The Mediterraneans vs the Indo-Europeans

[xxx]

I dislike the use and abuse of the word Aryan for some reasons. First reason is that I don't even know who the Aryans were. First the Germans claimed to be THE Aryans, now it seems that it is some Russian Slavs... next who? I don't care, not me. But a most important reason is that I have never heard of a Aryan Civilization (notice the capitalization in "Civilization", meaning a High Civilization).

We are taking for granted that the Indo-European heritage is of foremost importance and an asset. Alright, so the Hellenes and the Italics were Indo-European people, and so were the Celts who migrated into Hispania in ancient times. BUT it is not our only heritage, and we may be forgetting an equally, or probably greater, heritage we all share: The Mediterranean people.

Ancient historical events are most times forgotten in favour of the most recent -though still ancient- historical events. When the Hellenes arrived in nowadays Greece there were other people living there, and since we are not speaking of pre-history (e.g. Cro-Magnon vs Neanderthal), it is most probable that they met and... mixed. Please, hold your breath...

Southern Europe, long before the arrival of the first Indo-Europeans, was populated by a white people known as Mediterraneans, and who most probably migrated from the Sahara area sometime during the Neolithic. I should not be needing to say this, but for those of you who are surprised or raged by now, the actual people in the Sahara and Northern Africa nowadays have nothing to do with those Mediterraneans (not quite true, as they have a share of those genes, but also others as we have others too).

What it is known is that they created very ancient Civilizations, at a time when no civilizaton is known from another group of whites, the Indo-Europeans. In fact, it is only after the first Indo-European groups meet these Mediterraneans that the first Indo-European Civilizations make their appearance in the History of Mankind.

We know the Minoans were one of these Mediterranean people. Minoan Civilization pre-dates that of Hellenes. Is it not reasonable to suspect that Hellenic Civilization takes from these people? The Italic Latins also met the Ethruscans, which were more advanced than them. And there are others like the Tartesans and Iberians in the West, or the Phoenicians in the East and... the Egyptians (yes, those Egyptians who, according to Kemp, were probably Nordic... my foot too!).

Let's face it, the European Civilizations found themselves in the Mediterranean area, and those Indo-European groups who had not contacted the Mediterraneans had produced nothing thus far (yes, well, I'm sure they knew about the wheel and... a few other tricks).

Again, other Indo-Europeans (Germanics, Slavs) only start to develop a sense of civilization at a later time^(*), when they contact the Mediterranean area... and what they do is to bring Civilization to a halt... into the Dark Ages. Only centuries later the Classic World resumes into the Renaissance (notice that there is no much worth of mention between the Classic World and the Renaissance, and that the one is continued by the other with an empty gap in between).

(*)Speaking in terms of culture or civilization about the germanics or other nordics at that point of time is like speaking in the same terms about black africans... some people like to do it, but it doesn't have the same meaning as in High Culture or High Civilization.

And to this day, some Indo-Europeans, precisely those of "purer stock", the Nordic Scandinavians, can claim no Civilization for themselves other than... ok, I'm not going to start to pick on the barbaric vikings now.


To end with, I am not claiming I am 100% right, but I would be surprised if I were much wrong. We, Southern Europeans, are giving an extreme importance to some part of our heritage, while we are neglecting another part that is probably more important. Or perhaps the key is complementation... in which case some "chose" the wrong complementation... hey, nords?


We must think in terms of a few hundred of years, but we must also think in terms of some more hundreds andthousands of years. Things don't come out of the blue, less so Civilization and Human Evolution.

[NOTICE - I am NOT asserting, just speculating, though there is a strong basis for this particular speculation and I believe it is much right, or at least there is much truth in it]

[Andrea]

Again, other Indo-Europeans (Germanics, Slavs) only start to develop a sense of civilization at a later time(*), when they contact the Mediterranean area... and what they do is to bring Civilization to a halt... into the Dark Ages. Only centuries later the Classic World resumes into the Renaissance (notice that there is no much worth of mention between the Classic World and the Renaissance, and that the one is continued by the other with an empty gap in between).

(*)Speaking in terms of culture or civilization about the germanics or other nordics at that point of time is like speaking in the same terms about black africans... some people like to do it, but it doesn't have the same meaning as in High Culture or High Civilization.

Mynydd, I agree with almost everything you say, however the quoted part is a little bit too general. Firstly, when you say Slavs you think that it is a well defined concept, but it is not. The Slavic linguistic clade is the sole base on which Slavic peoples are connected. Ethnologically, they are totally different. The example of the folk dances and folk songs shows the enormous diversity of the Slavic peoples. The Serbian and Montenegrian "kola" and Macedonian "ora" are in a diametral contrast from the "polka" dances from Slovenia, Poland and Lusatia. The melodic and rhythmic lines are also totally different. The folk clothes, as well, are totally different. The Balkan Slavs are much more rich in those elements and they are very close even identical to the Mediterranean concepts of rhythm and melody. Those ethnological elements are not a product of the recent centuries. Professional ethnologists claim that those folk elements are millenia old (especially the dances and rhytms with a sole drum background). So, when you say Slavs are Nordics you make oversimplification.
Secondly, by making a division of the pre/post early mediveal era you make again a classical oversimplification of the events. For example it is well known that Lusatian culture (characteristical for the Bryges or Phrygians and the Veneti) is present on the Balkans from 1200 BC onwards. That is, as professionals claim, a central European culture. So, we see a temporal and spatial mix of cultures with much earlier date than the early middle ages.
Thirdly, I do not like to repeat myself about the models that are based on recent archaeological and linguistic synthesis, which claim that the southern branch of Slavs is the oldest and that from it the northern and western branches of the Slavs formed in different times and through different processes. You can find a little bit more on those models (1996 and 2000) in some of the extant threads on this forum.

So, the things are not so clear and simple as they seem at first glance.

[Tautalos]

In the first place, there are other brilliant Indo-European High Civilizations which were not produced with the mix with the European pre-Indo-Europeans (Minoans, etc.), such as the Aryan cultures from India and Iran.

Secondly, while it is true that the southern Europeans had already a culture before the Indo-European migrations, what is important to notice is that OUR southern Europeans are essentially Indo-European: Latin (Roman), Illyrian and Hellenic. Though not purely Indo-European, both Latin and Hellenic are indeed Indo-European languages, and their highest Deities - Iuppiter and Zeus, respectively - are the purest representatives of the Indo-European Deity par excellence.

And so, notwithstanding the cultural influences, the real Latins were and are far more tied to the Celts than to the Ethruscans.

[Tautalos]

«For example it is well known that Lusatian culture (characteristical for the Bryges or Phrygians and the Veneti) is present on the Balkans from 1200 BC onwards. That is, as professionals claim, a central European culture.»<br>
That is quite interesting, because Bryges and Veneti have been related, ethnically, to the Celts, and, in Portugal, there are still doubts about the real ethnic identity of the Lusitanians: some consider that the Lusitanians were proto-Celts, while others (the majority, at the moment) classify them as pre-Celtic Indo-Europeans (i.e., very archaic Indo-Europeans that arrived to Iberia in 1000 a.c. or even before, at the end of the Bronze Age, before the first Celtic migrations into Iberia), but related to the Celts in some way.

The Swiss historian Scarlat Lambrino argued that the Lusitanians and the Lusones (another pre-Roman folk of Iberia) came from central Europe and that the name of the city Lausanne was related to their ethnic names.

Beside the apparent linguistic resemblance between Lausanne, Lusones, Lusitania and Lusatia, it is also important to notice that, in Lusitania, many places had the component «-briga» in their names, which remind the above mentioned Bryges.

[sonofzeus]

"When the Hellenes arrived in nowadays Greece"

THAT'S WRONG Mynydd!

Hellenes never arrived in Greece,Ancient Greeks always said they were natives to their grounds,an Autocthonus people.That's a BIG lie of the Nordicists and of others.
Greek DNA show that 75% of the Greeks are of paleolithic descend(100 000 years and back to
this area of Balkans/Aegean basin-west Asian Minor,Greek Aristotelion University).
Dienekes is somehow against Europe and I think he _do very well_!

Mythology:

Deucalion was the father of the Hellenes and he was _a Pelasgian_, meaning Proto-Hellenas,something like Zeus!Pelasgian means "old".He made some children, Doros,Xouthos,Haeolos.From Doros came the Dorians,from Xouthos the Achaeans & the Ionians and from Haeolos the Haeolians.He made a daughter Pandora and she made two sons, GREKOS AND MAKEDONAS!

Dorians,Achaeans,Ionians and Haeolians were children of the Pelasgian Deucalion.They had extend out of modern Greece as the skeletal material show,they had reach Danube(5000-4000 bc) and during 3000-2000 bc they came back by the attacks of the Illyrians from North of Caucasos,the return of Heraclides as the ancient manuscripts say,because their god was Hercules.All skeletal material show that they were not different racially from the rest of Hellenes(those who still stayed in Greece).

"Mediterraneans represent early population level of countries such as Serbia and Albania(thus they
predate Dinarics there) and represent at least 10% of local populations today.Mediterraneans are associated with Vinca culture of Serbia that is older than Sumer."

People in Sfakia of Crete are compatriots of Dienekes and came from Caucasos as anthropologists say.
They are similar anthropologically and culturally to Greeks of Pontos.And as Anthropologists and historians say the are not Dorians" because they were in Crete by 2000bc while the Dorians of North Greece arrived there during 1200bc.They became most of them Dinarics as anthropologists say by the endogamy,they are isolated the last 4000 years in south-west Crete.So 60% of them were Dinarics,by the endogamy they turned all Dinarics!

"The Sfakiotes Cretans are large brachycephalic Dinarics
and so much hairy that someone could think that they just arrived from the Caucasos"

Greeks of Caucasos use similar music instruments,carry knives and guns,dancing with a similar war dance "Pyrihios Horos" meaning "red/fire dance" or something like that and they have the same anthropological type too.

As for the Mediterranean race,the Mediterranean race was formed in the _Mediterranean_ according to all Anthropologists and as they say in south-east Mediterranea from were they extended towards all directions during the Neolithic period 10-5000 bc (we speak here of the Europoid branch of the Mediterranean race,what anthropologists name as south-east branch of the Europoid race ,same goes for Mediterraneans of Italy and of Iberia,it has nothing to do with Arabids or Orientalids).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediterraneans were Indo-European speaking people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=183056056500

www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/index.html

"We know the Minoans were one of these Mediterranean people. Minoan Civilization pre-dates that of Hellenes."

The Hellenes according to all Anthropologists always mainly were Mediterraneans,Mesocephalics and Mesorhine at the Classic period while during 5000 bc they still kept the dolychocephaly and east Alpines who are natives in Hemos peninsula or Hellenic peninsula.

Ther Minoans were not different from rest of south-East Greeks+Ionian islands.

"Is it not reasonable to suspect that Hellenic Civilization takes from these people?"

People in south Greece,Thracia,Aegean islands and Ionians islands racially were just like the Cretans of this period.

Only the Aristocracy of the Minoans was a short statured Mediterranean type by the endogamy.Greek Anthropologists found their type very weird too,as they looked more like _dwarfs_!

I don't name any more Mediteraneans as Mediterraneans(as that's just a geographic area,their source). I name them as proto-Anthropoids,as they are the ancestors of many sub-races!

[Andrea]

Mythology:
Deucalion was the father of the Hellenes and he was _a Pelasgian_, meaning Proto-Hellenas,something like Zeus!Pelasgian means "old".He made some children, Doros,Xouthos,Haeolos.From Doros came the Dorians,from Xouthos the Achaeans & the Ionians and from Haeolos the Haeolians.He made a daughter Pandora and she made two sons, GREKOS AND MAKEDONAS!

SOZ you have to learn better the Greek Mythology.

(Karlos Parada (1993): Genealogical Guide to the Greek Mythology.
homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Deucalion1.html

(read under Note -on the right hand side, at the bottom of the column)

"Hellen is the eponym of the Hellenes. Sometimes he has been called son of Zeus & Pyrrha", so

Zeus +Pyrrha (parents) = Helen(son)

"Pandora consorted with Zeus and gave birth to Latinus, after whom the Latins were called, and to Graecus, after whom those who followed Hellenic customs were called Greeks".

So, for Graecus the following holds:

Zeus + Pandora (parents) -----> Graecus and Latinus (children). Actually, mythologically, Graecus is a brother of Latinus.

"Thyia consorted with Zeus and gave birth to Magnes, after whom the district of Magnesia was called, and to Macedon, after whom Macedonia was called.

So, for Macedon the following holds:

Zeus +Thyia (parents) -----> Magnes + Macedon (children).

By my opinion this is a mythological account on the Indo-European development. It is interesting that Graecus and Latinus are brothers, meaning the closest relatives.

[Andrea]

Yes Tautalos, for instance the following quote of Herodotus is very interesting:

[7.73] "The dress of the Phrygians closely resembled the Paphlagonian, only in a very few points differing from it. According to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time that they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brigians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their designation at the same time with their dwelling-place."

Now, it is known that the Veneti lived in Paphlagonia. Herodotus says that the Bryges had clothes that closely resembeled the Paphlagonian. At least very interesting.

[sonofzeus]

"SOZ you have to learn better the Greek Mythology"

From this site,no thanks?I think you better read Hesiod.

"Zeus +Pyrrha (parents) = Helen(son)"

Deucalion+Pyrra=Hellenas!

I think this site provides a Latin version of the Greek mythology.

[Andrea]

From this site,no thanks?I think you better read Hesiod.

SoZ, those quotes are from Hesiod's mythology ;D. Carlos Parada explains the Hesiod's mythology.

[xxx]

Tautalos said:

In the first place, there are other brilliant Indo-European High Civilizations which were not produced with the mix with the European pre-Indo-Europeans (Minoans, etc.), such as the Aryan cultures from India and Iran.

The "theory" of the Aryan invasion of the Indus Valley to claim the Indus Valley Civilization does not hold itself stand, which is why it is being constantly readjusted. Let's face it, supporting a myth with yet another myth leads us to vicious circle (literal from Spanish, I don't know how well or bad it translates).

But let's suppose for a moment that it is something more than a fantasy or a delution, and that there is part of truth behind it... then we may argue that the Indo-Europeans first contacted a civilization when they met the Dravinians, much in the same way as they did in later times in Europe with the Mediterraneans. That would be a bad record of civilization-sucking for the Aryans.

And yet, we still see how the fictitious descendents of this great Civilization arrive later in Europe with no cultural baggage which can attest any sign of High Civilization. Did they lose it during their migration? Or perhaps we are seeing a unique case of racial-wide amnesia?

Oh.. and I am taking the word Aryan as sinonymous for early Indo-Europeans. Which is yet another supposition.

Here is another claim for aryanism...
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040129-053722-4369r.htm
... this time from Tajikistan. It seems that Aryans are in constant revision too.

Secondly, while it is true that the southern Europeans had already a culture before the Indo-European migrations, what is important to notice is that OUR southern Europeans are essentially Indo-European: Latin (Roman), Illyrian and Hellenic.

Wrong. We are the product of the meeting between the Old European Mediterraneans and the newly arrived Indo-Europeans. It is an error to believe that the Indo-European migrations automatically substitute the aboriginal peoples, leaving no [genetic] trace of them.

And so, notwithstanding the cultural influences, the real Latins were and are far more tied to the Celts than to the Ethruscans.

Far more tied to the Celts in terms of ...?

What I've said is that it is after the contact of the Indo-Europeans (Latins for this example) with the Mediterraneans or Old Europeans (Ethruscans for the example), marks the start for the development of a "Indo-European Civilization". Whatever you may be thinking of originally Latin in cultural terms, may well be borrowed or influenced by the Ethruscans.

[xxx]

SonOfZeus said:

"When the Hellenes arrived in nowadays Greece"

THAT'S WRONG Mynydd!

Hellenes never arrived in Greece,Ancient Greeks always said they were natives to their grounds,an Autocthonus people.

SoZ, I am not saying that Greeks are foreigners in Greece, but if the Hellenes were an Indo-European people, then they arrived in the area where they met with the ancient Mediterraneans inhabitants, and mixed with them. Now, to avoid further misunderstandings, by saying that they mixed I'm not implying any kind of nordicist trash whereby modern Greeks would not be the descendents of Classic Greeks or any other such stupidity. What I believe is that Classic Greeks are the result of that meeting (whatever the results in terms of genetic percentage) and, of course, that modern Greeks are the direct descendents of the Classic Greeks.

Please, remember that both the Old European Mediterraneans and the Indo-Europeans were white people, so this would not be like some argument of mixing with Zulus, Mongols or Nordics... ouch.. these I think are white too... well, pale, so they may pass as white

The only way in which this wouldn't be so, is if Hellenes were not an Indo-European people but were instead a Mediterranean people. But this is not the case.

[xxx]

Andrea said:

Mynydd, I agree with almost everything you say, however the quoted part is a little bit too general. Firstly, when you say Slavs you think that it is a well defined concept, but it is not.

Not really. When I said Slavs I was thinking of Northern Slavs, not the so-called Southern Slavs. I'm not even sure if modern Southern Slavs can be considered of the same racial sub-grouping of the Northern Slavs. I think they are different people altogether, only linked by linguistics.

[AWAR]

Mynydd said:

I dislike the use and abuse of the word Aryan for some reasons. First reason is that I don't even know who the Aryans were. First the Germans claimed to be THE Aryans, now it seems that it is some Russian Slavs... next who? I don't care, not me. But a most important reason is that I have never heard of a Aryan Civilization (notice the capitalization in "Civilization", meaning a High Civilization).

The only ones who have a historical continuity in using the name 'Aryan' are Iranians and some Indian castes.

These Indian castes show a genetic relation to south Russians, so, it's pretty clear that the Aryans who invaded India more than 3500 yrs ago are related genetically to south Russians.

We are taking for granted that the Indo-European heritage is of foremost importance and an asset. Alright, so the Hellenes and the Italics were Indo-European people, and so were the Celts who migrated into Hispania in ancient times. BUT it is not our only heritage, and we may be forgetting an equally, or probably greater, heritage we all share: The Mediterranean people.

There is also a separate ethnic heritage which works just fine, but I agree with you also.

Ancient historical events are most times forgotten in favour of the most recent -though still ancient- historical events.

Time increases the ammount of lies and half-truths added to any event.

When the Hellenes arrived in nowadays Greece there were other people living there, and since we are not speaking of pre-history (e.g. Cro-Magnon vs Neanderthal), it is most probable that they met and... mixed. Please, hold your breath...

Southern Europe, long before the arrival of the first Indo-Europeans, was populated by a white people known as Mediterraneans, and who most probably migrated from the Sahara area sometime during the Neolithic. I should not be needing to say this, but for those of you who are surprised or raged by now, the actual people in the Sahara and Northern Africa nowadays have nothing to do with those Mediterraneans (not quite true, as they have a share of those genes, but also others as we have others too).

Perhaps these were Pelasgians and other peoples.
I wouldn't label them as 'mediterraneans' because this can't be entirely correct.

What it is known is that they created very ancient Civilizations, at a time when no civilizaton is known from another group of whites, the Indo-Europeans. In fact, it is only after the first Indo-European groups meet these Mediterraneans that the first Indo-European Civilizations make their appearance in the History of Mankind.

Perhaps the Indo-European languages came from these peoples.

We know the Minoans were one of these Mediterranean people. Minoan Civilization pre-dates that of Hellenes. Is it not reasonable to suspect that Hellenic Civilization takes from these people? The Italic Latins also met the Ethruscans, which were more advanced than them. And there are others like the Tartesans and Iberians in the West, or the Phoenicians in the East and... the Egyptians (yes, those Egyptians who, according to Kemp, were probably Nordic... my foot too!).

Probably.

Let's face it, the European Civilizations found themselves in the Mediterranean area, and those Indo-European groups who had not contacted the Mediterraneans had produced nothing thus far (yes, well, I'm sure they knew about the wheel and... a few other tricks).

It all depends on the surroundings. If these mediterraneans lived in the steppes, they would have never had the need to become seafaring. They wouldn't have built cities of stone, but of wood, or better yet, nomad style settlements.

Face it, the wherever these peoples lived, they made the best of their surroundings. If it was all reversed, if Scythians lived in the mediterranean area, they'd have developed cities, if Greeks lived in the Eurasian steppes, they'd have developed into highly efficient horsemen and nomads.

All the most advanced civilizations in the entire world have been developed only in the areas which were suitable for a civilization.

If the Sumerians lived in the north pole, they'd have built Igloos

Again, other Indo-Europeans (Germanics, Slavs) only start to develop a sense of civilization at a later time^(*), when they contact the Mediterranean area... and what they do is to bring Civilization to a halt... into the Dark Ages.



Only centuries later the Classic World resumes into the Renaissance (notice that there is no much worth of mention between the Classic World and the Renaissance, and that the one is continued by the other with an empty gap in between).

(*)Speaking in terms of culture or civilization about the germanics or other nordics at that point of time is like speaking in the same terms about black africans... some people like to do it, but it doesn't have the same meaning as in High Culture or High Civilization.

That's a pretty racist statement.

And to this day, some Indo-Europeans, precisely those of "purer stock", the Nordic Scandinavians, can claim no Civilization for themselves other than... ok, I'm not going to start to pick on the barbaric vikings now.

That wouldn't be very smart

[Artemidoros]

Perhaps the Indo-European languages came from these peoples.

I believe that IE languages spread mostly with agriculture.
www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/index.html
We do not know what languages the pre-historic Mediterraneans spoke. It could well have been an early Proto-IE language. Neolithic farming spread faster along the Mediterranean by boat. The people who lived in Greece 9,000 years ago could travel distances of 150 km in the open sea and catch tuna fish in deep water. They could have got to Spain within a few generations and there is no evidence that Neolithic Iberians spoke non-IE languages eg languages related to Basque. Of course the main area of development of PIE is not the Mediterranean but the central Balkans IMO.

[xxx]

Artemidoros said:

Perhaps the Indo-European languages came from these peoples.

I believe that IE languages spread mostly with agriculture.
www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/index.html
We do not know what languages the pre-historic Mediterraneans spoke. It could well have been an early Proto-IE language. Neolithic farming spread faster along the Mediterranean by boat. The people who lived in Greece 9,000 years ago could travel distances of 150 km in the open sea and catch tuna fish in deep water. They could have got to Spain within a few generations and there is no evidence that Neolithic Iberians spoke non-IE languages eg languages related to Basque. Of course the main area of development of PIE is not the Mediterranean but the central Balkans IMO.

A Spanish Historian and Archaeologist, Jorge Alonso García, has been successful in decyphering funerary scripts in the Iberian and Tartessan languages using the Basque language. These successes have lead him to try the same with the Ethruscan script, and again succeeded to translate some funerary inscriptions through the Basque. Eventually he has tried with Linear A, and again with the same satisfactory results.

And since Basque is not an Indo-European language, but one spoken by ancient Mediterraneans, the evidence is conclusive: Basques, Iberians, Tartessans, Ethruscans, Minoan Creteans, and others are ancient Mediterraneans with no links to Indo-Europeans.