RSS
Recent films about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler). Recent films about ancient Rome, such as Gladiator and HBO’s series Rome, have done the same (e.g. Russell Crowe). Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?
Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.
A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).
Scholars today recoil at this pre-1960s consensus. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, written in 1996, scoffs at the “undoubtedly dubious racial theories underlying much of this reconstruction,” but offers no theory to replace it, conceding only that “the origin of the Greeks remains a much-debated subject.” The Penguin author makes this startling admission, however: “Many of the ideas of racial origins were developed in the 19th century and, although they may have had some foundation in historical tradition, archaeology or linguistics, they were often combined with more dubious presumptions.” The author fails to list these dubious presumptions. Beth Cohen, author of Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (2000), asserts that the Thracians, distant cousins of the Greeks, had “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Ancient Greeks.”
In fact, there was a good basis for the 1911 Britannica to write about blonds in Thebes. Thebes was the leading city of Boeotia, a rich agricultural region in south-central Greece. Fragments from an ancient 150 BC travelogue describe the women of Thebes as “the tallest, prettiest, and most graceful in all of Hellas. Their yellow hair is tied up in a knot on the top of their head.” Pindar, a fifth century Theban lyric poet, refers to the Greeks as “the fair-haired Danaoi,” using a poetical name for the Hellenes. Likewise, in his Partheneia, or “Maiden Songs,” the seventh century BC Spartan poet Alcman, praised the beauty of Spartan female athletes, with their “golden hair” and “violet eyes.” He also wrote of Spartan women with “silver eyes,” meaning light gray. The seventh-century BC Greek poet Archilochus praises the “yellow hair” of one of his lovers, and Sappho — also of the seventh century BC — writes of her “beautiful daughter, golden like a flower.”
As late as the fourth century AD, Adamantius, an Alexandrian physician and scientist, wrote in his Physiognominica, that “of all the nations the Greeks have the fairest eyes,” adding, that “wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see tall men of fairly broad and straight build,… of fairly light skin, and blond.” Several centuries of mixing had presumably changed the racial character of many Greeks, but blonds still survived, and Xanthos, which means “yellow” in Greek, was a common personal name.
Professor Nell Painter of Princeton, author of The History of White People (see “Whiting Out White People,” AR, July 2010), complains that “not a few Westerners have attempted to racialize antiquity, making ancient history into white race history.” She points out that the Greeks often painted their marble statues — “the originals were often dark in color” — that the paint wore off over time, and Europeans mistakenly concluded from the white marble that the Greeks were white.
Yes, the Greeks painted their statues, but the originals were not dark. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, from the Greek city of Knidos, was the most famous and most copied statue in the ancient world. Hundreds of copies survive. Experts have determined from microscopic paint particles that Aphrodite was painted blonde. The Romans had their own name for this goddess, Venus, and likewise her “cult images” were ubiquitous and “painted with pale-coloured flesh and golden-blonde hair” (see Joanna Pitman’s On Blondes, 2003).
Phidias’ masterwork, the Athena Parthenos, stood in the Parthenon for nearly 1,000 years until it was lost, probably in the 5th century AD. When American sculptor Alan LeQuire set out to make a faithful copy for the full-scale Parthenon replica in Nashville’s Centennial Park he modeled it on descriptions of the original work. The 42-foot-tall Athena, unveiled in 1990, has light skin, blue eyes, and golden hair (see photo above).
Many small terra-cotta figurines from Greece of the fourth century BC have survived with traces of paint. They show light hair, usually reddish brown, and blue eyes, as do larger statues from the time of the Persian Wars in the early fifth century BC. Even a cursory examination of ancient marble reliefs, statues, and busts reveals European features. Many of the faces could just as easily be those of Celtic chieftains or Viking kings.
There is more evidence of the appearance of the Greeks. Xenophanes, an Ionian Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC, was amused to note that different peoples believed that the gods look like themselves: “Our gods have flat noses and black skins, say the Ethiopians. The Thracians (despite Prof. Cohen’s observations above) say our gods have red hair and hazel eyes.” Indeed, a fourth century BC fresco of a Thracian woman, found in the Ostrusha Mound in central Bulgaria, shows distinctly red hair and European features.
The Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) called Troy the “land of fair women.” According to the Roman historian Diodorus Sicilus, who lived in the first century BC, the Egyptian god Set had “reddish hair,” a color that was “rare in Egypt, but common among the Hellenes.” Plutarch (46–120 AD) tells us that while the Theban general Pelopidas (d. 364 BC) was campaigning in central Greece, he had a dream in which a ghost urged him to sacrifice a red-haired virgin if he wished to be victorious in the next day’s battle.
Two racial types
There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type. These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all, and who built an impressive civilization on the island of Crete. The Pelasgians, which is the name later Greeks gave to the pre-Hellenic population of mainland Greece, were also dark. They tended to have black, curly hair and olive-shaped eyes. Their type is plainly visible on many Attic (Athenian) vases, and has lead some scholars to conclude that all Greeks looked as they did.
Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek — the linear A inscriptions of the Minoans have still not been deciphered — so the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley. According to Greek national myth, the Hellenes were descended from Hellen (not to be confused with Helen of Troy), the son of Deucalion. Hellen had sons and grandsons, who correspond to the four main tribal divisions of ancient Greece: the Aeolians Achaeans, Ionians, and Dorians.
Scholars today tend to dismiss such myths but they would not have survived if they had not been generally consistent with the long folk memories of ancient peoples. In this case they point to what classical scholars have long believed was a series of Hellenic descents upon mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The first Hellenes to arrive were the Ionians and Aeolians; then a few centuries later, the Achaeans, and finally the Dorians.
The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek. Linear B, which began to dominate Cretan culture around 1500 BC, has been deciphered and found to be an early form of Greek. Around the year 1200 BC this culture, known as Mycenaean, collapsed; its cities were destroyed and abandoned, and Greece entered a 400-year Dark Age. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions probably played a part in the destruction, and later Greeks attributed it to invasions from the north. Waves of Hellenic warriors swept down and burned the Mycenaean citadels and became the ruling race in Greece. They also sacked the city of Troy, and Homer’s Iliad is about them. They also seem to have snuffed out much of Mycenaean culture: Greeks stopped writing, and abandoned the arts, urban life, and trade with the outside world.
We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again. It recounts events some four to five hundred years earlier. Although we think of the poem as being about the Greeks, Homer’s warrior heroes belong to the Achaean nobility, which suggests that it was the Achaeans who overthrew Mycenaean civilization, not the Dorians, who would descend upon Greece and displace the Achaeans a hundred years later. Archeology confirms this supposition, for Troy was burned around 1200 BC, and the traditional date for the Trojan War is 1184 BC. The Dorian invasion is dated by various ancient historians at 1149, 1100, or 1049 BC.
There is good reason to think that Homer was recording stories handed down during the Dark Age. He was a bard who lived in Ionia, a region on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey, and if he were making the stories up he would have claimed that the heroes were Ionian. Instead, he sings praises to the light-haired Achaean nobility: Achilles, their greatest warrior, has “red-gold hair,” Odysseus, their greatest strategist, has “chestnut hair,” his wife Penelope has “white cheeks the color of pure snow,” Agamede, a healer and expert on medicinal plants, is “blonde,” and King Menelaus of Sparta, the husband of Helen, has “red hair.” Helen, likewise, has “fair hair,” and even slave girls are light-skinned: “fair-tressed Hecamede,” “fair-cheeked Chryseis,” and “blonde Briseis.” This is significant, for if even some of the slaves were blond it would mean the Nordic type was not unique to the Achaeans, that it was present elsewhere in the Aegean world.
Homer (and Pindar) describe most of the Olympian gods and goddesses as fair haired and “bright eyed,” meaning blue, grey or green. The goddess Demeter has “blond” or “yellow hair,” as does Leto, mother of Apollo, who is also described as “golden haired.” Aphrodite has “pale-gold” hair, and Athena is known as “the fair, bright-eyed one” and the “grey-eyed goddess.” Two of the gods, Poseidon and Hephaestus, are described as having black hair. As noted above, Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves.
It was the Dorians, the last Greek invaders, who ended Achaean rule and probably provoked a mass migration of Aeolian and Ionian Hellenes — no doubt including Homer’s ancestors — across the Aegean Sea to the coast of Asia Minor. The Dorians who settled in the fertile valley of the Eurotas in the southern Peloponnesus were the direct ancestors of the Spartans of the classical age, and they claimed to be the only pure Dorians.
Werner Jaeger, Director of the Institute of Classical Studies at Harvard, writes:
“The national type of the invader remained purest in Sparta. The Dorian race gave Pindar his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent, which he used to describe not only the Homeric Menelaus, but the greatest Greek hero, Achilles, and in fact all the ‘fair-haired Danaeans’ [another name for the Achaeans who fought at Troy] of the heroic age” (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 1939).
The classical Greeks made no claim to being autochthones, that is to say, “of the earth,” or the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, they took pride in being epeludes, the descendants of later settlers or conquerors. Two notable exceptions were the Arcadians and the Athenians, whose rocky soils presumably offered little temptation to armed colonizers. The historian Herodotus (484-420 BC) recorded that the Athenians were “a Pelasgian people [who] had occupied Attica and never moved from it,” as were the Arcadians. Language lends support to this view, for both the Athenians and Arcadians spoke unique dialects. They learned Greek from the northern invaders but retained Pelasgian elements.
Thus, classical Greece was a fusion, both cultural and racial, of these two types of whites. Some city-states, such as Thebes and Sparta, were predominantly Nordic. Others, such as Athens, were predominantly Mediterranean, and still others were mixtures of the two.
The Roman patricians
Nell Painter, author of the above-mentioned History of White People, finds it “astonishing” that the American Nordicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) argued in The Passing of the Great Race(1916) that the Roman nobility was of Nordic origin, yet there is good evidence for this view. There are many lavishly illustrated books about ancient Rome with examples of death masks, busts, and statues that clearly depict the Roman patricians not simply as Europeans but as northern European.
R. Peterson’s fine study, The Classical World (1985), which includes an analysis of 43 Greek, and 32 Roman figures, is persuasive. Dr. Peterson explains that the Romans painted their death masks to preserve the color, as well as the shape, of their ancestors’ faces. Blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexions are common. A good example of racial type is the famous portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, which dates from the fourth century BC. Brutus’ face is identifiably Germanic, and so is the color of his eyes. The sculptor used ivory for the whites and blue glass for the pupils. Or take the famous marble head of a patrician woman from the late first century AD, which is often included in illustrated surveys of imperial Rome to demonstrate the fashion for curled hair. Her features are typically northern European: a delicate, aquiline nose, high cheekbones, and a face angular and long rather than round. Another classic example is the famous fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii, which shows four women undergoing ritual flagellation. They are tall, light-skinned, and brown-haired.
There is also evidence from Roman names. Rutilus means “red, gold, auburn” and stems from the verb rutilo, which means “to shine with a reddish gleam.” Rufus, meaning red, was a common Roman cognomen or nickname used for a personal characteristic, such as red hair. The Flavians were an aristocratic clan whose family name was derived from flavus, meaning golden-yellow. The Flaminians were another noble family whose clan name came fromflamma, meaning flame, suggesting red hair.
According to Plutarch, Marcus Porcius Cato had “red hair and grey eyes,” Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the general and dictator, had “blue-grey eyes and blond hair,” and Gaius Octavius (Augustus), the first Roman emperor, had “bright eyes and yellow hair.” Recent analysis of an ancient marble bust of the emperor Caligula found particles of the original pigment trapped in the stone. Experts have restored the colors to show that the demented ruler had ruddy skin and red hair.
The love poetry of Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid, (43 BC to AD 17) offers much evidence of the color of upper-class Roman women during the early years of the empire. That Ovid ascribes blond hair to many goddesses — Aurora, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, and Venus — tells us something about the Roman ideal of beauty; that he describes many of his lovers the same way tells us that the Nordic type was still found in imperial Rome. “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned,” he writes in his Amores of 15 BC, but “brunettes make marvelous lovers too.” He admires the contrast of “dark-tresses against a snow-white neck,” and adores young girls who blush. One of his favorite lovers is “tall” with a “peaches-and-cream complexion,” “ivory cheeks,” and “bright eyes.” Another was a “smart Greek blonde.”
So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races. The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes — Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti — who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.
What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery. Protracted internecine war was devastating. The Hellenes lost relatively few men in their two wars with the Persian Empire (490, 480-479 BC), but they were decimated by the ruinous series of inter-Hellenic wars that followed. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) pitted Athens and her subject Ionian cities against the Spartan Dorian confederacy. That was followed by 35 years of intermittent warfare between Sparta and Thebes (396-362 BC), which pitted Nordics against Nordics. These wars so weakened the Greek republics that they fell under Macedonian rule about 20 years later (338 BC), bringing to an end the classical age of Greece.
Money was, as always, a racial solvent. Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”
The Roman experience was similarly tragic. All of her later historians agreed that the terrible losses inflicted by Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) were minor compared to the horrendous losses Rome inflicted on herself during the nearly 100 years of civil war that followed the murder of the reforming Tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.
Immigration was the inevitable backwash of imperialism as slaves, adventurers, and traders swarmed into Rome. Over time, slaves were freed, foreigners gave birth to natives, non-Romans gained citizenship, and legal and social sanctions against intermarriage fell away. By the early empire, all that was left of the original Roman stock were a few patrician families.
The historian Appian lamented that “the city masses are now thoroughly mixed with foreign blood, the freed slave has the same rights as a native-born citizen, and those who are still slaves look no different from their masters.” Scipio Aemilianus (185–129 BC), a statesman and general of the famed clan of the Aemilii, called these heterogeneous subjects “step-children of Rome.”
One hundred and fifty years later, Horace (65–8 BC) wrote in Book III of the Odes:
Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs
Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.
The last Roman writers therefore came to see their own people as both morally and physically degenerate. The subtext of Tacitus’ (56-117 AD) ethnological treatise Germania is a longing for the northern vigor and purity the Romans had lost. He saw the Gauls and Germans as superior to the Romans in morals and physique, and Roman women shared this admiration. Blond hair became the rage, and German and Gaulic slave women were shorn of their blond or reddish-brown hair to make wigs for wealthy women. By the time of Tertullian (160-225 AD), so many Roman women were dying their hair that he complained, “they are even ashamed of their country, sorry that they were not born in Germany or Gaul.” In the early second century AD, the satirist Juvenal complained of the dwindling stock of “the bluest patrician blood,” which is a figurative phrase for the nobility, whose veins appear blue through their light skin.
Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves. In both Europe and America, patriotic young men slaughtered each other in terrible fratricidal wars. In North America, the descendents of slaves are the majority in many great cities. Both continents have paid for imperial ambitions with mass immigration of aliens. Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?
Mr. Sims is an historian and a native of Kentucky.
Well, there’s much debate on this point, but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos. The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.
You seem to think all blonde/red-haired and light-skinned whites were Nordic.
Maybe not.
Just look at the facial features of the ancient Greeks in statues. Whatever their hair color and skin tone may have been, they had markedly different faces from the Nordics.
I’ve seen a bunch of light-skinned Greeks with blonde or lighter-colored hair, and they don’t look Nordic. And Greek blonde hair has different hues than the Nordic kind that is more golden and metallic. Greek blonde is either plain yellow or almost white yellow. It generally lacks the metallic glint of Nordic blonde.
Even light-skinned Greek women have faces that are broader and fleshier.
I’ve seen many light-skinned Greeks with the facial feature of Huffington. They don’t look Nordic.
At any rate, what does it matter? Most of Europe will be Africanized soon enough.
In Ancient Rome, the idiot Romans brought black Africans to serve as slaves and to fight as gladiators, and these Negroes humped white women, even elite women who developed jungalo fever. Thankfully the decadent Romans fell and Germanic barbarian Europeans swept through all of Italy.
Romans were great at their peak, but they got too expansive, diverse, and decadent. They had to go in order for Europe to survive. If Romans had survived, succeeded, and conquered all of Europe and then exported tons of people from Africa and the Middle East, all of Europe would have been Arabized and Africanized during ancient times.
Though the fall of Rome was tragic, it may have saved Europe from the Roman enterprise of ‘global’ diversity.
If Rome had survived, Romans would have imported more blacks and Semites to Rome and then those people would have followed the Romans in the conquest up north. In time, even northern Europe would have been made ‘diverse’ with Africans and Semites imported into Italy.
But northern barbarians sacked Rome and saved Europe. The Dark Ages were unpleasant, but even the Dark Ages were worth it if it kept the Dark People out.
So, the only thing that can save Europe today is the rise of white neo-barbarism. When the elites grow decadent and commit to ‘diversity’ than to serving their own people, they must be brought down. And this downfall must be carried out by the native neo-barbarian hordes.
Because Europe is now ruled by decadent elites who suck up to global Jews, the EU is doing nothing as it is being invaded by the massive hordes of Africans and Arabs. If there is no neo-barbarian white uprising, expect African men to hump every blonde and turn Europe mulatto while white men are reduced to pansy-ass cucks like Ken Burns and Rand Paul, the ‘Detroit Republican’ .
With the decadent elites not defending Europe, the West is falling to the Arab barbarian migrants and African savage hordes. The only force that can defend Europe and push the foreigners/invaders out is the native neo-barbarians who say WHAT THE FUC* and take up arms and take to the streets and use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to roll back the tide, sack the elites, and create a new order.
“There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. ”
If you visit Greece today you’ll see there still are blondes (Check the men as a lot of women in Greece is as blonde as Milo Yiannopoulos). You also see quite some blue eyes.
Irene Papas, she had the classic Greek look.
You can’t look any more Greek than Maria Callas.
Claudia Cardinale has features that could belong to any number of Greek or Roman statues.
Anna Vissi, classic Greek beauty
Macedonian art has multiple depictions of characters with red hair:
Macedonian Burial mound complex at Amphipolis:
-Abduction of Persephone by Pluto
-Abduction of Persephone by Pluto
–Abduction of Persephone by Pluto, Persephone
–Abduction of Persephone by Pluto, Pluto
Macedonian Palace of Pella:
-Lion Hunt
-Lion Hunt
-Stag Hunt
-Amazonomachy
Macedonian Amphipolis Casta Tomb at Vergina
-Hades abducting Persephone
-Hades abducting Persephone
–Hades abducting Persephone, chariot
–Hades abducting Persephone, Hades
–Hades abducting Persephone, Persephone
Site with descriptions of alexander the Great:
The way to finally settle the question is to test ancient DNA.
Greek and Roman ancient DNA from the time period in question, is abundantly available.
However, the “demise” of the nordics in the South of Europe may not be caused by immigration. Genetic studies show Thracians to be made of two different stocks, where the upper class burial showed more affinity to eastern Europeans and a normal burial more with Sardians.
This hints on a Indo-European upperclass coming from the steppes – as the Kurgan theory goes – rules over locals not unlike current day Mediterraneans.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2014/05/more-info-on-two-thracian-genomes-from.html
In which case it would make perfect sense Narcissus was Nordic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_%28mythology%29
In the context of this article, that would explain a lot.
I am Italian and I have black hair and brown eyes. So Harrison Sims are you saying none of the ancient Romans had features like me? What is your theory for when darker Italians like me started popping up? After the Moors invaded Italy?
What will surprise no one here is that many of these same quotes can be found in the modern academic literature, only with careful expurgations.
Likewise few will be surprised that the learned scholar behind the present essay will not find employment in any of our august institutions of higher education. He’s an apostate, plain and simple, and the fact that he not only relates facts but seeks to uncover hidden truth is at best irrelevant.
Finally, this excellent piece is more proof that we need to save hard copy of vintage histories. Many are presently out of favor and out of print, and in danger of being erased from the public record. FWIW, I maintain a large library, most of which is unavailable online.
This is an interesting article. My modern history of Greece and Turkey is pretty… non-existent… but I always under the impression that there was some kind of invasion of Greece by darker-skinned peoples very close to modern times. Didn’t peoples from Turkey blow up some monuments in Athens?
I wonder what the Romans had to say about the Germanic peoples on first meeting them. If the Romans were Nordic, I suspect they would have recognized the Germanic tribes as “long-lost brethren”. What do, for example, Caesar’s histories say about the appearances? Do they just describe blondes, or do they say things like “blondes resembling X people who we know”…?
Bizarre that there’s so much disagreement over a basic fact. Simply look at ancient Greek and Roman sculpture and you’ll see faces entirely unlike those of today–especially in the case of Greeks. Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter.
The closer to the steppe, the closer to the original Indo-European physical type if there was any to speak of.
Thus Dorians, fresh from the North, were by all accounts truer to this type. While Ionians such as Athenians were a mixed bag, with a heavy Pelasgian Mediterranean substrate.
To what extent were elites in Greece and Rome less admixed with the previous Med population than commoners? Only genetics will answer the question.
At any rate, both Julius Caesar and Tacitus found Germanic tribes exotic in body and mind. Indo-European invasions were a long time ago. Even the relatively close Latin and Celtic tongues were mutually unintelligible during the times Rome and Celts clashed.
I tend to adhere to a mild nordicist point of view: Greeks and Romans were thoroughly different genetically in classical times from northerly i.e. populations, but they were lucky enough to pick up the right high IQ and perhaps other beneficial genes from the North to wipe out the competition in the Mediterranean and beyond. In that, they were no different from modern European Mediterraneans, perhaps even phenotypically.
‘Blond’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Nordic’–the racial types we’re familiar with are likely different from those that existed in the ancient era due to hundreds of years of invasions and mixing. We don’t know how many times the blond-hair mutation arose independently.
I get the subtext–Nordic types are responsible for all the civilization we love–but what if your theory doesn’t hold up with genetic evidence? Seems to me white civilization has enough to recommend it without theories about the ancient world. We know what happens when it wanes–look at Detroit.
Does Razib have anything to add? He’s the expert here.
Very good article. Thanks.
This screed could be true, or it could be nonsense. DNA from ancient burials will settle the question soon enough.
I would keep an eye on Dienekes’ blog. He deals in real science.
Read the article:
I swear, I think the penis must be a target that cannot be resisted whenever anyone encountered one of these statues in the times after anyone cared about them, and when they started caring again.
Or maybe they are just prone to fracturing. But I can just picture a drunken yahoo circa 500 AD saying “Hey guys, look at this!” WHACK
On a recent trip to Greece I don’t recall seeing any naturally blondes, though there were plenty of bottle-blondes – an affectation which has something to do with wanting to be ‘European’.
Not sure I’m convinced by this Nordic theory though. Artistic depictions of ancient Greeks don’t quite look like modern Greeks, but at the same time they don’t look Nordic either.
Lower average temperatures occurred at 1000 and 3000BC. And 10000BC the continent was coming out of an Ice Age. Maybe this accounted for some lightening
http://resiliencesystem.org/insights-past-millennia-climatic-impacts-human-health-and-survival-0
There’s a similar theory that Ancient Greek myths come from the Baltic:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales
Seems highly dubious to me; for classical Greeks and Romans the northern barbarians were the “Other” and it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find statements contrasting their appearance with that of the Romans (e.g. the elder Pliny in his Natural History). And what’s the implication of that thesis? That modern Italians and Greeks aren’t “white”? I think that’s a very dangerous claim, especially from a “white nationalist” perspective. Can Europeans and European-descended peoples really afford in-fighting because of some Nordicist phantasms? I don’t think so.
I don’t see what the controversy is. It makes total sense.
Northern barbarians have never created a civilization on their own, but have invaded more intelligent and talented southerners who disdained fighting and the resulting fusion created a new civilization.
Its notable that those fair haired Hellen es were an obscure people before they mixed with the darker people’s of the south.
If you had to choose between living among those fair haired northern Hellenes in their rude forests or among the gracious and civilized minoans you’d choose the latter.
However, the northern Hellen barbarians added a not invaluable mix to the brew of southern civilization.
Nordic people’s add a good element to other people but on their own seem not to be worth much. This pattern can be tracked to every European. Ulture where Nordic came.
It seems to me that that the southern Germans (Bavaria, Baden, Switzerland, Austria) who are darker and presumably with more Celtic ancestry are these days more economically successful than the northern Germans who are fairer and more Nordic. Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world.
I think the Romans described the Germans and Celts as fair-haired. I can understand the first but the second seems strange now.
The Macedonians under Alexander were noted for their horsemanship and shock cavalry. Shouldn’t we take into account the eastern steppe origins of this type of warfare when understanding the racial admixture of Greeks? Surely, as noted above, there is a great deal of eastern influence and origin to these warrior tribes.
“After the Moors invaded Italy?”
You’re part eggplant.
“they were lucky enough to pick up the right high IQ and perhaps other beneficial genes from the North to wipe out the competition in the Mediterranean and beyond.”
What? Back in those days, neighboring peoples of the Greeks were just as accomplished in the arts and warfare. In cultural terms, the rise of Greece had more to do with learning from Near Eastern and North African cultures.
And Greeks never wiped out the competition. Sometimes Greeks won, sometimes they lost.
“Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter”
If their hair was really that curly, that often, then it would probably be either red or black. If the hair was red (orange), the eyes would be light and the skin pale; like men from the mountains above Milan (or if red-brown then hazel eyes and not such pale skin, like Federer perhaps). If the hair was black, the eyes would probably be dark and the skin likely olive; like the Fayum portraits.
Southern Europeans were never the same as Northern Europeans, and there are mosaics that show Ancient Romans as having brown eyes and brown hair. There were always higher concentrations of fairer skinned people in the North, and yet they were far less advanced and civilized than Southern Europe.
The author is clever. I notice for one, he omits the description of Octavian’s skin color. “Between light and dark”. I’m quite sure no-one would be mistaking him for a Nordic if they got a look.
Either way, the statues/busts don’t lie. At least in the Roman case, once can quite clearly see that these are not “nordics” according to the common definition. Celtic/Slavic would be a better descriptor. Hey, and if you happen to pass by Rome or Florence one day, you’ll find numerous living citizens that are doppelgangers to those Emperors.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/the-race-of-ancient-greeks-and-romans/
Argument has spread to here.
I hesitated about agreeing because you have made a novel point to me. So “interesting”. But it might take a bit more than the comparatively higher level of culture – actual civilisation indeed – to prove that the southerners were more “intelligent” in a genetically determined way. Maybe more intelligent in the way that 2015 Irish are compared with those whose average IQ was measured at 87 in 1972. But I take you to be saying more than that. Jared Diamond would no doubt disagree with you because the northerners simply didn’t have the good fortune to be surrounded by whatever originally allowed Middle Eastern and Egyptian civilisations to take off.
The author seems to be using Nordic as a synonym for white or Aryan (Indo-European). If we followed his lead, we’d have to invent a new word for those currently called Nordic (the Scandinavians). What’s the point of that? No one seriously claims that post Minoan Greeks and post Etruscan Italians are not Indo-European. As for invaders or settlers coming from the north, that’s the only way to get to Greece unless it’s a sea-borne invasion. That doesn’t mean that they came all the way from what is now Scandinavia. It just indicates that the Greeks, Latins, Nordics, and other Aryan groups had common ancestors at some time in the past.
This is a goofy article. It shouldn’t be surprising some ancient Greeks and Romans were blond, because there are plenty of blond people in those countries today too. And there are plenty of dark eyed brunettes present in Northern Europe. Just because blonds are more common in Northern Europe does not mean the blonds are a separate race. Just because blond hair was idealized in goddesses does not mean the majority of the population was blond.
Blue eyes are common among Greeks especially. In the Greek-American community near me, blue and green eyes seem predominant.
Also nothing about the busts screams “Nordic.” They could really fit anywhere in Europe. It’s not like northern and central Italians have saudi facial features today.
Europeans don’t need another civilizations to success, the opposite is true. Both Europeans can develop all alone and when they mix when others they loose
Congratulations on being the first on this thread to spell the English word “blond” correctly.
Now please work on “brunet”.
That in and of itself doesn’t tell us anything. Some of these people were saying that not just the Greeks and Romans but the Egyptians, Arabs, Muhammad and Genghis Khan were Nordic:
http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/nordicegypt.htm
http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/nordicarabs.htm
http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/genghis.htm
Greece was heads and shoulders at its intellectual peak, arguably during the Hellenistic period, above anything the Middle East, including Egypt, ever accomplished.
Greeks figuratively wiped out their competition while the Romans did it literally.
As I said, pending DNA analysis, I don’t expect ancient Greeks and Romans to have been significantly different from today. But I believe they got an IQ boost from the North. In recent times, from the Germanic invasions. In the Bronze Age, from Indo-Europeans.
“So Harrison Sims are you saying none of the ancient Romans had features like me?”
No, he’s not saying that. Here’s what he said, “There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between.” and “So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races.” etc.
As a matter of fact, Alcibiades was suspected of having done just that to the Athenian household Hermes statues in a drunken revel, a deed for which he was sentenced to death, in absentia.
Brilliant movie. Also featuring the first transracial person!
I tend to agree that the use of the term “Nordic” in this article is rather ambiguous and probably not the best choice. The overwhelming textual evidence regarding the appearance of the Classical Greeks and Romans focuses on their apparent coloration, especially with regard to their hair and eye-colors, and seems to indicate they probably looked much more like today’s Northern Europeans than today’s Southern Europeans. But since I think Northern Slavics are about as likely to be blond and blue-eyed as Germanics or Scandinavians, it doesn’t really help us with those fine distinctions. And although I’m absolutely no expert, the features on those statues seem a bit wider than the stereotypical narrow-faced “Nordic type” and perhaps a bit more like the wider-faced “Alpines.” So I think it might be better to use a slightly different and broader classification and say that the Ancients probably looked much more like “Nords” than like “Meds,” though obviously not exactly like either of those modern-day categories.
As I mentioned a few days ago in a comment on a different thread, none of this should really surprise us. After all, pretty much everyone agrees that the Ancient Greeks—Achaicans, Ionians, and Dorians—were mostly the descendents of Indo-European tribes that swept down out of the north and conquered that part of Southern Europe, much like their Keltic and Germanic cousins were to do some centuries later in various other places. So shouldn’t we naturally expect them to have looked a lot like those other Northern peoples, being fair-skinned, with blond hair and blue eyes quite common?
Well put. “much like their Keltic and Germanic cousins were to do some centuries later” when Goths (whose name derived from Gotland in Sweden) both conquered and eventually blended in with the Romans and peoples of Spain.
Respectfully Jason Sims you really ought to leave historical genetics to the experts. It is a new field, it isn’t a slight if you don’t know much about it, it is a new developing field of science.
When Unz review’s own Razib Khan talks about historical genetics he does so as a fact based scientist discussing the actual evidence. What we are on the verge of possessing is data libraries of ancient DNA which scientists can interpret to make fact based conclusions about when, where, and to what degree one population was replaced by another. We live in interesting times because historical genetics (it is such a new field I don’t know what to call it) is allowing us accurate pictures into our hidden past.
The time of pointing at a statue and saying “hey that classical greek guy sure looks nordic to me” as the final word are gladly coming to an end.
” After all, pretty much everyone agrees that the Ancient Greeks—Achaicans, Ionians, and Dorians—were mostly the descendents of Indo-European tribes ”
I’m not sure if that’s actually uncontroversial. Greek has a lot of non-IE words, there must have been a substantial pre-IE substrate.
Frankly, I don’t think Mr Sims’ article adds anything worthwhile, it seems to be just a rehash of the sort of Nordicism popular a hundred years ago with historians like Tenney Frank. You’ve got some very interesting and knowledgeable bloggers here like Razib Khan…but other contributors seem to be pretty low-quality (and sometimes crazy). Maybe you should be a bit more discriminating in your choice of authors.
That Amphipolis Casta Tomb looks like a mural. In which case the hair colour could be due to age decay in paint colour. The same colour can be found in the chariot, for instance.
Harrison Simian says Athenians were the least Nordic of the Greeks.
We need to remember that Athenians were the most imaginative, innovative, and inventive.
So the notion that Greeks needed Nordic blood to achieve stuff is far-fetched if we use Simian’s logic.
Also, Persians were a great people too. As were the Ancient Egyptians(before they turned too Negro-ish).
Anyway, Nordicist thinkers argued that just about everything great was achieved by ‘Aryans’ who were supposedly Nordic-like(even if not originated in Nordic nations). Hitler, for example, argued that even the original Egyptians were ‘Aryans’.
This seems crackpot.
One thing for sure, Greeks were a European-Caucasian people, and in this, they had much more in common with other Europeans than with North Africans.
But some Greeks were genetically closer to Persians than to Northern Europeans, but then Persians were caucasian too and still are though of the Roosh beardo swarthy variety.
There’s some degree of eek-it’s-a-greek syndrome among the Nordicists.
Because the Greek Classical World came to be so idealized, idolized, and revered, it was a culture shock for many whites of the North to find modern day Greece to be so unspectacular. So, they romanticized the past. (It’s like a lot of people idealize spiritual India but are shocked to find a stinko nation where people shit all over and act like grubsters.)
But let’s see a few things in perspective. Greeks were truly great only for a few centuries and that was it. From Homer to Aristotle basically. That was when Greeks were doing stuff that NO ONE else were doing. But then, Greeks sort of lost it. They still had ups and downs but no longer a seminal people whose ideas and ways changed humanity.
Greeks under Roman rule, as Byzantines, under Turkish rule, and thereafter were hardly special at anything. And Greeks never ever regained their greatness. This is so different from Jews whose greatness always came back somehow. Jews have been great for 1000s of yrs. Greeks were great for a few centuries. So great that they are still remembered. But apart from those centuries, there is little there.
We also need to keep in mind that the problems of today’s Greece were very much present in old Greece. Even at their height, Greeks were a bickering and quarrelsome lot, which is why they failed to unite into a nation. City-states squabbled endlessly among one another. It was the same reason why modern Italy fell behind other nations that united faster. Italian city-states were short-sighted in their locality.
Geeks were drama queens, which is why they invented drama. And Greeks gave homos a lot of space to vent their fury, and we know homos are the biggest drama queens of all.
Homos can be expressive and imaginative but also overly indulgent, and it could be that too many homos prancing about made Greece a kind of a silly place. And how long could Spartan society survived when its initiating rite involved ass-humping by older warriors? Talk about hazing and ‘rape culture’.
Also, the cult of Greek competitiveness made Greeks focus on beating everyone to be like Achilles. The cult of hero undermined the need for unity and cooperation. Recall that Achilles nearly jeopardizes the entire war plan because of his wounded ego. His ego counted for more than the good of the whole. This is the danger of modern day libertarianism that emphasized individual narcissism and self-aggrandizement above all else. Trump candidacy is bemusing because here is the ultimate self-centered individualist appealing to the masses for what is ‘good for the country’. But then Elvis the King of Rock n Roll claimed to be a good mama’s boy, a good southern lad who addressed older men as ‘sir’, and a devout Christian humble before the Lord. I guess Americans go for weird dualities.
Greek invention of the Olympics was a great thing, but Greeks took the cult of individual competition too far, and Olympics in the ancient world were ugly affairs. Bloodfests in fact. It was the Brits who invented modern day sportsmanship and turned the neo-Olympics into a festivity of grace and sportsmanship, as seen in CHARIOTS OF FIRE. But with the rise of Negro jivery, sports culture has turned into Claudia-Rankin-the-Stankin-Serena-Williams Fest.
In some ways, the Greek way was independent-minded, but it was often uncooperative and short-sighted, which is why Greeks fell prey to Macedonians and then to Romans.
Also, Greece and Rome are proof of the dangers of living off past capital. True, they achieved great things, but such greatness made them complacent. They could just lean back on their past achievement and feel smugly superior. Same happened to Chinese, which is why they stopped progressing and then fell prey to the Europeans. French fell into the same rut.
Another thing we need to keep in mind. A people can be racially more like people A but culturally closer to people B. Look at modern Japan in the early 2oth century. They were racially Asian like Chiners and Mongols but they became markedly Westernized and, in that sense, were more like Europeans in some way.
So, we need to remember that while Ancient Greeks were racially closer to northern Europeans, they were culturally closer to Near Easterners and North Africans.
The article by Harrison Simian seems to argue that Greeks and Romans became less spectacular cuz they mixed more with southern people.
It’s interesting that Jews became more spectacular as they mixed with northern Europeans. Sephardic Jews of the Middle East didn’t become Einsteins and such, but Ashkenazi Jews did. Was it Northern blood was a boost to Jews or because Ashkenazi Jews practiced eugenics that favored smarter Jews?
Another thing. It’s often not been the case that the people who are best at something necessarily invented that thing. Blacks didn’t invent basketball but they are better at it. Japanese invented Karate, but I’ll bet a German with black belt in karate can whup a tiny Japper with a black belt in karate. Indians invented chess, but Jews are best at it.
It may have been possible that northern european barbarians were more intelligent than advanced peoples of the Near East and Mediterranean. Then, why did the southern folks achieve more? There was more trade and exchange of ideas among people of that region who lived in warm places between Europe, Asia, and Africa. So, ideas came from all around.
In contrast, northerners, smart as they were, were isolated.
Or maybe the Germanic barbarians weren’t so smart but became smarter later on with the rise of a form of Christianity that favored the breeding of smarter folks. We know Catholicism sucked a lot of smart people into celibate priesthood. I dunno.
FAREWELL TO ARMS seem to suggest that British rise in IQ was relatively recent due to socio-economic practices.
Well, I don’t think anyone claims that the Ancient Greeks were pure descendants of the various Hellenic tribes that had swept down from the north, let alone that they didn’t pick up lots of words from the peoples they conquered.
In fact, I seem to recall that the Athenians in particular claimed they were actually the descendants of people who’d always lived on the Attic Peninsula (my memory might be playing tricks on me). And perhaps it’s more than coincidence that their very well-known Attic pottery tends to show black curly hair and somewhat darkish skin. Meanwhile, most of the textual evidence for blond or red hair and blue eyes seems to come from descriptions of the various Dorian peoples, such as the Spartans and Thebans, as well as closely-related groups farther north, such as the Thracians and Macedonians.
But just in the same way, nobody claims today’s Germans are of 100% pure Germanic ancestry, and I have the impression they’re considerably less likely to have blondish hair than Scandinavians.
“Greece was heads and shoulders at its intellectual peak, arguably during the Hellenistic period, above anything the Middle East, including Egypt, ever accomplished.”
Egyptian and Persian architecture were just as awesome, in some ways awesomer.
Only a handful of Greek philosophers really made a difference. And even the greatest, Aristotle, was more often wrong than right.
I think what made Greeks a bit more special was they put signatures on stuff. They made a big fuss about which individual did what, and that fired off a lot of competitiveness.
In contrast, even men of talent in other civilizations contributed stuff to society as nameless servants of their lords.
In that, it’s true that the Greeks did achieve more since individualism and personalism incentivized every talented person to ‘make a name for himself’. In other cultures, it was bad form to make a name for yourself. You had to use your talent to serve the ‘higher power’ or the ‘higher good’.
We can see this in capitalism vs communism. Under capitalism, people like steve jobs and bill gates have incentives to achieve more to make a name for themselves. Under communism, individuals must contribute their talent for the good of the whole. Less incentive.
Even so, most of Greek creative energy didn’t lead to much of anything. It is why Greeks complained of sophistry. People who sounded smart and original but were style and no substance.
The question of the racial type(s) of the ancient Greeks and Romans stands on its own. It’s not like it decides the question for the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, etc., so, no, the subtext you refer to isn’t necessary (i.e., no, Nordic types are not responsible for all the civilization we love.).
Sunbeam: arms got a rough ride, too.
Intra-racial integration paved the way for inter-racial integration. Fuck the lot. Self-determination uber alles. Meaning, no “white” party line on the issue. Anyone who insists on one or the other (Nordicism, pan-Euro-ism, peanut butter, chocolate, peanut butter + chocolate) might as well join the left.
The invention of civilization had more to do with carrying capacity than HBD, per se. E.g., the Roman Empire (might as well say the Romans weren’t worth much, since they borrowed everything from the Greeks) was founded on the best piece of real estate in Europe. Certainly no coincidence that. Mesopotamia wasn’t Mesopotamia because it was founded by brown people, it was Mesopotamia because it was great real estate.
The HBD aspect comes in when people are exposed to civilization. E.g., Didn’t take Germanics long to adopt Roman civilization and completely remake the face of Europe, while Bantus still do nothing despite the Internet.
Not that land makes people capable of exploiting it, of course.
“That in and of itself doesn’t tell us anything. Some of these people were saying that not just the Greeks and Romans but the Egyptians, Arabs, Muhammad and Genghis Khan were Nordic:”
I know Ron Unz believes that ancient Egyptians all looked like Ryan Gosling and Reese Witherspoon, in other words Cairo was just as blond as Stockholm.
Yes, I’ve never understood this claim. How can one tell with the statues that aren’t painted, most of which aren’t? Nordics are Caucasians with very light hair and eye colors, basically blond haired and blue eyed. Without painting, it’s impossible to tell. Furthermore, depictions don’t necessarily tell us what people looked like. There is European art that depicts Jesus and other Biblical figures as Nordic. Japanese anime features people with light hair and eye colors. Etc.
Your definitions seem to be shifting as you go along. What did the Jews ever do to put themselves on the same footing with the truly great period of the Greeks?
“Blue eyes are common among Greeks especially. In the Greek-American community near me, blue and green eyes seem predominant.”
Only 10 percent of Greek people have blue eyes, which is far from predominant.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4581457/1/
“and I have the impression they’re considerably less likely to have blondish hair than Scandinavians.”
In fact there’s a discernible difference between Northern and Southern Germany. I grew up in a small town in Lower Franconia and my impression was that most of the locals whose families had been established in the region for generations, didn’t look stereotypically Nordic at all. Lots of dark hair and brown eyes. I had two classmates (of no recent non-German ancestry that I knew of) with pretty brownish skin who in my opinion could easily have been mistaken for stereotypical Sicilians. Very different from what you’d probably see among native Germans in Northern Germany.
Concerning ancient Greece, yes, to my knowledge, blonde hair is explicitly attested in ancient sources for some places like Thebes. But I still think Mr Sims’ article is pretty silly…I’m always suspicious of people who make claims like “Ancient Greeks and Italians were nothing like today’s Greeks and Italians”, usually there’s some agenda behind it. It’s often connected to Nordicist racial theories which claim Rome was brought down by race mixing and that modern Italians and Greeks are the degenerate descendants of slaves and Oriental/African immigrants.
It might have been accidental. Whacking does not usually damage a penis.
“In fact there’s a discernible difference between Northern and Southern Germany. I grew up in a small town in Lower Franconia and my impression was that most of the locals whose families had been established in the region for generations, didn’t look stereotypically Nordic at all. Lots of dark hair and brown eyes. I had two classmates (of no recent non-German ancestry that I knew of) with pretty brownish skin who in my opinion could easily have been mistaken for stereotypical Sicilians. Very different from what you’d probably see among native Germans in Northern Germany.”
Former player for the German national football team Michael Ballack does not look stereotypically German. He definitely does not look Nordic.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/LegoDude1995/ME/ballack.jpg
http://www.images99.com/i99/02/57326/57326.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eGvpCHZe7Yc/UB1LVlJtDQI/AAAAAAAACds/vDAUxIYdeDM/s400/Michael-Ballack-picture1.jpg
Michael Ballack would not look out of place on the Portuguese national football team for example.
Let’s see.
1. Great Jewish architecture that has influenced architectural designs worldwide?
2. Invention of algebra and calculus?
3. Development of the math of optics?
4. Explanation of the celestial mechanics?
5. Creating the musical idioms that gave foundation for today’s music?
6. Founding the medical sciences?
7. Creating the engineering marvels that became an example for many generations of inventors?
None of the above was produced by Jewish civilization. However, many great Jewish talents flourished in the context of European civilization that as created, collectively, by various European nations where Jewish men and women found their home. It was the access to the achievements of European civilization that allowed the Jews to make their contribution (to the European civilization, not to the nonexistent Jewish civilization). Before that, Jews had access to the scientific achievements of Arab civilization and they excelled in the Arab lands.
A fabulous story of Greece and Greeks is very different.
Nordicist theories always come from people who aren’t particularly Nordic. Hitler, for instance, could have easily been mistaken for an intense-looking Albanian taxi driver.
Gerard Butler also played Attila the Hun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkhstwMG2QQ
True based on my extensive travels and residence in Germany and Scandinavia. Much of modern Germany was once inhabited by Celts and also by the Latins who arrived during the Roman Imperium.
Imagine if it were done to African statuary (if there were any of note). We could have entire university programs devoted to the assault on righteous homeboy masculinity. Oh wait.
So did John Cleese
I don’t have definite numbers, but I’d say only a minority of Germans look like the Nordic ideal. In a way even Hitler recognised this; apparently he stated during his table talk that Germans were no longer truly Nordic like Scandinavians (he blamed ethnic mixing during the Thirty Years war for this) and that steps would have to be taken to reverse this alleged decline by special breeding programs.
Ballack is from Upper Lusatia near present-day Germany’s Eastern border. In general it’s likely that Eastern Germans are to a significant degree descended from Slavs who were germanized during the High and Late Middle Ages. Seems even to be discernible at the genetic level (I think Razib Khan alluded to this in a post a while ago, but I’m too lazy too dig it up now).
Correction fail. They are masculine/feminine variants.
This reads like something from the 1930s.
First of all, forget with you thought you knew. Secondly, learn what ancient DNA is.
Light pigmentation was not common anywhere until the Middle Bronze Age, when it started to reach frequencies similar to those in present-day Northern and Eastern Europe among Kurgan groups of the Eurasian steppe.
However, this happened a couple thousand years after the Proto-Indo-European dispersals into southeastern Europe.
We don’t yet have any pigmentation data from these specific early Indo-Europeans, but we do have some from their ancestors on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and they’re mostly brown eyed and dark haired.
So it’s rather unlikely that ancient DNA will paint a picture of blond, blue-eyed “Aryans” swooping down on ancient Greece and Italy, and then mixing with the swarthy locals.
What we’ll probably see is evidence of a migration of a people from the steppe with pigmentation similar to that found among present-day Greeks. And in terms of genetic ancestry they won’t resemble either present-day Northern or Southern Europeans; they will be more eastern than any Europeans alive today.
This is how the modern European gene pool formed all over, except there was more steppe influence in the north than in the south. But the reason Northern Europeans are lighter than southern Europeans is because of strong recent selection, which favored lighter hair, eyes and skin in the north.
“Nordicist theories always come from people who aren’t particularly Nordic. Hitler, for instance, could have easily been mistaken for an intense-looking Albanian taxi driver.”
Do Albanian taxi drivers always look angry?
” Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world.”
Where did you get that?
Annamarina:
Algebra was invented by the Babylonians, a Semitic people.
Respectfully,
Thales the Milesian of Greek and Phoenician, i.e. Semitic, ancestry.
If Ballack looks Slavic then I’m a monkey.
Davidski says
“This reads like something from the thirties”
He is absolutely right. It appears that the writer of this article and almost every single commentator is completely unaware of what we have learned from ancient DNA.
Yes, I’d also had that same impression. I think many of the leading anthropologists of a century ago believed that the German population gradient may partly have been a consequence of the devastation wrought by the Thirty Years War, during which Germany’s entire population was reduced by something like 1/3 or even 1/2. The idea is that after the war finally ended, lots of people from south of Germany moved up to fill the resulting depopulated vacuum and became Germans by assimilation during the 400 years that followed.
The frightened Caesar’s soldiers at first as they were much taller. He has to give a pep talk.
“What will surprise no one here is that many of these same quotes can be found in the modern academic literature, only with careful expurgations.”
Would be helpful if could you share them and educate people on the underground truth the ancient Greco-Romans were Nordic Aryan Demigods and that this guy isn’t a charlatan (he is).
You mean that Iraq belongs to Jewish civilization? – “Babylonia was an ancient Akkadian-speaking Semitic state and cultural region based in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq).”
Compare a rich history of the Semitic state of Babylonia to a story of a puny kingdom:
“The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC), dating back to the 23rd century BC… Babylon greatly expanded during the reign of Hammurabi in the first half of the 18th century BC, becoming a major capital city… ”
“The Kingdom of Israel emerged as an important local power by the 9th century BCE before falling to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE.
Semitic people: “A Semite is a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples, mostly originating in the Near East, including: Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Ammonites, Amorites, Arameans, Chaldeans, Canaanites (including Hebrews/Israelites/Jews/Palestinians/Samaritans and Phoenicians/Carthaginians), Eblaites, Dilmunites, Edomites, Amalekites, Turukku, Ethiopian Semites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maltese, Mandaeans, Mhallami, Moabites, Shebans, Meluhhans, Maganites, Ubarites, Sabians and Ugarites.”
It does not seem that “Semitic” (re the history of algebra) means “Jewish.” According to the above quotation, the “Hebrews/Israelites/Jews/Palestinians/Samaritans” make together a subgroup for Canaanites.
“Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.”
They’re “silent” because it’s accepted beyond just about any reasonable doubt they were of southern europe heritage. Even putting aside the idea that many are fearful of “nazi” connotations, I myself take it as an unhealthy sign because it doesn’t help Europeans at all* to introduce this division among ourselves and denigrate southern europeans by variously questioning whether they’re white or their history wasn’t truly their own (and basically acting like indigenous european people can’t have olive skin). It’s hard to tell whether the author thinks modern Greco-Romans aren’t white or that they’re just darker than they were in the past (but still white), but some of the quotations here are laughable- the references to “fair women” can hardly be considered distinctively related to specific european ethnicity and are a motif of female beauty that can be found outside of Europe (even in East Asia) without much difficulty. It’s hardly the case light hair and eyes were absent among ancient southern europeans (they can also be found in small numbers among many middle eastern populations), and I find it incredibly hard to believe the ancient Hellenes were frequently red haired. Where’s the genetic evidence for it, or better yet, modern physical evidence? Red hair may be recessive but if it was more common in the past, it would be hardly difficult to find in some small numbers in modern Greece, but it’s virtually absent today. Do you really think this trait basically disappeared? I do like this tendency of nordicists pining on about red hair, it’s frequencies reach only about 10% in Britain and Ireland and it’s in the single digits (or less) everywhere else it’s found in Europe. Not as crazy as claiming Ghenghis Khan was a redhead though (somehow, his genetic signature, shared by millions of men in Central Asia, hasn’t been linked to an increased frequency of the trait, nevermind why you’d want someone as evil as him to be white.)
*It’s not entirely isolated though, since Richard Lynn, who’s provided the overwhelming majority of IQ data on which people rely with race, has in recent years gone on to claim southern europeans (and balkan whites) are racially mixed, that Sicilians are as dumb as mexicans, that Albanians are dumber than American blacks etc.
I’m also uncertain what to make of the claims in this article and would also like to wait for confirmation from ancient genetics as to the likely pigmentation of the typical ancient Greek and Roman. However, I think the author has brought forward a good deal of literary and artistic evidence concerning light pigmentation among the ancients and I haven’t seen the critics bring forward any coherent critique of that evidence.
“Simply look at ancient Greek and Roman sculpture and you’ll see faces entirely unlike those of today–especially in the case of Greeks. Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter.”
How in any way do those look entirely like those of today? It’s way more bizarre you think there’s anything distinctively nordic about those statues and that modern Greeks and Italians look like brown, beak-nosed neanderthals. Some of those statues you post also have very wavy or outright curly hair, a trait much more common in southern europeans (and found in many other statues from back then.)
Even if somehow, ancient greco-romans were predominantly light eyed (or as light eyed as modern northern europeans) and they mixed with dark eyed peoples, it would be very hard for light eyes (or light hair colors) to decrease drastically in frequency (even if they were non-whites, and if they were just other, darker europeans, it would be harder still). They aren’t purely recessive traits as many people believe and it wouldn’t be hard for frequencies to bounce back in subsequent generations. Lots of american blacks have light eyes too, for example. The reason you only really see american blacks with light hair when they have light skin is because the light hair alleles (with the possible exception of red hair) are masked in dark skinned individuals (a contrast to the ones found in australoids), but shouldn’t have any trouble appearing in olive skinned people. It would take some pretty striking genetic changes in these populations, with possibly bottlenecks to some degree, to dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits. Where’s any evidence for that?
Dienekes doesn’t deal in real science.
His babble about the two recent aDNA studies on the ancient steppe expansions was very entertaining, but hardly anything to do with real science.
Going off the nordic ideal, there’s also something called the “greek ideal” with respect to ancient Greek art, and it’s exactly that, an ideal. Greco-Roman statues frequently exhibited what’s been called a “greek profile” (google it, or “greek profile nose”, a very straight, nearly vertical continuity of the nose to the forehead of which few people have, whether in Europe or elsewhere. I’ve also noticed ancient Greek art, whether statues, paintings etc. often depicted rather long noses, and southern europeans (and for that matter, eastern europeans) have longer noses than northern ones.
I know many people dislike Anthroscape (and John Baker was to a sizable degree a crank), but this quote is relevant and mostly true from everything I’ve seen: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1388539/1/#new
“The continuity of the two slopes, with no alteration of slope or sunken region in the vicinity of the nasion, is unknown in any ethnic taxon of man(though well exhibited, for instance, by the Bornean leaf-monkey, Presbytis rubicundus rubudus).”
Saying it’s “unknown in any ethnic taxon of man” is a stretch, but I can’t say I’ve seen many people with noses like what you see in ancient Greek art. Nevermind that a people’s beauty ideal doesn’t necessarily reflect how they typically look.
“stereotypical Sicilians. ”
like this one
or this one
“stereotypical Sicilians. ”
like this one
or this one
I read this article before but forgot the author ends off with arguing that the ancient greco-romans lost these traits because they mixed with non-whites. Uh huh. Then it goes into how northern europeans were idolized by the Romans as an ideal of what they once were. It doesn’t mention that not only did some major Roman writers then disparage the paleness of northern european men, but get this, they (along with the Greeks) made many efforts even before then to physically distinguish themselves from northern europeans yet never considered them a separate race. The whole thing about the last Roman writers lamenting how degenerate Romans had become through race mixing and idolizing northern europeans as an example of a pure stock, basically what they once were, is crazy. I haven’t read Germania or many of Tacitus’ other writings about northern europeans, but I’m pretty sure you won’t find any lines claiming that this is what Romans used to look more like, or that they were basically the same people in the not too distant past, or really at all considering them particularly close to them (the fact the article doesn’t provide any seems like good evidence of this, nevermind that Tacitus had a large number of negative things to say about the Germans, so they didn’t truly consider them morally superior). The quote from Tertullian about Roman women dying their hair like Germans is nonsensical- why is he lamenting this when they would be mimicking what they used to look more like and considering this a case of self-hatred, trying to more resemble a different ethnic group, and presumably, all of these Roman women going out of their way to dye their hair lighter would likely be mixed? The only piece of evidence provided that indicates any of these fantasies are true is the one from Juvenal (no source given), and considering he was a satirist, it’s hard to say just from this he was being serious.
I can’t fully comment on everything in this article, but I’ve often read many claims of references to light hair/eyes etc. are mistranslations, and many of the pieces of evidence here- the references to skin tone with women, the claims of light hair and eyes (and especially red hair) being so much more common in the past, the claims Greco-Roman statuary looked at all particularly northern european, that the late Roman writers compared themselves to the Germans as some kind of example of what they literally once were- are all garbage. And it does affirm the the snark from the author that a serious interest like this in questioning whether the Greco-Romans were nordic and therefore modern southern europeans aren’t white is unhealthy, because it serves to wrongfully and needlessly divide european people, and that nordicists are crazy.
As an addendum, I want to emphasize again how difficult it would be for light hair and eyes to dramatically decrease in frequency, even if the scenario I outlined at the beginning of this post occurred. I have often seen american mulattos with light eyes, much more often than typical american blacks, and this is because the black parent had alleles for light eyes that were simply unexpressed because of how much less common they are in american blacks, but became easily visible in the mixed offspring. A large, extensive breeding non-white/northern european population would still have light eyes at high frequencies (and hair, assuming the non-white population was light enough.) Nordicists (or anybody who makes the argument that the ancient Greco-Romans look much different from how they did in the past) greatly exaggerate how difficult it would be to breed out light hair/eye alleles (especially red hair, and I haven’t even mentioned how those recessive for red hair have greatly increased sensitivity to the sun, sunburn, freckling, skin cancer etc. which are hardly difficult features to detect) and therefore have a poor understanding of genetics, and to that end, I have never seen them provide any genetic evidence that would support any population structure that would go in line with something like these traits greatly decreasing in frequency over the years. Nevermind actually examining the evolution of alleles for light hair and eyes in these populations. The claimed genetic evidence (of which the article provides absolutely none) I’ve seen for nordicist claims about ancient Greece and Rome is even worse than the supposed historical/archaeological/artistic evidence- why should the latter be any better in the long run?
“In Ancient Rome, the idiot Romans brought black Africans to serve as slaves and to fight as gladiators, and these Negroes humped white women, even elite women who developed jungalo fever. Thankfully the decadent Romans fell and Germanic barbarian Europeans swept through all of Italy.”
Haha, “The romans got so decadent they started importing negro slaves and roman women started sleeping with them, but thankfully, the northern barbarians swept through and destroyed their civilization.” I don’t think you thought this one through. Or did you think the german tribes were upending the decadent elites alone and didn’t engage in plenty of plunder, looting rape and murder themselves? You refer to how there needs to be “neo-barbarism” and how we have to mimic iron age tribesmen who often painted themselves blue, fought in the nude and acted more like blacks than you seem to readily admit (0r maybe you do, and all that matters it is kept the darkies out), so I guess you’re just not too bright/sane. The salvation of Europe doesn’t lay with tattooed skinheads who are and always will be rightfully seen as among the worst examples of white people.
For what I know, in what is now South-West Germany there was no (well, not much) assimilation necessary because the new settlers came mostly from the German-speaking parts of Switzerland. In what is now E/NE Germany new settlers were a mixture of immigrants from Switzerland, Bohemia, Austria, the Netherlands & France. The only immigrants from non-German(ic) areas seem to have been the Huguenots & they only numbered a few tens of thousands. So, population structure doesn’t seem to have been affected that much after the war.
The statues of Emperors are an excellent resource if you have any artistic sensibility and one can quite easily gain a sense of ethnicity without any coloring. i.e. If you can look the bust of General Titus (of the Judean wars) and think that he looks more like a Scandinavian, rather than say Joe Pesci–then you don’t belong in this conversation.
If the description of Augustus– “His complexion was between dark and fair.”– means Nordic, well we are going to have to rewrite the dictionary.
When the Ancient Gauls are described as “…tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond (Book V. 28. 1).” Then you know there’s a clear delineation between both tribes.
In fact, in almost every conflict Romans have with the Northern Tribes, we find descriptors of them being fairer and taller.
The most laughable thing here though is the complete absence of information on the Etruscans. The Etruscans contribute a majority of what we term “Roman civilization” and well, wait ’til you get a load of them.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/etruscan/a/the-etruscans-an-introduction
But look, in an age where people trust television and comic book illustrations (like the one used at the top of this article lol)–why bother with actual science and archaeological evidence? Let’s just keep making up whatever makes us feel better.
“I can’t say I’ve seen many people with noses like what you see in ancient Greek art.”
No, e.g. one surveyist (Abraham Tamir) found only 3% in his sample. But it is an extant nose form and one that is widely recognised. So maybe, the nose form just didn’t proliferate.
Examples include Prince Lorenzo Borghese, Sylvester Stallone. It seems to be also in Sardinians so maybe it was a feature of EEF
or maybe it was a later development, through sexual selection perhaps.
The Greek nose seems to be less prevalent in light hair/eye people but Bondi Vet comes close.
“I could now see that he was a white man like myself and that his features were even pleasing. His skin, wherever it was exposed, was burnt by the sun; even his lips were black, and his fair eyes looked quite startling in so dark a face. ”
Ay! Old Ben Gunn were of the Nordic race, too!!
Many of you out there in bright folks blog land would love to learn more about the quickly emerging science of historical genetics. Literally our long lost past is being rediscovered by the nearly complete retrieval of people that died up to 50,000 years ago. What people commenting at this blog thread can only dream about (and in some cases babble on about nearly endlessly about ) is actually being revealed.
I am not a specialist in the field, I am just an interested dilettante like the rest of you. But I have been reading the blog Gene Expressions that Razib Khan writes right here at Unz reveiw and if you want to follow this fascinating science field as it continues to develop I suggest you start reading it.
As of right now we are learning of multiple population changes and in some cases near complete replacements in our past because of our new found ability to recover ancient DNA and interpret it. The news unearthed in just the last year has rewritten parts of our past. We are going to find out the degree to which populations living around the Mediterranean darkened since classical times because of the infusion of African genes. It isn’t that it happened, the question is how much, and when, and where and of course why. Stay tuned.
In what manner were the primitive Hebrews of 2000 years ago great? There have been small, individual accomplishments of various individuals who consider themselves to be “Jews”, but great in comparison to what? Judaism, as practiced by the Hebrews, was a primitive religion that called for crazy sacrifices and self-mutilation. Its offshoots, Christianity and Islam also have some wacky practices, but were mostly the achievement of people who did not call themselves “Jews.” Outside of religious thought, Jewish excellence in science was more because of their access to Western Universities and freedoms. The age of the “Jewish scientist” is pretty recent and carried out mostly by secular Jews who were more a part of their individual nation than the Jewish nation. Israel is a young country that survives only because the West, the US in particular, props it up. We’ll see about their accomplishments in a century or two, if they survive. By the way, Jewish IQ (not Arab) in Israel is listed between 90 and 100 depending on the site, hardly indicative of future great achievement.
Annamarina:
I am in agreement with you 100%.
I did not mean to imply Jews invented algebra. Absolutely not!
All I wanted to say is that not everything was Greek invention.
I myself am a Cyrillic Orthodox Slav and I worship Ancient Greece.
In a previous incarnation I was an Athenian.
I am in complete harmony with your athenian musing.
“Or did you think the german tribes were upending the decadent elites alone and didn’t engage in plenty of plunder, looting rape and murder themselves?”
They were looting for whiteness and raping with whiteness, thereby spreading white genes.
There’s also the issue that many of the Romans’ slaves were of Germanic origin as the Germanic peoples beyond the borders of the empire often sold off prisoners from their wars to slave traders from the empire. Even during the late Republic there seem to have been substantial numbers of slaves from the North in Italy (e.g. the remnants of the Cimbri and Teutones; the slaves rampaging through southern Italy under Spartacus are also described in fragments of Sallust as being Celts and Germans).
Identifying the Romans’ slaves solely or primarily with subsaharan blacks is unjustified.
“The salvation of Europe doesn’t lay with tattooed skinheads who are and always will be rightfully seen as among the worst examples of white people.”
By neo-barbarism, I don’t mean skinheads and white trash.
I mean ANY WHITE PERSON WHO IS RILED UP AND ANGRY AND WILLING TO EMPLOY ANY MEANS NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN THE ELITES AND PUSH OUT THE INVADERS.
There is a barbarian soul within every man, just like there is a wolf in every dog.
Usually, mankind needs to be civilized, but there are times when you have to let the inner barbarian loose, like with the protagonist in STRAW DOGS.
So, I don’t mean “hand Europe over to ‘white trash skinheads’.” I mean “find the barbarian soul within yourself and revitalize the West with the warrior soul because all this cucky behavior is leading to total ruin.”
The ‘unmanning’ of Europe must stop.
Now, preferably, the invading hordes should be kept out the professional forces of military, police, and government apparatuses of civilization. Centurions should do the job so that most people can live civilized lives.
BUT, when the very elites who control the system use the Centurions and Commissars to hunt down every last patriot as ‘heretical’, it means civilization itself has grown decadent and suicidal. Civilized order should be using its instruments to protect itself from savage/barbarian invaders, but when the very Order itself is aiding the invasion and using its systematic power to mentally and physically oppress Western patriots, then the only option left is neo-barbarianism among the whites. They must attack the system itself.
Use whatever rage and power and violence to bring down the corrupt civilized order. And then use whatever means to drive out the invaders. And then create a new civilized order that represents the needs and ensures the survival of the Western races.
“Identifying the Romans’ slaves solely or primarily with subsaharan blacks is unjustified.”
I don’t think anyone does that.
We’ve all seen SPARTACUS that shows how the Romans conquered and enslaved peoples from all over.
But wherever they came from, the Roman Core became a hubbub of massive movements of peoples from all over, and that was not good for Europe.
God.
“A reproduction of Phidias’ masterwork, Athena Parthenos.”
The Parthenon is great, but the statue of Athena is no masterwork.
She is made chubby and kitschy.
This is much much better:
You really are a dammy.
Jews took ideas and stuff from all sorts of primitive and high religions/myths of the time and created the greatest religion that would also become the basis of Christianity, Islam, and even secular morality of universalism.
Jews came up with the most profound concept of God, at least outside India. The truly great thing was the Jewish concept was both complex/profound and essential/simple.
Jews weren’t notable for stuff like architecture and stuff because they never gained the kind of political and geographical power that other civilizations did. Also, Jewish laws against idolatry repressed certain artistic tendencies. But the favoring of ideas over idols made Jews more profoundly intellectual in some ways.
And when Jews did build, they didn’t do so bad. Herod is considered one of the greatest builders of all time. (Some argue that Herod wasn’t really Jewish, but I don’t know).
A culture isn’t just about math, buildings, and weaponry. It is about philosophy and spirituality.
But that aside, the reason why I say Jews were great for so long is that they kept coming back to achieve new heights. Greeks were never great again, but look at the rise of Jewish power in the modern world.
“Most profound concept of God”? Are you nuts? Self mutilation, animal sacrifice, stoning for idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, being a rebellious son, etc. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament is the primitive religion of a primitive people. Success has come to the Jewish people as they’ve given up their superstitious beliefs, but this success is still in its infancy and we won’t know if it’s flash-pan for at least a couple hundred more years.
Meanwhile, Greek accomplishment has stood the test of time.
Yes. And this God is a child of many fathers from previous civilizations.
It’s possible that the ancient Greeks and Romans were more Nordic-looking than their modern-day descendants. But it seems unlikely that their alleged ‘Nordicness’ was what allowed them to develop such great civilizations.
If the Nordics were always so brainy and hard-working and disciplined, then why were they so primitive compared to not only Greece and Rome, but also the various Middle Eastern nations and empires, and China and India as well?
And it’s not like they quickly caught up to these older civilizations. It took them centuries, if not millennia to start achieving the scientific and intellectual breakthroughs that the Greeks and others had pioneered many centuries before Christ.
Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment lists a series of significant events in different scientific fields throughout history. Here is a summary of them, starting with the first significant event in the world, followed by the first significant event in the Germanic countries (using Germanic as a proxy for Nordic):
ASTRONOMY: Greece, 500 BC; Denmark, 1572 AD
BIOLOGY: Greece, 500 BC; England, 1628 AD
CHEMISTRY: Greece, 440 BC; Germany, 1300 AD
EARTH SCIENCES: Greece, 520 BC; Germany, 1546 AD
PHYSICS: Greece, 260 BC; Netherlands, 1583 AD
MATHEMATICS: Greece, 600 BC; England, 1120 AD
MEDICINE: Greece, 400 BC; Germany, 1530 AD
TECHNOLOGY: China & Egypt, 400 BC; Germany, 1502 AD
It took the Germanics/Nordics an average of nearly 2000 years after the initial scientific breakthrough (usually by the Greeks) before they made their own significant contribution in that particular field. So what took them so long?
Particularly when the Anglo-Germanic nations have since come to dominate all these scientific disciplines. In fact their domination has been accelerating throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Of course it’s not just Nordic types excelling at the sciences, but a significant minority of Southern and Eastern Europeans (especially Jews) and non-whites too. But the vast majority of scientific accomplishment still happens in the Anglo-Germanic nations.
So why did they lag so far behind much of the rest of the world for 2000 long years? The Japanese picked up the white man’s science only in the mid-19th century, yet they became a major scientific, industrial and military powerhouse almost overnight.
This leads me to believe that there was little Nordic influence on the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. If there was then we would have seen a lot more scientific and intellectual accomplishment north of the Alps, and a lot earlier.
It seems like the Nordics/Germanics were a middling type of people through most of recorded history, but starting in the late Middle Ages an intellectual blossoming began, and hasn’t stopped since. The Anglo-Germanic nations utterly dominate the world today scientifically, militarily, economically, intellectually and culturally, and easily enjoy the world’s highest standard of living. But you would have been hard-pressed to guess that any of that would have happened 500 years ago.
That’s another great point- northern europeans were taller (and still are) in large part because of their higher rates of lactose tolerance. This is a clear cultural aspect that differentiated the two in antiquity, so why look at just hair and eye color and not something like lactose tolerance, or height differences based on skeletons, armor etc. ? Never once heard of the frequency of the lactase persistence allele declining during any period of Greco-Roman history, or that it was once more common.
“Are you nuts? Self mutilation, animal sacrifice, stoning for idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, being a rebellious son, etc. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament is the primitive religion of a primitive people. Success has come to the Jewish people as they’ve given up their superstitious beliefs, but this success is still in its infancy and we won’t know if it’s flash-pan for at least a couple hundred more years.
Meanwhile, Greek accomplishment has stood the test of time.”
You moronic dammy, is that all you find in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?
As it stands, Jewish ways of punishment were no more barbaric than those of other cultures. Btw, stoning is terrible but humane compared to methods of killing and torture of OTHER cultures. I’d rather be stoned to death by Jews than end up at the hands of Romans who were specialists in all sorts of nasty ways of punishing folks. And Greeks and Assyrians had nasty ways of punishment too. Some of that stuff can be found in the myths themselves.
And given the way the fruitkins are acting today, stoning them doesn’t seem all that bad. I prefer Jews of old on that issue than today’s Jews who use homos to destroy the moral system.
Also, self-mutilation was a more serious thing in OTHER cultures. Jews had the thing with the puds, but then circumcision had some health benefits too in terms of hygiene. A dry ‘head’ is healthier than a slimy one.
Anyway, the culture of Jews kept Jews as Jews for 3,500 yrs. Primitivism doesn’t offer that kind of power. There was something profound there that combined spirituality, biology, and history. And territoriality too though that was off and on due to exile.
“God is a child of many fathers from previous civilizations.”
But Jews brought them all together into a new fusion like Bob Dylan combined and molded the elements of American folk and popular culture into something remarkably groundbreaking.
Having all the ingredients of pizza is not the pizza. Pizza is when someone puts them all together in the right way and right amounts. Jews did it with God.
Not unless you’ve seen many gods. Classic Greek figures would adhere to a canon of proportion, so many hands high and the size of the head must conform to a particular shape, and then contra postura or weight shift was discovered. Earlier archaic images were more abstract, unnatural and more Egyptian. In other words, it a was an attempt to visually manifest divine order. So Greek images were a combo of abstract order and a careful study of nature rather than mere mimesis.
No so. Asians, women in particular, use skin lighteners. Even in white-hating USA, black women straighten their hair. Beauty in women can be universal: wider spaced eyes than men, smaller jaw line, high cheek bones, round chin, light skin, moderately high forehead, thick luxurious hair, full lips. Maybe protruding butts will become classic but I doubt it.
Priss,
having read through many of your threads, I have to say that you have quite a few astonishing and clever insights. I had spoken of Jewish pedagogy, social organisation and intellectual methodology as offered by the Sanhedrin of the Talmud, who preferred to dispose without fuss any values or rules, incongruent with current requirements, replacements being the result of intense debates by the intellectuals. Perhaps this has something to do with Jewish achievements, which as you point out, in many instances, are the results of adapting and improving on already existing knowledge. That the version of Zionism today (imho), is distorting much of this, is truly lamentable.
One other minor speculation of sorts, Ashkenazi jews very likely benefitted from mixing with the Nords and the effect of a sufficiently large cohort with +1 s.d or +2 s.d IQ in an otherwise average population, can lead over time to significantly different outcomes than a uniform or standard normal distribution.
Anyway nice reading.
Even in relatively recent times when Northern European folks achieved so much and became the rulers of the world, they’ve been mostly deficient in certain areas.
English cooking has never been much. German was worse. Who wants to eat Swedish food, such as fish soaked in liquid drano? And what was Northern architecture but imitation of Greek and Latin ones? In music, apart from Germans, northern Europeans paled compared to the Latin races. American wasps did wonders with creating economy, stable cities, rule of law, and etc, but they were not the most creative and colorful people when it came to the arts.
Northern Europeans lacked expressiveness and color. They gained power because of power of organization, discipline, unity, and diligence. But there was something drab and dreary about them.
The British beat the French in economics and industry, the French led the way in the arts and stuff. One area where Brits were really great was in literature, but literature isn’t as colorful as music and painting and stuff.
Prior to the rise of modern industry, all peoples were limited in their technological power, and the North had no decisive domination over the South. So much relied on manpower and horse-power, and southern folks could use muscle and ride horses too.
But once the capitalist thing got started, those who were more sober, diligent, thorough, and well-organized gained the upperhand over others. But that didn’t mean that such people were necessarily culturally more interesting.
Today, Singapore is a rich economic center but a zero when it comes to culture.
In contrast, Jamaica is a crappy place but started the reggae craze that swept through the world.
Prior to rise of modern economics, the north-south difference didn’t matter much in Europe. And if anything, the South seemed to have an edge in expressiveness and colorfulness. And especially the meeting points between North and South, such as France and Florence/Venice seemed the most interesting with their combination of southern fire(expressiveness) and northern ice(control).
Maybe there is something to Harrison Simian’s thesis about the meeting of northern folks and southern folks in Greece. Maybe the northern-derived folks were less expressive but more into unity and order. Southern-derived folks were less into unity and order but more into expressive possibilities. And the combination of iron order(most represented by Sparta) and colorful expressionism(represented by other city-states) made for the Greek miracle.
Sure. This should be of importance for religious people laying their faith on an image of the all-powerful fatherly deity. But I doubt that even among religious persons many hold a believe in an embodied Yahveh.
The northern germanics didn’t lag. Humans aren’t machines. Culture is more than material or intellectual technique. It’s called civilization. The West retained and built on aspects of Ancient Greek civilization and in fact advanced spiritual sensibility. Until recently, that is.
You think stoning is humane? Being bashed with stones, being gashed and bruised, cut and bleeding, dying a slow torturous death in the hot sun? Death by stoning is equivalent to being tortured to death.
You should probably read the OT before you begin your rants. The OT also calls for death by strangulation and burning for other crimes. The OT god also supposedly told the “chosen people” to massacre whole peoples, down to the women and children (Joshua 8:1-29, Sam 15:2-3).Rape was also approved by your god (Judges 21:10-24, Num 31:7-18.)
If this is your god, good luck to you.
You can shuck and jive the techies but not me.
Chartres and a thousand others. Dragon style in Norway.
Northern art, German to be exact, invented Expressionism. Matthias Gruenwald. Have you heard of H. Bosch? Pieter Bruegel? The Nazarenes (German). The Pre-Raphaelites. Classic European.
No. Hitler learned from Mussolini. Fascism comes from the Latin fascia, to bind.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Italy, Italian food, culture, people. Yes, there are differences between northern and Southern Europe but compared to the ROW (rest of the world) they are small.
Excuse me while I ignore everything that comes out of your mouth.
German cooking.. bad?
You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
Firstly, lutefisk is Norwegian, not the only thing they eat. Secondly, lye is not drano. Thirdly, work on your signal/noise ratio, ok?
Dennis Hopper is wrong. Moors, North Africans, even Ethiopians are Caucasian, not [Sub-Saharan African]. (If you watch the clip, you’ll understand why I resorted to square brackets.)
“German cooking.. bad?”
Look, at simple meal, it aint bad. But when compared to the best of French, Italian, and stuff, it is pretty crappy stuff. I mean brats and sauerkraut aint exactly fancy cooking.
And what kind of people eat carp as holiday meal?
Carp is like a giant pond rat.
“No. Hitler learned from Mussolini. Fascism comes from the Latin fascia, to bind.”
But for the greaseballs, it was all a matter of style. Fascism hardly made Italians any more organized. When Greeks shot back during the Italian invasion, the greasers all shat their pants, ran to mama, and ate onions and pasta.
German Expressionism should be called German Muckerism. It’s mostly messy heavy stuff.
As for Chartres, the French are a fusion of north and south.
I’ll give you the Viking stuff with dragons and stuff. But Viking personality style was not colorful and flamboyant. They could holler and scream and beat their chests like Hulk Hogan and them fellers in THE VIKINGS(with Kirk Douglas) but they didn’t have the swagger and the strut. They just grunted and attacked.
As for the Dutch/Northern Renaissance, it tended to be drabber and darker than Italian art.
Some of them were weird to be sure but in a heavy manner. And they were more humdrumish.
The ancient Jews invented the weekend. I’d put that up against the Iliad and the Pythagorean Theorem any day of the week (except Shabbat).
The word Hesiod uses to describe Troy is καλλιγύναικα. Kalli-gunaika is just “with beautiful women.” Kalli is the root that begins calligraphy. That means beautiful writing, not pale writing. I can’t find any evidence kalli means “fair” in the sense of light skin or hair. Someone just translated it that way. Same with kallitrikos which just means with beautiful hair, not with “fair” hair.
but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos.
What studies are those? How many studies have you read? What is the basis for their conclusion?
The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.
Two poems totaling 28,000 lines remained in their “final stage” for two centuries as oral works until they were written down? That doesn’t strike me as plausible.
One point some commenters miss, although mentioned in the article, is that classical Roman busts reflect the faces of individual Romans over considerable centuries. The author is right about early Romans looking less “Mediterranean” than later ones. So, as many of the busts we recognize today are of the empire period , it’s no surprise that the face of Cicero and Vespasian look exactly like modern Italians.
It’s also striking that the dark bust with the piercing eyes resembles the Irish actor Ciaran Hinds. This is all the more so as Hinds played a Roman emperor in the delightfully pornographic BBC TV series Rome.
Annamarie, you’re stealing. Algebra was invented by an Arab. The other achievements are dubious at best. Typical thieving in your part!?
The Jewish religion was developed in Persia at the time of, or after Zoroaster. That’s where they got many of their ideas, so they aren’t the original “philosophers.
What is this junk science article doing at a website that hosts serious commenters on genetics?
For the nth time, someone pulls together fragmentary information that fit this outdated theory about the supposedly Nordic origins of Greco-Roman civilization.
In light of Northern Europe’s domination of the world, 19th and 20th century Northern European writers tried time and again to appropriate a past they never had, using dubious methods to argue that everything good in human history was the product of Nordics; every time things went south, it was because the Nordics were bred out!
Can’t you just accept that Nordics didn’t contribute to civilization until much later, long after the end of Antiquity?
This reminds me of the usual ranting here in Greece about how the Greeks have existed for at least 50,000 years as a nation and built all the great civilizations in the world, from Egypt to China to Mesoamerica; or even the desperate attempts of Pan-Africanists to squeeze themselves in a place in history.
Why don’t we all just stop speculating and wait for the informed opinion of the ones who’re truly qualified to have a say in this matter? Either way, we’re past the time when political interpretation of ancient history had any meaningful impact.
The author of this article has no idea what he is talking about. I don’t know about the Greeks, but there are still loads of blonds and gingers in Italy, so he makes no sense at all.
Some sports teams from Italy.
http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/1557
http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/781/Italys-women-volley-team
http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/279/Italy-womens-national-ice-hockey-team
http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/780/Italy-womens-national-rugby-team
Italy U18 team, current world champions, has two gingers.
http://www.si24.it/2015/08/17/pallavolo-donne-italia-under-18-campione-del-mondo-battuti-3-0-gli-usa-in-peru-marco-mencarelli-paola-egonu/107539/
Current ministers.
http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/1265/Italian-government-ministers?page=1
Beauty pageants from Casciana Terme, Pisa.
http://italicroots.lefora.com/reply/36816/People-from-Tuscany#reply-36816
Unz Review just lost its last shred of credibility by reposting this Nordic supremacist bullshit from American Renaissance. What’s next, an article by Stormfront’s Arthur Kemp?
For anyone interested in *real* information on this topic . . .
Greeks – http://bit.ly/1Q62UMz
Italians – http://bit.ly/1IDre22
Thank you for enlightening us about the origin of the word “algebra” [to add: from Arabic “al-jabr” meaning “reunion of broken parts.}
Here was my post:
“1. Great Jewish architecture that has influenced architectural designs worldwide?
2. Invention of algebra and calculus?
3. Development of the math of optics?
4. Explanation of the celestial mechanics?
5. Creating the musical idioms that gave foundation for today’s music?
6. Founding the medical sciences?
7. Creating the engineering marvels that became an example for many generations of inventors?
None of the above was produced by Jewish civilization.”
Then the discussion focused on a definition of the word “semitic.” What exactly was stolen?
By the way, your post was rude.
Why is the author so hung up on the distinction between ‘Nordic’ types and ‘Mediterranean’ types? They’re both white. We can plainly see that both Greeks and Romans were white European from the paintings and other art left behind – death masks, as the author mentions, are a particularly accurate depiction. So what’s the issue?
Good grief! Mr. Sims article is simply nordicist claptrap, his notion that the ancient Greeks and Romans were very different from present day Greeks and Italians is wishful thinking and unsupported by the facts. This type of stuff belongs with its evil twin ‘afrocentrism’, which is just as idiotic and intellectually dishonest.
As a disclaimer, my own heritage is half German and half Italian, with my Italian roots in the North(Veneto, Trentino and Piedmont). Interestingly, my grandmother(family in Veneto and Trentino) believes – and has told me this since I was a child – that northern italians r ‘germanic’, while southern italians she thinks are somewhat ‘arabic’. I used to believe it but it is BS.
Normally, nordicists consider that ancient Greece and Rome became ‘mongrelized’ via the importation of middle easterners and even blacks, and that this is why they fell.
That is all BS too. Later Sarracen invaders also left almost no trace.
Anthropology, History and especially modern Genetics tell us a very different story, from the nonsense nordicists would want us to believe in.
The Greeks and Romans( and other southern euros ) were NEVER nordic.
This supposed miscigenation with non europeans also NEVER happened.
Let’s take a look at some of the evidence;
First the Greeks;
American physical anthropologist, Carleton Stevens Coon, already in his popular ‘The Races of Europe’(1939), recognized the remarkable continuity in the Greek population, he wrote:
Modern Genetics confirms:
More:
And then some;
About ancient Romans, wrote Coon:
Genetics Italians:
Another one;
And this:
Regarding slavery in Roman times:
At any rate, most foreigners(free men or slaves) who ended up in Italy during Roman times were themselves Europeans.
Anybody who knows Italy well, will notice that Northern Italians are somewhat lighter, on average, than Southerners but the differences between them have been greatly exaggerated.
This difference, unlike what my grandma thinks, has little to do with Germanic peoples, since germanic admixture in ethnic italians is low, and it’s actually HIGHER in central Italy than in the North. The North has an ancient Celtic component, absent in the rest of the country. The South, on the other hand, has a Greek component.
Yep!
“Well, there’s much debate on this point, but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos. The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.”
Actually, the theory you set forth, that the Iliad (and the Odyssey) was not written down until Peisistratus was advanced by a German scholar in the late 18th century named F.A. Wolf and has been almost uniformly rejected. Peisistratus was the “tyrant” who ruled Athens from 546 B.C. to his death in 528-27 B.C., to be succeeded by his sons who were overthrown in 510 B.C. by the forces which created the first democracy. Despite his title of “tyrant,” Peisistratus is generally regarded as a very good ruler, whose reforms laid the groundwork for the democracy which followed. He was a distant relative (on his mother’s side) of the great Athenian lawgiver Solon (638-568 B.C.). We have historical evidence that Solon, who preceded Peisistratus, collected written editions of the Iliad and the Odyssey and other works of Greek literature, but we do not know how long previously manuscripts of Homer’s epics existed. Peisistratus’ great achievement in this area was to produce an “authorized version” of the Iliad and Odyssey, much like King James authorized the King James version of the Bible more than 2000 years later, since there were apparently a number of different written versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey circulating in the Greek world. The versions produced under Peisistratus became accepted as the “official” versions of the great epics of Homer. According to Wikipedia, “He commissioned the permanent copying and archiving of Homer’s two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the canon of Homeric works is said to derive from this particular archiving.”
Apart from the role of Peisistratus, there is the broader “Homer Question” which has occupied thinkers back to before the classical age of Athens, which covers quite a few subsidiary questions, such as did “Homer” compose both the Iliad and the Odyssey? when did Homer compose those epic poems? did he write them down originally or did he compose them orally?
The problem that most concerns us today is whether the two lengthy poems were composed orally or were written down. I recently posted a comment on Steve Sailer’s blog pertaining to Peisistratus. Subsequently I pulled out my copy of Robert Fagles’ translation simply to verify a factual assertion I had made in my Sailer comment and wound up rereading the Odyssey for the first time in nearly 20 years, which was when Fagles translation came out. I had previously read and reread several times over the years the famous translation by Robert Fitzgerald. One of the attractions of the Fagles’ translation is the 64-page introduction by the late Bernard Knox, one of the great classicists of the 20th century and a great man despite his left leaning politics, who himself translated a number of great works from the ancient Greek. In his introduction, Knox takes the position that the Odyssey (and the Iliad as well) had to be written down from the start. Basically, his argument is that the Odyssey (and likewise the Iliad) is too long a work, too complicated in weaving together a lot of complicated and intricate plot lines, and too unified a work of art that it is inconceivable that it was composed orally and had to be written down first. Having reread the Odyssey, I must say Knox’s argument appears to make a lot of sense, but there is a more compelling counterargument that I will be setting forth in a follow-up comment so as to not further delay the posting of this message.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Pn0CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=pisistratus+%252B+works+of+Homer&source=bl&ots=8DkAAHlnTL&sig=uNYYln31_fMA_lzuSOUCXf9JjJ0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA2oVChMI0or0wYDPxwIVQ9WACh0j_gaw%23v=onepage&q=pisistratus%2520%252B%2520w
I’ve seen “blonde” used for males on this site many times. And even if it works as a noun for females, we don’t gender our adjectives in English. That’s a Continental thing. Une bizarrerie européenne.
[…] the hang of the country thing. They had a decent run of city-states a long time ago, but that was when Greeks had red hair and blue eyes. The more swarthy version of the Greeks seem to have trouble organizing much of […]
It is highly dubious. Every time somebody comes up with a theory regarding ethnicity and migrations, it serves some agenda. Generally the one which favours the imperial Babel tower mix of peoples, and which wipes out nationalism.
“Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves.”
You mean by invading other countries, stealing their shit, enslaving their populations, and then whining endlessly about the influx of refugees and immigrants and the fact that your women are inevitably attracted to their manly physiques and deep bass voices (as opposed to what we may safely imagine the physique of the average Unz contributor looks like).
You may be on to something!
P.S. If you think that racial degradation is the greatest threat to our formerly lily-white societies, then you definitely live in your own little world.
This seems kind of ahistorical. For example, animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice. And I give the Jews high marks for insisting that animals for food be slaughtered, instead of having pieces hacked off when it was dinner time.
Unfortunately most people are not interested in the truth.
I don’t read Unz much, but I didn’t expect a typical anti-white “YT GON GIT IT, HE GON GIT KARMA” cockroach to wash up here. Muslim countries did all of that and more to Europeans far more than vice versa, and most of the Scandinavian countries had no imperial history or ambitions, but they’re most eager to open themselves up to the world. And who can forget the timeless “MUH DIK” and bragging about sleeping with the women of another race- if you hate white people so much, why go for their women? I don’t think white women are terribly interested in 5’5 portly mestizos, if that’s also what you had in mind.
P.S. Are you saying you’re white? You technically do live in another world if you think millions and millions of mestizos, west africans, arab muslims etc. isn’t the greatest threat our formerly lily-white (our societies used to be homogeneous? How awful! Weren’t their’s the same though?).
I tried posting this comment on their blog, but I got a 404 error:
“That’s fine and maybe it is for the best. Greeks have never got the hang of the country thing. They had a decent run of city-states a long time ago, but that was when Greeks had red hair and blue eyes. The more swarthy version of the Greeks seem to have trouble organizing much of anything.”
Nothing like this, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
Or do you actually have any genetic evidence that the Greeks once looked like this? There’s been plenty of genetic studies on the history of blue eyes and red hair, but I’ve yet to see a single one indicating ancient Greece was populated by blonde/red haired blue eyed supermen, just the ramblings of some nutcase (that also thinks Germania was also about what the Romans used to look like), and a fan of their crank history who thinks Greek accomplishment ended after the BC era.
Thank you for your exceptionally rigorous post. You have quite easily ‘won’ this thread.
One of the main reasons, it seems, that people want to believe that ancient and modern Greeks are little related is the difference in their social achievements.
This is because they assume that if modern Greeks are quite pure descendants of ancient Greeks then it disproves the significant role of nature/genetics in the success of a society.
But it does not at all.
In reality it just shows how quickly social selection can change the genetic make-up in selected for traits in a population.
Simply put, even a society entirely cut off from the rest of the world, will, after a couple of centuries of strong selection for lower intelligence, become a signficantly lower IQ society. Yet, of course, they will be pure descendents of the earlier inhabitants.
Things can happen very quickly!
I would be tempted to contrast modern and ancient Greek genomes in order to identify genes for exceptionally high IQ. Indeed if there were enough samples, I’d be tempted to do the same with the British population circa 1850 and now. There has clearly been strong selection for a lower IQ in my country in the last 150 years.
Disproves blond euro invasion of India & Egypt then. Aryas are from Indus as the exts of Hindus & Zorastrians state.
Our land called AryaVarta & we called AryaPutra lol yet som suicidal germanic Nordic savages try to steal our Sanskrit legacy.
Well nature dealing with them, who the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad. Sikh for life,
Ok – speaking as someone who can show historically and genetically that his ancestors moved from Greece / Arcadia / Sparta region, to Italy, around 2500 years ago when Pythagoras and a lot of other Greeks made the same move … I found this article bizarre.
“Racial” origins of Greeks and Romans itself is, well, again: bizarre. They were white.
Good enough? If not, why?
Ok … of ***MUCH*** more historical value is the ***ETHNIC*** origins of the same. The author has devoted a great deal of real estate to spreading the myth that this is somehow shrouded in mystery.
It is not – and most of this is a few Google clicks away.
The Greeks and the Romans – those of classical civilization, post the Bronze age collapse of about 1200 BC, … those Greeks and Romans were of Proto-IndoEuropean origin, albeit a slightly more complicated case with the Greeks.
What isn’t complicated … what is quite straightforward, is this:
The Greeks represent perhaps the first excursion of the Proto-IndoEuropeans from the PIE homeland, exact location still unknown but especially as relates the Greeks this is nearly surely a group near the Black Sea around the Danube. The Greeks were
… culturally and linguistically … the “Hellenic” branch of the ProtoIndoEuropean family.
That’s a LOT we know, for something presumably so ignored as the author would have us believe.
Oh yeah … it’s ETHNIC, not RACIAL. Hmmmmm.
Anyway … genetically Greeks are a high mix on the Y-haplogroup side of the more distinctively Proto-IndoEuropean R1A, R1B and the more Anatolian J2′s (the ones who discovered fermentation and invented beer and bread making) than the rest of the PIE groups except for the Indo-Iranian branch … wow, the history and examination we could do there exceeds reasonable comment length.
The Romans … well: there were Latin Romans, Etruscan Romans, and 3 provinces like the ones I came from … Greek Romans, … but most the Romans arise out of the more distinctive R1 PIE stock if we are speaking genetically ,but historically linguistically … (again WOW do we know a lot about this when we are talking Ethnicity not Race) … at least the Latin Romans arose out of the … Latin/Italic branch of the Proto-IndoEuropeans. No mystery there. No one hiding or concealing “racial” origins.
As for the Etruscans – it’s still argued. They may have had origins in Anatolia where it’s clear there was cultural cross-polination with the PIEs going back to prehistory, or they may have been among the original inhabitants of Europe, or they may even have been of Semitic origin, there’s evidence for all of this.
But it isn’t hidden. The business of history and anthropology is changing and increasingly linguistic, anthropological and genetic history is becoming a part of the overall sweep – but in academic consideration it is focused on ethnicity not race. I find the pre-occupation with race in this article, together with its confused presentation of data that isn’t actually very confusing, to be conspicuous.
As far as media (i.e.: Gladiator, etc) … the Greeks and Romans were ethnically distinct from their northern European cousins, who were and are: historically and linguistically of the Celtic, Germanic and Baltic branches of the Proto-IndoEuropeans and moved out of the PIE homeland at a later date, and to different destinations in Europe (some might say: Obviously).
[…] http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/ […]
Hair dye.
Skin bleaching.
Make up.
Politically correct painters/sculpturs/writers…for vain patrons.
Then of course, the author leaves out migration routes out of africa.
Interesting read, but is missing some of the picture.
Seems to lean toward white supremacy. No need for that. Honest science should be all honest people need.
Sorry folks I thought Nordicism went out with high top shoes and corsets. This Nordic nonsense is what has led the White race in all its various complexions and nationalities to the verge of destruction. Before Hitler rose to power and started World War II and the Holocaust the overwhelming majority of White people in every nation on earth where they lived were White Supremacists/segregationists and abhorred and condemned miscegenation and mongrelization of the races. They did not allow any non-European immigrants into western nations before World War II. Those who did not share these views either kept quiet or were viewed as depraved or deranged. The last thing we need now is any divisions to arise between the various branches of the European Caucasian race. We have fought two world wars among ourselves and nearly destroyed Western civilization. We need solidarity and unity among the White race not divisions. I have no doubt that if famous Noridicsts like Jacques de Gobineau, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard could communicate with us they would say to the Whites of today: “Stand solid and unified and make common cause to preserve your race, your nation, and your cultures and religion from both the internal race and nation traitors and the external non-European interlopers. Make peace among yourselves and act as one to save yourselves from oblivion.” That is my opinion for what it’s worth.
You are insane
tl;dr
The point is that dramatic change can happen, and we must be careful to preserve what good we have.
Also, Persians are literal Aryans who did indeed tend toward blond hair. Scythians and Sarmatians on the steppe are Iranian peoples who were described as tall and blond. Of course, once the Huns arrive on the scene then “Scythian” begins to refer to another type altogether. Like Greece, the steppe and Iran have been a mix of peoples which can confuse the matter.
Whole thread is tl;dr
Depressed fertility would wipe out those phenotypes easily. Remember that the ancients did have access to very effective birth control, which would naturally accrue to the upper classes given its scarcity (silphium is extinct). And the author is not claiming the majority of the population was Nordic
I’ve met several blond Greeks and Italians, as other commenters have noted, and as you say, the phenotype will still show up. Even at the early point of initial contact the northerners were meeting a darker population already in place.
actually lips were not emphasized in some cultures at all. Until the early 20th century, Persians enameled the face to a whitish color, drew a mono-brow very dark, and put khol on the eyelids. The mouth however was not emphasized. This was supposed to be like a delicate flower, just opening.
The large mouths favored nowadays may well be the result of exposure to certain races that tend to have larger lips. Very full lips were not considered attractive on mosts whites. “Cherry lips” were the ideal, which suggest plump but not large. The lips of Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, and Julia Roberts would 1 have been considered flaws in previous eras. On races with prognathism, however, large lips look normal.
Of course the current bizarre fashion for negro lips is driven by hatred of traditional European standards of proportion and beauty.
DNA evidence shows the Minoans share the same DNA as modern northwest Europeans. They analyzed the DNA of various Minoan remains dating to about 3,700 years ago.
Quote:
The analysis focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) extracted from the teeth of the skeletons, This type of DNA is stored in the cell’s “batteries” and is passed down, more or less unchanged, from mother to child.
They then compared the frequencies of distinct mtDNA lineages, known as “haplogroups”, in this ancient Minoan set with similar data for 135 other populations, including ancient samples from Europe and Anatolia as well as modern peoples.
The comparison seemed to rule out an origin for the Minoans in North Africa: the ancient Cretans showed little genetic similarity to Libyans, Egyptians or the Sudanese. They were also genetically distant from populations in the Arabian Peninsula, including Saudis, and Yemenis.
The ancient Minoan DNA was most similar to populations from western and northern Europe. The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from Scandinavia and France.
They also resembled people who live on the Lassithi Plateau today, a population that has previously attracted attention from geneticists.
You are not reading the study properly, and it does not support the ancient Minoans being nordic in the least. Big surprise you took the time to bold the parts about western and northern europe and Scandinavia and France, but not Sardinia/Iberia or the Lasithi Plateau, which is in Crete. Neolithic europeans are not genetically the same as the ones today. France isn’t exactly a northern european country and has long had a mediterranean component to it’s population.
Why should Crete be alone? There are plenty of islands in Greece far off the mainland that are homogenous and have remained largely so for millenia. If the Greeks were such different people than they are now, why are there no islands where the people resemble Scandinavians? Did the non-whites or whatever that changed the Greek phenotype also spread just the same to these islands? I previously mentioned how people act like Greek achievmenet ended with ancient times and never extended to the Byzantines- why did nobody ever consider the Byzantines to be racially non-white? Why did they depict and see themselves as European? Do they even look any different from modern Greeks, assuming they mixed with the Ottomans as some claim? The Greeks had plenty of colonies far east of Greece and well into Anatolia. These places remained Greek well up until the Turks came along. Where’s the evidence these people were also any different from modern Greeks?
Yeah, sorry, there’s no evidence to support the idea the Greeks look much different from how they did in ancient times, because they are without a doubt the same people. But let’s also just ignore all that art from ancient Minoa that depicts people with overwhelmingly black hair.
Oh how lovely all the white supremacists are at each other`s throats about who is more paler than the other. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
Sorry, but It’s already a proven scientific fact that the Proto Indo-Europeans on the steppe circa 3,000 BC or so were not Nordic in appearance. Since we now have the genomes of those Steppe groups buried in Kurgan Mounds, and they are darker pigmented than present Southern Europeans, lol.
http://archhades.blogspot.com/2015/10/myth-of-light-pigmented-nordic-looking.html
So the ancient Greeks circa 1500-300 BC descending from a “Proto Indo-European” Nordic elite is impossible. Since it never existed in the first place.
BTW, most of these times the author of the article is trying to mention “blonde Greeks”, the ancient writers are giving the adjective Xanthos. While Xanthos can mean blonde, it should be taken to mean ‘fair’, which has a variety of shades. The Ancient Greeks often gave the adjective Xanthos to describe any hair color short of jet black or dark brown. For example in the Illiad, yes it’s true Achilles and Menelaus were called Xanthos, but then again so were horses. Now of course there is no such thing as a literal yellow colored horse, but there are horses of this color.
Not platinum blonde but a light shade of brown. This is quite a frequent shade of hair color in the Mediterranean/Southern Europe. Not the dominant shade [which is chesnut-dark brown and off black] but certainly a significant minority.
When the Ancient Greeks came into contact with real blondes like Scythians or Celts, they called them “Leukos” [taken literally means "whitish" haired] which they never call their own fair types. I see the author quotes Adamantius but ignores this quote from him.
Adamantius, Physiognomica, II, 37.10
“hê de agan xanthê kai hupoleukos, hopoia Skuthôn kai Keltôn, amathian kai skaiotêta kai agriotêta”
“Very fair and whitish hair, like that of Scythians and Celts, [signifies] ignorance, dimness and savageness.”
Notice the term leukos, the ancient Greeks never called their own fair types that color. Adamantius used the term “hupoxanthos” to describe the ‘pure Greek’s hair color, not “hupleukos”. Not to mention Adamantius’ complete prejudice and disdain for such a color present in Northern Europeans. Also the author translates the eye to “fair” in a color context when the real translations is “beautiful” eyes.
Conclusion, the fair types seen in ancient Greece are not the same as those in Northern Europe, and the author of the article is not objective. The author of this article makes it seems like the phenotype and hair color of the North European was the ideal, it wasn’t.
That’s what I’ve always thought. There are indeed distinctions between “Nordics” and “Meds” (and Slavs, and Celts,too, I guess), but they would have been most significant to Europeans who had never seen any non-white people (except for the Semites.) Even the people of the different cantons in Switzerland think differences among themselves are very great, because many have never been out of Switzerland. The Irish are dark haired in the west, lighter in the east. Scotland has a similar difference, only north/south.
The Somalis of the 1930s, thought the English were “Turks” because they all just looked white to the Somalis. And the Turks, btw, were greatly feared by the Somalis.They had a hard time believing how decent the English were (well, this was the 1930s; their empire days were ending.)
The people of the Italian peninsula (I know less about Greece) differ little from what they looked like 2000 years ago. I look at frescos, ancient mosaics and sculpture, and I see people ranging in coloring but all European looking. There are reds and blonds among them but not enough to be Sweden or Scotland. It’s just a matter of percentage. Rebecca West, in her 1940 travelogue, Black Lamb, Gray Falcon, had an interesting way of describing the blonds of the Balkans — their skin seemed to be infused with a certain golden color that went with their hair while blonds further north seemed to lack any color. Personally I think that was just a sunnier climate, but it could be genetics.
Before you create any thought about the ancient Greeks and Roman… I advice you to learn about Albanian!
One thing we know for sure is who the Barbarian are that distroy Romen Empire! So, it helps to exclude the Barbarian of West, North, East, or South … in order to find among the ancient people of that region the real remains of that ancient population.
Race? What’s race? Thought the Human Genome Report released in 2003 says there’s no such thing as a “race”. Genetic types cut thru “races” making the concept obsolete. Skin color, pigments, eye color may be different, but genetics makes no concessions to “race”. As for the oh-so-fair skin color of some Greeks with blue eyes, well many Turks next door or Syrians further down the street have them too. Even some Palestinians do, horrible though this may seem to some.
“Keep the dark people out” ?? Wow, thats pretty racist of you.
I am Italian, born in Piemonte region. My mother has blonde and my sister. I know my ancestry back for centuries – the church has always kept records. My sister and I have DNA test for medical reason, and without doubt we match 85% Italian/ Greek. No Nordic. My family knows our ancestry also through passing from one to the next. We laugh to think northern people want to claim the politics, architects, music, art and science or our country. Anciently Italians (Rome and Greek) called blonde/blue eyes of the north “cowardly barbarians”.
Virgil in the Aeneid called Dido of Carthage (by ancestry a Phoenician, ie from the Levant) blonde – not entirely impossible given that the Phoenicians seem to have been Indo-European ‘Sea People’. Certainly more likely than an Afro-American Hannibal.
Romans saw themselves as smaller, darker, and less physically strong than the Germanic barbarians, but they and – the Greeks even moreso – were Indo-European speakers, primarily descendants of invaders from the north ca roughly 2500 BC, with some ancestry from the earlier farming cultures. All descendants of the Indo-European speakers in Europe are ‘white’ I’d have thought, and are the same race in all but the narrowest sense – ‘the Greek race’ ‘the Scots race’ etc.
It’s obvious that the early Greeks and Romans were of north European ancestry. As were the early Egyptians. No other race of people have ever built advanced cultures and civilizations, which were all eventually destroyed by darker skinned people immigrating from north Africa. Who have always attracted to culture, wealth and prosperity that they systematically dilute and destroy. At present, the wealthy and advanced cultures of Europe and the US are in the process of being destroyed by this race of people. That’s why the future of advanced civilization lies in the hands of Russia, Iran and China, who all appear to understand that allowing large numbers of dark skinned minorities into their countries would a huge mistake that would lead to irreparable damage.
What a nonsense! German tribes and Gauls were just wild barbarians, who had their own culture, but in comparison to romans they were barbarians all the same. In Greek and Latin the word “blond” could meand anything other than pitch black. When I look at ancient statues I see nothing Nordic in their features. In fact, if you look closely at modern Greeks you will see that they haven’t changed much.
http://pics.livejournal.com/ultima_cruzado/pic/0012ct1d/s320x240
http://pics.livejournal.com/ultima_cruzado/pic/0012dhs8/s320x240
Look these links out
Lots of these comments are just ridiculous.
Throughout my life I have always been confronted with people who seem to think that ‘Nordic’ appearance is somehow better. I find that interesting, because I have been surrounded by Germanic looking peoples throughout my life, and I am hard pressed to find great men among any of them.
Does fairer hair and fair skin make a man noble? Is ancestry a sign of being great? So many of these comments are childish. A great man isn’t born – HES MADE.
Also, if you want to gauge if ancient peoples looked similar to today, just judge ancient statues.
I stopped reading this drivel when I saw the bit about “Germanic eye color” of Roman statues ROFL!
What brought down the ancients was relentless invasion by savage merciless Northern Europeans, the most bloodthirsty horde of mass murderers that ever cursed this planet. American resistance to these genocidal invaders completely collapsed in the 19th century.
The high quality of both articles and comments is something not common in the blogsphere, coming over Unz is always an enlightening experience.
I have read somewhere that hunting nomades used to eat large amounts of meat and thereby they ingested enough Vitamin D so that they didn’t need fair skin to produce it.
Agricultural societies used to feed on crops and less meat so that their skin was fair.
It doesn’t affect the color of the eyes or the hair.
I think Celts were more a cultural unity for there were both dark and fair hair among them.
So much to learn still.
I agree with some of the information, but disagree about the Greeks and the
Romans mixing their blood with other races. I have looked at the Southern
Italian DNA and it is so close to the ancient Greeks. I don’t agree that the
Greeks and the Romans mixed their blood with Nordic or Germanic races
simply because their facial features are completely different, obviously
there has been some mixing of races. Generally the Greek race has remained
pure. I don’t think that colour of hair and eyes has anything to do with it.
Simply because the are some people from Arabic or Turkish berber origin
that also have light skin and blue eyes, but their facial features are completely
different.
What about the blond Slavs, particularly from Central and North Eastern Europe? And don’t give us this Nazi bullshit that the millions of blond Slavs throughout Poland, Russia and other Slavic countries have Nordic blood. Very poor scholarship shown here.
By the way the ancient Alans who migrated West from what is today Kazakhstan were described by the ancients as tall blonds. The famous Persian King who failed to conquer Greece was described as having red hair. Slavs migrating from the North also invaded Greece and it is believed they settled around 500 – 600 AD.
Ancient Rome (particularly between Sulla and Augustus) is definitely one of the most interesting periods of time regarding the race questions its very striking how nearly all modern authors seem to avoid the subject as the author mentioned. Will Durant was a presidential medal of freedom winner and his book on the Roman Republic/Empire is one of the best, he brings up the racial transformation of Rome as it went from the Republic to empire on multiple occasions, his general opinion seems to be it worked for awhile but as time went on the native Romans (and italians for that matter) became strangers in their own country. (A senator in Sulla’s day would have been stunned to see what the inhabitants of Rome had become a few centuries later.
(Caesar and Christ) p.221-222 (Augustus began modestly enough by seeking to check the racial transformation of Rome. Population there was not declining; on the contrary, it was growing as the sons of freedman automatically became citizens, the emancipation of slaves and fertility of aliens combined with the low birth of the native stocks to change the ethnic character of Rome.
Whitey wins again
I read Julius Caesars “Conquest of Gaul” he made mention at one point that the northern tribes often made fun of the Romans short stature. This suggests that the Romans were not that related to the northerners. But on the other hand Rome was a city state. Being Roman wasnt the same as being Italian. Also the Roman soldiers were not necessarily Roman citizens and were a collection of many different racial groups.
Its well known Hannibals army was made up of many different groups and this didnt seem to surprise the Romans at all.
Its also been mentioned that classical Greece was actually a remnant of a much more advanced and diverse culture which preceded it but is yet still unknown.
The ethnicity of the slaves Rome took in would depend on who they were at war with. Slaves came mostly from defeated armies and sacked cities.
Originally it would be others states in Italy, then Cathage (originally settled by Phoenicians from Lebanon). Once the Carhaginian War was over Rome pretty much went to war with anyone and everyone on its borders.
So originally slaves would be other Italians, presumably of similar stock, then Semitic slaves from Carthage, other North Africans allied to Carthage, as well as Spaniards. Spain was a part of Carthage until Rome took it away. After that Rome pretty much went to war with anyone and everyone on its borders. Slaves could be anything from Celts, Germans, Greeks, Slavs, Semites, Egyptians and assorted other North Africans.
Considering how well the Romans did warfare, and the multitudes of slaves war brought in, it should be no surprise that the original Romans bitched about loosing their pure Roman blood.
The other option would be for them to get conquered and be shipped off as slaves themselves.
Blue/Green eyes are based on a recessive gene. Any mixing with the dominant black/brown gene will wipe out blue/green eyes in preference to black/brown.
I believe red hair is also recessive and blonde hair as well.
Wait a few thousand more years and a blond blue eyed person will be as rare as a hens tooth.
That: A) has nothing to do with my post B) is completely false, even two parents with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes
Stick to godlikeproductions please
Only if both parents have the recessive gene. Then there is a quarter chance of blue/green showing.
Also considering that most of the blue/green eye gene reside in the whites of Europe and North America, neither of which is producing offspring at a replacement level, the gene will show in a smaller and smaller percentage of the worlds population as time goes by.
Smaller and smaller percentage of the worlds population having the gene, and the gene being recessive, and needing both mother and father to have it, makes it look like blue/green eyes have a bleak outlook for the long term.
I did mention thousands of years in my post did I not?
I know it is too late to expect a meaningful reply to this, but the sudden transition to hooded eyes in art from the Ravenna period (and earlier) of Rome until about the end of the eighth or tenth century always puzzles me.
I am not speaking of paintings or portrayals of the subject in death, but a more general trend.
Since, in the western and fallen empire, the new royalty were franks, goths, vandals, &c., why does the visual art of the time so heavily feature hooded eyes? Perhaps it was a religious thing?
One of the historico-cultural things I can never understand,
So Islam’s substantial origins in Judaism is now something for Jews to be proud of? No. They are both gutter religions for savage cruel peoples.
Sadly, there won’t be any white peoples left, let alone blue-eyed or light-haired, within one hundred years. No need to wait thousands of years.
Wake up, people.
My mother’s mother — born in the USA to two Italian parents, with no known non-Italian ancestry, who came from the Naples area (NOT Northern Italy) — had blondish hair and green eyes.
A good white woman and proud American. Rest in peace.
Not sure about Russia, given that the population of non-Muslim ethnic Russians grows little to none in most years while the Muslim population in Russia and the Russian Federation continues to grow at a faster rate.
A person of any skin color who adheres to that particularly cruel, savage, and anti-human religion is a danger to the host country and culture.
I would guess that the likeliest outcome, on current trends, is an Islamicized Russia where non-Muslim Russians make up a shrinking majority, and then not a majority at all. But maybe they can turn it around. It’s not just in the Caucasus where Muslims are present in large numbers, and Russians will regret it if they fail to drive Muslims out everywhere in their country.
Concerning the “Greek profile”, I’m Scandinavian from above arctic circle mixed with various German ancestry and have a nose that distinctly lines up with my forehead. So does my husband which was quite comical in our profile wedding photos. Don’t have long nose however.
No Greek or any other southern ancestry.
Always wondered about this trait. Is on both mother and fathers side.
Zarathustras God is far superior to the Jewish God. So is islams God which was purified is some of yahwehs handiwork in the Old Testament of craziness!
I fail to see why a racist, maddened comment like yours needed to be approved.
You may want to say “more pale” or “paler” instead of “more paler”: that may betray your identity, in case your anti-white mad racism (racism so mad that it can only come from complexes of inferiority) wouldn’t already.
Anti-white racism seems to stem from envy, “again”.
The same analysys, by England’s Chief Rabbi, here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/08/europe-going-die-lord-sacks-laments-end-western-civilisation/
Striking similarity: he even mentions ancient Greece and Rome.
When every sensible observer observes the same, it means that’s become obvious, and unchangeable, sadly.
Most of the Roman statues have a curly hair.
I have been to Greece many times and studied Classics. A quick stroll through the Archaelogical museum of Athens will extinguish any idea that ancient Greeks and modern Greeks differ much physically at all. You can see statues come to life right in the streets of Athens. The similarities in physiognomy are actually stricking, and there is a simple explanation.
There are only 14 million Greeks left on earth today, yet Greeks were a huge presence in the Levant and throughout the Eastern Med during the Byzantine Empire. The language of Byzantium was Greek, and Hellenization occurred for a thousand years before full invasion and destruction of eastern Christianity by Ottomans.
What happened to all those Greeks? Many were killed fighting Ottomans, and some were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. During the 400 year occupation of Greece, Greek girls were taken from their parents to be married off in Harems and converted to Islan. Greeks hid their daughters or dressed them up as boys to avoid these abductions. Christians and Muslims never ever mixed, but IF a Muslim man married a Christian woman, she would convert to his religion, not the other way around.
No Christian Greek would convert to Islam willingly — they were not only devoted to Christianity, they were also devoted to their land and traditions, so many died resisting and fighting for the entirely of the occupation. See the Dance of Zalongo, look at the Meteroa monasteries built on cliffs. IF a Greek Christian did willingly convert, he would no longer be counted as a Greek but as a Turkish Muslim, and thus would enjoy the rights and privileges of Occupier, pay few taxes, and subjugate others. Ottomans certainly didn’t go around becoming Christians during their Emire.
This is common sense, the power elite doesn’t convert to his subject’s religion for there is neither political favor or financial benefit in doing so. Hence, Greeks and others lost population to the Ottomans, not the other way around.
When Greece finally won independence in a series of brutal wars, more Greek population was lost, but bravery and valor was in abundant display as Greeks fought naval campaigns, outnumbered, basically suicide missions just as the Spartans and Athenians two thousand years before. What remains of Greeks today (aside from Albanian immigrants and other immigrants that happen to live in Greece) is the creme de la creme, ethnically pure die hards that stuck it through millennia. Bravo.
The Greek language is remains contiguous and unchanged for thousands of years. The Ancient dialects are similar to modern Greek, and the letters are unchanged (as Olde English is similar to modern English) but with Greek being two thousand years older the achievement and continuity is impressive.
As far as cherry picking some ancient’s use of Xanthos to describe hair color as what we consider “blonde”, this is either a deliberate deception or simply ignorance of the Greek language. Xanthos (masculine) or Xanthia (feminine) is used to depict “not dark brown/black”, and this description is used because a common hair color in both ancient and modern Greece is chestnut brown.
The presence of more chestnut in brown hair is what leads to the description of red hair, or “kokkinomala.” Brown hair that is in the sun through the summer often turns reddish golden, and many Greek children are born strawberry blonde, but they are not covered in freckles like gingers are, and you don’t see freckles depicted or referenced anywhere in ancient Greece. There were no Viking platinums, period.
Greeks have mostly brown eyes, but many have green, blue and gray. Because the coloring of blue, green or gray is less common, it it no wonder that when it did occur it would be singled out. If most everyone is 6 feet tall and one person is 4 ft tall, then a good descriptor would be his height. Still, The presence of blue or green eyes wasn’t exactly celebrated by the ancients, they quite appreciated brown eyes as evidenced by thousands and thousands of extant murals, pottery drawings, mosaics and written descriptions.
Skin color: If you visit Greece you will find some very pale people, especially women. You will find a lot of chestnut brown hair, brown eyes, and very white (not freckled) skin. It doesn’t even look like it belongs in the Med, but it is prevalent nonetheless. You will also find golden skin, tanned skin, dark hair, light hair – a pleasing variety wherein no one stands out unless he is Hulk Hogan.
It is clearly the same light skin that the author is referring to when claiming Penelope was Nordic because Homer said she was “fair”. Good grief, if this isn’t a desperate stretch.
We should be celebrating the few remaining Greeks for their ancestral contributions. What remains of Greeks today (aside from Albanian immigrants and other immigrants that happen to live in Greece) is the creme de la creme, ethnically pure die hards that stuck it through millennia.
No people on earth today have fought harder for their land and their culture than the Greeks, and to suggest that those few who survive today are not related to their ancestors, and to claim those ancestors as your own Nordic fantasy, is an affront.
The Indo Europeans were not North-Western Europeans, they would have appeared more or less Balkan, not Nordic as a whole but with some Nordic like elements. Therefore neither the Romans nor the Greeks and neither their ancestors looked like Northwestern Europeans. In Southern Europe, particularly in the Aegaean there was a mixing of Indo Europeans and Afro-Asiatics. The Southern Indo Europeans adopted the culture and religion(the oldest Dionysus and Hercules were believed to be either the Phoenician or Egyptian ones) of those Afro Asiatics and gave it their own flavor.
Quite honestly this old attempt to nordify these ancient mediterranean Indo European societies on the part of Anglo Saxons or Germans reeks of low self esteem.
Making skin color and light features an ideology is not going to make a republic last long.
Even if there were only a small number of darker-skinned, dark-haired natives among more numerous invaders, these features would have been favoured by the climate, and natural selection would have caused them to spread throughout the population. Most genes of the original population would not have spread so widely because they conferred no advantage.
[…] Civilizations perish the same way. Witness what happened to ancient Greece and Rome, both of which reached new heights for human civilization and then faded away, leaving behind a population far different than the original: […]
Macedonians have always been the lightest featured Greeks, and today, Greeks in that region have some of the lightest features of all the Greeks. That doesn’t make them “Nordic” however. There is a huge difference between a blue eyed and ruddy Balkans person and an actual Nordic from Scandinavia.
Didnt you invade North America? arent you the aliens that drove out the natives?
And then you cry about the end of the white race.. get yourselfs together and stop blaming everyone and everything for your fictional problems.
It’s well known among economicists and historians that north Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world and has been since about 600 AD. What is now Belgium which used to be Burgundy/Flanders, and southern Germany/Austria/northern and central France are now and have been just about the wealthiest areas of the world, for at least a thousand years.
Another thing, according to the first IQ chart that pops up, the average IQ in all of Italy is 102 and the Scandinavian countries all have average IQs below 100 small differences but there it is
American Renaissance has many good articles but White Nationalists (all Whites) don’t like it because it is very oriented towards southern Americans obsessed. with their loss in the civil war and the confederate flag. There is a lot of hatred of the Catholic Church on that site I believe it’s because the RC is headquarters in Italy, home of the mongrel Mediterranean race which is totally separate from the Anglo Saxons and oh so superior Nordics
Many amren followers firmly believe that even the French are part black
Having lived and travelled in Europe I noticed that the Slavs, both the northern Poles and southern Serbians are far blonder, bluer, and taller than the Germans and Anglo Saxon English so admired on American Renaissance
I have read Roman accounts that the first Romans who encountered the Germans referred to them as ghosts because their skin was so much paler than that of the Romans
This author does not seem to know the difference between a race and an ethnic group
But this article is from American Renaissance Many of the readers have strange views. For instance, every British person is an Anglo Saxon There are no remnants of the original celts and the ancient indigenous people.
Even stranger, during th hundreds of slavery and right up until 1960 no southern White man ever had a child by a black woman All the millions of mulattoes quadroons octoroons etc are the product of sluttish slave girls and black men.
They believe that and post it continually Many are fundamentalist crazy Christians who don’t believe in evolution
An ethnic group is not a race.
People-Dynamics – Modern-Greeks are just as Greek as any ancient-Greek, or future Greeks to come.
People-Dynamics – The genes you carry today, may not reflect faithfully ones ethnic-pride or national-identity.
People-Dynamics – I belong to an ethnic-group if i really want it…on the proviso, the host people-group, accept me.
Greeks have been Hellenizing peoples in closest proximity to themselves for millennia. It has to do with Hellenism, a strong historically proven resilient dominant culture. Western peoples adopted Hellenic culture for culture of choice. Show respect to Greeks – for keeping and preserving their Hellenic ancestors culture and way of life for millenniums.
Nordic-Shytes – Show Respect.
Please scan and put on line for those of us fortunate enough to be enjoying Obama’s economic miracle…..!
Fuunny how white people are the only ones feeling intimidated not to talk about their peculiarities and even willing to deny their origins for fear of being ridiculed o threatened. Articled s. like these are rare, although certainly will be followed by thousands of others soon.
Amazing subject and interesting comments! The homo sapiens have not changed for centuries. Each and every one of them wants to show the world how superior he is ….. from his special skin color, eye color, or IQ!
1) So many IQ based opinions and comments! IQ is quite proven to be a useless metric for anything. Waste of time!
2) Old Greeks, old Romans. They are the same…. and yet quite different. This is that part of Europe that was warm, and fertile. The Pelasgeans are the initial settlers. The Illyrians are the descendants. The Greeks and the Illirians were simply for the longest time the prime inhabitants of this area. Lots of wars, lots of back and forths, and lots of gene mixing.
3) Due to many wars, many families were forced to live in the hard to reach mountainous areas. To this day you will find plenty of very tall, blue eye, and quite physically strong people in Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia etc. Montenegro has some of the tallest people in the world, living in remote areas. So does northern Albania, southern mountainous Albania, Northern Greece, or Southern Serbia. Yet, in those same countries, you have short, dark skinned individuals who lived primarily in towns, and lower areas. These are the remnants of the many back and forth events in history.
So, back to the article, what race are the greeks and romans? At least for the greeks, they are a heavy mixture of everything….. but today, when you see greeks, you see primarily a strong pelasgean influence. Arvanitas, there from the old Epirus days, macedonians, and turks make a big portion of today’s greeks. You simply cannot understand today’s greeks if you do not know the huge albanian (Epirus) presence and influence over centuries.
This article in a nutshell
To know Greeks is to know their history…Greeks since the beginning, have been a seafaring International peoples, consequently Greeks met, (married) and intermingled with a great many ‘other’ peoples. Greeks are said to be “cousins” to a wide variety of ‘other’ peoples on that basis.
The Greek character having formed over millennia, can be summarized as being multi-layered and multifaceted. Most people would consider Greek peoples being Mediterranean(s) first and foremost, but there is more.
1- Mediterranean: Greeks could be clustered together with Italians, Maltese, Spaniards, Portuguese, and to a lesser extent the French, within the framework of a greater Graeco-Roman civilization.
2- Western European: since, in the West, Greece is considered to be the cradle of Western civilization.
3- Eastern European: since Greeks baptized Christianized and civilized the Slavic Tribes into Greek culture and (Eastern) Orthodox Religion of Byzantium.
4- Near and Middle Eastern: since Greek expansion into Asia-Minor and Asia proper, ensured prolonged ties with Eastern cultures.
5- Balkanian: Greeks are not comfortable with this term. Greeks prefer the term ‘Haemus Native’ – anyway, a Balkan identity similar to that of Albanians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, does exist. There are common elements, contributions from the Eastern Roman Empire and from the Ottoman Empire. All of this bears testament to shared common heritage between Greeks and ‘other’ peoples in closest proximity to Hellenic world.
Greeks have always been international peoples, since time immemorial. The Greek Character is multi-layered and multifaceted, drawing in embedded experiences from five different geographical locations. The Greeks were never restricted to one location or to one particular country, there were no countries with fixed border’s in ancient times. From the river Ebro in the West to the river Evros in the East – That space in between is Greek concept Evropi.
Greece in ancient times could be visualized spanning from the far West of [Iberia] Spain to as far East as [Colchis] Georgia. There was never a country called ‘Greece’ in ancient times, instead there were many Greeks inhabiting many regions of Evropi. Hence, contemporary Greeks look back at themselves standing at forefront of long chain of Greek-speakers. Today’s Greeks see themselves like cultural-linguistic continuator’s of endowments received, passed-on to them from previous generations of Greeks, stretching all the way back from Mycaenean Proto-Greeks.
The Greek language and Hellenic culture define Greeks…Old-Europe’s senior elder wiser population dynamic boasts native autochthony to Haemus (Greek) peninsula.
From Crete in the south to Macedonia in the north. From Anatolia in the east to Sicily in the west. That space in between is Greek cultural-linguistic space – Greeks look back at themselves in awe of their Hellenic inheritance.
The West owe Hellenism something – Respect!
This is classic example of voodoo science.Totally out of touch with subject in serious manner.From days of 17 century German historical school which looked in creation of history to narratives of political class science has gone way ahead.Archeology digging has given rich biological data via science of Anthropology and Genetics has shown Anthropological varieties and their migration patterns.Contrary to popular believes ancient people don’t mix with each other and their Anthropological features bear characteristics of genetic line.In text above Lucius Junius Brutus was declared of German origin.German identity how we know is pretty new endeavor centuries after life of Brutus.What we perceive today to be German facial characteristics is result of recent mix of mayor 5 genetic variants of tribes not related at all in between.Simply there is no known German unique uniting Anthropological or genetic characteristic.German means language and culture. Brutus for anthropology is eazy.Near all Romans has mesocephalic features consistent with mayor genetic haplogroup J2 dominantly present in Ancient Greek and Romans but near absent in Germans today.Pelazgians on other hand had Brachycephalic features with in Dinaric anthropological type and with in genetic haplogroup I….which means that historical claims of dark features does not correspond with anthropological and genetic findings.In fact J2 has middle east darker features and Betta tallasamia which can be seen in pockets of Greeks and Italians.
Someone has to mention the Neanderthals and it might as well be myself.
White skin is entirely a Neanderthal trait (as was straight hair and an ability to take extreme cold). Interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens arriving in Europe from Africa extended over a 10,000 year period before the Neanderthals finally went extinct for various reasons (a super volcano going off in Italy the main precipitating event) 40,000 years ago. This discussion is really about the continuing ripples extending out genetically since Neanderthals genes plunged into the human gene pool.
In fact everyone reading this has around 2% Neanderthal in their DNA.
> A fabulous story of Greece and Greeks is very different
The Greeks were very hung up on geometric commensuration. Couldn’t handle algebraic symbolism at all.
To be clear, the contribution (to mathematics) of Hebrews _qua_ Hebrews was….. zero.
> Thales the Milesian of Greek and Phoenician, i.e. Semitic, ancestry
The Phoenicians spoke the same language as the people just to their south.
A number of Talmud references to boys of tribe-of-Dan running away on ships out of Tyre. Presumeably for money and adventure.
> Algebra was invented by an Arab
no shipmate, it was PUBLISHED IN THE WEST in Arabic.
Isaac Newton’s work was published in Latin. That doesn’t mean a Roman wrote it.
PS: The young woman in the illustration at top of this column appears to be wearing the same style of dress that women in Karachi do today.
Superb assertion! There is so much whimsical envy about the ancient Greeks, and such heavy chips on the shoulders of hyperboreans/Northerners, so linguistically and culturally dependent on what fermented and developed in Greece and Italy, that dementia is a common consequence in the minds of those who cannot accept that their ancestors were still in the Bronze Age when beauty was being immortalized in a Parthenon. Thank heaven for modern genetics that have indisputably supported the unbroken continuity of Greeks from antiquity to the present. The temperament of modern Greeks still rings of the individualistic freedom that created both the glory and the plights of the Greek people. This sense of unparalleled freedom, of course, will always contrast the “herd” mentality of the slower thinking northerners who must abide by the “rules” in fear of being stricken by the shepherds…. Today, however, we are stuck between the policies of the Northern buffoons and the Southern races, who, not being able to stand their ugliness, want to attire beauty in a burka! O tempora, o mores!
Well stated Philhellene!
Those are reconstructions. you base your theories on manipulated statues, if you look at paintings you clearly see they look mediterranean, dark haired and skin
I was in Greece earlier this summer, and to some degree, that’s also the case today. Some folks look rather Turkish, but others look more or less like they’re Balkan while others look kind of like northern Italians.
If you’re in the islands and get away from the tourist crowds and hang out among the natives at a restaurant, the ambiance seems very middle-Eastern, at least to this American. It isn’t the dress or the food, it’s the people – their look and their attitude (which is rather intense.) But then, just when you think you have a good sense of the racial or ethnic profile or nuance, some blondish fair complected native will walk up and start talking with everyone else. The Greeks islanders today don’t seem to segregate themselves among skin tones, but, then again, though the range is noticeably greater than, say, indigenous Nordics, it isn’t all that great in the scheme of things. It’s all recessive gene related and not of much consequence to them.
There’s a man I know from North Carolina, and I always thought he looked much more midwestern than southern, as he has that very Norwegian tall red haired, pale skinned (with freckles) appearance that’s much more common in Nebraska than North Carolina. I was surprised to find out, however, that he considers himself mostly Scotch Irish, and is one fourth Cherokee Indian to boot. He may be mistaken about the exact percentage of his Indian heritage, but even if he was one eighth, he doesn’t look the part. He said his mom was dark complected and never burned in the sun, but he has to keep himself covered in sunscreen and wears long pants in the summer. That’s the power of recessive genes.
The reason for the blue eyes in Greece today is because the south of the continent of Europe was invaded my Germanic Barbarian trives . Not because they were there before classic times . And Nordic people have nothing to do with the Greek language, the Greek language is an indo-European language it has nothing to do with any Germanic language.
What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery.
thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery
Yes, here is a classic “racial annihilation memorial” that nobody recognizes it for what is was, a racial annihilation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme
The strategic objective of that battle was to kill as many white goyim as possible.
This is why I take modern historians with a grain of salt. They are not scholars but political activists.
Interesting point about Catholics and Catholic priests. A lot of the priests were from the brighter sections of youth and in light of revelations from the last few decades or so, more likely to have same sex preferences.
However, speaking of IQ in Ireland measured in the early 70s, you forgot to mention or didn’t think of the huge Irish diaspora. Millions of more motivated and more ambitious Irish left Ireland in the 19th century alone.
Yes they were mostly the common folk but what they had in common was their desire to free themselves from all the limitations British rule had imposed including famine and the destruction of their Gaelic culture. It is not coincidental that in the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, the Irish rose in social rank and the descendants of those who left Ireland are remarkably successful given the circumstances of their ancestors in the home country.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that African slaves taken to the USA and the Caribbean were selected for their physical condition.
Despite the obvious intelligence of some notable African American achievers, there could be a case made for the inability of those in urban locations such as Chicago who keep playing out black on black crime in gangs and repetitive behaviour in other black urban areas where nothing – not affirmative action, not decades of permitting entry into university and college with lower scores, not significant outlays of public money again and again – can alter behaviour patterns of non achievement and the focus on accumulating material goods while claiming racism when there is no money left for essentials.
The catch-all slavery excuse has worn thin but is still being used by political demagogues (no, not Trump), race baiters, and the new black racists in the form of self-segregation and promotion of hatred which is rarely called racism by a spineless and manipulated media. The genetics of slave selection probably holds the answer to much of the self-defeating behaviour and easy transference of responsibility to ‘whiteness’.
I’m a Lebanese guy who is almost always take to be some kind of eastern European, like many on my extended family. Others in my family look rather more olive. This causes some of my female cousins to be chased around the desk a la Miss Buxley.
We’re a frickin’ gene salad. I think it’s pretty safe to assume the Greeks of old, like the Greeks of today were as well.
JEZUS!!! you are f… retarded.
Never trust a Redneck from Kentucky.
Ele passou a contar com a ajuda de pequeno número de amigos, que passaram a lhe fornecer inicialmente
historias de suas experiencias sexuais, sendo elas reais ou imaginárias.
“There were always higher concentrations of fairer skinned people in the North, and yet they were far less advanced and civilized than Southern Europé”
Yes, because of the Cold weather that stoped them from developing as fast and instead they tried to survive the cold, icy winters in the North. While the greeks had much more sunshine, warmth and easier access to fish, fresh vegetables and such.
I think that all those assertions about the nordic type of the ancient Greeks is based in the cognitive dissonance that for the Anglo Americans, sadly not totally liberated of their racist prejudices , produces the fact that the Greek civilization originated there. And that the germanic peoples were practically in the Stone Age in those times.
But it is a fact that the Western civilization is built with the remains of the wreck of the Sumerian , Egypitian Minoic , and Greek civilization began in Sumer, and spreaded to the rest of the world.
>citing March of the Titans
Hilarious!
The Solutrean Hypothesis is retarded.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263808760_On_the_Inferred_Age_and_Origin_of_Lithic_Bi-Points_from_the_Eastern_Seaboard_and_Their_Relevance_to_the_Pleistocene_Peopling_of_North_America
“Many amren followers firmly believe that even the French are part black”
They are not the brightest bunch. The other day some guy was telling me that we evolved from monkeys. Another pushing the multiregional hypothesis because “you can’t make black skin white”. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Modern archaeology and genetics tell us the following facts about Europe’s racial origins:
1) The WHG’s (the original Europeans since the Paleolithic) were dark haired, BLUE eyed, and fairly dark skinned. The WHG’s had Y haplotype I2a (and probably I1 as well). These people are direct descendants of the old Cro-Magnons.
2) The Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia or the Caucasus about 10,000 years ago. They are the people who appear to have brought light skin into the continent (based on ancient DNA). A good example of one of these people is Otzi the Iceman (5,000 year old frozen man found in the Alps). These people brought Y haplotype G2a and J into the continent (and perhaps E as well).
3) Finally, about 5,000 years ago, the so-called “Aryans” or Indo-Europeans invaded the continent with their horses and war chariots which gave them a huge tactical advantage over the sedentary farmers. The horse was domesticated in Khazikstan by these same people in the Bakail region long before they entered Europe. These guys supplanted much of the male population of Europe (probably through genocide) but they did admix with the native females.
Archaeologists have identified early IE burial sites from the early bronze age on the eastern fringes of Europe (in and around Ukraine) which just so happen to date to about the same time the invasion began. ( This culture is dubbed “Yamnaya”). They have done genome sequences on the remains and concluded that every single male tested thus far carried Y halogroup R1b. This is the most dominant male haplogroup in all of Europe today (almost 80%) suggesting that the Indo-European men had a jolly good time with their mating selection.
So what does this tell us about Greece and Rome? It tells us two important things:
1) The Indo-Europeans supplanted the languages in almost every corner of Europe (except the Basque region). Greek, Latin, all the Germanic branches and all the Romance languages are all derived from these people. That is to say all these languages evolved from a proto language brought from the steppes with the R1b males (and their women).
2) We know they admixed with the native populations thoroughly (on both sides), which means that most of Europe was completely hybridized long before classical Greece arose.
This means that the Greeks were probably like most modern Euros today. There were blondes, brunettes and red-heads within the same locale, same tribe and same family (with brunettes being the most numerous). The fact that there were fair haired Greeks and Romans is evident from the fact they had “nicknames” for blondes and red-heads (Flavian and Rufus, for example, in Rome).
There isn’t much doubt based on everything known (ancient Greek writings, archaeology, linguistics) that the Hellenes were from north of the Alps. They were indeed a northern people who brought an Indo-European language (but retained some of the native Ionian vernacular).
We know the Hellenic Greeks were of at least partial Indo-European descent because, as said already, the language itself is Indo-European. Same for Latin.
I would categorize the Greeks into two broad racial groups: The northern Hellenes and the native Ionians (who were darker, shorter and more “Mediterranean”). The Hellenes brought what we know as classical Greek culture. However, the Ionians were already highly advanced in their own right (especially artistically and in philosophy). There is no doubt that much of the Ionian culture was adopted by the Hellenes.
There were many blondes among the Hellenes as is evidenced by the writings of the day, but that was covered thoroughly in the article we are all replying to, so I won’t repeat it.
Looking at the busts of ancient Greeks and Romans, I see northern European features in many of them, but not all. Some could pass in England or Germany, while others look like they are straight out of a Sopranos episode.
My only point here is that the ancient Greeks and Romans were not all dark-haired and dark eyed. There were fair-haired, fair-skinned people in both cultures (among the earliest members). Were they “nordic?” I guess it depends on how one defines the term. If you define it to mean people with caucasian features that also have blonde hair, then some of them were nordic. Does “nordic” mean they have to look like Dolph Lundgren (Swedish)? If so, then I would say very few, if any, fit that profile.
Do I believe that only “nordics” have created civilization? Of course not. Do I believe some people want to completely rewrite history in order to push an anti-nordic agenda? That is to say, do I think some people want to deny blondes any sort of influence in early European civilization in order to teach those white nationalists a lesson? Yes, I think some people push that agenda, especially RacialRealist88.
From Tacitus’ Germania :
“Physical Characteristics. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.”
I am in complete agreement with your statement which appears to be clearly well thought out and based on scientific facts not on an ideological suppositions. The question is this: does phenotype (gene-derived external physical appearance) determines people’s intellectual output and creative adaptations to a changing social and physical environment?
Ancient Romans & Greeks looked like modern Europeans regardless of where they might hail from now, Ancient Rome & Greece isn’t particularly ancient when you consider the European People still have essentially the same physical characteristics as Cro Magnon man. The European gene pool is overwhelming that of Cro Magon man from FORTY FIVE THOUSAND years ago, In short if modern Europeans STILL look like Cro Magnons then its obvious we still look like our relatively recent Greco/Roman ancestors.
The author says:
“… the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley”.
And gives no clue whatsoever why this should be, except the prevalence of ‘fair hair’. The closest relative to the Greek language is Armenian, which points in almost exactly the opposite direction of the “Danube River Valley” if we want to find the origins of the Greek peoples.
Today, fair hair can occasionally be found in places like Central Asia, Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Caucasus, and it was problably prevalent among the original Aryan tribes from the southern Russian steppes.
Look East, or Southeast, not Northwest, if you’re looking for the origins of the Greeks.
I met people with perfect classical ancient Greek features in Sicily and in other southern regions of Italy, as well as in the Balkans, in Turkey and as strange as it can sound, very few also in today’s Greece. Most of them were blond or dark blond (“yellow hair”), some had chestnut or reddish, or dark hair. An attentive observer can also spot a Mycenaean types with characteristic long shaped eyes and soft profiles among modern Greeks or southern Italians. Sometimes it is possible to spot among Austrians or southern Germans features resembling those of ancient Greeks (high, protruding forehead in line with the high nasal septum, but much shorter nose than the ancient Greek one). But what makes the ancient Greeks totally different of Germanic people is their body, which is do easy to check on the multiple ancient Greek sculptures and drawings. And thus ancient Greeks had rounded and drooping shoulders, but everybody knows that Germans, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons and all the Germanic people have strait and “horizontal” shoulders. What regards the ancient Greeks’ intellectual skills, don’t forget that the majority of outstanding intellectuals (scientists, philosophers, writers) and political geniuses were of Ionian stock. There were however exceptions, like Beotian Epaminondas, or Macedonian Alexander the Great. Under the Bisantine Empire the Greeks of mainland suffered invasions by Slavic peoples and organised settling of Anatolians, which changed greatly their genetic pool. Later on, the long Turkish occupation also left its signs.
“The European gene pool is overwhelming that of Cro Magon man from FORTY FIVE THOUSAND years ago”
Source?
“I met people with perfect classical ancient Greek features in Sicily and in other southern regions of Italy”
The Greeks settled Sicily and Southern Italy around 2000 BC. Magna Graecia. That’s why they’re genetically similar. 37 percent of the Sicilian Y DNA is Greek.
Surströmming is Swedish and it stinks 1000 times worse than Norwegian lutefisk.
“Carp is like a giant pond rat.” – You never had a farm raised carp apparently. Carp farms were started in Central and Eastern Europe about 1000 years ago by some monks. It is possible that with a Chinese know how. Eating carp that is a bony fish teaches you patience and appreciations and ability to differentiate between different textures of different tissues. A sort of refinement most Americans who eat filets only never reach. Anyway, go talk to Chinese about carp.
“Look, at simple meal, it ain’t bad. But when compared to the best of French, Italian, and stuff, it is pretty crappy stuff. ”
Compare best with best. And compare peasant food with peasant food. I would not be surprised that 19 century German or Czech peasants ate better than 19 century Italian peasants and had more variety if you correct fr climate difference that allowed wider range of vegetables and fruits in Italy. I am sure you know nothing about a wide range of pastas and dumplings from Germany, Czechia and Poland.
“They could holler and scream and beat their chests like Hulk Hogan and them fellers in THE VIKINGS(with Kirk Douglas) but they didn’t have the swagger and the strut.”
Priss you are another Chauncey Gardiner. All your wisdom is form the movies.
“What is this junk science article doing at a website that hosts serious commenters on genetics?”
What serious commenters? But I agree that it’s a pure junk science just catering to infantile fantasies of undeveloped egos.
Great point. But divide and rule always seems to work. Look how Germans are looking at the Greeks? Could it be that it was engineered for this purpose? Who engineered recent invasion by mostly young male marching columns from Turkey?
Thank you.
In fact, nearly a century ago, Walter Lippman warned us of that and of the sappy false conclusions many “high IQ” dingbats would draw, and he was correct and still is.
This is an interesting debate, that unfortunately has been hijacked by the culture wars of the contemporary West. Just like another poster pointed out above, there are two ideologically driven theories about the Ancient Greeks. a) They were of Nordic/Germanic descent and even more ludicrously, b) they were of African descent.
To my knowledge, both these theories are wrong. The “Black Athena” theory is obvious hogwash, but the Germanic/Nordic theory also seems unlikely. Most evidence points out that the Ancient Greeks looked very much like contemporary Greeks, in fact the ancient sculptures seem to clearly point towards this explanation. In fact, there are references, even with Aristotle himself who seems perfectly aware of the phenotypical contrast between Greeks and those who are either darker or lighter than them. The ancient Greeks also seemed to have believed that they were some kind of “golden mean” between the tribes to their North (who were probably proto-Slavic or maybe Germanic) and the tribes to their South (Egyptians, Africans) and East (Persians)
The writer of the above article, just like many other proponents of the “Greeks were Nordics” theory, seem quite unaware of how even contemporary Greeks look like. Most North Europeans and North Americans seem to believe that southern European peoples are very similar to your stereotypical Arab (BTW, there’s a lot of phenotypical diversity within the Arabs, or the Turks) which they are not. The fact is, that some Greeks (a small minority for sure) are indeed blond and blue-eyed. One example I can readily think of is my own mother. There’s a wide range of how Greeks look like. Some are quite dark-skinned, very Middle-eastern looking, most are dark-haired whites and some are pale with brown or blondish hair.
The fact that some ancient Greeks are described as blond is therefore not at all in contradiction with how Greeks look like today. The reason why ancient historians, philosophers or writers feel that they have to mention when a Greek was blond was precisely because it was relatively rare. For example, Achilles is described as tall, blond and blue-eyed and very good-looking (Brad Pitt was perfect casting for that role) Alexander The Great was also blondish (but with brown eyes) Aphrodite was also ALWAYS described as blond and very fair-skinned, which simply means that the ideal for feminine has been constant throughout the millennia. But other divinities or historical figures are not described as blond at all. Leonidas was dark-haired and brown eyed (which is why Gerard Butler had to dye his hair and wear lenses for that role)
My point is that the ancient Greeks, were much like modern Greeks, something which I am confident that DNA tests should confirm. People in the West also seem to think that Greeks and Turks are phenotypically virtually identical, which couldn’t be further from the case. There was very little mixing during the Ottoman times as is evident by the fact that the Greek Orthodox religion was preserved throughout the period as was the case with the Greek language.
I though that we were heading towards the revelation that the ancients were … of a negre disposition …
Wo0w, so much racism and misinformation here I think
The false gospel of IQ promoted by VDare, Charles Murray, Steve Sailer… is the dead end street. Its only purpose is to accept the ethnic hierarchy in the US that Blacks are on the bottom and Jews are on the top as unavoidable and just. The only beneficiaries of this gospel are Jews.
http://dienekes.awardspace.com/articles/hellenes/
The Ancient Greeks were not very different from today’s Modern Greeks. That is to say, the majority had brown or black hair and olive skin tone with blondism as a minority (and fashionable) element.
oops, took me a while to catch on, too, but blonde is for chickas, and blond is for the menfolk…
not sure what the brunet thing is about, maybe you got that one…
the race game… …Q…. what colour was mohammed?..
I read this article a couple of years ago but it caught my attention again recently…I mostly came to this site for Razib’s informed commentary on history and genetics (his leaving is a huge blow to the site) but I always promote articles like this, even though I don’t exactly agree with their conclusions, to both liberal/left-wing friends and ideological/political enemies, especially of partly/fully non-northwest European ancestry, since they deal decent blows to certain kinds of nationalism:
1) A good percentage of “white Americans” I’ve come across who seem to be more politically involved seem to have at least some non-northwest European ancestry (people who tend more cosmopolitan and have greater chance to mix have higher IQ so maybe that’s why they’re more involved) so it makes it harder for them to support any sort of white nationalism in the USA.
2) It helps create even more division of nationalists within Europe, not just between but also within countries, since the vast majority of Europeans aren’t blond and blue-eyed or “Nordicists” for that matter (yet supposedly ancient south Europe had a modern Scandinavian-like population in appearance, go figure).
I’ve always told liberals and left-wingers who can sometimes be overly paranoid about the rise of nationalism and fasciscm that they shouldn’t worry about white nationalists, alt-righters (a wide and varied group but almost always ‘pro-white’ in its majority) and the like — they will never come together in any serious sense.
The old school European right (and far right)-wing is more of a problem of course since they care and talk about more serious, immediate and actual concerns (that the left should also try to address since we’re being destroyed in some areas) and offer more realistic solutions — while American far right wingers, in my experience, usually concoct unrealistic scenarios of a separate white ethno-state or a USA that’s back to 80%+ white. Compare e.g. German_reader’s center-right (if it’s fair to say) sanity to the American WN-inclined commentators in this thread and site in general.
As an aside from the more important (as is clear it is so) ideological factor, we more or less know what happened to the steppe-derived (not northwest European or Scandinavian) Indo-European element in southern Europe: it was eventually absorbed into the local population. It doesn’t seem to have died out more proportionally (why would it?) than the pre-IE element due to any plagues or wars and it still exists in Southern Europe in some 20-30% of the total ancestry, compared to 40-60% in the greater affected Northern Europe.
As interesting as this article is, trying to piece together what an ancient people looked like, there was something in the back of my head the whole time I was reading this:
What does it matter what “race” they were? Why not just frame it as physical appearance?
And to this day, when you go to Greece on a tour, the tour guides say “these barbarian Persians almost captured Greece and extinguished the light of civilization but, of course, we just made it and kept this torch burning.” Now, every single important Greek playwright almost, has a play called “The Persians” or the Persians appear in it, all the Greeks talk about the Persians. You do not have a single Persian work talking about the Greeks, not one single one. Because if you look at what was going on at the time, the Persian empire stretched from China to Greece and Greece was a little country on the corner, it’s like Cuba and the United States. I mean you hear about Cuba in Florida but if you’re in Montana, you only hear about it in newspapers, you don’t think about Castro and Cuba. When the Greeks were battling the Persians, there were 100,000 Greeks in the Persian Army fighting against Greece, they were mercenaries. You do not have a single Persian fighting in the Greek army against the Persians and this was written by the Greeks. So you have a very very different story going on, to call the Achaemenian Persians barbarians is quite something but this is the historiography that has been developed. The idea that has been developed, especially later on, that everyone other than the Greeks were barbarians and the word “barbarian” which is used in the English language today simply means non-Greek, that’s all one needs to say. Now of course, we know this not to be the case, Greek civilization itself which was a great civilization was not the only civilization and it did not grow out of a vacuum. It was the heir to several great civilizations before it, especially the Egyptian and Mesopotamian.
-Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Because cucks need something to feel good about and the success of someone else who might of shared their skin color but lived thousands of years ago apparently fits the bill lol. These type of conversations go to show you how meaningless the label “white” means. Racism has done a disservice to white people who used to have ethnicities, nationalities and religions to hold on to but this has all has been traded in for the fake currency of being “white” lol.
It appears Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a modern-day Persian, is single-handedly calling into question the legitimacy of The Greek Miracle.
All that comes to mind is one of Aesop’s more popular quotes: sour grapes!
The anglo-saxons scientists bring the idea that blue eyes and blond hear are the synonym of nordic “race” (Anglo-Saxons). This tipe of research was done by Lombroso, who spent his entire life to measure the cranial bones of different individuals. Obviously for nothing, Only Mussolini used his research. Everybody know that so called Anglo-Saxons were some kind of tribe, when Greeks invented democracy. So, the question is political.
Anglo-Saxons scientists do not accept that some “lower” nation as Persians, Greeks and Romans reached so high in the culture, in the art and so on. UK colonialists are sure of their racial (arian) supremacy so for them is impossible that some southern insignificant population invented everything that we know today.
Consequently , there was no Greeks or Persians or Romans, but surely were Anglo-Saxons who built Athena, Rome or Ur.
Nice.
Yiannopoulos is a Jew, not a Greek, and he dyes his hair.
No one has asked a very pertinent question which may not be able to be answered:
If the Greeks and Romans were “Nordic” or “Celtic”, how long does it take for a pure race to be corrupted to the darker preponderance of present day Greece or Southern Italy via miscegenation when in proximity to darker races and with unrestricted immigration? This would be a mathematical and statistical question concerning genetic transmission.
Aristotle said something about Greeks in general being somewhat mixed. He was Athenian though. It’s in Politics that I remember him saying that. I guess I haven’t read Politics in a long time though.
I’ve heard the claim of Sparta and the Dorians in the past. Very interesting.
I don’t know if anyone’s read Thor Heyerdahl, but his travels tended to follow the paths of supposed ancient bearded white men. If there’s truth to Heyerdahl’s claims, he’d be worth looking into.
Thanks for this article. Unz is a unique site, like an entirely different society.
It’s all bull shit by the author trying to show that Nordics were the real Romans. But he cant escape the truth as he has to refer to Madison Grant who put the Romans in the Mediterranean branch of the European races. (Alpine, Med & Nordic) Grant showed that there were differences but also that there was constant intermingling among the groups from the pre historic times to the present.
I guess the Mediterranean “Nordics” were much smarter and, therefore, superior to their northern cousins. We use the Roman calendar and alphabet, and there’s that business we call “The Renaissance.” Then again, maybe Scandinavia was just too cold to make a comparable contribution. /sarc
milo is dark haired w/ dark eyes. he bleaches his hair. his mother is jewish, father greek catholic.
All white washed lies every bit of this story people should research their history learn the truth and the truth shall set you free
Fine, but what’s the significance? North -central Italy today has the same IQ as Germany, and Italian Americans earn $2500 more per year than German Americans (Richard Lynn). Italian Americans mostly come from south Italy. Argentinians mostly come from south Italy and their IQ is only about two points lower then Germany.
It was Mediterranean Athens that created civ and not the “Nordic cities.” (Plato said black is normal eye color.) It was Athens that beat the Persians and build the navy that protected Greece for two centuries. It was the demos that caused Athens to lose the war with Sparta, not genetic inferiority. For cognitive significance, there is no evidence of nordicism of being of consequence. Beauty is another matter. By the way, your frequent mention of red hair reminded me that red is common for Jews and they have won 22% of American Nobel prizes.
Shame on you for this article. Nothing more, nothing less. Pure propaganda, distorted facts and revisionism. Almost stopped reading at “These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all…”!!!
It is indeed an interesting article. However, there is one small mistake that should be corrected. In the sentence:
The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek.
The word “early” should be changed to “late.” That period was the Late Bronze not the Early Bronze.
It is always pretty funny too encounter statements referring to the Persians as barbarians whose conquest of Greece would have destroyed civilisation’s chances in Europe. This current fetish of damning the Persians, the Iranians is intellectual and historical nonsense. Achaemenid Persia was way more civilised than Sparta or Athens, despite the stunning example of social engineering provided to modernist educators by Sparta. It is always amusing to watch the Israelis damn the Iranians and their natural, eternal enemy, since this is so turned around. The Persians released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, helped them return to Israel, and contributed to the building of the second temple. Actually a victory of the Persians at Thermopile might well well have advanced European culture and civilisation considerably.
Suggesting that Islamic Persia was also a cruel destroyer of Christian, Western civilisation is to reveal a terrible ignorance of history. Again and again the Christians drove out the Jews and Muslims, as from Spain, but the reverse was rarely the case. When Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by the Pope in Rome, the city had a population of about 35,000. At the same time the Persian capital at Baghdad had a population estimated to have been as high as one million, and records show that Jews and Christians were a majority of the population. Many did convert eventually, because being a Muslim provided tax breaks, but it took centuries. The Muslims of Central Asia were following a tradition set by their earlier Zoroastrian rulers when they encouraged to presence of Jewish and Christian communities, because they regarded all monotheistic faith as part of one community of the faithful.
In Kabul during the brief reign of the Taliban government the most numerous Western community present was that of the fundamentalist Christian missionaries. On Sundays in 2000 I attended large worship services in Kabul of Christians in a house a block or two behind the burned out Russian/Soviet embassy. As a lone, thin, blonde, blue-eyed Christian I wandered alone all over Afghanistan, and I was invariably treated with friendliness and respect, because a traveling Jewish or Christian religious scholar had been a respected part of the social landscape for millennia. When the Israeli occupation took control from centuries of Muslim control, the Old City of Jerusalem had four quarters: Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Armenian. When the Ottoman empire collapsed after WWI the city of Thessalonica had 50,000 Jews, but they soon fled when the Christians with their modernism and democracy took over, for once you destroy faith the primary identity of the population becomes their perceived racial and ethnic identity. Suddenly there was no place for the Kurds or the Armenians or the Jews, and look at what happen in the Balkans without the leadership of Islam.
An article like this with its sloppy thinking and racial undertones provides more in the comments than the article. It is such a blank slate for revealing the current state of popular thought, which for those in the West can always be summed up by: “Our team, our team, always right.”
The key word missing in the bolded sentence is Western – i.e., the Persian conquest of Greece would have destroyed Western civilisation’s chances in Europe.
The following excerpt from Copleston’s History of Philosophy, Vol. 1 brings into sharp relief the shortcomings of a subject living under the Persian Empire versus a citizen living within a direct democracy:
For the record, the Persians were, in fact, victorious in the Battle of Thermopylae. They were defeated, however, in the Battle of Marathon (first Persian invasion) and the Battle of Plataea (second Persian invasion). And as for your comment about considerably advancing European culture and civilization, the key word missing again is Western as in Western civilization. As Copleston explains, there is a world of difference between Western civilization and other civilizations.
“Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek”
Wrong!
Very many basic words we use today are Minoan words.
Example
TOKODOMO ΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΟ
TEKOTONE ΤΕΚΤΩΝ
And thousands more
Blue, green, grey eyes are mostly a mixture with other races these days. My bloodline left Greece when Ottoman Empire invaded. I have fairly hair with brown eyes and naturally curled hair(if not short). There are few like me (the purest it can be) . Eye complexion proves nothing. And saying Alexander the Great had lion hair doesnt mean it was blond or yellow, my hair colour turns golden if exposed to sun thanks to melanin. Remember the climate in Greece is at the best, and mostly sunny. Here I took pictures of my hair. https://ibb.co/hvPfYv
https://ibb.co/hQUEtv
I have pictures of my facial hellenic characteristics also. If you are interested,,,,let me know.
Jason Reza Jorjani argues that Greeks were backward until after they were conquered by Persia, whereupon Greeks under Persian occupation developed more civilized habits and philosophies
“There was profound cultural exchange . . . for centuries before the Persian invasions, the Greeks believed, based on their gods, that they had very little control over their fate. . . . Pesians, in contrast, already had a long tradition of personal conscience, based on principles developed by Zoroaster . . .
“Persians, unlike the Greeks, did not rape and plunder; so well were adversaries treated that armies sought to surrender to the Persians . . .
“Greece is said to be the birthplace of philosophy, but what must be realized is that philosophy emerged in the centuries after the Persians colonized Greece . . .”
Who?
Your modern-day Persian isn’t much of a historian. While the Persians attempted (twice) to conquer mainland Greece, but failed, the Greeks attempted (once) to conquer Persia, and succeeded.
I guess that explains why democracy sprung from Persepolis, and not Athens.
You musn’t be familiar with Scaphism:
Again, while Persia conquered the Greek settlements of Asia Minor, they were defeated (twice) in their attempts to conquer the great Greek city states of mainland Greece. As for the appearance of philosophy after the Persian attempt to conquer mainland Greece:
I realize your deep sentiments towards Persia and Zoroastrianism, but everything has its limits.
I’ll leave you with this quote:
You (and some of your favourite modern-day Persians) have got a long way to go in your efforts to try to replace the word “Greek” with the word “Persian” in this quote.
The Germans,Celts,Slavs ere totally different then Romans and Greeks.
The Goth were not Germans.
Here you can find out why:
http://historum.com/ancient-history/62034-goths-vandals-really-germans.html
Also, the Celts and Germans are described as barbarians (blue eyes, blond hear) by Romans and Greeks.
Tacitus describes the Germans:
“Arrangement of Their Towns, Subterranean Dwellings It is well known that the nations of Germany have not cities, and that they do not even tolerate closely contiguous dwellings. They live scattered and apart, just as a spring, a meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their village they do not arrange in our fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, or because they do not know how to build. No use is made by them of stone or tile; they employ timber for all purposes, rude masses without ornament or attractiveness. Some parts of their buildings they stain more carefully with a clay so clear and bright that it resembles painting, or a coloured design. They are wont also to dig out subterranean caves, and pile on them great heaps of dung shelter from winter and as a receptacle for the year’s produce, for by such places they mitigate the rigour of the cold. And should an enemy approach, he lays waste the open country, while what is hidden and buried is either not known to exist, or escapes him from the very fact that it has to be searched for.”
The Celts are described to go to war naked or half naked…
Are these the so called Arians of the North?
@Kyle McKenna
I didn’t find the online library you mentioned at the otherwise quite interesting website you provided a link to (presstitutes.org) – I’m genuinely interested, and would be very happy if you could point me in the right direction.
I saw that you discussed Greek crisis on your site (“Greece explained”) and thought you might be interested in two articles we published at Acting Man in the course of the crisis (there are dozens of articles about Greece on the site, but these two may be most interesting from the PoV of “what is actually the problem”, given that it was/is definitely not the currency as is commonly asserted.
A Mystery and the Core of the Problem (this one has a few charts that are real eye-openers): http://www.acting-man.com/?p=39258
Why Greece Needs a Nudge (discusses the handful of things that were actually positive in the bailout quagmire; includes a hair-raising anecdote about Greece’s byzantine bureaucracy): http://www.acting-man.com/?p=14833
[…] The evidence is clear — but often ignored […]
I think this is just more of the relentless implacable and progressively intensifying attack on White European Christian people of Europe, USA etc.. as a whole by the highly organized gold laden hyper-ethnocentric-international-highly cohesive- intraspeciel-predator-jewish power entity. We are going to have to get used to it but recognize it as a warning that the BOLSHEVIK
entity is fixated on us, perhaps especially the USA I suppose and tis time to stop the wars for Israel and discuss the reality of the USA today. Them-what- control the government and most every thing else have too long had Treason for their daily bread. Plus it is simply more interesting to tackle the question of how there could be a genetic- psychopath-sub-race infiltration and now domination of the WEST, and I am most focused on the USA, without anyone ever making this obvious observation and investigating their remarkable highly competitive predatory parasitic mendacious manipulative supremacist monster although to be fair the word psychopath or the qualities of psychopathy are associated with their entity historically, just not connecting the dots tat is a different race which shows every sign of
winning out over empathy, emotional capacity, innately moral humanity. The only word for
people with eths psychopath qualities, with absence of empathy and without conscience and remorse capacity which incidentally appears to induce a conviction of superiority that oddly complements the ‘amoral’ core nature. “Psychopath” is a 20th century psychology term,; in the 19th century the terms in English were moral-imbecile and moral-insanity; in most languages before the 19th century the only term available for this conscienceless human predator-parasite was simply un-capitalized “jew” . Yes now they are exploring every possible psychological assault on White people the degraded suborned and controlled and progressively absurd ACADEMIA can contrive. If my assessment does not resin-ate you need ony wait a few years while paying attention instead of doing mesmerization in front of the boobtube although the attack on Whitepeople is quite evident there as well.
devise
“Likewise few will be surprised that the learned scholar behind the present essay will not find employment in any of our august institutions of higher education”.
What does that say about your society? Who are the elite? Our theatre is leftist, our teachers are leftist, our musicians and painters will not go far if their art portrays anything but leftist tripe.
We are given a world view that mocks anything white. If you are not one of the pure races (white,yellow,black), then you had to come from another group. The world is in denial and this denial is our world views, paid for by international finance.
The problem with democracy is that when we examine the masses, we find that their convictions are not their own but they are formed.
There were Dorians within the 3 major very ancient races which formed Greece; going back 3-5 thousand years BC. The two races (writing this from past memory, cannot recall the 2major ‘settlers’ who farmed the lands of what is now Greece; but we do know that Cyprus was very much part of the general Greek Island States, and City-States… the 3rd, the Dorians were the ones who raided from the North)…. just how far north, is the question. One would not believe as far as Norway, Denmark, Nordic… just to get food. Those people would have had ample fishing, hunting, for survival, without travelling so far south over so harsh terrain.
- One could believe that these Dorians were of much further southern Europe; Southern France, Southern Germany? – But… did they finally actually remain in/on Greek soil and settle with the settlers ??? tiring of returning to their harsher lands and climate? Some, maybe?
More recent history would explain why not so many Blond Greeks are around… It is well known fact that the prettiest and fairest of the children of any race during the Ottomans, and don’t know how much till today in the area, were abducted, stolen, and enslaved to bolster the Huns, Mongols, – Turkish race. Many became the Sultans’ possessions within their vast Harems strictly for the purpose of breeding fair children within that race.
However, I question why this ‘so called study’ is going on today. Are they also studying what and who made up the Jewish race e.g., and the Persians, the Egyptians, (there we do know that a large number are of proud Greek descendants); the Indian, the Chinese, etc., etc., all ancient races!!!
It is a historical fact that the Trojans first settled Rome after their ‘war’ for Beautiful Helen. And even today Southern Italians proudly display the ancient Greek statues, columns etc., and speak in ancient Greek dialects/language. Northern Italians are said to be formerly from northern European races; and again just how far north ? is the question.
Again, as they had slaves from a variety of different African countries, and they, the so called Romans travelled widely too, and eventually there was a joint Roman State and Byzantine Era, no doubt there would be a mixture of races too, over the centuries, no doubt, but who knows for certain. All history is data, and guessing game. We hypothesise and come to what we might believe conclusion, until the next generation/s come along and add their own hypothesis.
Who and what and wherefrom the British races, how wide their travels, how much their mix? All the sailors and travellers remained purely true to the little woman waiting purely obediently back home….
Were we not all supposedly descendants of that one little piece of skull found somewhere in the middle of Africa… where the smallest of people reside still, but also the tallest, too? Come on!!!
Thank you Thrasymachus, well said. I am one of those pure Greek, no I say Hellenes with the ‘Kastano’ mali. (Chestnut coloured hair, almost red in the sunlight)… Mother always prided herself and us, that we are direct descendants of Alexander the Great!!!! And her family certainly from those parts Macedonia, and though overrun, and hounded, never strayed, always took care and pride of our heritage.
Nordics though they try to snub and threaten Greece are so envious of Her in reality and that is why they’re always hounding Greece and Greeks, and endeavour to sink Her with drowning funding, and overrun Her and scatter our people to the far corners of the world, so as to weaken Her. Such is their Envy !!! SAD!!!! That they endeavor to distort our proud Heritage and drag down our History. But they are not able nor capable of that, so they endeavour to place themselves square in it, unsuccessfully so, they want to find a way to stitch themselves up and find a way to justify their race.
We may no longer live within our beautiful country but we are all around the world, and refuse to keep silent at the injustices and distortions coming from uneducated distortionists of facts and historical data.
Come to think of it, we should be very proud that others do envy us so much they cannot bear their own history and try so hard to place themselves into our own!!!!!
I am a Hellene as one should be called, with origin of parents from Spartans. Both were blonde and blue eyed. If you see the statues in the Athens Archaeological Museum you will compare the today’s people to the statues. Some that have emigrated from the east naturally do no look the same. But I want to remind you that archeology is not an exact science because it resists to incorporate the findings and mixes us up. One thing is for sure. We, the Hellenes have had sometime in the past been in the geosynchronous satellite and took photos of the earth as the map that Plato copied and later copied by Piri reis. The Nordic people had a mix with the Hellenes in trading and all and therefore they were not in a fighting mode amongst them but rather a trading mode. Because it is late I let you try to find what happened 12,000 years BCE.
The above article contains many, many ,many, many, mistorical mistakes, misinterpretations and mistranslations from original ancient Greek texts. Fair in ancient Greek DOES NOT translate to blond. These kinds of translations are WRONG and often misinterpreted or mistranslated with objectives other than historical accuracy.
Minoans were Greek or at least proto greek. As a matter of fact they spoke an Early Greek Dialect. Linear A has been Deciphered and it did proove to be an early Greek dialect.
Dorians came from the area that is now called Eiperous. Thats where the evidence points out to. To think that they came from northen europe is a STRETCH and non justified assumption at best.
Thracians WERE NOT considered to be Greek. They became hellenised during the hellenistic times.
The claims about the Athenians are a joke. Its actually a /facepalm moment.
Most of ancient Greek history in the west comes from secondary western scources and MISTRANSLATED sources. They completely ignored the primary sources and archaelogical evidence.
They also mixed up a lot of things or deliberately altered them to make ancient Greek culture and the ideas they tied to it more appealing to the northen Europeans. The ideas that were tied to the anicent Greek civilisation were those of englightment. The reason they did this was to show that these ideas had actually worked in the past and they were feasible.
They also made the Ancient Greeks appear more nordic so that the north Europeans would identify easier to them. In addition to all that they invented the Erasmic accent and said this was the proper way to speak Greek. Erasmic accent is much easier to pronounce by romance and germanic language speakers. It woudl have been immensly difficult if they attempted to teach these people ancient Greek with the proper Attic or common Greek Dialect. Again an alteration made to suit the needs of the enlightement.
In Short all these and this article are WESTERN SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS at its worst twisting history. And yes self righteousness is the very reason behind some of the worst crimes in human history.
HARD SCIENTIFIC evidence displayed very accurately the the populations of peloponese, southern italy, the Turkish coast and even as far as the french coast are geneticaly the same. These are the areas that were colonised by ancient Greeks.
Another point that shows the ignorance of the writer of the article is that he considers that the phoenicians tought greek how to write. Well the phoenician alphabet only contains consonants. The Greek alphabet contains vowels too. If the Phoenicians tought the ancient Greeks how to write then they would have adopted vowels themselves. So thats not what happen. And besides there are 24 different ancient Greek alphabets. There is only one phoenician.
These are just some of the mistakes that I found in the article. I am afraid that the modern Greeks, Southern Italians and Sicilians, a good Portion in south France and the large majority of Turkish populations come from the Ancient Greek Stock. Thats what modern HARD scientific evidence suggests. And these are also the areas that the ancient Greeks colonised.
The article is based on a flawed assumption – that whites or ‘nordic’ as he calls them originated in the north. The evidence for this is flimsy to say the least. Whites in antiquity were widespread certainly as far as India and Persia, all around the black sea and the steppes of Russia, the balkans etc etc indeed the modern name of Iran means Aryan and you can find plenty of Iranians who are ‘white’, blonde etc etc
Quite a lot of inaccuracies in order to hide an agenda about racial purity I suspect. First of all, Minoans were Europeans as a 2013 DNA experiment shows high similarity of haplogroups with north and west Europeans. Second the ancient Greek civilization begins with (and I quote) an invasion from the north. The linguistic and DNA evidence is overwhelming: ancient (as well as modern) Greeks are Indo-European. The use of the word “Nordics” instead is dubious to say the least. Surprisingly there has been found Celtic dna in various areas in Greece and there is both genetic and historical evidence of Scandinavian invasions in ancient Greece (with the latest recorded during the Byzantine era). The characteristics of Greeks range, both due to a variation of weather (from the very sunny and hot islands to the more temperate and cold north) as well as the mix with Romans, starting from the rise of the Roman Empire and ending with the 2nd world war!!! It isn’t by chance that modern Greek DNA is almost identical to Italian. Finally to classify ancient Greeks as Nordic is a joke; Nordics are not a race, just as west or south Europeans are part of the same racial family, granted with certain variations in characteristics of appearance (which let’s not forget amount for tiny subpercentage of the actual dna material).
[…] http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/ […]
Good article , but has 2 enormous mistakes, minoans and their civilization was greek-hellenic, and mixed later about 30% from dorian invasions. And second the language was never imported from phoenicians , a great percentage of these sailors that made most of the trade in east meditterenean from nowadays syria-israel-palestine-jordan were old minyans-minyes from greek peninsula that were bringing back to ‘homeland’ the dialect and language that later researchers spoke as phoenician alphabete.
Stop trying to usurp an entire culture! Greeks are their own ethnicity. Greeks are one ethnicity and Romans are another. They are not the same, nor are they Nordic. They are white people, some with more olive skin, some with blonde hair and slightly fairer skin. Preposterous that someone could make up such lies. Modern day Greeks still have the same noses as in the ancient Greek statues and there are plenty of blonde Greeks today too. Greeks are their own ethnicity. Such preposterous drivel spewed here.
https://www.amazon.com/Species-Amnesia-Our-Forgotten-History/dp/1943494045
https://www.amazon.com/Species-Amnesia-Our-Forgotten-History/dp/1943494045
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=book%3A+March+of+the+Titans%2C+by+Arthur+Kemp&atb=v5&ia=products
You and the Greeks of today are not the ancient Greeks who spoke Ionian and Dorian.
The people of Greece are the peasant slaves of the ancient Greeks, nothing else.
Virginia Woolf, I guess, describe very vividly the people of Greece, who she mentioned that they are all lazy, doing nothing all day long. And she mentioned also the fact that the Greeks (Contemporary Greeks) don’t speak Doric or Ionic.
Dlugosz, a polish Historian mentions that the Prussians are the Bithynian (Thracians who migrated north) and some of them speak Ionian and Doric.
I’m fed up with that ”nordic” superiority, every time I visited the USA I see lots and lots of these ‘white americans” Nordics living under bridges, they are homeless and on drugs a total waste of a so called ”Nordic race” if ”nordics” are a such good ”gifted race” how come they can not lift themselves from the misery they fall into. I understand Africans in the same situation, but again ”nordicist” they justify the dark races for not being able to progress. The same when I visited England few times and the same with the English ”nordic” types drunk and disorderly in public places men and women the same. The person who above writes about the ”nordic” marvels is probably reading stories about the Nordics written by the Nazis during the times when the Nazis were preparing their genocide of the ”inferior races” and we all know what happened after that, no need to start writing about the worst time of the western world history.
It’s much like how we know ancient Egyptians were not black Africans is because they painted in color.
I’m as white as an American (Texan) can be and I take great offense at the idea that America will cease to exist as it becomes less white. Hate to see something so racist in print.
IVY MIKE
Apart from some old German boys in Austin who I recognized to share my Bavarian roots Texas is full of American Indians who happen to be from Mexico and look, well, Asian
I also noticed a few Spanish (Not Mexican) families around that had been there for generations.
Texas has always had Hispanics and will probably have more.
To really get an idea of how fast a place ceases to exist once the whites leave due to economic collapse you can go to my former city of Detroit.
Once the Polish and Germans left, it collapsed. The few whites who remained in satellite towns were Appalachian hillbillies who lacked the money or skills to leave and whose houses were not worth anything.
I knew many Greek Cypriots-the descendants of the ancient Greeks who settled Cyprus 1,000 years BC-and these folks were even darker than the average Greek of today in Athens.
In the years following the decline of Greece Slavs streamed into the Balkans but the original Greeks were not Nordics with fair cheeks and blue eyes like the fjords.
Rubbish.
An interesting fact that population genetics shows us is that all indigenous Europeans had blue eyes. Yes, they say 100%. Neolithic invaders had darker hair and eyes. There could be some truth to this Nordic theory.
Sensitive swarthies will hit back that Meds had civilization earlier and it’s true, but if Meds are superior to Nords then why do Nords have higher average IQs now? Why did Nords end up with better civilizations? Even with Jews, the Ashkenazim, who are hybrid German-Jews, are much smarter than their swarthier and more pure West Asian brothers the Sephardim and Mizrahim.
I find this topic interesting, but it is still way down the list of priorities because we can all agree that Third Worlders need to be kept out regardless of intraracial disputes.
Plenty of Iranians who are “white.” LOL! Sort of like saying you can find plenty of Latin Americans who are “white” castizos. Well, white in your usage is admixed and relative. Your argument is nonsense. I also see people erroneously using Indo-European racially when it’s only usefulness is linguistic.
It is called white nationalism not quasi-white nationalism.
If you advocate for admixing our entire population with North Africans, West Asians, hapas and quadroons then we don’t need a counter-culture for that. That is already happening and you are part of the problem. We need a movement to preserve our traditional genetic integrity.
Nordicism always makes the mongrels squirm and easy to point out.
Here’s one weird trick:
If blacks say they will no longer mix with any other race and will only marry their own would anyone complain other than subversive Jews? No, we would all be happy.
If Mexicans said they will only marry their own would anyone complain other than subversive Jews? No, we would all be happy.
If Iranians said they are the whitest, most Aryan, most noble Third Worlders in the world and will only marry their own, would anyone complain? No, we would all be happy.
If Northern Europeans say they will only marry their own then the whole world has a nervous breakdown and everyone cries and complains that it’s racist, and so and so are just as white as they are and want to marry their women so don’t hide all the white women!
So we see who is the best and who is lying to infiltrate the superior people.
[…] leader described as “fair”). This makes me wonder if Angelina had Greek blood and that some of the ancient Greeks had blonde hair and blue eyes. So it would behoove us to study him. AND Alexander takes up most of Zechariah 9 and Jesus told […]
The LORDS were all foreigner
The Kings…were the GODS…of yours probably..It happens..
Mexicans are a mixed-race anyhow. There are various amounts of gypsy, Sephardic Jewish, Arab and Caucasian with a common denominator of Aztec blood.
So they could marry anyone and still be Mexican.
Jews are also a mixture of Central Asian, European, Slavic and Arab.
Harsh climactic conditions in Northern Europe were going to slow the development of Northern Europe as oppose to the warm-but not scorching-climes of Greece or Italy.
[…] http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/ […]
” Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?” you ask.
Maybe Lucan has the answer:
“Only hunger frees enslaved states…starving, the rabble knows no dread.”
Yes, we’se the rabble now.
I’ll be honest, I skimmed through most of this as I wasn’t sure it would be worth sinking a few extra minutes into reading it in detail and I didn’t think it would be, even so I started to reread it and it was about as disappointing as I was expecting.
This was at best; lazy, at worst; mendacious.
It seems that a major point in this little thesis is the conflation of distinct linguo-cultural groups with physical traits, specifically, monopolising blondism and red-hair to the “nordic” race, when such physical traits are in fact, much OLDER than the nordic race (predating the entry of Indo-Europeans into europe), and are actually found at a higher frequency in the descendants of older groups; the proto-baltids and proto-slavs (specifically west slavs). I’ll grant, there is an unusually high frequency in Scandinavia as compared with MOST of the rest of europe, it tends to be southern Swedish and non-Indo-European Finns though. As soon as say Brutus was proto-Baltid in appearance, they would have at least existed as a group at the time. Every population has some heterogeneity in their appearance, some more than others, at least some Romans were going to be blonde but historically the populations of southern Europe have been much larger than their northern counterparts so you can expected the founder effect to be stronger there, even so, the nordics are still not the “blondest” group there, that “honour” is won further to the east, the Irish chroniclers even had two words to refer to the raiders from scandinavia; dubgail = dark viking (danes, english, etc) and finngail (norway) = fair viking.
Genetic studies also indicate anyway, that our ancestors hailed from the east and the group that broke off to become the Romans and Celts had long since diverged from those that would become the Scandinavians. This work looks as cherry-picked as Grant’s or Rosenberg’s works but you can at least excuse those authors for working in a time when genomic studies of different populations hadn’t come very far and the idea that you have to be of germanic descent to have inherited those traits is just so stupid, like saying you have to be of American descent to speak “eald aenglisc”, I wonder what mental gymnastics you’ll need to explain the presence of those traits in Kurds, or analogous genes for red-hair for that matter, in neanderthals.
ps; I don’t even hate Scandinavians, but the way you’re trying to bury your tongue in their arse is pathetic. All you have looked at is history in a really specious way which leads me to think that you know more about history than science, which begs the question. Why are you so impressed with Germans and Scandinavians? Britain has accomplished so much more as a bastion of western civilisation and with a surname like Harrison not Heinrichson or Heinrichsen, I’m inclined to believe that you are of mainly English descent, specifically Anglo-Norman, and no, that does not make you Norwegian, pull your head out of your arse, slim chance if any that genetics will tie you to Scandinavia, your ancestors were probably just peons the Norman lords took with them if they ever were in Normandy anyway.
Already tested. In the case of the Italians, the study on genetics showed a linear relativeness between modern Italians and Romans, but also with Etruscans/ Trojans.
No need about nordicists articles.
serious genetic DNA studies showed how haplogroups of modern italians are the same halogroups as the ancient roman skeletons found in graves in Italy; plus, the paintings of Fayyum who showed the roman aristocracy of the First part of the Empire, showed normal italic types with mainly brunette hair; then, it needs a little care to translate latin and greek texts, because in ancient texts latin words like ‘ flavus’ or greek words like ‘ glaukops’ or ‘ xanthos’ didn’t mean ‘ blond’, but ‘ brightful’, in the sense of ‘ heroic’. Not a physical quality, but a spiritual quality.
The two main roman and trojan clusters found in graves, are still the two main italic clusters running in the Peninsula:
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
” Italic tribes conquered the whole peninsula, but settled most heavily in northern and central-west Italy, especially in the Po Valley and Tuscany, but also in Umbria and the Latium, who both owe their names to Italic tribes (the Umbrians and the Latins). In all logic, the ancient Romans, from the original founders of Rome to the patricians of the Roman Republic, should have been essentially R1b-U152 people, with a minority of G2a-L140 (L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) and J2a1-L70 (PF5456 and Z2177 subclades). Those G2a and J2a1 lineages would have been assimilated either in the Steppe or in Southeast Europe before the Proto-Italics reached the Alps. Based on modern frequencies in northern and central Italy, each would have been 5 to 10x less common than R1b-U152. Intermarriages with their Etruscan and Greek neighbours would have gradually brought other paternal lineages to the Roman gene pool, including other G2a and J2 subclades, but also haplogroups such as E1b1b and T1a (see below).
An additional clue that the inhabitants of the Roman Republic still belonged predominantly to R1b-U152 comes from the modern population in the cities they founded. It is remarkable that most of the cities founded during the Roman Republic by Roman colonists in northern Italy (Alba, Aosta, Asti, Bologna, Brescia, Casale Monferrato, Cremona, Ferrara, Forlì, Ivrea, Lodi, Massa, Milan, Modena, Monza, Parma, Pavia, Piacenza, Pistoia, Pollenzo, Reggio Emilia, Rimini, Sarzana, Torino, Tortona) are located in the areas with the highest incidence of R1b-U152 (and lowest incidence of E1b1b and J2) today. Only a handful of Roman colonies were set up in north-east Italy (Aquileia, Belluno, Pordenone, Vicenza), four in the Marches (Ancona, Macerata, Pesaro and Senigallia), and not a single one in the modern region of Liguria.
Naturally U152 was already present in northern Italy before the Roman period. But if the Roman colonists had not been predominantly U152, its frequency would have been diluted by the newcomers. What we observe is the reverse; the frequency of U152 has been amplified around Roman colonies.
R1b-U152 has also been found a low frequencies (1 to 10%) almost everywhere within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, even in regions where no other R1b-U152 people (e.g. Hallstatt/La Tène Celts) ever settled, such as Sardinia and North Africa. On the other hand, not all U152 in southern Italy may be of Italic or direct Roman origin. Some of it may be attributed to the Normans (those of Gallo-Roman rather than Viking descent) and Swabian Germans during the Middle Ages, especially in Sicily. It is still difficult at present to differentiate the Celtic vs Italic origin of the various U152 subclades. Z56 appears to be the most Italic or Roman subclade, and particularly its Z72 clade. It is rare outside Italy and has a distribution focused on central Italy. Nevertheless other branches may also be Italic, including a few L2 subclades.
During the Late Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age other Indo-European tribes also settled in northern Italy, like the Ligures in Liguria, the Lepontic and Gaulish Celts in Piedmont, and the Adriatic Veneti in Veneto.
According to the founding myth of Rome, Romulus and Remus descended from the Latin kings of Alba Longa, themselves descended from Trojan prince Aeneas, who fled to the Latium after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks. Troy may well have been founded by the early M269 and/or L23 branches of R1b, representing the first expansion of R1b from the Pontic Steppe to the Balkans (see R1b history). If there is any truth in the myth (as there usually is), the Trojans might have brought M269 or L23 (probably with other haplogroups, notably J2) to central Italy circa 1200 BCE, around the same time as U152 invaded from the north. The Etruscans, who are thought to have originated in western Anatolia, not far from Troy, might also have brought R1b-L23 to Italy, also blended with other haplogroups (see below). Nowadays R1b-L23 is the second most common subclade of R1b in Italy (see map), although well behind R1b-U152.”
In 2007 the last tests on Etruscan DNA in comparison with Italic DNA showed what has always been known in Italy: that Etruscans were Trojans escaping from Anatolia, and that Trojans became the Romans, and later the Italians.
The trojans were Indoeuropeans; the turkish tribes arrived 1000 years after the Fall of Troy, as you can read here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/…/18/italy.johnhooper
Uncultured idiot, modern greek is a derivation from the ionian athenian greek of V century B. C., as italian is a derivation from latin along with french, spanish, portuguese and rumenian.
Learn, instead of throwing bullshits on the net. ( I am licensed in Classical Letters, btw ).
greek DNA is PARTIALLY similar to southern italian DNA NOT BECAUSE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, BUT BECAUSE THE DORIAN/ IONIAN COLONIES OF MAGNA GRECIA/ GREAT GREEKS in classical period in southern Italy. Ignorant.
Northern Italians are not born from ‘ northern europeans’. Roman graves around Brescia ( Brixia ) showed roman- italic skeletons with a DNA similar to modern northern italians, cluster R1b U 152. The Langobards and the Goths left no trace.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
” Italic tribes conquered the whole peninsula, but settled most heavily in northern and central-west Italy, especially in the Po Valley and Tuscany, but also in Umbria and the Latium, who both owe their names to Italic tribes (the Umbrians and the Latins). In all logic, the ancient Romans, from the original founders of Rome to the patricians of the Roman Republic, should have been essentially R1b-U152 people, with a minority of G2a-L140 (L13, L1264 and Z1816 subclades) and J2a1-L70 (PF5456 and Z2177 subclades). Those G2a and J2a1 lineages would have been assimilated either in the Steppe or in Southeast Europe before the Proto-Italics reached the Alps. Based on modern frequencies in northern and central Italy, each would have been 5 to 10x less common than R1b-U152. Intermarriages with their Etruscan and Greek neighbours would have gradually brought other paternal lineages to the Roman gene pool, including other G2a and J2 subclades, but also haplogroups such as E1b1b and T1a (see below).
An additional clue that the inhabitants of the Roman Republic still belonged predominantly to R1b-U152 comes from the modern population in the cities they founded. It is remarkable that most of the cities founded during the Roman Republic by Roman colonists in northern Italy (Alba, Aosta, Asti, Bologna, Brescia, Casale Monferrato, Cremona, Ferrara, Forlì, Ivrea, Lodi, Massa, Milan, Modena, Monza, Parma, Pavia, Piacenza, Pistoia, Pollenzo, Reggio Emilia, Rimini, Sarzana, Torino, Tortona) are located in the areas with the highest incidence of R1b-U152 (and lowest incidence of E1b1b and J2) today. Only a handful of Roman colonies were set up in north-east Italy (Aquileia, Belluno, Pordenone, Vicenza), four in the Marches (Ancona, Macerata, Pesaro and Senigallia), and not a single one in the modern region of Liguria.
Naturally U152 was already present in northern Italy before the Roman period. But if the Roman colonists had not been predominantly U152, its frequency would have been diluted by the newcomers. What we observe is the reverse; the frequency of U152 has been amplified around Roman colonies.
R1b-U152 has also been found a low frequencies (1 to 10%) almost everywhere within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, even in regions where no other R1b-U152 people (e.g. Hallstatt/La Tène Celts) ever settled, such as Sardinia and North Africa. On the other hand, not all U152 in southern Italy may be of Italic or direct Roman origin. Some of it may be attributed to the Normans (those of Gallo-Roman rather than Viking descent) and Swabian Germans during the Middle Ages, especially in Sicily. It is still difficult at present to differentiate the Celtic vs Italic origin of the various U152 subclades. Z56 appears to be the most Italic or Roman subclade, and particularly its Z72 clade. It is rare outside Italy and has a distribution focused on central Italy. Nevertheless other branches may also be Italic, including a few L2 subclades.
During the Late Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age other Indo-European tribes also settled in northern Italy, like the Ligures in Liguria, the Lepontic and Gaulish Celts in Piedmont, and the Adriatic Veneti in Veneto.
According to the founding myth of Rome, Romulus and Remus descended from the Latin kings of Alba Longa, themselves descended from Trojan prince Aeneas, who fled to the Latium after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks. Troy may well have been founded by the early M269 and/or L23 branches of R1b, representing the first expansion of R1b from the Pontic Steppe to the Balkans (see R1b history). If there is any truth in the myth (as there usually is), the Trojans might have brought M269 or L23 (probably with other haplogroups, notably J2) to central Italy circa 1200 BCE, around the same time as U152 invaded from the north. The Etruscans, who are thought to have originated in western Anatolia, not far from Troy, might also have brought R1b-L23 to Italy, also blended with other haplogroups (see below). Nowadays R1b-L23 is the second most common subclade of R1b in Italy (see map), although well behind R1b-U152.”
I must at the outset acknowledge that I a a lousy writer. But I did want to make one comment.
While interesting, I am not sure that skin color played a role as large as it does since 1300 forward with increasing vigor. The greeks and the romans learned their plumbing and water delivery systems from dark skinned babylonians wasn’t hinged on their skin color.
We know that certain african societies had developed early venting systems to air condition their residences or places of business. Those designs were included in the homes of plantations and other facilities (?).
It has been the disfigurement of history to an argument of white superiority that is the issue. Not any attempt to diminish the achievements of Romans, Asians or Greeks because they were white or some other light skin tone.
Minus the attempt to justify color superiority and thereby justify the mistreat others based on skin color – a nonissue.
The Greek of today are not the ancient Greeks who spoke Ionian and Doric.
I guess that was explained by someone in this tread.
Read Virginia Woolf, vigorously.
The whites (from Asia Minor and Balkans)were the lords of the Norther Europe,Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, etc.
Hard to swallow but that’s what it is.
Sir, Greeks of today are the slaves who remained on that lands until today.
The Germans are the other way around, the people of Germany (barbarians) remained but were civilized by the Romans and those Thracians.
Greece was under occupation for some 2000 years (Romans,Byzantine Romans,Turks)
The Lords of Greece long time disappeared, they were assimilated by the Romans, Byzantine Romans and many migrated becoming the leaders of other people.
Remember that the majority of the population in Greece were slaves.
It is difficult to estimate the number of slaves in ancient Greece, given the lack of a precise census and variations in definitions during that era. It is certain that Athens had the largest slave population, with as many as 80,000 in the 6th and 5th centuries BC,[44] on average three or four slaves per household. In the 5th century BC, Thucydides remarked on the desertion of 20,890 slaves during the war of Decelea, mostly tradesmen. The lowest estimate, of 20,000 slaves, during the time of Demosthenes,[48] corresponds to one slave per family. Between 317 BC and 307 BC, the tyrant Demetrius Phalereus ordered[49] a general census of Attica, which arrived at the following figures: 21,000 citizens, 10,000 metics and 400,000 slaves. The orator Hypereides, in his Against Areistogiton, recalls that the effort to enlist 15,000 male slaves of military age led to the defeat of the Southern Greeks at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), which corresponds to the figures of Ctesicles.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece
http://listverse.com/2016/09/29/10-fascinating-facts-about-slavery-in-ancient-greece/
The history of the world is totally politicised. The reason the floods as described in the Bible in the majority of civilization of the world has to do only with the Black Sea region (Asia Minor) and adjacent regions. From here the people migrated all over the world conquering other people who practically lived as animals. These people created the world of today as it is known.
And, they spread the flood story all over.
With respect to Detroit, this former ghost town and crime capital is undergoing a renaissance. Whites are moving back into the downtown core, buying up the beautiful brownstones that until recently had been run-down crack houses. These homes were available for one dollar ( $1.00) plus any outstanding property taxes owed the city. The visionaries buying up Detroit core properties for a song will profit, as well as restore a new glory to a city that has been the laughing stock of American urban failure.
I live across the narrow Detroit River on the Canadian side and can watch the rebirth from my backyard. What a difference from the glow of out of control fires, echoes of rifle fire and tanks driving down Jefferson and Woodward avenues in the summer of 1967.
Modern Romans are more similar in appearance to Southern Italians than Northern Italians. On top of that the areas of Italy that have the darkest people are exactly the same areas where the Classical Greeks built colonies. And in these areas, a form of Greek is still spoken (Griko). If the Ancient Greeks and Romans were mostly Nordic then this would be hard to explain.
Here is a map of blonde hair frequency in Italy:
To those blondies Norther of Europe:
The civilization started in South Easter Europe inclusive Asia Minor, it did not start North of Europe where Jordans said that the people of that area live under stones and Tacitus clearly described the Germans as totally barbarians who lived (during the winter) in homes digged in the ground and covered with dumb.
Another aspect is that the green and blue eyes are genetically present in all humans but it appears more frequently in Europe.
The Thracians were described to have red hear which implies that they had green and blue eyes.
Also, the Thracians are described to be darker, mediterranean type.
Basically the hebrews took a humane monotheism (Zoroaster) and burdened it with racism about “chosen people”. The “mixture” seems to be more a dangerous perversion than anything else.
As for “jews rising from the dead”, yes the inherent racism of the sect gets them thrown out over and over and over again.
“”The British beat the French in economics and industry, the French led the way in the arts and stuff.””
There are those that say WWI happened because both the Germans and the French overtook the Brits in science, technology and industry during the 19th century and were well ahead by 1910. The “explanation” is that the Brits were undone by the corrupt (jewish) banks of the “city of london”. Their “speculation” led to under investment in British technology and industry. …… Interestingly, at the end of the 20th century, both French and German industry were at least twice as productive (in output per hour worked) as Brit/American industry. Seems London/NY are again parasitizing their “home” countries?
As for: “”One area where Brits were really great was in literature,…. “”, this seems to be an attempt to sell substandard trash with propaganda. It is perhaps in the “trend” of considering a Viviane Westwood to have anything to do with “great design”.
The question is who were the French and the English. They were not Germans, maybe some soldiers. Who were their leaders?
We don’t know that part?
There are no Jewish people in the sense you describe (continuation of a race – NO)
The Jews of Europe are a mixture of people notably Thracians.
sarcophagus’s in Rome suggest the Roman soldiers when slaughtering Germans had much less grotesque facial feature than the Germans..the Germans had long curly hair with bulbous noses and beards
Your video is obviously less well documented than this article and even a little bit dubious since some of the image it shows are clearly northen european type.
“Your video is obviously less well documented than this article and even a little bit dubious since some of the image it shows are clearly northen european type.”
You guys of the north of Europe does exactly as the contemporary Indians, Chinese, Egyptions, etc.
does today by saying that they are the descendants of the ancient people of that area
Are you claiming that some meaningful number of Chinese or Africans have green and blue eyes? I don’t think that’s true.
All your links are from Apollo, not from real people like Socrates
or Aristotle
or Plato
or Pericles
Ahaha
NorDICKS are as stupid as afrocentrists and with the same low self esteeme about their past.
You were swinging from trees in the past and doing human sacrifice…deal with it.
Italy and Greece are still full of ginger and blonde people and still many romans used wigs.
I have said that the gins of blue and green eyes are present in all the people of the world.
Northern Europeans will become extinct by end of this century for sure. Then Southern Europeans will step in and wipe out everything in North, and repopulate those lands with brown eyed brunettes.
1) you focus in the fair haired minority among statues, the vast majority have been found to be dark haired, showing much evidence of the ancient Greek hair color. And how could fair statues not exist, as blondes existed the way they even more exist in Greece today
2)the first lines are lies, there is a well detailed work on ancient Greek phenotype, and all it shows is that classical Greeks were slightly DARKER than modern Greeks.
3)gauls and celts, were predominantly dark and related to South Europe, like germanics are related to slavs, not Nordic
4) the way you dispute a PhD shows Nordic ignorance, without genetically south European askhenazi Jews leading science and technology in your countries you would be nothing
Always interesting to consider this issue. John did you look up or read through what is without a doubt the most comprehensively researched and written book on Greece, and I refer to J.Bury’s “The History of Greece”. Bury traces the history and origins of the Greek world very carefully and once you grasp the tribal origins of the Peloponnese you will come to the view that they were not blonde or celtic. However they like every other tribe and group were traders and keepers of slaves so any so called racial characteristics would have been diluted over time. It was at least 500 years before the Greeks came into prominence as city states and left their history.
Bury tracks these origins very well indeed, noted the issue of the Minoan civilisations, but that is most conjecture as they were a thousand years before the Greek States arose. If one has the time and inclination to read Bury (Former Professor of Classics and Ancient History) you will be better able to see that whatever the Greeks were, they were not white or nordic types, they basically came from tribes from the East or Middle Asia.
Virginia Woolf wrote a book after her visit to Greece.
In her book she described the population of Greece where the Vlachs controlled the banks and they looked like English or Austrians. The Greeks were described as being lazy doing nothing all they long.
“The establishment of a distinct Aromanian national consciousness, however, was hampered by the tendency of the Aromanian upper classes to be absorbed in the dominant surrounding ethnicities, and espouse their respective national causes as their own.[27] So much did they become identified with the host nations that Balkan national historiographies portray the Aromanians as the “best Albanians”, “best Greeks” and “best Bulgarians”, leading to researchers calling them the “chameleons of the Balkans”.[28] Consequently, many Aromanians played a prominent role in the modern history of the Balkan nations: Macedonian revolutionary Pitu Guli, Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Kolettis, Greek magnate Georgios Averoff, Greek Defence Minister Evangelos Averoff, Serbian Prime Minister Vladan Đorđević, Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, Romanian metropolitan Andrei Şaguna, the Wallachian and Moldavian rulers of the Ghica family, etc.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians
And how the Vlachs looked:
https://www.pinterest.com/lafeerusee/the-vlachs/
Great Tip,
Thanks!
exomike
Oh my god are you serious the Romans actually imported Negroes into Europe dear god I have not read that before but sure I did get they had Semites since the Jewish Rebellion of 66 A.D when the Jews in Judea revolted, and they were later subjugated and sent to Rome as Slaves my god thou I didn’t know they were importing Africans into the Empire that is very shocking and I once believe the Roman Empire was great but those people who were surely running it seriously failed to underestimate the repercussions of race mixing.
Romans and Greeks looked alike, dark to brown hair:
Only the Thracians are described to have red hair si implicitly lite collar eyes.
Also the Thracians are described to have dark skin like Greeks and Romans.
https://funnyjunk.com/How+the+average+roman+looked+like/funny-pictures/6126787/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/60376451229313603/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/238479742739886315
The Romans were hyper promiscuous, as long as they were good looking they wanted to have sex with them. They didn’t care about race, maybe due to their own cosmopolitan globalist nature.
Which is why the Italians of today are so mixed racially.
I guess that’s exactly what happened, where Roman and Thracian Lords became the Kings, the Church Officials, the Ruling Class of those from North Western Europe.
The people ( peasants of Thracian and Roman decent) were told to learn a certain language like German, etc by the new Lords but, they themselves (the Lords) continue to speck the language of their ancestors (Latin)
Thank you for your contribution. But you can also tell us, was Socrates a “real person”?
I, for one, think that Geeks, for the most part, are fairly intelligent and bright, but somewhat withdrawn socially. But to say they don’t like Romaine is silly. I’ve witnessed blonde and blue-eyed Geeks eat salads as everyone else be they Africans or Middle Eastern. Romaine has been cultivated in almost all parts of the world, not just in Italy. Geeks can be a lot of fun, if you know how to deal with them. Give a chance, and grow a little intellectually.
Yes, because any claim by Nordics to anything is supremacist by default. Someone just lost their credibility, but it isn’t Unz Review.
The so called Nordics were nothing else then a host body for the real invaders, the Thracians and Romans/Vlachs who were the Kings and Lords of the Nordics.
I’ve red “The Baltic Origins of Homer’s Epic Tales” by Felice Vinci
First of all, the writer was paid by the nordics to create a noble history (going for thousands of years)
of the nordic nations. Felice Vinci is recognized by all historians to be nothing else but a forger of history.
The same approach had the Hungarians when they asked another Italian to write a book showing thet the Hungarians are Etruscans and some Hungarian scholars consider Hungarians to be the Sumerians and others are dreaming lowly advocating a decent from Celts.
Someone says: ” When a nation got financial means it is inclined to change it’s history like Himler did in WWII”
The nordics should read:
http://historum.com/ancient-history/62034-goths-vandals-really-germans.html
This is laughable at best, ass kissing to Nordic folks never gotten sweeter. Ancient Greeks look like Modern ones we see today, same people with dark hair and eyes.
The Greeks of today are not the ancient Greeks.
The Greeks of today are the slaves and peasants of the Ancient Greeks who spoke Ionic and Doric.
The Germans of today are mixture of tribes from South Eastern Europe (Thracians and others)
who were Germanized how was the case of the Prussians.
After the Romans conquered the ancient Greeks the ruling class were moved to Rome were they contributed to Rome’s architecture, military achievements, social life, etc.
The remaining population of Greece were the slaves. These slaves kept their status under the Romans, Byzantine Romans and Turks for period of almost 2000 years.
Their rulers in these intense period were the Roman Wallacians, the Romanians of today who the contemporary Greeks describe to be the Pelasgians (an ancient Greek tribe) which is total fabrication.
Virginia Woolf described very well the people of Greece where the Wallacians were in charge of the banks and were the most industrious people of Greece, the rest of the people were lazy and inactive.
mediterraneans are essentially from neolithic farmers stock, the modern sardinians retained the highest amount of that neolithic heritage (>90%) and remain today isolated while south europeans in general also retained a high amount of that heritage
http://papeill.blogspot.de/2017/11/quick-highlight-of-archaic-sardinians.html
The minoans were black according to their own art, most of the whites in their art were added during the restoration process in the early 1900s. This can be plainly seen by looking at which pieces of any given picture are original and which are not. Also, their civilization mirrored many aspects of ancient KMT or egypt, adding further evidence that they were black people. Otherwise a great article, thanks for sharing.
“The way to finally settle the question is to test ancient DNA.”
Indeed. Its been done.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancient-greek-origins-revealed-through-dna-analysis-/
IMO it’s bizarre how sundry nationalities other than Greeks keep bizarrely claiming Greek history as their own.
According to recent DNA testing modern Greeks are closely genetically related to ancient Greeks. It’s difficult to compare but its entirely possible that Greeks are more related to their ancient counterparts than some modern Northern European peoples are related to their original geographic counterparts.
For example, the modern British are not the original British. Modern British identity was created in the 18th century with the union of Scots and the English… neither of which were British. The Scots and English recycled the name old British in an attempt to unify the island of Britain under a common identity. Ethnically speaking though the original British were a different people. They spoke a completely different language than the Scots and English (who lets remember migrated from what we today call Germany). Their culture was different.
The genetic trail suggests the original British were more related to Basques. For a period after the Romans left Britain, the real British and the Angles (English) co-existed as separate tribes. Whatever is left of the original British was genetically assimilated by the immigrants who invaded Britain. (Jutes, Angles, and Saxons most notably)
And this is precisely why half of Scots don’t have a British identity. They know their history. Scots aren’t British (and neither are the English).
(Thymoleon, in case the author can’t read Greek)
This is a foolish essay.
The Greeks lived on the shores of the Mediterranean. The Dorians migrated to southern Greece from northern Greece, not from Germany…
Had they been “Nordic”, the Greeks would have never formed poleis–the “Nordics” being by nature too antisocial to form any kind of significant polity without help from the Mediterranean…
Sir, the Germans are a mixture of people some of them were the Greeks who ,migrated north of Europe together with the Thracians (Migration forced by the Romans/Volscii?)
The Original population of Germany were living worst then the Gypsies of XIX th Century
The time is explained very vividly by the Roman Historian Tacitus
Complicated this History, is’t it?
“According to recent DNA testing modern Greeks are closely genetically related to ancient Greeks.”
And according to whom?
To the Greek Scientist or some German lost in time?
[Choose a single Handle, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will get trashed.]
Nobody sayd that the Greeks were Nordics (only few nazies )
But the ideea is that the Greeks of today are not the Ancient Gteeks
For you information, these guys spoke Ionic and Doric and they were called Thracians (Bythinians)
Again a mixture of Greeks and Thracians and Wallachians (not necessarily in this order) , those who
moved NORTH of Europe and were called Prussians sau Bythinians
Sylvia Terzian
2 weeks ago
Response for “Baltic folk”
Prussian language:
Here is the Part about Prussians and Lithuanians.
Jan Dlugosz XV cent.
“The Prussians are reputed to be a fierce, cruel people, immersed in idolatry and the worship of demons, so blind in their errors that they worship as gods the sun, moon and stars, as well as animals, birds and fire. They hold certain woods, lakes and streams sacred, and in those no man may hunt, fish or cut timber. They have their own language, which is partly derived from Latin and somewhat like the language of the Lithuanians, with whom they have various gods, ceremonies and festivals in common.
They have a high priest whose order must be scrupulously obeyed under penalty of death; he lives in the capital which is called Romowe, after Rome. The word for high priest in their language is Criwe.
The Prussians, Lithuanians and Samogitians have largely the same customs, language and origin.
It is said that at the time of the civil war between Cesar and Pompey they left their homes, wherever these were, and came to settle in these lands by the sea, where they now live.
They built their settlements deep in the forest, protected by rivers, lakes and swamps. Their pronunciation of words may differ, as it does in Polish, Czech and Ruthenia today, but otherwise their languages are similar in many respects. They do not consider that they have a common stem or language; in deed, the Prussians claim a quite different ancestry, for they will tell you that after the Carthaginians leader, Hannibal, was defeated by the Romans, he fled to the Bithynia and found refuge there. He persuaded Prussians, king of the Bithynians, to take up arms against the Romans on his behalf.
There was a pitched battle in which the Bithynians were soundly defeated, after which Prussians and most of his people fled to these northern shores where they now live, Prussians, giving his own name to their new country. Traces of these Bithynians are still to be found: indeed some Prussians are still able to speak their old language, to the extent that they can perfectly understand Aeolian, Dorian and Ionian Greek.
The Prussians buy their wives and make them work like slaves. They burn the bodies of the dead together with their horses, arms, clothing and other things dear to the hearts. Otherwise, they are by nature hospitable and friendly. They indulge in bouts of drunkenness, achieved, for wine is not known to them, by drinking fermented mare’s milk, which is inebriating.
They do not consider that they have been sufficiently hospitable to a friend or guest until they see him well and truly intoxicated. Their womenfolk are as ardent topers as the men.
Prussians can have an unlimited number of wives, just as many as each can afford to buy; consequently they do not respect them, but force them to perform the servile duties of slaves.”
Also there is a German Kaizer (Prussian) who wrote that the Prussians come from south of Danube and were called Missians (Thracians)
So, you tell us that the Greeks of today are the ANCIENT GREEKS ?
The ANCIENT GREEKS WILL NEVER EVER ACCEPT SLAVERY THE WAY THE GREEKS IN THE COUNTRY OF GREECE accepted from Romans,Byzantines,Turks = total – over 2000 years
Rethink your Greek HISTORY
By WHOM?
BY A Greek A German or a Russian?
Let me guess
Don’t give me examples of others
You Greeks were the Slaves and the Wallachians saved your ass
The port you were is Walachian as it is all over Eastern Europe
German, Hungarian,Austrians ALL had IMPERIAL ROMANS aka VOLSCI/Valaci as KINGS and lords
You as a Greek can laugh as much as you IMMEDIATE ANCESTORS told you to
But you GREEKS remain SLAVES
That’s where you as a Greek Slave learn
It will take some time to make you UNDERSTAND where you STAND
The same with the so called Germans
Germans you were activated by many . The one is YOU
Should we go Himmler?
Or should we trust U
About the Greeks
Learn to suck dick
Actually There were Indoeuropean tribes coming from the Northern Europe like Latins, Oscans , Samnites etc … and Local pelasgian tribes as well as Etruscans , all were fair or light skinned the locals had more dark hairs , the Indoeuropeans more light features.
Northern Europe was described as Barbaric by the Greeks and Romans.
When you write something you must have the ability to prove it.
You don’t.
Probably these are the stories you teach the kids in the north.
It is known that the Germans used to live in the winter in hols dug in the ground and covered with dong
Tacitus – Germania:
“Their villages are not laid out in the Roman style, with buildings adjacent and connected. Every man leaves an open space round his house, perhaps as a precaution against the risk of fire, perhaps because they are inexpert builders. They do not even make use of stones or walltiles; for all purposes they employ rough-hewn timber, ugly and unattractive-looking. Some parts, however, they carefully smear over with a clay of such purity and brilliance that it looks like painting or coloured design. They also have the habit of hollowing out underground caves, which they cover with masses of manure and use both as refuges from the winter and as storehouses for produce. Such shelters temper the keenness of the frosts; and if an invader comes, he ravages the open country, while these hidden excavations are either not known to exist, or else escape detection simply because they cannot be found without a search.”
“Even iron is not plentiful; this has been inferred from the sort of weapons they have. Only a few of them use swords or large lances: they carry spears – called frameae in their language – with short and narrow blades, but so sharp and easy to handle that they can be used, as required, either at close quarters or in long-range fighting. Their horsemen are content with a shield and a spear; but the foot-soldiers also rain javelins on their foes: each of them carries several, and they hurl them to immense distances, being naked or lightly clad in short cloaks. There is nothing ostentatious about their equipment: only their shields are picked out in the colours of their choice. Few have breastplates, and only one here and there a helmet of metal or hide. Their horses are not remarkable for either beauty or speed, and are not trained to execute various evolutions as ours are; they ride them straight ahead, or with just a single wheel to the right, keeping their line so well that not a man falls behind the rest. Generally speaking, their strength lies in infantry rather than cavalry.”
Are these the nordics who civilized Europe?
Also, Jordanes in his book Jetica describes the nordic people living under boulders.
Hehe
Why is it so bloody controversial to talk about and confirm white peoples history, that, is what I dont understand, even when I can prove it to you, I bet you still will refuse to see.
the problem this days, is as much into what I define as bonkers PC-infested nonsense, like the silence about Minoans, just to give ou an ex, and the Basque, witch is by far the oldest genuine European people there is, and genetically, I am in that same group, but I am from ancient North- Finland and I am an Skolt sami, 100% European.
And dont forget this, the global temp dropped 2000 years ago, to what we have to day, and that alone drove a lot of people southward, but then its been people up here since the ice age, we have 10000 years old house ruins, 3000 years old stone monuments and circles/labyrinths, etc, they found an 7000 year old boat, build the same way as they do to day, the frame, everything, equally old fishing nets, etc.
Rune writings that predates the “vikings” by thousands of years.
This is again just an short summary, I dont have time to take it all.
But the truth is, Europa, geographically isnt that big, and to the Faraos, whom where Nordic to, huh, and so on, to the Berbers of North Africa, and NA was never inhabited by Blacks they cam much later, and why I say PC-infested is that the scam about humans coming from Africa is just that, an scam, and why we are so called, originally blacks is again based upon another scam, that humans originate from Monkeys.
Yeah, only idiots believe that.
But what blows my mind, is the hate because of this, uh….. white history, I have never read so much nonsense and flat out bullshit as this days when archeologically the facts are the opposite, that means that if you go by age, everything went from the West-Europa to the east.
period.
And why on earth dont we talk about Boats, yeah, eh…… its another freakish way of avoiding facts, the truth is, Europa was infact white, and the Boats where the tools, roamed the rivers, all the way to the African lands and Eastern Asia, but they never talk about it, because its even politically restrained by some obscure nonsense invented by some drooling idiots in central Europa in the 1800s, thats what is still defining the present world history.
Like why dont we debate that fact Faraos had cokain in their blood, several of them, for eons, cannabis, is found so far back they simply didn’t or want to talk about that either, in the Nordic countrys incl Baltics and Russia.
I give you something to think about.
http://r1b.blogspot.no/2008/01/henotype.html
R1b
Even worse for the PC-rats.
http://saamiblog.blogspot.no/2007/12/prehistoric-genetic-link-of-amazigh-and.html
And on top of it.
The Boat people.
http://uralica.com/earlyfin.htm
Take your time, and have a nice day.
And the last one for now, this one is for the Norwegians, go f….. your self, Khazars.
http://www.academia.edu/2288092/B%C3%A1cheveaj_Pasvikdalens_eldre_histore_belyst_ved_pollenanalyser_og_arkeologisk_materiale
I stop there, and do read it, it may shine some light on more than just one thing, and to show you the truth.
peace
Wow! To think people actually spend a good part of their lives studying such utter meaningless crap.
Anyway, whatever race the ancient fucking Greeks and Romans were, at least the white race can rejoice that “god” (the repackaged Zeus) & his “only begotten son,” are white. Which makes whites, somewhat like demigods, doesn’t it.
LOL!!
This is known that SCLAVINI or Germanics will attack the people who MADE themn
The Talmudists were not contemporaneous with the Greek invasion/occupation, but the Talmudists ==did== actually hold contemporaneous records of that earlier era.
If the Greeks were as dark as, say – the Ethiopians who WERE around in Judea in small numbers in those days – the Talmudists would have mentioned it.
I will explain it entirely but I do need 2 weeks. Maybe a little bit more.
“Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?”
I never knew that there was any doubt at all that Greeks and Romans have always been European. It’s a matter of geography, isn’t it? Greece and Italy are located on the European continent, after all. As to whether they are descended from northern Europeans, is there really a significant difference between the indigenous people of the different areas of Europe other than the minor variations in the physical characteristics of different tribes among the race of humans generally known as European?
I have always believed that the people throughout Europe and northern Asia, were descendant from the 10 tribes of Israel that escaped from Syria after years of captivity there. They were the northern Kingdom of Israel. The Southern Kingdom consisted of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin, while the northern Kingdom consisted primarily of the Tribe of Ephraim, and the other 10 tribes that were lost after their captivity and escape by the Syrians. All we know is they wandered north and many relics of their journey have been left behind and found by archeologists over time. I have no way to prove my theory. It is only a theory.
Please do not worry. The amount of garbage people believe, is infinite. So you are not alone.
Only a reminder.
Walach in Slavic languages means simply herder.
There were three types who were herders.
Youngest was Honelnik . He fulfilled the role of dog.
Walach was responsible for the herd.
Bacha (old) was responsible for cooking.
Romans and Greeks.
First I do have to beg for your indulgence.
Because everything is depending on everything, and everything is influenced by everything for these reasons I do quite benevolently have to widen the scope of this article.
And I only hope that there will be some people who will find what I am writing here interesting.
Prelude.
So what we have in Universe.
Space
Matter
Black holes.
Energy (many kinds)
Rays (many kinds)
Light (Actually there is no light. Light is no entity. Light is only visual manifestation of the heat wave emanating from matter heated up to certain degree of temperature.)
Hawkins theory of universe created by unwinding of singularities is stupidity or best it could be theme for children’s book. All we need to ask that how the singularities came into being.
Never did care about Einstein’s theories of relativity because they are based on light that is non-entity.
Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 is another thing. This is not empirical equation because units are not supplied. This is philosophical equation. This is Einstein’s private joke. Here Einstein spelled out the end of our Universe.
But there is no need to become desperate. Our Universe is like grain of sand in comparison with the all universe that is larger than all the sand on all seashores.
And so we can start.
Space
Imagine that you are immortal (like those with swords) and you have a space ship that can travel with zillion times of speed light and you have decided to take a look at the end of space. So after traveling zillion years you hit the brick wall. You want to know what is on the other side.
So you pull out sledgehammer from your ship and brake the wall to be able to see what is on the other side.
And what you see is nothing. But nothing is actually space.
Eventually you realize that space has no limits.
This would happen if you take a left turn at Albuquerque. If you would take a right turn at Albuquerque you would hit the belly button of God.
Matter
If Space is infinite than matter in space must be infinite also. For simple reason that all energy would escape into infinity and then all matter would freeze.
Black holes.
We pretty well know what will happen to our solar system.. Sun will use all its chemical energy and eventually become a super nova. And than there will be dark.
It still will travel through universe and it still will emit heat waves and all kinds of electromagnetic waves. It will take a long time, but eventually temperature of our solar system will equal the ambient temperature of space that is 2.23 Kelvin. At that moment there will not be any signature coming from our Solar system.
Our Solar system did become a mini Black hole. That is it our Solar system did become a garbage of our universe.
So the large black holes are actually garbage collectors in our Universe.
Big bang theory.
French call our Black holes mockingly “le trou poile” (hairy hole) but that could be close to the truth. God is probably woman and Black hole is the vagina of God because the life starts from there. Eventually inert mass grows to such extent that gravitational force at the center of the mass starts a nuclear reaction. Part of the mass changes to thermal energy and explosion begins, which throws about 50 galaxies into space.
That our universe was created by one big bang is false.
Our stargazers have determined that we have 54 galaxies in our universe.
From those 52 galaxies are moving away from our galaxy, but two galaxies are moving toward our galaxy. That simply contradicts the physical law of dynamics.
Those two galaxies must be coming from different Big bang.
Earth
Another allegory.
Imagine that you are floating through space. It is dark you cannot see anything.
You have your hands in front of you because you worry that you hit something and hurt your head. Finally your hands touch something. You tap around and find out that it is a door. Eventually you find the handle and open the door. There is bright light, and you see the room. There is a table in the center of the room, and on the top of the table is sitting a cat. Just beside the table you see broken pile of pieces of Chinese vase.
As our scientist tell us that at the beginning our Earth was large ball of gas rotating around the Sun. Although our earth was receiving thermal energy from Sun, The loss of thermal energy of our Earth by emitting heat wave was considerably greater.
Our ball we loosing thermal energy and so it was cooling down.
The ball of gas was in process of organizing. The molecules heavy metals as iron nickel chrome and others coagulated at the center, while nonmetallic elements coagulated above them. Cooling of earth continued. Eventually all elements except gases created one great liquid ball surrounded by atmosphere. Naturally there was considerable amount of debris,
Falling on earth in the form of meteors but they all melted and assumed their place according their specific gravity. This process was very gradual and peaceful. There was no explosions or any kind of bubbling. And also it probably lasted several millennia’s.
So what we know?
We know that all substances except water when solidify loose volume.
We also know that even substances in process of cooling down loose part of the volume even if still remain in liquid form.
We also know that temperature difference between poles and equator is around 90 degree Celsius. This difference did not change and as it today it was true then.
So the enthalpy of the earth was decreasing until it reached the solidifying temperature of the elements of the surface. This did happen on the poles of the earth, being the coolest parts of the earth. So the earth crust did begin to grow from poles to the equator.
Where it joined. Here is one anomaly that is needed to notice. Curvature of the earth is not a precise circle. It is larger at poles and it is smaller at equator.
The reason for it is as the crust of the earth was formed so the liquid mass was cooling also ergo it was shrinking. By this, the caps on the poles were moving toward each other.
So the shape of the earth looks like if you put your hand on the rubber ball and you squeeze it a little bit. This is extremely important fact.
Some scientists claim that mountain range of Himalayas was created by Indian plate pushing on Asian plate. That is such a stupidity that it turns my stomach.
If this would be true than Himalayas would be pile of sand, and not a solid rock.
Now we have seen pictures of some planets, also surface of moon. There are some inequalities of the surfaces but we have never seen such inequalities in the height and also in the steepness of the mountains as on earth.
Also we have seen seashells high in the mountains, where levels of oceans simply could not reach.
So what happened?
Breaking of the Earth shell into plates floating on the Magma.
Catastrophic event on the earth.
It is hard to determine when it happened but judging from the shells it happened when life on the earth progressed very far, and even it is possible that human already did walk on the surface of the earth.
How it happened?
When earth shell has joined at equator. It assumed a permanent shape.
But the liquid core by decreasing the temperatures did keep shrinking.
Eventually it did shrink to such an extent that it separated from the shell.
Gap was created and it kept growing. There was not a possibility for air to enter this gap.
So there was a vacuum.
One day large meteor did break the shell. Through the hole water was sucked into the gap.
Water touching the magma changed instantly and changed to steam progressing all around the gap with inheriting tremendous pressure, and was breaking the shell into pieces.
This chaotic event did create the mountains and created generally the surface of the earth as we see it today.
And now I do have to go back to the poles.
I do not know how the water was introduced into earth system. Maybe it was there all along, or some comet did splash into Earth but it does not make any difference.
Or it could have been act of God to supply the water at the right time.
It did not play any role until the surface of poles temperature descended below 100 Celsius. Then droplets of water appeared on pole. By decreasing the temperature the droplets changed into puddles.
Remember when I did tell you that compressed earth at the poles was extremely important?
So the poodles could grow to the extent to fill in the poles to perfect circle.
And so to make a long story short eventually weather started clouds, started eventually lightings started. Lightings created some amino acids. And March of life on our planet was on.
This happened when all Africa still was a total wasteland because of the high temperatures there.
So that life started at poles and eventually progressed toward the equator.
Neanderthals.
March of stupidities:
Somewhere in Africa archeologists dig out very old skeleton they did call it Lucy.
From there somebody concluded that African human beings did wait until Mediterranean froze than even without warm underwear crossed the Mediterranean and populated the Europe.
Some idiots claim that that Neanderthals were inferior people, they died out and were replaced by Homo sapiens who came from India or Africa.
So!
When archeologist did dig out a one skeleton near the German village Neanderthal they measured the bones the skull and did all kind of tests on it.
I do not doubt that it was important. But I consider that the location is far more important.
I do not know where precisely the village of Neanderthal is but I do have to assume that it is pretty far up north.
Human beings like other animals always moved into places with abundance of food and most comfortable climate to procreate and bring up the offspring. Babies are quite vulnerable you know! So I even would guess that at the time of Neanderthals the climate at that latitude was much wormer than now, and it was
Maybe even subtropical.
The benevolent migration of people usually did happen along the same latitude.
And so if Neanderthals were successful in procreating than they probably filled the strip of land from Neanderthal to Vladivostok.
Ice age.
There was somebody on television that claimed that Ice age was caused by large meteor,
That meteor, when hit the earth and did send into earth atmosphere dust which enveloped the earth blocked the sun and did cause the ice age.
Very brave!
But this is epitome of stupidity.
Concerning ice age we have a firm point.
Archeologists snooping around in Egypt discovered one extremely important episode.
In abbot 11thousand years ago some people went to Kamchatka and they brought baby mammoth for Pharaoh to see.
From this we can draw several very important deductions. Power of Pharaoh was practically immense Egyptian society was already at the peak of its power.
But also we have to deduct that coming out of ice age was approximately 10 thousand years, than we can estimate that Ice age lasted about 20 thousand years.
Than of course going into ice age lasted about 10 thousand years.
So the all cycle lasted 40 thousand years.
What I do have to point out here that 40 thousand years applied to development of humans is really big number
This is the cycle that it absolutely could not have been caused by random event.
With your permission let me go back a little bit again.
There was a monk in Poland called Kopernik. His hobby was watching the skies.
After a time he declared that Sun is not rotating around the earth. Just opposite is the case; earth is rotating around the Sun. Nobody paid attention to this obscure monk, and it took more than hundred years, and after invention of telescope, when Italian Giordano Bruno declared the same thing. Holly see that was basically copycat of Greek science and accepted it as a religious dogma did burn Giordano at stake, Galileo declared the same thing, he was called in front of inquisition, After seeing what happened to Giordano he denied it, but then he said his famous “it is turning anyway”.
And than there was Ticho de Brahe. He was living in Holland. He spent all his live watching the skies and recording everything what he has seen in the skies. He was the one who noticed that some planets are retrograding. (Changing direction of movement of planets.)
He did not know what to make about it. So he submitted all his lifetime observations to Kepler, Kepler was German mathematician genius who was hired by Czech king Rudolf second to calculate for him how much taxes Czech people should pay for him.
Rudolf second was the one who was fascinated by Italian art and so he kept buying Italian paintings. Than in 30 year wars Swedes came down sacked the Praqe and they stole all his paintings, and Swedes to this day are refusing to give the paintings back.
Obviously Kepler did have enough time to evaluate Tycho’s records.
And so German mathematician genius Kepler formulated two laws of earth movement around the Sun. First was that earth trajectory around Sun is not a circle it is en ellipse where Sun is in the focus in the ellipse. The second law he formulated was that the area in the unit of the time consisting of the triangle leading to the focus is constant.
Interpretation of the second law is that when earth is close to the Sun is moving faster than when earth is far away from the Sun.
Than as Einstein said there is no firm point in universe. So there is automating conclusion that the Kepler ellipse is not a constant. By every orbit of Earth around the Sun the ellipse is changing from very flat ellipse at he time when ellipse will become a perfect circle and from there will go to maximum flat ellipse again.
And than when ellipse is at maximum flat than it is culmination of ice age.
This movement was repeating from the time our solar system was created.
And now we can return to Neanderthals.
As the ice age was approaching about 30 thousand years ago the ideal conditions for life of flora and fauna on the earth started to move down from the poles towards equator.
And so also Neanderthals were moving down from northern latitude to around Mediterranean latitude. It took around close to 20 thousand years.
It is absolute conclusion that there were no people there.
All people on this earth are Neanderthal descendants.
It is inevitable conclusion that they were Neanderthals, which did change into Homo sapiens.
The domestication of animals, permanent residency, and agriculture did change them.
I am exhausted now, so if you find some holes in my logical reasoning you are free to fill them in.
I promised a careful reading before my response, but this is exciting to read. From first reading, ideas scurry in my mind like mice needing to be put in a cage. I did not know about the baby mammoth that was taken to the Pharaoh. That must be the cat on the table. But, cat is alive (I guess) and vase is broken, so which is older? Maybe cat is immortal and wrathful God wife broke Chinese vase over husband’s head for making the wrong turn in Albuquerque. I will continue studying this writing, but haven’t yet read about the Greeks and Romans.
Question: orbits fluctuate from severely elliptical (Ice Age time) to circular (consistently moderate temperature?) in a pattern that simulates pulsing waves. Attractive thought, this, and just like waves everywhere. Planets’ movement away from a warm sun is slow and reaches maximum coldness; planets are warmed only while speeding close to the sun for the briefest time in orbit. What would cause the orbital path to gradually return to circular? Have we observed such variances in orbits enough to postulate this empirically?
I am reading in a subject area where my ignorance prevails, so be patient, please. I may ask too many questions.
Someone mentioned the first study, which had wide media coverage, but the second one is relevant too. They give new perspective to the matter of race continuity and immigration influence.
Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans
Abstract
The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6,7,8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23310
“Researchers analyzed DNA samples from 19 Bronze Age individuals. Ann Gibbons of Science reports that the remains belonged to 10 Minoans from Crete, four Mycenaeans, and five people from other early Bronze Age cultures of Greece and Turkey. The team compared 1.2 million letters of genetic code from these individuals to the genomes of 334 people from other ancient cultures, along with those of 30 modern Greeks.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-sheds-light-mysterious-origins-ancient-greeks-180964314/
Ancient and recent admixture layers in Sicily and Southern Italy trace multiple migration routes along the Mediterranean
Abstract
The Mediterranean shores stretching between Sicily, Southern Italy and the Southern Balkans witnessed a long series of migration processes and cultural exchanges. Accordingly, present-day population diversity is composed by multiple genetic layers, which make the deciphering of different ancestral and historical contributes particularly challenging. We address this issue by genotyping 511 samples from 23 populations of Sicily, Southern Italy, Greece and Albania with the Illumina GenoChip Array, also including new samples from Albanian- and Greek-speaking ethno-linguistic minorities of Southern Italy. Our results reveal a shared Mediterranean genetic continuity, extending from Sicily to Cyprus, where Southern Italian populations appear genetically closer to Greek-speaking islands than to continental Greece. Besides a predominant Neolithic background, we identify traces of Post-Neolithic Levantine- and Caucasus-related ancestries, compatible with maritime Bronze-Age migrations. We argue that these results may have important implications in the cultural history of Europe, such as in the diffusion of some Indo-European languages. Instead, recent historical expansions from North-Eastern Europe account for the observed differentiation of present-day continental Southern Balkan groups. Patterns of IBD-sharing directly reconnect Albanian-speaking Arbereshe with a recent Balkan-source origin, while Greek-speaking communities of Southern Italy cluster with their Italian-speaking neighbours suggesting a long-term history of presence in Southern Italy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4
Right so basically via population genetics this would be the blue-eyed, fair indigenous European element vs the swarthy West Asian invaders. Modern Greeks are more of the latter genetically on average.
All the Nordics are Blondy and they ar are the GODS
Don/t ask why
WHo does/did the GENETICS?
Blue – eyes were the THRACIANS and others in Balkans and Asia Minor
Some Thracians are described to have RAD HEAR
You see that in Egyptian mummies
[You are publishing too many very short comments, and also using a variety of different Handles. Your recent comments have been changed to use the Handle "Ferrary" and you must henceforth stick with it exclusively, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise your comments will be summarily trashed.]
How many of those you drink?
Almost convincing.. until.. wait.. I’ve read ancient works, and the Ancient Greeks make a very real distinction between their hair, eyes and complexion and the “fair” people to the north. So no.. Greeks were not Nordics.. they were a mix of several peoples, probably some Nordic people who ventured south too even. But all in all they were and still are a Mediterranean people. The Germanic tribes and scandinavian tribed didn’t genetically “mingle” with Greeks until the age of Byzantium.
It looks like Volos/Vlach was one of the Gods of the Slavs
http://deity-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2011/11/velesvolos.html
Veles/Volos
Veles (Cyrillic: Велес; Polish: Weles; Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic: Велесъ) also known as Volos (Russian: Волосъ) (listed as a Christian saint in Old Russian texts) is a major Slavic god of earth, waters and the underworld, associated with dragons, cattle, magic, musicians, wealth and trickery. He is also the opponent of thunder-god Perun, and the battle between two of them constitutes one of the most important myths of Slavic mythology. No direct accounts survive, but reconstructions speculate that he may directly continue aspects of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon and that he may have been imagined as (at least partially) serpentine, with horns (of a bull, ram or some other domesticated herbivore), and a long beard.
I also found this interesting:
http://historum.com/ancient-history/62034-goths-vandals-really-germans.html
Take a look at this:
The ancient Greek and Romans were racially European ( obviously ) and looked like today’s Europeans both in Italy Greece and all over Europe. Europeans are a genetically homogeneous continental ancestry group ( racial group ) and still draw much of their ancestry from the Cro Magnons who we still physically resemble. So of course we still look like our relatively recent Greek and Roman ancestors. The title of this article is a rather silly as no one doubts what race they were, They were European.
It is no theory:
Here are the ‘Lost’ Tribes or The Twelve Tribes of Israel:
(Joseph) Ephraim = Anglo-Saxon England (The Saacae or Saaka – Isaac’s sons = Saxons) and Her Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth – Australia, Canada, NZ and S Africa (Now stolen).
(Joseph) Manasseh = Anglo-Saxon USA (The Saacae – Isaac’s sons)
Simeon = Scotland (The Scythians) and Scottish descendants everywhere.
Levi = Wales, (The Druids = descendants of The Levitical Priesthood with many butchered by the Romans in 46 AD) Cornwall and The Walloons of Belgium and Welsh descendants everywhere.
Judah (The Jutes) (Royalty to Yashua Messiah, King David and British Royalty) = Northern Ireland and Scotland and some still dispersed in Western Europe with some in Germany.
Benjamin = Norway, Iceland and Denmark.
Dan = (The Tuatha de Danaan) Southern Ireland and Irish descendants everywhere.
Reuben = Northern Gallic France and Gallic French descendants everywhere.
Zebulon pronounced Zeebulon – a haven for ships = Holland (the Zuider Zee) and Dutch descendants everywhere.
Gad = Flanders (modern Belgium).
Issachar = Switzerland.
Naphtali = Finland.
Asher = Sweden and Swedish descendants everywhere.
13 tribes listed in all due to Joseph’s two sons Ephraim & Manasseh both inheriting.
From the Declaration of Arbroath to the Pope 1320 AD:
“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.”
Daniel 9:7 (KJV) O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.
Britain consists of five of the Twelve Tribes of Israel – Ephraim = England; Simeon = Scotland; Wales and Cornwall = Levi; Judah = Northern Ireland and Scotland; Dan = Southern Ireland.
The British Gaelic and Old English tongues are Hebrew in origin, this has been proven by linguistic scholars.
“The English tongue agreeth with the Hebrew a thousand times more than with the Latin.”
- William Tyndale – multi-linguist and early translator of the English Bible.
The Saaca or Saacea (Isaac’s sons = saxons) came from the lands of the Medes and Parthians where the Assyrians (Germans) placed them after taking the Northern Kingdom of Israel captive in 725 BC.
The Scythians (The tribe of Simeon – The Scots) came from the same area between the Caspian Sea and Black Sea and north of the Black Sea.
Sir Francis Drake and Elizabeth I both knew England was Israel – privately QE II also knows.
Ed Koch, New York Mayor, when participating in the St Patrick’s Day Parade at the head of the parade stated: “It’s part of my roots. The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, we believe, ended up in Ireland.”
The Mayflower American founding fathers (the Puritans) all knew that England was Israel and planted Israel in the promised land of the New World – New England.
The word British is from the Hebrew words ‘Berith’ and ‘Ish’. Hebrew Berith = Covenant and Hebrew Ish = man so British means Covenant Man.
Engl-land again is from the Hebrew word ‘igl’ which means bullock. England = Bullock-land. Ephraim was known as God’s young bullock, the firstlings, and his fair child.
Deuteronomy 33:17 (KJV) His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Ireland was originally known as Ebernia from Abraham’s forefather Eber from whence comes the Hebrew tongue and the race collectively known as the Hebrews – Eber’s descendants.
The Iberian peninsular also gets its name from Eber. These places were named by Zarah in his migrations who was the twin brother of Pharez who were Judah’s two sons by Tamar – Saragossa in Spain takes its name from Zarah who had the red thread tied to his wrist at the time of his birth – the Zarah Red Hand of Northern Ireland and on its flag to this day.
The Hebrides off the west of Scotland are really the Hebrew-des.
The Scots and Irish both play the bagpipes which are known to have Middle Eastern origins.
The first Christian churches planted outside of Jerusalem were in Britain in 37 AD and there is archaeological evidence to prove it. This proves the Israelites were in Britain. British churches pre-date Antioch.
Caucasians = White Israelites.
Some do. As ancient Europeans traveled, and lived in Western China in the Tarim Basin.
“One of the better known mummies found in the Taklamakan Desert is an individual known as Cherchen Man, who was determined to be of Celtic origin. He is phenomenally well preserved for being around 3,000 years old, with Nordic features such as high cheekbones and long nose, as well as reddish hair and beard. It is estimated that he stood around 6 feet high, and when found was dressed in a red twill tunic and tartan leggings that have a weave determined to be characteristic of Bronze Age Celts.”
I am 48% Western European. Ireland/Scots/Wales 31%. Great Britain 13%. Europe South 3%. Scandinavian 3%. Caucasus 1%. Iberian Peninsula 1%. I can trace my ancestry to 80 BC with 93,000+ people in my tree.
I have more Kings, Queens, Prince’s and Princesses, Lords, Ladies, Earls, Knights, and etc. in my tree than you can shake a stick at. And Pocahontas married John Rolfe Jr. who are my 12th g-grandparents (Eat your heart out Senator “Pocahontas” Warren)… and I am just a poor boy.
Commonly seen in people native to the Europe South region – DNA: Iberian Peninsula 25%, Europe West 17%, Great Britain 15%, Europe East 14%, Ireland/Scotland/Wales 11%, Scandinavia 8%.
Commonly seen in people native to the Caucasus region – DNA: Europe East 12%, Europe South 10%, Scandinavia 7%, Great Britain 5%, Ireland/Scotland/Wales 5%, Europe West 2%.
It is more rare to see significant Europe South and Caucasus DNA in Northern European countries, while a significant amount of Northern European Countries DNA are found in Europe South and the Caucasus.
Anyhow.
Tarim Mummies are not Celts. The Celts are described as barbarians (uncivilized without cities) by both Greeks and Romans.
The only people at that time (1800 BC) could be only the Thracians who were described to have Red Hear. And other Thracians are described to have olive skin and dark hear.
The same people (Thracians) who attacked Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs. Some of the Egyption mummies had red hear.
You can argue with the people… the archeologists and historians, who made the discovery.
More on the Celts: https://infogalactic.com/info/Celtic_peoples
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mummies+found+in+the+Taklamakan+Desert&t=ffab&ia=web
https://infogalactic.com/info/Tarim_mummies
Is it a Divine curse for accepting those that call themselves jews and are not ?
Makes one wonder
The map with the expansion in Europe to Balkans of the Celts is a joke.
The Kelts were barbarians to the bone.
“One of the better known mummies found in the Taklamakan Desert is an individual known as Cherchen Man, who was determined to be of Celtic origin.”
How was determined and by whom?
1800 BC if there were Celts they lived in forests in present day Western Spain
The best candidates for the Tarim mummies are the Thracians who were described (some of them ) as having red hear.
The so called “Celtic dance” is a copy of the Romanian “Calusari”
Also read the following about the Celts:
http://historum.com/ancient-history/62034-goths-vandals-really-germans.html
But who were the Slaves?
Greeks
Germans and Celts
So the Germans and Scandinavians are the Greeks and Romans and blondy?
Which Black Hole did you come from?
Racially they were European and as Europeans are a genetically homogeneous continental ancestry group ( racial group ) they shared the same characteristics all Europeans share. The article is actually asking what ethno-linguistic group were they ? They were Italic & Hellenic of course ( an academic consensus based on empirical substance ) anyone saying the contrary is irrelevant. All Europeans are part of the same gene pool so we all share Italic Celtic Germanic Slavic Hellenic genes to one degree or another.
Racially they were European and as Europeans are a genetically homogeneous continental ancestry group ( racial group ) they shared the same characteristics all Europeans share. The article is actually asking what ethno-linguistic group were they ? They were Italic & Hellenic of course ( an academic consensus based on empirical substance ) anyone saying contrary is irrelevant. All Europeans are part of the same gene pool so we all share Italic Celtic Germanic etc genes to one degree or another.
This is one of the desperate attempts of protestant heathens to claim august origins, appropriate the greatness of Greeks and Romans, the other is to throw themselves back to the neolithic and lie to themselves about the imaginary greatness of German and Scythian cannibal hunter-gatherer
barbarians.
ANd that means that the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians,Phoenicians, Babylonians, Indians, etc were BLONDIES?
You go in the era of the so called NAZZISM
Himmler?
This article and a broad swathe of the comments are both pretty funny – scared weird little white guys who want to cloak themselves in the reflected glory of an ancient civilisation in which there is a 95% probability they would have been slaves.
Frankly, anybody who thinks that ‘race’ is a meaningful metric, is marking themselves out as too stupid to be permitted to reproduce.
First of all, we’re all mongrels – particularly the whites, who originated in a bit of dirt where there was frequent ‘mingling’ of tribal and regional genes.
Take a look at Poms from below the Dane line compared with Poms from above it: they’re as different as Zulu vs Xhosa. Ditto Celts (both British and French).
We should think of this as a good thing: heterosis is a good characteristic (‘hybrid vigour’).
To look at me, you would think I was just a big, hazel-eyed hairy white bloke. Photos of me as a kiddie (up to age ~14) showed that I had dirty-blonde hair; my beard has a distinct ginger tinge to it (if I let it grow, which I never do because I have nothing to hide: I have a decent jaw and good teeth).
My Dad is a big, blue-eyed, hairy white bloke; his Dad was a big, blue-eyed, hairy white bloke (and so was his Mum lol).
My Mum’s a hazel-eyed white lady – or at least that’s what you would see in photos or statues (if anyone ever did a coloured statue of Mum). Arguably, Mum’s ‘whiter’ in skin-tone than Dad.
In fact, Mum is half-Maori (the natives of New Zealand) so I’m 25% spear-chucker; Mum’s Mum’s side were Danes, through and through.
It’s absolutely not clear that DNA dominates when it comes to IQ or other metrics that are thought to correlate with productivity and/or social progress/development.
There are differences in the distributions that show a racial component (although all the distributions overlap significantly intra-territorially) – but that is in the context of some races being quite deliberately strangled, developmentally.
Let’s take the standard “African IQ averages under 80″ trope: interesting that Irish IQs were measured at about the same level until the British were forced to remove their boot from Ireland’s neck… by 2015 the average Irish IQ was 105 – half an SD above the average US score. The average IQ in the Netherlands – home of tall white folks – was about 80 in the 1950s: nobody would defend such an estimate today.
Americans of African ancestry do significantly better than Sub-Saharan Africans overall – for all its woes, life in the US for a black person is unambiguously better than life in most African countries you could name.
The boot was only removed from Africa’s neck in the post-WWII era – the aftermath of the fairly chaotic decolonisation process was horrifying (as should be expected). In another generation or so, Africa will have had the same opportunity to right itself, as Ireland has had since just after WWI… and measured IQ will rise as a result.
We (I count myself as white except when it suits me) used to think that Chinkies were thick; turns out that as their economic development gained pace, suddenly tests showed that their average IQ was higher than ours. How come the scared-weird-little-white-guys aren’t all claiming that Theophrastus, Anaximander and Themistocles were squinty-eyes? I suppose that will come in time – it’s the ‘SWLWG’ version of the “Tutankhamun was a Brother” schtick that some African Studies majors will try to foist on their gullible fellows.
Curry-Munchers (Indians) have an average IQ of 85 (in India) and 112 (in America)… that last number is higher than the average for Ashkenazi Jews (110 in the US; 105 in Occupied Palestine).
Afro-Chocolates have an average IQ of 80 (in Africa), 90 (in the US) and 94 (in the UK).
Here’s the thing: first-world nutrition, high levels of social organisation, and a reduction in the general level of misery and oppression between the first and third world… well, it adds about 13 IQ points (and 2-3 inches to height).
Now… imagine how much better Africans would score if they were genuinely treated as equals: not as retarded children (on the one hand) or uncontrollable savages (on the other).
After all, the gap between black and white Americans is – to a first approximation – equal to the gap between favoured and disfavoured castes in other countries (and the same as the gap between US white Washingtonians and White West Virginians).
Plus, unless your IQ is above 137 (on the SB 15sd), don’t even dare try to talk to me, you untermensch. (I’m kidding, kinda, for verily I am a man of the people, y’all… that said, the cognitive gap between the top 1-2% and the rest is really significant)
NB: I use 137 as a cutoff because some tard in the 120s can get to the low 130s by re-testing (the “Seinfeld’ episode is a very good characterisation as to why some ethnicities generate outliers… test, test and test again, little Schlomo).
You can’t get from sub-130 to 137 that way. (130 to 137 is as large a proportional improvement as 115 to 135, because the rate of return from retesting is non-linear)
Me: 138 (I was only tested once as a child – 142 – but the testing protocol converts to 138 SB-15 so I’m too dumb for Triple-9… curse that Maori blood-taint dumbing me down!)
They were European and the writer is actually asking what ethno-linguistic group they were ??? Italic & Hellenic of course . And Europeans are genetically homogeneous so we should all be proud of our ancestors.
So based on your IQ I guess that you must be from north Europe
Who else can you be with such an IQ?
Attractive comment
Only a few detailed missing in there.
Who civilized Europe?
The Celts, The Germans,The Slavs, The Huns, The so called Scythians, The Barbarians from the north of Europe?
No way
Only the Romans, Greeks, Thracians, Asia Minor people
No matter how you in the north you turn it it is a fact that those people civilized you, the barbarians of the north and they were also your lords
Nope – Northern Europe is a small contributor to the genetic schemozzle within my cells.
Dad’s paternal side is Huguenot (the farthest back we’ve traced his family tree is to a Huguenot dude who settled near the Severn in Shropshire in the mid-1500s – before the Edict of St Germain); his maternal side is Celtiberian (quite literally – Spanish and Irish).
Mum’s paternal side is Maori; her maternal side is Danish.
So like pretty much any white(-ish) guy, I’m a Heinz-57 mélange of Scando, Mediterranean (and therefore, in all likelihood, Arab, somewhere), Anglo-Saxon and Celtic genetic material. Throw in some wild-eyed, tattoo’d, brown-skinned Polynesian cannibals and you get a linebacker-sized hairy bloke with a bit of a temper… and somehow, out of all the chaos, an IQ more than 2 s.d. above the median. (I also have the distinctly Maori tendency to not take white-folks obsession about race seriously: Maori culture is far more about values and physical prowess, than the regional origin of your gametes).
Put simply: I am a living embodiment of the benefits of heterosis (“hybrid vigour”; longevity; physical robustness; absence of breed-specific allergies/weaknesses).
In the same way that pure-bred dogs can end up being evolutionary dead-ends, people who get all race-conscious in their breeding habits end up having to take account of race-specific problems, e.g., Tay-Sachs.
Realy?
And you were put there by whom?
Without the Romans VALACI you will speak your language for sure
And as a result you will get …you know what
Are you familiar with the Hindu Vedas?
By the logic presented here, Jesus was Anglo, not Middle-Eastern, because in most Christain churches he is painted as “white.”
Flotsam. ©2018
What are you talking about? Europe proper began with the advent of the Holy Roman Empire, which was a German endeavor. Today, the descendants of the Franks mostly inhabit the West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway. In addition, there is strong evidence of an ethnic link to legacy-Rome. At worst, ancient Rome was dominated by a relatively southern R1b group, but may have instead been the same Northern R1b group that dominated the Frankish group. I1 and I2 Nordic populations comprise a significant minority in each of these groups.
For Pete’s sake, the sophistry is too thick to wade through and has been more than adequately refuted over and over again.
To put it simply, that IQ magically has to do with whether people of European stock are both nice to you and let you move next door to them is on its face ridiculous.
If Asians, Africans, and Indians need to live near us to do well then they’re fucked and deserve to be. Also, it was always and is impossible to oppress the entire continent of Africa. Sometimes cannibals are just cannibals.
Last, we’re more than out of time to wait, resources to give, and patience for apologists that only have guilt to deal and blame to shift.
If your 25% Maori heritage has you acting like a political retard, then you may be hurting your coal burning family more than helping it.
“Celts” is a worthless term, and mostly cultural. The real story is told via haplotype distribution.
All Western European groups are dominated by the R1b clade, with single digit percentages of either I1 or I2 mixed in (or both) for all Western groups North of Spain.
The only difference is which subclade of R1b dominates. However, technically, I think of all R1b lines as racially “Celtic”. By that metric, most Germans are racially “Celtic”, the exception being Swedes who more or less see a minority majority percentage of I1 (and have a higher percentage of Slavic R1a than most other groups). True racial Saxons will have a majority line of I2.
There is a strongly “germanized” R1b subclade that is a result of long-term interbreeding with Nords. These are the Dutch and wherever else his particular subclade dominates. However, they are still racially Celtic. They’re just heavily mixed with Nords over a long term (leading to this particular subclade expression). Similar to Northern Scots, except with a longer history of Nordic genetic refinement. “Nordic Celts” would probably be the most accurate casual description.
I’d also argue for gaining an eye for the relative degree of hominid mix in any one group or individual. This will likely be a more defining racial characteristic than mere haplotype, as we all descended from the first anatomically modern humans but then, later, these modern humans mixed with differing homnid groups – giving us differing racial types. Learn to see Neanderthal. Learn to see other, more rudimentary hominid genetic expressions in differing individuals and groups. Learn to see relatively pure modern human racial expressions.
Take the “Celts” for instance, in Ireland. Using 19th century crude racial descriptions, there is the “Iberian” line of Irish who obviously have a higher than normal (for Europeans) degree of neanderthal admixture. Phenotypically, this is clear. This, combined with their perceived behavioral inadequacies, led to racial discrimination from the English. However, Ireland also has lines that have neanderthal admixture that is on-par with or even less than other European groups. Phenotypically, this is also clear, and understandable given a certain measure of island isolation as well as avoidance of the “Iberian” lines. Look to Ulster for these groups, for example.
Those “cowardly barbarians” still dominate the entire Italian economy through their industry in Lombardy and the surrounds.
Moreover, they were the only people in Italy who dominated Italian politics from the Holy Roman Empire onward. When you were lucky enough no to be subject to challengers from further North.
For Dave232343
The Lombards were not Germans the same about Bavarians (Avars), Prussians (Thracians), Franks, etc
http://historum.com/ancient-history/62034-goths-vandals-really-germans.html
Those who civilized all Europe were the city states of Italy like Venice. These states took Europe out of the dark ages.
Many Historians ignore the fact that the Byzantine Empire played a huge role in Europe, North/East/West/South.
And after their defeat by the Turks many of them migrated all over Europe.
Same with the Bulgarian Empire.
Also the Venetians played a crucial role in the development of Europe.
I’ve met lots of Germans who consider themselves as the architects of Europe.
In other words they the Germans Civilized Europe and more
That’s the same approach as Hitler and Himmler
The Romans did it (civilized all the barbarians of Europe), being them Byzantines,Bulgarians,Florentines, Genovese, Wallacians (attached to all mentioned before in some strange manner), Venetians.
That’s why the German and nordics agree with eachother
Complex, isn’t it
“Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes ‘were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them’ (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).”
Bertrand Russell was 100% correct on this point. Both the Romans and the Greeks claimed descent from the Trojans. It has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Trojans originated in the NW of Europe, in the Baltic region & in ancient “Britain”. For those who wish to learn more about this topic, I recommend the following books: 1) THE BALTIC ORIGINS OF HOMER’S EPIC TALES, by Italian Engineer, Felice Vinci; 2) THE GREAT DECEPTION: BRITAIN, SYRIA AND THE ROMAN CONSPIRACY, by Comyns Beaumont; 3) THE IRISH ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION, by Michael Tsarion.
“THE BALTIC ORIGINS OF HOMER’S EPIC TALES, by Italian Engineer, Felice Vinci; 2) THE GREAT DECEPTION: BRITAIN, SYRIA AND THE ROMAN CONSPIRACY, by Comyns Beaumont; 3) THE IRISH ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION, by Michael Tsarion”
All of these mentioned above (the writers) were payed by sombody
Guess who were they?
Germans and Hungarians, Austrians?
Prove that the so called Germans were the LORDS of Europe with facts
Because that is your German, Austrian,Hungarian
The Hungarians advanced the idea that they Hungarians are :
1 Summerians
2 Etruscans
3 Celts
4 Daci
5 Scitians
The Germans does the same
Your Prime Minister in Germany,Austria and Hungary will be proud of you
It is so
For now
There’s quite a bit to unpack here, so I’ll do an ‘excerpt-response’ thing…
That would be to put it both ‘simply’, and in a way specifically the opposite to how I put it. There is a world of difference between
and
See how those things might be different?
How they’re roughly as different as “raise your child to observe social norms” and “anally rape your child if it fails to obey you unquestioningly”.
One of those things will Granger-cause developmental problems in the kid – can you guess which?
Why do you think the median IQ in West Virginian whites is a 0.6-σ below whites from DC? (By contrast, the black IQ gap between WVa and DC is only ~4 points).
Nothing depresses incentives (including even incentives to bother to take IQ test seriously) like economic backwardness: the glaring flaw in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, is that it has causality reversed (more accurately: the causality is not unidirectional… there is a virtuous circle between aggregate IQ and aggregate economic activity, when societies are permitted to allocate their own capital and resources).
Look at what happened to Dutch IQ scores in the 30 years between 1952 and 1982 – was that because they got whiter?
No… it was because they industrialised in the 2 generations either side of WWI (they were relatively late to the Industrial Revolution), and the society-wide indicators of that started to rise (punctuated, it must be said, by WWII): by the 1980s the effects of improved general (and neonatal) nutrition had fed through to intelligence measures… and now the Dutch are above 100 and among the smartest in Europe.
Back to intra-US, intra-White comparisons…
I realise that a chunk of the higher-IQ white cohort will have fled WVa as the region declined economically – take that as given – but social dislocation and lack of economic opportunity are both filters (i.e., they cause IQ-flight) and drivers (those who can’t flee, get dumb within 2 generations).
A very good example (because it doesn’t trigger racists’ Jones about skin colour)
that I always refer to: the Irish.
As the English loosed their talons from Northern Ireland (and their death squads perpetrated fewer and fewer atrocities), and as Ireland became the destination for the flows to Irish capital (i.e., resource rents did not flow entirely to London and Manchester)… well, Irish IQ started to rise, and overtook England in 2015.
(And yes, I know England “dipped” slightly to meet Ireland, as a result of the high number of poorly-educated immigrants that England has absorbed in past decades; the first generation children born to dumb immigrants stay pretty dumb, even though the second generation outperform their grand-parents by a full-σ, IQ-wise).
Which brings us to your second exceptionalist ‘zinger’…
Again, it’s not that they “need to live near us“. Being left to organise their own capital stocks without having a Western boot on their throats would be a good start.
Give a nation genuine independence and a couple of generations, and watch people start to get their shit together: it’s what humans do. (Note: a very large proportion of former colonies – particularly in Africa and the sub-continent – have barely had 2 generations under their own auspices… and even then, it has been in a context where the exiting coloniser set up resource-extraction contracts with long tails).
In other contexts: Libyans, Iraqis and Iranians were modernising very nicely – with all the attendant improvement in human capital that such modernising entails – until the US/NATO child-killers organised the demolition of their democracies.
Iran in 1953 so that BP could de-nationalise the oil industry; 1958 in Iraq for similar reasons; in 2016 in Libya for a variety of reasons, none of them having anything to do with the people. Chuck in Palestine 1948-current for good measure – although Palestine did not get any chance to modernise under the Mandate (and then it was handed over to hostile Eurotrash invaders).
Later (Iraq 2003-current; Libya 2011-current; Syria 2012-current), the West fomented instability across the region, destroying civil infrastructure (electricity generation, water treatment and distribution, and sewage treatment systems).
Try bringing up a kid on 4 hours’ electricity a day, in constant fear of aerial bombardment: what do you think the ‘Flynn Effect’ is, if your entire society has PTSD?
Think about Viet Nam (average IQ: 94)… what do you reckon the national average IQ would have been during the French colonial period, or during and after the Viet Nam war?
Your third example of historical ignorance:
Have you looked at a map of Africa during the colonial period? There was not a single region that was not occupied by a European power. In fact every single national border was drawn by colonial officer – even the Egyptian border!
In modern times, ‘oppression’ has taken a different form: forced food insecurity. Especially as it relates to sub-Saharan Africa.
European fear of SS-African fertility rates caused Europeans to prevent the widespread use of phosphate fertilisers in Africa – the same phosphates that were used in India in the 1960s “Green India” program, that enabled India to generate internal food security for the first time in two centuries.
The cause of the fear is its corollary: a flood of fecund Blackies up and into Europe (which ignores that people do not flee places where living standards are rising).
Result: more phosphate fertiliser is used on US golf courses, than is used in the whole of Africa: African nations are not permitted to use foreign capital (neither aid nor FDI) to purchase phosphate fertilisers, and are therefore consigned to pervasive food insecurity (because phosphate fertilisers improve productivity even for low-capital subsistence agriculture).
And the topper:
Firstly – who’s “we”? Why are “we” out of “time”? Do you know something about the End of Days that you’re not telling us? “We” might not have spare “resources to give”, but any sensible reading of history indicates that some of those “resources” represent stolen shit that should be given back.
Secondly: there is genuine guilt aplenty – of a type identical to that for which senior members of the democratically-elected German hierarchy of 1933-45 were executed. Specific, deliberate, policies of extermination, oppression, invasion, and expropriation.
Nobody has to ‘make up’ horror stories about the colonial era: they’re simply there, even in the documents produced by Western authorities at the time.
You’ve got to be a hard-core watcher of “everything is resolved in 30 minutes” TV to think that former colonies have had enough time, and that they should just ‘get over it’.
A couple of generations (barely) – uncompensated, without full control over national resources, and (generally) with your male population decimated – is almost enough to ‘get your feet under you’ – but it’s still not long enough to get to levels of industrialisation that took the West four hundred years to achieve – with the help of a couple of hundred years’ worth of stealing everyone else’s shit. And from there to “closing the IQ gap” takes at least another generation.
In closing: I joke about being part spear-chucker, but my ardent hatred for “Racist IQ-Gap Shit for Numbskulls” stems from my conclusions from 54 years of life as an ape on this tiny wet ball of rock –
★ that in some circumstances morality is scientifically-discoverable, and that Western imperialism and colonialism was unambiguously on the wrong side;
★ that theft is wrong (and that there is no statute of limitations on stolen shit);
★ that the plight of the ‘Third World’ is largely the fault of the First World; and
★ that, in time, developing nations will get their feet under them and advance to levels of industrialisation that will be ‘close enough’ to the West.
Fortunately, all this shit we’re babbling about is localised noise in the great sweep of human progress: in another hundred years, humanity will have advanced to the point where it’s all moot.
We will be pleasure-seeking post-apes living at near-satiety in all consumables, hurtling through space at two million miles and hour (that’s the speed that our sun is moving away from the centre of our galaxy)… and nobody will give a flying fuck what colour person their kids are screwing.
And yes: almost all of human technological advances in the last century and a half, were the result of WHITE POWER!!!. I’m happy that they happened, but it’s unlikely that white folks will be the ones responsible for the next big technological step-change. (Let’s stipulate: it probably won’t be an African, either – just as the world 100m sprint record holder won’t be a white American).
The so called WHITE POWER were not the Germans but the Romans,Thracians,Asia Minor PEOPLE who were the KINGS and LORDS of the Barbarians of the NORTH
The Nordics ,West,North, and Est were BARBARIANS were recognized very vividly by the ancient Greeks and Romans .
Those people (Greek and Romans and others) CIVILIZED the Barbarians of the East (Slavs),
of the West (Celts), of the North (Germans and others) and the Turks and others
‘This is a goofy article. It shouldn’t be surprising some ancient Greeks and Romans were blond, because there are plenty of blond people in those countries today too. And there are plenty of dark eyed brunettes present in Northern Europe. Just because blonds are more common in Northern Europe does not mean the blonds are a separate race. Just because blond hair was idealized in goddesses does not mean the majority of the population was blond.
Blue eyes are common among Greeks especially. In the Greek-American community near me, blue and green eyes seem predominant.
Also nothing about the busts screams “Nordic.” They could really fit anywhere in Europe. It’s not like northern and central Italians have saudi facial features today.’
In any case, light skin, blond hair, etc among modern Greeks could be largely a function of the Slavic influx in the Dark Ages and perhaps the Norman and ‘Frank’ conquests of the Middle Ages. Finally, the Ottoman Turks were big on resettling people from here to there and from there to here to facilitate their empire building. The appearance of modern Greeks doesn’t offer much of a guide to the appearance of ancient Greeks.
I’ll also point out that modern Syrians and Turks can be very fair-skinned. If anything, your average Turk has a lighter complexion than your average Greek. What all that means is a good question — but I don’t see much of a reason to assume that the ancient Greeks were some kind of proto-Nordics.
‘…In other contexts: Libyans, Iraqis and Iranians were modernising very nicely – with all the attendant improvement in human capital that such modernising entails – until the US/NATO child-killers organised the demolition of their democracies…’
My. I’m no fan of US foreign policy post-9/11, but ‘modernizing very nicely’ and ‘democracies’ strike me as strange descriptions of both Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Qaddafi’s Libya.
I’m somewhat more sympathic to the Islamic Republic of Iran, but hold on there. We haven’t demolished their ‘democracy’ just yet. I’m all too confident we will — but that’s another matter.
‘…Afro-Chocolates have an average IQ of 80 (in Africa)…’
That high? I thought the average score in sub-saharan Africa was more like 70-75.
In any case, you can do whatever you please. You won’t raise the average score by more than 5 points or so.
We Americans are waiting for you, the so called ISLAM
We will kill you before you were born
Came over and make OUR DAY
What do you think that the average IQ of the Germans was ?
During the Roman Empire?
Ask Caesar or ask Spartacus
Keep studying , ignore whaT YOU ALREADY KNOW BY THE WILL OF THE CHURCH
AND JERMANS
As it happens, the first of my ancestors arrived here in 1676 — since we’re talking about ‘we Americans.’
Let’s do each in turn.
Let’s begin by stipulating that I hold no brief for any of the political leaders mentioned: I despise all politicians roughly-equally, although in any situation, a domestically-imposed politician is a priori preferable to a foreign-imposed one – and a freely-selected politician is superior to any imposed politician (and let’s agree that politicians whose actions predictably lead to the death of children, are worse than those whose actions do not).
On y va!
Iraq
Iraq was ‘modernising nicely’ prior to the CIA-devised coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963; later, the CIA fomented the 1968 coup that installed the Ba’ath Party and eventually led to the rise to power of Saddam Hussein (who was an ally while he was useful,. but was later more useful when re-purposed as Hitler Redux, because Americans like their current affairs to be like their understanding of history – i.e., a series of cartoons).
Without too much rose-tinting in the rear-view mirror, there is abundant evidence of this –
Amazing Pictures of Peaceful Iraq (with link to Pathe video from 1950s; these are stills taken from
YouTube link to Pathé video from 1950-59
Even during the “Saddam-the-dictator” period, life for Iraqis was significantly better than most of the Arab world; women had full political rights and access to education… until the US-NATO destruction of civilian infrastructure (and imposition of child-killing sanctions) in 1991 – at which point Saddam had little choice but to go ‘full tyrant’.
Actually, fuck it – rather than enumerate the significant advances in women’s rights that were promulgated after Nasty Old Saddam’s rise to power (but before 1991), why don’t I just give you a link to HRW (no friend of Nasty Old Saddam) entitled Background on Women’s Status in Iraq Prior to the Fall of the Saddam Hussein Government.
Maybe you’ll read it – it depends on whether or not you’re genuinely interested in working out the difference between shit and a hot rock (or alternatively, the ‘US Court Intellectual’ version of history vs a more accurate view of what actually happened). If you’re not, you won’t, but I won’t have wasted my time typing.
As you’re reading that piece, do bear in mind that the laying-waste of civilian infrastructure began in 1991 (after April Glaspie specifically ‘greenlit’ Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and Tom Lantos conspired with the Kuwaiti ‘royals’ to demonise Iraq)… and so life became significantly more tiresome for the entire Iraqi population from then on, not just post-2003.
Iran
Well, Iran was doing very very nicely indeed until the US-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Mossadegh (in 1953).
After the US installation of Reza Pahlavi as ‘Shah’, life was still pretty good (so long as you weren’t democratically inclined or an anti-monarchy activist… if you were, you faced arrest and torture at the hands of the SAVAK, and the West would turn a blind eye).
Again – abundant archival photo evidence exists… note the absence of mandatory head-dress for women (who even got to go to university – gasp!).
Iran in the 1960s
Iran in the 60s and 70s
Oddly, despite being an absolute ruler and having a decided penchant for torturing and killing his political opponents, Reza Pahlavi was never Hitlerised for the US Cartoon Networks: he was “our man in Teheran’ until after his overthrow. Nobody made movies about the brutality of the CIA/MOSSAD developed SAVAK, the torture dungeons, or the bodycount until after he was deposed.
It is absolutely true that the photos are from the ‘Shah’ period: life in Iran took a decidedly harsher turn after the 1979 Revolution. Turns out that a reasonable number of Iranians preferred a locally-sourced theocracy to a US-(re-)imposed despotic ‘monarchy’ (the Pahlavi dynasty was initially installed as puppets for the British).
And, of course, the moment the Iranians ended the rule of a foreign-imposed despot, the sanctions began.
This is where the selection of the appropriate counterfactual is highly relevant: the issue is not the social change from 1979 to the post-Revolution society, but rather where Iranian society would have headed had Mossadegh not been overthrown and Pahlavi installed.
The societal trajectory of Iran in the post-WWII period was towards social, economic and political liberalisation; it was the 20-odd years of foreign-imposed tyranny that gave a head of steam to a load of fuckheads blathering Dark Ages nonsense.
Libya
This is the easiest of them all: Qaddafi oversaw the transition of Libya from a UN-imposed monarchy (the UN installed Idris after WWII) to an idiosyncratic constitutional structure (partly a military dictatorship of sorts, with a secondary transition after 1977 – the whole “jamahiriya” thing) with a goodly dose of internal repression of foreign-funded dissidents.
(Let’s not pretend that the US government would not get its hands dirty if it became aware of a significant set of internal enemies that were known to be on the payroll of a foreign power bent on US demise: it put 200K Japanese into concentration camps for years, with no evidence whatsoever that they were traitors).
As to ‘modernisation’: again, no headscarves and significant advances for women…
★ 1969: education for women decreed as a right;
★ 1970: equality of the sexes and wage parity enshrined in law;
★ 1971: creation of the Libyan General Women’s Federation;
★ 1972: criminalisation of child-brides (minimum age set at 16) and non-consensual marriage;
★ 1973: women’s right to sue for divorce enshrined in law;
★ 1980s: female ministers, Ambassadors;
★ throughout: encouragement of female workforce participation as a matter of policy.
By the time of the overthrow,
★ female literacy in Libya was the highest level in the Arab world (57/43% male/female ratio in higher education; 48% of women finished high school);
★ per capita income was 5th highest in Africa.
And now that Libya has felt the gentle ministrations of the child-slaughterers and the ‘R2P’ World-Improvers?
All of those things have gone away.
You’re using Lynn’s numbers – which are about as useful as Ancel Keyes’ “7 Country Study” that formed the basis of 4 decades’ worth of flawed lipid-hypothesis nonsense in the study of the causes of cardiovascular disease.
As I’ve said before, people bring their biases to this debate. I bring mine, and here they are:
★ that the inherent variation within sub-populations swamps the variation between sub-populations; and
★ that most testing that happened in the late 20th century was undertaken with significant, deliberate, cultural biases (I extend this cynicism to all research, but psychometric/sociological research in particular, because it was always so badly performed).
Examples I cite as frequently as I can:
★ Nobody uses tests from Lvov to determine the supposedly-superior IQ of Ashkenazim (I would go further: they would much rather use tests administered in Brownstone Brooklyn, San Fran and Fairfax over those administered in Crown Heights, Boro Park or Williamsburg).
★ Conversely, those same researchers will jump all over tests from rural Uganda to determine the IQ of Afro-chocolattés.
If you locate and download and read the three studies detailed below, you will find that a number in the low 80s is probably closer to the mark. (You should also note, 80-ish is slightly above Irish IQ numbers from the 1970s and Dutch numbers from the 1950s… those sneaky motherfuckers got a whole lot whiter over the latter half of the 20th century… maybe it’s something to do with orange).
Anyhow – use the DOI links in your favourite journal-paper-scraper… sci-hub.tw is a good one.
Wicherts et al (2010a), “A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans“, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1 (January–February 2010) pp 1-20 ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.002 )
Wicherts et al (2010b), “The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers” , Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1 (January–February 2010) pp 30-37 ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003 )
Wicherts et al (2010c), “Raven’s test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect“, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol 20 Issue 3 (June 2010) pp135-151 ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.001 )
Unfortunatly, These artical is full of preconceptions those are usuall in western historiography.
And that is not by accident but whit intent.
The are no word about real natives of “Balcan” ( Helm ) and Apennine peninsula and Crete also. Read some about Vincha script ( http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/danube-valley-civilisation-script-oldest-writing-world-001343 ) and if you know some of slavic language you can easyly read it ( especially if you can ciryllic, which is NOT have roots in some “Greek”, but OPPOSITE ).
As many conquerors whom invade forigne land before and after, Greeks and Romans must destroy all signs of culture of defeated nations. And Vatican continues.
Good luck!
The ancient people from Greece,rome,Egypt,sumeria and all these places were just mix between whites and Semites. That’s why you find Brown Roman leaders and red headed Egyptian mummies. You people are really over thinking this shit. This was a cross road between two races that look almost identical so they mixed. deep down I think you know this already. And lastly,not all whites as barbarian Celts,Slavs or Germanic. It’s like saying all Semites are jews.
So all the ancients such us Romans,Greeks,Phoenicians,Persians,Indians were Blondies?
You guys read Himmler too mucho
Only the Thracians are described by the Greeks to have red hear and other Thracians are described to have olive complexes.
Remember that some of the Egyption mommies or those from Tharim basin had rd hear, I say some, and that doesn’t imply that they were nordics (from north of Europe). They were Thracians
The Celts and Germans and some Slavs were seen as blonds, the vast majority of them.
Thanks for the SJW excuse litany that lacks any serious analysis and instead seeks to set up strawmen and to blame others for the failure of murderous bushmen to both keep their murder rate down and to make anything.
Whites in Appalachia are racially different from successful Whites in DC, on the whole.
The Dutch were still outperforming most other groups pre-1952, which is your only rhetorically meaningful, functional, and historically demonstrable IQ comparison.
Your comparison of intra-White groups has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Non-White groups, aside from select Asian groups, have consistently performed and behaved to levels that are unacceptable to us for us to accept them as neighbors. Some white groups have as well, but most not to the level of non-White groups.
Moreover, we simply don’t wish to race-mix with non-white groups. We do not wish to accept a hominid genetic load that we don’t already possess. Period. End of argument. That is our prerogative.
Africa is over-populated already. Fertilizer (our invention) is not their problem. Fucking too much is. If they are as competent as you say, they can make fertilizer.
“We” is Northwest European ethnic communities. “Out of time” refers to the notion that we aren’t willing to sacrifice anything else for Africa or Africans, especially if they are invading our space. That widespread political feeling is our prerogative. Cry about it if you wish.
What should we “give back” to savages, specifically? You’re clearly emotional in regard to finding excuses for why bushmen have never made a car. We have no responsibility for the living standards of Africa. Colonialism only raised them on the whole.
There were plenty of resources left in Africa post-European colonialism. Which is why China finds it so fruitful to be there. Africans weren’t making serious use of them before, during, nor after colonialism because they haven’t the inherent capacity to do so.
You wish us to accept that the bushmen would have went from cannabilism to Cleveland should there have been no colonialism. That is not true. Their current lack of living standards is on them, and we more than gave them enough technology to run with civilization if they had the innate capacity for it. They do not.
You wish us to accept that people who have never made civilization, and are still severely lacking in that ability, are only behind because of colonialism that imparted them with civilizational technology that they would have never had without it.
Japan was decimated by WWII, and lacks natural resources, but quickly rebounded to become more advanced than almost any other Western nation within a few decades. You are asking us to wait on something that will never happen, has never been observed to happen, for a people who have been critically evaluated by early explorer after explorer to be culturally and cognitively dysfunctional, to what benefit to us?
There will be no IQ closure for blacks. There has not been in he USA. Their brains are smaller. They are more violent. They are not inclined toward habits that leads to more functional behavior or higher IQ over time. We don’t want their way of life, behavioral inclinations, nor cultures around ours. End of story.
I disagree.
What theft? What have they accomplished since colonialism, with what we left? Where is your statute of limitations regulation that I can consult?
I reject your assertion. Its mostly the fault of low IQ high hominid admixture groups who have a propensity toward violence and corruption, and do not know how to effectively cooperate to make a better civilization.
Start holding your breath.
White Folks are responsible for almost the entirety of civilization, and that will never change. Hats off to other groups who can pick it up and run with it. Fuck your guilt for those who cannot.
You write like you are severely neurotic. It’s quite clear. Maybe that “hybrid vigour” is a slight delusion.
Jews from central Brooklyn are quite intelligent, on apr with Jews anywhere. I live and work among them. You have no idea what you are talking about, and are clearly BSing your way through much of your thesis.
PHOENIX JEWS
During the 1970′s many of the lower class Jews of the Bronx sold their property and moved to Phoenix in an internal migration to the Southwest. A good number also moved to New Mexico. Property developers in Manhattan simply wanted to level the old tenements of the Bronx and Brooklyn.
Their kids were known as “Beastie Boys” in Phoenix parlance. They appeared to be light-skinned Hispanics like Pacino or Andy Garcia but they usually had tattoos of the Star of David or the girls wore star of David necklaces.
Most of these lower middle-class Jews worked for banks as collection agents or held some other bottom of the barrel job in finance/sales.
They loved cocaine though unlike the trailer trash or blacks or Hispanics few of them were crack heads.
Their drink of choice was Jack Daniels, which we associate with hillbillies but to my way of thinking was always a street Jew spirit.
In dress they went for the whigger look-track pants with a single leg rolled up and basketball shoes and sleeveless.
Zeke was probably the worst, in my opinion. He was a wannabe rap artist who’d often start blathering rhymes after freaking out on weed or the occasional line of cocaine that went around the condo I shared with three bachelor pigs.
Appearing with him once or twice was the female auxiliary-all with old Testament names like Ruthie or Sarah and an appearance like Amy Winehouse-pretty brown eyes and pouty big lips and lots of black curly hair (Jewish girls looks are an acquired tastes).
I’ve got nothing against Jews myself. I grew up in suburban Detroit with Jews and I am neither a “shill” nor an anti-Semite.
Curiously there was a racial element to these lower class Jews-they looked like swarthy ethnics whereas the upper middle-class Jews I’d grown up with in Detroit were Polish or German who looked Caucasian.
Aren’t those jews ROMANS VALACIANS?
well said.
Civil War was about bankers gaining control of America and replacing real govt with private govt.
Jews and Jewish synagogues in Iran, but no Zionists.
OK – I get it. You can’t read very well. That doesn’t make you a bad person; it doesn’t een make you unrepresentative.
Protip: re-read anything that riles you up, in case you’ve misread it the first time.
Why do I say that?
Well, I’ll put some emphasis on what I wrote:
My ‘thesis’ was – and is – that those who tout the superior IQ of Ashkenazim, do so with deliberately non-representative statistics.
Mostly, they only use numbers from relatively-affluent, relatively-educated Western European Ashkenazim (“Western European” includes the descendants of Eastern European Jewish immigrants to the US: their grandparents may have got off the boat from Lithuania or Moldova or some other hovel/shtetl in the 1940s/50s, but their kids – and their grandkids – have access to all the advantages of the West).
They absolutely do not go and get data from Eastern European Ashkenazim in their ‘native habitat’ – i.e., rural hovels in Eastern Europe – because that would drag down the numbers and expose the myth of ‘seichel’.
With me so far?
So now… if a researcher wanted to selectively use data from parts of different US cities to achieve the same aim (i.e., get a higher average than the true average), they would want to use the numbers generated by suburbs where the Jewish population is secular, educated and relatively wealthy.
Such researchers would prefer to use data from “Brownstone Brooklyn, San Fran and Fairfax” – home to a lot of educated, wealthy, secular Jews.
Those folks could reasonably be expected to be significantly smarter than the average – but not smarter than the average person from the same demographic (minus the Jewishness).
Conversely, such researchers would want to exclude data from places where the Jewish residents live lives much closer to the shtetl – “Crown Heights, Boro Park or Williamsburg“.
And holy fuck inb4 “I know a guy from Crown Heights who went to Yale”; that’s a fucking anecdote.
I ran my comment through a standard readability analyser: with a CEFR of B1 it requires ‘independent fluency’ in English, and with a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12.6 it’s 3 or 4 grade levels above what the median adult is capable of understanding. My bad.
It’s nowhere near as ‘delusional’ as the third-rate hack trope of diagnosing mental illness remotely.
Even if – again, a third-rate hack trope of false precision – “it’s quite clear” (since you’re such a gifted “remote psychographology diagnostician”, I guess you’re able to make claims about the precision of applied charlatanry).
Y’know what’s hyper-’delusional’?
Thinking that an argument can be refuted by reference to a ‘discipline’ that is quackery and charlatanry combined – a congeries of drivel which is unable to make a consistent diagnosis of any of its fabricated ‘syndromes’, even when the practitioner is a seasoned professional and the subject is sitting in front of them.
I guess that a hack on the internet, applying the same nonsense remotely by reference only to written output, stands about the same chance of getting a correct diagnosis – i.e., near zero.
Might as well say “You write as if you’re possessed by demons. It’s quite clear.” The verifiable empirical basis for demonic possession is about on a par with psychobabble in all its forms.
You would have been right at home in the Soviet Union – you could have trotted out your third rate hackery to ‘diagnose’ anyone who noticed that the system didn’t work.
What is it about some people, that they are drawn to psychobabble (and amateur remote deployment thereof)? That question borders on antisemitic, in my long experience.
.
As to hybrid vigour?
That’s a lay down misère in my case.
We all know that crossbreeding does not always result in heterosis – but let’s tick some boxes…
Two σ-above-median-intelligence working class people (one a 5’4″, ½Maori-½ Finn; the other a 6’3″ Heinz-57 Western European bloodsoup) generated 5 kids.
Those kids all have the following characteristics:
• tested IQs 2σ above the mean;
• tallest 10% of their age cohort (and 2 of the 3 males taller than both parents);
• significantly more athletic than average (all played regional representative sport);
• lower-than-average levels of injury, illness, and hospitalisation;
• significantly better-than-average educational and economic outcomes (income ranges from top 5% to top 1%; education likewise).
So now… given that you’re an amateur remote psychobabbler, what is your research conclusion? Let me guess… ODD?
Seriously though: what are the odds of my sibling group being generated by ‘kinda-bright, otherwise unspectacular’ parents? It’s not a hard question.
There are some weak correlations across those metrics –
• taller people ’tilt’ more athletic;
• smarter people earn more;
• taller people earn more;
• siblings display significant similarity
… despite all of that, it turns out that there is about a 1-in-10,000 chance of all those things happening jointly in 5 siblings with ‘so-so’ parents.
I am very conscious of the fact that my siblings and I ‘won’ in a genetic lottery; we got a bunch of characteristics that improve the odds of positive outcomes in a modern society.
Those traits were encouraged by two parents who furnished an environment that gave as full expression as possible to the ‘good’ traits while minimising the bad. (I have a bunch of bad traits too – not least of which is a predisposition to violence and an almost complete lack of empathy and remorse; the first is explicitly a known thing among people with Maori heritage; the second is very much a “White Man’s [absence of] Burden“).
Getting a bunch of genetic endowments and a good environment was not down to me; plus, when I was first set loose on the world I made a bit of a hash of it (nothing too serious).
That brings into sharp relief, one of the secondary characteristics of high intelligence: the ability to error-correct in ways that have a decent chance of working. It’s kind of the opposite of Dunning-Kruger (the meta-cognitive shortcoming that prevents the incompetent from error-correcting).
I also usually take pains to point out that it doesn’t mean I (or my siblings) are ‘better’ or ‘superior’, but in this case I won’t.
Sir
Which Drugs did u take today?
I take it that u are a Greek (SLAVES OF ANCIENT GREEKS) – who ( The Anciant Greeks spoke Ionian and Dorian) who wants (as Germans) to create a country with those ANCIENTS being the mother of all Europe
The Greeks,Germans,Slavs got a heavy problem here
According to Josephus, one Tribe of Spartans descended from Abram (Abraham).
From one of his later wives.
There was a Sparta/Israel alliance, during the Maccabees era.
The Greeks were descendants of Abraham as “Javan”, meaning that, according to the accounts of who Abraham’s parents were, the Greeks were in part Hittite (who were Cro Magnid mixed with a percentage of Mongol – and likely can be considered to be proto-Celts / proto-Slavs) and part Hurrian (who were relatively unmixed Cro Magnid).
So, Abraham was Aryan with a portion of Mongol (Asian Neanderthal and/or Denisovan) admixture.
I believe the Romans to have been a likely similar but definitely somewhat nordicized Celt people: like the Franks (modern Dutch) who were said to be “cousins” of the Romans. They certainly also migrated from Anatolia.
I think that likely what separated the Greeks from the race of Abraham, the Romans, and the Celts was that they likely had an additional Caucasian Neanderthal admixture. Possibly from breeding with Semitic tribes from the Levant. Their culture is often said to have been too Semitic influenced to stand in as a reliable study Indo-Aryan religion and culture.Moreover, the Caucasian Neanderthal genetic influence is more than obvious in the pre-Turkish invasion Greek portraits (on coins, etc).
The Vedic Indians who were their enemies, saw both the Greeks and the Romans as degraded Kshatriya (warriors) and like slaves of the lower castes. Implying that they were race mixed.
All humans were As Blond As Stockholm before the rape of human women by Hominid individuals, which created new (sub) races. I say that as someone who is neither tall nor blonde.
It is not improbable that all early Kingdoms with long track records of technological advancement and success were somewhat pure Cro Magnid, but rather almost assured.
You don’t know who they are. Who they are is practically a State secret, out there in the open for you to see. That should make you nervous. There are no secrets kept for people who are hapless and unimportant. Beyond that, look at the evidence of their talent. Its all around you.
People present create with the same talent that they did in the past.
Look at the North. Look at the South. If you think that the ancient southerners created the ancient southern equivalent of the modern North, and that the ancient Northerners went from nothing to top civilization today, then you are deluding yourself. The productivity of ancient civilizations, alone, hints at who these people were.
Those Northerners are who made “the (so called) ancients” human. Those ancients are merely those former northerners who bred with hominids to create new races.
As a rule, humans are not more bloodthirsty and savage than hominids. That’s where the term “humanity” comes from: the difference between humans and animals (or part of) in their disposition to thoughtful deliberation and action.
None of that is an effective counter-argument against the fact that when we do not account for the very real IQ measurement, entire races of people are blamed for the IQ dependent failure of other races.
That’s unjust. Some people are smarter than others, and those smart people should not be penalized for that. Today, they are.
Hiding the truth never works out. It only creates unnatural imbalances that seek balance through other means.
The only just society is a true one.
No, the Goths were not Germans. They were / are “Ger”manic, though, in a manner of speaking. Under different identities, they were the progenitors of the German tribes, but not the same as those tribes.
“Ger-man” is not a Geographic term nor a language designation, as the SJW in the thread that you posted offers (seriously, the “nobody is anyone specific” political activism in history circles is more than annoying, least of all because is patently untrue). Its very much a racial term. The “Germans” did not only exist in modern Germany as Germans, but elsewhere as well. Speaking different languages. Living in different regions. You have to know how to decode language, know your historical tribes, know your symbols, and know where on the map to look.
Caesar did not want to hire Germans in his army because they were stupid and they didn’t think
Also, at the time of Spartacus the German slaves refused to follow Spartacus and all of them were killed by the Romans.