HOME | DD
Arminius1871 — Indoeuropean migration
#anatolian #ancestors #celts #europa #europe #europeans #greek #italics #map #migration #thracian #germanics #balts #illyrians #europäisch #slavics #indoeuropeans #indogermanics #indogermanen
Published: 2014-11-05 21:32:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 13199; Favourites: 127; Downloads: 113
Redirect to original
Description
A map about the ancestors of the current european and partly asian ethnicities.Yep many are not aware, that the people who lived in the stone age in Europe,
are mostly not our ancestors, our ancestors are the Indoeuropeans that came just 3000-6000 years ago,
many thousand years after the last ice age. Of course they did partly mix up with the old Europeans.
The ones said to be closest to the old Europeans, are the Basques.
There are several theories, where the Indogermanics (as we call it in Germany) came from,
but the most used theory, is the South Russia theory. I made a quick map about it.
The main (not all!) groups of them were:
Europe:
Germanics, Slavs and Baltic
Celts
Italics, Illyrians
Greek, Thracians
Asia:
Anatolians, Armenians, Phrygians
Aryans --> Indo-Aryans (Yes Aryans really existed, but they were not what Hitler made out of them
they were just one of many tribes)
Tokharians (Died out for sure)
Iranians
Some of these ethnicities do not exist anymore, especially the ones in Asia.
Also it´s not sure, if for example only a small elite ruled India and Iran, and disappeared
after some centuries, and only the language was left.
It seems also, that many of the old high cultures had an indo-european influence,
when we are aware, that even Ramses II is related with most Europeans:
af.reuters.com/article/egyptNe…
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Eur…
Related content
Comments: 121
👍: 3 ⏩: 0
Nice try on mapping the delicate question of Indoeuropean origins. Let's keep in mind though, that the mere existence of the primitive "Indoeuropean" tribe is highly theoretical. All we can get as archeological evidence are traces of the occupation of this large Caucasian area by different nomadic tribes sharing a common culture, language, that started to spread later on in all directions, successfully imposing their own features upon the other tribes they met on their way.
This doesn't imply at all that these conquerors could be seen as a unified kingdom with a regular administration, a capital, an organized army and a global conquest strategy (you know, the kind of fantasy used by the racist promotors of the Indoeuropean theories...). Maybe those Indoeuropean tribes could be compared better, in their way of life, with much later groups such as the Huns or the Mongols, who also successfully conquered large territories in an impressively short amount of time. The difference would be that the Huns or the Mongols found on their way other people who already had strong cultures and a long history themselves, so the conquest was rather short-lived and the acculturation was not very deep - whereas the Indoeuropean tribes only invaded scarcely populated areas, or at least regions with poor human organization where their warriors could easily and definitely dominate.
Each one of these tribes did give birth to a large part of Indoeuropean cultures, which makes these different cultures still relatable between themselves nowadays, even in very different parts of the world, but that doesn't mean the original tribes were united in one single nation. I bet they spent most of their times fighting among themselves for some neighborhood problems, rather than making glorious plans in a concerted way to conquer the world and spread their so-called superior genes in every direction.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
How come the Phrygians took a completely different route from the Greeks, despite being closely related languages?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think they split away rather early.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So the Germanics and the Celts were two separate cultures?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes the Celts once lived in half of Europe, but when the Germanics living in Scandinavia and Northern Germany
broke the celtic ring around them, the Celts nearly disappeared everywhere, mostly assimilated I guess.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
To the people that said that we came from africa, can literaly go fuck a wood chipper.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well very very long ago, but we became so different, that you can´t really identify with it
today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Phrygian people was descending from Paleo-Balkanic language grouping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really did they move from the Balkan southeast?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
From somewhere around Macedon. Ancient Greeks noticed a tribe called Brygoi in that areas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting fact, only my reference said they were one of the main-groups.
Do you have a more accurate map somewhere maybe?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sorry to say but this isn't correct, these theories are pseudo-anthropology made by theorists who, well, don;t know much about anthropology.
For example, the Germanics, Celts, Slavs, and Balts all descend from the stone age culture of the Corded Ware peoples, who descended from other stone age groups.
Also, the most likely homeland for the Indo-European languages is Armenia, not Russia/Ukraine, and probably is connected to the earliest Homo-Sapiens (mixed with near eastern Neanderthals) to migrate into Europe as opposed to some "later invasion".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It´s surely difficult to find truth here, tho that people invaded from the Caucasus (you say from Armenia)
did definitly happen, there are several archological provements. But they surely mixed
up with the megalith people from the stoneage in Europe, too.
The Indoeuropeans came late, but were dominant then.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Aw thanks for the nice comment, I´m happy u like it^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Before we had the monolith men, the people that created stonehenge and Menhirs all over Europe,
and most of these people disappeared, or mixed up with the invading Indoeuropeans.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see. Would they be classed as Neanderthals then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No the Neanderthals were already dead at that time, they were just other kinds
of homo sapiens, some say the Basques are the most similar to them.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Then would the present 'whites' of Europe have inherited their 'whiteness' mainly from these Monolith-people, or was this a characteristic of the Indo-Europeans or both?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The indoeuropean blood is dominant, but we´re all mixed with
these monolith people. But since nearly all monolith languages
did disappear completely (only tiny rests like Basque still exist),
it seems that it was a violent invasion and no peaceful mixing.
It is said however, that the oldest germanic language already
contained 1/3 words of unknown heritage.
+ some Europeans have Neanderthaler genes.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Are the white brunettes considered Aryans?
I think that the Aryans are based on skull structure rather hair and eye color.
Any opinions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
the nose is a very distinctive feature for aryans
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
If you don't like it, ignore it. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course, also black haired are Europids, we have a big diversity.
We have the nordic type, the mediterranean type, dinaric, slavic...
Many are missinformed, even Adolf considered all Europeans as one folk (except East Slavs),
he only said the nordic type is the best of them and shall become more.
This is not what I say, just what I know! I don´t wanna offend anyone,
it´s just what they said in old times. I respect and like all Europeans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not yet but many on DA told me about it, I think it will become even a series?
Maybe I can watch it then^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah money is always a problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
good
and yes, thats true
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is indeed a very interesting subject. I undertook some dna mapping (inside mouth swabs) to determine the likely tribal ancestral routes (I've always lived UK) of my mother/father and, including the fact that I have light blue eyes and was golden blonde haired until I was two, the most likely route of my ancestors is, Paternal: Scandonavian/Norse 1000-2000 years ago, Germanic 2000-4000 years ago, north/eastern Mesopotamia/Kurdish (possibly eye colour change mutation/s to blue as female genes exert themselves {remember Darwin's Finches?!?} to become more competitive over brown eyed females) 4000/6000 years ago which then goes Indo 6000/10000 years ago, then Arabian Peninsula 20000-40000 years ago and finally African at 55000-75000 years ago. My maternal line goes Saxon through northern France (Gual) and then southern Gual to Spain then gets lost a bit on mother's line at around 4000 years ago. Our route/s from Africa are really interesting to me, as it is possible that only a hundred or maybe up to a thousand of our early ancestors left the African continent in search of whatever they were in search of, and they become mostly us Europeans, with a split or two into Asia and other regions therein. The Toba super-eruption around 77000 years ago might well have been responsible for (some of) our ancestors decision to leave Africa and find more suitable regions to live and survive more comfortably in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That´s possible indeed, some say the blue eye modification was developed when our ancestors lived at the Black Sea/ Caucasus region.
However I also read noone can explain yet, how the Nordics could develop the blonde hair and blue eyes in majority, since these genes are
recessive and it would need many generations of isolation, which we didn´t have after the ice age.
So some have the theory, it was because blondes were more attractive to men and so the number of them increased.
Today the number of Whites is declining, and there is a migration into that countries, so noone knows if they will still exist in the future.
The slavics however have a better situation, they are still rather homogenous.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The genes for blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive but are in no way in danger of been lost, neither is the white skin tone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well don´t know if you have a clue what´s going on in Europe,
but we have the worst fertility rate of our whole history, the Europeans decline
every generation on 1/3 of their population. At the same time it is flooded
with people from oriental states or Africa.
Following easy maths, and with the information that more than 50% of the new born in the USA
are non-whites, the Whites will become a tiny minority (they´re already a minority) or even decline
completely within this or the next century.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fertility rate thing has been proven to not be 100% reliable and the general trend it was showing for Europe in any case was what's called zero population growth where the population reaches a roughly stable point where it isn't growing or declining to much eg a sustainable population, it happens with the immigrants too after a few generations although the constant immigration does upset things.
I also don't see the issue with oriental immigrants since they tend to be fairly highly skilled and even if they don't fully integrate are not normally trouble makers, it's the African and Arabic populations that tend to bring the crime and violence and even then it's not universal either. Still if Europeans have a problem with the large number of immigrants and refuges coming into an already crowded continent which is a valid point I do wonder why they aren't more vocal about it and why the government doesn't listen.
I'm guessing it's an EU issue which doesn't surprise me since I dislike the EU in general at least as far as it concerns the UK which should be moving away from Europe and forging closer and renewed ties to it's Commonwealth, particularly the so called White Dominions of New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hope we won´t get a problem, but many fear it here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fair enough, if I lived in Europe I might be concerned as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I see this vid an feel bad :/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5h…
It seems like modern governments have no interest in rising our fertility rate, but replace the whole native nation
with others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Beautiful map, we can see how far in Asia the indo-european languages were spoken, until the turkic people, coming from East Asia, have invaded all of Central Asia and Anatolia (so, throughout history, the colonizers were not only Europeans ^^)
Congratulations
To add some information for your old discussion, a new book in France has been published and it is written that 18% of the population are extraeuropean (with French nationality or not) but 40% of births are extraeuropean.
If the situation does not change (fertility rates do not change and there is no future immigration), the extra-european people wil become the majority before 2050. And it's obvious that immigration will continue, maybe will increase with climate change.
If this happens in France, it will be the same everywhere in Western Europe ...
And politicians do not ask the people whether they agree or disagree.
Sorry for my English, I am French and, like a lot of French people, I am not very good in English ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That´s true, I wish France to solve the problem as well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You can't force a fertility rate to go up and I don't see why a government would willing do something like that, if it's culture is changing it's because the government isn't paying attention to it. At any rate that Eurabia video has been around for ages now and it's produced by scaremongers, it's been refuted several times by major demographics researchers from several nations and institutes etc.
Fertility rates are notoriously hard to gage so most of them are only somewhat accurate, like I said before the most western populations are still producing sustainable numbers of children it's just that the post war baby boom population is dying off an the number of children that was common back then is not today as the average family has two children and sometimes three. It's heading towards zero population growth where the numbers don't really go up or down and that's actually a good thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>