directions, "Aryan culture" should be as observable in European countries the same way it is observable on the subcontinent. But aside from language, it isn't.

The problem with getting to the truth behind things the massive ego on both sides. The subject has been taken hostage by Indo-centric crackpots who want to seize their chance at creating some bullshyt idealistic fantasy about how India is the cradle of civilization, and western academia who don't want to admit they were wrong on many of their initial assumptions.

 

[mbewane]

Very interesting topic. Indeed, in Europe we always talk about indo-european languages for example, and the history of invasion, mixing, etc...is known. The whole "Europeans are all the same" is something I only hear Americans say, an Italian will never tell you he's the same as a Croatian (right accross the Adriatic). (Just like "Causasian" is an American concept, no white European calls himself "Caucasian").

Europe is a heavilly mixed continent, including with a lot of influence/mixing coming from outside. But ironically I feel this has led to bolstering of xenophobia, precisely because they know it's a small continent open to outside influence/mixing. For example in Eastern Europe I read that in the "fight" against migration/refugees nationalistic/extreme-right groups bring up the Ottoman Empire or the Mongols. So since it happened before, they have to "protect" themselves now (their logic, not mine).

 

[outordinary]

Lets just call it like it is

the european is a newcomer on this planet and knows his time is limited.

or something like that

They don't have long, so they living it up as much as they can. You can go through all the small details if you all are really interested, but it boils down to this. Their lineage only goes so far, while we have no traceable birthdate.

They had their run, but time running out.

I do want to see how far you all can dig though.

Invasion theory has been debunked. There is still linguistic evidence that some pattern of migration did occur, but while most scholars simply modified their original thesis by changing "invasion," to "migration" from west to east, others began to question whether it could have been from east to west. There are very good arguments for both cases. Academia agrees that the oldest preserved indo-european language is the language of the Rig Veda, which has been preserved and passed down only in the subcontinent and nowhere else, and the Rig Veda doesn't mention anything about a homeland somewhere in the "caucus mountains" of Central Asia or anywhere else besides what we call India today. My own logic tells me that if the Aryans did originally come from Central Asia and spread their culture in opposite directions, "Aryan culture" should be as observable in European countries the same way it is observable on the subcontinent. But aside from language, it isn't.

The problem with getting to the truth behind things the massive ego on both sides. The subject has been taken hostage by Indo-centric crackpots who want to seize their chance at creating some bullshyt idealistic fantasy about how India is the cradle of civilization, and western academia who don't want to admit they were wrong on many of their initial assumptions.

This too, its hard to track down origins when they are trying to flex with fake history and/or fake evidence.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Tried telling everyone this. Europeans are nothing more than far west Asians.

The bigger, more surprising, though not entirely so, implication of this paper is that the Nordic phenotype was not brought to the north by a new people, but that it developed in situ through the mixing of peoples. The evidence from this, and other, papers is that Northern Europeans in the Bronze-Age were considerably darker in complexion and mien than they are today. That selection between the Bronze Age and the present has resulted in a sweeping up in frequencies of derived alleles which are strongly correlated with lighter skin, along with selection in other traits considered typical of Northern Europeans, such as the ability to digest milk sugar.

We now have some serious temporal transects of phenotypic change inferred from SNPs in very local regions across Europe, in Iberia, in Britain, and now in Estonia. These are very disparate regions, at three points in Europe. But they all seem to suggest the same thing: European populations became depigmented in situ after their overall genome-wide ancestry was established.

Inventing the whites, what hath fog wrought? – Gene Expression